Slashdot Log In
Psystar Will Countersue Apple
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 26, 2008 06:31 PM
from the take-that dept.
from the take-that dept.
An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple Files Suit Against Psystar 805 comments
Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussing Psystar from the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.
[+]
Apple: Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs 759 comments
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
Submission: Pystar countersuing Apple by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement 242 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Psystar and Apple have agreed to alternative dispute resolution to keep the public eye away from their disagreements, and to reduce legal costs. This will eliminate any rulings that would set a precedent over Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly. This could result in a profit for Psystar's business, but eliminate their line of open-computing Mac-compatible PCs. On the other hand, what's to stop a similar company from doing the same thing?"
[+]
Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed 256 comments
CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar and the dueling lawsuits since the beginning.
[+]
Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS 648 comments
Preedit writes "Mac cloner Psystar is claiming in new court papers that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed, because Apple has never filed for copyright protection on Mac OS X 10.5 with the US Copyright Office. Infoweek is reporting that the claim, if it holds up, could open the door for third-parties to enter the Mac market without fear of legal action from Apple. In its latest set of allegations, Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware." We've been following the Psystar-Apple imbroglio since the beginning.
[+]
Apple: Psystar Crushed In Court 640 comments
We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now. Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast." Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
/popcorn.
I really hope Psystar wins this one. Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior. If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Psystar wins, it'll be a pyrrhic victory.
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store. Won't prevent hackintoshes but it'll kill Psystar's ability to ride Apple's development efforts.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
By "ride Apple's development efforts", you mean "purchase an Apple product at retail and resell it", right?
Surely you don't think Apple is losing money on the deal or being taken advantage of in any way. If anyone knows how to set retail prices high enough to guarantee profit, it's Apple.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X. Much like how MS sells upgrades of Vista from XP for considerably less than the full retail version (at least they used to.) Were a company selling PCs that were installed from non-OEM upgrade copies of XP, MS would have their heads.
Of course, if Psystar won here you would probably see an explosion of PCs sold with upgrade versions of Windows instead of full retail copies. Apple will just kill off the retail channel for upgrades of OS X.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows PCs are sold with OEM copies of Windows, which are cheaper than retail upgrade disks. If Pystar won this suit, MS might just stop selling upgrade versions. Or not. They would still have their technical measures, and most people wouldn't know about this suit anyway. Apple might implement technical measures to prevent their upgrades from installing without a prior version.
Parent
Who are you and what did you do with the REAL /.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's business model is...
When the RIAA member companies have a business model based on selling plastic discs with a restrictive license to play the music encoded on that disc, we say, your business model isn't my problem. I want to shift my music to other formats, so I can play it without the plastic disc. Or I don't want all the music on the disc, I just want a few songs and I want to pay a fraction of the full price.
It's nice a company has a business model, but a business model is not a law any other entity need respect or follow. For any company other than Apple, what is the response when lawyers are brought in to enforce a business model? Scorn, ridicule, contempt.
If you don't like the way the market is responsing to your business model, bring in the MBAs and change that model. Don't bring in the JDs and sue your customers.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
A full OEM copy of Windows is actually cheaper than an upgrade copy, so MS provides no incentive to cheat the system.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X.
What's really funny, is that usually discussions about "buying OS X" are explaining how it's cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade".
Actually, most people say that its cheaper than buying windows because $129 gets you the "full version" rather than the "Not-quite-Ultimate-non-business-but-still-better-than-basic 32-bit Vista Upgrade Edition".
Just for fun I checked on Newegg to see if it was still like this, and theres a Basic, Business, Premium, and Ultimate version, in both upgrade an non-upgrade variants, and in both 32-bit and 64-bit variants.
The "full version" of vista, Ultimate, is $169 on Newegg, which, if I need to remind you, is more expensive than the OS X "full version" upgrade.
Parent
not exactly right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple will just kill off the retail channel for upgrades of OS X.
Actually if psystar wins here, and Apple closes off the retail channel, then chances are a return lawsuit will follow and Apple will have more than it's wrist slapped... aka - they will be forced to offer OS/X to anyone that wants it...
Parent
Re:not exactly right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You believe that a company be forced to support its product on hardware it was never intended to run on?
It might be some nerd's wet dream, but it's legal nonsense. Remember, you're calling for a legal judgement here, and I reckon that the law sees an "Apple branded computer" as different from a PC. That's the first hurdle to overcome, and then comes the biggie - forcing a company to modify its product to install on competing hardware.
Any company is perfectly within its rights to write a product that only functions on some machines and not others. Just like any customer has the right to *not* buy or use that product.
I will accept that I may be wrong on this, provided you can show a precedent. I would be frankly amazed to see it.
Parent
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please show exactly where in my post I wrote the word "support."
Parent
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
What monopolistic practices? They're a monopoly because they only make Apple products? I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company - they sell the complete system, which apparently is a difficult concept for a lot of ./ readers to understand.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot install an upgrade copy of windows without an older copy to 'upgrade' from. It is a requirement.
AFAIK the OSX allows you to install it without that requirement.
Seems more like apple wants the best of both worlds and will soon be wondering how it all came to an end.
Parent
Re:Sure you can... (Score:4, Interesting)
...all it requires is that you throw out 12 USC 1201.
No, I don't think the DMCA would apply.
Remember, Lexmark [arstechnica.com] was smacked down for trying to claim that their bundling arrangement between printers and toner constituted a DMCA-protected "access control" for the software inside the printer. The court found that, since the software in the printer was available in the clear to anyone who owned the printer, the "access" was granted by purchasing the printer, not by installing an authorized toner cartridge.
Likewise, once you buy a disc containing OS X, you have access to all the code stored on that disc. The access control is your purchase of the disc, not the interaction between the disc an an Apple-branded computer.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, a Mac is a PC now.
