homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.191.154
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / The Macintosh Webmaster
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: travelin cat

The Macintosh Webmaster Forum

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [1] 2 > >     
Apple Wins Like a Champ - Psystar is Toast
swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 12:23 am on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Psystar, who has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and sold them to the public has lost on the whole line in a summary judgment.

[groklaw.net...]
Apple Wins Like a Champ - Psystar is Toast -- What? You're Surprised?
Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. Here's the order [PDF]. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal.

Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse.

There are still issues remaining for trial, despite Psystar's attempt to present everything now as being moot. Here's what's left to be decided at trial: Apple's allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code; and common law unfair competition. See anything on that list that will be helpful to Psystar?

Psystar could be done with after Apple wins the trial itself.

But how about the customers of psystar?

From [groklaw.net...]
2. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT.

Apple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement." See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.

Are the Psystar customers also open to being sued by apple for copyright violation ?

 

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 1:10 am on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

>>>There are still issues remaining for trial...

Seems exagerrated to call it winning like a champ when there are so many issues to be resolved in an actual trial, and that's if Psystar even has a chance to have their issues heard in court.

vincevincevince

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vincevincevince us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 1:28 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

It is a sad day when yet again the letter of the law overrides common sense and the clear public good

wheel

WebmasterWorld Senior Member wheel us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 2:44 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

You don't get to override copright ownership even if it's for the clear public good.

Well, unless you're Google :).

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 5:03 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

they were building better computers the apple, they couldn't let them keep doing that.

travelin cat

WebmasterWorld Administrator travelin_cat us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 5:31 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

they were building better computers the apple, they couldn't let them keep doing that.

Really? Do you own one? Just wondering what you base your comment on.

After owning dozens of Macs since 1984, I can't imagine that any company could build better hardware then a Mac. You can argue about OS platforms forever, but the quality of Apple hardware is consistently higher then most PC manufacturers.

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 7:40 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's not the quality of the Apple products that in the past made it better. It's that they were engineered to play nice with each other and thus not produce driver conflicts. Despite that, Macs have always been unstable after long use. Let's not gloss that over.

I've used Macs as well since the eighties and I don't believe their hardware is superior in itself. As recently as last year Mac was sued [infoworld.com] for using a cheap low quality screen for their 20 inch iMacs that could only display "262,144 colors" instead of the millions that normal quality LCD screens displayed, rendering it useless for editing photos and causing the screen to washout. Apple has also had to settle cases regarding the poor hardware quality of some of their other products, like the Nano.

However Macs now use the same hardware that Windows use, so Apple is understandably facing a challenge over it's iron-fisted control over the hardware. Apple says it's about quality control and throws a clause in it's OS prohibiting people from using the OS outside of Apple approved boxes. But let's get real. Now that they're using regular hardware it's really about greed. The hardware does NOT have to cost as much as they charge for it. The hardware is overpriced and Apple will continue shearing their customers as long as the perception remains that there is something special about the hardware, which is an illusion.

An article in PCWorld [pcworld.com] sums it up like this:

I don't agree that Apple should have the ability to restrict the hardware that I install the Mac OS X software on, but based on the application of existing laws I can understand why Apple won this case. The fact that Apple can leverage existing law to maintain draconian control over how its products are used is a flaw with the laws and their application, not with Apple.

Imagine if other industries worked like that. Let's use cars as an example. You pay $30,000 for the privilege of indefinitely 'borrowing' a Chevy Camaro... And, if you try to customize or modify it in any way, like changing the factory-default rims or installing a new stereo system, General Motors sues you for creating a 'derivative work'. There would be riots.

I fully understand that I can't reproduce the product in part or whole for redistribution as my own. Got it. But, once I have paid Apple for my copy of Mac OS X it shouldn't be Apple's business any longer what I do with it. If I want to modify it to make an automated toaster oven, or use the DVD as a coaster for my coffee mug that should be my prerogative. Its mine, I paid for it.


JAB Creations

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jab_creations us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 8:13 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

After owning dozens of Macs since 1984, I can't imagine that any company could build better hardware then a Mac.

hahahahahahahahahaha!

Are you joking? They charge more for less capacity both in regards to RAM and hard drives and use slower parts.

