Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X The Courts Apple

Mac Clone Maker Saga Ends As SCOTUS Denies Appeal 430

Posted by timothy
from the we-are-sad dept.
CWmike writes "The four-year-old saga of Psystar, a Florida Mac clone maker that was crushed by Apple, ended Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal of a lower court ruling. The decision to not consider the case (download PDF) upheld a ruling last September by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That ruling confirmed a permanent injunction against Psystar that prevented the company from copying, using or selling OS X, and blocked it from selling machines with Apple's operating system preinstalled. 'We are sad,' said K.A.D. Camera of the Houston firm Camera & Sibley LLP, in an email reply today to a request for comment. Camera represented Psystar in its bid to get its appeal heard. 'I expect the Supreme Court will eventually take a case on this important issue.' Last year, Camera had said, 'This is far from over,' after the Ninth Circuit's decision. Apparently, it is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac Clone Maker Saga Ends As SCOTUS Denies Appeal

Comments Filter:
  • Meh (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @01:40PM (#40007373)

    Even if they had a case they still stole copyrighted code from OSx86 and Rebel EFI was stolen from Boot 132 EFI.

    Boo hoo, they're dead.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:5, Informative)

    by zonker (1158) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @01:50PM (#40007497) Homepage Journal

    Their bootloader code was stolen from two open source projects which they repackaged and relabeled without attribution or source. That's pretty shitty IMHO.

  • Re:Not related (Score:5, Informative)

    by brian_tanner (1022773) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @01:59PM (#40007607)

    You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.

    Yeah. Like this? http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [osx86project.org]

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:5, Informative)

    by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @01:59PM (#40007609)

    I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines.

    Apple doesn't sell fully licensed copies of OS X. They only sell upgrade copies. And the only way to get your initial copy of OS X is to buy a Mac. You can buy it in a box at the Apple store, it's still only an upgrade copy.

    It would be like if a Windows OEM was buying upgrade only copies of Windows, hacking them onto blank machines, and then selling them.

    People may not like it, but that's the way OS X is licensed.

  • Re:Not related (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cinder6 (894572) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @01:59PM (#40007615)

    Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?

    Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?

    I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.

  • Re:Not related (Score:4, Informative)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gmaUMLAUTil.com minus punct> on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @02:13PM (#40007805) Homepage Journal

    That's my point. By placing the DMCA above all other relevant laws, Atari v. Activision would be ruled differently. I don't like this new precedent and what it bodes for the future.

  • by compro01 (777531) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @03:20PM (#40008741)

    That license explicitly says not for re-sale, and only for us on Apple hardware.

    And Bobbs-Merrill Co.'s license explicitly stated "not to be sold for less than $1".

    The Supreme Court told them to get stuffed.

  • Re:Not related (Score:4, Informative)

    by bws111 (1216812) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @03:25PM (#40008793)

    Because software is never sold, only a license to use it is sold.

  • Re:Not related (Score:4, Informative)

    by bws111 (1216812) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @03:47PM (#40009035)

    A book (the physical object) is not covered by copyright, therefore attempting to restrict sales of books can not be done by using copyright. The copyright holder would however be perfectly within their rights to say to a publisher 'you may not give reproduction rights to anyone for less than $1 a copy.

    This however has nothing to do with this case, as Pystar was not simply reselling the CD the software came on, they were installing it.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dynedain (141758) <slashdot2NO@SPAManthonymclin.com> on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @04:16PM (#40009381) Homepage

    Wrong. Apple clearly sold both Snow Leopard in 2 forms. Full license ($129) and Upgrade from Leopard ($29).

    Previous to that, Apple did sell full boxed licenses. There was no "upgrade license" versions for anything other than machines that shipped around the same time as the OS release.

  • Re:Too bad, really (Score:4, Informative)

    by maccodemonkey (1438585) on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:06PM (#40010041)

    Wrong. Apple clearly sold both Snow Leopard in 2 forms. Full license ($129) and Upgrade from Leopard ($29).

    Previous to that, Apple did sell full boxed licenses. There was no "upgrade license" versions for anything other than machines that shipped around the same time as the OS release.

    No, that's wrong. Apple sold two licenses:
    1) A license if you owned any previous version of Mac OS.
    2) A license if you owned the preceding version of Mac OS X.

    There is no "license if I never owned Mac OS on this machine." Apple doesn't sell any machines without Mac OS, so that wouldn't make very much sense, would it? That's why it mentions all of this in the legal agreements with Mac OS X, which everyone likes to hand wave and ignore, because hey, you're willing to be a lawyer when it comes to buying a "full" copy of OS X to be "legal", but at the same time totally willing to ignore the EULA and define "full" with your own definition.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...