Apple Scores Big in Case Against Psystar

[JMcEntegart]

Apple has scored big in its long-standing legal battle against the Mac clone manufacturer, Psystar.

Apple Scores Big in Case Against Psystar : Read more

 

[STravis]

I think the only surprise here is that it took so long.

BTW, Psystar has also pissed off a lot of the Open Source community for taking their work and 'repackaging' it in their systems (and charging for it).

All in all, Psystar is a class act.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Great news. Whether you like Apple or not, they took the work of both Apple and the Open Source x86 hackintosh community and used it to their own financial gain without obtaining any kind of licensing from Apple and without giving anything back to the Open Source community.

 

[socrates047]

its just stupid, cause i think pystar had no chance of going against apple. This is because just the legal fees will rob psystar of all of its money. Apple has a lot of money that they can use to fight in the court. That is just how it is, Individuals and or small companies have no chance of winning against big companies

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]Psystar has also pissed off a lot of the Open Source community for taking their work and 'repackaging' it in their systems (and charging for it)[/citation]
Is that true? What license the hackintosh software is made available? If it is GNU GPL is not only ok, but it is encouraged to charge for providing service that compiles the software for users who don't know or don't want to compile the software them self. Only requirement is to provide access to source if the user requires. From GPL FAQs:

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

 

[Regulas]

Apple is based in San Francisco and Paystar is in Florida but the ruling was from a hack judge from San Francisco, imagine that! Enough said.

 

[sunflier]

Basically Alsup ruled that the Mac OS End User License Agreement (EULA) is both legal and valid and ruled that installation of the OS on non-Apple hardware is not allowable.

(Quoted from another website)

Does this mean if I buy any copy of Apple O/S X and install it on my on x86 hardware (non-MAC) will Apple sue me too? The Eula above didn't only state if I were to sell it too, it says, "installation".

 

[robwright]

[citation][nom]socrates047[/nom]its just stupid, cause i think pystar had no chance of going against apple. This is because just the legal fees will rob psystar of all of its money. Apple has a lot of money that they can use to fight in the court. That is just how it is, Individuals and or small companies have no chance of winning against big companies[/citation]

This case isn't about that or the fact that the judge is based in San Francisco. It's about copyright protection and how far it does -- and should -- extend for software, as well as the "fair use doctrine" for digitally copied products. Read the legal decision from judge. You may learn something.

 

[VidGameKing]

Ha!!!!! Bitches!!!!! Take that you code stealing scum bags!!! Vindication!!!!! Vindication!!!!!

 

[Parrdacc]

Really no surprise here. Did anyone really think Apple would not win this one?

 

[tester24]

[citation][nom]sunflier[/nom](Quoted from another website)Does this mean if I buy any copy of Apple O/S X and install it on my on x86 hardware (non-MAC) will Apple sue me too? The Eula above didn't only state if I were to sell it too, it says, "installation".[/citation]

Only if you make fun of Steve Jobs wardrobe, black turtlenecks is so 1999... but in a more serious note this wasn't unexpected.

I think Psystar should just open source their code and then "leak" it to a torrent site. Then give everyone the chance to see what it is all about. Not to meantion screw Apple even more, that being said Psystar is probably toast after this.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]VidGameKing[/nom]Ha!!!!! Bitches!!!!! Take that you code stealing scum bags!!! Vindication!!!!! Vindication!!!!![/citation]

well if you want to get technical then the linux community should sue apple for stealing their code. cause all apple is, is linux

 

[reddragon72]

I'm glad that Apple won, keeps there crappy software from hitting mainstream and corrupting everyones way of life. who the Fruck wants to run that crap anyways?!?! unless you want your life to be totally controlled by someone else, and don't like variety and choices(again see the first one) then get away from Apple crap. you want freedom and mainstream, go linux or MS, yes MS sucks, but hey there is a reason that hackers and virus creators choose to hit that platform the most, it is mainstream and it just works not great but it works. I run both of those and need no more then that.

Hurray for Apple they won to keep themselves locked in a corner and out of my world! no complaints here!!!

 

[Honis]

Now the questions are,
Who was funding Psystar this whole time?
When will Psystar lawyers get the Appeal turned in?

