I have to take issue with the claim that OS X merely crashes on non-apple systems. This is not evidence that no copy protection exists, this is evidence that the firmware is different, and that the kernel expects to find certain structures that simply aren't there (tables of some kind), hence the XNU kernel panics, because it can't go on from there without that info.
This is a separate issue from the ACTUAL DRM tying OS X to apple hardware, which does exist, has nothing to do with the crashing issue (or the firmware for that matter), and doesn't cause a crash, it allows the system to load but refuses to run certain things, like the dock, the finder, spotlight etc. That is in fact a DRM system, it ties the operating system in its complete form to a specific line of hardware.
If one were to get the XNU kernel to boot on an EFI compatible non-apple system, the OS would probably boot normally provided the hardware components were similar to an apple model, but once the GUI loads it won't do anything. That is the protection.
You are correct, copyright does not require an explicit registration, although registration is a useful tool in lawsuits. Psystar's statements are looking more and more like the desperate act of a company that believes it's going to lose.
useful tool is an understatement: copyright registration (or a refusal from the Copyright Office) is a jurisdictional requisite. No registration or refusal = no litigation in federal district court.
I wish that all the media, including this one, would do their home work prior to posting something like this. It took me 2 minutes to find out. Why are people who are reporting this crap wouldn't do the research first?
Having copyright registration does not = a valid and enforceable copyright. Registration caries a presumption of validity, but this will be litigated.
Before calling Psytar idiots, you might consider that Psystar is mounting a defense via seasoned copyright and litigation attorneys.
I'm not associated with either party, and think Psystar will ultimately lose, but this case is more complex than you might realize. For a true account read the actual filing, not tech-blog paraphrasing.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
You do own a copyright as soon as you produce a copyrightable work. However, at that point, all you can do is get an injunction to prohibit future infringement and recover actual, out of pocket damages (which are hard to prove).
Once you register a copyright, you can collect dramatically more money - such as lost revenue and damage to your brand. Therefore, there is a great deal of value to registration, but it's irrelevant in this case - even if Apple hadn't registered the copyright, they could still sue for infringement.
It's actually doubly irrelevant because Apple HAS registered OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER
where are they getting their money for this mess???? i would think in the discovery phase that the real players in this will be found out. its more for press than a real attack why even give these parasites the time of day / news somebody big is behind this...hmmmm that's what apple should be looking into
can't anyone out there, bank teller, corp lawyer that works on these cases "slip" the info to AI??
There's no incentive for anyone to leak the information - and great disincentive. They would never work again in any financial or legal field. There are a number of ways that third parties could be involved - and remain secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS. Many of the components of MacOS are open source with the copyrights held by somebody else. I would think that Apple would have to be explicit in how each piece of software is copyrighted.
In fact they (Apple) pretty much do so in some of the legal documents that come with MacOS/X. I know when I got my MBP it took awhile just to skim through the file. It would not be impossible for Apple to have overlooked something. Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.
Apple owns the code that they wrote. The fact that some of the code in OS X is licensed is irrelevant. They also have an obligation to enforce the copyrights of parties who they license code from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com
Apple can countersue to cover their legal expenses once this mess is over, can't they? I'm pretty sure they can.
Yes, but it's irrelevant. When (not if) Psystar goes down, there won't be anything left to recover legal expenses from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
On top of that, there is no way in hell that Apple will give in to them anyway, so by "winning" all Psystar gets is a moral victory. Apple will on the other hand have to:
- go after the OS86 hobbyists (nasty!)
- stop selling OS-X separate from hardware.
- add copy protection and verification (more nasty)
- raise the price of the OS (if they keep selling it)
If Psystar wins, everyone loses.
There will be no cut price hackintoshes as their supporters think.
Apple already sells OS X only in conjunction with hardware (not necessarily at the same time). Read the license agreement. You are licensed to only install OS X upgrades on Apple branded hardware.
Apple could solve this problem fairly easily. Sell a Mac OS X full version for $10,000 and price the upgrade version at $129. That would make it clear that the upgrade version is not licensed to be installed on Hackintosh systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladinkn00be
A company cant get away that easily. I was going to say if the company was a partnership or proprietorship, the owners will be at risk of losing ANY and ALL assets. But i guess the only intelligent thing this company has done is incorporate, but the company itsself is at risk of losing all assets and the investors wont receive anything back.
I don't think the investors expected to receive anything back. They rolled the dice. If they won, they could install OS X on their own hardware. if they lost, the paltry few million dollars was lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aapl-ip
Having copyright registration does not = a valid and enforceable copyright. Registration caries a presumption of validity, but this will be litigated.
Of course it will be litigated. Psystar is stupid enough to fight this until they look like idiots (actually, they already do).
