Mac Suit Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 07/15/2008 11:38:30 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Charges copyright, trademark infringement, violation of OS X software license
(Computerworld) Apple Inc. has filed suit against Psystar Corp., the computer maker that in April started selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installed. Apple is charging Doral, Fla.-based Psystar with copyright and software licensing violations, according to court records and a Florida attorney.
A Psystar employee who answered the company's telephone this morning and identified himself only as "George," said that the company had no comment on the lawsuit.
Although the full complaint has not been posted to the federal court system's electronic document system, Apple filed charges on July 3, a search of the system revealed.
According to Jorge Espinosa, a Miami-based lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law, Apple's lawsuit charges Psystar with violations of its shrink-wrap license, and with trademark and copyright infringement.
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
just more Apple anti-competative, monopoly, blah, blah, blah...
Apple has always wanted control of the hardware, so they could control what they were required to support. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve already made it clear what they’ll support, and if you want something outside of that, it’s your problem to support it, not theirs.
Psystar Corp., the computer maker that in April started selling Intel-based systems with Mac OS X pre-installedFirst I'd heard of this company. Thanks SM.
Looks like they still will ship with XP (as well as various flavors of Linux).
Apple may have a fight on their hands with this? just saying.
I’m surprised it took them this long. Psystar has been out for months hasn’t it?
I think it will be a slam dunk.
Imagine if Microsoft had the same terms where you could only install their OS on machines they sold?
A Psystar employee who answered the company's telephone this morning and identified himself only as "George," said..... "Was that wrong? Should we not have done that? I tell you, we gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to us at all when we first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause we've built a lot of computers, and I tell you, people do that all the time."
And how is that... exactly?
How is Apple a monopoly?
In what way is Apple anti-competitive by suing an unscrupulous company for the theft and mis-use of its intellectual property, trademarks, and copyrights?
Please be specific.
Might I also point out that Psystar has now not only violated the EULA on the retail OSX.5 Leopard which they have copied, modified, and illegally provided on a different unauthorized medium (to wit, the Psystar OpenComputer's HD), but has also violated the agreements about using the UPGRADES from OSX.5 to OSX.5.1,2,3 and 4 (which are not sold at retail), and modified and inserted code to hack them into their computers and are distributing the modified updates to the Psystar customers as THEIR work? That is prima facie copyright infringement—they don't own the rights to those updates under any legal theory.
Microsoft is not a computer manufacturer. Apple is... and they sell a complete product which THEY created and produce. That complete product includes OSX.
I hear you. And other companies have the same, like IBM, Sun, etc.
Doesn’t Apple’s OS X run on Intel-based machines? Only those sold by Apple?
I'm not surprised. Three months is actually a very short time.
First Apple, to file suit, has to show damages. Until Psystar started actually selling and shipping computers, there were no damages. That took a month. Then Apple would go through the proper procedures. They would have to send a Cease and Desist letter, giving a date for specific performance to Psystar. Meanwhile, Apple probably ordered and received a Psystar computer with OSX installed on it through a third party purchaser to provide evidence of violation. That took time as Psystar was having difficulty filling orders.
Then, once they had the hard evidence, they probably accessed and downloaded the latest OSX update modified by Psystar from the Psystar site that PSystar gave to their customers because the Apple update would not work on Psystar computers, further demonstrating copyright infringement damages. I would be willing to bet that there is very specific language in the new update's agreement that nails Psystar's coffin even further shut. THEN Apple's lawyers structured their complaints and filed.
Meanwhile, Psystar was digging its financial grave ever deeper with each model brought out and each computer sold further increasing the economic damages done to Apple.
OS X runs on intel and PowerPC Macs. With some difficulty, hackers can get it to run fairly well on other PCs with certain hardware... but not legally.
What next....will auto manufactures forbid customers to perform an engine swap utilizing the engine from a different manufacture?
The best analogy I can come up with is this.
You wrote a book. It was a hit and it made you a nice pile of money. Somebody took your book and wrote a screen play based on your book. They made a nice pile of money selling the screen play. You don’t get any money from the screen play, but your name is associated with it because you wrote the original book.
The kicker is that they didn’t even bother to change the title.
Link no good...
What does a link to a story about dead Israeli soldiers have to do with Apple filing a lawsuit?
