Amended Psystar complaint vs. Apple repeats copyright claims

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Mac cloner Psystar says Apple has misused copyrights by preventing Mac OS X from being run on third-party hardware, according to an amended complaint filed yesterday.



Florida-based Psystar's 22-page filing in a Northern District of California court comes after Judge William Alsup cleared the way for the changes last week.



The complaint now begins by trying to differentiate between computers that are simply capable of running Mac OS X, which Psystar calls "Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems", and those computers built by Apple itself. The split is key as it sets up a competitive environment between Mac-like systems instead of Apple fighting only Windows and other non-Mac platforms.



"The most significant competitive threat to Apple is not from a new operating system," the complaint says, "but from computer hardware systems manufacturers that may offer a competing hardware platform upon which to run the Mac OS."



Thus, the Open Computer maker claims, Apple's attempt to keep those third-party manufacturers out represents anti-competitive behavior, and there is no copyright Apple holds that would permit any such attempt. According to Psystar, that behavior started around 1997, when Apple -- once again led by then-interim chief executive Steve Jobs after the company's acquisition of NeXT -- decided to end a clone licensing program with other vendors.



Steve Jobs discusses the end of the clone licensing program at Macworld Boston 1997. (Language may not be safe for work.)



To bolster this claim, Psystar's complaint quotes Apple senior vice president Phil Schiller at the Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC) in 2005, when Mac OS X was introduced, essentially accusing Apple of hypocrisy for "encouraging" users to run Windows on Apple hardware, but refusing to allow Mac OS X to run on anything but a Mac.



"Schiller noted that Apple had no plans of running the Windows OS on a Macintosh but noted '[t]hat doesn't preclude someone from running it' and that Apple 'won't do anything to preclude that,'", Psystar elaborates. In contrast, Schiller talks about barring the OS from "anything other than an Apple Mac."



The clone producer accordingly maintains its earlier claim that Apple has intentionally embedded code in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard that can initiate kernel panics or infinite loops when non-Apple hardware is detected. Such "artificial" kernel panics and infinite loops are anti-competitive because they reduce the functionality of the machine to near-zero, if it's not an Apple system, the Florida company alleges.



All of this, Psystar says, is a misuse of copyright through the End User License Agreement, which grants users permission to use Mac OS X only on Apple hardware. The cloner's argument contends that intellectual property copyrights covering the Mac OS do not cover these hardware restrictions, and Psystar insists that Apple's copyrights be found unenforceable until Apple stops misusing them through its user license agreement.



Additionally, Psystar claims Apple's allegations of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an attempt to "obtain, maintain, and/or enjoy rights not granted by the Copyright Act." The Open Computer designer continues to seek injunctions "as is necessary" to prohibit Apple's copyright misuse (under the license and through misapplying the DMCA) as well as any additional relief the court finds appropriate. Otherwise, the plaintiff says, Apple will prevent anyone from offering real competition that uses Mac OS X.



"Apple brought the foregoing DMCA claim in an attempt to chill innovation whereby third-parties such as Psystar would not engage in legal and legitimate development of products that compete with Apple-labeled computer hardware systems," Psystar says.



Since the Cupertino-based company has successfully eliminated any competition with its operating system, Psystar claims, Apple is free to charge "supra-competitive prices," quoting Steve Jobs' more recent October 2008 remarks that Apple doesn't "know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" as evidence of an intent to mark systems up instead of an emphasis on quality.



Psystar's opportunities for success may be limited with its additional amendment: Judge Alsup previously threw out Psystar's anti-trust claims after Apple first filed suit last July.



The trial is scheduled for November 9th, and Apple has 20 days to respond to this latest complaint.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 140
    and didn't the courts already rule that Apple has the legal right to restrict the hardware that can be use with Mac OS X, when Psystar tried to claim there is a Macintosh Computer Market and Apple was being anti-trust.



    as for the Windows thing, by the same token, Microsoft would have the right to restrict or not what computers use Windows. they choose not to basically allowing use on any set up, including an Apple created machine. Which is their right.
  • Reply 2 of 140
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,584member
    Where does Psystar get their money to fund a lawsuit against Apple because I need $$$ like that to quit work and not cause problems and just buy gadgets.
  • Reply 3 of 140
    Well this part:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... quoting Steve Jobs' more recent October 2008 remarks that Apple doesn't "know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk" as evidence of an intent to mark systems up instead of an emphasis on quality.



    Makes no sense whatsoever.



    Steve says they don't make cheap, crap computers and this somehow means that there is no emphasis on quality? WTF?



    Apple's pricing and margins are totally transparent and have been the same for years and years. This is just an incredibly foolish statement. Patently untrue, and easily provable as such.
  • Reply 4 of 140
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,382member
    I know there will be people here soon enough defending Psystar. But the more ridiculous crap they are spewing out in the hopes something sticks to a judge's face, the more joy I will receive the day Psystar (and their secret sugar-daddies) gets ordered to drop on their knees and get to work.