$100 to upgrade from 2x1GB of DDR3-1066 to 4GB total for their Mac Mini. You can get 4GB of DDR3-1600 (533MHz faster) for $78 with a $20 rebate on a popular hardware site, and that's not an upgrade but outright buying all 4GB

They also want $200 to upgrade from a 160GB hard drive to a 500GB hard drive. That's the upgrade price! That's insane! You can buy a 500GB hard drive for $50 or buy a 7,200 RPM 2TB hard drive for $170 outright.

Keep in mind that Apple doesn't pay consumer prices and that the prices I mentioned are consumer prices. So it's actually cheaper to buy the cheapest Mac and upgrade it yourself!

I could easily go on and on though I think the point has already been made that Apple completely rips their customers off.

- John

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 9:01 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

If you buy e.g. Snow Leopard for 29 EUR, you *always* buy an upgrade (your mac came bundled with the original license), you never buy a full license.

Let's see if you have the BSA in your office and only have upgrades of MSFT licenses, adobe and other companies that participate in the BSA, but no licenses that you upgraded from ...
Right: you'll get slapped with fines (ridiculously high -way above the cost of the software itself-).

Less variety in hardware is what makes the mac platform better than the PC platform, let's not ruin that. Nobody who buys macs wants them to be more unstable and unpredictable.

Macs have always been unstable after long use

Not my experience at all.

I skipped a huge portion of Apple's history as a computer maker. But OS X is what brought me back. Why would you force a company to split off the software from the hardware and sell it separated when it never was offered separate to start with ? The rationale is there -massively- to do that with a company that has a monopoly and abuses it in a market to gain an unfair advantage in another, but apple in no way has a monopoly in computers -software nor hardware-.

As far as upgrades being expensive: there are numerous other (non-PC) hardware vendors who have "outrageous" prices for things like RAM and harddrives. Cisco, Sun, ... etc come to mind.
If you don't like it, then don't buy from them. But not liking prices should not give a right to anybody else to copy your stuff and sell it cheaper.

Economic models that don't allow companies to thrive and make a profit have been tried before, in general they have failed.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 10:21 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)


I can't imagine that any company could build better hardware then a Mac

drinking the kool-aid? Macs now are nothing more then PC hardware wrapped up in apple lipstick. its not tough to put together something faster then what apple ships.

travelin cat

WebmasterWorld Administrator travelin_cat us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 11:32 pm on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Let's please get back to the original subject. I wasn't trying to provide any flamebait with my comment and would appreciate everyone being civil.

CrustyAdmin

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 1:36 am on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)


It is a sad day when yet again the letter of the law overrides common sense and the clear public good

Yeah, laws suck! Let me know your sites so I can scrape them all. Presumably you won't file a DMCA complaint, right?

Remember the resounding success Apple had last time they went the clone route? Or was that cause Jobs left about then too. I don't remember the timeline of events exactly.

ytswy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 12:46 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

The thing is not that Psystar are/were offering better computers (although I'm sure they are cheaper, Apple margins being what they are), but they were offering different ones.

Apple splits its market quite deliberately between its various machines, and doesn't provide certain configurations that people do want.

Example, you want a Mac that you can add eSATA to, or USB 3 when it comes out, then you have to buy a Mac Pro or a 17" MacBook Pro, none of the rest of the current line up have proper expansion slots.

Or you want a Mac with high-end 3D graphics capabilities, but you don't need that much terms of other specifications - you are SOL since you have to buy the Mac Pro which is a full-on workstation and is priced accordingly.

I find it hard to believe that Apple won't prevail simply by the amount of lawyers they can bring to bare, but I do find Apple's predicament somewhat amusing.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 2:47 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

^ they get in their own way.

They kinda have the google mindset when it comes to the configurations of their computers. These our your choices, we think its right and what you want...so it must be right and what you want.

at any rate they wern't stealing the OS or anything, they were BUYING real versions of all the software but i guess mac says you can only install it on hardware blessed by steve jobs.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:00 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

hey wern't stealing the OS or anything, they were BUYING real versions of all the software

At best they were buying UPGRADES, Apple simply doesn't sell anything but upgrades (since all Macs come with an original license).

ytswy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:23 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

At best they were buying UPGRADES, Apple simply doesn't sell anything but upgrades (since all Macs come with an original license).