Unless it is an attempt to use the “well duh, like we didn’t know” factor...????
You write that as if these were three separate things. One is a made-up, misleading term and the others are grants of monopoly rights.
Might I also point out that Psystar has now not only violated the EULA on the retail OSX.5 Leopard
Whether those terms of the EULA will be deemed enforceable is still up for grabs. The copies were apparently paid for. I can think of two cases in the last several years were EULA terms were thrown out. Think first sale and fair use.
but has also violated the agreements about using the UPGRADES from OSX.5 to OSX.5.1,2,3 and 4 (which are not sold at retail), and modified and inserted code to hack them into their computers and are distributing the modified updates to the Psystar customers as THEIR work?
They'll probably claim fair use since Apple doesn't sell them, they are going straight to the intended Apple customers anyway (people who have OS X licenses), and the updates don't dilute the market for any Apple product. I don't think that'll work though, since they're making derivative works.
Apple does have a decent chance of prevailing on both of these claims despite first sale and fair use, saying the software is licensed, not sold, and the license forbids those acts. However, by going that route Apple opens itself up to a laundry list of counter-claims under the Clayton Act.
Apple's clearest case is for the trademark infringement. Apple waited to file until they knew what kind of systems would be sold and what their support was like. Apparently the complaint includes many customer experiences with Psystar machines. Much of the value of Apple's trademark consists of a reputation for quality hardware, good support and a hardware/software combo that "just works." So now you have cheap hardware that's not fully functional being sold with poor support, and they've used at least one Apple trademark in selling them.
Apple's reputation, and thus the value of the trademark, was damaged if anybody bought one of these systems and thought "Apple sucks, I always have stability and driver problems." You know that will happen since Microsoft often gets blamed for OEM and third-party vendor problems. Psystar is toast on the trademark claim, and from what I've heard trademark is pretty central to the complaint.
They would be out of business in about 24 hours....
Microsoft doesn't sell hardware (at least not CPUs).
That has never been their business model, and if they tried to institute it now they would force a massive re-evaluation of the cost/benefit of Windows vs OS X - and, for that matter, Linux.I think someone said that Apple dabbled in selling system software for PCs, and couldn't make any money and thought they were cannibalizing their hardware sales. I certainly know that Steve Jobs had that experience with his Next, Inc. venture.
But then, Apple still doesn't have a big share of the PC market (which I take as a bullish sign; think of how much opportunity they have for continued growth!). So refusing to license the use of your product on some computers does have its downside.
The issue would get sticky, IMHO, if Microsoft refused to license Windows for use under Boot Camp or Parallels. And I do think AAPL's refusal to license OS X could get to be an issue if the Mac's market share percentage got up into the 30's or so. Because that would raise the specter of the destruction of competition in the manufacture of PCs.
What next....will auto manufactures forbid customers to perform an engine swap utilizing the engine from a different manufacture?The reason that doesn't happen is that the auto industry stood down from that sort of use of the patent system back in the founding years of their industry. They found that if they did not do that, my patent on differentials would prevent anyone else from making a car that could turn without wearing the tires, and your patent would prevent me and everyone else from putting windshield wipers on their cars - and nobody would be able to make a decent car at all. I never understood exactly what their agreement specifically was, but probably it forbids exclusivity in patent licensing. No auto company will license a patent from you without an agreement that you will license anyone else to use your patent on the same terms - something like that.
I was wondering what was taking them so long to lower the boom.
I think that the very existence of this company is testament to the fact that Apple really, really needs to make a 500 dollar entry level computer with good performance. The Mac Mini used to fit the bill, but it maxes out at 2 gigs of memory, and you need at least that much to run leopard comfortably. So either overhaul the mini, or come up with something that doesn’t have to use expensive laptop-style parts. Something like the old Cube would be perfect in this respect... you could use Apple-approved commodity 5/14 drives and 3 1/2 SATA drives, as well as full-sized PC DDR ram. Intel video would be fine. Apple could certainly make, and profit, off of a 500 dollar machine of that type.
“OS X runs on intel and PowerPC Macs.”
Not for long. Word is that the next version... “Snow Leopard”, won’t run on PPC machines. So Apple is beginning the support phaseout of that branch.
