Apple wipes the floor with Psystar in court, EULA upheld.

[bobtomay]

I'd say that makes it pretty clear.

 

[Wolfmann]

What Psystar did was infringement and I seriously doubt that any company that tries to follow in Psystar's foot steps is going to win any battles in court.

While it certainly creates some satisfaction, I don't know how people can be exstactic of this decision. To me, while it looks on the surface like a major "hear me roar" chest beating of Psystar, it leaves me with some concern.

My first concern is that if Apple is getting all chuffed over Psystar is a little hypocritical as well. The core kernel and OS of Mac OS is nothing that Apple created - it's BSD. It's core foundation is someone else's brain child.

My second concern is that EULA's are regularly not worth the paper they are written on, except where it comes to intellectual copyright properties. My concern is that now courts will feel empowered to uphold even the stupidest innane EULA without the base issue being intellectual property rights.

My third concern is that legally Psystar does have a good legal challenge, as they were never copying and passing off as their own, they were simply transferring ownership...which is acceptable in copyright law. Methinks that Apple simply pursued this in a court sympathetic to their cause, which is half the battle in legal games. If Dell had done this, they would have the resources necessary to make sure it didn't make it to court, and to mount a proper challenge. So Apple taking Psystar on in court is like the 500lbs gorilla beating up the 5lbs chihuahua.

My last concern, is that this victory is a short-term victory that does little to address Apple's real problem with it's desktop and notebooks: marketshare. In the short-term will ensure they have complete control over their product, they won't grow that product until they become more accessible to people that really want their product.

While the iPhone/iPod line represent a fair amount of their revenue, they also hold healthy marketshare in those area's. MacBooks and iMac and their servers, while truly phenomenal products, only represent low double, if not single digit percentages. This has been a thorn in Apple's side since they started this business. They cannot breach beyond 30% marketshare in the PC market, and past probably 2% in the server market. Yet, they have products that really aren't that different from dominant market share partners.

So, while I am happy the investments I've made in my Mac's are protected, I would still like to see Apple open up it's OS. It's the only true Windows competitor and could easily be ported (as evidenced by Hackintosh's), yet the only person holding back their success is Apple.

 

[dtravis7]

DCMA. They are breaking copy protection. I have MANY Windows machines here and a Netbook that will run OSX. Put in the OSX 10.5 Retail Install, nothing. It will not boot, it will do nothing. You have to get around the EFI Firmware which is Apples protection and doing that breaks DCMA. That is a fact and totally illegal.

I am not trying to be an Apple Loylest here or FanBoy, just stating the Law and what they are doing. I am sure this is not the end but at least it does send a message to others.

 

[Wolfmann]

DCMA. They are breaking copy protection. I have MANY Windows machines here and a Netbook that will run OSX. Put in the OSX 10.5 Retail Install, nothing. It will not boot, it will do nothing. You have to get around the EFI Firmware which is Apples protection and doing that breaks DCMA. That is a fact and totally illegal.

DCMA makes using your PC illegal. And it only applies to Americans. Apple products are sold world wide, and could potentially be sold world wide. So if Apple is using the DCMA to product it's rights, that has a very, narrow limited scope.

I'm not condoning that Psystar presents and represents a product that Apple does not endorse, or that they infringe upon copyright, but really in the end it's my opinion that this is a near sighted win for Apple. It does nothing to promote their long-term growth, or enhance their marketshare.

I am not trying to be an Apple Loylest here or FanBoy, just stating the Law and what they are doing. I am sure this is not the end but at least it does send a message to others.

Nothing wrong with being a loyalist or fanboy...Apple has a very strong product, and as a long time PC users I have to admit my Macbook aluminum has me smitten. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. Period.

I just happen to be a realist and feel Apple has great 5 year foresight - but they don't see much past the next product.

 

[cwa107]

FWIW, I agree with you to some extent (and see my editorial on the blog if you'd like to see more of my thoughts on the issue).

DCMA makes using your PC illegal.

It makes breaking encryption in general illegal. Unfortunately, the implications of that also negate prior fair use doctrine in US law.

And it only applies to Americans. Apple products are sold world wide, and could potentially be sold world wide. So if Apple is using the DCMA to product it's rights, that has a very, narrow limited scope.

Opening up OS X to anyone breaks one of Apple's core strengths, vertically integrated systems. This means that Apple is now tasked with supporting other hardware in their development, which makes building a secure, reliable and consistent OS a much more daunting proposition. Additionally, you would start to see the same kind of support finger pointing that you do with Microsoft and their hardware vendors.

I'm not condoning that Psystar presents and represents a product that Apple does not endorse, or that they infringe upon copyright, but really in the end it's my opinion that this is a near sighted win for Apple. It does nothing to promote their long-term growth, or enhance their marketshare.

