It’s been relatively quiet around the whole Psystar case lately. The case is supposedly going to trial somewhere in November of this year, and the two opposing parties are probably preparing their cases. We’ve finally got some news on this front, as Apple is accusing Psystar of withholding financial information. Apple made its accusations in a partly censored letter to judge William Alsup.
In the letter, Apple states that Psystar has failed to produce “customer purchase receipts or order documents” from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008. Documents from after that period have been handed over. According to Apple, “Psystar has produced no monthly profit and loss statements, balance sheets or other financial statements and only a small subset of revenue and cost-related receipts.”
Apple has stated in the past that it believes Psystar is not acting alone, and that third parties are financing the clone maker’s efforts. Apple picks up this mantra in the letter. “Moreover, at the deposition regarding Psystar’s revenues, profits, assets and liabilities (including investors, lenders or other sources of financial support), taken on March 20, 2009, Psystar’s CEO and founder Rudy Pedraza, the person designated by Psystar to testify on this topic, would not answer basic questions about Psystar’s financials.”
It seems like Apple still believes there’s more to all this than just Psystar, and that other people or companies might be financing Psystar, which would then, I assume, explain why Pedraza couldn’t answer questions about “investors, lenders or other sources of financial support”. Of course, a much more plausible explanation would be that there are no “investors, lenders or other sources of financial support”, but that’s far less exciting.
Apple websites are of course accepting this letter as a statement of fact, while it’s obviously just one slanted side of the story. Psystar has so far not responded to Apple’s accusations, and since at least I live in a world where guilt has to be proven, I’ll reserve judgement until we know a little more about this.
In the meantime, the case itself will of course continue. In case you’ve been living under a rock the past 12 months, Psystar started selling computers with Mac OS X pre-installed last year. The EULA for Mac OS X has a clause which forbids installing Mac OS X on anything but an “Apple-labelled computer”, and this specific clause is at the centre of the legal battle between Apple and Psystar.
Psystar believes it should be able to pre-install legally purchased and fully paid-for copies of Mac OS X on machines it then sells to customers, while Apple believes the computers in question need to be “Apple-labelled”, but what exactly “Apple-labelled” means has never been made clear by the Cupertino company.
The case is also about things greater than just Apple vs. Psystar: are software companies allowed to place post-sale restrictions? Is an EULA a binding contract just because you click “Ok”? Should EULAs be presented before purchase? Should software companies be allowed to remove rights granted to consumers by copyright law?
We’ll see.
I’m waiting for the “Microsoft is behind Psystar” posts. But, one needs to remember a couple of things: First, Microsoft (at least at one time) had a significant investment in Apple. Second, Microsoft sells a significant amount of Apple software in the form of Microsoft Office. So, they have a vested interest in not upsetting the applecart.
open business is behind the curtain. We have allowed draconian laws to exist regarding software because we think its different than every thing else. But, IMHO, when you buy software, you buy a copy. Not license it. I also don’t see why Apple should get to see the financial info for this company. This case is about copyright infringement and being able to do what you want with what you’ve bought. Including reselling it.
THANK YOU!
Thank you! This is EXACTLY how it should be viewed! The whole concept of a product I have to pay for outright, and yet never actually own is totally alien to me.
This has been argued for years, but I still think that a software is no different than a jacket. I go to the store, buy a leather jacket, come home and change, say, buttons on it. Then I want to re-sell the said jacket, explicitly disclosing to buyer that I have changed buttons. In software world, the manufacturer of a jacket would sue me for copyright infringement…
And yet, I am not re-selling an unauthorized knock-off, I paid in full for the garment… And I did include the appropriate CAVEAT EMPTOR statement… So, what seems to be the problem?
Edited 2009-05-02 18:20 UTC
When you buy software, you buy the media. You can do whatever you want with that media, including re-selling it. The right to re-sell the software is not what is in question in this case, as it would have already been thrown out.
