No, they DO NOT alter any part of the OS X system, the PDF clearly state that they deny it in all parts. They say it is unmodified. So therefore your analogy is void.
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's 54 Page Answer to Apple's Lawsuit with Counterclaim for Violation of ...
- Thread starter Sun Baked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And they are allowed to do that, but you are being too narrow still. Just like I tried to tell you int he last thread, YOU CANNOT MAKE A PROFIT FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S IP WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION. PERIOD.
I know that you don't care about US trademark and copyright laws, but that is the field we are playing on today, you should really understand that before trying to make unrelated arguments.
Oh, they deny it, that makes it true. Sorry. Anyway, explain why you MUST get your software updates from Psystar or why the retail Leopard DVD will not install on their machines.
How can you say that? Can you say that they are making money from "reselling" OSX?
The fact that they are making profit from the hardware which quite rightly has nothing to do with apple is fair.
You cannot say that they are profiting from reselling OSX. If you can, then so be it, and apologies due. But I cannot accept that otherwise.
Apple identify their machines as non-apple branded, and destroy the functionality of that said system.
The fact that they are making profit from the hardware which quite rightly has nothing to do with apple is fair.
You cannot say that they are profiting from reselling OSX. If you can, then so be it, and apologies due. But I cannot accept that otherwise.
Apple identify their machines as non-apple branded, and destroy the functionality of that said system.
More than likely, the only reason they are selling any machines is because of OS X, therefore they are making profit from the sale of Apple's trademarks and copyrights.
Can you prove that the updates do that intentionally? Even if they did, Psystar is modifying those updates to make them work, that's copyright infringement.
No they aren't though, they are making hardware that is OS X compatible. They are (I presume, and accept wrongness if so) not profiting from reselling OSX. OS X is a seperate system to Apple hardware configurations.
I swear I'd love to just sit down and talk. We're like marmite.
Paragraph 58, page 34:
That kinda tells me the updates are like a homing missile, ready to seak and destroy anything untoward.
I found this on their forums:
Being their own, I presume, and only presume that they have made their own apple-like update application which upgrades OSX.
I can't prove that any of this is true, but seeing as it's going to court, I see why they have any reason to lie when going against apple, who could as a result and very easily counter anything that is wrongly alleged.
No they aren't though, they are making hardware that is OS X compatible. They are (I presume, and accept wrongness if so) not profiting from reselling OSX. OS X is a seperate system to Apple hardware configurations.
I swear I'd love to just sit down and talk. We're like marmite.
they are catoring to the people that want a mac but cant afford it. That is the sole reason there in business
I said prove, not the allegations from that countercomplaint, some of those are utterly ridiculous.
No, they are catering to those who want better value for money, not by cheaper products, but better performance.
http://www.psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html
No, you are wrong. They are trading on Apple's patents, trademarks and copyrights. You may not understand why this is illegal, but it is.
just because thats what they state, doesnt mean thats why the vast majority of there customers (not that their customer base is vast) are buying it. they started off (according to the articles i saw months ago on both giz and engadget) to sell OSX machines.
http://review.zdnet.com/desktops/psystar-open-computer/4505-3118_16-32978558.html
It seems to fair well on the above link, from zdnet, reliable source I'm sure.
Oh I also found apple's complaint, if you're interested. Good read too.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/images/apple.pdf
Quite possible, I'll hold my hands up should that be the case.
[edit]I see where the copyright allegations spawn from. /comment withdrawn. nn
Not trying to put you down at all Definity, but this is the fourth thread on this series of lawsuits.
I've read both filings, have studied business law, and I really can't see Psystar having any ground to stand on. (Unless the court accepts that the market is defined as Apple-branded computers.)
Having said that, many people come to these threads to defend the "little guy," saying how they should be able to install OS X on anything. They completely miss the whole point of the suits.
I've read both filings, have studied business law, and I really can't see Psystar having any ground to stand on. (Unless the court accepts that the market is defined as Apple-branded computers.)
Having said that, many people come to these threads to defend the "little guy," saying how they should be able to install OS X on anything. They completely miss the whole point of the suits.
Slightly OT, but some of those same people come to these threads ranting how Apple is overpriced, considering only one single dimension of the value of a computer (performance) and claiming that a PC the size of ENIAC, sounding like a vacuum cleaner, and for $399 totally blows away any Mac in every possible dimension when it gets one extra point in Xbench. They miss the point there, too. It gets tiring reading it again and again... The point is that people have different values in purchasing computers. Apple happens not to cater to one specific set.
Apple doesn't sell commodity and they likely won't. Just because you want it from them isn't a good reason for Psystar to get away with something illegal.
Thank you!
ive been thinking this the entire time but i couldnt figure our how to word it. I no alot of u arent siding with psystar for that, but thats what i wanted to say to the ones that do.
But they admit to modifying Open Source code, and Darwin is still owned in large part by Apple -- and they have the right to terminate distribution at will.
Sort of like saying hey we downloaded and modified BootX, go suck eggs Apple.
Yet they miss that important link about which open source license it operates under. Ooops.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.4/
And yet, when Apple ran on PowerPC - or the Motorola 68000 - I bet you didn't give a rats bum about this because you couldn't go down to your corner computer store and buy a cheap(er) OEM PPC or 68K system. But now, thanks to it being on the dominant CPU platform available, thousands of new options are available so it's now an issue of evidently paramount importance.
The only reason I would want AMD is it's cheaper then Intel (because Intel offers a superior product line and forces AMD to be cheap since nobody will pay a premium for their CPUs).
Microsoft does it to protect their intellectual property from being misused, so why shouldn't Apple be allowed to?
