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.
You said — “... Apple should not be allowed to dictate to me how to use my copy of the product.”
—
Ummm..., I guess you just got here, into the 21st Century — uhhh..., from what century was that...? LOL...
Which is the main reason I own no Apple Products, my wife and daughter have an IPOD each and loved them right up to the point when they wanted to transfer their music libraries to new Computers.
I just smiled knowingly and caressed my no-name MP3 player that looks exactly like an IPOD and allows me to copy my music library to any computer I hook it to in two easy steps.
I suspect the court will not agree with. Psystar has a perfectly reasonable, low-cost and not-intrusive remedy available. They can save their $199 and not buy the product. This will be the path the court takes, IMHO.
So I guess you'd be OK if other companies dictated to you how you could use products you purchased? Would you like your car company dictating that you could only use a particular brand of gasoline even though others would do?Would you like the company that made your TV dictate that you could only watch only programming they selected?
Well, that’s why I was wondering what century you came from... LOL...
You probably don’t know it, coming from another century, but it’s a “done deal”... :-)
But..., hey... if you want to “try one on for size” — let’s start with the music CDs. I know several people who think that once they get that music in their little grimy hands (LOL...) that it’s their music to do with any way they see fit, including giving it away to all their friends. They are probably right, too....
And where did I advocate that making unauthorized copies of Apple's products was legitimate? Perhaps if you read my previous comments you would have figured out I was talking about Psystar's legitimately purchased copies of Apple's software.
Wouldn’t the doctrine of first sale dictate that you run the computer from the installation disk rather than installing it on the hard drive, that in itself being a copy? Once on the hard drive then additional unauthorized copies would be made each time you back up the disk.
Is this REALLY what the Bankruptcy laws were intended for?
Psystar WAS making unauthorized copies of the product and selling them. They were making a copy on to other media and then selling that. The media they were copying it to was a Hard Drive on a Psystar Open Computer. It is irrelevant what other accessories Psystar may have attached to that other media.
Psystar is not even arguing their case from the doctrine of First Sale because that already has established case law that supports Apple's position. They are arguing that Apple is misusing its copyright rights to unlawfully restrict the installation and sale of their copyrighted products. This was after they attempted to claim that Apple had neglected to Copyright OS X Leopard.
That's false. Once you buy the MEDIA on which the licensed software is installed, Apple's rights to that media cease... but their rights to their licensed property that is on that media continue.
When you bought the hardware and software from Apple, you agreed to their terms. If you do not like their terms, do not buy their stuff.
Bingo!
Well, you and I can purchase Music CDs, too, and so can Psycho-star..., as many as they want. And, they can buy all the copies of Apple’s OS that they want to, also. And so can we. That’s no big deal.
But, then again, that’s not what we’re talking about... LOL..
Your claim is false to fact. It is irrelevant that they bought, installed and included the original media, they are still selling a copy of the copyrighted software. Just because you go and buy a DVD of a feature film, copy said film from the DVD to VHS tape, you do NOT have the right to sell that tape to anyone even if you include the original DVD with the VHS tape when you sell it. That right belongs solely to the copyright owner, not you.
Doctrines of Fair Use, First Sale, and the general principle that copyright is not absolute.
Perfectly legal and possible. You can have FIVE computers/devices authorized to have your music library on them at any one time. Buy a new one? Authorize it, and de-authorize the old one.
Read the license agreement of both companies. This isn't about "Apple allowed to get away with" anything. Microsoft WANTS everyone under the sun making PC's that run their OS. That is their business model. Microsoft does not make the hardware their OS runs on. Therefor, it is to MS's advantage to have everyone making hardware.
Apple is a completely different company - their business model is to tightly integrate hardware and the OS (one of the many reasons that OS X is greatly more stable, by the way).
The only real caveat to MS's license agreement is that it not be copied, and that the software must be registered. Apple's OS License agreement specifically states that it must only be installed on Apple's hardware. Apple's OS also requires certain proprietary code in the OpenFirmware of the computer. The only way to install OS X on non-Apple hardware is to "somehow" reverse engineer this code from the ROM of an existing Apple machine, and either clone it via software in BIOS, or to actually manufacture knock-off chips with the code - both of which also violate Copyright.
Lets say that you make product "A". That product requires a gizmo to operate. It just so happens that your gizmo, that you also have the patent and Copyright on, makes your product "A" very attractive and profitable. Joe up the road sees that you are having success with product. He decides too makes something similar to your product "A" - we will call it A-clone, but isn't quite as innovative, and won't quite work with your gizmo. So - Joe decides to buy real copies of your gizmo, then reverse engineer it so he can figure out how to get it to work with his product A-clone. He finally succeeds and starts selling his A-clone product, with your gizmo. His product isn't really your product A, but it functions similarly. Unfortunately, Joe doesn't spend as much for his components for his A-clone, and his hardware isn't really comparable to yours. But that's ok. He is making money, while you are not making as much because your Product-A is actually your main profit generator.
Now - your license agreement for your gizmo specifically says it is only to be used with genuine "product "A". It also says that any reverse engineering is a violation of the license agreement.
Further - some people are buying his product A-clone. They see your gizmo - because that is what really makes it work. But they have some problems, it doesn't work as well as on genuine product "A". So now your reputation begins to be weakened because of some user's experience with your gizmo, but used with a product that you did not make, nor do you support.
And by the way - Apple tried the clone path for software licensing. It nearly folded Apple. They realized that their hardware was the biggest profit-maker. And by supporting clone makers, that meant they had to support the OS installs on hardware they didn't make nor specify - again, a giant cost.
And with 10% or so of the total PC market, I fail to see any sort of monopolistic practice. Hard to be charged with that when you have such a minority share. MS, when they faced such anti-competitive/anti-trust charges, they had 97% share. But even that wasn't the key - they were forcing other companies out of business by changing the rules using their monopoly. Even today, many web sites are way out of compliance with html standards - but it is because of MS's browser dominance.
We shall see. I think this is a slam-dunk for Apple. But we shall see...
Yeasir just jump trough these hoops and you too can put your legally paid for media anywhere you wish (as long as apple sez its OK...) not to mention that my wife and daughter were mega upset when they realized they would never figure out the procedure.
And of course I added insult to injury when I transferred my library with a simple connection and a couple of clicks of the mouse.
You all can keep your Islave units I'll enjoy my no-strings attached media player.
Re: other companies (car and TV) dictating
Those cases are not analogous. In both of those cases you purchase the physical object; with software you purchase a limited right to use it. That right to use it may be constrained by the contract you agree to to use that software. Software licensing is more akin to renting for use than purchasing.
When you rent something the renter retains ownership rights and can dictate within reason certain ways in which you can use that rental. You cannot, for example, pick up you rented building and install it at another location. You can’t modify it. Sometimes, in the case of vehicles and equipment, only you are allowed to use it.
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.