Personally, I think if I buy software (not bloody likely, but hypothetically), the copy I have is my collection of 1s and 0s, and I’ll butcher it as much as I want. Obviously making copies and selling them as the original product, or distributing copies of commercial software freely should be illegal, because in both cases they undermine the sale of the original product (I don’t feel this way about music btw – software and music are completely different). I’ll do whatever I want with the copy I paid for though. Even if I want to resell it to some poor schmuck with a 20% markup, more fool him for buying second hand at a higher price than new.
I guess technically, those “Vista Transformation Packs” and that Flyakite OS X thing for Windows XP are illegal too, since they modify the operating system (at the very least they hack the themeui.dll, I think that’s what it’s called). I don’t care though, once it’s on my hard drive, whatever I do to it can’t harm the original company.
I will say this, however: If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. If your freedoms are that important to you, use free software, not proprietary junk.
And I’ll say this: if you don’t like their rules, don’t buy there software or sign the EULA! It doesn’t matter one bit if you personally think the copy you have is yours to do with as you please, that’s not the agreement you sign. When you reach the EULA where it asks you to confirm that you wish to be bound by it, stop right there!
Also a good point. I can’t count the number of EULAs I’ve read and broken, or the number I haven’t read and have almost certainly broken.
And I’ll say this: if you don’t like the fact that the law permits people to do things you don’t like with the products you sell to them, you have a simple remedy. Stop selling the stuff.
Like, I am the great poet TS Eliot, and I really do not like the idea that people might read my magnificent works in the bath, its sort of lacking in respect. So it must be illegal. And I am forbidding it. And if you don’t like it, fine, don’t buy my poetry.
Wrong. If you don’t like it, Mr Eliot, don’t sell your poetry. But if you do, we will read it in the bath if we feel like it. Because that’s what the law allows us to do.
You are absolutely correct. You are allowed to butcher those 1’s and 0’s to your hearts content on your own system. As you stated however, you can not resell it as your own.
As for your copy of it, yes, you *can* sell your copy at whatever price you want to. Minus your modifications of course.
Actually since most of those are written with Visual Studio, yes, they are licensed to change and re-distribute certain dll’s. themeui.dll happens to be one of those that are legal to modify and re-distribute.
Exactly. When Free Software is available that does what I want, then is what I use. In other cases, due to my job, I am forced to use certain software that is proprietary in nature.
I’m just buying the media, then Windows and OS X should only cost 27 cents. Thanks for the steep discount.
According to what the law has determined, you own the media yes. You pay for a license to use the software. You buy the physical media, and a license. How about that?
Actually, in MY country(Canada) I am pretty sure that when you buy a copy of a program, you own a copy, you did not license it. There are 205 more countries in the world other than the US, and US law does not apply anywhere but the US.
Agreed and understood. This case is a US case however, being tried in US courts, with 2 US companies. By your statement it doesn’t matter how the case turns out to you, as it only affects those of us that *do* live in the US. I never said it applied around the world. I have been to at least 100 of these other countries that exist, so I am well aware of them.
Here is a link as to how software is treated in Canada:
http://users.trytel.com/~pbkerr/computer.html
Note the part under “Moral Rights”.
Resell it ONCE since you bought it ONCE.
Even if MS were behind Psystar, who cares? It would not make the business any less legitimate. As for the idea that ‘shadowy forces’ are out to damage Apple by funding a test case of selling OSX on non-Apple branded hardware?
Maybe they are. Happens all the time, its how companies behave in a competitive environment. One company has a model which allows it to make some profits, by taking advantage of a combination of what it thinks the law is, and its product assets. Another thinks it can attack this on the basis that the interpretation of the law is mistaken.
So it has a go, or funds someone to have a go. This is all perfectly normal, the way business is conducted, and its perfectly legitimate. If Apple does not like it, it needs to stop relying on dubious use of EULAs.
As the Apple people say all the time, if you don’t like the conditions, don’t buy Macs.
Maybe. And if you, Apple, don’t like what people can legally do with what you sell, don’t sell it.
How many times do people have to be told – there’s a difference between Buying outright and Licensing? Just because a software package includes media doesn’t confer the right to do anything you want with it – it’s simply the “medium” through which you obtain the software you’ve licensed the “use” of.
