Mac Cloner Psystar Vows To Challenge Apple EULA

[grondramb]

This just came across slashdot


Mac Cloner Psystar Vows To Challenge Apple EULA (http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=624126)

http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=624126

"Florida-based Psystar has introduced a Mac clone that sells for about $399. OpenMac features Leopard pre-installed atop a 2.2 GHz Intel Core Duo processor with an integrated Intel 950 graphics chip, 2 GB of DDR system memory and a 250 GB storage drive. The problem: OpenMac represents a direct violation of Apple's licensing terms — which forbid third party installations of Leopard. But a Psystar official said Monday that the the company believes Apple's terms violate U.S. monopoly laws (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207200496). He said Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?," the official told InformationWeek."

http://www.psystar.com/shop/openmac.html

[mercurial]

Well, that will end well.... :p

[Marc]

Moved these posts from Anyone played with Mac OS on non-Mac hardware? (http://www.mainsquare.org/showthread.php?t=3515) thread.

I think the key aspect about Psystar's situation is that it's unlikely that they are running Mac OS unmodified, and that will come afoul of the DMCA. By challenging Apple's EULA publicly, which I think is a good thing and I'm curious to see the outcome of it, Apple will be forced to fight back, and it's unlikely that Psystar could win that fight.

[grondramb]

As a total non-Mac person I've been reluctant to pay more for a Mac than a Pc but if this works out I believe I'll try one.

[Marc]

It's a shame that subsequent research (mentioned at TCF) has discovered this Florida business (http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P07000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_filing_type=) filing that shows that this company appears to be a single guy.

[grondramb]

It's a shame that subsequent research (mentioned at TCF) has discovered this Florida business (http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P07000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_filing_type=) filing that shows that this company appears to be a single guy.


That is a bummer. Although a corporation being registered from a residence won't always be tiny.

[Mysteryman]

It's a shame that subsequent research (mentioned at TCF) has discovered this Florida business (http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P07000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_filing_type=) filing that shows that this company appears to be a single guy.


That is a bummer. Although a corporation being registered from a residence won't always be tiny.

That's true, but a single person is much more likely to not know what the heck he's doing and the legal implications of their actions. If this was a small company with 10 people on the board and maybe 25 employees I'd tend to think they've researched this business model and know how to work within the law to make it profitable.

[grondramb]

The price also doesn't seem to match. It looks like that story quoted the price with no OS and its $155 more for Leopard.


Cart

Name SKU Price Quantity / Update Subtotal Open Computer (http://www.psystar.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=1&category_id=3&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=72)
Case Color: White
Intel Processor: Core2Duo/2.2GHz
Hard Drive: 250GB 7200RPM SATA
Graphics Processor: Intel GMA 950
Firewire: Not Included
Installed OS: OS X 10.5 Leopard (+ $155.00)
Memory: 2GB DDR2 OPN15501 $554.99 $554.99 Subtotal: $554.99 Total: $554.99

[heySkippy]

I wish him/them luck. I expect they'll need some.

[grondramb]

Digging into Psystar (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1690)

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1690

So far, nothing interesting my opinion and just points to Psystar being a small start up. That’s exactly what I expected. However, as Arthur notes, the website was registered in 2000 (http://whois.domaintools.com/psystar.com) and changed hosts in 2005. Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.psystar.com) doesn’t reveal much.


Defiant Psystar back selling Leopard computers

http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9919432-37.html?tag=nefd.pop


As you might recall, Psystar's (http://www.psystar.com/index.php?&option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1) Web site was overwhelmed Monday (http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9918069-37.html) after it was found to be selling cheap computers with Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled. This caused quite the commotion, as Apple does not license its operating system to other hardware makers, and specifically prohibits (PDF (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)) end users from installing Mac OS X on anything other than an "Apple labeled" computer.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080415/OpenComputer.jpgPsystar's OpenPro Computer, which is available with Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled.
(Credit: Psystar)
Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/15/psystar-on-apples-eula-no-comment-but-check-out-openpro) noted that Psystar made several changes to its Web site while it was down Monday. First of all, the product is no longer the OpenMac, it's the Open Computer (http://www.psystar.com/index.php?&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=1&category_id=3&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=72). Psystar's owner, Rudy Pedraza, told Ars that Psystar did that on their own to "avoid any issues." Wonder what those might be (http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html).

