Apple looking for Psystar's backers
Is another company backing Psystar's Open Computer? Apple wants to find out.
(Credit: Psystar)Apple has amended its lawsuit against Psystar to allow for the possibility that other parties are backing the company.
When companies file lawsuits, they'll often tack something like "John Does 1-50" onto the list of defendants, in order to allow for the possibility that other parties to the case who have yet to be discovered could be added at a later date. Apple did not do that the first time it filed suit against Mac clone maker Psystar, but has tacked such a paragraph onto an amended copy of its lawsuit against the company, as noted by Groklaw.
On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the "John Doe Defendants"). On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Apple's intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Apple's license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained.
It's always been a bit puzzling to ponder how Psystar emerged seemingly overnight with designs on challenging one of the tech industry's richest companies, retaining one of Silicon Valley's star law firms along the way. And it made ambitious, expensive claims, such as attempting to argue that Apple was in violation of antitrust law by refusing to license Mac OS X.
With that claim having been shot down by a judge, Psystar appears to be on borrowed time. There's no evidence that has surfaced tying Psystar to anything but the Pedraza brothers of Southern Florida, but if the company is forced to shut down, Apple may try to go after any person or organization that backed Psystar in an attempt to recover damages.
Apple also tacked on a DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) claim onto its complaint this week, alleging that Psystar is improperly modifying the code that prohibits upgrade copies of Mac OS X from being installed on anything but a Mac that has a previous version of the operating system already installed.
Tom Krazit, a staff writer for CNET News, focuses on all things Apple. He has covered traditional PC companies such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard, chip companies such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, and mobile computers ranging from Research In Motion's to Palm's. E-mail Tom.
OTOH, I don't see why Apple couldn't license the thing to Psystar with a firm and public "we don't warranty these things - at all!" and still do just as well with their own in-house product line.
As for the DMCA, it never should have passed the senate, much less have been allowed into law in it's current form.
That said, it is law.
Twice I've had to agree with you now. TWICE. It must be the end of the world. Or maybe we've finally come to a subject on which it's a matter of logic rather than opinion and we're right.
Oh, just to try to get things back to normal, I'm still having device driver issues (Wireless ethernet adapter) with Ubuntu. Not Ubuntu's fault, the vendor should release their driver to the open source community or get a decent programmer to work on their linux drivers.
Apple makes a cool little device called an Airport Express. It is a wireless to wired Internet bridge. I use several of them at my house and they are great. It should be an easy way to get your Ubuntu system working without drivers.
As for the DMCA, it never should have passed the senate, much less have been allowed into law in it's current form. Also, if discovery shows that Psystar only modified Open source code from the BSD or Darwin distributions, what then? (Not certain which open source licenses are involved.)
Fair Use would be a hobbyist or individual making a 'Hackintosh', without any commercial considerations or profit from the act of doing so.
Once you start monetizing the act, it is no longer Fair Use, any more (sadly) than Clean Flicks editing out the sex, violence, and swear-words from Hollywood's products then re-selling the results.
Fair Use may be debated, the point of English Common law though is related. If's "Fair Use" to use your hair dryer to defrost your freezer even if you have to sign a EULA and TOS etc. I'm mixing fair use with another legal concept.
That said, Copyright doesn't preclude Fair use. Never, Ever. To be blunt, the act of creating copyright forced the concept of Fair Use to become a legal concept. If you purchase IP (to enjoy) you have been given by the IP holder Fair Use Rights to enjoy it. True the IP holders do their best to restrict your means and methods of enjoyment to try and squeeze more money out of you which is why they lose fair use legal cases.
Apple Makes an OS. PsyStar put's an OS on it's comptuer. Simple. The judge rulesd but IP isn't about controlling every nuance of your IP. It's about creating a legal right for you to profit from it. I suspect Apple profits from each an every PsyStar comptuer sale. Just as copyright law intended.
So - the Hackintosh community is safe as long as it's mainly hobbyists - but Psystar is in deep doo-doo for trying to make a dishonest buck off of Apple's properties.