Look at Window’s Activation – don’t activate it and see what happens. Better yet, put the same code on 10 computers and try to activate all of them. Apple hasn’t done that, but it does stipulate that each license for OSX is for only one computer – if you want to use it on more, you buy the “Family Pack”, which allows you 5 computers. Apple doesn’t check, but it’s their right to if they ever want to in the future.
If you want to run OSX on cheap hardware, put your money where your mouth is and support the OSX86 project!
You are correct, there is a difference between buying a copy and licensing. The difficulty with arguing that when you buy a copy at retail, you are in fact being granted a license, and not buying a copy, is that the courts in the US have held otherwise. They have held unequivocally (in Softman) that when you buy a retail copy, you do indeed buy that copy.
There is no doubt whatever about this. When you buy it you buy it, you do not license it. You do indeed have the normal rights associated with having bought something, like you can make notes on it, resell it as a whole or piecemeal, burn it….and so on. And no, you do not just buy the media. You really do buy a copy. Not the software, not the IPR, but a copy. Not a license, no, a copy.
There is a further step however that takes place, and that is when you install the software. You then enter into a further contract by click through. There is also no doubt that this may contain binding conditions. There is also no doubt that some conditions it might contain would be non-binding and unenforceable. The question is where exactly Apple’s conditions on what kind of machine you may install on fall in this spectrum.
I have to say that the enormous importance Apple blogs seem to attach to the allegations that someone is funding Psystar seems totally misplaced. Who cares who is funding it? If anyone is. The issue is not their motivation, the issue is the validity of their case. Suppose that MS was funding Psystar. Does that make what they are doing more, or less, legal?
It makes no difference. Suppose a tobacco company was funding Psystar. Or some creationists. Or the John Birch Society. Or Exxon. Or Oracle. Or the Communist Party of the former Soviet Union. Or a venture capitalist. Or indeed suppose it was their customers. The ones who want to buy from Apple something that Apple refuses to sell them. A reasonably priced mid range tower running OSX.
Who cares, the question is, never mind who is funding them, does Apple have the legal power to stop them and anyone else from doing what they are doing.
The Apple blogs should grow up.
Your one sided argument is only valid if the court ruled against Apple. In the case where Apple wins & damages is to be determined, whoever is backing Psystar would also be responsible for the damages if intent can be established. The law may not be perfect at times but it will not shield people hiding behind token company. Such company may not exists behind Psystar but if one do exist, it is not irrelevant contrary to your claims.
…if you lease a property it is yours to do with what you want, and indeed sub-let it to whomever you please without having to answer to the owner.
In the larger scheme of things where would this leave the “free for non-commercial use” and OEM market? Those licences would no longer hold water because they also restrict what computer you can install the product on, so you could throw them out the window.
What people need to get over is that they have NEVER been buying the software. EVER. The have been buying a LICENCE for the software and a copy of that software on some form of media – unless its Microsoft in which case you sometimes just get the licence. If anyone doesn’t like that model or the terms of the licence the choice is simple, DON’T BUY THE BLOODY LICENCE! But if you do buy the licence don’t complain that you don’t like the terms – you had a choice! I do agree however that you should be able to see the licence before you buy it.
Also, the cost of what you are buying is determined by the thing you are buying. If you want to buy a property you have to come up with the 500k or 2mil or 10mil or whatever amount it is. If you want to buy a lease for a property (licence it) you pay a much smaller amount for the reason that it is NOT yours to with with whatever you please.
So why should a judge be allowed to change this just because it is a software product? Here’s a suggestion, if you want to change the way software is distributed – that is sell a copy of the package rather than a licence for it – you go and outlay the countless dollars for R&D, infrastructure, packaging and marketing then you can dictate how your product is distributed. Until you do that don’t believe you have the right to even suggest the terms by which anyone else can or can’t distribute the product that THEY have paid to produce.