PC is a term for a computer that descends from the IBM PC family and is destined for a single person to use in a home or office, which is basically an Intel/x86-based computer. It has nothing to do with the OS as Windows wasn't the only OS that ran on an IBM PC.
Macs are just PC's running some fancy bling software.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple has never actually used the TPM and it is not even on the newer boards.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm.
Intel x86 processor? Check.
Intel chipsets? Check.
DDR2 ram in SODIMM and DIMM format? Check.
SATA hard drives using standard interfaces? Check.
Please explain to me where the fucking wiggle room is for these things to be considered anything other than Apple branded, x86 machines, using commodity parts, that happen to be running an OS other than Windows.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, and Gateway has made EFI boxes in the past.
Oh, and every Intel mainboard with a 945 chipset apparently runs their Framework, but the only thing enabled is the CSM for bios compatibility.
And in any case the difference is almost irrelevant. If you provide OS X with some basic EFI structures and tables at boot time, it runs on x86 hardware. EFI is cool but it is still mostly filling the role of BIOS now, that is to say it is a bootloader for the real OS. Sure EFI does some fancy tricks but as for differentiating the hardware to the point of saying mac vs. PC, EFI doesn't cut it.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This "Mac clones nearly killed Apple" is always brought up as some sort of gospel proof that open hardware is bad for Apple.
Every time I see someone use the "Mac clones will kill Apple" argument (usually an Apple fanboy) I immediately think how pathetic it is that a company which claims to be the best is so afraid of competition, and that their followers never realise this.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then explain to me why Apple is making iLife, OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes, etc.
In order to sell their hardware. I mean, come on-- you listed iTunes, which they don't even sell in any form. It's completely free, which should make it obvious that it's 100% to sell iPods.
But all of their software is aimed at selling hardware. Even iWork and their Pro apps (which don't come free with their hardware) are clearly aimed at making OSX a viable platform in various professional environments. It's all about selling their hardware.
Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.
Yeah, and just look at IBM's thriving PC sales!
All the various versions of OS X do is change up the GUI, fix some bugs and add in a couple of new features.
Isn't that sort of what software upgrades do? The update the GUI, fix bugs, and add new features.
Charging $100 for an OS is enough money to keep development of it going. You act as if Apple sells OS X as a loss, which they clearly don't.
Microsoft charges more than $400 for Vista ultimate, and Apple doesn't move the volume that Microsoft does. How do you know that $100 is enough to support OSX's development. Do you have access to Apple's budget?
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
The doctrine of first sale [wikipedia.org] comes into play here. Right now the courts have issued contradictory rulings on it. But if it's eventually decided that software is sold, not licensed, then PsyStar would be in the clear. They are simply reselling a copy of OS X which they legally bought and paid for.
Your interpretation falls under the alternative opinion that software is licensed, not sold. Under your interpretation, Microsoft can prohibit you from selling your unused copy of Windows, you can't sell your copy of Oblivion or Halo 3. Heck, even book, music, and movie publishers could claim they're simply licensing their product to you, so you can't resell it if you don't want it anymore.
Personally I wouldn't want to live in a world which works the way you want it to. IMHO if it sat in a box on a store shelf and I made a one-time payment for perpetual rights to use it, I've bought it. If I enter into a contractual agreement for recurring fees and my right to use it ends when I stop paying (e.g. World of Warcraft), then I've licensed it.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
In this case PsyStar is both installing OS X AND distributing the copy they installed.
You seem to be confused about what distribution actually means.
If I buy a copy of a particular program, install it on my computer, and then sell that computer to someone else, that is perfectly legal under copyright law. The only problem arises if I try to install the same purchased copy on another computer, because then I am making a copy that falls under the restrictions of copyright law.
You see, copyright law covers only the right to make copies. It does not cover the right to distribute (or redistribute) copies that were legally made. I don't understand why that's so hard for people to understand. I mean, it's right there in the name: "copy right".
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
OS X is subsidized by hardware sales. The last time they sold an OS that wasn't subsized by hardware sales, it was OpenStep, and it sold for ~$800. ~$1600 if you wanted the development version.
Parent
citation: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
What immorality are we talking about here? What illegality here?
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit, just like everyone else who owns IP. They license to those who happen to own Apple branded machines, just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute unmodified software, requiring modifications to be available in source form.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.
Both extend logically from copyright.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit,
No, they don't. They try to use a subversion of copyright law to force licensing on people. If they want licensing, they should do it properly with signed contracts, and etc. If they want to avoid the hassle and use the pre-packaged version provded by the government known as "copyright", then that's fine too. What they shouldn't do is try to turn one in to the other on the cheap.
just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute
You see that word "distribute"? That's what copyright is about. That's all the GPL addresses. Other than distribution (what copyright is about), the GPL makes no extra demands. None. And neither should it. You can also read about this on the FSF webpage, which includes a section about why it is not an EULA and why users should not be required to agree.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code. Both extend logically from copyright.
I disagree with your assertion that EULAs logically extend from copyright.
It is a big stretch to argue that copying from the OS disc to the computer does not fall under fair use, since it's required to use the product. You may as well argue that the image of a book projected on your retina is copying.
Consider another example. Remember those old computers, where programs could run directly from punched film and werre not loaded in to a program store? They apparently could not be subject to EULA's because they are not copied in order to run them. That seems like a perverse and illogical split to me.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer
Not so. Read USC 17, Section 117:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.â" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The first condition states that the copyright owner cannot restrict you from making copies of their software if this is an essential step in using the software (eg, copying from CD to hard disk and then from hard disk to RAM).
The second condition is also important but for a different reason (the right to make an archival copy).
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right about being able to install the OS, but 17 USC 117 won't save Psystar. Forget, for the moment, the EULA.