And yet, sometimes it isn't. In particular, unlawful tying is always illegal. Funny how that works out.
No. Where do you get your information?
The unlawful tying argument does not rely on the existence of an OS X capable market. That one is related to the monopoly claim.
Shades of gray
I'm not an attorney or a Psystar customer, but I am a long-time Apple customer. Having said that, any argument in these posts that tries to paint Apple or Psystar as the complete winner misses so many points.
On copyright infringement, I see at least 2 possibilities.
1) Psystar used the open source EFI bootloader to enable Leopard to run on their machines. As long as the code for the bootloader is reverse engineered and/or does not contain Apple created code, Psystar should be safe. The osx86 community claims the code does not infringe, so we'll see. If this one falls in Psystar's favor, we will be seeing a lot more clones. The EULA would be broken and Apple would in no way be responsible for supporting these machines.
2) If Psystar redirected Leopard Software Update to download updates from them instead of Apple, and they were taking Apple's updates, modifying them, and redistributing them, that is infringement. Now Psystar will argue that they had no choice or the OS would become crippled, but they really screwed the pooch on this one. They should have created scripts to remove the offending part of the updates instead of modifying and redistributing (if that's what they did).
3) Trademark/name infringement. Using "Mac" anywhere in your product without Apple's blessing was dumb (unless you're Kraft). If I remember correctly, they changed their name fairly quickly, but how many systems had been sold at that point? Through the use of the Mac name, had Psystar negatively affected the public perception of Apple? Psystar will pay something for this one.
So as I see it, both Apple and Psystar will win and lose. Of course, Psystar will probably be put out of business, but the Mac clone market is going to take off like no other on a hobbyist level, and IMO that's a good thing.
As long as Apple continues to use a limited range of hardware and drivers, even the clones will be stable machines but they won't appeal to 90% of Mac users. As on insanelymac and other sites, I think this really appeals to the uber geek, programmer, unix user, power windows user, linux user. This is not the same market as 90% of the folks that walk in the Apple Store.
I'm not an attorney or a Psystar customer, but I am a long-time Apple customer. Having said that, any argument in these posts that tries to paint Apple or Psystar as the complete winner misses so many points.
On copyright infringement, I see at least 2 possibilities.
1) Psystar used the open source EFI bootloader to enable Leopard to run on their machines. As long as the code for the bootloader is reverse engineered and/or does not contain Apple created code, Psystar should be safe. The osx86 community claims the code does not infringe, so we'll see. If this one falls in Psystar's favor, we will be seeing a lot more clones. The EULA would be broken and Apple would in no way be responsible for supporting these machines.
2) If Psystar redirected Leopard Software Update to download updates from them instead of Apple, and they were taking Apple's updates, modifying them, and redistributing them, that is infringement. Now Psystar will argue that they had no choice or the OS would become crippled, but they really screwed the pooch on this one. They should have created scripts to remove the offending part of the updates instead of modifying and redistributing (if that's what they did).
3) Trademark/name infringement. Using "Mac" anywhere in your product without Apple's blessing was dumb (unless you're Kraft). If I remember correctly, they changed their name fairly quickly, but how many systems had been sold at that point? Through the use of the Mac name, had Psystar negatively affected the public perception of Apple? Psystar will pay something for this one.
So as I see it, both Apple and Psystar will win and lose. Of course, Psystar will probably be put out of business, but the Mac clone market is going to take off like no other on a hobbyist level, and IMO that's a good thing.
As long as Apple continues to use a limited range of hardware and drivers, even the clones will be stable machines but they won't appeal to 90% of Mac users. As on insanelymac and other sites, I think this really appeals to the uber geek, programmer, unix user, power windows user, linux user. This is not the same market as 90% of the folks that walk in the Apple Store.
It's difficult having this debate split into three different threads, but to answer this point, they are closely related accusations. If Apple doesn't have market power as defined by the antitrust laws, then they can't be successfully accused of illegal tying, and they can only be found to have market power if the market is properly defined. To this end, Psystar is attempting to fabricate a market which doesn't exist.
And Psystar's definition of "unmodified" may not meet Apple's or the law's definition.
A number of folks have pointed out that many core parts of the Mac OS (the Carbon and Cocoa APIs or the Quartz Compositor and Aqua user interface, for example) are not part of Darwin nor are covered under Darwin's Open Source license. So if Psystar is playing with that code because they feel it is "Open Source" and they therefore have the right to do so, the courts will likely find otherwise...
The "deny" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "Apple, you will have to prove it". From what I have heard from people in the Hackintosh scene, it is at the moment impossible to install MacOS X on any non-Apple computer without making modifications to the software.
You lost all credibility with me. Would you admit to an illegal act right out of the gate?
" Sir, you have been linked to the murder of XYZ by DNA, security cameras, witnesses,etc."
" But officer, I did not murder XYZ"
" Oh, my bad. You're free to go."
They admitted to altering Open Source code and using it on their "for profit" computer.
What they haven't done, is continue to add to the Open Source community and offer their code up for free (I see no place on their site like this) , and I don't know if they included the APSL license on the machine and a statement of what they modified.
Sort of sucks what the courts are making you do with Open Source software, because this would basically mean people could easily steal from them.
But it might be something critical to them not having a copyright violation...
Court: Copyrights apply even for free software 08-14-2008
What they haven't done, is continue to add to the Open Source community and offer their code up for free (I see no place on their site like this) , and I don't know if they included the APSL license on the machine and a statement of what they modified.
Sort of sucks what the courts are making you do with Open Source software, because this would basically mean people could easily steal from them.
But it might be something critical to them not having a copyright violation...
Court: Copyrights apply even for free software 08-14-2008