It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.
They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.
Psystar is in trouble about the dongle already.
They are claiming it's their code, but it's been shown that it's open source code under a license (what isn't?). Because they're selling, and stripped the license notices, and some additional code away, they're in violation of those licenses as well. They can, and may be sued for that.
It's interesting to note that code that accomplishes an illegal act may be licensed if it isn't actually being used. It's a complex process.
This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.
A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:
Quote:
Apple has also asserted the following claims, which remain for trial: (1) breach of contract; (2) induced breach of contract, (3) trademark infringement; (4) trademark dilution; (5) trade dress infringement; and (6) state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (7) common law unfair competition.
The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.
A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:
The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.
It's very likely that most of those arguments will fall in Apple's favor as well.
If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.
But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.
Psystar's continuous "losing" of all their financial record's, miraculously rising from bankruptcy and other flaunting of U.S. financial laws would seem to indicate otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
I said that judges granting motions for summary judgement are generally rare. This is a subjective statement based on my experience and rare might be too strong a word. Perhaps, saying it is more probable that the motion will be denied then granted is more accurate. I would agree, however, that trials are rare (especially in civil matters). It isn't usually because Motions for Summary Judgement are normally granted though, but instead because most cases are settled before trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajr
Just to clarify:
It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.
With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
Quote:
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
(United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
You are talking about the general right to a copyright that is written in the constitution. It doesnt take a Amendment to modify or overturn an individual copyright. People and companies sue each other all the time over copyright disputes in federal court. Like whats happening in this case.
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
A judge can strike down any law for being unconstitutional, or overly broad, or contradictory, etc. That ruling would hold within the judge's jurisdiction unless and until a higher court rules differently on appeal.
It's theoretically possible a federal judge could rule certain kinds of copyrights illegal. Of course that ruling would undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would have final say. (This is not going to happen, but it's theoretically possible).
Any law is subject to rulings by the courts. The challenge to the law must come from someone who has been harmed by it.
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
No. A Judge can declare that an individual law doesn't meet Constitutional requirements. But only Congress can make laws changing copyright.
But, and the point I thought I was making in an easy to understand statement, is that to overturn copyright, in other words eliminate the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, Congress would have to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
You are talking about the general right to a copyright that is written in the constitution. It doesnt take a Amendment to modify or overturn an individual copyright. People and companies sue each other all the time over copyright disputes in federal court. Like whats happening in this case.
You people are misunderstanding what I was saying in the first instance.
There are two areas here.
One is an individual law about copyright, which only Congress can promulgate, modify, or negate, and the Copyright Clause in the Constitution itself, which can only be eliminated or modified by a Constitutional Amendment.
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
You people are misunderstanding what I was saying in the first instance.
There are two areas here.
One is an individual law about copyright, which only Congress can promulgate, modify, or negate, and the Copyright Clause in the Constitution itself, which can only be eliminated or modified by a Constitutional Amendment.
You're correct I did read your first statement that way. You're correct about the Copyright in the Constitution what would take an Amendment. I didn't realize thats what you were trying to say.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
You can't just blame Apple for this. If you track the PC sites, the same thing happens. Every time MS has a new version of the OS, boards don't work, they are slow, etc.
When companies come out with new boards, the drivers are screwy for months at a time. Old boards don't work in new machines. New boards don't work in old machines.
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required. This is a good ruling for anyone who makes their living from their intellectual creations.
Comments
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this dongle that Psystar is selling. From today's ruling, it is also clearly illegal, but knowing the idiots at Psystar, they'll continue trying to sell it and Apple will have to go after them again.
They would still be a contributory infringer. Anyone who takes action to encourage others to violate a copyright is a contributory infringer. I'll bet $100 that simply selling the dongles that they now offer is sufficient to make them a contributory infringer.
Psystar is in trouble about the dongle already.
They are claiming it's their code, but it's been shown that it's open source code under a license (what isn't?). Because they're selling, and stripped the license notices, and some additional code away, they're in violation of those licenses as well. They can, and may be sued for that.
It's interesting to note that code that accomplishes an illegal act may be licensed if it isn't actually being used. It's a complex process.
This one was a no-brainer. If the judge had ruled in Psystar's favor, copyright laws would essentially have ceased to exist.
A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:
Apple has also asserted the following claims, which remain for trial: (1) breach of contract; (2) induced breach of contract, (3) trademark infringement; (4) trademark dilution; (5) trade dress infringement; and (6) state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and (7) common law unfair competition.
The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.
