Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense

[AppleInsider]

Now close to once again fighting Apple in court, Mac clone maker Psystar has brought on a new legal team and has even begun steps to publish much of its knowledge about Mac OS X clones.

The small PC builder on Monday was granted permission in a Northern District of California civil court to replace its existing legal team with the law firm of Camara & Sibley, a normally Houston-based team that required a pro hac vice order to operate outside of its normal jurisdiction.

Why it's choosing new lawyers at this stage isn't fully evident. When it first mounted its defense, Psystar had gone out of its way to seek a legal team that had previously defeated Apple and which was an expert in intellectual property. Since then, however, the attorneys have had their counterclaims against Apple dismissed and were left in limbo when Psystar went into bankruptcy, putting a hold on the case until Apple had a stay on the case dismissed. Whether or not Psystar's previously non-payable debt contributed to the switch in lawyers is equally uncertain.

Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.

Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.

"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."

[bloggerblog]

A conspiracy to bring down Apple. I wonder if Apple is going to expose the involved conspirators anytime soon.

[eksodos]

They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?

[IYFCalvin]

Relying on a new set of lawyers is one thing, but to beat Apple on their protection of IP using public support won't work. The whole world is against the RIAA and their fight to protect copyright and they have yet to lose in court.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.

That already exists and it’s where Psystar got their information for starting their sham of a business in the first place.

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

[Quadra 610]

http://community.psystar.com/in-comes-the-cavalry/

Psystar has issued a statement on their website. Here it is verbatim:

Psystar has always been more a Cowboy than a Hippie. Now we’ve changed lawyers to better reflect who we are. Camara & Sibley LLP of Houston, Texas, has officially become our primary legal counsel in our ongoing litigation with Apple.

Everyone here values openness. And that’s how we’re going to fight Apple: in public. We have nothing to hide. We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. We’re probably one of Apple’s biggest customers. Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. That’s it.

Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple can’t tell an applications developer that it can’t make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can’t forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can’t tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.

A new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010, in federal court in San Francisco. As we move toward trial, we’ll be keeping you informed about the arguments, the evidence, and what’s going on in the case. And, come January, Camara & Sibley will be ready to fight for Psystar, guns blazin’. We hope to see you there!


A couple of things:

1) What happened to your other lawyers? Did you PAY them or not? Isn't THAT why you had to find new lawyers??

2) "Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy."

Just don't tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.

Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.

Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid. Yes, morons, it DOES give Apple the right, and everyone else the right under the same laws Apple is subject to.

What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by IYFCalvin

Relying on a new set of lawyers is one thing, but to beat Apple on their protection of IP using public support won't work. The whole world is against the RIAA and their fight to protect copyright and they have yet to lose in court.

Exactly.

And relying on public support?

LOL, right. Because Psystar is making crazy sales and their fake Macs are just flying off the shelves, right?

When in fact in a RECESSION, Apple can barely keep up with MBP demand.

Psystar is living in some alternate reality where people actually want the garbage they peddle.

[QRM]

Originally Posted by eksodos

They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?

So, one might presume, they have only sold "hundreds" of Open computers...despite having been in business for how long? One is tempted to determine the likely profit margin based on the components, etc, and the retail cost of OS X 10.5...


Having said all of this, I must still wonder why Apple has not simply found a way to prevent Psystar from actually buying Leopard in the first place...and therefore being able to add software piracy to the list of complaints...

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by QRM

So, one might presume, they have only sold "hundreds" of Open computers...despite having been in business for how long? One is tempted to determine the likely profit margin based on the components, etc, and the retail cost of OS X 10.5...


Having said all of this, I must still wonder why Apple has not simply found a way to prevent Psystar from actually buying Leopard in the first place...and therefore being able to add software piracy to the list of complaints...

Well, Psystar couldn't produce any receipts . . .

I'm not sure they even had accounting of any kind, LOL.

[abrooks]

Welcome to two weeks ago, some good analysis as well - http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...-new-law-firm/

[SpamSandwich]

Psystar, prepare to spend the rest of your lives in court.

[MJ Web]

One for the rumor mill.

[bobertoq]

Psystar is wrong for violating Apple's EULA. Apple is wrong for having a potentially anti-competitive EULA.

