Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement 242
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?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IT'S STILL IN COURT FOR CRISSAKES! (Score:5, Informative)
It's amazing how colossally wrong an entire news story, submission, and long list of threads can be on an issue. Remember this when you criticize some judge for not knowing Linux or the Internet as well as you guys do, because said judge would look at this thread and say, WTF are you all talking about?
What's to stop Apple? (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact that they'll sue, and even if you eventually settle, you're probably going out of business?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
See above. Really, it's not nearly so nice in the real world. Apple has what, USD 20 B (big ones) in cash floating around. Pystar is lucky if they haven't maxed out their VISA card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
citation needed.
War Chest My Ass (Score:3, Insightful)
OTOH, this seems like an absolutely brilliant legal scheme:
1) Build $PRODUCT based on $SOMEONE_ELSE's software.
2) Sue $SOMEONE_ELSE when they try to shut you down.
3) Settle out-of-court for millions.
Worst case, you lose and can't sell $PRODUCT anymore. Best case, you win and you enjoy ripping off $SOMEONE_ELSE's hard work for your gain. Pl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The amount of money they have is only partly relevant. If I had $20 billion, I couldn't make it legal for me to murder anyone. There is the extent that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. (That said, there are a lot of shady and even illegal things one could to with $20bn if one were willing to do so... like various rulings I have seen in the past.)
But their having money isn't the sole factor influencing the result. If that were the case, drug, alcohol, tobacco and firearms companies woul
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
They're doing pretty good, even tobacco has managed to hang in there. Given the moral issues the big AG lawsuits brought up the tobacco companies should be dead and buried by now and nicotine should be a DEA class II drug (along with alcohol, but I won't get started on that one now.
I'd like my pony now, please.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The US has tried de-legalizing alcohol. If you don't know or remember how well that turned out, go find out. Consider the results of Prohibition before you suggest doing it again. I would lay 5:1 odds that any complete ban of tobacco products would have an identical result.
Here's a hint: It went very poorly for everybody involved, except the people selling alcohol. They got rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had $20 billion, I couldn't make it legal for me to murder anyone.
Dude, you really don't pay that much attention to politics, do you?
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most small businesses can't afford 50hrs of lawyers fees a month for 3years. (About $500,000). Or if you try to go cheap and represent yourself they still can't afford to have their business partial stopped, have their stock dropped to nothing. And you boss of the company losing maybe 150 hours a month putting up a decent defense will surely have an effect on the company. In MOST case right or wrong don't matter. A big company can make anyone eat minimum a half million dollar bill. When I was starting up my company my lawyer cited an average $800,000 for ip suits, regardless of who wins. It only gets interesting when both sides can eat a million dollar loss without being too damaged (30million+ net-worth companies)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know if they have to pay interest on legal fees too? I know
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the US (some other countries are different), the loser does not automatically pay legal fees. Sometimes, a successful plaintiff will receive legal fees as part of the settlement, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, it can be a win for the little guy as well. If I sue a big company for something that I believe I have a legitimate case for, and the judgment goes against me, I only have my own legal fees to pay. If I had to pay for the large corporation's legal fees as well, I'd be essentially bankrupted.
In other words, an automatic loser-pays system would make whistle-blower lawsuits almost automatically nonviable, since those suits are hardly ever sure wins.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've wondered about the viability of an alternative blended version of "loser pays". Under such a scheme, the losing party would reimburse the winning party for their actual expenses but only up to the amount that the losing party spent. This may require fairly continuous disclosure of expenses by both parties to reduce "gaming the system".
That is how it is set up in Germany. First thing in court, you tell the judge how much money you want (or at how much money the case should be valued). Judge takes that number and looks up in a table how much plaintiff and defense can pay for their lawyers, and how much the court takes to handle the case. That will end up being the cost. At the end of the case, the judge checks how many percent of what the plaintiff wanted he was actually awarded, and cost are split up accordingly.
