Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[ajthomason]

Except, if the companies don't want you selling their product, they will sue you for Trademark infringement. Which, BTW, Apple is also suing Psystar for.

I'm not a law expert, but I don't see how they would win. If ATI decided that they didn't want me to make computers that use an ATI graphics card and an Intel motherboard, could they actually stop me?

 

[iLunar]

And yet I didn't sign a EULA for my last sofa I bought. And if I tried to sue the sofa manufacturer in court if I burned down my house, the judge would laugh me out of the court room.

Um, no. He probably wouldn't if the sofa manufacture was negligent in instructing you how to use the sofa.

Otherwise you'd read about sofa manufacturers going bankrupt every day because of all the rednecks who burned down their trailers.

Ever see tags on blankets that say DO NOT REMOVE in big bold letters? They do this so they won't be sued.

A EULA isn't needed in a case like that. It's excessive. It goes beyond common sense. The same goes for operating systems. By installing OSX on a machine with identical components, you are not going to create SkyNet that will subsequently destroy your neighborhood in a nuclear holocaust.

No, but you will incur MONETARY DAMAGES to the company in question. This is why intellectual property rights are so hard to navigate, because liability is extremely difficult to establish. EULA is just like all those tags on clothing and blankets.

Your computer may not work flawlessly with the operating system. Oh no, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. If only it worked perfectly like every other piece of software that's had a EULA and therefore was problem free.

Like I said, it's not about restriction, but about damages. If a company is causing Apple financial harm, or even has the potential to cause potential harm, Apple is absolutely within their right to seek damages. Pystar, in this case, by hacking copyrighted software, is the one liable for damages.

Pystar is trying to argue that Apple is responsible for it's financial damages based on anti-competitive practices. They can't challenge a copyright or corporation if there are no damages.

 

[macenforcer]

I buy things with the intent on not having someone tell me where I can and cannot place it in my own home.

But sure why not, let's let furniture manufacturers stipulate where you can place your sofas. Or how about whether or not you can stick certain brands of pots and pans in your dishwasher.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

It has been and should continue to be stricken down as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. It places the consumer in a non-negotiable stance wherein they have no choice to accept.

Either agree, or lose your job because you can't use Final Cut Studio, or some other Mac only program, since all the people in your particular field or division use OSX developed programs. Geeeee, which one do you think everyone will choose? Operating systems should be handled differently than individual programs.

It comes down to classifying software like this as a good or a license. And thankfully, in states where it's classified as a good, the EULA is not enforceable.

Bravo! He is exactly correct.

 

[r.j.s]

I'm not a law expert, but I don't see how they would win. If ATI decided that they didn't want me to make computers that use an ATI graphics card and an Intel motherboard, could they actually stop me?

Yes, by not selling you the cards. If you chose to buy them some other way, you are infringing on their trademark by implying endorsement.

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.

Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Yes, that has worked out so well for PC users, hasn't it? I mean, who doesn't enjoy getting a new beige box PC from a local computer store and having to find drivers for on-board audio or video cards among 10 different web sites in Taiwan and hoping you've found the correct manufacturer and the correct chipset.
.

That is not true for most systems they have AMD / INTEL / NVIDIA video maybe the super low cost systems have that no name video / chipsets.

 

[ataylor]

Here's another thought. You do not own the software. You are basically paying to use it. The same is true with music. It would be like Walmart (or any other entity) buying a Beatles album and then using one of the songs from the album in a commercial. Not legal.

 

[ajthomason]

Yes, by not selling you the cards. If you chose to buy them some other way, you are infringing on their trademark by implying endorsement.

Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Firstly, US law does not apply in the UK, and secondly, I still don't see how they could stop me - I am purchasing the products that they sell and using them for what they are designed for, I am accepting all EULAs and not violating any T&Cs.

 

[milo]

The case they're arguing, quite literally, is analogous to this:

I sell hammers.

TERRIBLE analogy.

Unless you consider hammers to be copyrightable intellectual property.

Copyright law says it's illegal to modify and distribute copyrighted materials, which is exactly what Psystar is doing.

It's amazing how the Psystar stories seem to be magnets for the most idiotic comments.

 

[ajthomason]

Here's another thought. You do not own the software. You are basically paying to use it. The same is true with music. It would be like Walmart (or any other entity) buying a Beatles album and then using one of the songs from the album in a commercial. Not legal.

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

 

[r.j.s]

Firstly, US law does not apply in the UK, and secondly, I still don't see how they could stop me - I am purchasing the products that they sell and using them for what they are designed for, I am accepting all EULAs and not violating any T&Cs.

But Apple and Psystar are based in the US.

They don't have to sell you anything, try to become a dealer of a product. Normally there are quite strict criteria. Even if you meet them, nothing says they have to sell to you.

 

[iLunar]

The case they're arguing, quite literally, is analogous to this:

I sell hammers.

You can only use nails I sell with my hammers, despite the fact that someone else sells identical nails for less money.

I'm a bit sick of bad analogies, but no, that is not the case at all. If you sell a hammer and used it on any kind of nail possible, that is fine.

Joe's Hammer&Nails sells a 10inch hammer along with super-duper nails that go with it, for sure the best fit possible for the easiest hammering action you'll ever see.