[Dr Millmoss]

Interesting, but this firm's web site implies that they have offices in Texas, Florida, and 11 other states -- but only two partners. Also, some insight from Mac Observer...

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...against_apple/

Originally Posted by bobertoq

Psystar is wrong for violating Apple's EULA. Apple is wrong for having a potentially anti-competitive EULA.

This has nothing to do with the EULA.

[djsherly]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.

It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.

They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.

[bobertoq]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

This has nothing to do with the EULA.

What is Psystar in court for, then?

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by djsherly

It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.

A dubious proposition. It's in the Constitution, fer crissakes.

They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.

The license is not relevant.

[Dr Millmoss]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

What is Psystar in court for, then?

For violating Apple's IP rights and trading on their copyrights. Only Apple has the right to sell Macintosh computers. Neither the software nor the hardware alone is a Macintosh, only the two in combination are.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

What is Psystar in court for, then?

Do you not realize that EULA stands for End User License Agreement and that Psystar is not the end user, they are an unauthorized vendor of Apple’s IP? Do you not realize that Dell, HP and all the big name PC vendors would love to get ahold of a license from Apple to make Mac clones, but don’t because Apple will not allow it? Do you not see that altering IP and copying the code without permission (which is required to get it from the disc to the harddrive after you agree that you the end user, thus not a vendor) is a violation of patents and copyrights?

The EULA should not ever be mentioned in this case as it’s the least meaningful aspect of this whole debacle.

[Stormchild]

Boring.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by eksodos

They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?

so they claim. but they can't prove it. so the veil that perhaps they lifted the copies they were using is going to be on the case. and no judge's instructions is going to get rid of it

Originally Posted by IYFCalvin

Relying on a new set of lawyers is one thing,

why am i thinking they changed lawyers cause the last bunch told them that they were going to lose. and they didn't like that.

Originally Posted by bobertoq

Psystar is wrong for violating Apple's EULA. Apple is wrong for having a potentially anti-competitive EULA.

Originally Posted by bobertoq

What is Psystar in court for, then?

the EULA has not been tossed out by a court so it is still a valid device. as for the anti-compet charge which Psystar tried to use originally. it has been tossed. The courts deemed that Psystar mis labeled the market as Macintosh Computers when in fact the market is Personal Computers. And Apple's lack of a significant market share makes the tying of hardware and software not abusive and therefore Apple could continue to restrict the 'copying' of the software (via installation on a computer) to only the systems of their choosing.

Since that restriction has been validated, Psystar's little 'driver' (or whatever you wish to call it) is now a technology for the circumvention of a copyright and therefore a violation of the DCMA. as would their little wiki be. in other words, they are just making it easier for Apple to hang them. if they were smart they would stop until they have the stamp of approval and Apple can't stop them.

Originally Posted by Stormchild

Boring.

oh I don't know, some folks enjoy watching a pinned mouse squirm.

[mrparet]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

http://community.psystar.com/in-comes-the-cavalry/

Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy.

Isn't that the definition of a copyright?

On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.

[Lokheed]

Originally Posted by abrooks

Welcome to two weeks ago, some good analysis as well - http://news.worldofapple.com/archive...-new-law-firm/

I suppose "good" being open to interpretation. The new lawyers were granted a pro hac vice to work on the case. There is no chance it is ever going to Texas. So having idiots sit on the bench, passing IP rulings like candy (or guns) isn't in the cards, sorry.

Camara & Sibley were most likely brought on because they are good at muddling the issue. Turning facts and techno-jargon into human speak may be the only case Psystar has about now. Nothing short of sheer desperation as they turn this case into a "Goliath and the Giant" mockery, making the public believe they are preventing the onslaught of a day were 1+1 = Coke.

I think this farce has gone on long enough...

[Quadra 610]

Just look at Psystar's "statement." You can't get much more immature and unprofessional than that.

[aaarrrgggh]

Is that the defense attorney from the RIAA's huge victory against a filesharer?

[lightstriker]

Originally Posted by mrparet

Isn't that the definition of a copyright?

On a side note, this entire case is Psystar saying that they can buy a car, put their own logo on it, and resell it. Yes? I have no legal education (it probably shows), but this entire case is undeniably bogus.