[walters]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?

[grondramb]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?

I would think you'd have an copyright issue.

[mercurial]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?

I would think you'd have an copyright issue.

On writing the word Apple on my computer case? How about "I like gala Apples"?

[walters]

Yes, I was talking end-user here, not Psystar-guy. He's pretty much fucked if Apple decides he's big enough to make an example of.

[Marc]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?
I put one of the Apple stickers that came with my iPod touch onto both my IBM ThinkPad and my Dell Vostro when I installed Mac OS onto them. :cool:

[aindik]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?

I would think you'd have an copyright issue.

Selling a computer with "Apple" labeled on it (or "Mac," as this guy was) is a trademark issue. Writing it on a computer you own and use and do not sell is different.

[Mysteryman]

Is there an established definition for "Apple-labeled"? Because that license agreement doesn't define that term. Could you pretty much write "Apple" on your PC with a sharpie to make it "Apple-labeled"?

I would think you'd have an copyright issue.

Selling a computer with "Apple" labeled on it (or "Mac," as this guy was) is a trademark issue. Writing it on a computer you own and use and do not sell is different.

The whole "apple labeled" thing has got me thinking. Since Apple Incs EULA wording is so vague and the trademark law is so clear there seems to be some wiggle room.

Trademarks are protection from one manufacturer misrepresenting his product as anothers. The idea being that when a consumer looks at a computer they should not be confused that it is a product of Apple Inc. However, it's possible to put the WORD "Apple" on or in a computer and not have the computer confused as a product from Apple Inc.

Suppose, as a computer seller, I take a standard computer case and write the word "Apple" on the inside. I then take a steel plate and weld it overtop of the writing. At this point under no circumstances will the word "Apple" ever be readable by a human again. The "product confusion" argument is satisfied. With the word being intact under the steel plate the item remains by many definitions "Apple labeled" does it not? Doesn't this mean I could have a valid argument to install OSX on a computer occupying this case?

[Turtleboy]

It's a shame that subsequent research (mentioned at TCF) has discovered this Florida business (http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&inq_doc_number=P07000077580&inq_came_from=NAMFWD&cor_web_names_seq_number=0000&names_name_ind=N&names_cor_number=&names_name_seq=&names_name_ind=&names_comp_name=PSYSTAR&names_filing_type=) filing that shows that this company appears to be a single guy.

While you're probably right that it is just a single guy, that filing doesn't necessarily say that.

The filing tells you who the initial officers and directors are and who the registered agent is.

It does not tell you who the shareholders (i.e. the owners) are.

If you search for my name you'll see that I'm the registered agent of a couple of entities (most of the results are people with my name but not me though).

[Snowman]

Okay, so fine... "This computer will run OSX out of the box. You simply need to insert the CD and off you go. If you do so, you'll be in violation of <no one cares>."

[Marc]

But the stock CD is unlikely to work. One has to use a modified install CD that permits installation onto similar, but not original, hardware.

[grondramb]

I'm surprised it took this long.

Apple sues Mac clone maker Psystar

Charges copyright, trademark infringement, violating OS X software license



http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9110179

[grondramb]

The psystar site seems a little slow and has the words "business as usual" at the top but reports of it being down don't seem completely true.

[HeyItsCory]

I want one of these now. It's the Mac I've always dreamed of. I remember a conversation with Bilbrey at MacWorld that I would like to see a "Hoi Polloi Mac" a People's Mac. Apple makes BMWs and I want a VW. I don't need millions of dollars in engineering to give me a computer inside a monitor or a 2.5" drive when a 3.5" drive would do at half the cost. I don't need a finely engineered goose neck lamp. If my webcam breaks, I want to buy a new $20 webcam rather than a $150 internal part that I have to get professionally installed at the Apple Store's labor rates. I don't need all the internal components to fit in a tiny cube with no left-over space inside. I sure as hell don't need a $300 A:\ drive, and I don't need the power, volume and eject buttons to go to the processor before they do what I want them to do.

This is my VW. I think I'll be getting Amelia one of these around X-mas.

[grondramb]

Apple's lawsuit against Psystar examined


http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined

So we just got our hands on the complaint Apple filed against Psystar (http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/15/apple-files-suit-against-psystar-for-copyright-infringement-mel/) for building off-label Mac clones, and as expected, Steve and friends aren't pulling any punches -- in addition to the eight total claims, request for a permanent injunction, and money damages, Apple wants a recall of every Psystar machine ever sold. That's harsh, but it's not like Apple to take this lightly. Like we've been saying all along, the suit is more about copyright infringement than EULA violations, since Psystar was distributing a modified version of Apple's copyrighted code outside the terms of the EULA. Grab the complaint here (http://media.engadget.com/videos/Apple-Psystar-complaint.pdf) [PDF], and then head after the break for a quick breakdown of what Apple says Psystar is liable for.

PS. - Somewhat charmingly, we're quoted in the factual allegations section as calling the Psystar machine we reviewed (http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/30/psystar-open-computer-notes-benchmarks-and-video/) "crazy loud" -- aww, you shouldn't have, guys. Maybe you want to throw in a citation next time, though? Just a thought.

[HeyItsCory]

How did IBM do when companies started cloning PCs?

[keirgrey]

IIRC, the IBM case was different. They opened the architecture up.

[Adam1115]

IIRC, the IBM case was different. They opened the architecture up.

Uhm.. hello? Intel Mac's?

The only thing different is the bios... hmm.. sounds familiar, compaq reverse engineering IBM's proprietary bios....

[JYoung]

IIRC, the IBM case was different. They opened the architecture up.

Uhm.. hello? Intel Mac's?

The only thing different is the bios... hmm.. sounds familiar, compaq reverse engineering IBM's proprietary bios....

The key difference is that Apple controls the OS as well whereas IBM did not.
And Apple is claiming copyright infringement on the OS.

[grondramb]

The key difference is that Apple controls the OS as well whereas IBM did not.
And Apple is claiming copyright infringement on the OS.

Assuming that Psystar isn't pirating - that they are buying the OS....

Haven't PC vendors gotten the right to customize the Windows OS more than MS really wanted them to?

[Ereth]

The key difference is that Apple controls the OS as well whereas IBM did not.
And Apple is claiming copyright infringement on the OS.

Assuming that Psystar isn't pirating - that they are buying the OS....

Haven't PC vendors gotten the right to customize the Windows OS more than MS really wanted them to?
Yes, but it took the Department of Justice declaring them a Monopoly for that to happen. Apple is not in any danger of that.

[fake]

The key difference is that Apple controls the OS as well whereas IBM did not.
And Apple is claiming copyright infringement on the OS.

Assuming that Psystar isn't pirating - that they are buying the OS....

Haven't PC vendors gotten the right to customize the Windows OS more than MS really wanted them to?
Yes, but it took the Department of Justice declaring them a Monopoly for that to happen. Apple is not in any danger of that.

I wonder where Microsoft stands on this lawsuit. On one hand I am sure Gates and Co. Would love to see them get defeated. On the other hand if this company takes off that just less copies of windows being sold.

[keirgrey]

The key difference is that Apple controls the OS as well whereas IBM did not.
And Apple is claiming copyright infringement on the OS.

Assuming that Psystar isn't pirating - that they are buying the OS....

