Apple v Psystar: Apple won

[elgarak]

Ruling, full text, pdf (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf)

Apple's EULA has been declared legal, Psystar's use of installing Mac OS X on non-Apple computers illegal. In part due to modifications necessary to make Mac OS X run, which are considered modifications of Mac OS X itself and thus copyright infringement per this ruling (if I interpret all the legalese correctly).

[rwp]

I wish Apple would let me install their OS on my computer. :(

[quixotecoyote]

I didn't think they'd get away with it. It looks like they were really sloppy in their legal arguments too.

[not daSkeptic]

Hmmm .... technological measures to restrict the use of a software product to a hardware platform produced by the same company. Where else have I heard of such a thing? Oh yeah, Nintendo does that too. Psystar should sue them. :p

[Policenaut]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/

Simple breakdown of the rulings. What is highly stupid is that they could have avoided some charges here if they just bought legit copies of OSX and charged everyone $30 more per machine. I wish I had ordered one when I had the chance. Psystar hackintoshes are now going to be pieces of history.

[not daSkeptic]

What is highly stupid is that they could have avoided some charges here if they just bought legit copies of OSX and charged everyone $30 more per machine.

Exactly. Had they taken that approach, any legal issues would have been shifted to the customer and Psystar would have been safe. They would have been equivalent to vendors of cable and satellite boxes. Not illegal to sell, buy, or own, but illegal to use if you don't have the right licensing.

[GodMark2]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/

Simple breakdown of the rulings. What is highly stupid is that they could have avoided some charges here if they just bought legit copies of OSX and charged everyone $30 more per machine. I wish I had ordered one when I had the chance. Psystar hackintoshes are now going to be pieces of history.

Actually, that's what they did. Each system came with a disk purchased from apple (through Amazon or other online retailers). However, the judge ruled that because Psyatar didn't actually install the os from that purchased disk, but rather cloned the HD from the single system they had done an install on, upon which the install was not performed using just the disk, but rather a program of Psystar's design that used teh data from the disk, they had violated the EULA.

In other words:

Step 1 Buy an OS disk (Disk 1)
Step 2 Install OS on your system (Computer 1) using a special program
Step 3 copy the HD from this Computer 1 to another system (Computer 2)
Step 4 Buy another OS disk (Disk 2)
Step 5 Sell new Computer 2 and Disk 2 to customer.

The judges ruling is that Step 3 made an unauthorized copy, as the EULA only authorized the initial computer to hold a copy of Disk 1, and Step 5 then sold that copy. He also ruled that Step 2 is strictly against the terms of the license as well, as the program in question needed to "bypass technological measures" to perform the install. Step 2 also was ruled to create an unauthorized "derivative work" as it didn't do exactly what the Apple installer would have.

Psystar should have argued 'necessity for comparability' against the 'derivative work' claim, but didn't. Other courts have already ruled that copyrights cannot be used to enforce limited hardware compatibility (LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041028014125252)).

The Lexmark case was about printers. Lexmark set it up so no other manufacturer's toner could work with Lexmark printers except its own, and it "protected" this scheme with some software code and then sued a rival under the DMCA for reverse engineering so its own toner would work with Lexmark printers. This court found that the DMCA is about preventing piracy, not enabling a monopolist seeking to enforce its will on a smaller rival.


Psystar tried to argue that Computer 2, while not having Disk used to install, was exactly the same as had Disk 2 been used to install, and was thus the same as having sold Computer 1 with Disk 1. Unfortunately, the law doesn't care that the results are indistinguishable.

[nota]

apple may have won the first round
BUT the genie is out of the bottle now
ie people know there is no need to use apple's over priced boxes
just to use OS 10.x
and psystar is just the first of many to use that knowledge

[ponderingturtle]

I wish Apple would let me install their OS on my computer. :(

And screw with their vertical intergration? Face it you have to live the whole mac lifestyle if you go over to them.

[not daSkeptic]

Other courts have already ruled that copyrights cannot be used to enforce limited hardware compatibility (LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC. (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041028014125252)).

That's not what this case said at all. It said the DMCA (not copyright in general) was not intended to be used that way. Regardless, that's not why Lexmark lost the case. They were trying to claim copyright on things they could not copyright, and they were trying to claim circumvention of things that were not circumvented.

[Almo]

Reading that (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/), it sounds like Psystar are dumb to have ever thought they could get away with what they've been doing.

Breaking encryption on the kernel? Adding their own kernel extensions?

[BenBurch]

And even if they had just sold a machine with the software onboard to take that disk from the consumer and install it, they would have been violating DCMA as they would have been making a device for the purpose of circumvention.