There is a presumption of validity in the copyright. Just how is Psystar going to refute that?
The core of OS X (Darwin) contains third party software - but Apple freely distributes that part. The part that Apple considers proprietary was developed either by Apple or by NeXT. If there is any unlicensed software in those layers, it will be insignificant - surely not enough to justify throwing out the copyright entirely.
One of these days tort reform will come to the shores of this last great hope of mankind . . . and the loser will be compelled to pay ALL legal expenses incurred by the winner. Until that comes to pass, any litigation, no matter how frivolous or ill-intended, will cost both sides astronomical amounts of money--winners as well as losers.
I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.
1st - do you have any idea how absolute the lack of having anything to do with tort reform this suit contains?
2nd - do you have any notion of the reality of legal practice?
...even if Apple hadn't registered the copyright, they could still sue for infringement"
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There is a presumption of validity in the copyright. Just how is Psystar going to refute that?
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
aapl-ip
Finally someone who knows something about IP Law. I dont know enough sometimes and I wish I did.
I must withdraw my previous comment due to some information I found on copyright.gov:
Copyright Registration
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following...
It is odd however that a company with no apparent wealth can come out of nowhere, intentionally infringe on some major corporate laws and mount a top dollar court case in the hopes of what? Forcing Apple to sell their OS on standard Intel hardware?
Corporate lawyers are one of the most expensive out there, and Psystar seems to have some major financial backings from some big dogs.
If Psystar do win this (which I highly doubt), all Apple has to do is change the chipsets within all forthcoming Macs to a proprietary one that they own and all further versions of OS X will only support that.
Comments
This is a separate issue from the ACTUAL DRM tying OS X to apple hardware, which does exist, has nothing to do with the crashing issue (or the firmware for that matter), and doesn't cause a crash, it allows the system to load but refuses to run certain things, like the dock, the finder, spotlight etc. That is in fact a DRM system, it ties the operating system in its complete form to a specific line of hardware.
If one were to get the XNU kernel to boot on an EFI compatible non-apple system, the OS would probably boot normally provided the hardware components were similar to an apple model, but once the GUI loads it won't do anything. That is the protection.
But as we know Apple, being part of the United States, is not bound by any international laws.
Unless it is convenient.
What does International Law have anything to do with two Corporations incorporated in the US?
The registered copyright must be registered within 3 months of public release to be qualified to earn atty fees and statutory damages.
You are correct, copyright does not require an explicit registration, although registration is a useful tool in lawsuits. Psystar's statements are looking more and more like the desperate act of a company that believes it's going to lose.
useful tool is an understatement: copyright registration (or a refusal from the Copyright Office) is a jurisdictional requisite. No registration or refusal = no litigation in federal district court.
I hate to tell Psystar, but you don't need to register a copyright. This post I am writing is copyrighted just by virtue of me writing it.
Copyright registration is required "before the owner can peruse a case in court."
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration
Psystar are idiots, Mac OS X has a copyright. The copyright number is \tTX0006849489 submitted in 2007.
Look it up on the following site
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwe...&CNT=25&HIST=1
I wish that all the media, including this one, would do their home work prior to posting something like this. It took me 2 minutes to find out. Why are people who are reporting this crap wouldn't do the research first?
Having copyright registration does not = a valid and enforceable copyright. Registration caries a presumption of validity, but this will be litigated.
Before calling Psytar idiots, you might consider that Psystar is mounting a defense via seasoned copyright and litigation attorneys.
I'm not associated with either party, and think Psystar will ultimately lose, but this case is more complex than you might realize. For a true account read the actual filing, not tech-blog paraphrasing.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
You do own a copyright as soon as you produce a copyrightable work. However, at that point, all you can do is get an injunction to prohibit future infringement and recover actual, out of pocket damages (which are hard to prove).
Once you register a copyright, you can collect dramatically more money - such as lost revenue and damage to your brand. Therefore, there is a great deal of value to registration, but it's irrelevant in this case - even if Apple hadn't registered the copyright, they could still sue for infringement.
It's actually doubly irrelevant because Apple HAS registered OS X.
where are they getting their money for this mess???? i would think in the discovery phase that the real players in this will be found out. its more for press than a real attack why even give these parasites the time of day / news somebody big is behind this...hmmmm that's what apple should be looking into
can't anyone out there, bank teller, corp lawyer that works on these cases "slip" the info to AI??
There's no incentive for anyone to leak the information - and great disincentive. They would never work again in any financial or legal field. There are a number of ways that third parties could be involved - and remain secret.
First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS. Many of the components of MacOS are open source with the copyrights held by somebody else. I would think that Apple would have to be explicit in how each piece of software is copyrighted.
