Hasta La Gadget!

Momentous moment alert — the EU has just closed the book on its lengthy investigation into potential Microsoft antitrust violations. Lasting through nearly the entire noughties, The European Commission’s dissatisfaction with what it perceived as monopolistic practices from Redmond has resulted in some hefty fines over the years, but the conclusion to hostilities has been pleasingly amicable. In exchange for Microsoft’s legally binding promise to offer up to 12 other browsers alongside its own, the European executive will give the company a clean bill of competition-friendly health. All this means is that the ballot screen will be around on Windows operating systems for at least the next five years (starting in mid-March 2010), which should give the EU plenty of time to think up the next batch of allegations to throw Microsoft’s way.

EU settles affairs with Microsoft, no fines this time originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:24:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Wall Street Journal  | Email this | Comments

Young American woman travels over to Jerusalem to meet some friends, see the sights, live the life. Overzealous border security officers ask her a bunch of questions, take issue with her answers, and a few well-placed bullets later she is allowed entry into the country with a somewhat altered MacBook in tow. So what can we all learn from this incident? Firstly, back up all the data you consider important; B, Israeli policemen don’t mess about; and 3, distressed laptops look gorgeous no matter how they got there — just look at the way the glass trackpad has wrinkled up from the force of the bullet penetrating near it, it’s a borderline work of art. The young lady in question has been promised compensation, but lest you think this is a one one-off you can see pictures of an equally dead Dell at the Flickr link below. We’ve got a couple more close-ups of the ravaged MacBook after the break.

[Thanks, Itai N.]

P.S. – As always, we encourage a discussion. A sensitive, intellectual, worldly discussion. If you can’t infer what it is we’re asking of our dear readers tempted to intone on this matter, then please skip commenting on this thread, mkay?

Continue reading Border security guards kill — literally kill — a MacBook

Border security guards kill — literally kill — a MacBook originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:50:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Lily Sussman, Flickr  | Email this | Comments

In a partial settlement, Florida startup Psystar has agreed to stop selling Mac clones and pay about $2.7 million to Apple. But the fight is far from over, and Apple won’t see a dime for some time to come.

Apple won’t be able to collect until the appeals run is complete, and sometimes this process can take years. Psystar has said it will appeal to Judge William Alsup’s ruling, which found Psystar guilty of violating Apple’s copyrights.

“We think that Judge Alsup got it wrong,” said Psystar’s chief attorney K.A.D. Camera, in an interview with ComputerWorld late Tuesday. “The effect [of the settlement] is to allow the case to be heard by the Ninth Circuit,” he continued, characterizing the settlement as “extremely favorable” to Psystar.

In addition, Psystar argued to exclude Rebel EFI, a $50 piece of software that the company started selling in October, from any potential injunction. Rebel EFI is downloadable software that enables owners of some Intel PCs to install Mac OS X onto their systems. If Alsup were to allow Psystar to continue selling Rebel EFI, Psystar could simply sell generic PCs and bundle them with Rebel EFI — thus, keep selling Mac clones.

These types of workarounds, however, don’t often work.

“I seriously doubt the court will see any difference between what Psystar has just agreed it did and what it proposes to do in the future with Rebel EFI,” wrote legal blog Groklaw. “Note that this is a contract issue, not a copyright infringement issue. I don’t understand Psystar arguing that there is no DMCA violation if there is an equally untenable contract breach still on the table.”

Also, even though providing a DIY solution would be shifting responsibility onto consumers, it could still be considered contributory infringement, intellectual property lawyer Carole Handler told Wired.com.

“Making the user instead of the company the perpetrator of any violation will not avoid the issue of a new company’s contributory infringement and/or vicarious liability for what it facilitates and enables the user to undertake,” Handler said in an earlier e-mail interview. “This kind of workaround is not a bar to Apple bringing contributory infringement or vicarious liability claims.”

Though Apple and Psystar have agreed to a settlement, it’s still too early to tell what sort of legal precedent this case will set since we await the outcome of the appeals process.

See Also:

• Apple, Mac Cloner Agree to Settle Lawsuit; Psystar Still Kicking …
• Mac Cloner Psystar Guilty of Violating Apple’s Copyright
• Mac Cloner Psystar Sold Fewer Than 1000 Hackintoshes
• Mac Copycat Psystar Gets Ammo to Countersue Apple

Photo: Psystar

Mac cloner Psystar claims it has entered a partial settlement with Apple, which will prevent Psystar from selling PCs preinstalled with the Mac operating system. However, Psystar isn’t completely surrendering.

As part of the settlement, the Mac cloner said it will pay Apple an amount of damages that has yet to be specified. In the Monday filing, Psystar argued to exclude Rebel EFI, a $50 piece of software that the company started selling in October, from any potential injunction. Rebel EFI is a program that enables owners of some Intel PCs to install Mac OS X onto their systems.

An excerpt from the court document [pdf] filed Monday by Psystar follows:

Psystar and Apple today entered into a partial settlement that is embodied in a stipulation that will be filed with the Court tomorrow. Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple’s copyright claims in exchange for Apple’s agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded. Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple’s copyright claims.

….

The summary judgment in this case turned on the manner in which Psystar assembled its Open Computers.  It turned on such things as the use of the Psystar imaging station and what this Court found to be the creation of multiple copies and derivative works of Mac OS X along the way….  None of these same facts is involved in Rebel EFI.  Rebel EFI is entirely a software product.  It does not involve the assembly by Psystar of any computers…. Nor does Rebel EFI contain or include Mac OS X.  A Mac OS X DVD does not even accompany sales of Rebel EFI.  Rebel EFI consists solely of Psystar software available for sale and download through Psystar’s website.  In particular, whether sales of Rebel EFI are lawful or not depends on whether Psystar’s end users have a defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117.  This issue has not been litigated in this case at all.  Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing.  If Psystar’s end users are protected by § 117, then Psystar cannot be violating the DMCA by selling Rebel EFI because Rebel EFI, as used by the end users, does not facilitate infringement.

In short, Psystar wishes to continue providing a DIY solution for owners to make their own Mac clones, thereby shifting the responsibility (i.e., breaking Apple’s End User License Agreement) onto the consumer.

However, it’s unlikely this workaround will pan out for Psytar. In 2008, Wired.com reported on a company called Open Tech, which said it would sell PCs bundled with instruction kits for consumers to install Mac OS X themselves. However, Carole Handler, an intellectual property lawyer with Wildman Harrold, told Wired.com that Open Tech would be subjecting itself to contributory infringement of Apple’s end-user agreement.

“Making the user instead of the company the perpetrator of any violation will not avoid the issue of a new company’s contributory infringement and/or vicarious liability for what it facilitates and enables the user to undertake,” Handler said in an e-mail interview. “This kind of workaround is not a bar to Apple bringing contributory infringement or vicarious liability claims.”

Though slightly different, Psystar’s solution could also be considering aiding the consumer to break Apple’s EULA, which reads, “You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.”

Psystar, a company based in Florida, opened its Mac clone business in April 2008. Three months later, Apple filed a lawsuit alleging Psystar was committing copyright, trademark and shrink-wrap license infringement. Judge William Alsup in November ruled that by selling PCs hacked to run Mac OS X, Psystar had violated Apple’s copyrights.

Additional details regarding the settlement will be filed today, according to Psystar.

See Also:

• Mac Cloner Psystar Sold Fewer Than 1000 Hackintoshes
• Psystar ‘Rebel EFI’ Patch Installs Snow Leopard on Any PC
• Mac Cloner Psystar Guilty of Violating Apple’s Copyright
• Judge Dismisses Mac Cloner Psystar’s Bankruptcy

Photo: Psystar

Seems like we just can’t go a week without some corporate power plays or mudslinging making our pages. Back in October, Datel promised it would “remedy” the situation created by Microsoft’s forthcoming (now present) Dashboard update locking out its higher capacity memory modules. The accessory company was the first (and only) third-party supplier of memory cards for the Xbox 360, but it seems that MS took a dislike to the MicroSD-expandable Max Memory units and has since taken the unusual step of downgrading the console to being able to read only chips up to 512MB, essentially taking Datel’s 2GB+ wares out of commission. Yeah, classy. Datel’s retaliation is in the finest Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, namely to assert antitrust concerns and to claim its right to act as a competitor to Microsoft in the memory market for Redmond’s own console. It all sounds rather silly to us too, and could probably have been avoided by a rational compromise, but what’s the fun in that?

Datel sues Microsoft, wants its Xbox 360 market back originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:19:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink Joystiq  |  Howard, Rice et al  | Email this | Comments