Apple finally sues unauthorized clone maker Psystar
Apple Inc. is fed up with a small Florida-based firm that has been selling its own brand of computers running hacked versions of the Mac OS X operating system and has finally slapped the company with a lawsuit.
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
While details of the suit are unclear at this time, AppleInsider has learned that Apple and its counsel at Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP filed the suit on grounds of copyright infringement.
In April, Psystar made headlines when it announced a $400 desktop dubbed OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer) which was described as "a low-cost high-performance computing platform" based on the ongoing OSX86Project -- a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs.
A representative for the company, identified only as Robert, would later go on record and challenge Apple to bring formal charges against his firm, arguing that the Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, stands in violation of antitrust laws.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
With Apple remaining largely silent on the matter, Psystar last month continued to taunt the Mac maker by aggressively staking its claim as the lone company outside of Apple selling Mac OS X systems, unveiling a pair of Xserve-like rackmount computers unofficially based on Mac OS X Leopard Server.
As part of its unauthorized Mac clone business, Psystar has promised to provide customers with altered versions of Mac OS X system updates for its Open Computing products shortly after Apple releases official versions for its own systems.
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
While details of the suit are unclear at this time, AppleInsider has learned that Apple and its counsel at Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP filed the suit on grounds of copyright infringement.
In April, Psystar made headlines when it announced a $400 desktop dubbed OpenMac (later renamed Open Computer) which was described as "a low-cost high-performance computing platform" based on the ongoing OSX86Project -- a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs.
A representative for the company, identified only as Robert, would later go on record and challenge Apple to bring formal charges against his firm, arguing that the Mac OS X end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, stands in violation of antitrust laws.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
With Apple remaining largely silent on the matter, Psystar last month continued to taunt the Mac maker by aggressively staking its claim as the lone company outside of Apple selling Mac OS X systems, unveiling a pair of Xserve-like rackmount computers unofficially based on Mac OS X Leopard Server.
As part of its unauthorized Mac clone business, Psystar has promised to provide customers with altered versions of Mac OS X system updates for its Open Computing products shortly after Apple releases official versions for its own systems.
Comments
What took Apple so long?
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps Apple sees this as a very sensitive issue and wanted to make sure their approach to crushing it was brutally efficient. It will be interesting to see what kind of example they make out of these guys. I don't usually care for lawsuits, but I'm glad Apple has finally gotten around to this -- what Psystar is doing is just plain wrong.
Now Apple can sue for 'selling' a modified version of the OS, that is most likely easier than sueing over selling Apple-compatible hardware.
What took Apple so long?
I think the line was drawn when Psystar modified the code for the OS update and distributed it. That seems like the most obvious violation, the proverbial camel's back-breaking straw.
Psystar's argument is most likely flawed. I don't believe Apple really sells it's OS as a separate product like Microsoft, but rather as an upgrade to software that is included on Apple hardware when you buy an Apple computer. If Apple loses you'd think Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would be guilty of not offering their XBox, PS3 or Wii OS on each other's consoles.
I can't say that I agree with this entirely. From a distribution point of view, you couldn't put the XBOX code on the Wii or PS3 or vice versa (without extensive re-coding). Here, the software is mostly compatible with all modern x86 hardware (extra driver support often needed). There is no denying that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyright, but their claim that such copyright opposes anti-trust laws is definitely arguable. This could be a very interesting case to follow. The other issue is that if Apple wins, does it mean that they have a right to sue everyone who bought the Open Computer since they broke the copyright as well?
What took Apple so long?
You want the infringer to make some money from stealing so you can take it from them -- three times! Had Apple stopped them on Day One, the amount of damage would be based on the revenue of that day, but after a few months, the suit is timely enough, but now Psystar has presumably sold a significant number of rip-off clones, so Apple will get a lot more money if they win.
Psystar's argument is most likely flawed. I don't believe Apple really sells it's OS as a separate product like Microsoft, but rather as an upgrade to software that is included on Apple hardware when you buy an Apple computer.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
Apple can put whatever it wants to in it's so-called "license agreement", but that doesn't make it legally binding.
See this case for an example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-software.html
Psystar is now dead. Apple will prevail and at a minimum prevent future distribution of Apple updates which makes a Psystar machine much less appealing. Most likely Apple will end up forcing liquidation of the company.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
Apple can put whatever it wants to in it's so-called "license agreement", but that doesn't make it legally binding.