In fact they (Apple) pretty much do so in some of the legal documents that come with MacOS/X. I know when I got my MBP it took awhile just to skim through the file. It would not be impossible for Apple to have overlooked something. Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.
Apple owns the code that they wrote. The fact that some of the code in OS X is licensed is irrelevant. They also have an obligation to enforce the copyrights of parties who they license code from.
Apple can countersue to cover their legal expenses once this mess is over, can't they? I'm pretty sure they can.
Yes, but it's irrelevant. When (not if) Psystar goes down, there won't be anything left to recover legal expenses from.
On top of that, there is no way in hell that Apple will give in to them anyway, so by "winning" all Psystar gets is a moral victory. Apple will on the other hand have to:
- go after the OS86 hobbyists (nasty!)
- stop selling OS-X separate from hardware.
- add copy protection and verification (more nasty)
- raise the price of the OS (if they keep selling it)
If Psystar wins, everyone loses.
There will be no cut price hackintoshes as their supporters think.
Apple already sells OS X only in conjunction with hardware (not necessarily at the same time). Read the license agreement. You are licensed to only install OS X upgrades on Apple branded hardware.
Apple could solve this problem fairly easily. Sell a Mac OS X full version for $10,000 and price the upgrade version at $129. That would make it clear that the upgrade version is not licensed to be installed on Hackintosh systems.
A company cant get away that easily. I was going to say if the company was a partnership or proprietorship, the owners will be at risk of losing ANY and ALL assets. But i guess the only intelligent thing this company has done is incorporate, but the company itsself is at risk of losing all assets and the investors wont receive anything back.
I don't think the investors expected to receive anything back. They rolled the dice. If they won, they could install OS X on their own hardware. if they lost, the paltry few million dollars was lost.
Having copyright registration does not = a valid and enforceable copyright. Registration caries a presumption of validity, but this will be litigated.
Of course it will be litigated. Psystar is stupid enough to fight this until they look like idiots (actually, they already do).
There is a presumption of validity in the copyright. Just how is Psystar going to refute that?
The core of OS X (Darwin) contains third party software - but Apple freely distributes that part. The part that Apple considers proprietary was developed either by Apple or by NeXT. If there is any unlicensed software in those layers, it will be insignificant - surely not enough to justify throwing out the copyright entirely.
R.I.P. Deepthroat
If Pystar is correct, I expect Microsoft will skip Windows 7 and move directly to Snow Windows 8.0.
You ... Once ... It's ... There's ... Apple ... Yes, but ... already ... Apple ... I ... Of ... There ... The ... entirely.
Is it just me or does this post sound like it's only intent is to diss five different people at the same time?
I know the part that referred to my post was countering arguments that I didn't even make.
One of these days tort reform will come to the shores of this last great hope of mankind . . . and the loser will be compelled to pay ALL legal expenses incurred by the winner. Until that comes to pass, any litigation, no matter how frivolous or ill-intended, will cost both sides astronomical amounts of money--winners as well as losers.
I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.
1st - do you have any idea how absolute the lack of having anything to do with tort reform this suit contains?
2nd - do you have any notion of the reality of legal practice?
3rd - the answer to both is "no"
iPaper
In reality, all it's doing, is showing what SOB's Lawyers can really be...P
get a grip on reality: litigation requires lawyers to zealously represent their clients, mandated by ethical code.
this is about busine$$, not "SOB" lawyers.
...even if Apple hadn't registered the copyright, they could still sue for infringement"
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
There is a presumption of validity in the copyright. Just how is Psystar going to refute that?
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
Absolutely untrue; registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office is a jurisdictional requisite. See 17 USC 411.
As nearly all defendants in a copyright action do: by taking discovery on all aspects validity, including all facts stated in the registration and all substantive and procedural requirements for registration.
aapl-ip
Finally someone who knows something about IP Law. I dont know enough sometimes and I wish I did.
Copyright registration is required "before the owner can peruse a case in court."
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration
I must withdraw my previous comment due to some information I found on copyright.gov: It is odd however that a company with no apparent wealth can come out of nowhere, intentionally infringe on some major corporate laws and mount a top dollar court case in the hopes of what? Forcing Apple to sell their OS on standard Intel hardware?
Corporate lawyers are one of the most expensive out there, and Psystar seems to have some major financial backings from some big dogs.
Who is funding this? million dollar question
When Steve-O finds out, all hell will break loose.
As the great Wyatt Earp (as portrayed by Kurt Russell) once said:
"You tell them I'm coming... and Hell's coming with me!"
It is suggested that bigger corporations are standing behind Psystar to help it win the trial
I think it's Billy Gates.