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?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
Um, no. He probably wouldn't if the sofa manufacture was negligent in instructing you how to use the sofa.
Ever see tags on blankets that say DO NOT REMOVE in big bold letters? They do this so they won't be sued.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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?
Hold on... I honestly can't remember how this argument started
Let me go back and find out how we got onto this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
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.
[/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.
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.
Directly from clause 2 from the SLA in the back of the booklet that comes with a Leopard install DVD:
Not even close. Those are all personal use issues. This is creating a company by selling someone else's product.
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
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
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.