There was nothing misleading about what Swordmaker said, Apple's "intellectual property" is being violated, whether the term, which is common and accepted, personally offends you or not.
I can think of two cases in the last several years were EULA terms were thrown out.
Which I'm sure you're still celebrating, despite them likely being injustices against the intellectual property owners.
Apple opens itself up to a laundry list of counter-claims under the Clayton Act.
Whatever, you don't support Apple defending its rights even when criminal Russian hackers are stealing their software, in previous threads you've called Apple's cease and desist letters quote "BS", tried to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution", even made up outright lies you finally admitted to, claiming Russian hackers wrote software for the US DoD as another pathetic excuse. Those hackers and these criminals both deserve to be fined if not jailed despite your attempts to support their outright theft of Apple's intellectual property. Go ahead and ping your anti-copyright list now too while you're at at.
Yup, I’m aware of that.
But I need something that is also a laptop. A convertible tablet, that is.
Three months is short from first access to the filing of a lawsuit. No requirement that you send a C&D letter before filing suit, but usually seen as a good idea not only to try to settle but later to show good faith to the court.
Of course there are some on this board that think that just because something is in a digital medium, it should be free to copy.
I got “Connection Refused” just now, but it was working last night.
There was nothing misleading about what Swordmaker said, Apple's "intellectual property" is being violated
He correctly used copyright and trademark, so his statement wasn't misleading. He only used that misleading, and redundant in this case, term.
Apple's "intellectual property" is being violated
Allegedly.
Which I'm sure you're still celebrating, despite them likely being injustices against the intellectual property owners.
Of course I am. It's a win for all of us when people are able to prevent a company from abusing its limited copyright monopoly. I bet you don't even know the two cases I'm talking about, do you? So how could you possibly know whether they were injustices against the copyright holders? Come on, show me that for once you actually know what you're talking about.
even when criminal Russian hackers are stealing their software, in previous threads you've called Apple's cease and desist letters quote "BS", tried to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution",
You still haven't shown me hard evidence of how their actions could be criminal under the law that you are talking about. If you can actually manage to produce it and explain how it proves you are right I am capable of admitting I was incorrect. There are enough actual criminal hackers in Russia that adding a couple more to that list won't make a difference. But your claim of criminality can't stand up without evidence and argument.
even made up outright lies you finally admitted to
I see you're still bitter over failing that test.
claiming Russian hackers wrote software for the US DoD
Provide proof, retract this statement, or leave it as another proven lie about me.
It's funny how you can never concentrate on the subject at hand, always having to dig up your old losses.
these criminals both deserve to be fined if not jailed despite your attempts to support their outright theft of Apple's intellectual property
No theft occurred. The copies of OS X were purchased. The question is whether their post-purchase actions are protected by first sale and fair use. AFAIK, there is also no allegation of theft with relation to the trademark issue that is central to this complaint.
From what I’ve been reading Apple waited and watched all the consumer reactions to these PCs so they could build up a case that all the negative sentiments harm Apple’s reputation. I can’t wait to see the complaint to get a more informed view, but it looks like Apple may have a slam-dunk on the trademark and related issues.
No. But they already will prohibit the transfer of their proprietary computer codes that control that engine. Hyundai cannot simply lift the software that controls a BMW and stick it in a Hyundai and claim it's as good as a BMW.\ because of that.
It is not "fair use" to take a copyrighted work, modify the work, and then re-distribute the modified work as the same work. For example, it has been established that a company cannot take a DVD, remove objectionable material that makes it 'R' rated, burn a "cleaned up" copy DVD and then rent that DVD to customers (even with the original version included) without the express permission of the copyright holder.
As for the Trademark and other copyright issues, Psystar is selling computers that display on their screens Apple's copyright splash screens, Apple's digital labels, and Apple's display artwork... without authorization... all claiming Apple authorship.
The lawyers will have a field day with this I’m sure, but the situation is far from cut-and-dried. There’s a lot of legal precedent in this area dating from the mid-1970s when Gene Amdahl introduced the first IBM (mainframe) clones.
That's why I said "I don't think that'll work though, since they're making derivative works."
Psystar is selling computers that display on their screens Apple's copyright splash screens, Apple's digital labels, and Apple's display artwork... without authorization... all claiming Apple authorship.