A fair summary of what I've been saying all along, but I'm not sure the current summary judgement goes quite that far. It seems to rule only on the license and first sale issues. Note according to the judgement:
The other thing I've been saying all along is that even if there were no software license involved, Psystar has big problems with copyright and trademark infringement. As their original antitrust claim documents in gory detail, they were claiming the right to create a Macintosh compatible computer market. It astonished me that this was at one time their actual defense, since it was so completely damning, but that genie is well out of the bottle now. On the infringement complaints it's going to be virtually impossible for them to claim now that they were not trying to illegally manufacture and sell Mac computers.
It's very likely that most of those arguments will fall in Apple's favor as well.
There is some legal recourse.
If Apple is granted a judgement that requires Psystar to pay them money, for example, and Psystar fails to comply, then Apple can examine the top executives of the company to attempt to find out who the backers of the company are, etc.
But, if the company complies with the judgement, then unless Apple forwards an additional case, they're through.
Thanks for response.
US Constitution and Federal Court System apply to US citizens. Since Psystar is a US 'company' they would be subject to US Courts.
Now if they weren't citizens, didn't pay taxes...
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
Thank John Sculley for this - he made the deal licensing some of Apple technologies to MS...
Just to clarify:
It was said earlier, and it's correct, that a motion for summary judgment is made when a party wishes to stipulate to the facts and let the judge rule as a matter of law on whether the case should go forward. In this case, Apple's summary judgment motion would basically say: even if we view the facts in the light most favorable to Pystar, we STILL win as a matter of law. If all sides' summary judgment motions are dismissed, the case proceeds. Despite what someone else said, grants of summary judgment are not rare. Trials, on the other hand, are extremely rare.
With regard to copyright law, Pystar could not argue that the copyright law is invalid. It's very well entrenched around the world that computer code is protected under copyright law, as it is an "original work" and it is "fixed in a manner that is capable of being perceived." You can decide for yourself whether you think computer object or source code is the same as, say, a novel or a painting (both works for which copyright laws were originally envisioned hundreds of years ago), and thus protected by copyright (as opposed to, say, patent law); but that's not at issue here. For over 25 years courts have held that software is copyrightable, and that won't change anytime soon.
Lastly, in response to an earlier comment, it would not take a constitutional amendment to change copyright law. While you're right that the US Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to enact laws protecting artistic (copyright) and scientific (patent) works for a limited period of time, the actual laws are passed by Congress and can be altered or altogether eliminated at any time.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91114101637997
Gee, until I got to this, I was going to comment that I agree with your entire post.
You apparently didn't read mine carefully enough before you responded to that part.
Therefor, I will quote the relevant part for you:
What does that say?
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
(United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
You are talking about the general right to a copyright that is written in the constitution. It doesnt take a Amendment to modify or overturn an individual copyright. People and companies sue each other all the time over copyright disputes in federal court. Like whats happening in this case.
A judge can't modify the law, his/her job is to issue judgements based on his/her own interpretation of the law for a specific case. The copyright law can only be modified by congress (and maybe the supreme court).
A judge can strike down any law for being unconstitutional, or overly broad, or contradictory, etc. That ruling would hold within the judge's jurisdiction unless and until a higher court rules differently on appeal.
It's theoretically possible a federal judge could rule certain kinds of copyrights illegal. Of course that ruling would undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would have final say. (This is not going to happen, but it's theoretically possible).
Any law is subject to rulings by the courts. The challenge to the law must come from someone who has been harmed by it.
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
No. A Judge can declare that an individual law doesn't meet Constitutional requirements. But only Congress can make laws changing copyright.
But, and the point I thought I was making in an easy to understand statement, is that to overturn copyright, in other words eliminate the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, Congress would have to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
You are talking about the general right to a copyright that is written in the constitution. It doesnt take a Amendment to modify or overturn an individual copyright. People and companies sue each other all the time over copyright disputes in federal court. Like whats happening in this case.
You people are misunderstanding what I was saying in the first instance.
There are two areas here.
One is an individual law about copyright, which only Congress can promulgate, modify, or negate, and the Copyright Clause in the Constitution itself, which can only be eliminated or modified by a Constitutional Amendment.
I wish I could legally run OSX on some decent hardware.
I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
You people are misunderstanding what I was saying in the first instance.
There are two areas here.
One is an individual law about copyright, which only Congress can promulgate, modify, or negate, and the Copyright Clause in the Constitution itself, which can only be eliminated or modified by a Constitutional Amendment.
You're correct I did read your first statement that way. You're correct about the Copyright in the Constitution what would take an Amendment. I didn't realize thats what you were trying to say.
I think it is best for Apple to do something proprietary in the hardware.
I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
You can't just blame Apple for this. If you track the PC sites, the same thing happens. Every time MS has a new version of the OS, boards don't work, they are slow, etc.
When companies come out with new boards, the drivers are screwy for months at a time. Old boards don't work in new machines. New boards don't work in old machines.
This is an industry problem.