Note that last bit. Psystar is selling systems with OS X pre-installed. Because the pre-installed copy is NOT an exact copy, it is an adaptation, and that section is quite clear that transferring adaptations authorized by 17 USC 117(a) requires consent of the copyright holder.
So it's copyright violation, plain and simple, no need for any licensing theories.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such.
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
Yeah, see, even if we accept your interpretation of that legal language, the argument still doesn't work.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Damn Nissan for not letting me put a Ford engine in my Bluebird!
Way to miss the point.
Let's say you could, mechanically, put your Ford engine in your Bluebird. Would Nissan or Ford sue you for doing so?
Your modified Bluebird actually turns out pretty well, and you decide to call it a Ostrich (it's a bird that doesn't fly) and sell it. You buy some Nissan Bluebirds and some Fords, and move the engines over. Would Nissan or Ford sue you for doing so?
The point isn't that Psystar wants to make Apple make OS X so you can run it on their computers, the point is that you already can run it on their computers and Apple is suing to prevent them from carrying out that distribution. (And Psystar is suing back saying that Apple's requirement that you use OS X only on their hardware -- roughly equivalent to Nissan saying that you can't mod their car -- is illegal.) I have pretty conservative (with respect to current laws) opinions on IP, but even I think that Apple is in the wrong here.
Parent
You can stick your engine (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy a Ford engine. Put in in your Bluebird. No lawsuit from Nissan. No lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Sell your Nissan/Ford unholy monster for profit. Still no lawsuit from Nissan, no lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic's psychiatrist may sue you for reckless endangerment.)
Sell dozens, hundreds and eventually thousands of Fluebirds. Not only will Nissan and Ford stubbornly persist in their selfish refusal to sue you, they might even offer to make you a retailer or give you wholesale purchase prices. (The mechanics' labor union may come round to visit with torches and pitchforks.)
If you try to sell Bluebirds with Ford engines, representing yourself as a retailer for Nissan, then you will taste the awful wrath of a swarm of lawyers. Only then do you have an accurate analogy of the issue at hand. Apple can claim that Psystar is selling a product as an Apple product, thus infringing on their right to protect their goo*cough*
that is to say slandering their guugh*choke*
their good *spasm* *sputter* *wheeze* name.
Of course, Psystar can retort that they are in fact selling Psystar computers designed to be capable of running OSX and are even installing OSX, legally purchased, on their computers for a reasonable fee. Apple may then point out that "you can't buy our software to do that" in which case Psystar can retort that "already did" and they can then commence with the slap fest. A cool headed judge could gently dissuade the two from arguing with a fire hose and explain that that forbidding people to use a product they legally purchase in such a way as to prevent competition might be considered "anticompetitive practices" and point out an interesting statute or two to the dripping Apple lawyer swarm. I'm sure the Apple lawyer swarm will accept this with the same good grace you'd expect from a bull rhino with a terrible case of hemorrhoids who was just dumped by his rhino girlfriend for a larger meaner bull rhino who has decided to make it a threesome. (This is known as the no bloody way triple analogy.)
Parent
Re:If they win (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple may not be allowed that option. Remember they are challenging Apple on Monopoly grounds. If they win Apple can be mandated to do or not do certain things that wouldn't apply to normal companies.
Except that the product that is supposed to be a "monopoly" is an operating system, and Psystar has at least two other choices of operating systems: The one from the market leader, Microsoft, with 90 percent or more market share, and the other one Linux, which they can even distribute without license fees.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is making it impossible for anyone else to sell a computer that is compatible with OS X. The Microsoft anti-trust rulings these days all seem to stem from interoperability. There are existing rulings that suggest if you refuse to play well with others, you can be found guilty of antitrust violations.
Heck, if Microsoft is going to be found guilty by bundling Media Player with Windows, I think Apple does far worse things when it comes to bundling, such as forcing me to purchase Apple hardware to run Apple software.
That is what this new counter-suit will be about. Based on previous Microsoft rulings, I think Psystar has an argument. What may kill their case is the psuedo-legality of their current business practices. Will a court give Psystar a fair shake if they pre-judge them to be criminals trying to illegally profit off someone else's product?
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a blatant lie. A BLATANT LIE.
THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING ANYONE FROM MAKING A MAC OS X COMPATIBLE COMPUTER. NOT EVEN APPLE COULD SUE YOU IF IT WERE COMPATIBLE, EVEN IF YOU INCLUDED EFI.
Because the last time Microsoft was caught bundling they were threatening their OEM licensees with termination of their contracts if they allowed a competitor to be so much as VISIBLE on the desktop. Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing them to destroy competition is.
Apple not licensing to Psystar in no way inhibits their ability to sell PCs, not even ones that would otherwise be Mac compatible (which is OSX86 + a fairly common set of existing hardware.)
How dare they subsidize their software development using revenues from their hardware divisions. HOW DARE THEY.
Man, I thought Slashdot was anti-Microsoft, but goddamn I have never seen such vicious attacks. If Slashdot has ever hated a company for being successful, it's Apple.
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Informative)
First sale doctrine allows PsyStar to resell copies of OS X, but not install it on their PCs!
MS vs Zamos is of interest ONLY if PsyStar was strictly reselling OS X. More interesting is Jacobsen vs Katzer, where the Artistic License is an enforceable copyright restriction. In this case the issue is whether the OS X EULA contains an enforceable copyright restrictions:
1) "Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems"
2) "General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âoeAppleâ) for use only under the
terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."
3)"Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Parent
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
> ..we have this construct called intellectual property..
Never use that phrase around here, we know better. Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks exist. None of those permit a EULA and with out the Apple EULA being an enforcable contract there is no grounds to stop what Pystar is doing.
> copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make
Correct. But Pystar is buying retail boxed copies of OS X. Were they making illegal copies the case would have been over before it started with everyone involved snatched up in an FBI raid.