One more thing. There were about 200,000 iPhones that were unlocked here in the U.S. and were shipped overseas to other countries about 3 years ago when it was exclusive to the U.S. There is still an underground market for Apple products that they wish to control but can't. China is coming up with it's own version of Mac simply because they have the blueprints as most if not all Apple products are built in China.
The more Apple tries to control its products, the more there will be people who hack and sell there stuff illegally. Seems like Apple isn't learning from its past mistakes.
I would suggest that Apple open up its system so that the whole world appreciates it rather than a few selected groups. The more you limit something, the more likely it is going to have a backlash at it.
P.S. : Apple's troubles are just starting.
How do you suggest that Apple protects their intellectual property? From an investor's point of view, Apple is doing just what they should do. From a consumer point of view, Apple is doing just what they should do -- create a product that works well.
Apple is allowed to control its products. Which company isn't?
Microsoft profited from their investment in Apple, and that agreement and investment has already matured and revenues realized for Microsoft -- years ago. The only way Microsoft might own part of Apple is if their hedge strategy includes owning investments in rival companies.
Your arguements are cheap and unfounded. Actually, they are just plain dumb as your logic is skewed. Essentially, your arguement sounds like:
1) Microsoft owns shares of Apple
2) Microsoft has been sued under antitrust laws
3) Apple is now being sued under antitrust laws
4) Since MS owns Apple shares, Apple = Microsoft
Are you kidding me?
Anyway, no company is perfect, not even Apple. However, they hold the highest customer satisfaction rate with computers, laptops, customer service (in the PC industry), et cetera. The reason they have this distinguishment is through product quality control. That's why they won't let Silverlight or Flash on the iPhone -- yet. Once you lose control over the product, you lose control over customer satisfaction, and then you can be blamed by consumers even though it's not your fault.
Apple is doing what it needs to do. They should protect their property.
I would suggest that Apple open up its system so that the whole world appreciates it rather than a few selected groups. The more you limit something, the more likely it is going to have a backlash at it. "
And I would suggest you get your facts right before posting.
Apple has zero, and I mean ZERO obligation to do something they don't want to do, with something they solely own. That's insane for anyone to think otherwise.
Why people lose any capacity for rational thought, (and I recognize that many many more don't have any capacity at all) is beyond me. If you wrote a system. You want to be the only one to sell it, no one, can legally, or morally take it from you. Granted, if you are broke and a large corporation stomped your butt and took it, it still wouldn't be legal. I recognize the fact you would need money to protect yourself legally. But this Psystar case is something in reverse. A tactic to undermine Apples business model. To not even see it means you are blind.
Is apple Allowed to control their products? Hell no. Once I buy it I want to control it so I can enjoy it as I see fit.
Apple should be able to control their products up to a point. That's the point at which they have "passed it on" to someone else. Then the someone else should control.
Outside of that, there isn't anything new about the lawsuit. It will come down to the EULA being very closely examined for its legality and I'm not entirely sure Apple really wants to risk that. If they keep at it, eventually Psystar will cry Uncle and give in. If they don't- well, it will be a very interesting court case and one that could go either great for Apple or cause a very big headache for them resulting in a major restructuring of their entire computer business.
A Pandora's box- do you dare to open the lid?
Sure, if (okay, when) EULAs are invalidated as most of them are printed nowadays, it'll be a very good day indeed - even if vendors wind up getting all butt-hurt about it. MSFT, Apple, and you-name-it will go nuts when they find out that they only have copyrights like the rest of the planet, and not some carte blanche to demand that end-users can only do this or that with products that the users essentially buy (the whole "you're only buying a license, not the compiled binary code" argument is crap anyway).
Sometimes it's a good thing to see these things tested.
Do you know how frustrating it is for me to agree with you? Everything in my being screams to contradict you and yet- I feel exactly the same way you do on this issue.
