Feed aggregator
Apple to Begin Taking Orders for New Mac Pro on August 9th
Several readers have informed us and we have confirmed that Apple Store representatives are telling potential buyers of the company's new Mac Pro announced earlier this week that the updated models are set to become available for ordering on ...
Ballmer: Microsoft-Powered Tablets Are 'Job One Urgency'
Steve Ballmer demoing Windows-based HP slate at CES in January 2010
CNET reports on comments from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer today at the company's conference for financial analysts revealing that Apple's longtime rival is continuing ...
Apple Job Posting Suggests 'Revolutionary' New Mac OS X Feature
We are looking for a senior softwa...
Second Round of iPhone 4 Launches Begins in Australia [Updated x2]
Sprint to Turn iPod Touch Into 3G Mobile Hotspot?
Phone Scoop yesterday discovered new regulatory filings posted by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission showing a new Sprint-branded 3G mobile hotspot device manufactured by ZTE that appears to be in the form of a designed case to wrap a...
Japanese Government Pressing Apple Over First-Generation iPod Nano Fire Risk
A Look Inside Apple's Magic Trackpad
With its ultra-thin design and single-use functionality, users might think that a teardown of Apple's new Magic Trackpad would be straightforward and uninteresting. But the experts at iFixit show us in one of their famous teardowns how Apple...
Amazon Announces New Kindles: $139 Wi-Fi, $189 3G
Last night, Amazon announced an all new Wi-Fi only Kindle that starts at only $139 with a 3G-capable one for $189.
Amazon.com is excited to introduce a new generation of Kindle. The all-new Kindle has a new electronic-ink sc...
Psystar Files Reply Brief
Hot on the heels of my last report, Psystar has filed its Reply Brief in response to Apple.
Copyright Misuse
Psystar asserts that copyright only governs copying and not restrictions on use. Even at first blush, this appears absurd. I cannot play a non-copied movie for a public audience at a theater. Psystar (in my opinion) deceptively spins Alcatel in claiming:
For all Apple’s attempts to distinguish that case, R. Br. at 35-37 — the only case about use of a copyright in an operating system to control the user’s choice of hardware, and thus the only case squarely on point – Apple must admit that the Fifth Circuit held that it was misuse to prevent a competitor from offering compatible, cheaper hardware for use with a copyrighted operating system.
Here is a link to the case. Read it for yourself. Psystar conveniently ignores the fact that the case deal with hardware components (replacement parts).
It pulls a similar sleight of hand with the Practice Management case. In that matter, the AMA tried to prohibit the use of competing medical codes, not to control the use of their own medical codes. Psystar remarkably tries to claim that this is even more damning to Apple. Huh? Once again, please go read the case for yourself.
Stifling Creativity
Of course Psystar denies Apple’s position that their copyright restrictions do not stifle creativity. But once again Psystar falls into dysfunctional thinking. Apple’s claim was that there is no dampening of creativity to create competing operating systems. Psystar claims that it stifles competition creativity in hardware systems that can run Apple’s work. But that is not the focus in determining copyright abuse.
Tying
At last! Psystar makes a relevant and accurate representation. It states that Triad (link to case) is distinguishable since the Triad software was never sold apart from the hardware while Apple does sell the operating systems separately and wants to control after-purchase use.
But then they straight into Oz:
(Page 10) Finally, it is worth taking a step back to look at a strange feature of Apple’s position. Apple admits that if it required OS X to be the only operating system that a user used on his Macintosh, then that would be copyright misuse. R. Br. at 34-35. But Apple denies that, if, instead of creating an exclusive operating system, it required that its operating system system be used exclusively on Macintoshes, that would be copyright misuse. It cannot be that misuse exists where a copyright owner tries to use copyright to make his copyrighted work exclusive, but not when he tries to use copyright to make an adjunct, uncopyrighted work exclusive.
No. No. No. Apple stated that if (and didn’t even state this on the pages cited by Psystar which say nothing of the kind) it required its buyers of OS X not to use other operating systems AT ALL (no mention was made of using them on a Macintosh) than THAT would be misuse. I have to wonder if there is a just an abysmal lack of reading comprehension or a blatant attempt to mislead the Court.
Scope of the Injunction
Psystar holds firm to its assertion that it didn’t need to accept the California Court’s invitation to examine Rebel EFI when it believed that the Court had no jurisdiction to do so since that issue was first-filed before the Florida Court. Psystar claims, “Apple’s discussion of the injunction misses this point entirely.” (Page 11) Huh? Apple addressed this specifically and at length (Pages 43 through 45).
Sealing Orders
Psystar clarifies that its basis to remove the sealing orders was that the information appeared in publications that Apple’s own experts admitted were authoritative. Since I don’t have access to all of the documents needed to assess this assertion, I cannot make a judgment. However, if the quality of analysis is similar to what came before, hope does not spring eternal.
Grammar Nazi nitpick: When filing a Federal Brief, one should know about the wonderful world of em-dashes.
In addition to her position as Assistant Editor at World of Apple, dizzle runs idrankthekoolaid, an Apple fangrl satire blog, and is an Administrator and Hostess at MyAppleSpace and their vidcast MASTv.