You see a business opportunity cause everyone loves the 10inch hammer, but hates the nails. You make cheaper nails than Joe does, so you decide to incorporate and but thousands of Joe's Hammers&Nails, then re-package the hammer with your nails, and call it kntgsp's Nails&Hammers.

You are now causing monetary damages to Joe based on his own property. You are liable, and thus, Joe can sue.

If you are a consumer, and buy Joe's Hammer&Nails, and use your own Nails, you have caused no damage to anyone, and thus Joe cannot sue you.

 

[r.j.s]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

No, that would be the damages awarded to The Beatles' record company. If they do not license the song, they cannot use it, and nothing says they have to license the song. Ever wonder why The Beatles aren't available on iTunes?

 

[ajthomason]

But Apple and Psystar are based in the US.

They don't have to sell you anything, try to become a dealer of a product. Normally there are quite strict criteria. Even if you meet them, nothing says they have to sell to you.

Hold on... I honestly can't remember how this argument started

Let me go back and find out how we got onto this.

 

[ataylor]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

No, because it is illegal for them to install the software on a non-Apple computer. Also, in doing so, they are modifying the software. Also illegal.

 

[milo]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

Actually, no it still wouldn't.

You can't use a song in things like commercials (derivative works) without permission of the original copyright holder. Copyright law requires permission for derivative works, it's not good enough to buy a copy.

 

[ataylor]

Walmart would have to have the rights to the song to even have a different artist's version of the Beatles song in their commercial.

 

[ajthomason]

Actually, no it still wouldn't.

You can't use a song in things like commercials (derivative works) without permission of the original copyright holder. Copyright law requires permission for derivative works, it's not good enough to buy a copy.

Fair enough, I know it's true, I was just trying to relate it back to the topic

 

[paric]

It pretty much says it all that they are using Anti-trust laws as the basis of their countersuit. Those laws deal with a company's impact on an industry. Mac OS X is not an industry. It's a product.

The complaint against Microsoft was that they were illegally trying to control the entire PC industry, and therefore doing harm to consumers.

This lawsuit is about a new company wanting to resell a larger company's product without and agreement to do so. They are trying to resell the Mac OS, packaged in their computers, using Apple's branding.

They have no entitlement to do so.

 

[kntgsp]

Um, no. He probably wouldn't if the sofa manufacture was negligent in instructing you how to use the sofa.

Really. I mean....REALLY? You think sofa manufacturers need to instruct people not to place something made out of wood and cloth next to an open flame?

I'm speechless. Should we sell all forks with corks on them, lest someone accidentally think it's for removing their eye?

Don't tell this guy:

Ever see tags on blankets that say DO NOT REMOVE in big bold letters? They do this so they won't be sued.

And yet there are millions of people who when they accidentally wash their blanket with the wrong settings or place it near the fireplace, don't sue corporations for millions of dollars.

It's amazing how people have this concept of responsibility. But boy howdy, we better legislate responsibility, lest people forget about it.

No, but you will incur MONETARY DAMAGES to the company in question. This is why intellectual property rights are so hard to navigate, because liability is extremely difficult to establish. EULA is just like all those tags on clothing and blankets.

Yea I bought a blanket from a company and ruined it in the washing machine because I used the wrong settings. I should pay them a penalty.

Yea. That's the ticket!

Like I said, it's not about restriction, but about damages. If a company is causing Apple financial harm, or even has the potential to cause potential harm, Apple is absolutely within their right to seek damages. Pystar, in this case, by hacking copyrighted software, is the one liable for damages.

I sell oranges. You sell oranges cheaper than I do. I should be able to have the court shut you down because you are causing me "financial harm".

Give. Me. A. Break.

It's dictatorial capitalism. Plain and simple.

Pystar is trying to argue that Apple is responsible for it's financial damages based on anti-competitive practices. They can't challenge a copyright or corporation if there are no damages.

[/QUOTE]

What financial damages? People don't take their Psystar computers to Apple when it breaks down, they take it to Psystar. If a hard drive in a computer fails, Dell doesn't make Microsoft pay for it.

 

[MaynardJames]

Some of you need to learn what analogy means. It does NOT have to be a perfect, complete comparison of two things, but instead a comparison of like features of two things.

 

[zombitronic]

Directly from clause 2 from the SLA in the back of the booklet that comes with a Leopard install DVD:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

 

[paric]

Bravo! He is exactly correct.

Not even close. Those are all personal use issues. This is creating a company by selling someone else's product.

 

[sfh]

OSX does not need to be hacked to install

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install. The updates that Psystar did the same thing. Psystar from what I can tell has not changed OSX code ... therefore no infringement

 

[HLdan]

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

You're almost right, the retail version of Mac OS X are in fact stand alone versions. Yes, they are Mac only but they are full versions in case someone needs to replace their hard drive, they will be able to install a full copy of Mac OS X on an empty formatted HDD. They are not upgrade discs.

 

[r.j.s]

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install. The updates that Psystar did the same thing. Psystar from what I can tell has not changed OSX code ... therefore no infringement

This is something that can only be proven in court. No sense in arguing it here. However, if they didn't modify it, why don't Apple's updates work?