    This is not an Apple issue people. This is about a company that should be allowed to own and control their product as they see fit.



    I really hope Psystar gets ordered to drop their pants and bend over.
  • Reply 5 of 140
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,152member
    This thing going no where. They still did not demonstrate how Apple misuses a right already given to them! As far as I know, there is nothing in the Copyright Law that force you to license your property to third party. Furthermore, I thought the point of Copyright Laws was to give the owner complete control over their copyrighted material. I just hope this does not start waves of similar lawsuits against other copyrighted work.
  • Reply 6 of 140
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    I'm not sure I see the "hypocrisy" or anti-competitive behavior in Apple HELPING Microsoft--a software, not hardware company--by helping Mac users install a package that Microsoft WANTS to sell them



    Microsoft doesn't incur many new development and support expenses by adding a few Mac models to the thousands of PC models they already support.



    But Apple would incur HUGE development and support expenses (and slow OS X development to a crawl) if they had to support--and test for--a zillion different PC boxes. None of which were designed along WITH the OS--one of OS X's strengths.
  • Reply 7 of 140
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,868member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    Where does Psystar get their money to fund a lawsuit against Apple because I need $$$ like that to quit work and not cause problems and just buy gadgets.



    Excellent question that needs to be answered. It's hard not to suspect some larger entity with a reason to want to see harm done to Apple is behind this ... but who?? I am totally unable to think of one ... oh wait a minute ...
  • Reply 8 of 140
    Common sense is dead, and we seem to live in an age of freeloaders and jackasses... Psystar and the octuplets' lady are prime examples of what's wrong with the World today.
  • Reply 9 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    As far as I know, there is nothing in the Copyright Law that force you to license your property to third party.



    The issue isn't about licensing rights to a third party to reproduce your work, it is about an IP holder's ability to copyright and force purchasers into a license agreement. Basically the issue of how much control Apple can exert on someone who buys a retail copy of OS X.



    Quote:

    Furthermore, I thought the point of Copyright Laws was to give the owner complete control over their copyrighted material.



    Technically not complete control (in the US); just control over reproducing the work. IIRC, Europe provides "moral rights" to copyrighted creative works which might form a basis for limiting what a purchaser can do with it.
  • Reply 10 of 140
    Who is capable of doing the sleuthing to track down the money behind Psystar and their endless legal strategizing?
  • Reply 11 of 140
    Aaargh, wont this people EVER give up, I am bored at looking the whole Psycrap scenario anymore and I just wish for them to just die away.



    And yea, where the heck are they getting their money from!!!! I wonder if this big shot firm is Anti Apple or something.
  • Reply 12 of 140
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post


    Aaargh, wont this people EVER give up, I am bored at looking the whole Psycrap scenario anymore and I just wish for them to just die away.



    I am thinking the same thing. I want this stuff to be page 2 material for AI until the final verdict of Apple trouncing Psystar happens or until we know who is backing them.
  • Reply 13 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The issue isn't about licensing rights to a third party to reproduce your work, it is about an IP holder's ability to copyright and force purchasers into a license agreement. Basically the issue of how much control Apple can exert on someone who buys a retail copy of OS X.







    Technically not complete control (in the US); just control over reproducing the work. IIRC, Europe provides "moral rights" to copyrighted creative works which might form a basis for limiting what a purchaser can do with it.



    A purchased copy of OS X has no license granting the said buyer of leveraging this purchase in concert with being a business and selling a competing hardware product with that OS X copy.



    There is no license to resell certified Apple Hardware via 3rd party.
  • Reply 14 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marokero View Post


    Common sense is dead, and we seem to live in an age of freeloaders and jackasses... Psystar and the octuplets' lady are prime examples of what's wrong with the World today.



    Bingo.
  • Reply 15 of 140
    Quote:

    I am thinking the same thing. I want this stuff to be page 2 material for AI until the final verdict of Apple trouncing Psystar happens or until we know who is backing them.



    Yup, I am very interested into who is backing them
  • Reply 16 of 140
    Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.

    If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.

    I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.

    I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.

    And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.
  • Reply 17 of 140
    Quote:

    Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.

    If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.

    I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.

    I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.

    And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.



    You are an idiot, we are not saying people must not install OS X on generic PC, heck if its for your own use and you are not selling your OS X PC's fine but we are just against a company who commercialize something that is offered free. Heck, he used Netkas code without permission and Netkas changed his license for personal use and NOT FOR COMMERCIAL use like how Psycrap is doing.



    Owning a Mac is like owning a piece of artwork, if you do not appreciate the artwork, dont buy it. Have you seen any other company so dedicated into designing their products? Will there be any other company as crazy as apple to mill out a notebook casing out of a single block of aluminum, nope I dont think so. Apple does crazy stuffs cause Jobs cares about art a lot!.
  • Reply 18 of 140
    davidwdavidw Posts: 938member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    The issue isn't about licensing rights to a third party to reproduce your work, it is about an IP holder's ability to copyright and force purchasers into a license agreement. Basically the issue of how much control Apple can exert on someone who buys a retail copy of OS X.







