Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs

Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."

Oh Yeah!

The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!

Re:Oh Yeah!

Should that not be "The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more psystar systems will slip through your fingers!" :D

Re:Oh Yeah!

Should that not be "The more you tighten your grip, Jobs, the more psystar systems will slip through your fingers!" :D

Yes, it should be... assuming you're a fan of explaining the joke within the joke itself, thereby rendering it unfunny.
 

Re:Oh Yeah!

Thank goodness for that! I almost had to read the article!

IBM PC

Apple have no choice - if only IBM had retained such control over the IBM PC. And where are IBM now?

Re:IBM PC

Showing a remarkably high trading value [google.com]?

Yes, IBM "got out of the game". No, it was not necessarily bad for them.

Re:IBM PC

Since Apple's entire legal argument hinges on the fact that their EULA states that OSX can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware, it will be interesting to see if the courts uphold such restrictions in EULA's, or the existence of EULA's at all. Psystar makes an interesting argument that Honda can't make you sign a EULA telling you that you can only drive on Honda-approved roads, so why should Apple be able to control what systems OSX is installed on? Is there any precedent here? Has the legality of EULA's ever been put to the test in court?

Re:IBM PC

I think that in legal terms it's the fact that the software is pre-installed. If they just sold the hardware and it happened to be OSX compatible then there's absolutely nothing Apple could do (presuming they've not infringed any patents in the process). They're effectively reselling the OS and using it to advertise another product (the hardware). To stick with the car analogy, it'd be like selling a tiny little car with a Bugatti Veyron engine and advertising it on that basis. Bugatti would (probably quite rightly) complain that the cooling systems etc simply weren't designed to work with a small car, and the engine would probably break down, damaging their reputation in the process.

Re:IBM PC

The only thing is, it's not really the same thing since Psystar isn't an End User. So Honda might not be able to able to make you sign an agreement saying you'll only drive on Honda approved roads (but I don't know, maybe they can?), but Honda could probably make their dealerships sign an agreement saying they won't engage in certain business practices. The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies rarely are.

Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license. If the EULA specifically allowed this, they could try to use the EULA to protect themselves, but the EULA makes no provisions that allow them to do this.

Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.

Re:IBM PC

In so much as WoW/Glider is a district court opinion, it has a nonbinding, advisory effect. If it was an appellate opinion, it's only limit to that circuit (a few states.)

Shrinkwrap licenses are not a slam dunk. They're better than browse-wrap or even click-wrap, but the circuits are split on them if I recall correctly. They may also be held invalid for being substantively and procedural unconscionable. (I would think especially so in this particular case.)

In particular, shrinkwrap licenses that purport to limit fair use are not a slam dunk. The first amendment is the fount of fair use (Sony v. Betamax) and thus of constitutional dimension. While the first amendment is only binding on government actors, the court itself is a government actor, adn therefore by enforcing a fair-use limiting contract (the EULA) the court is essential depriving fair use 1st amendment rights. That's the argument at least. I think its' the right one. We wouldn't want the court to eforce contracts to permit slavery (13th amendment), and I think limiting free speech is particularly dicey. But hey, it happens ALL THE TIME with contracts (nondisclosure for example.) I just don't think it's right for the courts to enforce it.

The biggest problem here for Apple is monopoly issues and tying, which I see Psystar counsel has wisely raised. (You can be a monopoly of a more restricted relevant market than just OSs in general..)

Just my opinion, as a non-lawyer.

Re:IBM PC

I'll try not to pull a troll moment here either, but I don't find anything particularly innovative about either the iPhone or iPod apart from the concept of marketing high-tech to a non-geek demographic. To a massive extent that concept alone determines the direction which the technology has to follow.

Re:IBM PC

Instead of a WinMo device going into portrait mode by hitting a button or opening a slide-out keyboard, it has a tilt sensor, the Wiimote had one before the iPhone. Instead of a single touch, you can use 2 fingers, like in that Tom Cruise movie with seeing the future. Say it how it is, using terms like "multitouch" glorifies a rather arbitrary concept.

Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work, something that doesn't exist, not utilizing things that are already available.

What Apple does is polish concepts, just like Blizzard. Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or MMO but they polished them into something really good (actually I hate WoW, but it is what it is).

Re:IBM PC

IBM only produced the hardware, Microsoft produced the software and look where they are now...
Apple produce both, by your reckoning Apple would be selling about the same level of hardware that they are now, but selling millions of units of software.

Also when you talk of retaining control, look at the absolutely farcical situation with AmigaOS 4. They are trying so hard to retain control that they've pushed away any customers they might have ever had.

EULA w/ full force of law

Notice that Apple filed approx a day after the WoW copyright decision. If there was some doubt on Psystar beating Apple on the validity of of the EULA...it is pretty safe to say that Psystar is about to get slapped down.