EULA's have become a club that the OEM's like to brandish to keep everyone in line. I would love to see the EULA's picked apart and let the companies realize what they would like people to assume is true is actually quite different. It could mean freedom for a lot of products and end users.
This is also why I don't think Microsoft is behind Psystar. They could stand to lose as much if not more if Apple's EULA's get shot down since Microsoft's own EULA's are among the most draconic and restrictive in the industry. It wouldn't make sense for them to bring the issue to light when they can only stand to lose like the other OEM's.
I have an iMac that is 3 years old and I needs a bigger hard disk, more RAM and a faster CPU. I maxed the ram out a 3GB and I can't address the disk or CPU issues in that form factor without major surgery and it won't be supported no matter what I do. I looked at buying a more expandable Mac and the Mac Pro is $2800 minimum which is way too much for the average consumer.
As a result I built a Hackintosh for $800 with a Quad core CPU and it rocks.
"Is it ok to throw away your old Mac and transfer the license to another machine and install the upgrade there on new hardware? "
In reality, it's fine. But if you follow Apple's EULA specifically, they tell you that the OS is part of the original hardware purchase and can only be used on that system. Ironically they also tell you in other areas that you can install it on several machines for personal use. It's confusing to everyone.
See my comment below.
but they didn't "steal" it, They purchase retail copies and install it on their own hardware. By doing that they "aren't breaking any laws(questionable)." They are only violating a contractual obligation(EULA), that the software be installed on Apple branded hardware(again questionable legality).
I wrote this earlier in the year on Psystar's legal options, if you're looking for more info.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9933896-37.html?tag=mncol
In retrospect, a brilliant idea to get apple fans that can't afford apples to buy p-apples, but continuing to maintain the OS revenue stream.
IF you don't like none of these choices, and make your own operating system or go back to DOS, good luck or stop using computers all together, or back to pen and paper.
As far as it being upgrade only, have you compared OS X 10.5 with OS X 10.1? That's like comparing Windows Vista with Windows 95. Yea....
You called me Miles? It's Myles. Also...learn to spell and use proper grammar. It makes your points a lot more readable.
Your comment was that "Apple can sell OS X for so low for two reasons" (btw, bad grammer for you as well), implies that OS X is a lower cost operating system as compared to windows. My rebuttal was that, because the price of OS X is directly tied to an increased hardware cost, the EFFECTIVE price of OS X is much higher than windows (from a new user standpoint), and that as the retail cost of an upgrade version of windows is equivalent to the retail cost of an upgrade version of OS X, thus you can not say that apple sells OS X at a low price point.
Now, add to this the fact that while Windows is developed entirely by Microsoft's programmers, or with code that Microsoft has actually licensed or purchased, as opposed to OS X relying on open source code for the core operating system, resulting in lower development costs for OS X, and OS X again cannot be said to "sell for so low".
You do NOT buy the OS, you buy a license to use it.
Psystar is just more of the usual 24/7/365 black propaganda operation that has been conducted against Apple for years all over the internet, in the courts, and in the media. It's unusual in that it may cost the backers as much as 10 or more million by the time it's cleaned up. What would be worth that much to an Apple competitor? What does it accomplish? It continues and may extend the most popular anti-Apple black-pr theme - "the Apple Walled Garden" and "Apple Nazi Control" , "Fuhrer Steve".
But I don't think that's it. I think it has to do with China. And account control.
Let me take that back. I can't see anything good coming from this for any Apple competitor except for the black-pr value. Dell could benefit if Apple were forced to license OSX. Microsoft would not benefit. They would take a big hit. But there is little chance of Psystar winning anything so no danger for MS.
However, I think Apple WILL license OSX soon. Possibly at Macworld in Jan. So this lawsuit would be dropped. The parties involved may have known that all along.
With their current hefty mark-up on systems (as compared to other vendors) Apple would have to price OS-X at around $800 per license.
-
by scweezil
December 6, 2008 8:15 AM PST
- Hmmm...seems that defender of freedom "Pystar" has it's own EULA.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 49 Comments >>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746