MacPing!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 06/08/2009 1:46:08 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Miami on Friday requesting a modification of the stay that is preventing it from moving forward with its case against Psystar in the Northern District Court in California. Apple's case against Psystar for selling PCs with Mac OS X preinstalled has been on hold ever since the PC maker filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at the end of May.
Psystar's bankruptcy filing put Apple's case in northern California temporarily on hold because all legal actions involving the PC maker are automatically stalled while the bankruptcy court begins its proceedings. Apple's Motion for Relief from the stay, if granted, would help minimize lost time while waiting for the bankruptcy case to run its course.
Apparently some 80 percent of Psystar's computer sales are Mac clones, and the company is still offering those PCs for sale. Since the automatic stay preventing Apple's case from moving forward could last for months, the company could potentially continue selling its unauthorized Mac clones the entire time -- something Apple is hoping to prevent.
According to Apple's motion, "Delay of the Infringement Action will permit Psystar to continue selling its infringing computer systems in violation of Apple's intellectual property rights with impunity, thus tarnishing the reputation of Apple's genuine products to Apple's obvious detriment."
Apple is also contending that without a resolution in its case against Psystar, the bankruptcy judge won't be able to approve a reorganization plan for the company.
Apple's case against Psystar is scheduled for a November 9 court date, but the bankruptcy stay could push that date into 2010, especially if the bankruptcy court judge denies Apple's request. Psystar, however, is likely hoping the judge denies Apple's request since it already owes its legal team over US$88,000 and most likely doesn't have the resources to deal with its bankruptcy and Apple at the same time.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
If Apple owns the OS, why should they not be able to restrict it’s use?
Apple with 10% or the US personal computer market and less than 5% of the Worldwide market, is not in a monopoly position. Ergo, they cannot be accused of "anti-competitive" behavior like Microsoft has several times been convicted of committing.
As a matter of law, as has already determined and ruled on by the judge in the case, neither Apple or any other company can be considered illegally monopolistic about their own copyrighted, trademarked, or patented products.
They may own the rights to the OS, but that shouldn't matter in this case. From what I know, PsyStar was simply buying legal, retail copies of the MacOS and installing them on their products. I see nothing wrong with this.
The doctrine of first sale should, in a good world, trump any of Apple's claims.
I never bought a copy of a Mac OS, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that the restrictions on the purchaser are spelled out in abundantly clear language.
Of course they are. However, the common law doctrine of first sale should trump this because as I own that particular copy of Mac OS (or any other product), I should be allowed to do whatever I want with that product, be it resell it at a profit or loss, use it as a Frisbee, feed it to the dog, or whatever provided I do not make unauthorized copies of the product.
Apple's lawsuit should be thrown out. No business should have the right to dictate to me how I should use their product after I have purchased a legitimate, legal copy of it. If Apple wants to control who uses its OS, it should consider renting it out instead.
I just nipped over to the Apple store web-page, and the Software License Agreement is right there, spelled out in black-and-white. It permits the purchaser to install the software on “Apple-labeled” computers. Seems pretty clear to me.
Contracts can contain any text that the authors want. However, if the law trumps what is in the text, then that text is null and void.
Apple dictates to you how you can use their product before you buy it.
And once I buy it, Apple's rights to the product cease. As long as I do not violate Apple's intellectual property rights by making illegal copies of Mac OSX, Apple should not be allowed to dictate to me how to use my copy of the product.
So, does Psystar have this OS running off the distribution disk, or do they copy the OS to a non-”Apple-labeled” PC hard-drive and run it from there. If so, that would be an unauthorized copy, wouldn’t it?
Only if that copy of the OS was copied in a manner that infringed on Apple's copyright. Assuming that Psystar went to an Apple retailer and legitimately bought a bunch of copies of the OS and installed each copy on a separate computer then this is not the case.
But the license agreement, to a the purchaser must agree to use the product, and which is spelled out in advance of purchase, specifically says the install must be on a “Apple-labeled” machine. If the purchaser finds this to be an unacceptable restriction, his remedy is to not purchase the software.
However, I do agree that if the purchaser wants to use the disk as an expensive beer coaster, that should be OK.
In your Post #8, did you mean to say “unauthorized” or “illegal”?
“The doctrine of first sale should, in a good world, trump any of Apple’s claims.
“
Maybe not. That software license they bought has stipulations you must agree to before using it. That said, I also think most software licenses are bogus as they are written because they inside the package, make claims they are not entitled, and restrict usage beyond what I would consider reasonable.
Essentially though, I believe the doctrine of first sale should trump the EULA in this case.
You said — Funny how Apple is allowed to get away with the kind of anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft could only dream of doing itself.
—
Funny how Apple could be anti-competitive with less than 10% of the market... LOL...
Ring me up again when the number gets up to 90%.... :-)
You said — I never bought a copy of a Mac OS, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that the restrictions on the purchaser are spelled out in abundantly clear language.
—
I have bought it — but — I haven’t ever bothered reading it, even just one time, in over 25 years... LOL...
Who cares..., I use the Apple machines...
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.