Haven't PC vendors gotten the right to customize the Windows OS more than MS really wanted them to?The difference is that the PC spec is open, Mac's is not. Yes, it's an Intel Mac and it's a different BIOS, but the Apple architecture has always been very controlled, unlike the PC architecture, which IBM opened up.

"Apple Branded" means Apple approved hardware, back to those tightly controlled standards I was talking about earlier. It plays heavily into their "It Just Works" philosophy.

By cloning Macs without Apple's approval, Pystar could be said to be doing damage to the Apple brand if it doesn't "just work".

[Adam1115]

The difference is that the PC spec is open, Mac's is not. Yes, it's an Intel Mac and it's a different BIOS, but the Apple architecture has always been very controlled, unlike the PC architecture, which IBM opened up.

"Apple Branded" means Apple approved hardware, back to those tightly controlled standards I was talking about earlier. It plays heavily into their "It Just Works" philosophy.

By cloning Macs without Apple's approval, Pystar could be said to be doing damage to the Apple brand if it doesn't "just work".

That's COMPLETELY false!

IBM didn't 'open up' their architecture. Their BIOS was proprietary and copyrighted. Compaq reverse engineered it and developed their own IBM Clone BIOS. The difference was that IBM didn't OWN the OS and MS was free to sell their own version of the OS to the public....

[JYoung]

The difference is that the PC spec is open, Mac's is not. Yes, it's an Intel Mac and it's a different BIOS, but the Apple architecture has always been very controlled, unlike the PC architecture, which IBM opened up.

"Apple Branded" means Apple approved hardware, back to those tightly controlled standards I was talking about earlier. It plays heavily into their "It Just Works" philosophy.

By cloning Macs without Apple's approval, Pystar could be said to be doing damage to the Apple brand if it doesn't "just work".

That's COMPLETELY false!

IBM didn't 'open up' their architecture. Their BIOS was proprietary and copyrighted. Compaq reverse engineered it and developed their own IBM Clone BIOS. The difference was that IBM didn't OWN the OS and MS was free to sell their own version of the OS to the public....

It's false because I didn't say that. ;)

[Kiyo]

It's false because I didn't say that. ;)
:2funny:

[grondramb]

This almost sounds like Apple is paying of Psystar...

Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement



"Psystar and Apple have agreed to alternative dispute resolution (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/10/16.9.shtml) to keep the public eye away (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10068824-37.html) from their disagreements (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/16/1731223&tid=187), and to reduce legal costs. This will eliminate any rulings that would set a precedent over Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/26/2148250&tid=123) by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly. This could result in a profit for Psystar's business, but eliminate their line of open-computing Mac-compatible PCs (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1919237&tid=174).

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/19/1511231

[grondramb]

Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed


http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/18/2353259

CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10101581-37.html) against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar (http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/14/1919237&tid=174) and the dueling (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/15/1739202&tid=123) lawsuits (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/26/2148250&tid=123) since the beginning.

Given how reluctant the government has been on declaring monopolies - I can't say I'm surprised although I am certainly rooting for Psystar

[grondramb]

Psystar closes up shop...or does it?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-10418821-260.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

After being ordered by a federal judge on Tuesday to stop selling its Mac clones (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10416463-37.html), Psystar was reported to be going out of business, according to a Dow Jones Newswires story (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200912172008dowjonesdjonline000 657) on Thursday. Psystar's Web site (http://psystar.com/) was also inaccessible late this week.
Psystar attorney Eugene Action told Dow Jones that founder and President Rudy Pedraza will be "shutting things down immediately," and that all eight employees will be let go. However, Computerworld reported Friday that another attorney for Psystar, K.A.D. Camara, of the Houston, Texas, firm Camara & Sibley, says the company is not shutting down and that Action was "misquoted," and Psystar "does not intend to shut down permanently." I've really been rooting for Psystar.