Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[macenforcer]

Hmm. This might open up OSX to be installed on a DELL. What thinks??




Pystar to Countersue Apple (http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/26/psystar-to-countersue-apple-for-antitrust-violations-will-ask-c/)

[Sun Baked]

They still haven't filed their response yet for the current case ... or it hasn't showed up.

Maybe August 28th, which is what their current extension is.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-3:2008cv03251/case_id-204881/

[macenforcer]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

[Mindflux]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

All Mobile OS's are limited to the manufacturer in question with the exception right now of Android and Windows CE.

RIM's OS can only go on RIM devices, Nokia's Symbian on Nok only phones and so on and so forth.

[Sun Baked]

All Mobile OS's are limited to the manufacturer in question with the exception right now of Android and Windows CE.

RIM's OS can only go on RIM devices, Nokia's Symbian on Nok only phones and so on and so forth.

Then there is Amiga OS 4, which is mired in legal issues, but still struggling to survive.

[macenforcer]

All Mobile OS's are limited to the manufacturer in question with the exception right now of Android and Windows CE.

RIM's OS can only go on RIM devices, Nokia's Symbian on Nok only phones and so on and so forth.

Yes but those are phones. Its a little different. Those phone companies don't SELL their phone os in the store.

[Mindflux]

Yes but those are phones. Its a little different. Those phone companies don't SELL their phone os in the store.

Ok fair enough. Do you want the only way to obtain OSX is via a new Apple computer? That fixes the 'problem'.

[macenforcer]

Ok fair enough. Do you want the only way to obtain OSX is via a new Apple computer? That fixes the 'problem'.

Should be a free download. LOL. :D

[Sun Baked]

I wonder if Apple will team up with Netkas... :p

Edit: anyhow, quite a few of these projects do state for non-commercial use only... Psystar use is commercial.

[thejadedmonkey]

Ok fair enough. Do you want the only way to obtain OSX is via a new Apple computer? That fixes the 'problem'.

Then Apple gets it for no longer supporting their old computers. Hopefully this will make Apple at least make a consumer tower

[macenforcer]

Then Apple gets it for no longer supporting their old computers. Hopefully this will make Apple at least make a consumer tower

Yep. Let's face it, apple has been gouging us with high prices for years. Every computer manufacturer out there makes a cheap expandable tower except apple and its all because of the OS.

[Sun Baked]

As soon as Apple is forced to cough up the OS, people are going to complain that the iApps are not included. And how Apple is competing unfairly with their bundling. :rolleyes:

[ajthomason]

I used to think that OS X would be best just running on Macs, but now I'm all for running it on other PCs.

The reason?

The cheapest (and only) mac that can physically handle dual monitors is the Mac Pro which costs at least £1,700. You can buy a dell that has pretty much any dedicated graphics card for £350 that can do the same, and even cheaper if you build it yourself.

Why should we be forced to pay £1350 extra for such a small feature? I bought a Matrox TrippleHead2Go for my MacBook Pro to run dual monitors, it cost £200 and is no where near as good as two independent monitors.

I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.

Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?

[HLdan]

From Ajthomason I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.

Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?[/QUOTE]



From HLdan
Microsoft being forced to produce a copy of XP without a Media player is not at all the same thing. You are totally missing the point.
Use all the logic about a halo effect all you want but the fact of the matter is Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales let alone create a lot of headache supporting motherboards.

Apple is not a full time software company, they produce their own software to run on the hardware they make. People are getting quite confused because you can go into an Apple store and buy Leopard off the shelf and think it's sold to run on any computer. Apple sells it only to upgrade older Macs or to replace your lost discs.
You are sadly misguided if you think people would stop torrenting OS X if Apple officially licensed it. Anyone that even illegally torrents their software would do it regardless.
You can buy MS Office for your Mac or PC but I'm sure many people still torrent it to avoid paying for it.

[ajthomason]

Apple is not a full time software company, they produce their own software to run on the hardware they make. People are getting quite confused because you can go into an Apple store and buy Leopard off the shelf and think it's sold to run on any computer. Apple sells it only to upgrade older Macs or to replace your lost discs.

You are sadly misguided if you think people would stop torrenting OS X if Apple officially licensed it. Anyone that even illegally torrents their software would do it regardless.

You can buy MS Office for your Mac or PC but I'm sure many people still torrent it to avoid paying for it.

