Slashdot Log In
Apple Files Suit Against Psystar
Posted by
kdawson
on Tuesday July 15, @02:24PM
from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.
from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer 615 comments
mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."
[+]
Apple: First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466 comments
An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."
[+]
Hardware: Psystar Open Computer Notes, Benchmarks and Video 304 comments
Engadget has had a chance to play around with Psystar's Open Computer and has a few things to say about the controversial machine. "Okay, so we've been playing with the Psystar Open Computer for a few hours now, and we've formed some early impressions and put together a short video of it in action. We haven't really tried to stress the system yet, but based on our other experiences with OSx86 machines, we're expecting things to generally go smoothly. That said, there are some definite rough patches and issues, all mostly having to do with the fact that OS X isn't really built for this hardware."
[+]
Apple: Mac Cloner Psystar Ships First Service Pack 468 comments
Preedit writes "Not only is Mac clone maker Psystar continuing to defy Apple's ban on third-party Leopard installations, it's supporting the hardware with updates. Psystar Mac clones shipped as of Monday will include a 'service pack' that features fixes for a range of problems, some of them inherent in Apple's own software, according to InformationWeek. The fixes address a range of troubles, from glitches in Apple's Time Machine backup feature to quirks in the Keyboard Viewer and Character Palette entries in Leopard's system preferences menu. There's also support for the latest version of Java and other updates. According to the story, by offering a full menu of support, Psystar appears to be daring Apple to attempt to enforce provisions in the Leopard license agreement that forbid third-party installations and sales." We've been discussing Psystar clones for a while.
Firehose:Apple files suit against Psystar by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!
Reply to This
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is the same company who has repeatedly sent threatening legal letters to teenage bloggers and such. They also clearly violated their deal with Apple records, and then went on the legal offensive like they were victims.
Apple certainly isn't afraid to use their lawyers. My guess is that they wanted Pystar to make some profits to the lawsuit would make financial sense.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?
If their products were crap, or even equivalent, consumers would not speak so highly of them, for so long after their purchases.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Funny)
That is precisely why it's a good thing you don't have mod points.
Reply to This
Parent
Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
Reply to This
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.
So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).
Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.
Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.
This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
Common fallacious argument.
It does not matter whether you can duplicate a Mac for less. What matters is, after you have settled on a spec you want, or found a Dell or HP you want, can you duplicate that for the same price from the Apple product line?
95% of the time you can't. This is what makes Apple a rip-off.
It would only matter that you could not duplicate a Mac cheaper, if the Mac spec were the starting point for shopping. It very rarely is.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
People feeling ripped off is what makes Apple a rip-off. If you're happy with your Mac, and feel you got good value for it, you haven't been ripped off. If you're unhappy with your Windows/PC, and want a Mac to replace it, but can't find one with comparable specs, don't buy one and you won't be ripped off.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
You put together a MacMini for 50% of the price? There's only two companies out there I'm aware of that offer similar sized machines. Asus sell the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeBox, but it's a lot lower specced, and AOpen's mini PC, which I admit is a better deal, but it's no where near 50% of the price. My guess is that you forgot that being 6" by 6" by 2" and silent is a very very valuable feature.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Informative)
I've done it on machines that later were serviced under my AppleCare Protection Plan. Even though the person in the call center noticed my specs didn't match what they were at time of purchase they didn't try to weasel out by claiming a warranty violation.
The last time I sent my Powerbook G4 in for service, the problem was actually related to the cheap 3rd party ram I was using. They simply took it out, put it in a static bag, shipped everything back, and told me to re-install the original ram that shipped with the unit. No attempt was made to bill me for work not covered under the ACPP.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else try to read that post as a poem?
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
What they lack are the super cheap entry level disposable junk...They do lack a moderate price expandable tower
So, hardware-wise, they only sell high end stuff. The thing with the high end is that you start getting diminishing returns. I build moderate towers for half what the high end computers would cost and get 75% of the performance at least, although often it's closer to 80% or 90%. From what I've seen, macs tend to fall later on the curve than I (and most people I know) like to hit, after the performance-per-dollar starts declining.
Of course, that's just my opinion, many people prefer to buy there, and for them macs are just fine.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Interesting)
And finally, how successful would OS/X be if Apple sold it as software for any platform, Microsoft-style? It would be earth-shakingly successful, probably garnering 50% marketshare within one year. And probably making 10x more money than they do now.
They tried that before. It didn't work out too well. Also, you're wrong.
One of the strengths of OS X is that it runs on a limited, well-understood suite of hardware. Bugs are easier to fix, components are easier to tweak, and new features are more easily added. I do not, and never have, believed that Apple would be well served by opening up OS X. It's a tightly run ship (for the most part), and opening it up to all hardware would serve neither Apple nor end users.
