Forums | MacLife

Psystar won't be able to afford the legal battle.

thugmoni wrote:

Psystar won't be able to afford the legal battle.

I agree.

ouch^

Your name suits you well.

OT, I'm curious to see what comes of this, but I'm leaning towards thugmoni on this one.

Amen

333imacman wrote:

I find it amusing that the people in the osx86 community pretty much hated the psystar concept from day one. But I hope they get shut down. Hackintosh stuff is cool...but psystar just felt so cheap.

Yes, if someone is going to break the law, it should at least be cool.

thugmoni wrote:

Psystar won't be able to afford the legal battle.

Apple waited until they sold a few units so they'd have some money to take.

Pariah wrote:

This suit will have broad implications far outside the Apple and if Apple does prevail consumers will loss, all consumers.
Frankly it would be pretty disastrous for all software consumers which is everyone now a days.

I don't think it will really be disastrous for software consumers (dare I say that's a tad dramatic), but I agree with you first statement, and with everyone else who said it will be interesting.

I've said it once already, but I don't think there's much Apple can sue for, really. They're getting full-cost for their OS, and I'm not sure how much of their EULA is enforceable, but I guess we're all going to find out, or at least we'll find out one judge's opinion and interpretation of the laws invloved in the matter.

While Psystar may not be able to aford a legal battle outright, if Apple loses, Psystar might be able to file a countersuit to cover their costs.

*waits anxiously*

Czachorski wrote:

To the last 3 posters - it appears that Apple filed the suit the day after Psystar released a patch for OSX where they modified the OS X source code, and Apple's suit is on that basis:  copyright violation.  There is a pretty clear case for a Copyright infringement here, based on Psystar's latest actions (modifying and then re-distributing copyrighted works).  That explains the long delay for the suit, and also keeps Apple from litigating the legality of their EULA in court.  Apple was obviously picking their battles on this one very carefully.

That could be it, and I'd certainly not rule that out, but I'm not buying it wholesale, either, because after reading an article or two for more details, there's some real BS in their lawsuit and demands which tells me they're reaching a bit. For one, 'unfair competition'? Really? How? And a total recall of all sold machines? I doubt they'll get either of those. But then, I don't have any more information than anyone else here. They may very well have evidence and argument satisfactory for both. But I have my doubts. Of course, nary has there been a corporate lawsuit such as this filed in the past ten years or so which hasn't been a bit over the top.

'...Psystar's actions harm consumers by selling to them a poor product that is advertised and promoted in a manner that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple," Apple's suit claims. "Psystar's actions also have caused, and are causing, harm to Apple...'

This entire portion of Apple's statement is crap.

'...harm consumers by selling to them a poor product...'

It's using standard hardware with the same chipsets as Apple and a dozen other manufacturers. It's no better or worse than anything else on the market, for quality.

'...that is advertised and promoted in a manner that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple...'

Uhm, no, not only have they never made claims of association or endorsement, I think they've done a rather fine job of disassociating themselves from Apple. Want proof? Check the website.

'...Psystar's actions also have caused, and are causing, harm to Apple...'

This is a claim for which I'd love to see the evidence. It's the equivalent of suing your dog because he ate the scraps which fell from your table. Also, Apple will have to prove that people who purchased a Psystar rig would have purchased an Apple rig instead. As for the harm in modifying the OS to run on their hardware, they'll need to go after the InsanelyMac/OSX86 crowd, as well as uphuck and his cohorts. At least Psystar is paying Apple for each copy of OS X. The other option is a free bittorent download. So you see, there are all sorts of contradictions and shades of grey here. It will be fascinating to witness it unfold.

Czachorski wrote:

You conveniently skipped this one (from the linked engadget article above):

Antonio wrote:

Copyright infringement: According to Apple, Psystar modified and redistributed OS X without a license, so straight copyright law applies. This is probably a winning argument -- even if the EULA (which forbids modification and redistribution) is held invalid, redistributing a modified copyrighted work is a big no-no.

Which would seem to be the crux of their case, and very strong.

No, I didn't. It wasn't what I was addressing at all. As I already said (to you, in fact) they may have something here, but I'm taking it with a grain of salt at this point, because of everything else I mentioned, added to the fact that they have to present evidence of such claims in court. Until I see it, I'm not buying into it. In case you hadn't noticed, I like a little more information to back a claim before I jump on board with it.

Nonetheless, I brought forward the portions I did because they, in comparison to what you claim I left out, are a bit outrageous, I think.

Last edited by Antonio (2008-07-16 9:10 pm)

Czachorski wrote:

Antonio wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

The nature of the code that Psystar modified would need to be understood to say definitively.  From my point of view, once you prove Copyright infringement (which remains to be seen, obviously), it follows pretty logically that there would be damages to Apple, inferior distribution of product, etc.  It all stems from the Copyright infringement claim, IMO.  If the Copyright claim can not be proven, then of course, the rest is all crap.  All I was pointed out is that you skipped the crux of the case, and then jumped to quick conclusion that the other charges were crap in the absence of the crux copyright claim.  That just seems a little intellectually dishonest, and that is what I was calling you on.

I don't think it's intelectually dishonest -not in the least. First, as I mentioned, I did acknowledge the copyright infringement claim, and quite clearly. Second, modifying the code and violating the copyright most certainly does not validate the claim of an inferior product, nor does it justify the extent of damages Apple is seeking, which is why I said the additional claims smell funny.

Hmmm - I will disagree with your second point.  Once Copyright infringement is proven, I think it is more or less an inevitable conclusion that damage was done, an inferior (modified) version of the work was distributed, and damages are warranted.

You forgot to note my use of "extent" of damages. And modified is not synonymous with inferior, legally or otherwise.

Czachorski wrote:

Antonio wrote:

Czachorski wrote:

The extent part is a good point.  You did add that modifer.

I think a court would rule that once Copyright is breached, the distribution is inferior, regardless of the extent of the modification.  I'm fine agreeing to disagree on this point.

Well, ultimately, it depends on a lot more than what we know right now, which is nothing but claims and statements.
I'm interested in how it all pans out, not because I hope I'm right (though I do for reasons other and more important than ego) but because this is something which actually matters.

The Copyright infringement?  That seems rather boring to me.  Apple is playing it safe, and picked their battled carefully to specifically avoid making this about anything that actually matters.  They have a fairly strong case against a company who the legal fees alone will likely sink.  What part of that is so monumental?

Really? You don't think that's just a little shortsighted?
Choosing battles? Apple is using a bazooka to take out a fly.
This, like so much else going on in the justice system will prove to determine what we're permitted to do with the technology and media we purchase and from where we can purchase it. I'd say that qualifies as important.

Last edited by Antonio (2008-07-16 10:46 pm)