Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed 256
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.
As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.
Re:Where's the logic? (Score:4, Insightful)
They took a gamble on how a very vague law would be interpreted by a judge. If they won, then they would have been sitting on a goldmine, having lost they will still have the paycheques they they took home each month. There was a lot of upside for hardly any downside.
Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Most tech companies do this in some way.
Re:If these guys couldn't bounce back (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish they could win (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope they find an angle that works.
Really it is amazing how people will come out of the woodwork to support Apple in this. Sorry, I own multiple Apple products but I do not see how in the hell it is justified they can tell me or anyone else how to use their product once I buy it. This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA. How far would have that gone?
Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.
Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not profiting off the Free & Open Source Software that they did not initially create. You can download that bit for free, no profit for Apple. Free of charge, completely.
What they're profiting from is the non-OSS part that they did create (or bought the rights to, in the case of the NeXT created segment) and the integration of the F/OSS that they use with their OS. That's their work and not covered by F/OSS licenses.
I'm glad they lost (Score:2, Insightful)
This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA
Except that Microsoft does say that with the Xbox and Xbox 360. They have 2 different platforms with 2 different lisencing strategies for their hardware. Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft. Apple doesn't have any obligation to market it's computer OS the same way that MS does, and unless you have a problem with MS, Sony, or Nintendo marketing their OS the same way Apple does I fail to see validity of the "Apple is the next MS" argument you are using here unless you plan to apply it to the other game station manufacturers as well.
Your whole second paragraph is self contradictory. Apple is suing Pystar for selling hardware with a "Hacked version of Apples OS" they are not suing Pystar for the computers they've sold with windows or linux installed, only those with OS X. If you want to go take the open source compnents of Apple's OS and recreate the closed source code yourself, and then sell computers with it you are free to do so. However, you'll quickly find that even with mooching Apple contributions to open source you won't be able to maintain profitability sell this OS for the same price Apple does their updates. They are a way to generate some income off of major OS updates from people that have already purchased Apple hardware. They are not sold at a profit by themselves, so Apple is free to restrict the sales to whomever they want in the EULA.
Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.
Re:I wish they could win (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be akin to Microsoft having...
Judge actually ruled that this is pretty much the exact opposite of 'This would be akin to Microsoft...'
This particular ruling isn't about the EULA aspect of the case, it's about the (alleged) monopoly abuse. Psystar's argument was that Apple had a monopoly in the market for computers running OS X, and therefore had to abide by the much stricter laws on what a company can and cannot do if it gets into a monopoly position. The judge said that 'computers running OS X' isn't the applicable 'market' in this case, he defined the applicable market as 'computers running any OS', therefore Apple only have a minority of the market, and Psystar is wrong. In that market, Microsoft do have a big enough OS market share to be defined as a monopoly.
What no one seems to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Psystar is not modifying the OS. Check the details! They are not running a cracked or modified version of OSX on their systems. What they have done is created the EFI backbone so that will allow the OS will install run nativly on it. This is no different from when IBM made their machines, and people reverse-engineered the bios to make clones.
All apple has to get them on is that the OSX license stipulates that it MUST BE INSTALLED ON APPLE HARDWARE. This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.
These guys are going to have a rough time of it, but I home that they succeed. Apple should not be the only hardware manufacturer allowed to run OS-X, no more than microsoft should be allowed to decree that windows is not allowed to run on AMD and Gigabyte.
We should be allowed a choice!
Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple's hardware is fairly priced, so even if you want to install Linux, you are no worse off than buying x other brand.
Go match a Dell to a Mac Pro, or a Sony Vaio laptop to a MacBook, you will see they are all competitive.
Re:I wish they could win (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing.
So when it sends reports following crashes where do they go? Apple.
When someone files feedback or some such where does that go? Apple.
When something doesn't work as expected who gets the blame? Apple.
Apple gets bad rep and no financial recompense from Psystar's business model. Why is this something that should be allowed?
Re:Where's the logic? (Score:1, Insightful)
I expected them to get the beat-down in court as well, but I'm left hoping this case doesn't set too much of a precedent.
Apple sells good hardware; they also sell a good OS.
It really is a shame that those two products can't be treated separately and mixed with other products on the market.
Yes, you can run a different OS on the hardware; yes, you can run the OS on different hardware (with as-yet-to-be-determined legal work-around).
Can someone bundle such a package to sell to consumers? Many mightn't want to spend their time on an OS install - that could be perceived as added value.
Perhaps someone will come up with a better car analogy - here's mine: wouldn't you be peeved if you weren't allowed to resell your car after you replaced its engine (and it passed all safety requirements, etc)? Whether it's one car (yours), or a company offering an "upgrade service" (Ruf Porsche caters to the high end) - it's a benefit for consumers to have those options.
Why make software so different?
Re:I wish they could win (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple gets bad rep and no financial recompense from Psystar's business model
Unless you count the $129/sale from the boxed copy of OS X that Pystar include as a financial recompense...
Re:I'm glad they lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that Microsoft does say that with the Xbox and Xbox 360. They have 2 different platforms with 2 different lisencing strategies for their hardware. Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't sell the "Xbox OS" as a separate product. Apple does sell OS X independently of their hardware.
Re:I'm glad they lost (Score:4, Insightful)
your MS Xbox analogy fails.
No it doesn't. they are both Operating Systems for running specific hardware designs. Their is only one Xbox 360 design, but if I were to go out and purchase all of the parts necessary, assemble the system, and get my hands on a copy of the OS from some hacker I could conceivably install the Xbox 360 OS on reference hardware and do the equivalent of what Pystar is doing. It would be no less illegal based on the EULA and copywrite law as it is written and enforced at the moment. That it would be more difficult to procure a copy of the installable OS doesn't invalidate my analogy.
