Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Thursday Psystar officially filed a notice of appeal regarding the permanent injunction against the company prohibiting it from selling hardware with Apple's operating system.



According to official court documents, Psystar filed a appeal on Friday regarding the permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup which prohibited the company from selling hardware able to run the Mac OS X operating system.



The injunction was issued following a lawsuit leveled at Psystar by Apple on grounds of copyright infringement in July of 2008. Psystar unsuccessfully countersued, accusing Apple of using anti-competitive tactics to unfairly squeeze out possible rivals.



In early December of 2009, Psystar had agreed to pay Apple a $2.7 million partial settlement. The injunction soon followed, effectively ending Psystar's business.



Despite claims that the company was giving up and closing its doors, Psystar's lawyers reiterated the fact that it would remain a company and would continue to fight. The company currently still has a website, although the only product offered is a t-shirt with the slogan "I sued Psystar ? and all I got was a lousy injunction" written on it. Donations are also encouraged in the amounts of $20, $50, or $100.



Since Dec. 22, Psystar had "temporarily" halted sales of its Rebel EFI software, an application that allows Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, due to the fact that the original ruling was not clear about the legality of the software.



On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.



"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 131
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,255member
    Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit. And to solicit donations from the public to help them mount a defense for this appeal, just plain ridiculous.
  • Reply 2 of 131
    Go Psystar!!!
  • Reply 3 of 131
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post


    Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit. And to solicit donations from the public to help them mount a defense for this appeal, just plain ridiculous.



    yep. the laws are pretty clear. Apple is NOT a monopoly and regardless of an EULA etc, has the right to tie their software. Psystar needs to get over it.



    but this is my fav part



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Since Dec. 22, Psystar had "temporarily" halted sales of its Rebel EFI software, an application that allows Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, due to the fact that the original ruling was not clear about the legality of the software.





    The injunction clearly states that Psystar can not give away or sell anything that allows or assists in the unapproved installation of the Mac OS software.



    so how is the legality of Rebel EFI unclear, given that that is exactly what it does.
  • Reply 4 of 131
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Want the OS X look without OS X?



    Install Ubuntu Linux and the Mac4lin theme.





    http://images.howtoforge.com/images/..._m2ad3b0cf.jpg





    There is even a OS X theme for Firefox, for Windows.





    Several minutes and your done.





    If you want OS X on your PC and don't have RebelEFI, get the original open source EmpireEFI.





    But fair warning, OS X on a Mac is a much nicer experience.
  • Reply 5 of 131
    Who is (are) funding this company? Where does the money come from because from sales, I doubt they had earned enough to pay the lawyers. Specially that this kind of litigations are super expensive so, I guess they have a "dark angel" pushing for this.
  • Reply 6 of 131
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MiamiJAG View Post


    Who is (are) funding this company? Where does the money come from because from sales, I doubt they had earned enough to pay the lawyers. Specially that this kind of litigations are super expensive so, I guess they have a "dark angel" pushing for this.



    This will go no where. I don't think any judge will be invalidating software licenses any time soon. Psystar seems to lack the basic understanding that they don't 'own' OS X. They own a license.



    Now they are just wasting more tax payer money.
  • Reply 7 of 131
    Hobbyists have been bending rules for forever. For cars it is put someone else's engine in someone else's chassis (ie. VW engine into a Porche chassis.)

    But I don't know anyone who makes a business out of it with todays models.
  • Reply 8 of 131
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ..."A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."



    (To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.



    Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."
  • Reply 9 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    (To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.



    Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."



    Well put!!!
  • Reply 10 of 131
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.



    "A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."



    Um no, it's not your right to "Use that software as you see fit," technically, you DO NOT OWN that software, you are paying for the right to use that software as the publisher see's fit..



    And they are right.. Apple cannot forbid the user from using their software in a bathroom if you're using it on and Apple system, but they can (and they have) forbid you to use that software in the bathroom if it was installed on someone else's system (Psystar) who is trying to make a profit off of Apple's intellectual property.. Big difference..
  • Reply 11 of 131
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    (To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.



    Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."





    Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...





    Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.



    Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.



    Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.



    Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".



    Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.



    Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.



    But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.



    Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".



    With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.



    So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.



    Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.
  • Reply 12 of 131
    Psystar.....what a bunch of losers. Trying ride the coat-tails of Apple. Just swallow some rat poison and go away! You guys aren't contributing anything to the computer marketplace.
  • Reply 13 of 131
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    It's your software



    Those three words pretty much sum up how ignorant Psystar and their lawyers truly are.



    Actually, I'm sure their lawyers already know how stupid and fruitless their argument is, but they must have some reason for agreeing to continue representing them... money (from where), fame (infamy)?
  • Reply 14 of 131
    Psystar are freedom fighters. I bow my head before them. I think you should consider donating to their cause instead of donating to Red Cross for Haiti.
  • Reply 15 of 131
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.



    Ah, that explains everything!
  • Reply 16 of 131
    You can't fix Stupid.
  • Reply 17 of 131
    Even though I'm happy with my MBP, I applaud Psystar. You can't just put what you like in an EULA and assume that that makes it legal. What if Microsoft had stated in their EULA that you had to accept IE as the default browser? They're making the product -- they have the right to determine what's in it and control the experience. You have the option to buy it and agree to the EULA, or not buy it and go get something else.
  • Reply 18 of 131
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member
    Vampires - zombies - Psystar. Now we have the digital undead.
  • Reply 19 of 131
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,157member
    I don't know why some people still defend Psystar. The court ruling is clear and Psystar cannot do what they've been doing.
  • Reply 20 of 131
    So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
Sign In or Register to comment.