Apple v Psystar: Apple won

elgarak · 14th November 2009, 01:09 PM

Ruling, full text, 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 · 14th November 2009, 01:25 PM

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

quixotecoyote · 14th November 2009, 03:13 PM

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

daSkeptic · 14th November 2009, 03:26 PM

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.

Policenaut · 14th November 2009, 06:29 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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.

daSkeptic · 15th November 2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Policenaut

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 · 15th November 2009, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Policenaut

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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.).

Quote:

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 · 15th November 2009, 10:10 PM

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 · 16th November 2009, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by rwp

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.

daSkeptic · 16th November 2009, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by GodMark2

Other courts have already ruled that copyrights cannot be used to enforce limited hardware compatibility (LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC.).

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 · 17th November 2009, 10:41 AM

Reading that (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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 · 17th November 2009, 11:27 AM

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.

14th November 2009, 01:09 PM	#1
elgarak Muse Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 633	Apple v Psystar: Apple won Ruling, full text, 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).
elgarak Muse Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 633

14th November 2009, 03:13 PM	#3
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 6,300	I didn't think they'd get away with it. It looks like they were really sloppy in their legal arguments too.
	__________________ Ladewig: I'll start worrying about the media's liberal bias the day I hear of labor negotiations described as management demands and union concessions. Thank you for the avatar xkcd.

14th November 2009, 03:26 PM	#4
daSkeptic Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen Posts: 712	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.
	__________________ crud: noun - The SI unit of incredibility, equal to the movement of one-litre of hot air through a distance of one-metre in one-second. kudo: noun - The SI unit of credibility, reciprocal of the crud.

15th November 2009, 04:03 PM	#6
daSkeptic Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen Posts: 712	Originally Posted by Policenaut 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.
	__________________ crud: noun - The SI unit of incredibility, equal to the movement of one-litre of hot air through a distance of one-metre in one-second. kudo: noun - The SI unit of credibility, reciprocal of the crud.

15th November 2009, 07:19 PM	#7
GodMark2 Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 663	Originally Posted by Policenaut http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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.). Quote: 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.
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

14th November 2009, 01:25 PM	#2
rwp Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 209	I wish Apple would let me install their OS on my computer.

14th November 2009, 06:29 PM	#5
Policenaut Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Shadow Moses Island Posts: 1,330	http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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.

15th November 2009, 10:10 PM	#8
nota Scholar Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 64	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
nota Scholar Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 64

16th November 2009, 11:20 AM	#9
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,760	Originally Posted by rwp 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

16th November 2009, 05:53 PM	#10
daSkeptic Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bellingham, WA ... under the cheese counter at Haggen Posts: 712	Originally Posted by GodMark2 Other courts have already ruled that copyrights cannot be used to enforce limited hardware compatibility (LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC.). 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.
	__________________ crud: noun - The SI unit of incredibility, equal to the movement of one-litre of hot air through a distance of one-metre in one-second. kudo: noun - The SI unit of credibility, reciprocal of the crud.

17th November 2009, 10:41 AM	#11
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 3,048	Reading that (http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/a...tar-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?
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." — Paul Erdős Stop being so rational. It doesn't make any sense. - Gauthier Malou

17th November 2009, 11:27 AM	#12
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,780	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.
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.