Are you sure about that? - I know that Apple are currently (as they usually do after the release of a new OS) selling cheap upgrade disks that allow you to upgrade from the previous version.

But I thought the full retail version of an Apple OS was just that - the Snow Leopard Mac Box Set [store.apple.com] would be the current incarnation, although this comes with the latest iApps as well as a full version of Snow Leopard (that will clean install on any Intel based Mac).

I thought the issue was regarding the EULA that states the software can only be installed on Apple-approved hardware, although I admit I've not been following this case closely.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:41 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

The link to the apple store there: see the description:
Upgrade your Mac with the latest versions of your Apple software
My emphasis.

Even if they did not use that word:
- every new mac comes with a Mac OS license.
- the new Mac OS license says you can only use it on a mac, which inherently already has an old Mac OS license.
- there is technical prevention (which can apparently be defeated) from running it on non-mac computers (something Psystar broke and that'll count as a DMCA violation against them).

Technically it's an upgrade for your license no matter how you represent it.

That you can install from scratch without having to install the prior version doesn't mean you don't have an upgrade license. E.g. Adobe CS4 upgrade: you can install it on a computer that never has run CS3, all you need is the proof you own CS3. With apple's construct that proof is automatic: you own the mac, you own the original license.

Nice , clean, simple. No chart needed to figure out what can be upgraded and what not and exactly what Apple's customers expect from them.

ytswy

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 4:07 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

I can't find a copy of an Apple licence at present, but taking exerts from here [tuaw.com], the full version of the 10.6 box set allows:
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time."

Whereas the 10.6 upgrade licence has this provision:

C. Leopard Upgrade Licenses. If you have purchased an Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited nonexclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer as long as that computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it. If you have purchased a Family Pack Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard license, then subject to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-branded computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household (as defined above), are used by persons who occupy that same household, and each such computer has a properly licensed copy of Mac OS X Leopard already installed on it. The Family Pack Upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard License does not extend to business or commercial users."

Taking the principle that "the exception proves the rule" if Apple specifically state for their upgrade licences that it is an upgrade, this presumably means that the full version is a full version, and it is the Apple-branded computer phrase that is relevant.

Sorry to nitpick, I'm not saying that this magically makes Psystar's behaviour legitimate or anything; I can't see them getting around the "Apple-branded computer" wording, but AFAIK the upgrade thing is not part of it.

mack

WebmasterWorld Administrator mack us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 12:46 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

I can see where Apple are coming from. By limiting the hardware options they are improving the end user experience. There is little or no chance of a hardware component causing undesirable effects because everything has been tested.

The topic of the eula brought back a funny memory. When I installed Safari for Windows. The eula stated it may be installed "only on an Apple branded machine." The blogsphere where quick to pick up on this and Apple soon reworded the agreement.

Dell where in talks with Apple for a while trying to come to an agreement that would allow them to ship pc systems running osx, this never happened.

I don't see apple as a software company I view them as a system manufacturer. If They where to simply allow users to install their OS on any hardware there would be very little reason for anyone to buy an Apple.

To me the license is simple. When you buy a MAC you buy the system and the OS. The OS is for the machine you have bought so from that point on you are only purchasing upgrades. The upgrades can only be installed on a machine running an apple OS.

Any non apple system would not have a license for the software in the first place so any installed OS upgrading would not be legal according to the eula.

I wonder just how legaly binding an eula is.

Mack.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 4:48 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

I 100% see where mac is coming from but ugh!

I grew up with being able to install windows and linux on whatever I could make it work on...then this apple comapny is so backwards to that. yuck

willybfriendly

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 5:11 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Frankly, I am not sure how Apple has kept this model all these years. It goes way back, and any number of other companies simply folded under the weight of the IBM PC architecture.

How many of us cut our teeth writing BASIC programs on a C-64 or Tandy? How many used and Amiga (an awesome machine for its time)?

While I will readily admit I have not spent much time on an Apple for a long, long time, it was the inflexibility of the system offerings that led me to the PC platform all those many years ago.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 5:29 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

the only reason we speak of apple today is because of small devices like the IPOD or ITOUCH or IPHONE.

that was really where apple got some public attention, if they never went down that route who knows where they would be now. Seems now apple has focused on small cheap hardware instead of expensive (overpriced) computer hardware for their $$$$$$$$

mack

WebmasterWorld Administrator mack us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 9:00 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Apple always had a following. Had they not gone down the ipod road I think they would still be around, perhaps not not such a big company, but still with us.