I'd love to see the complaint so we know exactly what the complaints are. You don't claim someone who sells a Windows PC is infringing on Microsoft's trademarks because of the Windows splash screen. I think Psystar used trademarked words or images in their marketing or packaging. I know they originally wanted to call it Open Mac, which would of course have been a big trademark issue.
On principle alone I hope they win on the first sale issue, and how that trumps a EULA. Such a win would benefit all consumers of software. But this is conflicting with my desire to not see a cheap PC company soiling the image that Apple so carefully built. OTOH, Apple winning the trademark complaint alone should be enough to bankrupt this company.
Wow... That’s alot of work. No wonder Apple charges so much for it’s computers. It has to spend it’s money to do this everytime some challenges it’s rights. /sarcasm
Get real, Russian hackers ripping off US intellectual property is not a "win for all of us". Pirates in south Florida ripping off Apple's intellectual property and selling counterfiet systems is not a win for anyone either. These other cases where your heroes steal technology from the companies that developed it isn't a win for anyone but freeloaders.
another proven lie about me
Where's the proof it's a lie. I have the links, if anyone doubts it's true which I'm sure they don't. You spent months defending these Russian hackers, even made up lies you finally admitted to claiming Russian hackers wrote software for the US DoD as a diversion attempt to cover their actions. Here you are again of course, still supporting the illegal theft and distribution of Apple's intellectual property.
No theft occurred. The copies of OS X were purchased.
You're full of it, OSX is not for sale to anyone, it's licensed under certain specific conditions which they broke. Can't wait till you start trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" for these guys like you did your Russian hacker heroes.
But you just said quote "No theft occured." endquote in post #34. So is Apple lying, or were you?
Only you. Unless they stole a retail copy of OS X out of an Apple store, no theft occurred. And I doubt that happened since we haven't heard of a criminal shoplifting case.
Here’s your exact quote, were you lying then or is Apple lying now?
“No theft occurred. The copies of OS X were purchased.”
Years ago the case of someone recognized that parody and satire fall under our First Amendment rights. That the person was the disgusting Larry Flynt is immaterial. Same here. As usual you go on the specific person (as you are a champion for selective copyrights, despite being Mr. Law Enforcer) and completely ignore principle.
Where's the proof it's a lie.
You made the unsubstantiated statement about me. It is up to you to prove yourself correct. Bring on the links, but be careful as doing so was your downfall last time.
You spent months defending these Russian hackers, even made up lies you finally admitted to claiming Russian hackers wrote software for the US DoD
Wrong and wrong. We're talking about two different hackers, two different threads. You are the one confusing them. You claimed the actual Russians were criminal and never showed any evidence and explained how they could possibly be considered so. Therefore your claims about them remain unsubstantiated slander, same as you just did to me.
You're full of it, OSX is not for sale to anyone
Funny, I could drive down to my nearest Apple store and buy a copy tomorrow.
Can't wait till you start trotting out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" for these guys
You obviously didn't learn from the law lesson I gave you last time. These guys are doing it for profit, so the 180 day rule (which related to non-profit distribution as was the case for the Russians) is inapplicable.
Read the complaint. Apple claims no theft. If that were so you'd see a criminal complaint for shoplifting or grand theft, depending on the number of copies of OS X stolen. You could claim they were stolen, but then you'd be making up yet another unsubstantiated allegation of criminal activity.
If as claimed Psystar installed one disk copy of OS X onto multiple systems, then that is an infringement of Apple's copyright because Apple allows only one system per disk, or five systems if you buy a family pack.
Quit weaseling, and trying your typical diversions like Larry Flint LMAO. Here’s what you said:
“The copies of OS X were purchased.”
Why did you post this lie? Or are you claiming Apple is lying in their complaint?
That's no lie. They were purchased in the retail market.
Now cut out the "you said" "No, I didn't" arguments. It's ancient history.
GE, none of the rest of us are interested in your vendetta against AR , so stop trying to bait him.
AR, stop responding to GE, and he will lose interest and go away!
I’m just pointing out the obvious contradictions in his statements. In post 34 he said:
“The copies of OSX were purchased”
But then in post 41 he admits:
“Apple claims they used one copy of OS X to install on multiple computers.”
So which is it? Was his original claim they were purchased correct, or is Apple correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.