Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Aug 2008 22:21 UTC, submitted by tzineos
Legal Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade", according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages. Psystar's attorneys are calling Apple's allegations of Psystar's copyright infringement "misinformed and mischaracterized". Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 328277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm not sure this is going to hold up
by Phloptical on Thu 28th Aug 2008 00:10 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

I guess it's all in the EULA. If they were just to sell a device, or piece of homemade code that one could then obtain and run OS X themselves, then maybe they have a shot. But selling an OS X pre-installed modded system is definitely shady territory, regardless of the fact they make you purchase a copy of OS X. They are making money off of re-selling software that hasn't been licensed, or sanctioned by Apple. It's like taking a blu-ray movie, ripping it to normal DVD (for non blu-ray owners, then selling the copy AND the blu-ray version together.

Reply Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Thats kind of a bad example as the DMCA makes copying blu ray illegal to start with. However, if you had a book and made 2 copies, even if one was digital from OCR, and you sold it all together, that is perfectly legal. You typically have the right of first sale, and as long as all copies you made are kept together, there is no illegal distribution.

Reply Parent Score: 4

werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

I guess it's all in the EULA. If they were just to sell a device, or piece of homemade code that one could then obtain and run OS X themselves, then maybe they have a shot. But selling an OS X pre-installed modded system is definitely shady territory, regardless of the fact they make you purchase a copy of OS X. They are making money off of re-selling software that hasn't been licensed, or sanctioned by Apple. It's like taking a blu-ray movie, ripping it to normal DVD (for non blu-ray owners, then selling the copy AND the blu-ray version together.


Your blu-ray example is an illegal situation because of the DMCA, not because of any copyright infringement. In fact, the one who'd be a criminal would be the one who ripped the disk and not the one who's buying it. IMHO the DMCA shouldn't be at all, at is break the freedom of expression and by the same way, the right to make yourself backups. But that's not the point. (Heck they're gonna be a similar law in Canada, I guess I will not vote for the current government :-@ )

If I remember well, Psystar guys use a pre-bootloader emulating the EFI to trick MacOS X into thinking it's running on a mac. While this may seems shady, it's by no way modifying the actual Apple property. What it may do though, is to infringe the patent that Apple has on its special security chip. And if it's the case, then it's undebatable. But, Psystar may always contest that patent on the ground that it is unfair and that is shouldn't has been accorded first (I'm no patent expert so this sure is way more complicated than that).

The result of this may set an important precedent. If EULA can't be enforced and Apple is convicted of unfair business practise, a lot of things are gonna change. All of a sudden they could be a lot of people selling MacOS based computer. I guess Apple will try to stop this and they'll surely close up the Darwin project, but if the tide is wide enough they won't be able to stop it.

I guess I'm not the only one who'd like Apple to start selling MacOS X as competitor to Windows. I don't think this would happen soon. But this could be an heck of a bomb. With all the hype going around Apple's products, everybody liking them could be a potential buyer. If only one tenth of the current PC user bought their OS, they would even there have a bigger user base than what they currently have. As PC gaming continue to shrink, having a rock stable OS that is virtually malware free (*) could prove to be VERY attractive to basic users. MacOS can do all your common task while being pleasant and sane of use. The Parallel stuff (3D support included), can resolve most of compatibility and gaming problem. Still it require a Windows license, so Wine or ReactOS could be of great use here.

I think MacOS could be the "Linux on desktop" thing we're all tired of. Yet, Apple will have to open up a bit (could they?) and fix some security problems that MS might smash them in the face with.

* : I know that MacOS is not malware free and that is has been hacked faster than Vista in a security competition, but the current number of viruses and malware running on it is extremely low compare to what Windows has. Viruses use security breaches or user stupidity to spread. I guest for now that MacOS is just more well-built than Windows (breaking compatibility is good!) and that it's current user base is smarter than the Windows base (I'm not telling anyone using Windows is dumb).

Reply Parent Score: 3

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Yes, I'd like to see white-box Macs legally sold. Or OS X supporting multitudes of devices too. I don't think it's going to happen, but I'd like to see it anyway. From what I understand, Apple is basically giving away OS X to mark up their hardware at least 300% on profit margin. Sure, some Mac lines have less margin than others, but all in all, that's their bread and butter. Now, the quuestion is, is it financially sound for them to start opening OS X to white box vendors or start adding support for many "Non-Mac" peripherals? Is there really that much demand from desktop users to run OS X? I don't think there is. Maybe market share would tick up a bit, but they'd still be competing with desktop linux for 2nd, or 3rd place. Microsoft owns the businesses. And will continue to own the businesses.

Anyway, that was off topic. My example of ripping blu-ray may be against the DMCA, but one could (and probably will) argue that Psystar is committing copyright infringement as well. What we believe, doesn't matter, it's what the legal vultures on both sides can prove.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

I guess it's all in the EULA. If they were just to sell a device, or piece of homemade code that one could then obtain and run OS X themselves, then maybe they have a shot. But selling an OS X pre-installed modded system is definitely shady territory, regardless of the fact they make you purchase a copy of OS X. They are making money off of re-selling software that hasn't been licensed, or sanctioned by Apple. It's like taking a blu-ray movie, ripping it to normal DVD (for non blu-ray owners, then selling the copy AND the blu-ray version together.


Just because you put it in the EULA does not guarantee it is legally enforceable...

Reply Parent Score: 3