This avoids being sued
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe... sometimes. If you want to try for that though you'll likely be risking another 50% on top of the original fight. But it doesn't matter, the goal is to destroy the company before the case is closed. Say you have a public company worth about 10million and get sued. You decide to save time and hire a lawyer. Being away from the helm of the company for court and such + lawyer fees costs you around 1.2million. Over time since the company is losing money and the future is on shaky ground because of the l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Apple had a say 80% market share - still I don't think anti-trust laws should (could? I don't know this law in detail) apply. They have a business, a successful one, producing hardware and software. What is stopping them selling the software for their hardware only? This is not anti-competitive as anyone can build a computer and write an O/S by themselves.
Anti-trust laws, as applied against Microsoft, are for leveraging ones existing monopoly to gain entry into other markets. It would be a hard sell for a judge to convince Apple is doing that by setting up a business model (sell hardware with software tied together) and then gaining a great success with it. Only if Apple would have this market share and then starts e.g. blocking competing web browsers from their systems, now that would be an issue for anti-trust laws.
The only thing Psystar may have a case with is the first-sale doctrine: that a seller can not restrict what a buyer is doing with a product. Now there is the clash with copyrights, however afaik that means the buyer can re-sell the copy they bought (on CD or what-ever medium), but is not allowed to make copies of it. Installation on a computer is by nature making a copy of it, complicating the matter. I have no idea how copyright law provides for this kind of copy - one way or another it should be legal, or each software package should include a license allowing such copying for installation.
Complicated matter, but it is certainly not anti-trust matter. It's copyright and first-sale doctrine matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I would just add that it's the first-sale doctrine and probably the EULA test that Apple doesn't want to see happen in court.
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Antitrust
Yes, Apple's argument is that the "market for Mac OS PCs" does not really exist, just as nobody else has the right to market Pepsi's soft drink, or sell BMWs, or force DuPont to license cellophane to them. The DuPont case went to the supreme Court in 1956:
"In a civil action under  4 of the Sherman Act, the Government charged that appellee had monopolized interstate commerce in cellophane in violation of  2 of the Act. During the relevant period, appellee produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the United States; but cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the United States. The trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of appellee's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials, and that competition from other materials in that market prevented appellee from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint."
Apple's brief notes: "Psystarâ(TM)s effort to define a single-brand relevant market contravenes well-known principles of antitrust law. Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturerâ(TM)s products. As the Supreme Court recognized in the United States v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 994 (1956), the âpower that, let us say, automobile or soft-drink manufacturers have over their trademarked products is not the power that makes an illegal monopoly. Illegal power must be appraised in terms of the competitive market for the product.'"
"Most recently, in Spahr, supra, the court rejected almost identical allegations as those made here. Plaintiff claimed that Leeginâ(TM)s brand of womenâ(TM)s accessories, called the 'Brighton' brand, was a separate market because the products are unique, they are marketed as 'one of a kind,' customers would not consider other accessories as 'suitable substitutes,' and there was an 'inelasticity of demand' for these products. 2008 WL 3914461, at pp. 3, 8. Applying the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s decision in Twombly, the District Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because its definition of the relevant market was implausible 'from the face of the complaintâ¦.' Id., at 8."
forced licensing
Another thing to consider: if you think Apple should be forced to license the Mac OS in the way Psystar is claiming, it follows that you also must agree with Pystar's claim that Linux and Windows are so far inferior to the Mac to the point where they can't complete, therefore creating a distinct market. I believe these claims are ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't should go on record admitting that everything else in the industry is a joke compared to the Mac. That is a line of reasoning which I will be happy to use in future arguments where the opposite is claimed. One can't have it both ways.
"The right of a manufacturer to exercise independent discretion with whom he will deal."
"Ultimately," Apple's filing states, "Psystar seeks to force Apple to license its software to competitors, like Psystar, so they can use Mac OS to create Mac 'clones.' Psystar undeniably can sell, and is selling, its Open Computers running Windows or Linux in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. Nevertheless, it also wants to sell computers running Appleâ(TM)s Mac OS in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. However, one of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturerâ(TM)s unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act:"
The Sherman Act "does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."
Myth 10: RIMâ(TM)s BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion [roughlydrafted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it'd be cracked eventually, but if they used unique keys for each computer it probably wouldn't be too hard for them to blacklist keys as they are published.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably way easier to remove the check from code than to break the key.
Since you already have the OS on a real mac in that case what's stoping you from getting rid of the key check during installation?