Apple's stated goal is not to take huge marketshare, it's to build the best PCs they know how. I know that sounds trite, but it's been restated frequently by them and I think it's something that plays into their corporate vision.

Nothing wrong with being a loyalist or fanboy...Apple has a very strong product, and as a long time PC users I have to admit my Macbook aluminum has me smitten. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. Period.

I just happen to be a realist and feel Apple has great 5 year foresight - but they don't see much past the next product.

While I'd personally like to see them do some limited licensing to certain hardware vendors for niches that they don't currently play in, I think the reason you're seeing this kind of sentiment over Psystar being smacked down is that many of the long-time Apple fans lived through clones way back when and saw what it did to Apple. I think it's a very different market now and it would be more successful overall, but I'm not sure that it's in line with Apple's ultimate goals.

 

[Wolfmann]

FWIW, I agree with you to some extent (and see my editorial on the blog if you'd like to see more of my thoughts on the issue).

I'll check it out!

It makes breaking encryption in general illegal. Unfortunately, the implications of that also negate prior fair use doctrine in US law.

Hmmm...I won't get into a discussion on the merits or non-merits of DCMA, however breaking encryption has always been illegal, and never a part of "fair use".

For example in Canada the Telecommunications Act makes it illegal for anyone to monitor a digital signal (let alone an encrypted one) however, they may monitor analog signals unless they have been specifically encrypted (and you try to de-crypt them). That has nothing to do with copy right or fair use. Computer communications (internal, external, or network) are digital signals.

The Copyright Act makes it very clear that a person or company's intellectual property is their's and makes distribution of copyright material without consent illegal. But that was "modified" by court rulings in the 1980's.

The "Fair Use" position was decided by court rulings and created in Canada (and some European countries) on the understanding that if you own a piece of music (and later applied to video, software...etc), you can share it reasonably with someone assuming you do not profit from it and to it is not intended for commercial distribution. The RIAA flipped over the ruling, but as a result of the rulling they still got their money because all audio cassettes have an imbedded royalty fee put in to them, just the same that blank DVD and CD's in Canada do.

The DCMA in American was postured and put in place by special interest groups as protecting the best interests of society, but that's largely a shame - existing laws were and are more than sufficient to deal with that issue. It has nothing to do with copyright. It has everything to do with maintaining business interests in a landscape that is sometimes hard to understand and can change very rapidly (technology).

Opening up OS X to anyone breaks one of Apple's core strengths, vertically integrated systems. This means that Apple is now tasked with supporting other hardware in their development, which makes building a secure, reliable and consistent OS a much more daunting proposition. Additionally, you would start to see the same kind of support finger pointing that you do with Microsoft and their hardware vendors.

I'm not saying Apple needs to open it up. I'm saying they need to go into licensing agreements. Apple would not support anything other than their own hardware, but allow hardware manufacturers the option to deploy Mac OS X on their gear with the understanding that Apple won't support it.

Apple's stated goal is not to take huge marketshare, it's to build the best PCs they know how. I know that sounds trite, but it's been restated frequently by them and I think it's something that plays into their corporate vision.

I agree that Apple's primary corporate goal is to make great products and I agree they do that on all levels.

Being a corporation with corporate investors, it's hard to believe they're not into making profit and the only way to make their PC division profitable is to gouge customers or to enhance their marketshare or do both. iPhone and iPod has been propping Apple up artificially since the iPod and iPhone were released.

Solaris proved you can make an awesome product, and still not make money if you don't have marketshare.

While I'd personally like to see them do some limited licensing to certain hardware vendors for niches that they don't currently play in, I think the reason you're seeing this kind of sentiment over Psystar being smacked down is that many of the long-time Apple fans lived through clones way back when and saw what it did to Apple. I think it's a very different market now and it would be more successful overall, but I'm not sure that it's in line with Apple's ultimate goals.

I think it's more Mac-centric comraderie. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it is near-sighted.

Their OS is also 1000x better than it was in the 1990's. Mac's were junk up until Mac OS X...enemic, underpowered until the PowerPC G4/G5's came along then the Intel's took over (though the G5 is the technically superior hardware) and were hampered by an OS that had some very serious issues.

Back then, why someone would want to clone them, I have no idea. I can easily see now why they would and I agree they would be well postured for it.

Unfortunately it's not in Apple's corporate values to give up control over their products.

I'll go check out your article!

 

[cwa107]

OK, I'll redact my earlier comment and say you and I are pretty much in complete agreement

 

[dtravis7]

I am sure this will upset some but here is the latest. I am totally for the outcome BTW.

DailyTech - Psystar Slapped with Permanent Injunction