Mac v. Psystar Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 01/14/2009 8:52:38 PM PST by Swordmaker
Embattled Psystar says Apple can't tell it what to do with legit copies of the OS
The Mac clone maker being sued by Apple Inc. because it installs Mac OS X on generic Intel-based systems said it bought copies of the operating system from Apple itself, court documents show.
In papers filed with a San Francisco federal court last week, Psystar Corp. repeated its argument that Apple has abused copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to Apple hardware. The filing came in response to an Apple motion asking U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who tossed out Psystar's original antitrust allegations against Apple last November, to also throw out the Florida company's revamped countersuit. . . .
To make its point, Psystar claimed that it has purchased some copies of Mac OS X—which it pre-installs on the Intel-powered machines it sells under the "Open Computer" and "OpenPro" labels—straight from Apple.
"Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon," the company said. "Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple. While Psystar complies with Section 117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple—and Apple alone—will say 'whether, how or by whom its software is ... distributed or used.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at computerworld.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Isn’t this no different than a system builder purchasing Windows licenses to install on the systems they sell?
Does building and selling a computer with the MAC OS on it violate Apple’s license agreement for MACS? I’m not familiar with the case, but this seems a bit harsh.
Its been a long, long time since I visited antitrust issues, and the only antitrust academic class I took was in undergrad economics, not law school. But I’ve read up a little on this after reading this post, and I tend to agree with you: their claims are probably without merit.
The interesting thing, though, is that Apple will most likely argue that some of the elements of tying arrangements don’t apply here because the restraint of trade isn’t significant when Apple to “ties” the OS to their machines since Apple doesn’t have a significant market share. Pretty ironic considering how their marketing department is trying to position them.
That’s essentially it. Part of the licensing terms you ostensibly ‘agree’ to when you purchase OS X is that you’ll only us it on Apple-made hardware. Psystar is arguing that those terms violate long-established common law, and I believe statutory law as well (though I can’t remember just what statute to which they refer).
It does.
Tying involves unrelated products. Apple sells the whole widget.
If Apple were selling generic PCs and then specified that once you bought their computer you were REQUIRED to also purchase their OS X as a separate item, then tying might fly... IF Apple were a monopoly. The courts, however, have ruled that one cannot be ruled a monopoly for one's own product sold within a larger overall market.
Pshyster were trying to reverse this... they were alleging that once you buy an upgrade version of OS X, Apple forces you to buy an Apple Mac computer on which to run it (because every Mac is sold originally with either MacOS or OS X as an integral part of the package, later version of OS X are upgrades to an existing product even though they are full install versions), thus fulfilling the classical definition of "Tying products." However, they are not unrelated.
Tying would, more correctly, be requiring the purchaser of XYZ computer to buy XYZ's aftermarket Service Contract or after purchasing XYZ corporation's Copy Machine, you had to buy ABC company paper to use for the copies, or you'd void your XYZ Copier warranty. Both of these examples would only be illegal IF XYZ company had a large enough share of the computer or copier market to use its monopoly position to prevent other paper companies, or other after market service contract companies from competing for XYZ customer business.
Isn’t this no different than a system builder purchasing Windows licenses to install on the systems they sell?
Does building and selling a computer with the MAC OS on it violate Apple’s license agreement for MACS? I’m not familiar with the case, but this seems a bit harsh.
I just bought a printer, and it came with some software to make it useful with my computer. Did the printer vendor have the right to insist that the software it gave me only be used to support that vendor's hardware? Yes, and they do. Even if you make a printer with the same chips in it as the one I bought has, you don't have the right to appropriate their software to help you sell your printer.That is the same principle as the provision of OS X with a Mac. The only difference is that Apple sells newer versions of OS X periodically as upgrades. But even tho you are paying for the license to use Leopard on a Mac, that doesn't give you the right to use it on hardware for which it is not licensed.
It’s about time they dumped the dumb anti-trust angle and concentrated on the real issue, abuse of copyright.
Don’t think this is only about Apple. If Psystar wins the precedent will be a big win for the rights of the people and bringing sanity back to copyright.
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.