If anything your "Bad Car Analogy" is worse than the one I used because tires are sold and not licensed as software is. I don't particularly like that software is licensed instead of sold but that's the state of things at the moment.
No, the XBox analogy does fail (Score:2, Insightful)
Because you don't buy the XBox OS but you DO buy the Apple Mac OS X OS.
You don't need a license to install and use software when it is required for the use of said materiel. So that's not the problem.
Apple could just not sell Mac OS X the same way as MS don't sell XBox OS. They don't. So live with the consequences.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Insightful)
This is hilarious and yet I feel the same as AC. I'm so conflicted.
Re:I wish they could win (Score:4, Insightful)
And it is some level of financial recompense, but it doesn't address the question of whether it's fair recompense. The $129 number is a price subsidized by the purchase of a Mac. That's essentially the "upgrade" price. We don't know what the fully retail price of OSX would be if Apple were licensing it for use on non-Apple computers, because Apple doesn't offer those licensing terms to anyone.
It may be that, if Apple chose to license OSX for generic PCs, they would charge $500 or $1000 per copy. We don't know.
So in light of that, it's not clear that the $129 is sufficient for Psystar to say, "But we bought copies of OSX fair and square!"
Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:2, Insightful)
i think profit is the wrong word here. there's nothing wrong with a company using FOSS for commercial purposes, like running a LAMP server or installing Linux on the systems they sell. however, i don't think it's ethical for a company to sell free software they didn't write or own the rights to. they can sell support for the software, or sell hardware running the software, but they should provide the FOSS for free.
however, when it comes to modified FOSS things become a little more complicated. ideally, all software that incorporates FOSS code should be made FOSS as well. after all, if you want to benefit directly from other people's FOSS code, then you should allow others to do the same with your code. but we live in a capitalist society and in the end this would hamper the adoption of FOSS.
a compromise would be that if someone sells FOSS-based closed software, they should also contribute back to the community in other ways, and they should distribute the FOSS code they used with their proprietary software. all of this, of course, is contingent on the fact that the FOSS code they use is released under a GPL-compatible license. if it's BSD-licensed code then a commercial company can do whatever the hell they want, as that is the author's intent.
Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with Ford profiting off the car, which they did not initially create.
I disagree with Edison profiting off electricity which he didn't initially create.
I disagree with your assessment that OSS is somehow immune from future development and profitability if it is further developed by anyone that wants to have a go at it.
Perhaps you have a thing against Apple because you somehow see it as "stealing" the good work of people who put their code out there as open source (you know, free for anyone to use as long as they follow the licence) and Apple did just that.
So, for example, rather than writing their own HTML engine from scratch, they decided to build on the good work of the KHTML team, and then released Webkit back into the wild for anyone to do with as they see fit.
They did the same with with the underpinnings of OS X. The top side of OS X is closed source, however, but that actually was written closed from the start.
Unless you are of the opinion that *only* OSS can exist and even a single line of closed source code is abhorrent to the human race, then I can't see what Apple is doing as wrong. Would you feel differently if Apple used Red Hat's approach and had a fully open source system and charged for support? Hey. wait, Red Hat are making money off OSS which they didn't initially create! Heathens! Burn them!!!!
Re:What no one seems to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.
So, rather like the terms under which the vast majority of Windows licenses are sold, then?
Most new PCs come with an OEM version of Windows with a license that specifically restricts its use to the computer with which it was sold. Most "boxed" versions of Windows sold to consumers are "upgrades" which require that you have an existing copy. My employer has a Windows "site license" which entitles it to install any version of windows on its PCs but (last time I looked) only if they originally came with OEM Windows.
The only "get out" is that Microsoft will sell you a "Full Retail" version for 2-3 times the price of the OEM/Upgrade versions which most customers buy. If Apple do lose the court case (flap, oink), one work-around might be to hike the price of OSX to, say, $500-$1000 (not without precedent for certified Unix with a full dev kit) and offer an "upgrade" to existing OS X license holders (i.e. anyone with a Mac) for $130. If someone challenges that it would set some interesting precedents for Microsoft...
We should be allowed a choice!
Remember that when you go to buy a netbook (like the EEE) or OLPC and find that the Borg have been round and now, somehow, the Linux versions are now (a) more expensive and (b) not in stock. Funny that. Now if Apple tried that, everybody would flame them...
Re:I wish they could win (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad they lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't buy into the copyright cartel's bullshit. You bought a copy of the OS, just like you buy a copy of a book or a copy of a CD. Copyright law is founded on the idea that you sell copies of your work.
Put another way, if everything is licensed, there's no need for copyright at all, yet I'm sure that these companies would fight to the death any measure which ended copyright in favor of contracts.
You bought a copy. End of story.
Re:I'm glad they lost (Score:3, Insightful)
It has become a common convention to refer to software license sales as software sales because in the vast majority of cases the result is the same.
If you have a problem with the fact that common convention gives a slanted view of reality, welcome to the club, but that doesn't mean anyone is doing anything illegal.
Case in point, but in the other direction. The Xerox company tried to sue a bunch of companies for using their trademarked word "Xerox", but they were slapped down by the court because they hadn't enforced their IP early enough. Consequently, they lost some of the protection normally applied to trademarked terms, because it had become a common convention for people to use the word Xerox to imply any photocopy or mimeograph machine.
You can't legislate the way speech patterns develop unless you live in France.