And why shouldn’t Apple have the right to subpoena the financial records of this company? Pystar were the ones who counter-sued so they need to respect the “terms and conditions” of bringing the action. If they have nothing to hide they should just cough up the data, and just like purchasing a software licence they have a choice – supply the data or drop the case. If nothing else it would at least score brownie points for them proving that Apple’s suggestion of outside financial backing was false – if that is the case of course. But it seems that Pystar isn’t big on respecting terms and conditions.
And for the record, before Thom starts screaming his usual Apple zealot BS, I think the clause that restricts OSX from being installed on anything but Apple labelled products is stupid, BUT I believe it is Apple’s choice to have it in there, because it is their product.
You don’t buy a license, by law.
You buy a copy of a copyrighted work.
Then, normally after purchase, you are made to click a button that says “I Agree” which, theoretically, binds you to a license.
My opinion, based upon law, is that this situation is not valid. It is a direct violation of non-negotiable consumer rights & anti-trust legislation. You, as a consumer, lack the right to sign away some of your rights. As such those rights are assured, even if you signed a contract which stated that you waived such rights.
Anti-trust & copyright protection laws specifically forbid ANY effort or attempt by ANY copyright holder to restrict certain consumer rights in regards to copies of copyrighted works. Among these rights are resale, modifications, and any effort undertaken for compatibility. The only stipulation on the customer is that the original copy was legally obtained and is not cloned more than once. The single permitted clone must either accompany the sale of the original copy at no cost or must be destroyed upon transfer of ownership.
The problem in regards to software stems from the perception of a difference in the substance of what is being sold. This confusion was amongst lawyers, the general populace, and many lower courts. This all ultimately stemmed from a question as to what was protected by copyright – the source code or the compiled product. The answer came to be, in law, that both are protected by one and the same copyright.
Software, therefore, is to be handled as a copyrighted material – and is thus protected and governed as such. This also means that selling duplicate copies is governed. And it also means that a legal transfer of possession constitutes a sell. Once you buy the CD – you own what is on that one CD.
The only case in which a license can be enforced, typically, is when a contract has been arranged and specialized ( a per-case sell – the Buyer’s name must be a part of the contract, as well as Buyer’s affirmation of acceptance of entrance to terms ). And this has been done in advance of the transfer of the traded items ( money for software, service for money, whatever ).
Certainly, no one can be blamed for having a hard to coming to grasp with all of the laws which can be made to conflict with this path – but this is the currently upheld legal direction. The only concern is in the barely-tested waters of EULAs – which are post-sell contracts. If these were accepted to be legally binding in cases of limitations of rights, then the courts have made a mistake. They can, however, be utilized to provide extra rights. No, this is no conflict in law. Permissions (you may use YOUR item in this special-case way) which are implied can be legally permitted, whereas restrictions ( you MAY NOT use YOUR item in this standard way ) which are implied can not.
Only time will tell, and who knows how much may be going on behind the scenes that can throw this case in any direction.
–The loon
The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court’s analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license.
This is what the court ruled, in Softman. There is no point at all for people to keep on making the ‘license not purchase of copy’ argument. It is just legally false.
The case is here, and anyone trying to make the license not purchase copy argument should read it carefully.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/xstatic/articles/056/5628/softman-v-ado…
Now,you say that by my logic
…if you lease a property it is yours to do with what you want, and indeed sub-let it to whomever you please without having to answer to the owner.
No, my logic would not imply any such thing. When you lease a property you enter into an agreenment which may forbid sub leasing. Such agreements are valid and binding in most jurisdictions.
Not all terms in contracts are binding and enforceable however. In the UK, if a manufacturer of a consumer product offers an extended warranty, and if a condition of accepting it is that you renounce your statutory rights under consumer protection law, that condition will not be enforceable. You cannot in law renounce them.
Similarly, if Black and Decker would supply its drills with a shrink wrapped license which forbade the use of some of them in way of trade, that would not be enforceable in the EU, because it would be a post sale restraint on use. If your car came with a contract that forbade the use of aftermarket parts, that too would not be enforceable, being contrary to EU anti trust law.