And Macs already use encrypted binaries against TPM but the key for that is known so that's why regular PCs can install a decrypted version.
Re: (Score:2)
But that doen't even have to be an issue. If push comes to shove, Apple have a surprisingly big number of options how to restrict sales or installs of OS X to only "genuine" hardware owners. An alternative to mollymoo's solution can be something like this: Apple will only sell you a copy of OS X only if you can provide a valid machine serial number. Or they may add product activation. How about a hardware key being required to install or even run the OS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A liveCD-like platform that checks for EFI maybe? Or something else "unique" to Apple hardware?
Re: (Score:2)
I have 10.3.9, and after 10.5 came out I was still getting security updates. Yeah, I did't get to have dashboard or spotlight for free, but I wasn't left without critical updates.
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your case is strong enough, you will win. There are a lot of arguments against Apple, especially the anti-trust one. The right to produce a competing product is fairly important in a free market.
Who says Psystar doesn't have the right to produce a competing product? Apple doesn't deny Psystar's right to a competing product. They just deny Psystar's right to take MacOS X and install it on their computers in clear breach of the EULA, and they have precedent (Xerox' plain paper photocopiers) that even a clear monopoly is under no obligation at all to help its competitors.
Psystar can compete by installing Windows XP, or Windows Vista, or Linux, or they can buy up the remains of BeOS or AmigaOS. Or write their own operating system from scratch. If they wanted MacOS X, they should have offered more than Apple's $400 million when NeXT was for sale. They can even download Darwin and build a GUI on top of that. It's their business, they should come up with their own ideas to compete.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Opentosh is not going to be much of a Mac OS X work-alike. From the FAQ:
* No PowerPC build
* No Classic emulation
* No HFS, HFS+ or ext3 support
* Limited Carbon support
This is without even considering the standard Apple applications, which will most likely not be cloned. I doubt the OS will run Apple's versions, because the frameworks would have to be cloned to support them, and you'd have to buy a Mac OS X install to get them legally.
Seriously, why bother? If you don't get the
Re:What's to stop Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
But there are lots of competing products. The OS market is currently dominated by Microsoft (who has been adjudged to have a monopoly), and in which there are several alternatives, some of them free. The market for hardware is rich and diverse, with multiple providers for just about any hardware component you can think of. How does tying the hardware to the software give Apple any more market share in either market? It' doesn't.
Anti-trust law specifically forbids using a monopoly in one area to increase your market in another. But in which area does Apple have a monopoly? Neither. No monopoly means no anti-trust violations.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly in the mac sales area omg!
Re: (Score:2)
The market for hardware is rich and diverse, with multiple providers for just about any hardware component you can think of.
Oh, really? how many providers have you got for computers (legally) capable of running OSX? well, we *used* to have Psystar but...
But in which area does Apple have a monopoly? Neither. No monopoly means no anti-trust violations.
IANAL, but as far as I know, anti-trust law deals not only with monopolies but also with unfair business practices that may lead to one, and tying through purely legal means their software to their hardware products could easily fall under the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, really? how many providers have you got for computers (legally) capable of running OSX? well, we *used* to have Psystar but...
So how many game companies, that make their games exclusively for Windows operating systems, are being sued for not making their games for the mac or linux? How are they violating anti-trust statutes? They can even "forbid" you to run the game under Wine by 1) making it incompatible with Wine or 2) simply forbidding it in the EULA. How is this any different? Keep in mind that Apple doesn't make or control the sale of the hardware they use, only the OS. The hardware is off-the-shelf stuff you can buy at
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to but write your own OS.
The OS is Apples so...
That's a shame (Score:4, Insightful)
It would have been interesting to see the outcome in court, but like the rhetorical question at the end states, I doubt they'll be the last to try.
Re:That's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think that the legal question "How much anti-competition is allowed in an EULA" is an interesting one, but that it is better fought between two well funded parties. It might end up in a Supreme Court appeal.
Re:That's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X. Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA". The nice think of a settlement is that it does not bind Apple to make the same deal with another white box maker.
There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X. They have been pissing on Apple's shoes; so there will be no business between them. Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".
This arbitration is something that the court can force on the companies; it cannot force them to agree on anything in arbitration.