> In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies.
Of course they do. One is free to resell an item they bought legally.
> The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple
> branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same
> case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
First off the acronym itself gives the game away. An "End User License Agreement", even if they were legal, would only be binding on the end user. Pystar isn't.
As for your stupid (sorry, this one gets batted down weekly, use Google before opening your piehole on a GPL FAQ issue) argument trying to make an equivelence with the GPL it just doesn't track. The GPL is a grant of rights above and beyond what normal copyright grants while a EULA is a subtraction without any consideration. So I can toss Apple's EULA into the nearest bin and still have all of the rights under law I had before. I have the right to own the copy I bought, use it, etc. I don't have the right to reproduce it (outside of working copies made as typical use of the material) or publicaly perform it (not very applicable to most software) but there is no legal question whether I lawfully own a copy.
Now consider your hypothetical. If I give you a copy of Linux you lawfully posses that copy of Linux in exactly the same way I would own my copy of OS X sans EULA. You could do anything copyright law permitted, including sell it. You could sell/give away the ONE copy I gave to you. To do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now? Read the GPL.
Parent
Wow. (Score:2, Interesting)
I wish I had balls that big. I also hope they win. It would be awesome to legally be able to run OS X on the hardware of MY choice, rather than Apple's.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of what makes OS X a great OS is that Apple controls the hardware side. "Everything just works" is a broad overstatement, but it mostly applies to Apple hardware and OS X. Being able to buy a boxed copy of OS X for any generic x86 PC would lead to a lot of Linux-type scenarios: *most everything* just works, but a patch here, or a trip to apt-get there, and a little bit of geeky knowledge is needed to get things working.
Most of us here at Slashdot, myself included, would be fine with that. But OS X would not be the roaring success it is if people said things like "you may need to download fwcutter to get your WiFi card working" or "you need that SSE2 emulation BIOS patch to get it to boot." It is a success because Apple--for better or worse--has tightly intertwined the hardware and software experience so that the geeky *nix parts are only there if you want to play with it, not because you have to.
The only way Apple could reasonably sell OS X for generic x86 or x86_64 hardware is to have a huge list of requirements similar to the "Vista Capable" debacle. And it would cost a lot more than the $129 it costs now. Prices would be similar to what you pay for the latest boxed version of Windows, because currently OS X is subsidized by the premium you paid on Apple's hardware to run it in the first place.
I love Macs, I love OS X, and I love Linux. I think all this effort to get OS X running on generic hardware would be better spent on getting Ubuntu (or some other distro) up to the same level of reliability and usability of OS X on Apple hardware.
Parent
Balls of Steel (Score:1)
I've always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are able to survive because they are filling a niche market, leading me to believe that they will not be a serious competitor to MS anytime soon.
In the meantime I await the continual improvement of linux to cause a critical mass of marketshare so that vendors will finally start giving it proper support....
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse Apple with its lawyers. Apple gets sued regularly over frivolous bullshit like Paystar's, so the the company's legal team is a ravenous bunch of sharks.
The Wired sensationalism about lawyers' overstated legalese asking not to get unsolicited idea submissions outside of the "sign away your rights" web form for feedback is to prevent a case where somebody sends in an idea Apple is already working on, sort of like sending the violated IP to a clean room team. Of course they don't want to get sued, and lawyers overreact to protect their assets.
Microsoft isn't "evil" for bundling software, it violated its consent decree (its agreement with the judge in a legal case) in order to destroy competition. Apple has no consent decree to violate, and has not been charged by the US with anti-competitive behaviors. So you're grasping at straws.
Jobs does not own the RIAA's music, so he can only do what they allow him to do. He replaced strong Windows Media DRM from Microsoft with FairPlay DRM that end users can strip off themselves using iTunes burn function. So again, you are being ridiculous.
Apple does not have a moral obligation to hand its IP over to Microsoft just because it did once already in the mid 80s. The "little guy" you are rooting for here is a convicted monopolist. It's like you're complaining about Bernhard Goetz being criminal.
Apple never "forced the installation of Safari," it presented it as a software update. Microsoft presents new versions of its own browser as a software update, on both the Mac (when it did) and Windows. Again, you are being wildly disingenuous.
Linking to Leander Kahney's wildly problematic rant/ad for his book doesn't help your case, because Kahney has a loose grasp of reality and contradicts himself repeatedly.
As John Gruber noted (and thank God, as it spared me from explaining exactly why Kahney is so full of himself):
"Kahney's central premise, insofar as there is a premise, is that Apple has succeeded either despite or because it operates in ways that are contrary to conventional wisdom. [... Kahney says Apple is] "Irredeemably evilâ. Because they're secretive and develop closed platforms. Think about that."
[...]
"One can argue (as I would) that Apple's product secrecy is worth tens of millions of dollars in publicity every year. Or, one can argue that Apple spitefully pissed away even more valuable publicity by shutting down Think Secret. (You'd be wrong, but you can reasonably argue that.) But Kahney, in the course of seven paragraphs in a single article, argues both."
[...]
"So this is the sort of logic, research, and insight that passes for a Wired cover story today. Does anyone at Wired even read this shit before publishing it?"
Perhaps you should base your world view on facts rather than emotional tirades from Apple's critics to somehow defend why it is that Apple owes you its technology in a subsidized PC in addition to the subsidized iPhone you can already get.
How Leander Kahney Got Everything Wrong by Being an Irredeemable Jackass [daringfireball.net]
Is Apple's MobileMe Secure? [roughlydrafted.com]
Parent
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can blast a company for doing something and be OK with another company doing it. If you sign up with company A because they promise to keep your data private and then find them selling your data you are mad at them. If you sign up with company B under the understanding that they resell customer information as part of their business you are going to get a lot of funny looks if you rail against their violation of your privacy.
