Psystar Loses Again: Appeals Court Says It Can't Install Legally Purchased OSX On Other Hardware
from the copyright-misuse dept
As you may recall, Psystar was a company that tried to make Apple Mac clones by legally purchasing Apple operating systems, and figuring out how to install them on other hardware. Apple sued the company in 2008 for violating its license. Psystar went through a variety of (often questionable) defenses before settling on the one I thought had the best chance: the first sale doctrine -- basically claiming they legally purchased the software, and that they should be able to install it wherever they want. Psystar also claimed "copyright misuse," against Apple, arguing that its EULA restricting installation to only Apple hardware was a form of copyright misuse to stifle competition. Two years ago, though, the court granted summary judgment to Apple, rejecting both arguments.Psystar appealed, focusing on the copyright misuse argument and, while it took some time, the always slightly wacky 9th Circuit has upheld the ruling. The court, tragically in my opinion, buys Apple's argument that its EULA does not unfairly restrict competition, because Psystar could go find a different operating system, rather than Apple's. Here, the court relies on the awful Vernor v. Autodesk ruling that basically said, "as long as a software company claims it's leasing the software to you, rather than selling it to you, your first sale rights disappear." This is true even if the "sale" really is a sale rather than a lease. It all depends on what you call it.
So, in this case, the court ruled that the copyright misuse claim must fail, because it's really an attempt to create a "right of first sale" for software -- and because Apple pretends its software sales are licenses, there is no right of first sale. So, without that... no copyright misuse. If you think this logic is circular, you should see if you can become a judge on the 9th Circuit, since they appear to need help. Furthermore, it argues that since Psystar could just go write its own operating system there is no copyright misuse:
Apple’s SLA does not restrict competitor’s ability to develop their own software, nor does it preclude customers from using non-Apple components with Apple computers. Instead, Apple's SLA merely restricts the use of Apple’s own software to its own hardware. As the district court properly concluded, Apple's SLA has "not prohibited others from independently developing and using their own operating systems." Apple I, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 939. Psystar produces its own computer hardware and it is free to develop its own computer software.As with the Vernor case, the reasoning here is convoluted. It's really just another court decision that chips away at first sale rights, which are (were?) an important part of copyright law.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: clones, copyright, copyright misuse, first sale, license, mac clones, sale, software
Companies: apple, psystar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Apple isn't pretending anything, they are stating a fact.
You are having a bad week Mike, you are probably happy it's Friday. No more court rulings that screw up your world view until at least Monday afternoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What I don't see mentioned anywhere in the discussion here is Psystar were selling a MODIFIED installed copy of OS X with their machines, but including the box of unmodified software with the purchase. If they had not included that installed copy, how would this case have gone?
While I'll buy the argument that you should absolutely be able to resell a purchased copy of OS X, I'm not sure why anyone thinks it's OK to then modify that software slightly, use it to sell cheaper machines and undercut Apple that way. Apple develops OS X to sell hardware, and license it the way they do to enhance the value of that hardware.
The argument would probably go that Apple should change their business model then. Which is a valid argument. And you'll note, they have. You now have to buy OS X through the app store from an existing mac, no more boxed copies which can be resold. The thumb drive version is available, but at more than double the price, and will likely disappear after 10.7.
But you can now put it on every mac in your house for the one price, no family pack premium to pay. So it is pretty plain here Apple's primary goal is to use OS improvements to make their hardware attractive. Not to sell the OS as a product. They want to avoid having this improved OS used against them competitively by other hardware makers. So what is the appropriate way for them to do this that would meet with the approval of copyright minimalists and defenders of first sale rights? Which includes me.
They used to do so by having differentiated hardware (PPC). That got minimized to the EFI differences which were more easily circumvented, with us arriving at the current situation.
What should they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And if Apple's EULA said you could only use their OS while naked with peanut butter and jelly smeared all over your body, would you obey it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another fact Apple states is customers can *buy* OSX:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/how-to-buy/
How can you buy something which is not sold? I can't even think of they trying to trick customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate shills will be the death of us.
This was adjudicated a long time ago with books. Apparently some people have short memories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then you don't have to deal with people making you follow bullshit clauses on how you can use your legally aquired software. At most you just have to give others the same rights you recieved(and the source code) when you redistribute the OS. Following the golden copyleft rule and all that.
Well, at least in places with sane patent laws anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've never bought an Apple product in my life, and Apple is constantly reinforcing that decision.