Re:That's a shame (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".
What about computers that are able to run Mac OS X applications? Clearly, there is more than just the one of them, and Apple hardware is the only EULA compliant way to use any applications which are not open source or cross-platform.
Can Apple have a meaningful monopoly in the market of "Mac OS X Application compatible computers"?
Re: (Score:2)
The same arguments could be used against the consoles manufacturers.
Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.
But that isn't an analogous case. An analogous case to Psystar's actions would be if someone started making an "XBox 360 Compatible" console (ie roughly same hardware specs), and preloaded it with a copy of the XBox360 OS that you can buy separately in a retail store. The end result being that you can run XBox360 games on this clone-a-console machine.
My above example (which IMHO is more representative of the situation than yours was) sounds more like what Compaq did to IBM, resulting in the open IBM-Compati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's apples to oranges. Antitrust != monopoly, antitrust involves a number of anticompetitive or market manipulating strategies, and really only a couple of them are monopolies.
Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd,
Re: (Score:2)
Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd, otherwise Apple would be litigating.
Psystar could make that argument, but it would quite clearly be wrong. And Psystar might get authorisation to install MacOS X, but they better get that authorisation in written form. And somehow I doubt that a customer would be happy to be told "we can install MacOS X for you, but it is against Apple's EULA, so we have to get written authorisation from you, so if Apple tries to sue, it's you who is on the hook and not us".
Re: (Score:2)
"Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine."
Good luck suing to force Apple to write OSX for the Cell architecture or for the now gone DEC Alphas.
Off-topic. Anyone else getting major slowdowns under FF3 when doing other surfing in tabs while waiting for the chance to post your slashdot comment? This is happening under both XP and Vista. Timer will skip a couple numbers, make your
Re: (Score:2)
You and I have very different understandings of Apple's business model. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see how this would benefit Apple.
Apple has a strong reputation for their products "just working". They would have to either trust Psystar to do all of the necessary testing to ensure that they don't damage this reputation, or they'd have to trust the publ
It would be a monopoly... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It would be a monopoly... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple felt that there was no merit to Pystars claims then why obscure things? Does having a gentle legal dept. sound like Apple? It's far more likely that Apple is going to solve this problem with a check-book than with a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits do cost a lot of money to deal with in court. It's in both company's interests to negotiate before it hits the court's docket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's more because Apple doesn't want to take the very real risk of having its EULA invalidated for Florida and possibly the whole Eleventh Circuit.
Re: (Score:2)
But what would Apple WANT with Psystar? Psystar isn't doing anything interesting, it doesn't have any people doing anything spectacular. They assemble standard PC boxes with commodity hardware and figure out the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them.
The only place for Psystar people at Apple would be in, like, their retail stores.
Re: (Score:2)
But what would Apple WANT with Psystar?
"the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense. So Apple would stop Psystar's works, and at the same time get access to hacks to make sure they are no longer possible.
But I agree, this is pure speculation - exactly why /. exists, now that we don't get much news here :-)
Curious (Score:3, Interesting)
Could a third party sue to force the case to be brought into a court of law, claiming public interest in the matter?
Who marked this "Insightful" (Score:2, Insightful)
A) Ford doesn't sell naked engines to car builders, pro or hobbyist. Apple doesn't sell their naked OS to computer builders, pro or hobbyist.
B) Neither Apple nor Ford are legally compelled to sell their "parts" separate from the whole.
C) Both Apple and Ford sell "upgrade parts" for existing owners of their products
D) While they done ENCOURAGE IT - they also don't stop people from using those parts for "off script" use, except...
They will stop ANYONE from using their company name or product names to sell a p
Re:Who marked this "Insightful" (Score:5, Insightful)
A. you can buy ford crate engines, you can buy boxed copies of OSX
B. No, but preventing you from using the parts in something else is illegal.
C. They both sell parts that can be used for any purpose. First sale prevents them from limiting the uses of the item.
D. They can't stop you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. First sale prevents them from asserting a copyright claim for subsequent transfer of the unmodified items. That's all first sale prevents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It would be a monopoly... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think Apple are really interested in paying out Psystar. Unless the resolution send a clear message that Apple does not tolerate Mac clones and will pursue their manufacturers/sellers to the bitter and expensive end, nothing will prevent a "StarPsy" form popping up again in a few months, hoping to either make a mint selling "open computers", or at worst to get a cool few millions form the mothership.