Sorry, I think that you're missing my point. There is a difference between not providing support for other computers and deliberately preventing people from installing their software on other machines.

As I said, I'm not asking Apple to produce a copy with specs listed for PCs, guaranteeing compatibility, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X and let people see if they can install it on their own PCs (Just like the OSx86 community, but with official support from Intel/AMD etc.)

My reference to torrenting was not about people not paying for the software, but about not being able to install the disk that you paid for (I would never tell someone to torrent OS X unless they have a spare, unused, genuine licence for it. I know that this does not make it completely legal, but it is still better). To install OS X on non-mac computers at the moment, you mostly have to have one of the hacked versions that you get by torrenting, because Apple have restricted the real versions.

You can, indeed, buy MS Office to run on PCs or Macs - that is the difference, you cannot buy OS X to run on PCs, there is no option but to torrent it.

As I said, I'm not asking Apple to provide guaranteed compatibility with PCs, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X (e.g., for motherboards that aren't used in genuine macs)

[zombitronic]

OS X is software that is engineered to be used with specific hardware. Before you start screaming for blood, remember that this is not the only instance of software that can be purchased separately from the hardware, yet designed to work solely with particular hardware.

For years, video games have been engineered to work on specific hardware consoles. Many games have been created to work on different consoles, but these have been separate versions created at the discretion of the publisher. When clone consoles surfaced, you can bet that the original console manufacturers quickly used the copyright infringement card.

Apple makes the hardware and the software. The way I see it, they have every legal right to snuff clones.

[ajthomason]

OS X is software that is engineered to be used with specific hardware. Before you start screaming for blood, remember that this is not the only instance of software that can be purchased separately from the hardware, yet designed to work solely with particular hardware.

For years, video games have been engineered to work on specific hardware consoles. Many games have been created to work on different consoles, but these have been separate versions created at the discretion of the publisher. When clone consoles surfaced, you can bet that the original console manufacturers quickly used the copyright infringement card.

Apple makes the hardware and the software. The way I see it, they have every legal right to snuff clones.

The real problem with this is that the games consoles have dedicated hardware that was designed specifically for that console. OS X now runs on Intel chips, which was designed for all computers. You can legally make and sell a machine identical to a Mac Pro (using the same hardware, but not software or design) and they can't do anything to stop you, this is completely different to games consoles that the software will only run on custom built hardware.

[r.j.s]

The real problem with this is that the games consoles have dedicated hardware that was designed specifically for that console. OS X now runs on Intel chips, which was designed for all computers. You can legally make and sell a machine identical to a Mac Pro (using the same hardware, but not software or design) and they can't do anything to stop you, this is completely different to games consoles that the software will only run on custom built hardware.

Except here, you do have to modify the OS in order for it work - as well as any updates that come down the pipe. Take a look at Psystar's site, they modified Software update to look to their servers for modified versions of the updates, not Apple's for the actual version.

EDIT: On topic, As it has been said before, the only thing they have a monopoly on is Apple computers ... every company has a monopoly on their product, and monopolies are not inherently illegal.

This is about the Apple selling the software and hardware as a single product - the Macintosh.

I dont remember who said it, but this is nothing like the Microsoft case. MS was using things in the OS to give IE an advantage over Netscape and every other browser out there. They refused to open up these hidden tools to anyone else, which was unfair competition.

If this goes bad for Apple, I can see bad things happening ... there might not be anymore OS X for sale at stores (online or otherwise). We might even have to register, providing proof we own a Mac, in order to order the new version.

Don't kid yourselves about this being a fight for the greater good. This is about Psystar making a profit with no actual work, and very little in terms of expenses.

[golfnut1996]

But in the end, Apple does own OS X, and can decide what it can/cannot run on. I think this is one of those circular discussions, in that everyone is right, everyone is wrong, and the result will be that Apple will come out on top.

[clevin]

wait for the trial. Im sure judge and jury will be more objective and smart than the hearsay and biased opinion here, correct? :)

[tveric]

macRumors forum users are biased in favor of Apple !?!?!

you can't be serious!

[ajthomason]

Except here, you do have to modify the OS in order for it work - as well as any updates that come down the pipe. Take a look at Psystar's site, they modified Software update to look to their servers for modified versions of the updates, not Apple's for the actual version.


That's the bit that I'm commenting on - they shouldn't have to modify the system, they only did to prevent apple from crippling the computers bought from them.