Apple escapes a lot of the bashing because they are upfront about what they are doing. You buy an Apple you know (or at least should) what to expect, both good and bad. That is not to say that everything they do is sunshine and rainbows, but that is a known part of doing business with them and as such a cost already accepted.
When a company sells you something on the condition that it only be installed on their hardware it is hard for mot people to work up much sympathy when you complain that they will only let you install it on their hardware. The fact that other businesses do it differently does not matter. You were free to buy from them instead.
In this same situation Microsoft would catch a lot of flack because they explicitly sell their product to run on anything that meets the hardware requirements. People have entered into a different contract with them and thus have different expectations and different reactions to the same actions.
Everyone was pissed off at Sony because they broke the social contract. People were sold a CD with the reasonable expectation that it would NOT install a virus on their computer. Fewer people complain about Apple's iTunes DRM because it is an upfront part of the purchase. You know what you are getting and can purchase appropriately to your own tastes.
Parent
Raminfications (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.
Appliance != Software Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are not a monopoly by any means but they cannot argue that a third party cannot support that software as long as it does not imply support or cause any damage to existing company.
Anticompetitive practice != Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).
I don't see how Apple could ever be compelled to provide support on any hardware it doesn't deem acceptable. If they were to lose, maybe the outcome will be that if you sell an OS, you don't have the right to restrict its use to particular hardware.
Parent
Re:Anticompetitive practice != Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
One of PsyStar's claims is Restraint of Trade. It is easy to see how that would apply if Apple merely had sole control of the distribution channel for a certain title of software, but where *Apple is the creator / author* of the software I think we have a different situation. The creator / author, it would seem, can create and sell only as many copies as it wishes, and in fact can probably sell only to those it wishes to sell to. PsyStar (regrettably) is going to lose big here, but maybe not before it makes a bundle prior to Apple's changing how it sells or licenses its OS.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if PsyStar has been planned as a time-limited venture to make the biggest possible pile before the loopholes are plugged. Most likely, their analyses tell them their profits will exceed their legal fees + settlement payments.
Parent
The slow courts (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who forget history (Score:2, Insightful)
are doomed to repeat it.
Apple has been successfully shutting down clone makers for 25 years. Some immediately, some after several months, but always successfully. Psystar will choke on the stack of precedents.
Re:Those who forget history (Score:4, Interesting)
That was before they were really running on commodity hardware. When an Mac was a physically different piece of hardware from an abstract perspective (different processor, running a different instruction set) they could more easily make the case, since they've flipped to the 86 platform, I don't think their case will be as strong.
Parent
Re:Those who forget history (Score:5, Informative)
You've got the right idea, but you're applying it backwards.
Because it is now an open and popular platform, the existence of substantially similar and functionally equivalent alternatives actually makes a stronger case for Apple.
Consider Data General. The linchpin of the decision was that the CPU was useless without the OS--that without the tied product, the tying product had no utility. Without that detail, the decision does not work. It's very different from the case of a bundle of an x86 computer system and an x86 OS. There are dozens of compatible operating systems and dozens of compatible hardware manufacturers. You don't have a paperweight when you buy any kind of computer, because you don't need a specialized OS to run it. Apple and Psystar are missing the critical element of Data General and Digidyne.
Attempts to reverse it, such that the tying product is the OS are amateur at best. The OS does not come with a computer attached. It is sold as an accessory and upgrade by a company to existing users of that same company's products. There's no requirement of a purchase when you buy the OS--it's not being tied. The sale is premised on the existing possession of a Mac, but this is nothing new. Upgrades are always sold in this manner; it's not unique to software, either.
It's promotional availability: buy one, get one free. You can't say that you can't get the tied product (the free item) unless you buy the non-free one. Promotional tying is also quite common in bundle packages, e.g., toothpaste with a toothbrush for $5, while the toothpaste alone is $4 and the toothbrush alone is not available for sale. You can't demand the toothbrush for $1. There are thousands of examples of favorable pricing or special product availability based on a prior purchase.
That Apple chooses to sell OS X at a particular price, for its existing customers only, simply does not require that that price be made available to anyone else. The same can be said of Microsoft and its OEM and upgrade pricing policies, and the same can be said for companies who condition the sale of accessories, add-ons, upgrades, etc. on the prior purchase of the underlying product.
It is not immoral or illegal to set the terms under which you will or will not sell something. It further is not incumbent on that party to devise a foolproof system--the argument that an individual can buy one off the shelf and finagle an installation out of the disc is not convincing. It's an argument that seems to be begging for invasive sales procedures and DRM. Apple offers owners of its computers a good product at a low price and trusts consumers to honor that.
Showing up to say that Apple is getting what it "deserves" by having a desirable product at a below-cost price, sold over the counter without restriction or complication, and that Apple's business model is not their concern is exactly why corporations hate consumers, especially the kind that often populate this forum.
Parent
Tilting at windmills..... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, let's tell Apple how to do business (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems the private business haters on /. got queued awful fast.
Apple is not being monopolistic and they have every right to prevent a 3rd party from selling their product.. If I have a restaurant, I have the right to REFUSE TO SERVE you. If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store.
The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products.
However, any restriction on the end user from running OS X should be removed. Apple should just not warrantee the OS on non-Apple hardware. So if you don't have a Mac and you have a problem with your copy of OS X, Apple can just say "Tough Shit".
Re:Yeah, let's tell Apple how to do business (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a restaurant, I have the right to REFUSE TO SERVE you. If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store.
This isn't Apple refusing a customer in your restaurant, this is Apple saying that once you've bought the food from the restaurant you can't then go outside and sell it to someone you meet on the street. It's completely different, and the first sale doctrine gives Psystar the ability to do this.
Parent
Re:Yeah, let's tell Apple how to do business (Score:5, Informative)
No, sorry, you do not. You have the right to refuse to sell the product to me - which to an extent prevents me from selling it. However, you have no legal or moral right to force me to not sell your product after I have legally purchased it from you, or someone you have authorized to sell it.
Once you put an item on the market, your control of it is gone. If you do not like that, do not sell it.
"The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products."
The right of first sale arguably trumps Apple's EULA. Quite a few states do not even allow EULAs to remove certain rights of the user/middle man.
Parent
Who's Paying the Legal Bill at Psystar? (Score:5, Interesting)
These events alone will generate $1MM+ (million??) in legal bills. We all know Apple won't stop until psystar is closed and will use it as an example to every american with a similar idea. You know, heads on a stick at the city gates and all that.
So, where's psystar's money coming from?
If Apple wins... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will it be because they're right, or becuse they're rich?
An interesting potential precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
If this works, then people could make clone Nintendo game units, Sony game units and the like, opening the door for a new level of "fair use" doctrine.
Retail, OEM, or upgrade? (Score:1, Interesting)
- Upgrade -
Given that one may officially only install the product on "an Apple-labeled computer", and every Mac comes preinstalled with OS X, a case could be made that the boxed version is really an upgrade. This is however hard to defend as the AppleTV is an Apple-labeled computer and runs a version of OS X, but it would be illegal to run Mac OS X on an AppleTV.
- OEM -
When you buy a boxed Mac OS X, you can only install it on Macs that meet the requirements. Support through Apple is minimal, you're expected to have bought AppleCare for your computer, which then gets you OS support as well. This could pass for some form of OEM deal.
- Retail -
Retail, ie. "buy the product, and do with it as you please" seems like the least plausible option. There is only one Mac OS X Leopard Client, and for most customers it costs $129. This is way less from what Microsoft charges for their full featured 64-bits Vista retail version. Has Apple ever been known for their bargains?
I think Psystar might be mistaking the boxed version for a retail version. In the unlikely case that the win the case however, I can see Apple creating a full retail version and an upgrade version, with the full retail version being > $1000, so that it won't make any sense for Psystar to sell the systems anymore.
Who owns YOUR property? (Score:2)
If I buy a copy of OS/X upgrade and I abide by the law and do not sell copies of it, who is Apple to tell me how to use it? Yea, sure, the EULA *tries* to create conditions of use, but I as a US citizen have rights under copyright law.
At issue is how much control do the makers of things we buy have over how we use them. IMHO, Apple should loose big. HUGE.
Why can't... (Score:1)
Hopefully... (Score:2)
I can only hope this is a beginning of a return of regulation to t he markets, and will help foster a truly competitive marketplace. Breaking up all these cartels will be great for the flounder US economy.
my lawyer told me (Score:1)
For EULA to be valid, the company has to provide me a copy of EULA to review before I purchase the software, otherwise it is invalid... and even if court found me guilty for breaking EULA there's no punishment for me as law says nothing about it
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
You can install Windows on a Mac. And that's fine. But install OSX on a PC and Apple throws a hissy fit... Am I missing something here?
Yes. If you want to install Windows on a Mac, you need to ask Microsoft (can I install your OS on a Mac) who says "yes", and you need to ask Apple (can I install Windows on your computer), who also says "yes". Apple says "yes" because they try to be nice to customers who bought expensive Apple hardware.
If you want to install MacOS X on a PC, you need to ask the PC maker (no idea what they think about it), and you have to ask Apple (can I install MacOS X on my Dell?) who says "no". Apple says "no" because they don't want anyone but customers who bought expensive Apple hardware to use their OS.
Parent
The Cable Box case is based on some of same things (Score:2)
The Cable BOX case is based on some of same things as this case.
Like Being forced to use there Box.
Making other 3rd party stuff not work as well as there box.
Forcing you to rent there cable card to use a 3th party box.
There have been other cases that are also based on stuff like this like Printer makes trying to use the DMCA to kill off 3rd party ink.
In other news (Score:2)
Apple's brand. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok. Let me get this straight. Apple makes an operating system and the license agreement that comes with it states that you have to run it on Apple branded hardware. When you get an Apple labeled computer and run the Apple labeled operating system on it, it works like a mortal luser would expect it to. For damn nearly the entire population of Apple computer users, it does what they need it to do and they run around spouting, "Macs rock! PCs suck!"
Ok, now imagine what would happen if every computer company out there decided to provide Mac OS X with their computers instead of Windoze Vista or whatever they're installing on garbage prebuilt computers nowadays. Suddenly OS X won't be quite as great anymore because it will have all kinds of subtle failures and stuff. First, the hardware can induce failures that are no fault of the software. Further, if the hardware is fine but operates somehow differently from Apple hardware, bugs in OS X which don't manifest themselves on a Mac will crop up. Some would argue that this is good as it helps to find and fix those bugs. But do you honestly think Apple will achieve what it does if its engineers suddenly spend their time making OS X work around the characteristics of hardware they have no control over? Do you think Apple has the time to go testing OS X on every five dollar garbage motherboard that some cheapskate company decided to put in a computer?
What will happen to Apple's brand if that happened? Oh! Suddenly people will go around saying how much OS X is the suxx0rz because it crashes and it deletes data and it locks up and all this shit, EVEN IF IT'S NO FAULT OF THE SOFTWARE! Because the lusers don't know what comes from software and what comes from hardware. Hey, it locked up, OS X is the suxx0rz. And Apple's brand is down the tubes.
It is Apple's right and responsibility as a business to protect its brand by making sure its products are high quality and by making sure that others, for any reason, don't tarnish that brand.
Psystar wants to make a Mac clone? Fine! Download Darwin. Download Afterstep. Download every graphics toolkit out there. Start modifying. Apple worked hard and invested tremendous amounts to make their software.