Reply to This
Parent
Wake up people (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is exactly what Microsoft would be if Bill Gate's father wasn't already a wealthy man. Do you think that Jobs or Gates are very much different?
One interesting note, however, Apple uses the courts as an offensive mechanism more often than Microsoft. Microsoft tends to bombard problems with cash projectiles until resistance is bought off. Apple sues you for even talking about them.
All multi-national corporations suck.
Reply to This
Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the clause in the EULA that you will only run the OS on a genuine MAC, there is nothing here. So I guess we get to see just how far a shrink wrap EULA will go in the court. I'm not entirely certain that this is a good case for it, but it's not one of the worst.
Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit just ruled for Blizzard in their interpretation of a EULA violation negating the validity of license of legally purchased software & CA is in the 9th Circuit.
Reply to This
Re:Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go. (Score:5, Interesting)
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Thankfully... (Score:5, Informative)
The 9th Circuit Court is the most over-turned court.
False. In fact, the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuits had 100% of their decisions heard by the supreme court reversed in 04-05. The 9th had 84%.
In terms of pure numbers, yes, this may be true. But the 9th circuit also hears comparatively more cases than the others, as well. In terms of percentages, this is an oft-repeated but rarely-documented fallacious statement. The only time in recent history when they were the most overturned was in the 96-97 session.
It's also somewhat of a silly statistic, given that the supreme court rarely hears cases that it doesn't expect to overturn - if the general consensus is agreement, why would they hear the appeal unless it's important enough to "reinforce" the original court's decision?
Reply to This
Parent
a boy can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.
Reply to This
Re:a boy can dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.
Reply to This
Parent
Not a bad business model... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Create a line of Mac clones.
2. Sell them to an unwitting public.
3. Have Apple file suit.
4. Pay bonuses to all the execs.
5. Declare bankruptcy.
6. Shut down all operations.
Guess what... Everyone who bought a Psystar is left totally unsupported (which includes the all-important security hole fixes) and the execs made a bundle... Now, could Apple go after the execs personally for copyright infringement or (the soon-to-be-defunct) Psystar? Ironically, there was no consumer fraud here--businesses go under all the time and anyone who bought a Psystar would have had to know that Apple wouldn't support them...
Reply to This
not sealed (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a slightly more informative (less speculative) posting: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328 [zdnet.com]
Reply to This
So excited for a legal judgment (Score:5, Interesting)
I really hope this goes to trial and a judge rules on it. Partly because I think the judge would rule that Apple can't do what they're trying to do with their EULA, but even if the judge sides with them, it's still a clarification of the law.
I don't like existing in the murky world of armchair people positing what is and isn't legal. Plus, if it goes Psystar's way, I doubt it would be too long before larger manufacturers got on board. Once something becomes legal, corporations want all over it (well, I guess that applies to profitable things).
Reply to This
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes a lot of preparation for them to reach this point and file proceedings, consider:
* exec hears about it, if it were Microsoft chairs would be thrown ... ...
* passed to the legal team to see if Apple have a case
* legal sign off
* paralegals do the groundwork, scrutinizing the EULA etc.
*
*
* case is filed in court?
In the past I've tried bringing legal action for trademark infringement, and the whole process just to get things started can take months and months especially if you're in a large organization with N-layers of forms & approvals required for anything like this.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Demand for OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
[Apple has] the exclusive right to distribute [their] OS. As they should ... Now some small fry entrepreneur is ... selling PCs with OS X loaded on them. Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs...
You seem to be confusing Psystar's behavior with piracy. They pay for their copies of OS X. Apple doesn't have a discount distribution center for their OS (for obvious reasons), so Psystar pays full retail price for each copy of OS X that they sell, and they use their right-of-first-sale rights to then resell that copy to their customers.
Yesterday Slashdot had a story about how it was judged that loading software in RAM is equivalent to distributing software. Psystar is loading it onto the HDD, so this ruling might be different. Of course, you could argue that Psystar is then distributing the HDD, but as mentioned before, right-of-first-sale gives them this right without the need for a license.
It's been a while, but I really hope for a sane copyright-related ruling this time. I'm not holding my breath.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Competition Killer (Score:5, Insightful)
Er. Apple is a) a very small player in a market locked up by Microsoft (for OSs), and b) just one of many players in the home computer hardware market. By tying their hardware so firmly to the OS, they aren't so much killing competition as denying themselves extra sales of the OS.
I'm all for holding Apple to account for their licensing policies, but hyperbole doesn't help.
Reply to This
Parent