Yes, apple do own the software and yes they should be able to do what they like with it, but they are overpricing their hardware and forcing you to make sacrifices just to get your hands on their software. The laptops are fine, and although expensive, they are not too bad.

It is the desktop PCs that I draw the line at; they need to release a low power, standard desktop (that does not cost £1700) - with normal PCI ports and full size HDD & CD Drive support, and until they do - I am going to back any company that makes a product that is capable of doing all these things and running OS X. Don't get me wrong, Apple's hardware is some of the best out there - but seriously? the Mac Mini is the only real desktop option for most of us, and you can't do anything with it - I can't put a better graphics card it, upgrade the hard drive or CD drive properly and they even make it very difficult to upgrade the RAM.

Come to think of it, the only laptops that I've seen in my life that you can't replace the HDD with ease are all made by Apple - the last 3 laptops that I've owned (and even the 10" Eee sitting on my desk) all have covers on the bottom that provide direct access to the HD.

Sorry to change topic (away from Psystar and onto design flaws with Apple's computers), but I don't see why Apple can tell us how amazing OS X is, and how we should all ditch windows and then control what we can and can't do with our new products.

Anyway, this discussion has turned more into an argument, so I'll just leave it at that. You now know my opinions on this matter, so now it's up for others to share theirs instead of just argue with all of my points.

[r.j.s]

Most, if not all of the arguments that can be made can be found in this thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=522700)

[macenforcer]

Apple will lose a lot of hardware sales let alone create a lot of headache supporting motherboards.

This statement is pure hogwash. I am so sick of hearing this. Apple need not support anyone, they do however need to remove the lock on the OS which PREVENTS users from installing it on non apple hardware. If they did that people would make the drivers and there would be no issue. Apple maliciously cripples the install of the OS on any system that does not contain an apple ID.

[HLdan]

That's the bit that I'm commenting on - they shouldn't have to modify the system, they only did to prevent apple from crippling the computers bought from them.

Yes, apple do own the software and yes they should be able to do what they like with it, but they are overpricing their hardware and forcing you to make sacrifices just to get your hands on their software.

Wow, I'm sorry that you feel that you have to be "forced". Last time I checked Apple's computers are just another product like Dell's computers, like HP's, like Sony's, like Asus. You have a choice to buy any of them.

Interesting that Apple has a small marketshare (although increasing very well I might add) but you'd think it was much more than that since people are going through such lengths to do the wrong thing.

You have a pack of gum, you decide you want to be selfish and not share a stick of it with anyone. Somebody gets upset with you and decides to sue you to force you to share. But it's your pack of gum and you paid for it, why should you be forced to share it right? Oh, but you will share it for a high price, but I have to buy the whole pack from you. Well, then I might as well go to someone else who is willing to share for free or I may as well pay your cost because your pack of gum better suits me.

[HLdan]

This statement is pure hogwash. I am so sick of hearing this. Apple need not support anyone, they do however need to remove the lock on the OS which PREVENTS users from installing it on non apple hardware. If they did that people would make the drivers and there would be no issue. Apple maliciously cripples the install of the OS on any system that does not contain an apple ID.

Exactly which part of it is hogwash? Apple losing hardware sales? Or the motherboard support headaches? They are already having issues trying to support both platforms for their mobileme.

Just get over it, Apple has a right to do what they want and this is a losing argument for you.

[quagmire]

This statement is pure hogwash. I am so sick of hearing this. Apple need not support anyone, they do however need to remove the lock on the OS which PREVENTS users from installing it on non apple hardware. If they did that people would make the drivers and there would be no issue. Apple maliciously cripples the install of the OS on any system that does not contain an apple ID.

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

[macenforcer]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

Yes, I am willing to pay that if it means I can install it on any machine I like.

[Sun Baked]

Yes, I am willing to pay that if it means I can install it on any machine I like.

All you should need is a copy of the ...

Psystar OpenComputing Leopard Restore Disk (http://www.psystar.com/opencomputing_leopard_restore_disk.html)

Customers who purchased Open Computing products with Leopard will receive a restore disc which will

* allow them to reinstall their OS directly from the Leopard DVD included with their computer
* allow them to boot into the service console

Which should allow you to start your own clone business, since all you need is the Mac OS X license. ;)

[r.j.s]

* allow them to boot into the service console

;)

Off topic: Really, what is the service console, and how many people are looking to get at it?