    Technically not complete control (in the US); just control over reproducing the work. IIRC, Europe provides "moral rights" to copyrighted creative works which might form a basis for limiting what a purchaser can do with it.



    It doesn't matter how much restriction Apple places on the purchaser (end user). Apple has not gone after any one that has loaded a single license OSX on to several Macs or any one with a Hackintosh.



    However Psystar cease being the purchaser (end user) when they sell that retail copy of OSX and their PC with OSX loaded from that retail copy. Thus they are not granted any rights as the purchaser of the software. Except the rights they have under the first sale doctrine of the copyright law. And it's the copyright laws, not Apple's EULA, that dictates the condition of that sale. One being that all unauthorized derivative work made with that copy must be destroyed. (Or return to it's original state and given up upon sale.)



    Psystar can purchase all the retail copy of OSX and install it on all the PC's they want. Apple won't go after them. But once they start selling those PC's with a "derivative" OSX installed, Psystar is breaking copyright laws.



    That's why Psystar lame defense is based on Apple is some how abusing the copyright laws and therefore aren't afforded any protection under copyright laws. Psystar know that they are infringing on Apple copyright when they sell that PC with a derivative OSX installed.( As dictated by the copyright law. Not the EULA). They know they can't challenge the first sale doctrine of the copyright law. Or use it in their defense. They can only hope to challenge Apple use of that law.
  • Reply 19 of 140
    parkyparky Posts: 383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.

    If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.

    I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.

    I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.

    And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.



    And I suppose you expect these hacked version of the software to be supported by Apple do you? Well guess what they are not supported and nor should they be. Why should Apple have to worry about what pile of junk you have installed OSX on? The software is designed and written to be run on Apple hardware and nothing else.
  • Reply 20 of 140
    halvrihalvri Posts: 146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevielee View Post


    Well let me be the first one on this post to wholeheartedly disagree with all of the Apple Devotees who seem to think that it's fine and dandy fro Apple to control what I do with a product after I've paid for that product - like OSX, or an iPhone etc.

    If I want to install OSX, or any other OS that I purchased on any, and I do mean any machine that I also purchased and own, then I will do so - and no company is going to tell me I can't - even with the treat of copyright infringement.

    I have a jail-broken iPhone and I run OSX via Hackintosh on a custom built PC. I also have hacked my iPod away from the crappy iTunes 8 ATM machine - where you can't even turn off the blasted "Gapless" idiocy.

    I will control the way in which I decide to use the technology I buy - not the Big Brother companies like Apple and AT&T. I'm tired of having to settle for limited hardware options ( like paying a premium for a 2 year old, discontinued Graphics card ) and pay 30-60% more for the very same internal equipment as PC's - just because their encased in Mr. Ives's aluminum fetished designs. I can, and WILL design and build my own MAC from here on, as long as they are on the Intel (PC) platform.

    And for all of you who really thinks that Apple will be able to continue dictating how anyone uses their software or their hardware after purchasing it has not been paying attention to the growing demand for more consumer control over content and fair usage of software and hardware. I am not defending Pystar, or any other third party computer manufacturer -but even if they lose, someone else will come along and do exactly the same as they have done - and as have already begun over in the EU - where they do not recognize the unenforceable and anti-competitive EULA from Apple.



    Europe, collectively, has one of the most senseless legal systems on the face of the earth, so I'm sorry if I take what you said with a grain of salt. Germany, after all, appoints judges as lawyers, who then decide the case as well and the idea of guilty until proven innocent is fairly well documented in that system. There's not an ounce of impartiality in most European law at all.



    In any case, I really have a problem with your utter and complete lack of respect for the rights of businesses. If you don't like Apple's prices, buy something else and get over it. I buy Apple's products because after years of using Windows, I can see clearly how bad the OS is and given most people seem to be buying it on $500 lap-tops, I can also see how its being licensed for hardware that really can't support it at all. Apple can innovate in a much quicker time frame because it doesn't have to code for every piece of worthless hardware under the sun. There are several tangible benefits to tying the hardware and OS together and whether you're willing to pay for those benefits or not, I know you sense them.



    And this has been gone over time and time again: you don't own the OS. Even on Windows, you're simply buying a license. The fact that Microsoft chose to allow you to do whatever you want with it does not give you the right to expect that of every other software company. And Apple has several outlets in Europe, so what the hell are you even talking about? European law has held up Apple's EULA several times. The only recent issues were the iPhone carriers in France and iTunes in Denmark and look where that got them. The iPhone went from a reasonable price on Orange's service to several hundreds of dollars out of plan: way to help out consumers.



    I really don't know why I'm responding to this, cause quite honestly, any person that uses the term "Big Brother" as part of his argument has no sense of reality. Go buy a copy of Windows because that's exactly what your argument purports to turn OS X into.
Sign In or Register to comment.