Now, if other people would just do the same thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you can get all the same software, including games, for those operating systems? Does Walmart carry Linux software? Can you get ALL the software you need in pre-compiled, binary form without having to fiddle around with MAKE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's a catch-22; Most people don't want to use an OS unless there is a lot of software support, and companies don't want to support an OS unless there are a lot of users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also Apple themselves had to remove A LOT of software from OSX (Samba, bash, to name just 2) because they were covered under the GPL and for Apple to claim exclusivity for their licensing was actually breaching the GPL & in some cases LGPL.
The easiest thing is if you for some reason want to purchase an Apple device [why no one knows since they are too expensive for their actual worth], or some one gives one to you, or however else you might acquire it It is easier to either load Windows on the thing, or even different flavours of *nix.
In fact a lot of OIS devices can now be LEGALLY hacked (not cracked) to allow Linux to be loaded on them, I would suggest that Android on Apples is not too far away either, and that would scare the bejeezus out of Apple since then the App market is wide open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
2. Most linux software is free anyway, so the walmart thing is a moot point for now. Also there's this place that sells linux games that's global and open 24/7. It's called the internet. And soon there will be that desura client for steam store-like goodness.
3. Make? You cna just click on what you want in the package manager in any good desktop focused distro
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What happens when a person needs to run a specific piece of software for their job, or their classes? Saying it will probably under WINE isn't going re-assure too many people.
for games playonlinux is useful for simplifying wine installs of windows games. It may or may not play the lateest games, but what is known to work is more than enough to keep you occupied for a long long time
If someone wants to play the latest Call of Duty game that just came out, they're not going to be happy with a sorta-similar game from 2-3 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What happens when a person needs to run a specific piece of software for their job, or their classes? Saying it will probably under WINE isn't going re-assure too many people."
You find an alternative or you pool together with other entities and pay a programmer to implement something for them all.
I very much like this part it means mostly local jobs with international support.
Or go back to the proprietary options some are really good, but then you go back to the treadmill upgrade thing, the closed source that you can't modify, the closed platforms that make you pay dearly like the 30% Apple store, with the price hikes and so forth.
For education there is no reason why schools should not use open source it is pretty well supplied with pretty good options that in some cases are the de facto #1.
Now games oh well, we all need to learn to make some sacrifices.
Both have strengths and weakness, I would not go back to proprietary software I can do everything with open solutions today and I really don't long for the days that I had to spend $3K a year just in personal upgrades for all the software that I use, or get lock out because the software license expired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most people aren't the type who absolutly must have the latest COD. They don't need "AAA" gaming, they just want "good enough". Linux has reached this for me.
For shooters, Red eclipse, xonotic, Orange box/goldsrc stuff(wine), ID's FPSes(and the mods for them)
For RTS there's warzone 2100, 0 A.D, (mega)glest. spring engine stuff and starcraft 2/1 in wine.
Then there's the indie stuff you can buy like lugaru, world of goo, gish ect.(also cave story, but that's free)_
All the visual novels. If it's one thing linux definatly has it's lots of visual novels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then, if you can't run it under WINE (and you probably can), then use a windows box. If it's for work, you can get your employer to provide the box. If it's for school, then you'll very likely do just fine with the Linux alternatives, which can read and write the same file formats as the proprietary stuff does.
Then they'll be happy, since that runs under WINE. As does between 80 and 90% of all games nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fanboy silliness
We are talking about MacOS here and you start rambling on about games, GAMES of all thing.
That's the reason to run Windows, not MacOS. MacOS is not much better than Linux in this regard. This is especially true if you are unfortunate enough to have Mac hardware that is not supported by major studio games.
I have 2 Minis like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can licensed software exist?
I understand the frustration here, but Apple does not release Mac OS X DVDs for people to buy to install on non Apple hardware. They only reason they exist it so that people who have older Macs can upgrade to the latest version of Mac OS X. PJ over at groklaw puts it best when she points out that this ruling is good for the GPL. It's good caselaw that shows you cannot ignore the GPL just because the person who sold it to you didn't force you to abide by the license agreement and screamed "Right of First Sale!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
The GPL would still apply if you made additional copies as copyright law does not legally allow copying unless the copyright holder consents. The GPL is a notice bundled with the software that says "I'll consent to copying IF" and is thus valid even if EULAs aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflating many things...
What the GPL governs is activity that no commercial software will permit you to do to begin with. Apple won't let you be your own publisher or create derivatives of your stuff.
Buying and then selling something in a consumer friendly box is simply not something that the GPL applies to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conflating many things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
It's a monopolytard triple platter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
Citations needed
Long response:
You are ignoring the multiple posts where he states exactly the opposite of what you claim.
You are calling names in the same breath you speak of immaturity.
You claim to be really sick but you post multiple times a day with religious dedication.
