Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware, OS
Psystar continues to be stubborn
Psystar, as you may remember, is the computer company that has begun selling computers with Mac OS X Leopard pre-installed. Of course, they drew the attention of Apple legal right away, but that only caused them to further dig in their heels. Last month, they challenged Apple's claim to the copyright of Mac OS X, claiming that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Previously, Judge William Alsup had dismissed federal antitrust claims, which only prompted Psystar to amend its countersuit with all new claims.
Now, they're trying yet another angle. Psystar is claiming the first sale doctrine. Similar to the right you have to buy a book and re-sell it, Psystar says that since they bought legit, retail copies of Mac OS X from Apple and installed them on their computers, they're in the clear. If they want to then sell those computers, that's fine and dandy. Unfortunately for them, they also bought shrinkwrap EULA's which impose license conditions. They don't "own" the software.
Everything else aside, this seems like an awful amount of time, effort and expense just to sell computers. There are less difficult ways to sell Mac OS computers, folks. At this point, you're just being stubborn, Psystar. Let it go.
Back in April, Psystar went public with the first commercial Hackintosh clones. For US$554, they'd send you a Core 2 Duo minitower with Mac OS X pre-installed. In June, they released rack-mount servers with Leopard Server pre-installed in both 1U (starting $1599) and 2U (starting $1999) configurations.
Update: It seems that Psystar has included claims to the first sale doctrine, as some of our readers have pointed out, for a while now. However, we don't feel that it's a "linchpin" of the case -- first-sale hasn't been rejected by the court. More on this seemingly unending story as it develops. Thanks to Alex at World of Apple for the heads-up.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
ack154 said 11:16AM on 1-14-2009
There can't be THAT much profit in these people selling these. It's too bad we can't get a real comment from them on what the hell is really going on. Why fight it so hard? At some point, even the most stubborn of people would move along...
Reply
Aaron said 11:26AM on 1-14-2009
I agree that there is something else going on here. The whole thing seemed primed for a legal battle from the beginning. I'm fascinated that they have attorneys willing to put in this much work with such a low likelihood of success. (I am an attorney and their latest argument immediately looks like a loser to me.)
My suspicion is that they have someone bankrolling the whole thing, or they have an attorney taking this on with some sort of unusual billing arrangement.
Izzy said 3:26PM on 1-14-2009
I agree with Aaron. Someone sweet talked investors out of their hard cash for this adventure and now they are dancing trying to make it all work out so the investors don't break their kneecaps.
Lauren said 11:23AM on 1-14-2009
I don't think it's about being stubborn. In the end, they will lose, but the point will hopefully be received by Apple that their strangle hold on their proprietary computer system package can't remain the same forever. They've cornered the market on their hardware/software. Once you go Apple, it's not just you don't go back, it's you can't! This seems somewhat similar to another company and their legal problems - Microsoft. Granted the market share of Apple is no where large enough - but time is a monster that keeps moving forward, and in time the chickens will have come home to roost and Apple may be facing legal problems of another kind.
just by $0.02.
Reply
WT21 said 12:01PM on 1-14-2009
I do not understand this whole "someone sells a product and now it's a market, subject to monopoly reguation."
Apple sells a PLATFORM. They do not have the "market" cornered for Apple. Does TiVO have the market cornered for TiVO? How come people aren't demanding that TiVO open up their hardware to work with other's software? My home phone/answering machine has some kind of code in it. Does AT&T have a monopoly on the "AT&T answering machine/phone combination" business? I just don't get this.
I think it would be very different if, as in the case of Microsoft a few years back, something like 95% of the world relied on your technology. The most aggressive market share stats puts Apple at 10%. How can this be a monopoly, if TiVO isn't (or my phone, or my dishwasher by Bosch, for goodness sakes)!
Stace said 12:10PM on 1-14-2009
@W21: The TiVo platform is running linux. TiVo has a long history of leaving hackers alone as long as they don't do things that'll get TiVo sued.
Remember, when you enter the realm of TiVo, there's a whole world of pain involving TV studios, cable companies, and TV networks and their DRM madness.
minimalist said 1:18PM on 1-14-2009
@Stace
Apple has a long history of leaving hackintosh enthusiasts alone as well. They are not legally obligated to do so (neither is TiVo) but both companies look the other way because it would just be a lot of bad PR to go after some geeks that aren't hurting anybody with their tinkering.
The difference here is that Psystar is turning a healthy PROFIT.
@Lauren
There is a difference between a "product" and a "market." Apple systems are products in the PC market. They do not constitute a market in and of themselves. If you don't like the restrictions they impose via theiur licenses you are always free to buy a machine running Windows or any of hundreds of flavors of Linux. Unless Apple's closed system hinders the rest of the PC market from doing business there is no way they have a monopoly.
Microsoft chooses to sell their products to be installed on a variety of machines because that's their business model. Linux is totally open because that's what the developers believe in. But this does not make it the law anyone who makes an OS must do business in these ways.
Liquidmark said 3:14PM on 1-14-2009
When Psystar loses, Apple will have a judgment that sets a precedent that will enable them to go after future violators far more easily.
Next company that tries this mess won't last a week in court. Apple will just come in, point at the precedent and get a judgment in their favor.
Liquidmark said 3:14PM on 1-14-2009
"Once you go Apple, it's not just you don't go back, it's you can't! "
Excuse me?
Nobody is stopping you from buying a Dell or running windows on a Mac.
If you buy a Mac, you can go back, if you want. But you CAN'T take their OS with you.
That's the PRICE of going back.
Seriously, I have a friend who's girl left him. While they were together, he was the bread winner. Well, she turned around and called him a year later because she expected for him to pay half her bills that he had nothing to do with.
His response was "TOUGH! You left the money-train a year ago! Pay your own bills!"
Same thing here. You don't want to buy Apple's computers, but want to use OSX?
WELL THAT'S TOUGH! Apple isn't a genie to grant your wishes! YOU decided to leave Apple. NOT getting to use their OS is the consequence of that decision!
You want your cake and eat it too?
NOT gonna happen!
BTW, APPLE doesn't have a monopoly! There are PLENTY of other manufacturers to chose from! There are plenty of other OSes on the market! You aren't forced to buy Apple products to surf the web or even work.
Big John said 11:27AM on 1-14-2009
Maybe their legal tactic is to annoying bloggers and commentors until we petition the government to settle the match deathmatch style?
Reply
colouroflight said 11:40AM on 1-14-2009
I can understand them trying to make a point against software licensing (if you buy it you should have every right to do whatever you want with it, including running it on non-Apple hardware and reselling it), but there certainly can't be that much of a market for unreliable prebuilt hackintoshes when it's gotten much easier to DIY.
Reply
Eric said 11:41AM on 1-14-2009
As annoying as psystar continues to be as computer users we should be rooting for them. If they want to sell compatible but not Apple supported hardware for OSX then they should be. A win for Apple would mean that a) Software sales are not true sales b) Shrinkwrap EULA's like Apples that enforce vertical integration are legal.
This is no different than Dell and Microsoft cutting a deal so that Windows 7 "home" can only be installed on Dell hardware and legally enforcing it against HP, IBM, or other OEM's.
Reply
Sora said 11:43AM on 1-14-2009
My sentiments exactly.
Michael R Johnson said 11:48AM on 1-14-2009
"If they want to sell compatible but not Apple supported hardware for OSX then they should be."
That's not the point. They're more than welcome to sell their little PC. The trouble arises when they bundle it with OS X pre-installed.
Eric said 11:52AM on 1-14-2009
@Michael
Actually if you read Apple's briefs it would not matter if OS X was pre-installed or not since they are claiming an "Induced" violation of copyright and the EULA.
Joshua Ochs said 12:05PM on 1-14-2009
Oh, sure, Let's root for the people who have ripped off the hard work of various groups in the "hackintosh" community (who are NOT pleased at this, by the way), and have now forced Apple to take a closer look at something that previously was considered mostly harmless.
This will NOT change anything in the EULA or Apple's policies, other than they may take more active steps against the hacking community. Everyone loses due to these assholes.
Michael R Johnson said 12:05PM on 1-14-2009
@Eric
Yeah, that's what I meant.
It's the mention of Apple and Mac OS X, and the assistance they provide in violating the EULA. If they sold the machine sans-OS X, and without mention of Apple, there'd be no lawsuit here.
Eric said 12:16PM on 1-14-2009
@Michael
The lawsuit is the point. I have no doubt that one or more large OEM's are financing this lawsuit through a litany of proxies. If Psystar wins they can legally sell OSX systems, if Apple wins they will start negotiating with MS to be the exclusive hardware vendor.
One of these outcomes is good for the consumer, one is very bad.
minimalist said 1:38PM on 1-14-2009
@Eric
"This is no different than Dell and Microsoft cutting a deal so that
Windows 7 "home" can only be installed on Dell hardware and legally
enforcing it against HP, IBM, or other OEM's."
Assuming Microsoft only had 10% of the market why would this be
a problem?
I believe in any other market such an arrangement would be called an
"exclusive partnership" but because computer users are so used to the
OEM model they assume that such a business model it is always a given. But its not.
I see no reason the government needs to be begin telling companies
how to structure their businesses unless its an anti-trust or
monopoly situation. What are the courts going to say anyway? "Apple
must sell OEM versions of OSX because... well, because some people
want it?" What part of the law would give them the right to
determine Apple's business model for them?
If you don't like the conditions, don't buy the product and then any
company in business to make a profit will get the message and change
their ways. Thats the way the free market works. Obviously Apple
thinks the benefits of keeping OSX closed far outweigh the benefits
of opening it up.
There is no constitutional right to being able to buy the OS you want
combined with the hardware you want.
mort said 3:59PM on 1-14-2009
Apparently you have no idea how the world works. Or that Apple is a closed system compared to M$ and dull. Mac OS is not "software" but an operating system for THEIR hardware. They have the right to lock it to their machines unlike dull who only assembles pc's from the lowest common components just like hp and the rest. if you want mac os go buy a mac and get on with life.
Damn freetards. Pay your own freakin way!