Re:It would be a monopoly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile.... I'm just sayin.
On what basis would that be illegal for Ford to do? They don't insist on these terms because they don't care much what you do with their engine, but if they did care, what would make it illegal? As a concrete example, Ferrari sells Formula I racing engine to the Scuderia Toro Rosso team. Now McLaren might be willing to pay a generous amount of money to lay their hands on a Ferrari engine, and Ferrari would be quite unhappy about it. If the contract between Ferrari and Toro Rosso says that the engines cannot be sold on, do you seriously suggest that would be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, but Ferrari could lease the engines to STR, or sell them, but inform them that if the engine is not returned or proven destroyed at the end of its useful life then they'll not get any more engines from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile....
It is not illegal for Ford to simply not sell their engines other than in the form of a complete Ford branded automobile or as replacement part for owners of Ford branded automobiles. Just like Apple can choose to not sell their OS to other computer makers, and sell it only as a package with Apple branded computers.
It is theirs, and it is theirs to sell it to who they want.
What happens after sales though is another matter: it is not illegal for someone to take apart his Ford, and sell all the parts to who
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point me to a car brand powered by Ford engines without an agreement between Ford and that brand ?
You can't ? Maybe there's a reason. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't advertise it as an apple. They advertise it as being able of running OSX.
This would be like honda putting the vette motor in then saying "Buy our new S2000, now with a corvette motor."
While the monopoly stuff probably does not have legs the illegal tying claims may.
Re: (Score:2)
"Corvette COMPATIBLE" not Corvette. But I think you already knew that and appreciate the difference.
Apple can do no evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because they've convinced many their customers - through marketing and cost - that somehow they're "better" or "superior" as people by buying an Apple product. Because, you know, we all should build our self-image around the consumption of mass-market products. Anyway, if you're self-image is tied up in identifying with an image, and a particular line of products are part of that, you tend to defend it, or at least not criticize it. It's actually kind of pathetic - "hey, I'm a better person because I bough
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hate me because I'm beau^H^H^H^H^H^H^H can afford a Mac.
If you work hard, someday - soon - you'll be able to afford one, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trust me, affording it isn't a problem. I just find Apple products uninteresting and many of the fanboyish customers irritating. Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it. As if that establishes some common ground or the basis for a conversation. The fact that two people buy the same crap does not actually make them part of a "community" that has any value. Perhaps if people didn't actually build their sense of s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't flatter yourself. Even if I am a Mac user seeing another one in the street doesn't automatically mean I expect to have anything else in common. This whole "Mac fanboy" stereotype is a myth, I'm pretty sure. And it's getting very, very old to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Just find the idea of a "community" or some sort of common ground based on buying the same crap obnoxious and sad. It's a sign that you're a tool, that you've bought into the marketing message. Actually having something in common (interests, activities, line of work, beliefs, local "real" community, family, ideology, etc) actually matters more, and there are plenty of people to socialize with based on that. And I'm sorry, "I use a Macbook" isn't actually any more of an activity than "I buy coca-c
Re: (Score:2)
What's so "evil" about Apple's business model, which is what is being disputed in the lawsuit between Apple and Psystar?
Re:Apple can do no evil (Score:5, Interesting)
"Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?"
I'd like you to point out an instance of their business practices that deserves "righteous wrath", as I can't think of one.
They don't get the same amount of crap that Microsoft does because on the evil scale Apple is '-1, A cursed ring that you cannot remove', whereas Microsoft is '-1000, Obliterates all life on the planet which it occupies'.
A.
Couple of reasons: (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Because Google set themselves up for criticism by having a much-publicised motto of Don't be evil [google.com].