No! Putting their own logo on it would be misrepresentation, which is fraud. I have no legal education either but common sense say its bogus. Psystar is using legal delay.

[tawilson]

Originally Posted by djsherly

Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license?

It's both, as Apple is selling a license. The sooner all the idiots understand that the better. It has always been the case with commercial software.

What the hell is so difficult about this for people to understand?

[zeromeus]

I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.

All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by zeromeus

I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.

All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.

with some PC hardware you can install OS X without any hacks. there is a nice database for people that build themselves which motherboards are the most stable, and a few dell laptops take OS X as if they were Apple laptops

[melgross]

Originally Posted by tawilson

It's both, as Apple is selling a license. The sooner all the idiots understand that the better. It has always been the case with commercial software.

What the hell is so difficult about this for people to understand?

That's not the correct word either.

The correct term is "granting", not "selling".

Selling is a final act of release by the seller to the purchaser. You can't sell a license because you can take it back if the terms aren't being followed.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by zeromeus

I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.

All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.

No. Any act that leads to copyright violation is prosecutable. It's a civil matter, UNLESS, and this is important, the act rises to criminal activity if a large number of violations occur, and profit is being made from that.

[jetlaw]

This really isn't a question of public support, it is a question of law. Copyright law embraces the concept of derivative works, which is why the "fair use" defense exists as it does. Clearly what Psystar is doing is not fair use, and as such, Apple has the legal right to defend its IP. While it may be easy to make vapid claims that by asserting its legal rights that Apple is being "anti-competitive," it seems quite clear that Apple's biggest competitor, MS is a victim of its own success, and that Apple capitalizes on the closed-nature of its hardware-software relationship. To this end, stripping Apple of the IP protections it is entitled to by its copyrights would undermine its entire business strategy and expose the reputation of OSX to the same perils that have faced Windows for years, but without giving Apple the benefits of ubiquity that itsRedmond counterparts have enjoyed. Thus, if Psystar wishes to make financial gains by offering a computer that uses stable, reliable, and predicable operating system like OSX, it should either acquire the legal right to do so, or develop its own just as Apple had to do. Competition is not defined as letting every conceivable competitor have free reign over your IP. The goal of competition is to encourage innovation, and when looked at comparatively, I doubt very much that Pystar could be considered by anyone to be a genuine innovator when compared to Apple. If our country kowtows to thieves, there will be no incentive left for legitimate firms to innovate, and our global technological superiority will surely falter. If Apple is leading the pack in innovation, they should reap the rewards...Period.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by zeromeus

I'd say instead of messing with Apple, Psystar can just make their hack into a software and sell it in the stores like any other software. For example: VM Ware allows a user to use Windows on a Mac as does Parallel. Bootcamp allows users to install Windows on a Mac to use as if it's a PC.

All Psystar needs to do to NOT having to violate the EULA is to NOT install OSX at all! Just sell the codes as a software that allows OSX to be installed on ANY PC... much like a driver! That way, they don't even have to touch OSX. Heck, just sell the computer with the codes/hacks pre-installed! Then the End User would just buy their own copy of OSX and install it themselves.

You'll run into the same issues.

[Ranguvar]

@zeromeus: Not as bad an idea as that initially sounds, but I think it would be too difficult for them to create a somewhat user-friendly way of doing it. Also, I can't help but think Psystar may have some money from other PC manufacturers behind them, using them as a guinea pig... if by some miracle Psystar wins and is allowed to manufacture Hackintoshes, you can bet all your Apple stock that Dell, HP, et. all will be right behind. And I believe that will _kill_ Apple, because Apple is entirely focused on creating a "closed garden". I'd rather not get into that in the middle of this discussion, though, so I'll stop my reasoning there.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

A couple of things:

<snip>

2) "Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy."

Just don't tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.

Technically it's not the copyright that does this (not really), but the EULA. But even in that case, the EULA is a pile of smelly feces. You're telling me it's impossible to make money selling software without having ultimate control over how people use your product? I don't think Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun..... got the memo. At least not for many of their products, which employ a comparatively lax copyleft, or a permissive license. Imagine a world where you can sell an honest product, without force-feeding your customers and nailing them to your EULA...

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.

I beg to differ. The sooner as I can stop selling my soul to "All rights reserved" documents, the better (and it's already pretty close... the BIOS, Flash, and NVIDIA are some of the few remaining blockers, for me at least).

