Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Psystar Says Apple EULA is BS

By - Source: Tom's Guide US | B 16 comments

The drama with Psystar and Apple continues in that annoying he-said-she-said sort of way. InformationWeek reports that, according to court papers, Psystar is claiming Apple never filed for copyright for OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office and so, has no grounds for a copyright infringement suit.

News of Apple’s suit against Psystar emerged back in mid-July, several months after the computer manufacturer started shipping its Mac clones. Apple was reportedly suing the company over a violation of the Leopard End User Licensing Agreement, which states the software must be installed on an Apple branded machine. If Psystar’s claim turns out to be true it could spell big trouble for Apple’s attempt to sue the smaller company.

A federal judge last month threw out Psystar’s countersuit against Apple, which saw the company claim Apple’s EULA violates antitrust laws. Psystar filed the suit in August, however Apple remained fairly quiet about the situation until October when it emerged that the Cupertino company had gone to a federal judge and requested the dismissal of the countersuit, claiming the monopoly allegations made by Psystar were “deeply flawed.”

Earlier this month Psystar ditched the antitrust angle for copyright abuse and we guess this is what the company was talking about. We’ll keep you posted on any developments in this case.

Read more on InformationWeek about Psystar’s claim that Apple never filed for copyright protection with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Display 16 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -6 Hide
    Anonymous , December 23, 2008 2:02 PM
    First.
  • 1 Hide
    BallistaMan , December 23, 2008 2:52 PM
    I find it hard to believe that Apple would have forgotten to properly copyright something as important as Leopard. Psystar is probably grasping at straws here.

    If it's true though, Apple is probably screwed.
  • 0 Hide
    sdcaliceli , December 23, 2008 2:54 PM
    I'm curious to see who wins this. Although Apple does have the money to spend on a legal battle.
  • 3 Hide
    hellwig , December 23, 2008 3:56 PM
    Apple has speculated that they believe Psystar to have a large, silent partner funding their legal battle. Considering the fact that Psystar probably didn't sell that many computers, and I too have to wonder where Psystar is getting all this money. In the end, I would like to see Apple knocked-down a peg. They are worse purpetrators of anti-competative behavior than Microsoft, but they get away with it because they claim "they're too small to matter".
  • 2 Hide
    Tindytim , December 23, 2008 5:49 PM
    hellwigApple has speculated that they believe Psystar to have a large, silent partner funding their legal battle.

    An enemy of your enemy is your friend. And who is Apples biggest enemy? Hmmmmmm......

    But I don't see how Apple patenting the product changes the fact that Psystar is still using their product (not a rip off of allegedly non-patented components) against it's terms of service.

    But I certainly hope they knock Apple down a couple hundred pegs.
  • 2 Hide
    The Schnoz , December 23, 2008 6:19 PM
    hellwigApple has speculated that they believe Psystar to have a large, silent partner funding their legal battle. Considering the fact that Psystar probably didn't sell that many computers, and I too have to wonder where Psystar is getting all this money. In the end, I would like to see Apple knocked-down a peg. They are worse purpetrators of anti-competative behavior than Microsoft, but they get away with it because they claim "they're too small to matter".

    Who says Psystar needs anyone to fund their legal battle. I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of lawyers who would love to take this case pro-bono. Or, if they feel Psystar has a chance they would sue Appple for legal fees. And who is Apples biggest enemy? It isn't Microsoft since they have bailed Apple out when they were going bankrupt, need them around so they won't be considered a monopoly,and provide Apple Operating systems with software such as Office (which Apple needs on their OS more than Microsoft needs to sell to the Apple OS market). Apples biggest enemy is probably Palm and RIM since the iPhone is tearing up there marketshare, but they have nothing to gain from this. If you asked Apple I'm sure they'd say their biggest enemy is Psystar since this will open the floodgates to devices being sold that use Apple's OS without being made by Apple, which, IMHO is the real monopoly. Imagine the price cuts Apple would need to make if there was a $350 EEEPC running OSX. Thats what theyre scared of.
  • 0 Hide
    Tindytim , December 23, 2008 8:53 PM
    Quote:
    since they have bailed Apple out when they were going bankrupt, need them around so they won't be considered a monopoly,and provide Apple Operating systems with software such as Office (which Apple needs on their OS more than Microsoft needs to sell to the Apple OS market)


