Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware, Apple Financial
Psystar fights back, hires attorney
The Apple vs. Psystar battle continues to heat up as Psystar has hired a "well-known" attorney to handle the case. Attorneys at Carr & Ferrell (who You may recall that Apple filed the lawsuit in a California court earlier this month, and later demanded that Psystar issue a recall for the Mac clones. When Apple filed the suit, they claimed that Psystar had violated their license agreement and committed copyright infringement by shipping "hackintosh" PCs with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
[via ComputerWorld]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
James said 7:58AM on 7-31-2008
what do they have that's making them fight? Apple's license clearly says you can only install OS X on Apple hardware, and they are clearly making a profit from violating that license.
Reply
Ryan Trevisol said 8:13AM on 7-31-2008
Well known, eh?
Carr & Ferrell, eh?
Does anyone else hope that Will Ferrell shows up in court?
Reply
Tom said 8:56AM on 7-31-2008
Tee hee hee, I was thinking the same... would make an interesting session in court!
Ryan Trevisol said 9:17AM on 7-31-2008
Maybe Steve Jobs would have to face off against Good Cop, Baby Cop. That would make for a short case.
lancelott said 8:31AM on 7-31-2008
Can you put the Xbox360 Dashboard on a PS3? Can you play Wii Games (software) on an Xbox 360?
No, right?
Because the SW is tied to the HW.
Why is it so impossible to some to understand Apple SW is intended to be used on Apple HW?!
Reply
LA26 said 10:43AM on 7-31-2008
That example was a bit off.
360 Dashboard just won't simply work in a PS3 or a Wii.The same can't be said of Intel processors that can work with OSX, Linux, and Microsoft.
The case being made is that the software doesn't tie into the hardware so Apple is creating a false sense of need between the two to keep independent vendors out of the market.
lancelott said 11:09AM on 7-31-2008
why is my example off? Software has the same right (laws) to be made copyrighted as HW, and any other intellectual property for that matter.
Would it be legal to "emulate" (emulator software) a SNES game on xbox?
No. Having capable hardware does not make it legal to run licensed software w/o permission.
tolvier said 9:02AM on 7-31-2008
they claim that apple cannot limit the os to apple hardware due to monopoly laws!
Reply
RWhitney said 9:19AM on 7-31-2008
What? Apple has a monopoly on their own hardware? Is that the argument? Because they sure as hell don't have a monopoly on anything else, well... besides innovation. Hey Verizon!
Ian Murray said 9:29AM on 7-31-2008
I'd also like to add that just because said law firm was able to win a lawsuit against apple back then, it doesn't mean it's the same thing this time around.
Apple has more than enough grounds to make this happen.
Reply
Shadowmane said 9:40AM on 7-31-2008
They'd have a better chance in court saying that they didn't violate that clause of the EULA because they aren't the end user, the customer is. Unfortunately, Psystar will be going down, a slow but fighting death.
Reply
Ryan M said 9:47AM on 7-31-2008
I am not super familiar with Hackintosh-ing, but didn't/wouldn't Pystar have to had done some creative things to even convince OS X to install on non-Apple hardware? Is bypassing those things not a violation of that law we all love to hate...the DMCA?
Reply
Jeff said 10:05AM on 7-31-2008
It really has nothing to do with Monopolies. The fact is, Psystar knows if Apple loses, they'll have to agree to license their OS for independant vendors. This will be very fun to watch.
Reply
LA26 said 10:28AM on 7-31-2008
Psystar didn't hack anything.It's just when Apple decided to use Intel chips they opened the door to third party vendors (which is a good thing).
Psystar does know that a certain Intel Processor chip which is higher than the "D" plays well with OS X.
Apple has a current monopoly on there software at the moment and if this was Microsoft they would've already had to seperate the two YEARS AGO.
The only thing that separates Apple Computers/Laptops that shipped with Intel inside are the casing and the OS.
I'd love to have a Apple Desktop for my multimedia work but paying a premium just because it's an Apple product doesn't go over well with me.I can build something twice as fast and still save some cash.
Thanks for posting a story that doesn't involve the iPhone.Maybe I'll start checking back here regularly.
Reply
liquidmark said 11:56AM on 7-31-2008
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They aren't stopping you from buying a computer or using another OS.