[ajthomason]

You have a pack of gum, you decide you want to be selfish and not share a stick of it with anyone. Somebody gets upset with you and decides to sue you to force you to share. But it's your pack of gum and you paid for it, why should you be forced to share it right? Oh, but you will share it for a high price, but I have to buy the whole pack from you. Well, then I might as well go to someone else who is willing to share for free or I may as well pay your cost because your pack of gum better suits me.

I think you'll find it's more like a company develops the greatest flavour of gum, there is no reason why they can't let you buy it, but they decide that you can only have it if you buy a huge bar of chocolate from them as well, then they will sell it to you.

Let's say that you want this gum, but you would rather have a different brand of chocolate. What you're saying is that you don't feel that you're being FORCED into buying this chocolate although you don't really want it?

That is, according to your argument, justifiable. You are being forced into buying the chocolate in exactly the same way that we are being forced into buying Macs just so that we can have this gum ( if you didn't work it, the gum represents OS X :) )

The analogy that you put forward only works if all gum is equal and the manufacturers of the gum 'I' want don't slate the competition and claim that their gum is so superior.

Now we've hit a problem - I seem to be fighting for the wrong side. I am a fan of Apple (but not a fanboy), and I'm arguing against them because I honestly believe that they are going against even the things that they believe in. I don't regret buying my MBP, even if I could get OS X on a Dell, I would have bought it, however I am happy with the Asus Eee that I am typing on at the moment and I would not have bought a MacBook or MacBook Air as an alternative either way because neither of them are right for, so Apple didn't lose any money. If you hadn't guessed, this Eee is running OS X because I want my network to be perfectly compatible.

[ajthomason]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

Vista Ultimate sells for £200 in this country (about $400), so if I'm buying one - I would rather pay the extra £50 and get OS X.

[Gasu E.]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

But Microsoft can now legally sell the same product at two different price points based on whether it is an "upgrade" or an original purchase. All Apple would have to do to counter a judgement is rename its current retail OS box to be the "upgrade" version and offer an "original" version at $700. In fact, Apple could do this preemptively, even before a judgement, and it possibly would make the suit moot.

[toxicbomber]

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/8733/rollseyesbigzh1.png
Nuff said.

[conebbs]

Yep. Let's face it, apple has been gouging us with high prices for years. Every computer manufacturer out there makes a cheap expandable tower except apple and its all because of the OS.

Then stop buying Apple.

[sterno74]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

Big difference: Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple's monopoly is over operating systems for Apple hardware, but in the context of the industry, they are still a small player.

What the anti-trust laws generally frown upon is leveraging of a monopoly in one realm to dominate another. So for Microsoft it was control of the operating system that controlled 95% of the market used to take over the browser market. I don't see how that's at all applicable in this case.

If this passed muster in court, the logic would be that any proprietary software running on proprietary hardware is free game for similar action. So you could make your own router hardware, then install copies of CISCO's OS on them. Arguably that's a much more justifiable concept because CISCO dominates the industry to a much larger degree (though still not a Monopoly by any stretch).

[deputy_doofy]

If MS can set the pricing for Windows to the PC makers, why can't Apple simply make the price ridiculously high for unofficial clone-makers, assuming the trial favors Pystar?

If Pystar wins, I'm suing to have every game solely made for xBox work for Wii and PS3. Otherwise, xBox has a monopoly. The same goes for Wii and PS3. Zelda for PS3. Mario for Xbox.

Where do we draw the line with this nonsense?

[Dmac77]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!You have got to be kidding me! I'm ROFLAMO! This puny little tiny company thinks that they can take on Apple! That's hilarious! I hope that these idiots know that they are going to lose everything, Apple will crush them and take them for every damn dime that they have. Even if they have grounds, Apple will drag it out in appeals until my great great great grandchildren are dead.

This has made my day. Thanks for the laugh Pystar!

Don

[fizzwinkus]

But Microsoft can now legally sell the same product at two different price points based on whether it is an "upgrade" or an original purchase. All Apple would have to do to counter a judgement is rename its current retail OS box to be the "upgrade" version and offer an "original" version at $700. In fact, Apple could do this preemptively, even before a judgement, and it possibly would make the suit moot.

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

[Bonte]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

A Mini costs $499 with osX and iLife, the profit for Apple can't be much more than $125.

[hob]

Initially I thought Psystar were being just a little cheeky. Now I think they've taken it to a whole new level. They can just go get lost. Anti-competitive?! To who exactly? Apple don't HAVE to license their OS! It's THEIR OS! :mad:

[MidiMonk]

Go Psystar!!!

