Apple had initially sued Psystar for copyright infringement; inducing others to commit copyright infringement; breach of contract; inducing others to commit breach of contract; trademark infringement; trade dress infringement; trademark dilution; and violations of state and common law unfair competition acts.
I have thoroughly read every single filing in this case. I am working on reading all the case law, but since the Judge's Order focused on Twombly, Ikon, Eastman Kodak, and Microsoft, I will start with those.
Quote:
In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
I agree that they downplayed it, but it is not true that they are not suing for breach of contract, and in fact, this breach is a major prong in the Judge's decision.
The only difference between an "upgrade" disk and a "full" install disk is the need to prove a previous OSX license with the upgrade version. Otherwise both version contain the whole OSX. With an upgrade OSX disk, it will install on to a blank drive if it detects a previous version on any other drive connected to the computer. Even if it's connected by Firewire.
This is how I have to load my upgrade version of Panther or Tiger on to a blank drive. I have an external Firewire drive which has a partition with OSX.2 (Jaguar) on it. I plug the Firewire drive into the computer that I need to load Panther or Tiger on. Reformat the internal drive and then the upgrade disk will see the previous license on the Firewire drive and I can select the blank drive to load it on.
Apple stopped selling an "uprgrade" version of OSX with Leopard. Leopard only requires that you load it on a Mac. Never the less, Leopard is still considered an "upgrade" and when Apple was selling both versions, they were both still consider "upgrades". That's because both versions still required a Mac and all Macs had a previous license. Plus you can not install a lower version of OSX than what originally came with the Mac. Not even if with the "full" version. Another words you can not install Panther on to a Mac that originally came with Tiger (Hardware support is also an issue). And the other thing is that you can not install a lower version of OSX on a drive if the install disk detects a higher version on any of the drives. And the price difference between the "uprgade" version and "full" version of OSX was only like $50.00. Not the $150 to $200 difference we see between an upgrade version and full version of MS Windows. The "full" version of OSX was really meant for the people that bought used Macs and didn't get the recovery disk with their purchase, some one that lost or damaged their recovery disk or for the people that likes to start with a clean blank drive and don't want to go through the hassle of having to load a previous version of OSX on it.
If your internal disk craps out, it needs to be replaced with a new drive. That new drive has no info about what was loaded on the original drive, unless you're doing a restore from another drive. Thus, you need a copy of the OS to load on it.
Psystar should seriously reconsider their choice in representation.
First, I have been vocally opposed to Psystar and think they are loud-mouthed punks that need to be squashed like bugs. However, I have read all of the pleadings, and the law firm representing them is good. They can only work with what they have, and with such a dog of a case, they did an excellent job. Just because a lawyer loses doesn't mean that lawyer sucks. If you haven't read the pleadings, I don't think you really are in a place to just trash someone's professional reputation. Additionally, in reading the transcript of the hearing, both law firms acted in very professional and courteous way; unfortunately that is not always the case. Whatever Colby Springer is paid for his work, he earned every penny. He did the best he could with a bad case. He's got testicular fortitude for trying.
MS also programmed their software to cripple other web browsers and force the consumer running Windows to only use Internet Explorer, without the option of uninstalling it. That is mainly why MS got in trouble with being a monopoly.
Market share has nothing to do with it, as the example with Kodak mentioned in the article.
The judge noted that Apple made it very clear that if the consumer wanted to use Mac OS X, it could only be done with Apple-branded hardware. No one bought a copy of Mac OS X expecting to to run on a generic PC box. There was no deception involved.
MS got caught on two things. The first was being a monopoly, which was something they wanted to avoid being listed as, because it resrticts what they are allowed to do.
The second was the charges of illegally conducting deals with other manufacturers, and threatening them, to keep Netscape off computers, and other related acts.
Being a monopoly, as has been pointed out, is not illegal in and of itself.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
Apple has never tested the very strict conditions it put in the OS-X EULA. Apple is going after Psystar on copyright and trademark violation grounds not on breach-of-contract grounds. In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
No, a contract in and of itself isn't law
Contract is enforcable by law. When you enter a contract, you agree that its terms can, and may be inforced by law if you are found in violation.
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
Actually, that isn't true. If Apple stipulates that these are upgrades, that's all it takes.
Adobe gives a full version of a program as an update. The old program remains in place after the upgrade. The difference between a "pure" software company and a company, like Apple, that is primarily a hardware company, is that the original copy of the program is in the computer you bought, and all later versions you may buy are upgrades to that.
Apple doesn't use serial numbers because it isn't practical to do so, or required, as the EULA clearly states that you can't run it on a non Apple machine, meaning that you've already bought the original version of the OS.
In other words, the computer itself is the serial number.
If your internal disk craps out, it needs to be replaced with a new drive. That new drive has no info about what was loaded on the original drive, unless you're doing a restore from another drive. Thus, you need a copy of the OS to load on it.