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid. Yes, morons, it DOES give Apple the right, and everyone else the right under the same laws Apple is subject to.

Legal right, yes, moral right, hell no.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.

Hey, if they did, I'd celebrate (sadly, they will not). Copyright ("Intellectual Property") was better in the beginning -- as limited incentive to promote business. Not as the 800-pound bloated gorilla used to exert complete control over the use of products.


To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business. "Nobody cares about moral rights, this is about legality!" you say... morality is the basis for all other regulation, or should be at least. I do NOT deny that Psystar is in the legal wrong, and I also don't particularly like Psystar. That said, me and Apple get along worse, and the more their walled garden crumbles, the better. And one other thing, because I know someone will bring it up: I DO believe that programmers should receive fair compensation for their work. Apple is, in this case. They just want to make sure they can lock MacOS to the Mac, and create greater vertical integration (Carnegie would be proud) -- incidentally, the same way they are trying to lock iTunes to the iPod. Bolting everything together.

Eh, I went off-topic partially... apologies.

@djsherley: Companies are trying to convert everything to licensing now, which is very sad... that way, they always get to claim: "You don't own OS X! You own a license to use it in the manner which we specify. Don't worry, we'll make sure that you can use it to full effect... say, with all our other products we happen to make! Just don't try putting this together with a *gasp* competitor's product." If the Information Age continues like this, we'll end up owning nothing but licenses that would take a platoon of lawyers years to decipher and formally conclude how little we actually own.
And on the innovation bit, that line is very true... when copyright used to be a very short time to encourage production of works, and now is anywhere between fifty and a hundred years. Have fun producing new and worthy products not based at all on anything in the last 50-100 years... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90621124054133


Just to cite that bit of the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Remember, people! Copyright was created to incite business to work MORE, for YOU! It is NOT a God-given right of ownership over thoughts and other extra-physical concepts!

[>_>]

I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.

... but ....

I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.

I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.

The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.

- Xid

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by >_>

I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.

... but ....

I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.

I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.

The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.

- Xid

Apple already have competition, they are called Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, and the list go on. You don't have to sell computers with Mac OS to compete with Apple. Furthermore, unlike other computer manufacturer Apple is facing the most competition since they have to compete in both hardware and software.

[canucklehead]

These dirtbags know they can't win and are 1. dragging this on as long as they can, and 2. just making trouble for Apple because they know they can't win... just like an immature child who was reprimanded for doing something bad and starts doing something else that's annoying to "get back" at the parents. Squash these parasites already!

[djsherly]

Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss

A dubious proposition. It's in the Constitution, fer crissakes.

I think a world existed before the constitution. Which is not my constitution, as it happens.

The license is not relevant.

I think it is. It the product is sold, then Apple really don't get to say what you can do with it (as MelGross points out, it's the final act of release). With a licence, you are required to adhere to the terms of the grant or the license can be revoked. How can Apple ever realistically watch all x million of its licensees and revoke grants when the license terms are violated? They can't. Does that figure in whether something is a license or a sale? I don't know. That's all I'm saying.

[Ranguvar]

Originally Posted by canucklehead

These dirtbags know they can't win and are 1. dragging this on as long as they can, and 2. just making trouble for Apple because they know they can't win... just like an immature child who was reprimanded for doing something bad and starts doing something else that's annoying to "get back" at the parents. Squash these parasites already!

...the company who everyone is surprised managed to have the cash to last _this_ long is "dragging this on as long as they can"? Err... if anyone wants to draw things out, it's Apple, who's easiest tactic would be to drown Psystar in legal fees and then laugh while Psystar bankrupts (which they already did once...), unable to get even a ruling.

And the flaw in your 'analogy' would be that their has been no reprimanding... only Apple saying "Mine!" (and Apple is no parent to Psystar, and has no right to control it IMHO in this situation).

@>_>: Exactly. Competition == good. Example being, I like Google as a company far more than MS, but some competition from Bing wouldn't hurt at all. Forcibly limiting competition through legal means == bad (more or less).

[wraithofwonder]

Originally Posted by djsherly

... if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.

Oh, I get it, it's a bunny rabbit, isn't it?