Saying they have a monopoly because OSX is tied to their hardware is as stupid as saying that Lamborghini is a monopoly because you can't put their engines into a ford.
NEITHER company is stopping you from buying a competing product, but if you do, then you don't get what they alone have the right to offer.
Apple alone has the right to offer OSX in their machines. Any other company that does so is stealing their intellectual property.
Quinn Taylor said 12:37PM on 7-31-2008
Actually, Psystar did hack things. Mac OS X is very particular about having certain bits of hardware, including EFI, the BIOS of the 21st century. Try building a commodity PC (however fast it may be) and installing OS X on it. I think you'll find a bit of "hacking" is required. Whether software or hardware, it's still hacking.
And my opinion that Apple isn't likely to try to enforce their EULA in court, evidenced by the fact that they waited until Psystar released a hacked version of the latest Leopard update that would run on their clones. At that point, you're modifying code protected by copyright and other laws.
Logan said 12:16PM on 7-31-2008
Violating a EULA is not automatically a legally enforcable decision. In fact there are a lot of cases where a company's software EULA has been turned down as unenforcable. Couple that with Psytar conceivably being able to argue anti-competition (though they probably wouldn't win that portion of the argument) and there is a lot of case here to argue. It's not as cut and dry, "Apple is the winner!" as you might think.
Reply
Revenant said 1:24PM on 7-31-2008
Now, the part of that statement that gets me is the "unfair competition" part. At what point is it unfair to apple for another company to compete with them? Apple has a monopoly on their hardware/software. Any competition is not only fair, but almost required by US law (or at least how it is written, not how it is bought and paid for with "campaign contributions"). So in my mind that is the most rediculous claim I have heard today. Basically apple is saying "waaahhhh... we want to make more money and if someone sells the same thing we sell, we wont make as much money over charging for our pretty toys...waaahhh... that's not fair..." Now I know that on copyright/contract (eula) issues, they have Psystar nailed... thats not my issue here. But truth be told, I think that is exactly what apple needs to keep them on their game, a little honest competition. Thats what keeps market prices and quality in check.
I know its the equivelant to wishign for a unicorn for my birthday... but I sincerely hope that Psystar totally wins the case. I hope they slam dunk apple and give Stevey the finger. Just to humble apple just a little bit.
And before you call me an MS lackey, my primary machine is a 2008 Mac Pro. I own a lot of apple stuff... but I definately paid way more than I would have in an open market.
Reply
Mike77 said 1:41PM on 7-31-2008
I think that if look under the covers, this EULA legal battle is the whole purpose of a Psystar. I mean really who are these guys anyhow? Some two bit hardware company from nowhere. Now they are challenging Apple for the keys to open the OSX clone market. This will be an interesting case for sure.
Reply
Allan Shem said 1:54PM on 7-31-2008
The post-purchase EULA in most software is (legally, but unfortunately not politically) at a minimum unenforceable and possibly a violation of several federal laws in its attempt to coerce the legal owner of the software to behave in a particular way under threat, since software is clearly "sold." When was the last time you went out to a store to "license" some software you need?! Imagine bringing home a box of Cheerios from the supermarket, prying open the top flap and seeing a note inside that reads: "...to continue using these Cheerios you must agree to ...... if you do not agree you must not eat any of the Cheerios and return them to the place of purchase (software makers even use the word purchase in the _lincense!_ agreements).
What would most people do? They would laugh and eat the cheerios.
The EULA's for software that is hidden inside the box (and sometimes even buried in the installation routine, that is, only when one demonstrates the gall to try to use the software one purchased) to be found only after the completion of a legal purchase (during which no mention of "licensing is ever made) are equally laughable from a letter-of-the-law view.
The fact that the software industry and the entertainment industry work together spending millions to create new case-law favorable to their ridiculous approach to IP -- sell it and then intimidate the purchaser into not using it -- is sad. The fact that the judicial system is still largely staffed by people for whom a number-two pencil is advanced technology leaves such cases up to the political pressures (read: the party with the best lawyers and lobbyists) and not logic or even intelligent application of preexisting laws and precedents.
More power to Psystar for fighting this "you buy but we still own it" attitude that is all to quickly turning American jurisprudence on its face and becoming a perverse status quo.
Reply