People need to get it into their heads that EULA clauses may be binding or may not be. It depends what is in them.
The next argument is that if Apple loses, the software industry will collapse, because without the power to restrict what brand of computer you install software on, people will be able to install multiple copies having bought one of them, they’ll be able to hack software and sell derivative works….etc.
No, none of this is true. This is just misinformation and spin, one suspects originating in Cupertino. None of this will happen, because it is forbidden by copyright.
Copyright gives the owner the right to restrict the making of copies. It does not however give the owner the right to restrict what brand of machine the copies are installed on. Read the copyright laws before you argue that it does, and you’ll find you are wrong. In fact, copyright law in the US explicitly gives the right of modification to produce interworking.
What the software industry needs is the right to sell individual copies. What it does not need, but would of course like, is the ability to restrict what you do with your purchased copies, including what you install them on.
We will see in November if the particular clause that Apple is seeking to enforce is in fact enforceable. One clue that this may not be as straightforward as the Apple enthusiasts would like it to be is that Apple has not obtained an injunction stopping Psystar from operating. If it were cut and dried, and a matter of either copyright violation or an uncontroversially enforceable EULA, you can be sure they would have done.
I’ve never liked legal action of one group against another group – especially for dubious reasons with claims of conspiracy.
1) Apple should listen rather than sue; you might find that by suing Pystar that you’re going to end up scaring off potential customers. There are customers who want Mac’s but they don’t want the ‘all in one’ form factor and the Mac mini is far too limiting.
What they need to do is come out with a pizza box computer modelled along the lines of the SPARCStation 20 with a slot loaded DVD/CD and at least 3 slots, with one occupied by the graphics card. It would provide enough expansion with a case sufficiently big for those users but not too much as to cannibalise Mac Pro sales.
2) Remove the protection off it and allow people to install it on a non-Apple computer if they want – sure, exclude big OEM’s from bundling it with their hardware but why should the powers that be come down and crush the little guy who might want to tinker? the only thing Apple should put is, “if you run it on non-Apple hardware, you are unsupported and we don’t guarantee support for your hardware configuration in the future”.
For some reason I don’t see huge sways of people going out and trying to find laptops with the exact hardware that Apple sells – and even if OEM’s start duplicating what Apple sells in hardware there is always point (3)
3) Apple needs to move alway from its reliance on hardware – the best thing they can do with their 30billion would be to purchase Adobe and bring about an end to end product line up in terms of software so that there is a balanced approached to profit streams.
There is also the benefit of Apple being able to get all their software to start using the latest OpenCL, OpenGL and GrandCentral technology in a timely manner rather than it being according to whether Adobe can be bothered.
So even if OEM’s out there start copying the hardware configuration with EFI and people start gradually loading Mac OS X onto their non-Apple computers, there is always the ability to sell them middleware such as iLife, iWork, and the complete Adobe range (if they bought out Adobe).
Edited 2009-05-03 00:19 UTC
[quote]It seems like Apple still believes there’s more to all this than just Psystar, and that other people or companies might be financing Psystar, which would then, I assume, explain why Pedraza couldn’t answer questions about “investors, lenders or other sources of financial support”. Of course, a much more plausible explanation would be that there are no “investors, lenders or other sources of financial support”, but that’s far less exciting.[/quote]
It is speculation on Apple’s part about others being behind the funding. It is also speculation on your part, Thom, about there NOT being other parties involved, and yet, you call Apple out on that, and give nothing more than a meaningless statement about it being much more plausible that there are no other investors, lenders, or other sources of financial support. Have you actually looked into how expensive it is to get into any sort of business remotely like this? Perhaps they have their own funding from cash they had saved up from their personal savings, but there’s also a very logical chance that they didn’t get started without having an investor, or at least a lender of some sort (if only that of a local bank loan officer), because it starts costing money when you’ve got to deal with all the legalities and annoying things of renting space to assemble physical products, as well as just surviving otherwise until revenues and overall sales reach above the break-even point.
