World of Apple

Things are quiet in the California action since Judge Alsup entered a permanent injunction in Apple’s favour regarding Psystar’s Mac clones, no matter which version of OS X is being used. Although Judge Alsup invited Psystar to bring a Motion containing specific details about this product and differentiating it from the guidelines of the Injunction so that a determination could be made on the legality of their Rebel EFI software; they have yet to do so. And I do not expect them to just yet. Psystar knows that the chances of getting a favourable ruling from Judge Alsup are slim to none and is leaving that option as a last resort. Instead, they are hoping to circumvent (pun intended) the California Court altogether by persuading the Florida Court to take jurisdiction over that remaining issue.

(more…)

Miracle Max: See, there’s a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. Now, mostly dead: he’s slightly alive. All dead: well, with all dead, there’s usually only one thing that you can do.
Inigo: What’s that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

Well it has been a while since I have reported on this case due to personal family troubles, and truth is, I have not completely kept up with all of events. Rather than never finding time to go back and read front the point I left off, I am going to start with the latest developments and go back and read the most relevant items. I welcome reader input as to any fact or nuance that I might have missed.

A few days ago, I was reading my RSS feeds and noticed multiple sites proclaiming that Psystar was dead. I thought to myself, ”Self, I bet that turns out to be completely wrong. None of these stories deal with the two million reasons Psystar has to keep things going.” It was this bit of failure to be skeptical of a sound byte quote that motivated me to jump back into the game.
(more…)

Dow Jones reports that Psystar has begun closing down the company following Apple’s injunction against the company issue earlier this week.

Psystar whose website has already ceased operation will fire its eight employees according to Psystar attorney Eugene Action. Action also said that Psystar’s President Rudy Pedraza will begin “shutting things down immediately”.

[Update - 19 December 2009] Despite the above details it appears that Psystar has little intention of ceasing operation. Within the last few hours the company’s website has returned, although doesn’t contain any hardware on sale. A new report from Computerworld suggests that the original quote from Psystar attorney Eugene Action was incorrect. The clarification comes from K.A.D. Camara, of the Houston, Texas firm Camara & Sibley LLP, “Regrettably, Mr. Action was misquoted in an early story that seems to have been picked up elsewhere. Psystar does not intend to shut down permanently.”

Camera added that although Psystar will cease sales of PCs installed with Mac OS X, the company will continue to sell PCs with other operating systems. Psystar will continue to sell Rebel EFI.

Groklaw is reporting that Apple has won a total and permanent injunction against Psystar, the injunction which can be seen in whole here [PDF] rules the following:

• Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
• Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software;
• Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
• Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
• Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.

Judge Alsup stated in the injunction that he doesn’t want to see Psystar “engage in defiant or unreasonable conduct”. Psystar has until December 31st 2009 to comply and Psystar “must immediately begin this process, and take the quickest path to compliance; thus, if compliance can be achieved within one hour after this order is filed, defendant shall reasonably see it done.”

Additionally Psystar must “immediately destroy any technology, product, device, component, or part thereof in its custody or control that has been used to circumvent any technological protection measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, or effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software”.

Apple today added a twist to the legal battle between the company and Nokia. In October Nokia accused Apple of “trying to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation”. Nokia stated that Apple infringes on 10 Nokia owned patents in the iPhone.

In a turn of events Apple is now countersuing Nokia claiming that the worlds largest mobile phone maker is infringing on 13 of Apple’s technology patents. “Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” Apple said.

Apple has yet to reveal which patents are in question.

The Office of Fair Trading in the UK has released a press release stating that Apple has changed its terms and conditions to make them clearer and fairer for consumers.

In particular the OFT had Apple adjust its terms which apply to consumers who buy from “Apple and iTunes stores and download software from the web”. The OFT identified terms in these agreements which “raised concerns under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999 (UTCCRs).”

Following discussions with the OFT Apple agreed to revise its terms to ensure the following:

• do not exclude liability for faulty or mis-described goods
• are consistent with consumer rights under the Distance Selling Regulations
• are drafted in plain or intelligible language
• do not potentially allow changes to be made to products and prices after an agreement is made.

In the OFT statement Jason Freeman, Legal Director, OFT Consumer Markets Group, said, “The contract or terms of use between a company and a consumer, whether they are found online or on paper, must be clear, fair and easy to understand. In particular, it is important that consumers are given clear and accurate information about their consumer rights in case things go wrong. We have worked closely with Apple to secure these changes and we believe they will improve confidence and clarity for consumers.”

In Apple’s form 10-K filed yesterday the company revealed that it will defend itself vigorously against Nokia who earlier this month took action against Apple.

Nokia claims that the iPhone breaches certain patents related to “one or more of the GSM, UMTS and 802.11 wireless communications standards” and seeks unspecified compensation or other relief.

Apple’s response to the case is not yet due but intends to “defend the case vigorously.”

Further reading: Apple’s 2009 Form 10-K.

Nokia said Thursday that it is suing Apple in the Delaware District Court for infringing patents on mobile phone technologies. Nokia claims that it has not been compensated and said Apple had “a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation”.

Nokia claims that Apple is infringing ten patents related to Global System for Mobile communications, or GSM; wireless local area network, or WLAN; and Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, or UMTS.

“The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for,” said Ilkka Rahnasto, Vice President, Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia. “Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree appropriate terms for Nokia’s intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.”

Nokia says that it has agreements with around 40 other mobile phone manufacturers allowing use of Nokia’s technologies but Apple is not one of them.

The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) has dismissed Palm’s complaint that Apple, by issuing an update to iTunes that used the USB Vendor ID number to prevent the software from automatically transferring content to any non-Apple USB device, had violated “the letter and spirit of the USB-IF Membership Agreement” which is “intended to facilitate interoperability between USB devices, not to regulate the content that flows between them.”

The complaint came from Palm despite the fact that Palm was using an Apple Vendor ID to trick iTunes into thinking the Pre was a iPod.

The ruling by USB-IF not only dismissed Palm’s complaint but actually bit back at the company requesting that Palm explain why they used a Vendor ID not belonging to them.

Last week Google released an “unredacted” version of its response to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission investigation into Apple’s supposed rejection of Google’s app which would have allowed iPhone users access to the Google Voice online service.

Google’s response clashes with that of Apple’s saying that Senior Vice President Phil Schiller personally called Google to inform them that the app had been rejected for the reason that it “duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone”. This is a contradiction of Apple’s response which asserted that the app had not been rejected and was still being studied.

Later last week Apple also released a statement, reasserting that Apple had not rejected the Google voice app and continues to be in discussions with Google.