 

[Uncle Meat]

[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]well if you want to get technical then the linux community should sue apple for stealing their code. cause all apple is, is linux[/citation]

OS X uses the Mach kernel, not the Linux kernel.

 

[christop]

RUN Psystar!!!! You got an apple on your back!!!!

 

[reddragon72]

[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]well if you want to get technical then the linux community should sue apple for stealing their code. cause all apple is, is linux[/citation]

Apple is based on FreeBSD and netBSD which is derived from Unix not Linux. OSX and Linux came from the same tree, neither one came from one or the other. Get your facts straight before you bag on stuff!

 

[wildwell]

Well, score one for Apple... until the appeal.

 

[Glorian]

If I buy something I should be able to do what ever the hell I want to do with it after, but I should also understand that I can get no support or void any warranty that came with that product.

Could you imagine if I couldn't make rice squares and sell them because Kellogg told me I couldn't use their product for my own financial gain, cause I was cutting into their rice crispies treats profit? No they are not going to care, cause they already made their money when you bought the box. Apple should be lucky they sold licenses, that's money they didn't have before.

 

[falchard]

Apple is infringing on the Unix License agreement. I was hoping Psystar would win.

 

[ram1009]

yawn!!

 

[robwright]

[citation][nom]Glorian[/nom]If I buy something I should be able to do what ever the hell I want to do with it after, but I should also understand that I can get no support or void any warranty that came with that product.Could you imagine if I couldn't make rice squares and sell them because Kellogg told me I couldn't use their product for my own financial gain, cause I was cutting into their rice crispies treats profit? No they are not going to care, cause they already made their money when you bought the box. Apple should be lucky they sold licenses, that's money they didn't have before.[/citation]

Ugh...I hate when people apply faulty analogies to digital copyright issues. Sure, let's compare a desert recipe to the complexities of software code. You make it sound like Psystar just accidentally made an OS like Apple's, which they didn't. They purchased OS X, hacked it, made several copies and put them on their own machines to redistribute and sell. Read the judge's decision and learn something.

 

[hhb6]

would it be fun if windows added a line in there Eula that prohibited the installation on apple manufactured equipment and sue apple over the boot camp

 

[Glorian]

[citation][nom]robwright[/nom]Ugh...I hate when people apply faulty analogies to digital copyright issues. Sure, let's compare a desert recipe to the complexities of software code. You make it sound like Psystar just accidentally made an OS like Apple's, which they didn't. They purchased OS X, hacked it, made several copies and put them on their own machines to redistribute and sell. Read the judge's decision and learn something.[/citation]

The point was to not compare computer hardware and software to a baked good, but what I should be able to do after I buy a product, after I spend the money it now belongs to ME!

What this means is that I can't even buy my own copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, cause apple could actually make me uninstall it cause it voids the eula, imo their eula is a violation.

Apple really should have oem licenses with specific hardware requirements to let people build their own pc's and companies sell their product just like windows.

We are witnessing the destruction of a company because psystar is proving apple is making way more money off your back buy selling you "their" hardware, which is the same hardware in their machine.

 

[robwright]

[citation][nom]Glorian[/nom]The point was to not compare computer hardware and software to a baked good, but what I should be able to do after I buy a product, after I spend the money it now belongs to ME!What this means is that I can't even buy my own copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, cause apple could actually make me uninstall it cause it voids the eula, imo their eula is a violation.Apple really should have oem licenses with specific hardware requirements to let people build their own pc's and companies sell their product just like windows.We are witnessing the destruction of a company because psystar is proving apple is making way more money off your back buy selling you "their" hardware, which is the same hardware in their machine.[/citation]

We are witnessing the destruction of a company, Psystar, for 1) making bad business decisions (they went chapter 11 earlier this year, and don't blame legal fees, this case has barely gotten into court), 2) making a faulty argument in court (Apple is creating a "monopoly"? That's rich), 3) making ANOTHER bad argument in court ("first sale doctrine doesn't apply because Psystar didn't legally copy Apple's software), and 4) making cheap computers with someone else's OS imaged on them, which they did not legally license.

As for Apple, why is its ELUA violation? If Apple wants to be stupidly stubborn and limit its software market, then let it be stupidly stubborn. It's their product, and their right. Yeah, Apple should have OEN licenses -- but they don't, and they shouldn't be compelled by law to do so.