It's OVER!
PSYSTAR LOSES CASE.
APPLE WINS BIG!
it's Official: Mac Clones ARE illegal Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/14/2009 3:58:16 PM PST by Swordmaker
Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled (PDF, courtesy of Groklaw) that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge William Alsup struck what may be a death blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims.
The only real surprise here was the swiftness and thoroughness of Apple’s victory. Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says. It is just the latest in a long string of ruling upholding EULAs, sometimes called shrinkwrap or click-wrap licenses.
Judge Alsup sidestepped Psystar's claim that it was protected by the first sale doctrine, which generally gives the buyer of a protected work the right to resell it without the permission of, or any payment to, the copyright holder. The judge said first sale only applies to legal copies and that the way in which Psystar had modified the software to let it run on clones meant that the copies did not meet this standard. The judge rejected out of hand Psystar's claims that it made legal use of Apple's trademarks and that Apple has misued it copyrights.
A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14. The order does not cover several other claims by Apple, including breach of contract and trademark infringement, but the ruling suggest that Apple would be heavily favored to win should the remaining case ever come to trial. There is also similar litigation pending in Florida, where Psystar is based.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Never understoon why a company would go after a miniscule market segment, populated by groupies who will only buy just about anything with an Apple logo on it. (Flame Suite On)
Apple vs. Psystar ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PDF viewer such as Adobe Acrobat Reader required if you are using a PC... Mac users don't need one. ;^)>
The amazing thing is that people are somehow surprised that a firm that invests billions in its hardware and software designs and protects them with patents and copyrights - might actually act against a couple of punks from Miami and defend their property rights.
It’s like the reaction seen in the smattering of cases in the foreclosure process when a servicer or a lender is (at least momentarily) unable to produce the original note and the foreclosure suit is (at least temporarily) dismissed. You see all sorts of people tee off on that like free money had just been invented.
The gullibility and naiveté of people never ceases to amaze.
How long until Microsoft uses this as a precedent to prevent Apples from running Windows?
Why on earth would they want to do that? Apple sells hardware, Microsoft doesn’t. Apple has an interest in people only running OS X on Apple hardware. Microsoft has an interest in selling as many copies of Windows 7 regardless of what hardware they run on.
If Apple were ever to pre-install Windows on Macs, without being licensed to do so and against MicroSoft’s wishes, and then attempt to sell them configured in that manner, they might have a case. As it stands, they wouldn’t.
Apple has staked its reputation upon making the “whole widget,” to provide as seamless and smooth of an experience as possible. The operating system is designed specifically for the hardware. That there are individuals who have created a “Hackintosh” for themselves, by running a copy of Mac OS on an otherwise Windows PC, is beside the point. Such individuals can’t make any warranty claims, and bugs are their own problem, not Apple’s. Pre-installed right out of the box is another matter.
I'm thinking MacBook Pro 17,” since it's my first generation Titanium PowerBook, that's got the most wear and tear. It tangled with a dog while on the arm of the sofa, recharging. The case is bent. Hardwood and laptop casings don't mix. This one faired pretty well all said and done, still works fine, but the charge is intermittent, since it hit the floor on that corner. I won't charge it unless I'm in the room.
I figured you’d be here to spike the ball. You didn’t expect a different result out of a San Francisco court, did you? Miami and DC are where this issue will be decided, ultimately, if the upstart can hang on long enough.
Never because it’s not a precedent.
Microsoft’s argument has always been “everybody uses Microsoft Windows so the 11th commandment is Thou Shalt have Microsoft Windows preinstalled and licensed on every x86 PC sold”.
In order to be consistent and maintain their illegal monopoly they’re more likely to argue that every x86 Mac requires a Microsoft Windows license whether it is used or not.
MS couldn't do that because it would be an antitrust violation.
Apple would have lost this case if it was heard in Florida. The California courts will always tilt to Apple. Even more these days with how miserable the California economy is. The state finances are also awful so they want every penny taxes due on what Apple sells. When Psystar sells a Mac (clone) Florida gets the taxes
Here is great article on the *entrepreneurs of the year* brothers who own Psystar >>>>
http://www.miaminewtimes.com//2009-11-12/news/miami-boyz-versus-apple-computer/
You should explain to people that a consistent and rigorous defense of copyrights, trademarks, and patents is part of the test in future court cases involving companies with intellectual property.
If you don’t defend it, eventually someone will come along and take it away, and the courts will let them.
Not if the computers are sold out of state. FL isn’t one of the states that demands other states pay their sales taxes.
And since Psycho-Star was selling via mail order only, guess what? No tax for FL.
By the way, when will you be eating your hat now that your buddies “Los Hermanos Psystar” have lost in a huge way as you claimed they wouldn’t?
Why would that happen? Microsoft's business model depends on companies such as Apple allowing their OS to run on their hardware. Apple's business model does not.
That's never stopped them before, why should it stop them now?
Microsoft seems to think that everyone who runs an x86 machine needs a Microsoft Windows license. I do many things, but I do not do Microsoft Windows. I'm a Unix/Linux guy and on non-Mac hardware why should I have to pay for a software license for something I'll never use?
For those of you techies out there consider this - the Microsoft strategery is very similar to the "public option" in Obamacare. You have to pay for it whether you want it or not.
I'm going to have to do an essay on this.
I have mixed emotions regarding this suit, but as AAPL is the last bastion of free choice in the computer+OS market in the OS I have to side with them.
The best of all worlds is that Microsoft comes up with their own machines, especially branded for Microsoft Windows. Generic PCs then can be sold without an OS (or FreeDOS) and the user can install whatever they want on it (legally of course).
So, bring it on MSFT. Kick AAPL in the 'nads and bring out a Microsoft branded line of machines and let generic PCs sell with no OS. Or are you chicken to compete in a free market?
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.