Summary troll fail 3/10
Maybe you should contact someone about a refresher clinic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
You are really a moron (or a masochist, or both) if you continue to expose yourself voluntarily to something you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
Then stop reading it. Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
I don't care why they release them. They're selling the software to the general public. If they aren't recovering their costs, they are free to increase the cost of the software.
I have little sympathy for companies with business models that cause part of their operation to lose money. I should have every right to buy printer ink, razor blades, calling plans, or computer hardware from some company besides the one I bought the printer, razor, cell phone, or OS from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
All of the copies were legally purchased.
Basically, you're saying that if Apple wanted to, they should be able to make a legally binding rule that you could only use their OS while dressed in a chicken suit and making clucking noises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
Ignorance is a bless, I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
http://opencores.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
SGI has open source solutions
But they are not the only ones.
http://www.opencascade.org/
http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/free-cad/index.php?title=M ain_Page
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
Actually unless, because of this case, the person is on selling that hardware with the OSX on it for commercial gain as a NEW product, Apple has no ability to say what the software can and cannot do and where it can be placed.
If Joe Bloggs purchased a copy of OSX, places it on his hackintosh and uses it for his own use (and that includes within an organisation) Apple can't do squat other than say "Oh you have breached the EULA" guess what the breach causes no harm, and that's where this court case relied upon. Apple proves that they suffer fiduciary harm from the EULA breach (Psystar were on-selling the OSX and hackintosh's as new and not for their own purposes)
PJ has a good point when he states it is good for GPL (copyleft) but he is using it in the context of commercial purposes for resale not for individual usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
Not once have I or anyone else here signed a contract for the software we use. If I'm in a store and pick up a boxed copy of some software, I'm not sat down with a piece of paper and a pen, and then told what I can and cannot do with it. We're only ever told the restrictions AFTER paying. If we reject them, we can't return the software, because its been opened and used.
Click Here to Agree, is not a valid contract. Because there is no way to prove who clicked the mouse button. It could be a minor: I did it myself thousands of times when I was a kid. Am I still bound to the licences then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can licensed software exist?
I have never ever signed a lease or licensing contract! I go into a store, grab the game DVD and fork over some cash at the counter.
No paper work. No one even mentions any agreements, contracts or anything.
If they want to "licence" software to the customer, then the marketing should be clear on that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can licensed software exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28operating_system%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Really Wins?
Indeed they can, and I can think of several Linux distros that do a moderately good job of replicating OSX's user interface, which would wipe out one of Psystar's larger production expenses overnight. And Apple just lost a bunch of software sales and earned themselves a lot of negative PR, apparently for no better reason than because they have an obsessive need to tell their customers what to do with the things they sell them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Really Wins?
And with the tight hardware/software integration people have come to expect from mobile devices, combined with digital-only software distribution methods coming to the desktop, this issue of installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is becoming increasingly irrelevant - for better or worse.
In fact, a cautionary tale can be found in the story of Google's Android. With the Kindle Fire (and particularly its Silk browser), Amazon seems ready to use their fork of Android to completely destroy Google's original business reason for creating Android in the first place. There are a significant number of ramifications for Google if Amazon's tablet becomes more popular than stock Android tablets (such as app makers being incentivized to target Amazon fork of the platform first, derailing future Android development), which these articles do a good job of explaining in more detail.
Of course, Google deliberately chose to release (some of) the Android source code as open source, whereas Apple made it clear from the outset that OS X was only intended for use on Apple's own hardware. In either case, you can't expect a for-profit company to continue expending so much money and development effort on software that will be used to completely undermine that company's ability to profit from that investment. Either they'll fight to defend their business model, or they'll eventually get out of that business altogether. So it has nothing to do with your tired accusations of control-freakery, and everything to do with a company needing a business justification for what they're doing.
(And contrary to your assertions, the Hackintosh market is so small as to be irrelevant from Apple's perspective, so threats of losing "a bunch of software sales" from the Hackintosh community are absurdly laughable, given the huge software sales they're seeing though their App Stores - to say nothing of their hardware profits, which is where they actually make their money.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Really Wins?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Really Wins?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just don't buy these products
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EULA on the Box
I wonder which clauses they will feel the need to keep?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EULA on the Box
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Point to where it says you're buying a license... Nice try, but fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever...
You support the CrApple monopoly on hardware AND software as well as the method for distribution (the "App Store" which they control with an iron fist), you deserve whatever you get or do not get, from them. Just make sure you bought CrApple Care, 'cause you're gonna need it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psystar should have put it's money and efforts into build a solid Linux or BSD distro. A well polished version of either OS with well polished applications would be more than a match for Apple. Hence the reason they are fighting Samsung in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]