The legal back-and-forth between PsyStar and Apple is slowly but surely moving into the twilight zone. Not too long ago we had Apple going all black helicopter on PsyStar claiming people and/or companies other than PsyStar are involved in the clone maker's unlawful practices, even though Apple could so far not name any of them because, well, they don't know who they are yet. If that wasn't enough, PsyStar now claims that Apple's copyright on Mac OS X is invalid.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-05-12
Either my sarcasm detector is completely broken or you are not reading the same story I am. "Quite serious"? Really? By pulling the most ridiculous allegations out of thin air? This is nothing but desperation and it actually supports exactly the argument that Psystar are "just another company looking for a quick buck by stepping on Apple's feet and causing a bit of a stir, then just giving up".
Member since:2006-12-05
They're a small company. Just about any small company (or even medium or probably large one) would have *given up* by now. Hell, they wouldn't have even done something like this in the first place. It's too much of a gamble (and likely a losing one at that). The fact that they're still willing to fight (even if that means digging their own grave even deeper) shows that they're at least trying... despite how laughable their claims may be. They could have just took the publicity and ran.
Member since:2005-07-24
Well, what is REALLY happening is rather typical of any lawsuit. You ALWAYS try to attack the very merits by whatever means available of the other party's case - ALWAYS.
If you find that a copyright application form was filed improperly - for whatever reason - you try and use that if your opponent's case depends on it. Cases get thrown out on technicalities all the time. Sometimes ones that don't even make sense.
Sadly, what I don't see here, is what Psystar's evidence is in regards to this matter. It could be something really minor ( like a typo )... or it could be something rather serious ( like the wrong proof of product - instead of OS X, they supplied Darwin (happens) ).
I wish I knew.
Besides, in the U.S., copyrights are automatic - so it ain't gonna work... but whatever...
Still, my desire is to see Psystar pull out a surprise win. Not just because I almost always root for the underdog, but because I believe Psystar is in the right. NOTHING in the law prevents Psystar, or anyone else, from installing MacOS X on a non-Apple computer.
Technical hurdles for copy-protect only apply to piracy. They buy MacOS X at retail and sell computers with a service to install MacOS X for the customer - while warranting that the computer will be able to run MacOS X. All legal.
--The loon
PS: I think I get it now:
From copyright.gov:
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
Edited 2008-12-25 05:46 UTC
RE: I was too quick to judge Psystar in the past...
Member since:2006-06-17
It is if you pay for it. Through Pystar, you DO pay for Mac OS X. The real question is does Apple have the right to limit how you use it after you've paid for it, and also whether or not Pystar broke copyright by intentionally altering/fooling/bypassing/whatever part of the OS.
That is completely subjective. While one person may argue that Windows is a better option, another may argue that Mac OS is a better option. In the end they may both be right (or wrong), because really it's up to the end user as to what's best for them. Same goes for Linux.
In the end, it's not a privilege, but an option. And when a company attempts to limit a consumers options for it's own gain, you may run into problems.
Member since:2006-12-05
The real question is why would you want to use such an OS, when better options exist like Windows XP and Windows Vista, or the free option (Linux) for people who care about money?
Wow. Just... wow. What the hell are you talking about?
And I'd really hate to burst your bubble, but my first "real" computer (a '97 Gateway 2000 machine with Windows 95) was the introduction that really sparked my interest in computers (sorry... the previous Apple IIe with DOS doesn't count), and I've been a Windows user until just a couple years ago. It ended with Windows XP for various reasons, including:
1) Microsoft's seemingly increasing lack of care for their own users with preference towards the mega "entertainment" corporations (one word/abbreviation: DRM).
2) Their insistence to attempt to kill off what worked, and worked quite well I might add (Windows XP), and try to force Vista onto PC users like they've never forced an "upgrade" before. It seemed like an eternity that they held back even the slightest hint of an SP3 of XP, for example, while they were busy trying to force Vista down people's throats.
3) My increasing knowledge of what they, as a company, have done in the past, and increasing skepticism of them as a result.
4) The realization that there are, in fact, "better" alternatives to their OSes available, and even free of charge.
What this all means is that, as a longtime Windows user, I've given up with Microsoft starting with Vista. I'm currently a Linux user, but BSD, Solaris, Haiku, and possibly even Mac OS X are not out of the question. So, I'm not quite sure what you mean when saying that Windows XP and (*gasp*) Vista are better. They're exactly what I'm running from.
Edited 2008-12-25 03:30 UTC
Member since:2006-01-27
Member since:2006-12-07
Member since:2005-08-29
I'm a Mac user and let me be the first to say that Apple deserves everything they get. In the past Apple has unleashed its lawyers with unprecedented litigious force
on people for doing far less than what Psystar is doing now. So in my opinion it's about time karma caught up with Apple.
Member since:
2006-12-05
One of the previous news stories made it out to look like they were just another company looking for a quick buck by stepping on Apple's feet and causing a bit of a stir, then just giving up. Now it seems clear that they're quite serious. What can I say? I really do hope they win.