If you’re going to state something is much more plausible than what someone else speculates on while ridiculing a well-established business that knows a bit more about what is involved in the same sort of business, then you had better be able to back it up with a logical explanation, especially when the company that is being speculated about purposely jumped in with both feet into an area they could be 100% certain would have exorbitant legal costs to defend. If, indeed, they went all-out with all their own personal money into something that was absolutely certain to wake up their one true competitor and involve them in legal proceedings that have lots of past legal precedents, and they were expecting to just get away with it without AT LEAST it costing them a fortune to defend in court, well, at minimum, it proves they’re complete idiots on many fronts.
Apple has been implying there are investors behind this with a vested interest in hurting Apple, high profile investors, actually. You know just as well as I do that Apple isn’t referring to a bank or whatever.
No investor with any common sense would buy into such a venture if they do their homework and know anything about computer hardware/software history and the industry, because of all the past precedents, as it just screams “I want to be sued into oblivion!” with what Psystar is doing. Thus, unless it is entirely self-funded out of their own pockets, the only thing that makes sense is that Psystar is funded by those that are sending up a trial balloon to test the waters of the court system to see if they’re too hot, all without dragging their names or wealth through the system, exposing it to Apple’s legal department. Either that, or Psystar’s officers duped investors into believing that what they were doing wouldn’t incur the wrath of Apple’s legal department, because they asserted what they were doing was free and clear of legal hurtles, in which case, Psystar can reasonably be sued by the investors for fraud, in addition to whatever else they’re nailed for. No bank that had a loan officer that knew the territory, if told fully what they had in mind for their business plan, would have funded the loan for such a venture.
I don’t have the evidence either way as to whether or not they had investors/bank loans besides themselves: neither do you. Now, I ask you: can you provide valid reasoning as to why, if they didn’t self-fund out of their own pockets, that they don’t have some deep-pocket investors with a desire to take on Apple in such a way, considering the blatant legal risks, all with the convenience of having some other company’s name and existence be on the line for termination should things go wonky? If so, please, the world would like to read it! Surely that should fit in a single post in reply to this one…
It’s a simple question with a simple answer, JT.
Two theories, one complicated, one simple. The simple one is more likely until further evidence appears because you have to make less assumptions.
Psystar is just a company selling computers. That’s all. They most likely started out as a Windows shop. They had a business plan, went to the bank for a loan, and the bank said “ok”, like they “ok” god knows how many business plan loans every day. I don’t even think “Mac OS X” appeared AT ALL in that business plan. You are somehow trying to make it seem as if starting a business is something only super-rich people with endless amounts of money can accomplish. Nonsense, of course.
Heck, a friend of mine started a computer shop when he was 14 or 15 with a friend, and they’re not rich at all. He’s still selling computers right now. There’s nothing special about it.
There’s a Psystar here in Europe as well, called PearC. Are you suggesting they, as well, are part of the conspiracy?
Edited 2009-05-03 15:03 UTC
Are you seriously trying to convince people that you’re a proper journalist by regurgitating the work of others and whatever facts they have reported, and then throwing in your opinions, and calling that the work of a journalist? This site is called “OSNews” right?
Reporting news is an unbiased thing, assuming it is done correctly with journalistic integrity: anything other than unbiased facts and reports of happenings pushes things into a columnist creation that has no journalistic integrity at all, beyond possibly calling it an opinion/editorial piece, which, by putting in your speculation by trying to state that one thing is more likely than the other, clearly makes this article, along with most of the other things posted on here. At least in the world where there’s freedom of the press and true journalism practiced, there’s an effort to try to keep things impartial and filter out the opinions of the writer from what the reader reads: the reader interprets a report and draws their own conclusions, and they don’t need you force-feeding them such crap. It’s true, often even real news reports, by the order and the exact details of what’s posted, even if things are more or less balanced for all sides, can result in something slanted towards supporting one thing or another, but you can’t with integrity and honesty claim that you’ve even accomplished this with this article, or most of the ones you post: hence, my statement of Poor “journalism” because until you label such articles as opinion/editorial, all you and those that post on here that are not reporting the news, but attempting to be the news are doing is a lie.