You want a computer that works? Either get a Mac or build a *BSD or Linux box yourself.
plan from the beginning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks this was their plan to begin with (counter sue). I can't imagine they just "happened" to come up with this defense and lawfirm all of a sudden.
Didn't IBM already lose this case? (Score:2)
Seriously, I know it's not identical, but I don't remember enough about the circumstances to know if it may apply here. The same intent appears to be true - you can't run our software on a generic machine. In this case, of course, Apple actually sells the software; in the old one, I think Phoenix reverse-engineered the software. Seems like this would be even less difficult to find in favor of the clone-maker.
I'm sure there are several /.ers who will disagree. Please read below for their reasoned responses :-)
I do wish Psystar will win. (Score:1)
Apple is not as bad as Microsoft but Apple needs to allow their OS to be installed other systems without hardware support. But since Apple only has about 7% of the OS market I think this is hard sell for Psystar to say the Apple has any monopoly per se in the entire market. However Psystar can assert that Apple ties it OS to its hardware which I think violates the Clayton Anti-Trust Act primarily and some parts of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Any civil lawyers here can help me with this?
I don't really have a strong opinion either way... (Score:2, Interesting)
Tin Hat time.... (Score:2, Funny)
PsyStar S*** Is Crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Clear-Cut Monopoly..... (Score:2)
If Apple can claim copyright over their entire platform, then why can't IBM turn around and do the same thing with the PC platform? This is the sam thing that Microsoft was sued for: Locking customers in to only your own 'licensed' products, and not letting them choose otherwise.
Clearly, Apple controls almost the entire market of non-PC platform computers, with RedHat/Linux taking up only a few percent. Since Apple makes using any non-apple licensed software/hardware a violation of their EULA, users are forced to buy from them, and only them, definitely making this a monopoly.
Enough with the Slashdot Lawyers... (Score:2)
Where is NewYorkCountryLawyer when you need him?
not a EULA issue (Score:2)
EULA has no play here as Psystar is not an End User (End User Licensing Agreement).
By pre-installing the software they break Apple's copyright plain and simple (yes you have the right to make a copy on your hard drive when you install a program but you cannot then sell that copy...only the original disk can be legally sold)
what Psystar is doing is integrating Apple's IP into a new product. To do that they must license the IP from Apple
Haunted by the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt! (Score:1, Offtopic)
This sounds like the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt rose from the grave because he didn't like the way the USA was headed especially in the technology area.
For those who don't know Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last few true Conservative Republicans before the fake Conservatives the Neocons took over. True Conservative Republicans conserve nature and resources, and protect liberty and freedoms and stop companies from becoming monopolies and abusing their power and trying to ruin smaller companies. Sort of the opposite of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Teddy Roosevelt was upset over the DOJ's verdict with Microsoft, the DMCA allowing the MPAA and RIAA to bully consumers and sue them until they are broke by removing the "fair use" clause of the copyright act, and now that Apple is bullying Psystar, Teddy Roosevelt the trustbuster is back as a ghost and he is majorly upset at what has become of the USA, its foreign policy, and how companies like Microsoft and Apple have screwed over smaller companies. So he speaks softly, but carries a big stick and helped Lawyer up Psystar by citing some of the laws he worked with as well as some that others had passed as well.
I have one word for him, "Bully!" good job Mr. Roosevelt, we need more politicians to be more like you were when you were alive.
Psystar fills a gap in the mac line (Score:1)
There are many of us that want something more than a mini but don't want to blow >$2500 on a MacPro. We have nice screens. We don't want another screen. I'm not going to replace my dell 24" with 5 inputs and height, tilt and rotation, and a built in card reader for an iMac
The truth is that Apple doesn't give a shit about Psystar. They know most people who want a mac will just by a mac, but because of the laws governing IP they are obliged to shut them down so that next week dell doesn't start selling macs.
In hindsight (Score:1)
Apple truly could have avoided having to deal with this type of issue had they done the following: in all "apple" approved hardware, have a rom chip with instructions that only an approved "mac os" would be able to read in order to install. Simple. Then Psystar wouldn't have been able to make a "Hackintosh" for to be able to do so, would mean pirating the rom chip, thus giving Apple the edge required to sue them.
Now, is Apple being anti-competitive? I don't think so.
Why? Simple, Windows is also supported on the Psystar hardware.
So, the Apple OS is made for Apple approved hardware. Big Deal! After all, Apple has to support this OS, and thus, by dictating which hardware they support, they ensure a better service for their customers. Being able to dictate the hardware, means a controlled environment for upgrades and updates and bug fixes, etc...
It makes sense to me.
I'm not an Apple fan, but even that is obvious to me. Of course, let's face it, Apple makes a killing on everything they sell, both hardware and software. The last thing they want is to have other companies profit on them. Remember the Apple ][ incident about 25 yrs ago? :)
Anyways, I think that Psystar has very little chance of winning against Apple, because 1) their systems can run Windows, so, in essence, having Apple OS run on their hardware, isn't really necessary, and 2) they are selling MAC OS and are not legally able to do so, for they are not an approved Apple retailer.
But, maybe, just MAYBE, this will be a sign for Apple to have a more "open" approach to hardware support from other third party vendors. Microsoft had it right all along, it's not the hardware that makes the money, it's the software, or in their case, the OS. That's why IBM lost many years ago.
But understanding the history of Apple in business, I doubt they will want to have 3rd party hardware vendors building "MAC OS" capable computers, for Apple is too greedy for that, to say the least.
So, for those who have a Psystar "Hackintosh", well, I hope you don't expect to have much customer support when Apple wins against Psystar and forces them out of business!
If Apple had any common sense, after kicking Psystar out of business, Apple should offer a "for fee" customer care service for those who have Psystar with MAC OS, this would, at the very least, show loyalty to those who use their OS.