That is correct. But all I'm stating is that you don't need a "full" version to reinstall the OS if you have a lower version on a external Firewire drive (or a second internal drive of a Power Mac/MacPro)). An "upgrade" version will install on to the blank drive once it detect that you have a lower version of OSX some where on your computer. An "upgrade" version doesn't need any info from the previous version. It doesn't need to install itself over a previous version. It is self contain. All it needs is verification that you have a previous version.
But neither the full version or upgrade version will install if it also detect a higher version on that external drive (or second internal drive). Even an updated version of the same OSX you're trying to install counts as a higher version.
Now if you don't have a lower version of OSX anywhere. Then you need the "full" version. (Or get a hold of the recovery disk for that Mac from eBay.) Which will install on to a blank drive, providing your Mac meets the requirement.
There is no "upgrade" version of Leopard. (But it sells for the same price as previous "upgrade" versions.) Leopard only needs a Mac that meets the requirements. Leopard doesn't need to detect a lower version of OSX before it installs. Which is why it's so easy to install Leopard on a generic PC. Leopard only looks for the hardware requirement. If Leopard also had to detect a lower version of OSX before installing. Then it would be much harder to install Leopard on a generic PC because you would have to some how have a previous version of OSX on it first.
That is correct. But all I'm stating is that you don't need a "full" version to reinstall the OS if you have a lower version on a external Firewire drive (or a second internal drive of a Power Mac/MacPro)). An "upgrade" version will install on to the blank drive once it detect that you have a lower version of OSX some where on your computer. An "upgrade" version doesn't need any info from the previous version. It doesn't need to install itself over a previous version. It is self contain. All it needs is verification that you have a previous version.
But neither the full version or upgrade version will install if it also detect a higher version on that external drive (or second internal drive). Even an updated version of the same OSX you're trying to install counts as a higher version.
Now if you don't have a lower version of OSX anywhere. Then you need the "full" version. (Or get a hold of the recovery disk for that Mac from eBay.) Which will install on to a blank drive, providing your Mac meets the requirement.
There is no "upgrade" version of Leopard. (But it sells for the same price as previous "upgrade" versions.) Leopard only needs a Mac that meets the requirements. Leopard doesn't need to detect a lower version of OSX before it installs. Which is why it's so easy to install Leopard on a generic PC. Leopard only looks for the hardware requirement. If Leopard also had to detect a lower version of OSX before installing. Then it would be much harder to install Leopard on a generic PC because you would have to some how have a previous version of OSX on it first.
Comments
Apple is going after Psystar on copyright and trademark violation grounds not on breach-of-contract grounds.
That is factually incorrect. Quoting myself:
Apple had initially sued Psystar for copyright infringement; inducing others to commit copyright infringement; breach of contract; inducing others to commit breach of contract; trademark infringement; trade dress infringement; trademark dilution; and violations of state and common law unfair competition acts.
I have thoroughly read every single filing in this case. I am working on reading all the case law, but since the Judge's Order focused on Twombly, Ikon, Eastman Kodak, and Microsoft, I will start with those.
In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
I agree that they downplayed it, but it is not true that they are not suing for breach of contract, and in fact, this breach is a major prong in the Judge's decision.
The only difference between an "upgrade" disk and a "full" install disk is the need to prove a previous OSX license with the upgrade version. Otherwise both version contain the whole OSX. With an upgrade OSX disk, it will install on to a blank drive if it detects a previous version on any other drive connected to the computer. Even if it's connected by Firewire.
This is how I have to load my upgrade version of Panther or Tiger on to a blank drive. I have an external Firewire drive which has a partition with OSX.2 (Jaguar) on it. I plug the Firewire drive into the computer that I need to load Panther or Tiger on. Reformat the internal drive and then the upgrade disk will see the previous license on the Firewire drive and I can select the blank drive to load it on.
Apple stopped selling an "uprgrade" version of OSX with Leopard. Leopard only requires that you load it on a Mac. Never the less, Leopard is still considered an "upgrade" and when Apple was selling both versions, they were both still consider "upgrades". That's because both versions still required a Mac and all Macs had a previous license. Plus you can not install a lower version of OSX than what originally came with the Mac. Not even if with the "full" version. Another words you can not install Panther on to a Mac that originally came with Tiger (Hardware support is also an issue). And the other thing is that you can not install a lower version of OSX on a drive if the install disk detects a higher version on any of the drives. And the price difference between the "uprgade" version and "full" version of OSX was only like $50.00. Not the $150 to $200 difference we see between an upgrade version and full version of MS Windows. The "full" version of OSX was really meant for the people that bought used Macs and didn't get the recovery disk with their purchase, some one that lost or damaged their recovery disk or for the people that likes to start with a clean blank drive and don't want to go through the hassle of having to load a previous version of OSX on it.
If your internal disk craps out, it needs to be replaced with a new drive. That new drive has no info about what was loaded on the original drive, unless you're doing a restore from another drive. Thus, you need a copy of the OS to load on it.
Psystar should seriously reconsider their choice in representation.