Re:EULA w/ full force of law

IAALS (I am a Law Student). Having worked with litigators, I can gurantee that yesterday's ruling (which actually sets almost no precedent because it relied on existing copyright doctrines despite what Slashdotters thought) had exactly 0 to do with the filing date.
      I know this because:
          1. If there had been any real precedent set, the litigators would have taken at least several weeks to analyze the decision, make an educated guess as to whether the decision will survive appeals, recraft the complaint, and make sure all of this was OK with the client (Apple) before proceeding. Litigation takes time.

          2. The actual filing date of the lawsuit was July 3rd, and the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is strong, but it does not enable time travel.

I think this is the first time I've heard...

...Steve Jobs called a "suit."

Apple demands?

Ok, how about the thousands of us who demand a headless, non-pro, non-laptop computer, with actual desktop/decent parts in it?

Mac mini: piss-poor GPU and low-capacity/slow LAPTOP 2.5" drive in a DESKTOP computer?

iMac: fuckin' all-in-one computer with stupid glossy screens and low quality LCDs with not even average GPU choices.

Mac Pro: are you fucking insane? I don't need that much power (and even the GPU options for that one are ridiculous).

Make the Mac mini taller/bigger, put a 3.5" drive and a half-decent GPU in it (the ability to run Starcraft II and Diablo III at medium settings) and it WILL sell. A lot. You have no fuckin' idea how much people loathe all-in-one computers.

Yup, they're taking the money & running...

Looks like I was right in my comments from yesterday [slashdot.org]--but I never figured they would fall apart so quickly! Build a product that might infringe but would definitely piss someone off, make & deliver a bunch of orders, pay bonuses, declare bankruptcy (how long until Psystar does this???), and disappear... Take the money & run. The funny thing is that if they fulfilled their orders, they might be in the clear from criminal prosecution and their customers are the ones that got exactly what they paid for (sans warranty once they file for bankruptcy)... Excluding the execs, who might be sitting on a beach somewhere, everybody loses--including Apple.

If The Shoe Were on the Other Foot...

If this were a story about Microsoft trying to stop vendors from building machines that can run their OS, there would be a million typical comments about them being an evil monopoly, etc. Since it's Apple, I'm sure it's somehow ok, in a shiny, trendy, hip way.

How is that going to work?

If I bought something, it's now mine (the hardware anyway). I doubt Pystar can actually repossess any of the boxes. The entire demand by Apple is pretty silly. Apple's copyright claims can't possibly cover the possession of physical hardware. Very bizarre. I think Apple only has a claim against Psystar itself over copyright infringement (the distribution of hacked Apple patches). Personal use of OS X in breach of Apple's license would have to be an issue that Apple would have to deal with on a per user basis, which I doubt they are willing to do.

Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi

Has the price changed that much? Last I looked, Apple was actually competitive (within $100, sometimes cheaper) with commodity hardware. The only difference is, you can't get a Mac without the bells and whistles.

In other words, you get exactly what you pay for, which includes $1k of hardware you don't actually need.

Re:Apple particularly doesn't like things like thi

That's not accurate. OSX does not use the TPM chip for hardware authentication. The reason OSX does not run without modification is that it requires EFI firmware instead of BIOS. Pystar uses an open source EFI emulator to boot.

There is no TPM.

Cribbed shamelessly from an Ars Technica discussion on the same issue:

"TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die

Amit Singh

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bo...chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

Beating a Dead Horse

"In October 2006, I wrote about the TPM and its "use" in Mac OS X. Since Apple provided no software or firmware drivers for the TPM ...

"Apple's TPM Keys"

"The media has been discussing "Apple's use of TPM" for a long time now. There have been numerous reports of system attackers bypassing "Apple's TPM protection" and finding "Apple's TPM keys." Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM."

In short, while there was a TPM chip in some of the early shipping Intel systems, there were no drivers for it, and Apple did not use it. Current shipping Macintel systems don't even have the TPM chip, so there's no possible way for them to use one.

Dan Aris

Re:Apple is...

"Success" can be relative.

If I was an investor right now, I'd argue AAPL is more successful than MSFT.

MSFT has a gazillion bucks, but the ROI for their stockholders has suffered recently. Whereas AAPL under Jobs just keeps making stockholders money. Good money. If you bought AAPL and MSFT one year ago, you would have made 24% on AAPL, and lost 10% of MSFT.

Re:Apple is...

I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.

Suspect? Imagine a world where Apple won the PC wars rather than Microsoft. Imagine what we'd be paying for computers with only a single supplier.

Of course, if Apple *had* won, they probably would've been broken up long ago as a monopoly, but it would've set the computer industry back at least a decade.

Say what you want about Microsoft, but at least they never leveraged their OS dominance by producing a "Microsoft PC" and then "phasing out" all the other hardware manufacturers. If Steve Jobs, through some twist of fate, had been in charge of Microsoft rather than Apple when he returned, that's exactly what would've happened.

And let's not even get into the fact that Apple competes via lawsuit orders of magnitude more often than Microsoft.

Apple is *far and away* more evil than Microsoft ever dreamed of being. They're fortunately just not the dominant player.

[And no, I'm not defending whatever evil Microsoft has done, only that they are not nearly as evil as they could've been.]