2. Because the idea that even Mac-fans regard Apple as saints is a total straw man. Mac fans love the products (provided they have Firewire and matte screens) - but only the most deluded would deny Apple's well-established record of playing hardball and looking after number one (go ask Apple corp, Microsoft, the firms which licensed Mac OS 9, would-be producers of Apple II clones etc.) Heck, nobody can progress beyond Junior Acolyte in the Church of Jobs unless their blog has been anointed by a DMCA takedown from the Holy One. Go look on a Mac fan site like macrumors.com sometime (they even have a convenient front-page tally of how many negative comments have been made about each posting, so you won't have to read endless speculation about what colour the jack plug on the next iPod is going to be).
3. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly - if Steve Jobs screws your pooch, you are free to walk out of the Apple store and buy a Windows or Linux machine. If he screws too many pooches, Apple will go bust. OTOH, lots of people find themselves forced to use or upgrade Microsoft products because of their market dominance, and Microsoft can sell products like Vista and Office 07 that nobody actually wants.
4. Finally, just some of the recent articles from /. that seem to have escaped your notice:
Users Rage Over Missing FireWire On New MacBooks
iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld
iPhone Tethering App Released, Killed In 2 Hours
Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order
iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
Apple Laptop Upgrades Costing 200% More Than Dells
Now, is it just me, but could some of those be regarded as just a teeny bit crictical of Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over yourself. People always think they hold some kind of oppressed viewpoint around here, when it is often just selective memory.
Everyone bitches about almost *everything* on Slashdot because angry people are far more likely to hit that Submit button. (This very post is a great example of this fact.)
Re:Apple can do no evil (Score:5, Insightful)
To prove my point, I get modded down as flamebait. This is halarious.
To disprove your point: Skip the tags and read the comments in the "Android Kill Switch" thread. Then head on over to any iPhone related thread and read the Apple bitching there.
Apple gets beat up all the time, here. Settle down.
Psytar's Strategy (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Apple sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
The ridiculous thing is that building a mac clone would be about half as hard as building the IBM clone. No one needs to work under clean room condition to make sure that the multiple phalanxes of IBM lawyers do not win the first born child of the cloners. No one needs to write a OS from scratch. All that is needed is an appropriate *nix subsystem, with a virtual machine that can run either windows and a Mac OS UI clone simultaneously. The technology is out there, all we need is some innovative company to do it.
Instead what we get is some kids hacking and selling POS hardware hoping they can get a little more than the razor thin margins currently awarded to the PC OEM. The reason we have not seen an innovative PC in 10 years is that there is no money in it. MS virtually destroyed the system builder, and now they are the only ones making money. The only hope for an innovative PC, besides Apple, is the market of competing virtual machine on top of commodity hardware. Whatever OS can run on top of it. This will break the cycle of single vendor malaise that lead to the crap Vista.
I am all for Apple to lose it's 'monopoly' of Mac OS X on Apple hardware. I am all for MS to be forced to stop 'illegally' tying an OS to a certain machine. But this is not going happen by putting out crappy machines running the same old crappy software. It will happen by a system builder designing a new kind of GPC. of course, the problem is will the market want it. Such a machine would require a significant amount of engineering, which would have to be recouped by a higher margin, which means a PC that costs more than $500, without a high level OS.
Profit How? (Score:2)
How exactly? Reading the article links doesn't make that apparent.
This, btw, is exactly the reason Apple won't displace Microsoft and remain the niche player they are now. A lot more people might run OS-X if they could run it on the hardware of their choice. It hardly requires Apple hardware to run OS-X any more than it requires a given brand of PC to run Linux. If Apple is happy with their second tier status and falling behind as developers put mor
Re: (Score:2)
We can argue whether Apple are "second tier" and "falling behind", but I'd rather point out that your example with the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 is really not a good one. This is not Adobe laying their wrath upon Apple or ditching the Mac for the more prospective Windows platform. It's a combination of Adobe's lack of foresight and Apple
Re: (Score:2)
.
You buy a Mac because you are trying to simplify your life.
There aren't 1,000 configuration options in hardware or software.
That is a geek thing - something that appeals to the technical hobbyist or the pro - and one of the fundamental reasons why Linux on the desktop has less than a 1% share.
Pystar is not the only one. (Score:2, Interesting)
Both side benefit from an out-of-court settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has strong controls over their OS because they remember what happened the last time they allowed clones. The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.