Apple needs to be put in its place for once, just like Microsoft before them.

[gcmexico]

Hmm. This might open up OSX to be installed on a DELL. What thinks??




Pystar to Countersue Apple (http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/26/psystar-to-countersue-apple-for-antitrust-violations-will-ask-c/)
*
no way!! I never what to see Mac of OS on dell!:mad:

[w00master]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!You have got to be kidding me! I'm ROFLAMO! This puny little tiny company thinks that they can take on Apple! That's hilarious! I hope that these idiots know that they are going to lose everything, Apple will crush them and take them for every damn dime that they have. Even if they have grounds, Apple will drag it out in appeals until my great great great grandchildren are dead.

This has made my day. Thanks for the laugh Pystar!

Don

Not saying that I'm in favor of Psystar (I'm not), but there have been many cases where the "puny little company" has defeated the big corporations.

Ultimately, this case will fail b/c OS X needs to be hacked in order to run on their non-Apple made computers. This is a violation of the DMCA, so I can't see them winning at all.

That being said, I am in favor of clones and the ability to load OS X on whatever piece of hardware I wish.

[Unspeaked]

Then stop buying Apple.

Of course - how dare a consumer be unhappy with any aspect of the company they support with their purchases.


all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

This is true, but no Mac OS disc has ever required an existing install. That's got to mean something, right?

[gcmexico]

Then stop buying Apple.
*
exactly!!! let the market speak

[kntgsp]

I really hope Psystar wins, if only to strike down the EULA and open up OSX installation onto anything we want. If Apple wants to enforce the idea that you can only install OSX on an Apple computer, then stop selling boxes of your OS in retail stores.

If I walk into your store and buy OSX, I can take it home and install it on any goddamn thing I want. Let them try to install it on a toaster or an amiga for all I care.

Once you hand them currency in exchange for that box of software, it is YOURS to do with and install on, whatever you damn well please. And any company who claims otherwise can pry it from my cold dead hands or issue me a full refund.



That being said:

That doesn't mean Apple has to guarantee that it'll work flawlessly. They can still put disclaimers on it stating that they offer no official support unless installed on Apple computers. There is nothing illegal about that. But restricting it altogether and forcing people to go the "hackintosh" route is mind bogglingly retarded.

And this tired excuse of "oh well if they open it up, it'll become as unstable as every other OS because there's so many more hardware combinations to support."

That is utter ********. In my experience of using OSX/XP/Vista/Debian, it's a wash. I get the spinning balloon just as often as I get the hourglass in XP. Allow the community to help you develop drivers and submit them to Apple for verification if they want, since Apple will almost assuredly claim that they don't have the resources to put towards developing additional drivers (cough*bulls$$t*cough). Hell, I know plenty would be more than willing to pitch in.

Major hardware manufacturers like ASUS/Gigabyte/ATI/NVIDIA, etc. all put out Linux drivers in addition to Windows drivers. You don't see them straining to keep their company afloat due to the horrible amounts of resources wasted compiling basic linux drivers.

Give. Me. A. Farking. Break.

[r.j.s]

This is true, but no Mac OS disc has ever required an existing install. That's got to mean something, right?

No. XP upgrade doesn't require a previous version, but it does check for the CD. Just because Apple forgoes this check doesn't make it not an upgrade.

[ImageWrangler]

This statement is pure hogwash. I am so sick of hearing this. Apple need not support anyone, they do however need to remove the lock on the OS which PREVENTS users from installing it on non apple hardware. If they did that people would make the drivers and there would be no issue. Apple maliciously cripples the install of the OS on any system that does not contain an apple ID.

I'd bet a million bucks you'd be the first person complaining once you tried to put OS X on some Dull or crappy peecee and something went wrong, blaming Apple for the fact it didn't work on some third-party hardware.

You have a choice. Don't like Apple's OS only running on an Apple computer? Great... buy a Dull or some other brand.

Mirrors the same whiners who complain about a radio station without taking in consideration it has a dial, and that dial gets OTHER stations. Don't like Apple's station, use the dial. Cripes people!

[zombitronic]

If this passed muster in court, the logic would be that any proprietary software running on proprietary hardware is free game for similar action. So you could make your own router hardware, then install copies of CISCO's OS on them. Arguably that's a much more justifiable concept because CISCO dominates the industry to a much larger degree (though still not a Monopoly by any stretch).