    While true, I don't think Microsoft cares whether the OSX that someone buys Office for follows the terms of service. In fact, having a cheaper versions of Macs makes a large market for Microsoft products on the Mac. They aren't making as much money on their OSes considering most OEMs get great volume discounts, and most people get their Operating Systems already installed on their computers. So a larger market of people to buy their products is always good for them.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 23, 2008 11:25 PM
    Uhm.... why would filing the copyright matter? Under US law, copyright is automatic. As long as your work is original and has artistic merit, you have a copyright on it. (Of course, proving it is a lot tougher for individuals like ourselves than for major companies.)
  • 0 Hide
    fulle , December 24, 2008 2:28 AM
    I don't understand how Apple's EULA is justifiably legal. Surely, the company has many counter competitive tendencies that would not be tolerated if they were more successful.

    Which begs the question... At what point is a company large enough to be forced to play fair? Even though Apple isn't as large as Microsoft, they spend nearly 500 million a year on advertising (486 million for fiscal year 2008). If a company large enough to pump out that much cash on advertising alone is exempt from its monopolistic behavior, and can violate antitrust laws... how freaking big does a company need to be before such laws apply?

    How is a little guy supposed to be able to compete when a huge company like Apple is still perceived as "not big enough to be a bully"???
  • -3 Hide
    Anonymous , December 24, 2008 7:09 AM
    Is everyone arguing that its okay to just take someone else's work modify, then resell it at a profit all in the name of fairness? How would you guys feel if you were to make a hit song; someone else takes it, changes a few lyrics and sell it without your consent. Then have the audacity to say its not your song because the lyrics are words used by everyone so therefore its not your ideal, its everyone's. I imagine anyone of you would would be pissed and do the same as apple.
  • 0 Hide
    jabliese , December 24, 2008 1:15 PM
    mj4358, nobody is arguing that it's okay to take anyone else's work. Psystar takes a copy of OSX purchased from Apple and loads it on PC hardware that is similar to Apple's, but cheaper.

    The whole issue stands on a little clause Apple has in it's EULA, stating that OSX may only be loaded on hardware purchased from Apple. Which begs the question of why Apple sells OSX in retail boxes, if it has to be tied to their hardware.

    There are, of course, other issues wrapped up and around all this, but that's the core of it.
  • 0 Hide
    kamkal , December 24, 2008 4:51 PM
    or you could just save yourself the trouble and buy a windows pc that is already a fraction of the cost and does the same thing lol
  • 0 Hide
    kelfen , December 25, 2008 7:42 AM
    I hope pystar wins just for the sake apple OS doesn't really work on half the crap I have esp games.
  • 0 Hide
    pocketdrummer , December 27, 2008 3:17 AM
    I hate that Apple has a closed system. I really wouldn't mind buying a system from another manufacturer who, I don't know, doesn't have something against USB ports on their laptops...

    Really... 2-3 USB ports!? WTF man!?

    Anyway, maybe they'll start pricing their computers reasonably if there were other competitors.

    Then again, they hold the key to OS development. They would probably introduce code to slow down systems that weren't made by them. I wouldn't put it past them.
  • 0 Hide
    Dekasav , December 27, 2008 7:22 AM
    But part of the reason OSX can be so good is because it exists on a closed system. Hardware can be extensively tested and optimised. Windows has to work on everything, therefore it can't be tested to the extent OSX can be. It is their product, they can do as they want with it, but they could sell more operating systems if it worked on everything, gaining marketshare and power. It's a choice they have, whether to probably make more money selling OSX ONLY on Macs, or allowing it on everything, gaining more power, but opening OSX up to the problems Windows faces (With a larger user-base, comes viruses, more hardware issues, etc.)
  • 0 Hide
    gwellin , December 29, 2008 3:08 PM
    I would love to someday hear that Microsoft is the finacial and leagal backbone to Pystar. That would be some interesting reading.
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter