Print 83 comment(s) - last by sebmel.. on Nov 17 at 9:35 AM

RIP Psystar?? A judge ruled in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights and violated the DCMA, in building Mac clones. One of these clones is pictured here, a $599 clone here that comes packed with a 3.33 GHz Intel processor, a GeForce 9600GSO, iWork, and iLife (all at approximately half the price of a comparable setup from Apple).  (Source: Psystar)
A summary judgment goes very badly for Psystar

Apple has been trying to crush Psystar for over a year now.  After all, the persistent company has been selling OS X clones at cheaper prices than Apple's own designs.  In doing so, it is undermining Apple's closed box model of using software to justify hardware price markups.  More recently, the company threw more dirt in Apple's face, releasing a tool to help customers freely install OS X on any machine, something Apple has long fought against.

However, Apple has at last gained the upper hand over Psystar, delivering it a potentially fatal blow in court.  In a summary judgment delivered on November 13 in a San Francisco court, Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights to put OS X on the unauthorized computers it built and sold.  He also ruled that Psystar violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's software protections that block its software from being installed on third-party hardware.

Reads the ruling, "Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X.  Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Psystar, which is claiming Apple is misusing its copyrights, was also denied its own request for summary judgment.  The company was told that it was perfectly legal for Apple to use its EULA to control what platforms its own software is allowed on.

A second hearing is scheduled for December 14 and an official trial will start January 2010.  The summary judgement does deal a major blow to Psystar as it sets the mood for the trial, and may lead to Apple gaining a restraining order against Psystar's sales.  As Psystar already went bankrupt once, this could spell doom for the young company.

The ruling also is a pleasing victory for Apple as it validates its argument that it installing OS X on forbidden hardware is a violation of the DMCA.  And as California, unlike most states, requires evidence to be presented before summary judgment is determined, the ruling could be viewed as more considered or binding.  This could open the door to Apple being able to crack down harder on individual Hackintosh makers. 

Apple recently looked to stomp out the Hackintosh community by killing support for the Intel Atom processor, effectively making its Snow Leopard and Leopard unable to be installed on netbooks.  However, despite Apple's determined efforts it can't seem to stop fans of its operating system from freely installing OS X on a variety of systems.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 0
Motoman :
Anyway, considering that Apple has ~4% of the personal computer market, I think it's high time we stop pretending they matter. Because they don't.

What exactly does that mean?
A company employing thousands of Americans doesn't matter to the US economy?
A company making more profit than Nokia doesn't matter to the cellphone industry?
The biggest, fastest growing, music sales company in the world doesn't matter?

Perhaps, as you mention computers, you are claiming that Apple don't matter within the IT industry. Something like this?
The computer hardware manufacturer with the lions share of the market above $1000 (i.e. the profitable part) doesn't matter to the IT industry?
A company bigger than Google, Oracle, IBM and Dell doesn't matter to the IT industry?
A company which at it's current rate of growth will be bigger than Microsoft within a couple of years doesn't matter to the IT industry?
A company making a vast presence on the net for its OS via millions of iPhones and iPods (two markets that each dwarf PCs) doesn't matter to the IT industry?

Or did you mean that the company doesn't make a significant impact in your personal life?

Just curious.

RE: And yet...
By Motoman on 11/16/2009 9:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
I mean a company that has 4% of a market doesn't matter. All of their bluster, their propaganda, their relentless marketing, their wildly disproportional media coverage...

A 4% player just doesn't matter to the market. So let them continuously throw their toys out of the pram and carry on with their shenanigans...they are an insignificant player, so just ignore them. Just a matter of statistics.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And yet...
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/16/2009 10:07:09 AM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point. You could trim down the market as you just have to prove any point you want. But you haven't proven anything because all you've done is focus in on one aspect of the total market. You could do basically the same thing for the graphics market in order to claim that Matrox is a major player.

The fact is, in the total personal computer market, Apple does not have significant share.

RE: And yet...
By mellomonk on 11/16/2009 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 1
Matrox is not in the news everyday and on TV every night. They don't have hundreds of stores in the best retail spaces in the country. They are not a significant portion of Daily Tech's news. They are not number one in customer satisfaction. They do not have the best performing stock in tech right now. Marketshare is not as important as mindshare.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/16/2009 8:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
The latter segment of your post was irrelevant to the matter and hand, so I won't even bother addressing that.

You're missing the point. You could trim down the market to that bit with most of the disposable income ...
Yes, you can do that... and if you made products they wanted you'd have a chance of being profitable, like Apple.

I'm not disputing that Apple makes a profit by catering to people with a tendency to overspend. What I am saying is that this category of users represents a niche market. Apple can pump out as many cute little commercials as they want, but at the end of the day, most of the demand is not in their niche. Of course Dell and others have high-end 'prestige' offerings, they'd be crazy not to. But that's not where most of the sales are. Intel, AMD, nvidia, ATi, all do the same thing (obviously, otherwise Dell and others couldn't), offer stupidly fast chips even though most of their sales are in the lower and midrange markets.

They can milk the higher-profit market for all it's worth, fine, but they'd better have a solid mainstream offering if they hope to grow their market share to a respectable number. And that is exactly why Apple is not a major player in the PC market, they don't cater to the masses.

I didn't say they were irrelevant, I said they were not a significant player in terms of market share. They are very relevant in terms of image, and I think propaganda is their greatest contribution because they motivate Microsoft to produce a better product. But without a large chunk of the market, they just don't have clout to force major market changes.

RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 4:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
The fact that Apple picked the best codecs out of the ones you mentioned really doesn't matter in terms of almost anything. AAC might be gaining some ground, but it's way behind MP3s and there isn't much difference between them. And H.264 just happens to be one of the best video codecs around. They had the Quicktime format before that. Look at how the industry didn't give a rats ass about the crappy format. it's the same reason the industry didn't really care about WMV or WMA really. They just sucked.

And I think the point he was trying to make by saying Apple isn't relevant is that Apple isn't a company they have to worry about pushing people out of business. A small market share leaves the rest open to other people, even if they aren't making shit for money right now. Though, without the marketing machine that Apple has I don't think they'd be doing very well. Also, with the cell phone companies subsidizing cell phones they wouldn't be doing as well. They take advantage of the situation, but that's about it.

RE: And yet...
By Spuke on 11/16/2009 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
They actually currently have about 10% of the US market and far higher than that when you strip out the commercial beige boxes. Microsoft estimate that 50% of the copies of their OS are pirated. When you strip out those too (since Microsoft make no money from them) the percentage of Macs rises again.
Pirated copies of software are not used in sales figures. LOL!

Apple OS marketshare in the US: 5.27%
Microsoft OS marketshare in the US: 92.52%

RE: And yet...
By Spuke on 11/16/2009 10:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
Sh!t, these are worldwide numbers. Anyways, NPD reported 9.4% of the US market for Apple. Having a hard time finding overall numbers for Microsoft with all of the Win7 buzz. Apparently, Win7 is at 3% marketshare by itself. Not to bad in a recession.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 10:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Pirated copies of software are not used in sales figures. LOL!

Of course they are! These figures come from online surveys!

RE: And yet...
By mburton325 on 11/16/2009 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually their not. The piracy numbers are factored out to come up with close true market share as possible. Although the 95% for Windows is a little high as it was only 73% last report I saw with Mac 0S X at 12% and Linux just over 1%, the rest were "other". This was as of June. Windows 7 3% comes mostly from new PC buyers and upgrades from older versions. There is also a reason a variance is given in these reports. One is to make for any pirated copy of the OS that may have been missed. Another is due to tracking software that may determine the wrong OS or OS version.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
The piracy numbers are factored out to come up with close true market share as possible.

Here are the numbers being referred... done by Net Applications:

Now you show us all how the piracy figures are factored out and where that's calculated for each country.

RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 4:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Can't say that they are factored out, but why would you want them factored out. Does the fact they are using an OS simply not matter because they didn't pay for it? No. They are part of the market share even if you don't like it.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/17/2009 9:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that considered reply. You are quite right that from certain points of view it is irrelevant. Some businesses will develop for the Windows platform on the basis that whether or not the OS was paid for it irrelevant to them.

Others will wonder at the value of developing for customers who will not pay for software.

Factoring out the piracy is important with regard to understanding the level of success of Microsoft and customer fidelity to them. For example, were Microsoft to come down hard on piracy in a number of countries, even with cheaper OS prices than in the US, they would find that the country would probably jump ship to Linux. Brazil springs to mind, where the government has stipulated that Linux and open file formats be used for government.

This thread was about Apple/Microsoft relative growth over the last 10 years and, thus, factoring out is relevant.

RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 10:23:46 AM , Rating: 4
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?
I know several mac users.
Not one of them could outwit a turnip.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 10:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?
I know several mac users.
Not one of them could outwit a turnip.


RE: And yet...
By harmaton on 11/16/2009 10:53:10 AM , Rating: 2
so sad if you think that is proof.

RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 10:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
quod erat demonstrandum?

its not an equation, so dont put a symbol for solved at the end of it.

Mac users are typically as thick as a yard of lard.

hence they pay the excessivly bloated prices for generic intel hardware with an apple logo on the side held together with a cheap lump o plastic with cooling that would be substandard if were being used in the arctic.

RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
A rather arrogant comment from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, quod erat demonstrandum. It means: which was to be demonstrated. It does not apply simply to equations but anything one set out to demonstrate.

I mentioned a well known fact that Mac users tend to be better educated and better paid. OmegaVX replied with a comment that would fail to impress a half-wit and I referred to it with the retort: Q.E.D....

and now you have kindly proved my point a second time.


RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/17/2009 4:12:40 AM , Rating: 1
omg ur an idiot

RE: And yet...
By talozin on 11/16/2009 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?

Funny anecdote: I recently attended a meeting pursuant to a major U.S. space exploration mission (no names, but you've read about it on DT). We had representatives from the science personnel associated with the mission; the computing infrastructure team; the internal scientific programming team; and an external team of programmers from a highly regarded science school in southern California.

The one management guy showed up with a VAIO. Everyone else in the room had a Mac.

RE: And yet...
By twjr on 11/17/2009 3:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but all you have done there is proven that you are never going to get to the moon again.

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 11:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Their US marketshare is significantly higher than 4%.

When you consider Dell is only, what, 25% of the market and Apple is 9%?

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki