Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar
In a crushing defeat for the clone Mac maker, Psystar was on the losing end of a crucial court decision in the company's ongoing legal battle with Apple.
Judge William Alsup ruled this week in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the Florida corporation. In addition, Psystar was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware.
"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."
Alsup also denied Psystar's own motion for summary judgment, in which the company attempted to prove that Apple engaged in copyright misuse. The judge ruled that Apple's End User License Agreement only attempts to control use of Apple's own software, which is within its rights.
The summary judgment does not mean that the trial is concluded, however. A number of issues remain to be resolved. Apple has alleged that Psystar has engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among other activities.
The ruling was issued Nov. 13 in a San Francisco court. Another hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14, and trial between the two companies is due to start in January 2010.
The decision came after both companies requested summary judgments, which turned into a positive for Apple and a significant defeat for Psystar.
It's just the latest of many setbacks for Psystar as it has attempted to defend itself from Apple's suit. In September, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.
The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- in October began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
Judge William Alsup ruled this week in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the Florida corporation. In addition, Psystar was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware.
"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."
Alsup also denied Psystar's own motion for summary judgment, in which the company attempted to prove that Apple engaged in copyright misuse. The judge ruled that Apple's End User License Agreement only attempts to control use of Apple's own software, which is within its rights.
The summary judgment does not mean that the trial is concluded, however. A number of issues remain to be resolved. Apple has alleged that Psystar has engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among other activities.
The ruling was issued Nov. 13 in a San Francisco court. Another hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14, and trial between the two companies is due to start in January 2010.
The decision came after both companies requested summary judgments, which turned into a positive for Apple and a significant defeat for Psystar.
It's just the latest of many setbacks for Psystar as it has attempted to defend itself from Apple's suit. In September, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.
The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- in October began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
Comments
Further details:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/23047/
"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled 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," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.
"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," Wildstrom reports. "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."
Wildstrom reports, "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."
---------------------
That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
Adios, losers.
Further details:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/23047/
"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled 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," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.
"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," Wildstrom reports. "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."
Wildstrom reports, "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."
---------------------
That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
All I can say is:
F*** YOU, stupid Psystar pirates. And of course, a big F*** YOU to all you morons who bought Psystar products against Apple's continued investments in R&D and innovation...it's an exemplary judgement to block all such hackers from freeriding on someone else's efforts...now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!
All I can say is:
now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!
Important point:
It is just the latest in a long string of rulings upholding EULAs
EULAs are there for a reason. They aren't there for fun and games. The manufacturer kinda takes them seriously, and when it comes down to legality (nothwithstanding indiivduals who get away with violating them) the courts do as well.
"Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
I can't wait either!
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
They're essentially shysters outside of the matters at issue as well, which couldn't have helped their cause.
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment
they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
these psystar losers should take a cue or two from microsoft which have stolen and keep stealing from apple, but at least in a different way
as others wonder, i too wonder who's backing psystar on the down low?
Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment
Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?
So, when a party is filing a Motion for Summary Judgement it is saying to the Court that the relevant facts are known (e.g. because of Discovery) and accordingly there is no need for a trial on these issues. If the Court agrees with the moving party that the relevant facts are known, the Court can make a decision as to liability on those issues without there being a trial. The purpose of filing a Motion for Summary Judgement is for a party to avoid an unnecessary and expensive trial.
Successful Summary Judgement motions are rare. This ruling is huge for Apple. The judge has essentially ruled that Psystar is liable for copyright infringement. There still may be a trial, but it will be for more minor complaints from Apple, not Apple's copyright complaints. Further, if Psystar is in business, there still may be a trial on Psystar's complaint against Apple as well. The Court did not rule in favor of Psystar's Motion for Summary Judgement, so it has to have a trail to prove it's case there.
Interestingly enough Psystar will likely be liable relatively soon to Apple for millions of dollars. This ruling only applies to Leopard though, and not Snow Leopard because the Court wouldn't combine the two issues (silly really). So, technically if Apple can't get an injunction against Psystar for Snow Leopard, Psystar can keep selling it.
Can somebody explain me this:
Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!
Over at MacObserver "Bosco" is attempting to defend Psystar but is being creamed by seemingly far more knowledgeable opponents.
I'm no lawyer, but I have never understood Psystar's case. It just seems so specious.
I suspect both Apple and Psystar will drop it's remaining Complaints unless there really are deep pockets funding this operation.
Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
I don't claim to have any insider information, but I suspect that we will see some very familiar names on that list.
Over at MacObserver "Bosco" is attempting to defend Psystar but is being creamed by seemingly far more knowledgeable opponents.
I'm no lawyer, but I have never understood Psystar's case. It just seems so specious.
If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.
That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.