I think when you click "I Accept" When prompted with the terms and conditions of the license agreement you enter a legally binding contract.
What if they did? Most companies could certainly do just that (although it would be pretty much impossible to enforce it with end users). If the demand was too draconian, customers wouldn't buy the product, if the product was good enough to be worth the compromise, people would buy it, as they do with apple. In the case of MS they probably couldn't do it because they are considered a monopoly.
Antitrust is an absolutely ridiculous argument and one sure to lose - it only applies in the case of a monopoly, which apple has virtually the opposite of with less than 10% computer market share.
I'm surprised Apple didn't do this sooner, although early on I expect they thought Psystar was so incompetent that they might crash and burn on their own pretty quickly.
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
You do realize they ARE modifying OSX, right?
Hmm, well I went into a local store when and picked up a box labelled "Mac OS X". I went to a cash register and gave the store some money in exchange for the box. That seems like a sale to me.
I think Paystar is within their rights as long as they are not modifying OS X.
Apple can put whatever it wants to in it's so-called "license agreement", but that doesn't make it legally binding.
See this case for an example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-software.html
I wasn't really questioning whether a transaction takes place, but more the type of product it is. It could be that all retail box Apple OS are really an "upgrade" to existing Apple software/hardware, rather than retail Microsoft OS which are available as stand-alone products for new-builds or in upgrade form. I haven't taken a close look at Apple's license agreement lately, but I would think that it stipulates the need to already own previous Apple hardware/software just like Microsoft's Upgrade license agreement would presumably include a clause that you have to already own a previous Windows version to upgrade.
And yes, based on that article, if Psystar only sells you an unopened package then the license agreement doesn't apply to them. If they installed it for you though, the license agreement would probably apply.
I'm not surprised that Apple waited this long. I have suspected that they did not want to challenge Psystar on a EULA violation due to the consequences of a judge invalidating the exclusivity clause in the EULA. Apple waited for Pystar to take copyrighted code, modify it, and distribute it. This is a whole different ball of wax and is based on established copyright law not the Apple drafted EULA that may not hold up in court.
Psystar is now dead. Apple will prevail and at a minimum prevent future distribution of Apple updates which makes a Psystar machine much less appealing. Most likely Apple will end up forcing liquidation of the company.
This is what I thought all along. Apple wouldn't want to risk having a judge or jury finding against them on the EULA. The odds would have been with Apple, but there was enough gray area that it wasn't worth the risk. If Apple lost that argument you'd then have a flood of new companies start to sell their own Mac hardware.
But modifying and redistributing copyrighted software is a much more clear-cut case so the risk is lower. And if you win a judgement large enough to put them financially out of existence you've acheived the same result. Psystar declares bankruptcy, customers don't get their machines or their money back; and everyone learns a valuable lesson.
[B]
I'm surprised Apple didn't do this sooner, although early on I expect they thought Psystar was so incompetent that they might crash and burn on their own pretty quickly.
The more computers that Psystar sells, the bigger the potential judgement in Apple's favor should they win.
I think Apple waited because they want a judgement of damages large enough to put them out of business.
That way they don't go through this again.
Oops, Dopplerd beat me to it. Hey don't sue me!
Look at all the apple fan boys in here. What apple is doing is in no way good for the consumer. They are just trying to protect their business of selling overpriced hardware to their customers.
So don't fall into their 'trap' and buy things from them???
This is NOTHING LIKE Microsoft!!!!
With the exception of Powermac.... Apple has always sold there OS as a package deal.... you buy their OS to run on their computers.
Psystar has no leg to stand on here legally....morally... or Ethically!!!!!
They are STEALING an OS they have NO RIGHT TO RESELL!!!!! aka... they are CRIMINALS!!!
There's NO GREY AREA here.... it's Black and White.... and most of all... IT'S WRONG.
Those of you that believe Psystar has the RIGHT to use Apple's Property must be suffering from the worst form of Liberalism/Progressivism .... a true mental disorder....
You know I've got a Visa Card.... now give me your wallet so I can use your Visa card.... since I've got a visa card I must have the right to use your visa card??? Right???? It's not much different then that.
Apple Built their OS... and THEY OWN IT... anyone who thinks otherwise seriously needs to re-educate themselves....
Psystar is about to be History... and They deserve it for STEALING property that isn't theirs to use.
Duh!!!!
This case will have the short-term benefit of throwing some FUD at psystar which might make people wary of buying a soon-to-be-unsupported computer from them.