Apple has always had 2 things going for it. Design and build quality. The components themselves aren't different as opposed to pc hardware. But apple computers always been put together a lot better.

Mack.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:35 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

yes they'd still be around but we wouldn't see annoying apple ads on TV all the time.

commanderW

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 12:44 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think it's interesting that Apple encourages users to run windows on the new Intel PC's, but sues people for running OS X on other companies computers.

I don't care what the law says. what is moral? what is rational? What is just? (laws having little or nothing to do with any of those things.)

I also think it's interesting that Microsoft got slammed for forcing buyers to buy systems bundled with IE (or some such thing), lost a suit in the EU over it, and was widely excoriated for being anti-competetive and violating anti-trust laws. How is this kind of infraction any less when Apple ties their hardware to their software?

I have an Apple. It's the only computer I've ever used. That doesn't mean I like this attitude. Apple is wrong. Morally wrong and logically wrong. On this or any other planet.

Leosghost

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 1:28 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

Interestingly in France the sale of a computer bundled ( pre-installed ) with software is actually technically illegal ..

Cases have been brought before the courts where people have bought PC's ( primarily laptops ) pre-installed with windows ..and have then asked for the windows to be removed and for a rebate ..the retailers refused the rebate ..it went to court ..the customers won ..

"vente fore" .."forced sale" .."bundling" is illegal in France ..you can split " double packs" etc and pay single unit price ..

EU consumer law is similar ..

Never heard of a case involving a mac though ..but if it happened then precedent would suggest that the customer would win ..

However no doubt Apple would continue to bundle their OS to macs ..just as 999 out of 1000 desktops and laptops sold here are still pre-installed with some flavour of doze..against the law ..

Reminds me of mobile phones and exclusive operator deals ..illegal under the same laws ..still goes on ..seems the judges and the ministries listen more to the "bundlers" than to their own citizens ..maybe it's the corruption ..oops!.. sorry , I must have meant "lobbying" ;) that speaks louder than the law ..everywhere ..

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:57 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)


I think it's interesting that Apple encourages users to run windows on the new Intel PC's, but sues people for running OS X on other companies computers.

logic - how can we make macs more compatible? OH yea now that we are using PC hardware we can just have people dual boot windows or run a windows VM, now we've got all bases covered!"

would be funny if windows made it illegal for their OS to run on a MAC. but they would never do that. And that actually could have been behind the reason they went with PC hardware.

atleast before macs really were different, once they switched to PC hardware they became 50% lame to 100% lame and pointless.

J_RaD

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 3:59 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)


"vente fore" .."forced sale" .."bundling" is illegal in France

wow french people must be very smart and love installing a new OS 1st thing when they get their new computer.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 9:47 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

I also think it's interesting that Microsoft got slammed for forcing buyers to buy systems bundled with IE (or some such thing), lost a suit in the EU over it, and was widely excoriated for being anti-competetive and violating anti-trust laws. How is this kind of infraction any less when Apple ties their hardware to their software?

Microsoft gets slammed for abusing their existing monopoly in OSes to gain unfair advantages in markets such as browsers, music players and the like where they kill the competition by "giving" away their stuff for "free", by installing their stuff along with windows etc.

Apple's got no monopoly in computers, hence nothing to worry about from that angle.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 4025079 posted 9:58 am on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)

OH yea now that we are using PC hardware we can just have people dual boot windows or run a windows VM,

Microsoft used to sell (quite expensive as well) Virtual PC for Macs using a PowerPC CPU. The shift from PowerPC to intel CPUs does not have a drive from the angle to be able to run the few window applications that people still feel a need to, it's been possible for a long while.
The problem with PowerPC is mainly that development stalled and e.g. getting a high performance low power using CPU was troublesome (no G5 for laptops hurt Apple)
It does mean we're stuck with that intel architecture and the resulting mono-culture that's seriously dangerous.

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / WebmasterWorld / The Macintosh Webmaster
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved