While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-06
Agree. If Apple didn't want people to install this software on anything other than Apple hardware, they never should have provided the software separate from the hardware. This is an important case. I don't necessarily agree with everything that Psystar is doing here, but I find it difficult to oppose them, either, just based on the fact that Apple is so obnoxious and dictatorial with the ecosystem.
Member since:2009-08-26
Synthetic laws are placed on all kinds of products for all kinds of reasons. We have many laws that support the creator of a product over imitators or resalers.
For example Western socities ban counterfit goods as they dilute the value of another company's brand. It takes little effort to apply a Guess patch to a cheap pair of Wal-mart jeans. It's a synthetic limit that allows Guess to have quality control over their brand.
At the same time Wal-mart always has the option of creating their own brand just as Psystar has the option of creating their own OS. Intellectual property laws not only exist to protect exisiting companies but also to encourage companies entering a market to not take shortcuts.
Member since:2007-09-06
Counterfit of a brand clearly infringes on trademark law. EULA removed rights given by copyright law. It is also applied after purchase; "oh, by the way, now that you bought our product, you can only use it like this..."
This is also not a third party duplicating another companies product. A thirdparty is legally buying the retail product and providing it as an option. They are not slapping a CK label on knockoff geans but instead providing there own geans with the same zippers that CK uses and out of the inventory CK chooses to sell separate from the pants. (everybody needs replacement zippers from time to time)
Psystar may not be squarely in the right. They could have spent that money contributing the less consumer hostile software. However, the fight they've started has consequences far beyond Apple OEM vs a reseller.
Member since:
2007-09-06
Your equating software to home built aircraft, firearms and controlled substances. You don't think your maybe reaching a little?
Software is more like the CD of your favorite band. Any old CD reader can play the music off that disk. Now suddenly Virgin Records includes a slip of paper inside the case. You go, you buy the disk. You get home and pull the plastic off only to see:
"Thank you for purchasing our product. By breaking the plastic seal, you agree to only play this music on Sony branded music players and also agree that content on this will not be converted to other formats."
It's an EULA and is restrictive in that it tries to remove writes already granted by copyright and fair use. No one would accept the first clause either. The more likely response is "I baught the music disk and I'll play it on whatever CD reader I want and I'm going to copy the songs over to my mp3 player."
It's a synthetic limitation. The only thing stopping it from running on non-Apple purchased hardware is the EULA. Get an EFI motherboard and your golden. yet, we accept that osX is somehow different from any other copyright content. It's software; it's magical and shit! - no it's not; it's just software and there's no reason a legally purchased copy can't be installed on non-Apple hardware outside of apple asking you not too.