Psystar doesn't have a right to modify Mac OS X and put it on their machines. Apple has full rights to stop them. Psystar could make a machine that could take a modified version of Mac OS X. They just wouldn't be allowed to put this modified version on their machine.
My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them. Apple really doesn't care too much about the small market share they might lose to Psystar. Most likely, the people buying these clones wouldn't have bought a Mac anyway. If these people then want to spend $125 and get Mac OS X to work on Psystar, that's their prerogative and Apple won't stop them.
What Apple wants to avoid is the average user saying "Why should I spend $1200 on a iMac when I can by a Psystar for only $500?". Even worse, Apple doesn't want these same users saying, "Man, I bought this Psystar system, and Mac OX sucks! It keep crashing, and it is slow. I don't know why people think Apple is so hot. Their stuff stinks!".
Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light. Apple chose the premium market because they rather make $200 on each sale rather than sell five times as many machines, but only make $40 on each one.
Apple doesn't want some clone coming along and ruining their reputation. As far as Apple is concerned, Psystar can live as long as they don't mess with Apple's reputation.
Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Apple's biggest problem with the Mac clones of the mid '90s was the tarnished reputation of Mac OS. A much, much bigger problem was something that you also point out in your comment - most people chose cheaper, not better. The prices of the clones did severely undercut the prices of "genuine" Macs and as result Apple's sales practically disappeared. And you are correct - the same would
Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme (Score:2)
High-quality? It's been my experience that Apple's hardware is of no higher quality than any other builder's. I can give you a laundry list of busted Macs that I have personal experience with, while my Frankenbox built from off-the-shelf parts that has evolved over the past several years has had exactly zero hardware problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Same boat here. My current PC was ~$700 at time of purchase.
Antec Sonata III Chassis
ASUS M2N-E
AMD X2 5200+
4GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 RAM
Seagate 500GB HDD
nVidia 8600 GTS
Gentoo Linux
I've ha
Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme (Score:2)
Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light.
No, Apple sells complete systems, not hardware. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Just like the old UNIX workstation manufacturers they're not selling part of the solution, they're constructing the entire solution to ensure that the parts work together in a satisfactory fashion.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them.
That is like saying, Generic Car company will allow Tesla Motors to live as long as they stop selling electric cars. Psystar is a company that sells computers with Mac OS X. If they no longer sell computers with Mac OS X on them, they will not survive.
With the mac book backlash & lack of mini upda (Score:2)
With the mac book backlash. The lack of mini updates and other stuff is there stuff going on at apple that we don't know about. Pystar laptop plans blow apple away? Mac OS 10.6 for all? A real desktop system? with a super high end mac pro in the works mac pro now at $2500 and up? and apple wants to get pystar out of the way so they can have a real desktop?
Also if apple buy Pystar and lets them make clones apple will forced to Support them? or at least that there os update will not mess the systems up.
Does P
lexmak tried to use the dmca / EULA to lock out... (Score:2)
lexmak tried to use the dmca / EULA to lock out 3rd party ink and they lost in court apple is trying to do the same type of thing. Garage door makes try to use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party so apples dmca / eula clams may not hold up court and they are staying out of it.
This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
You guys realize, if Apple loses, they'll lock down their OS much more than it is already, and use the DMCA to shut down hobbyists who try to circumvent it?
Here's hoping Psystar loses so we don't have to deal with shitty macs out in the wild and so that we don't have to get into fisticuffs with Apple over DRM.
Enough with the hypocrisy already. (Score:3, Insightful)
When you purchase or download software you are bound by the license agreement regardless of whether that license is GPL or some other license. The ELUA for OS X is readily available outside of the packaging online for anyone to read prior to purchasing an OS X "upgrade" box. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous install is irrelevant.
If the GPL is to be considered a defendable in court, then so must the ELUA of OS X or windows. Nobody is forcing you to use a particular OS and nobody is entitled to software on their own terms.
Re: (Score:2)
"I personally do not think that the software copyright holders have the right to limit the hardware it runs on."
So, what, you're going to SUE APPLE and force them to write OSX for your PS3 or your Dreamcast, or that system you built entirely from GPGPUs??
Give me a break. What gives you the right to dictate what hardware architecture they should write their software for? Unless you own the company that owns the software, you have NO LEGAL RIGHT.