First, I have been vocally opposed to Psystar and think they are loud-mouthed punks that need to be squashed like bugs. However, I have read all of the pleadings, and the law firm representing them is good. They can only work with what they have, and with such a dog of a case, they did an excellent job. Just because a lawyer loses doesn't mean that lawyer sucks. If you haven't read the pleadings, I don't think you really are in a place to just trash someone's professional reputation. Additionally, in reading the transcript of the hearing, both law firms acted in very professional and courteous way; unfortunately that is not always the case. Whatever Colby Springer is paid for his work, he earned every penny. He did the best he could with a bad case. He's got testicular fortitude for trying.
MS also programmed their software to cripple other web browsers and force the consumer running Windows to only use Internet Explorer, without the option of uninstalling it. That is mainly why MS got in trouble with being a monopoly.
Market share has nothing to do with it, as the example with Kodak mentioned in the article.
The judge noted that Apple made it very clear that if the consumer wanted to use Mac OS X, it could only be done with Apple-branded hardware. No one bought a copy of Mac OS X expecting to to run on a generic PC box. There was no deception involved.
MS got caught on two things. The first was being a monopoly, which was something they wanted to avoid being listed as, because it resrticts what they are allowed to do.
The second was the charges of illegally conducting deals with other manufacturers, and threatening them, to keep Netscape off computers, and other related acts.
Being a monopoly, as has been pointed out, is not illegal in and of itself.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
Apple has never tested the very strict conditions it put in the OS-X EULA. Apple is going after Psystar on copyright and trademark violation grounds not on breach-of-contract grounds. In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
No, a contract in and of itself isn't law
Contract is enforcable by law. When you enter a contract, you agree that its terms can, and may be inforced by law if you are found in violation.
.
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
Actually, that isn't true. If Apple stipulates that these are upgrades, that's all it takes.
Adobe gives a full version of a program as an update. The old program remains in place after the upgrade. The difference between a "pure" software company and a company, like Apple, that is primarily a hardware company, is that the original copy of the program is in the computer you bought, and all later versions you may buy are upgrades to that.
Apple doesn't use serial numbers because it isn't practical to do so, or required, as the EULA clearly states that you can't run it on a non Apple machine, meaning that you've already bought the original version of the OS.
In other words, the computer itself is the serial number.
If your internal disk craps out, it needs to be replaced with a new drive. That new drive has no info about what was loaded on the original drive, unless you're doing a restore from another drive. Thus, you need a copy of the OS to load on it.
That is correct. But all I'm stating is that you don't need a "full" version to reinstall the OS if you have a lower version on a external Firewire drive (or a second internal drive of a Power Mac/MacPro)). An "upgrade" version will install on to the blank drive once it detect that you have a lower version of OSX some where on your computer. An "upgrade" version doesn't need any info from the previous version. It doesn't need to install itself over a previous version. It is self contain. All it needs is verification that you have a previous version.
But neither the full version or upgrade version will install if it also detect a higher version on that external drive (or second internal drive). Even an updated version of the same OSX you're trying to install counts as a higher version.
Now if you don't have a lower version of OSX anywhere. Then you need the "full" version. (Or get a hold of the recovery disk for that Mac from eBay.) Which will install on to a blank drive, providing your Mac meets the requirement.
There is no "upgrade" version of Leopard. (But it sells for the same price as previous "upgrade" versions.) Leopard only needs a Mac that meets the requirements. Leopard doesn't need to detect a lower version of OSX before it installs. Which is why it's so easy to install Leopard on a generic PC. Leopard only looks for the hardware requirement. If Leopard also had to detect a lower version of OSX before installing. Then it would be much harder to install Leopard on a generic PC because you would have to some how have a previous version of OSX on it first.
That is correct. But all I'm stating is that you don't need a "full" version to reinstall the OS if you have a lower version on a external Firewire drive (or a second internal drive of a Power Mac/MacPro)). An "upgrade" version will install on to the blank drive once it detect that you have a lower version of OSX some where on your computer. An "upgrade" version doesn't need any info from the previous version. It doesn't need to install itself over a previous version. It is self contain. All it needs is verification that you have a previous version.
But neither the full version or upgrade version will install if it also detect a higher version on that external drive (or second internal drive). Even an updated version of the same OSX you're trying to install counts as a higher version.
Now if you don't have a lower version of OSX anywhere. Then you need the "full" version. (Or get a hold of the recovery disk for that Mac from eBay.) Which will install on to a blank drive, providing your Mac meets the requirement.
There is no "upgrade" version of Leopard. (But it sells for the same price as previous "upgrade" versions.) Leopard only needs a Mac that meets the requirements. Leopard doesn't need to detect a lower version of OSX before it installs. Which is why it's so easy to install Leopard on a generic PC. Leopard only looks for the hardware requirement. If Leopard also had to detect a lower version of OSX before installing. Then it would be much harder to install Leopard on a generic PC because you would have to some how have a previous version of OSX on it first.
That's just?not correct.