Headless mid-range box (Score:2)
I hope that whatever the outcome, Apple see that there is a demand for a mid-range headless box - which is essentially what Psystar are offering.
I don't want to pay £588.99 for a 2GB Mac Mini with only a 160GB hard-drive and a rubbish graphics card. At the same time, I don't want to pay £1,429 for a 2GB Mac Pro.
There is an £840 gap in the market which is filled by one machine which replaces a perfectly good monitor I already have.
Goliath = 1 David = 0 (Score:1)
hrmmm (Score:1)
Modification? (Score:2)
I'm not the smartest when it comes to this whole IP / copyright / patent stuff...
But how is this different from taking an existing production, modifying it and then reselling as your own?
ie: I take an, I dunno, invention of some kind ... add a clock to it and then redistribute. Isn't that ok?
This example is always seems to be used, so why wouldn't the same be true in this case?
One question (Score:2)
If I buy a game, apply a nodvd patch, then resell that game with the nodvd patch as a selling point. Think I would get sued by the game company?
My rights online? (Score:2)
What about Apple's rights? They choose to integrate software and hardware in a perfect manner since their beginning. There were no 68000 Machines running Apple II OS either. They tried clones and while they were made by hugely respected companies who has Mac experience for decades, they decided it won't work and cancelled it.
If you look for conspiracy on old Clone age, look no further than Motorola. Are you telling me that company who didn't give shit to PowerPC and dared to ship 133Mhz FSB (G4) chips in 2004-2006 would be a perfect clone maker so it would become Compaq for Apple?
Dear slashdot, don't fall to Pystars lame scheme. I really don't give a shit to some darkly funded company WANTING to get sued by Apple.
It could be Apple funding Pystar too, to validate their stance against Clone makers. That junk with Realtek stuff is a perfect proof of what shouldn't get OS X installed.
Confused about the installation (Score:1)
Article confusion (Score:2)
From TFA:
Erm, what licensing agreement does Psystar have with Apple? My understanding was that they had none -- they were reselling shrink-wrapped copies of Apple's OS, and providing software tools to allow installation on their clone hardware.
Or am I totally misinterpreting what the author is stating here?
Why is this not the same as... (Score:1)
Daft (Score:1)
Re:SCO plans fizzled, on to plan B? (Score:2)
Wait, what's your so-called point? Nice conspiracy theory, though.
Parent
Re:Blam! (Score:1)
Look at the facts again:
SCO claimed IBM owed it money for performing work on Linux that SCO claimed should somehow enrich SCO, despite SCO having not done anything to deserve it.
Paystar claimed Apple owed it money for performing work on Mac OS X that Paystar claimed should somehow enrich Paystar, despite Paystar having not done anything to deserve it.
Now ask yourself, why are you rooting for Paystar?
What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0 [roughlydrafted.com]
Parent
Re:SCO plans fizzled, on to plan B? (Score:3, Insightful)
How much do you want to bet Paystar has the same "donation"?
Erm, a million, billion dollars ?
You are smoking crack. Apple is not the same threat to MS that Linux is. MS profits from Apple!
MS's margins on (legitimate) sales to Mac users have higher average margins than average sales to typical PC users:
Firstly, there's no such thing as an OEM version of XP or Vista for Mac. Most OS sales in the PC world are low margin OEM bundles with HW.
A Mac user must purchase a full retail price version of Windows to install on their Mac.
Most unit sales of Office for the Mac are, again, individual sales. Most unit sales of Office for Windows are Corporate.
Then we can go into the famous $150m "donation" that MS made to Apple, and the patent cross licensing agreement between the two companies...
Parent
Re:monopolistic behavior (Score:1)
OK well this "monopolistic actions" have created a great product for the past 10 years at least. Psystar should lose this case. Apple is more than far away from a monopoly. They are at like 11% of pc market. Maybe my stats are wrong but psystar should lose and I hope they do. Unfortunately these practices have helped created a superior product.
Well in your world I can but a OS X PC in Dell's store .... (In reality can but Windows and Linux at Dells website why not OS X ??)
Parent
Conventional Wi...Stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Mac user, I've had my share of "Road Apples" over the years, and I say the conventional wisdom that Apple makes "great" hardware is pure and unadulterated horse exhaust.
Parent
Re:monopolistic behavior (Score:2)
This argument is a bit like a judge saying "You killed the guy, but no one liked him, so, not guilty". The quality of their products has nothing to do with the case at hand.
You don't need a monopoly to engage in anti-competitive behaviour. The existance or not of a monopoly has nothing to do with whether Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour.
So which practices are those? Are you saying Apple engages in anti-competitive behaviour? If so, Apple should lose, regardless of how much anyone likes their products. If a judge found in favour of Apple for any of the "reasons" you have listed, I would hope that they are not a judge for very long, having shown gross incompetence.
Parent
Re:monopolistic behavior (Score:2)
So? Just because they created a superior product means they should be allowed to continue? By that logic Wal*Mart should be able to hire illegal immigrants at below minimum wage, because it allows them to offer lower prices. Just because you can do something better doesn't mean you can just ignore the law. It's not a question of how good their product is, it's not a question of if they're a monopoly or not, it's a question of if they violated federal law with monopolistic behavior. And that's for the court to decide.
Parent
Re:Apple is scared white by Microsoft. (Score:1)
Parent
Re:About time folks (Score:4, Insightful)
"Its about time someone counter-sued Apple for this monopolistic behavior."
Monopolistic behaviour isn't illegal unless one happens to be a monopoly.
"When Microsoft does it, everyone jumps up their seat"
Because Microsoft has been adjudged to be a monopoly by at least three different legal entities (the US, the EU, and S. Korea), whereas Apple with their 4% or so of the world PC market are obviously not a monopoly. Monopolies are bound by laws that don't apply to other companies.
Parent