Skip to main content

Psystar Says Apple EULA is BS

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.

  • First.
    Reply
  • BallistaMan
    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.
    Reply
  • sdcaliceli
    I'm curious to see who wins this. Although Apple does have the money to spend on a legal battle.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    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".
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    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.
    Reply
  • The Schnoz
    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.
    Reply
  • Tindytim
    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.
    Reply
  • 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.)
    Reply
  • fulle
    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"???
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply