Apple v. Psystar - Apple Wins

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:55:39 -0800, LuKreme wrote:
> For quite a while I was considering a netback and I fully intended to
> run OSx86 on it, but then I got an iPhone and the whole idea of a
> netback just sort of fell by the wayside.

Not too long ago I thought about writing an article or blog entry on
why the iPod touch/iPhone was actually better than a netbook. It really
comes down to one thing: iPhone apps are written for the form factor.
When you have a netbook you are trying to squeeze full-sized OS and
applications into a 1/4 size screen and a squeezed in keyboard.

Apps like Office 2007 are terrible on a netbook because the ribbon
interface sucks up soooo much screen space. Dialog boxes frequently
bleed off the bottom of the screen hiding the OK/Cancel buttons. The
main reason Microsoft has to keep pushing back the end-of-life on XP is
that Vista and (to a much lesser extent) Windows 7 require a lot more
graphics real estate (and raw processing power.) And unlike Apple,
Microsoft believes they must compete in every space, even if
unprofitable.

iPhone apps, on the other hand, are dedicated to the screen size they
have. Forms/dialogs can customized to the exact size not try to be "one
size fits all". This is the main reason I believe an Apple Tablet (if
it ever comes to be) will have an App store (probably locked to the App
Store like the iPhone is) selling apps dedicated to the Tablet. I don't
think general Mac apps will be able to run on it. If Apple really wants
a tablet to succeed they need to allow full size bluetooth keyboards to
connect to it. Virtual keyboard will be included but a real keyboard
is, at times, a must.

On Nov 16, 2009, at 4:03 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> Had Psystar done that, they might have gotten fussed at, a little,
> but that's about it. "Here's a computer. Here's a shrink-wrapped
> copy of Mac OS X you just paid full retail for. Here's a link to
> really good instructions. What you do with it, we don't know.
> Whatever it is, we don't support it, Apple don't support it."
>
> Apply might have whined, but what, you're going to sue over telling
> someone where a hacking site is? I'm really not sure WHY Psystar
> thought the court of public opinion would trump, you know, a court
> of law.

That scenario at least has a small chance of being successful. Apple
wouldn't be too threatened because a turn-key product isn't being
offered. Your average consumer couldn't and/or wouldn't go for it.
It would be beyond their technical comfort level.

Apple could try to shut down the hacking Web site using the DMCA, but
there would be a conflicting issue of free speech. That would make
for a court battle that could go either way.

However, Apple, if they wanted to, could still prevail over such a
hardware developer/vendor based on the DMCA It would be very easy to
prove that such a computer was being sold in violation of the DMCA.
Apple would only have to subpoena the hardware vendor's customer
list, and track down a few customers, deposition them, and show that
they had all purchased these computers specifically for the purpose
of illegally installing OS X on them. No court would be fooled into
believing that computers sold under the terms set out above weren't
specifically designed to encourage and enable folks to circumvent OS
X's copy protection and to use facilitate the use of OS X illegally.

Randy B. Singer • Mac OS X Routine Maintenance • http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:03:08 -0800, John C. Welch wrote:
> That was the thing I didn't get. Had Psystar done that, they might
> have gotten fussed at, a little, but that's about it. "Here's a
> computer. Here's a shrink-wrapped copy of Mac OS X you just paid full
> retail for. Here's a link to really good instructions. What you do
> with it, we don't know. Whatever it is, we don't support it, Apple
> don't support it."

Probably would've been safer not selling the OS X at this point and
just selling the machine with software. But they probably still could
be taken down with a DCMA violation since their software basically
allows you to load a "copy" into RAM where it normally couldn't.

On 16-Nov-2009, at 17:06, Randy B. Singer wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
>> Had Pystar shipped a machine that was capable of running OS X and
>> had shipped a shrink-wrapped OS X and had shipped an Install
>> Utility Disc (with no Apple software on it) that made the necessary
>> modifications to the OS to install it, they would have had at least
>> a case.
>
> Even if they did that, Psystar wouldn't have had a prayer. The DCMA
> is very clear about the legality of modifying copy protected software
> so as to defeat the copy protection.

First, there is no copy-protection to defeat. Second of all, Pystar wouldn't have been 'doing' anything, the end user would have.

On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:02 PM, LuKreme wrote:

> First, there is no copy-protection to defeat.

If you read the order in the Apple v. Psystar case, you will find
that there is. Page 3, lines 4 through 8.

> Second of all, Pystar wouldn't have been 'doing' anything, the end
> user would have.

The language in the DCMA says:

Section 1201(a)(2) prohibits the manufacture, importation, offering
to the public,
providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product,
service, device, component, or
part thereof, that meets one of three criteria, including the following:
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use
other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing
a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
protected under this title.

To put it simply, if you manufacture and/or offer for sale a product
that is designed to be used with the intent of defeating copy
protection, you have violated the DCMA. The language above is pretty
all-encompassing. It is quite clear that a court isn't going to look
kindly on potential violators who are trying to be cute using semantics.

Randy B. Singer • Mac OS X Routine Maintenance • http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kevin van Haaren <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:
> Not too long ago I thought about writing an article or blog entry on
> why the iPod touch/iPhone was actually better than a netbook. It really
> comes down to one thing: iPhone apps are written for the form factor.
> When you have a netbook you are trying to squeeze full-sized OS and
> applications into a 1/4 size screen and a squeezed in keyboard.
>
I love reading these sorts of comments. Maybe I'm odd, but just
because an app is designed for the iPhone's horribly cramped and
low-res screen, and for touch does not make it a replacement for a
1024x600 screen running a full operating system. I use all my normal
apps on mine, and I do it all day. My netbook is my _only_ computer,
and I wouldn't trade it to a larger computer for the world. Sometimes
I do plug it into a larger monitor, but that is very seldom. I
typically work within the restrictions of my screen. This is the first
computer I've had since I had to give up my Duos, that works the way I
want, that is the size I want. You can have your puny iPhones. I'll
take my netbook any day. BTW, Linux has learned to behave just right
on Netbooks. The open source community has really taken to these
things. I have probably a dozen distros that cater to my Wind, and
these aren't just for the "netbook" but the full distros. I'm glad
somebody is smart enough to see the value of netbooks. :-)

--
 -Jon Glass

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Randy B. Singer <randymacattorney.com> wrote:
>
>> First, there is no copy-protection to defeat.
>
> If you read the order in the Apple v. Psystar case, you will find
> that there is.  Page 3, lines 4 through 8.

To the best of my knowledge, the hacks all take advantage of the open
source Darwin code to install and run Leopard on PCs. I fail to see
how that is breaking copy protection. Apple provided the open source
tools, and since they are open source, you can hardly cry DMCA or copy
protection! I think that this is what Psystar was hoping for a ruling
on, but with the summary judgment, it will never get there. In other
words, Apple needed a summary judgment, because if it went to full
court, I have a suspicion they would have had a much harder struggle.
They were gifted this, to be blunt. Breathe a sigh of relief, because
that's all it is--a gift.

--
 -Jon Glass

On 11/17/09 4:37 AM, "LuKreme" <kremelskreme.com> wrote:

>>> Had Pystar shipped a machine that was capable of running OS X and
>>> had shipped a shrink-wrapped OS X and had shipped an Install
>>> Utility Disc (with no Apple software on it) that made the necessary
>>> modifications to the OS to install it, they would have had at least
>>> a case.
>>
>> Even if they did that, Psystar wouldn't have had a prayer. The DCMA
>> is very clear about the legality of modifying copy protected software
>> so as to defeat the copy protection.
>
> First, there is no copy-protection to defeat. Second of all, Pystar wouldn't
> have been 'doing' anything, the end user would have.

That's what Kazaa tried to say. "We just make software. What people do with
it is up to them." Didn't work too well.

--
John C. Welch

On 11/17/09 6:38 AM, "Jon Glass" <jonglassusa.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kevin van Haaren <kevinvanhaaren.net>
> wrote:
>> Not too long ago I thought about writing an article or blog entry on
>> why the iPod touch/iPhone was actually better than a netbook. It really
>> comes down to one thing: iPhone apps are written for the form factor.
>> When you have a netbook you are trying to squeeze full-sized OS and
>> applications into a 1/4 size screen and a squeezed in keyboard.
>>
> I love reading these sorts of comments. Maybe I'm odd, but just
> because an app is designed for the iPhone's horribly cramped and
> low-res screen, and for touch does not make it a replacement for a
> 1024x600 screen running a full operating system. I use all my normal
> apps on mine, and I do it all day. My netbook is my _only_ computer,
> and I wouldn't trade it to a larger computer for the world. Sometimes
> I do plug it into a larger monitor, but that is very seldom. I
> typically work within the restrictions of my screen. This is the first
> computer I've had since I had to give up my Duos, that works the way I
> want, that is the size I want. You can have your puny iPhones. I'll
> take my netbook any day. BTW, Linux has learned to behave just right
> on Netbooks. The open source community has really taken to these
> things. I have probably a dozen distros that cater to my Wind, and
> these aren't just for the "netbook" but the full distros. I'm glad
> somebody is smart enough to see the value of netbooks. :-)

Having had to spend a week with an Air while my 17" was in the shop, I can
say that an even smaller screen is great.


If you like scrolling.

Lots of scrolling.

And Spaces.

Lots of switching around.


Scrolling and switching,switching and scrolling, switch, scroll, scroll,
switch, because you can't keep multiple windows open and have actual usable
data visible at the same time. Well, a couple of terminal windows maybe. And
the idea of my entire world relying on CLOUD because I only have a few GB
for ALL my storage? Pfeh. I'll take the weight and size of the 17" and
happily, because I need something to get a lot of work done.

Without scroll-scroll-scrolling all the live-long day.

--
John C. Welch

On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, LuKreme wrote:
> That was the thing I didn't get. Had Psystar done that[...]

There were a lot of things Psystar could have done to make things
easier for them. First of all, Psystar isn't exactly Dell, so they're
not going to get a million orders. They didn't have to sell to Mom and
Dad to earn a good return. They could simply be the easily hackable
PC.

The company could have been incorporated in an area which is a bit
loose on copyright enforcement, base the website in China, and have
the machines assembled there, so they can be dropped shipped to the
U.S. Let word of mouth bring in their customers. Hey, you can buy a
Psystar system for $500 install the software that comes with it
yourself, and you'd have a fast and cheap "Hackintosh".

At that point, Apple wouldn't have bothered touching them. They
wouldn't have been a threat to Apple's main consumer market, and it
would take Apple way too long to untangle the legal trail and to get
the discovery documents acted upon. And, I doubt Psystar would have
sold fewer machines.

But, something tells me we aren't exactly talking about geniuses
behind the Psystar name. The first reviews of their systems were
awful. One magazine ordered two. They got one where the machine was
packed in shipping peanuts, but without an enclosing bag, so the
peanuts got into the machine. There was a CD drive that was blocked by
the front cover. And, a cable that was being hit by a fan. It was
obviously a thrown together system built by people who had no idea
what they were doing.

They made the hacking community made with them because they took open
source tools, and tried to convince people they were proprietary tools
Psystar created all by themselves.

Although they knew damn well that Apple would go after them. (The only
thing they didn't do is go to Steve Job's house and moon Steve from
the front lawn), they apparently created this whole enterprise without
a legal strategy to use when the inevitable happened.

I bet Apple was quite relieved when they first heard of Psystar.
"Boy", Apple must have thought, 'We'd thought our whole copyright
enforcement protection routine, the only thing preventing Dell and HP
from selling Hackentoshes for 1/2 price, would be challenged by some
company with real legal muscle. Thank God these two idiot brothers
decided to take us on! We're going to win this case and establish such
clear legal precedent that no one will challenge us now."

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

I'm not trying to start anything but as someone in business I see what
pystar has done as an acceptable business plan. You have an idea, make
a hackintosh, you need publicity to sell your product, and you need
to find a lawyer who you can afford because you think you might get a
judge or jury to believe that Apple has a monopoly (they dont, just
like toyota doesn't have a monopoly but I cant make Rav 4's and sell
them from a website). Shoving your wares in Apples face gives you
publicity and then hope that the right judge or jury. This is a
classic american business plan.


> There were a lot of things Psystar could have done to make things
> easier for them. First of all, Psystar isn't exactly Dell, so they're
> not going to get a million orders. They didn't have to sell to Mom and
> Dad to earn a good return. They could simply be the easily hackable
> PC.

(you could live off selling a couple a week, craigslist is full of
people doing just that) But do you really want to live like that, why
not go for it. You know "go big or go home"

> The company could have been incorporated in an area which is a bit
> loose on copyright enforcement,

Florida is perfect because you can get sued and not loose your house.

I see problems from both sides but for the Pystar team I bet it was
fun while it lasted. C

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John C. Welch <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:
> Having had to spend a week with an Air while my 17" was in the shop, I can
> say that an even smaller screen is great.
>
>
> If you like scrolling.
>
> Lots of scrolling.
>
> And Spaces.
>
> Lots of switching around.
>
Some people just don't understand..... And they parade themselves as
if they did...

Let's put it in other words. How about if I don't notice the
scrolling. How about if that scrolling is a tradeoff I'm willing to
make to have a nice, Duo-sized (and smaller-even) computer that is
with me when a bigger computer wouldn't be? Or when an iPhone or other
palmtop device would be insufficient. Your failure to understand ought
not be confused with wisdom. Each of us must choose the trade-offs we
can live with, in order to get the features we prefer. You've made it
clear now, what your preferences are, and what you are incapable of
understanding. Great!

But right now, I have 11 apps open in all 3 Spaces that I have set up.
Those 11 apps currently have 19 windows open in them. And no, it is
not a problem to me. In fact, I looked an an MBA, and the huge size of
the computer (compared to my Wind) was a genuine turnoff to me. Add
the fact that I frequently carry my my Wind places and at times I
would never want to risk a $2000 computer. As I said, I use this
computer for hours upon hours a day--with no external monitor. It is
my dream machine. There is no Apple product to meet this need. I would
have to make compromises that I am unwilling to make. If Apple thinks
that is too much a niche--well, it's their loss, not mine. People have
ways of getting what they want and need, and will do it regardless of
what the pundits and self-proclaimed experts say and do.

--
 -Jon Glass

On 17/11/2009, at 10:37 PM, Randy B. Singer wrote:

> It is quite clear that a court isn't going to look
> kindly on potential violators who are trying to be cute using semantics.

No, of course not. That's the lawyer's job.

Denny Crane.

Oh, sorry.
Steve

On 18/11/2009, at 5:57 AM, David Weintraub wrote:

> I bet Apple was quite relieved when they first heard of Psystar.
> "Boy", Apple must have thought, 'We'd thought our whole copyright
> enforcement protection routine, the only thing preventing Dell and HP
> from selling Hackentoshes for 1/2 price, would be challenged by some
> company with real legal muscle. Thank God these two idiot brothers
> decided to take us on! We're going to win this case and establish such
> clear legal precedent that no one will challenge us now."

And let me be the first to construct the legal conspiracy theory. Psystar were, in fact, a shell company formed by agents (at arm's length, natch) of Apple. Their remit was to found a company so utterly, entirely and thoroughly bereft of *anything* resembling actual legal or technological savvy that Apple could only ever win. To use one of the baseballing analogies you Americans are so inexplicably fond of, this was a slow ball tossed straight over the plate, or something very much like that. It was all that Psystar could do not to nod and wink as they put out these piles of poo. And so Apple sued, and, as surprisingly as the shock announcement that the sun rose this morning, they won. They won as surely as, to use a real-sports analogy, the All Blacks were always going to beat Wales last weekend. The inevitability of it made it almost disappointing.

So no, David, Apple didn't thank God that these two idiot brothers took them on — unless, of course, Real Steve Jobs has, in fact, been officially deified (he's been de-facto deified for many a year; de jure status still awaits, much to his colossal chagrin). This was the finest front erected since Catherine the Great's entourage had false-front villages put up to make her think the empire was doing fine and she could go and attend to her horse instead. This charade is more of a fakery than any of Michael Jackson's noses.

But Psystar lost. Of course, being incorporated, the corporation lost, not the two "idiot brothers," who are likely down in Cancun on Apple's dime, enjoying, presumably, Appletinis (get it? Apple-tinis? See what I did there?) for the rest of their natural lives. In the meantime, Apple can now point to their decisive, crushing and epoch-makingly precedential defeat of Psystar as a warning to anyone else who might wish to take on their might.

Brilliant.

Steve

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 22:54, Jon Glass <jonglassusa.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:15 PM, John C. Welch <jwelchbynkii.com> wrote:
> > Having had to spend a week with an Air while my 17" was in the shop, I can
> > say that an even smaller screen is great.
> >
> >
> > If you like scrolling.

<snip>

> Let's put it in other words. How about if I don't notice the
> scrolling.

<snip>

> But right now, I have 11 apps open in all 3 Spaces that I have set up.
> Those 11 apps currently have 19 windows open in them.

Just out of interest, as much as anything else, what are those 11
apps? I myself spend a lot of the day in Word and Excel with frequent
visits to NetNewsWire and Safari. Periodically there are long periods
with RDC connections to Windows machines (MS Access mostly, for my
sins). I don't _need_ multiple monitors but it certainly makes life
easier. My first thought upon seeing a netbook was 'how can you do any
work on those?' meaning of course how could _I_ work on one of those.
Plainly you do and I'm genuinely interested in what sorts of things
you're doing.

--
Dave

Wow, that would be funny if it is true.  And brilliant on Apple's part.

On 11/18/09 4:54 AM, "Jon Glass" <jonglassusa.net> wrote:

>> Lots of switching around.
>>
> Some people just don't understand..... And they parade themselves as
> if they did...
>

And some people just can't handle that there are those of us who don't like
wee tiny screens.

> Let's put it in other words. How about if I don't notice the
> scrolling. How about if that scrolling is a tradeoff I'm willing to
> make to have a nice, Duo-sized (and smaller-even) computer that is
> with me when a bigger computer wouldn't be? Or when an iPhone or other
> palmtop device would be insufficient. Your failure to understand ought
> not be confused with wisdom. Each of us must choose the trade-offs we
> can live with, in order to get the features we prefer. You've made it
> clear now, what your preferences are, and what you are incapable of
> understanding. Great!

No kidding. Do you know anything about my work habits or how I get things
done? No. in fact, had you said "This sounds like it just doesn't work for
your needs" I'd have absolutely agreed, and also pointed out that I am SO
not the target market, but that I was pointing out more that no, the
netbooks aren't all that and a bag of chips for everyone.

But if you want to try dealing with one of my workdays on a screen that
small, sure.

You'll need a mainline accounting application open, two web browser windows
with multiple tabs, a couple terminal windows, and numbers. Do that on one
screen on a netbook. No spaces allowed. Enjoy.

I like big screens. They let me work more efficiently. I dislike disposable
hardware, it's wasteful. The larger size and weight of a 17" don't matter in
the face of what it does give me: one computer, with a massive amount of
storage, that is the only machine I own. I don't need, nor do I use any
other computer. Just this one.

>
> But right now, I have 11 apps open in all 3 Spaces that I have set up.
> Those 11 apps currently have 19 windows open in them. And no, it is
> not a problem to me. In fact, I looked an an MBA, and the huge size of
> the computer (compared to my Wind) was a genuine turnoff to me. Add
> the fact that I frequently carry my my Wind places and at times I
> would never want to risk a $2000 computer. As I said, I use this
> computer for hours upon hours a day--with no external monitor. It is
> my dream machine. There is no Apple product to meet this need. I would
> have to make compromises that I am unwilling to make. If Apple thinks
> that is too much a niche--well, it's their loss, not mine. People have
> ways of getting what they want and need, and will do it regardless of
> what the pundits and self-proclaimed experts say and do.

Yes. It's so Apple's loss that their laptop sales were only up something
like 35% year over year as of last quarter. CLEARLY they are losing out by
not building a $300 laptop with almost no profit margin. Meanwhile, just
look at how astoundingly good Dell's race to the bottom has been to their
bottom line.

Poor Apple. All the losses they haven't suffered by ignoring cheap netbooks.
--
John C. Welch

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Steve McCabe <bigstevestevemccabe.net> wrote:
>
> And let me be the first to construct the legal conspiracy theory. Psystar were, in fact, a shell company formed by agents (at arm's length, natch) of Apple. Their remit was to found a company so utterly, entirely and thoroughly bereft of *anything* resembling actual legal or technological savvy that Apple could only ever win.

Of course! It all makes sense. After all, you can rearrange the
letters of Psystar to spell "Rats Spy". (That is they were Apple spys
who would be ratted out). This means that the two brothers were
actually the love children of the Rev. Able Smelt (better known via
the anagram Steve Ballmer) who Jobs (anagram of bojs) hired to head
Microsoft, so Apple would look cool in comparison.

The only thing I haven't figured out is where does Balloon Boy fit in.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:37:14 -0800, LuKreme wrote:
> First, there is no copy-protection to defeat. Second of all, Pystar
> wouldn't have been 'doing' anything, the end user would have.

I believe there is, doesn't it check the EFI to see if it's running on
Apple hardware, and doesn't one of the steps involve installing a hack
that lies to that check? That would count as copy protection
(protecting against copying into RAM from hard drive) on a non-Apple
machine. Defeating that doesn't require fancy decryption, but it does
have to be defeated.

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:38:08 -0800, Jon Glass wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Randy B. Singer
> <randymacattorney.com> wrote:
>>
>>> First, there is no copy-protection to defeat.
>>
>> If you read the order in the Apple v. Psystar case, you will find
>> that there is. Page 3, lines 4 through 8.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the hacks all take advantage of the open
> source Darwin code to install and run Leopard on PCs.

I don't think this is correct. They may have started with some code
from Darwin, but they modified it to specifically allow OS X to copy
into memory on a non-Apple machine. From the Testing Grounds tutorial:

"The roadblock keeping OS X from naturally running on any pc is
something called EFI, or Extensible Firmware Interface. The EFI that
Leopard uses is only tooled to work with Apple hardware, which means
that it needs to be patched."

That patching is the modification to override copy protection.