From your meta chatter and subject change I infer that you acknowledge that I’m right about the funding issue. Good to know.
Where does this come from? Where have I said I am a journalist? I’ve never claimed such a thing. Why all this personal hatred towards me? I just don’t get it. We used to have so much fun back in #haiku, and then all of a sudden, you’re attacking me and OSNews at every opportunity. It’s really sad, and a shame too, because I liked the nonsensical chatter in #haiku.
This discussion was about the funding issue, and you claiming it was poor journalism on my end to state that there is a greater likelihood that there are NO super secret people at work behind Psystar. That’s a valid opinion, but you backed it up with some weak argumentation (in my view).
I gave some counterarguments, but instead of addressing those, you start a whole new discussion that is based on pulling things out of your bum about me supposedly pretending to be a journalist, even though I’ve never said such a thing.
I don’t even know why I’m wasting my time with you. I guess I must have said something really horrible about you by accident or something, or maybe I ran over your cat, I don’t know.
And I don’t care anymore either. Real shame.
Edited 2009-05-03 17:12 UTC
The referenced statements from Apple make a claim (or at least a strong implication), which they haven’t substantiated. Thom’s statement is not comparable – he merely points out the implausibility of Apple’s claim.
Thom’s reasoning is correct – even just by the general standard that any claim unaccompanied by evidence is assumed to be false.
“are software companies allowed to place post-sale restrictions? Is an EULA a binding contract just because you click “Ok”? Should EULAs be presented before purchase? Should software companies be allowed to remove rights granted to consumers by copyright law?”
What post-sale restrictions, which users, which rights? What are you talking about?
Users are not restricting to anything, and no more than their rights are removed. You are just confusing things.
The Psystar story does not have anything to do with users, could you just understand that? Once you buy a computer, you as a user, is free to do anything with it, no matter what is the copyright, because the copyright is aimed to protect against stealing intellectual property. Users who buy a computer, they buy it, period. They don’t have anything to do with copyrights, AS LONG AS they do not try to sell in a large scale the intellectual property of others.
Now, you buy a computer, say a Mac (because it is about Apple here), then, you do whatever you want with it. You can install any system on it, you can sell it, you can break it, you can share it, you can have it but not using it, you can sell the OS X disk to another user, you could even think to install OS X on a pc, this is software piracy, but well Apple does not block you to do that, but you could if you keep it quite.
But the Psystar case has nothing to do with that, Psystar is not a user, Psystar is a public company which try to sell intellectual property of Apple for its own business without having a license to do that. That’s nothing to do with what you refer to users being removed their rights with copyrights, nothing. Or are you saying that a company A can just decide to sell intellectual property of a company B, here an operating system, and using even it for promoting his own products? Do you think that any healthy market business could be possible with such practices? No way, go to say that to Microsoft! I don’t remember having heard that Microsoft is allowing pc hardware manufacturers to sell pcs with windows without having a license for that, or did you?
So please, could you just try to think that through carefully, instead of saying things that make little sense. Or stop to report about this story, you are getting it completely wrong…..
Hakime, Hakime, Hakime… You’re getting funnier by the day. Could you pease explain to me WHY Psystar is not a user?
A user is a user is a user. A customer is a customer is a customer.
Psystar buys copies of OS X. That makes them a customer. Psystar then installs these copies. That makes them a user. WITH ALL ASSOCIATED RIGHTS GRANTED BY US LAW.
As Looncraz just wrote in the comment above me, there are several rights granted to you if you buy copyrighted material. The question at hand here is if it should be allowed for Apple, or any software company, to impose post-sale restrictions that TAKE AWAY right GRANTED by law. Luckily, many believe this should not be possible.
I hope Apple loses this case big time, and not because I want OS X on non-Apple machines (I prefer actual Macs, why thank you), but because this bullshit about EULAs must come to an end. Not being allowed to install wherever I want, not being allowed to publish benchmarking information… What a load of manure.
Edited 2009-05-03 06:30 UTC
Yes, this is correct. A buyer having bought may resell what he has bought and charge whatever he likes, and do it for profit or not as he likes. Whether he is a company or a person makes no difference.
Think about it. There is a demand for iMacs. I buy a Mini at retail, put the bits into a new case with a better main board, add a sensible disk drive. Sell the result. Perfectly OK. Then I decide to do this in bulk, form a company. Again perfectly OK. I’m ‘making money off Apple’. Yes, this is perfectly OK.
Just as if I hang out my shingle and offer OSX consulting services. Then too I am ‘making money from Apple’. This is OK.
It is actually OK to make money from Apple. There is no law against it. Amazing but true.
If it is OK for an individual buyer to install his retail copy of OSX on a non-Apple branded machine, then it is OK for a company to do it to. It will then be OK for either one to resell the result. Either for profit, or as a public service. Makes no difference.
I believe that Apple could lose its perceived edge by allowing OS X to run on non-approved hardware.
If Pystar wins and OS X is installed on unsupported hardware, this could lead to user comments like “OS X sucks… it keeps crashing on my ‘PC’.”
If Apple can control the hardware, they can control stability. If not, OS X may become unstable mammoth like Windows.
1) it’s inappropriate to go “Dear Judge” in the header of a business/legal letter. That’s an amaturish mistake I’d not expect out of a real lawyer. “Your Honor” or simply “Judge Alsup:” is appropriate. “Dear” belongs in personal letters, not business ones. (or is that the 80’s ******* in me talking?)
2) The only number apple should be concerned with is units sold and their specifications – there is no relevance in future projections, and the cost per unit should be calculated at the rate at which Apple would sell those products NOT the rate Psystar was, since they are talking loss of sales for Apple. Given Apple’s price gouging, this could make the amount they are entitled to if it goes their way higher than psystars profits or even total sales.
3) Operating costs and payroll? What business is that of Apple’s in the first place. They are suing for damages created by the loss of property, which can be quantified entirely by the type of units sold and the numbers for each. Unless they are looking to acquire all operating assets as part of a victory (something courts rarely if ever actually approve even in cases of indigence!) There is no good reason for them to even be asking that.
4) Demanding the drafts? If they gave you the projections and likely the sources for those projections, DRAFTS? Whiskey tango foxtrot?
Of course, Psystar is a small business that has a bit of a fly by night aspect to it, the bit where “Mr. Pedraza testified that Psystar had not destroyed any documents” is an obvious attempt to force a conclusion by omission, as his statement could be entirely factual and Apple could simply be asking for documents that may never have existed in the first place.. Went through that with an auditor once that I had to sick a lawyer on, since when I had my mom & pop PC store back in the 90’s many of my wholesale purchases were done over the phone or online, with no actual paper trail apart from the credit card statements at the end of the month and maybe some packing invoices (which rarely have prices on them, just unit counts)
Either way, those numbers should NOT be relevant to apple’s damages, only number of sales and what was sold should have ANY bearing on Apple’s case – them trying to claim more or gather any information beyond that is utter nonsense and abuse of the system.
Sounds to me like Psystar needs to file to have the scope of discovery on Apple’s part limited to determination of damages.
I would not be suprised if the Judge flat out ignored this and it skewed his position in Psystar’s favor just a tiny little hair.
Edited 2009-05-03 07:11 UTC
Maybe Pystar isn’t withholding information and Apple is just being paranoid
In my own opinion, the only reason why Apple wants sales figures is so they can see how much PsyStar has sold so they can then use it against them in court.
I love this place.
To answer some people here, EULA’s have already been upheld as legal documents in the US. What will really be decided is if certain clauses within the EULA are valid.
Personally, I hope they get found to be invalid.
The software industry is changing at this point, and this will actually be a pivotal case to see if it continues to change or not.
I would have bought OSX with Photoshop if it had ran on PC hardware that I assembled myself, since it wasn’t there, I choose Linux and stuck to windows for Photoshop.
Seems to me Apple is missing a lot of business with people like me.