If Pystar wins, I'm suing to have every game solely made for xBox work for Wii and PS3. Otherwise, xBox has a monopoly. The same goes for Wii and PS3. Zelda for PS3. Mario for Xbox.

Where do we draw the line with this nonsense?

Don't forget the iPhone clones that can't run the iPhone OS. You've gotta sue Apple over that, too. They've got a monopoly on Apple iPhones.

If MS can set the pricing for Windows to the PC makers, why can't Apple simply make the price ridiculously high for unofficial clone-makers, assuming the trial favors Pystar?

Because there isn't a specific clone version of OS X. They'd have to raise the price for everyone.

[kntgsp]

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

So you're saying that the full OS is not included on the disc? Then explain how people install the full OS on blank hard drives they install themselves.

[MaynardJames]

Screw all this talk about Apple opening up OSX to other hardware. What I really want is someone to sue Ferrari so I can finally buy that Toyota Enzo for $20,000 I've always wanted.


If these guys really cared about what was "fair" in all this, they would have been pursing actions like this from the beginning, instead of simply trying to profit off of it. Now that Apple has told them they can no longer make money off of Apple's hard work, they pull the "it's not fair to consumers" card. I hope they get there you know what's handed to them.

[r.j.s]

...

This isn't about what YOU do with your license of the software, this is about whether another company can profit from Apple's research and development work by hacking OS X and selling it for their own profit.

[Gasu E.]

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

That's quite correct. My point is that Apple could ADD a standalone version for $700 (or whatever) to the existing single offering. That would address any "monopoly" concerns, and at the same time force Psystar out of the market, or to compete only with high end products. <which really wouldn't be bad-- I can see a 3rd party $3000 super gaming Mac being complementary to Apple's strategy>.
This would allow Apple to make ultra high margins on any third-parties that chose to compete, rather than having low-enders like Psystar squeezing their margins from below.

[Mal]

Of course - how dare a consumer be unhappy with any aspect of the company they support with their purchases.

The point is, if you think their computers are overpriced, don't buy them. You don't have the right to purchase a computer running Mac OS X at the price you demand.

This is true, but no Mac OS disc has ever required an existing install. That's got to mean something, right?

Actually.... no. The SLA requires a previous installation, even if there is no software check. It's a honor system based thing, but that doesn't affect the legalities of the situation. If the SLA says it can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer, and the SLA is found to be binding (which historically they have), then that's that.

jW

[bmb012]

Bleem got sued out of existence for making Playstation 1 games playable on the Dreamcast :mad:

I think I'm going to sue Microsoft because I can't play 360 games on a PS3 :rolleyes:

Some people just have the strangest notions about computers being a no holds barred war-zone. No wonder closed devices like gaming consoles and the iPhone attract developers...

[r.j.s]

So you're saying that the full OS is not included on the disc? Then explain how people install the full OS on blank hard drives they install themselves.

The full version of XP is on the upgrade discs, makes it easier to do a full install without relying on old, possible corrupt files already in place.

[commander.data]

Sorry, I think that you're missing my point. There is a difference between not providing support for other computers and deliberately preventing people from installing their software on other machines.

As I said, I'm not asking Apple to produce a copy with specs listed for PCs, guaranteeing compatibility, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X and let people see if they can install it on their own PCs (Just like the OSx86 community, but with official support from Intel/AMD etc.)

...

As I said, I'm not asking Apple to provide guaranteed compatibility with PCs, I'm just asking them to allow hardware manufacturers to officially publish drivers for OS X (e.g., for motherboards that aren't used in genuine macs)
By that token should ATI and nVidia be sued for limiting Crossfire and SLI to their own licensed hardware? Afterall, the graphics card driver themselves support all chipsets ("generic hardware" like their Apple claim) and are freely available for all chipsets, they just artificially lock SLI to nVidia chipsets and Crossfire to ATI and select Intel chipsets. nVidia claims their chipsets have special hardware to enable SLI, but I'm pretty sure the drivers have been cracked to allow SLI on non-nVidia chipsets, and ATI's Crossfire implementation doesn't require special hardware support in the chipset at all.

And why is Microsoft allowed to keep control over the games that ran on the original XBox? The original XBox was built on generic parts including an Intel Celeron and what is pretty much an expanded GeForce3 GPU. There is nothing proprietary about the original XBox's hardware. And XBox games ran on a modified graphics API that was basically DirectX 8.1. Shouldn't PayStar sue Microsoft to allow for the right to run original XBox games on third party consoles built on generic parts? Admittedly there would be a bit of work to translate some of the API calls, but it'd be no different than Wine and a lot faster since it'll be mainly converting the XBox's pseudo DX8.1 into DX8.1.

[nacengineer]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

That's not why Microsoft got sued. They got sued because they installed IE on your Windows machine regardless of what your choice was... and ingrained it in the OS so deeply you were forced to use it... despite what most Netscape users wanted to do they were forced to use IE for system tasks and had no choice. This is anti competitive and eventually killed Netscape because people acquiesced... Packaging an OS with a hardware purchase is hardly anti competitive... you have other choices... given that you can just as easily install Linux on that same hardware...

OS X software was never branded as multi platform... Its not like you have to buy Apple... but if you buy OS X it is analogous to buying a particular part for say your bicycle. You can't sue Trek because they don't make a universal pedal or some such...

[kingtj]

You can add a second monitor to any of the new iMacs with a $15-20 mini-DVI to VGA (or mini-DVI to DVI) adapter cable that plugs into a little port on the side of it.

I ran a 20" aluminum model this way for a while.

For that matter, any Macbook Pro can handle attaching a second display, and use the built-in LCD in tandem with it, too.

I think some of the rulings in the Microsoft case were nonsensical B.S., actually. They did a lot of questionably legal things, but the courts went after them and punished them for some of the wrong ones. (The big MS issue wasn't the IE bundling, Media Player bundling, or any of that. It was the way they strong-armed companies into only loading and offering Windows on their hardware. You can't legally make an agreement that tells someone you'll sell them your product at a nice discount, ONLY as long as they refuse to sell the competitor's offerings. For that matter, I think their attempts to violate "Right of First Sale" laws by denying people the ability to resell any OEM copies of their software, even if said copies were never opened and used, is a legal violation too.)



I used to think that OS X would be best just running on Macs, but now I'm all for running it on other PCs.

The reason?

The cheapest (and only) mac that can physically handle dual monitors is the Mac Pro which costs at least £1,700. You can buy a dell that has pretty much any dedicated graphics card for £350 that can do the same, and even cheaper if you build it yourself.

Why should we be forced to pay £1350 extra for such a small feature? I bought a Matrox TrippleHead2Go for my MacBook Pro to run dual monitors, it cost £200 and is no where near as good as two independent monitors.

I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.

Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?

[dasikes]

All I got to say is, "Good luck."

[r.j.s]

And why is Microsoft allowed to keep control over the games that ran on the original XBox? The original XBox was built on generic parts including an Intel Celeron and what is pretty much an expanded GeForce3 GPU. There is nothing proprietary about the original XBox's hardware. And XBox games ran on a modified graphics API that was basically DirectX 8.1. Shouldn't PayStar sue Microsoft to allow for the right to run original XBox games on third party consoles built on generic parts? Admittedly there would be a bit of work to translate some of the API calls, but it'd be no different than Wine and a lot faster since it'll be mainly converting the XBox's pseudo DX8.1 into DX8.1.

And on top of that, the controllers were found to be USB (with a different connector). On the 360, they gave up and made them straight USB.

[jbernie]

Welcome to the world of being popular Apple, hope you enjoy your new surroundings, Microsoft is just around the corner on the left and they will happily get you up to speed on the problems you can look forward to experiencing now that you are no longer just for a small group of consumers.

[brockm]

I totally disagree that OS X on third-party equipment will cannibalize hardware sales for Apple. I know so many people who buy Macs just for their hardware, not for OS X. I even know one person who bought a MacBook Pro, and wiped OS X off it: he only has Vista on it. I know another person who installed Linux on it, and wiped OS X off it.

The fact is, Apple hardware sells itself.

[tonyshucraft]

wait a second. Companies are able to grant exclusivity to their software to toher companies hardware but not their own?

If this is the case. Then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo should be getting sued. As they publish games made for consoles they come up with. Some being sequals. Just like the different versions of OS X are different version/updates.

Also, Microsoft doesn't have a line of computers, do they?

And by this logic we should also have a lawsuit against apple for the iPhone OS. As people have had to pay for Major updates for the iPod Touch.

[Gasu E.]

Once you hand them currency in exchange for that box of software, it is YOURS to do with and install on, whatever you damn well please. And any company who claims otherwise can pry it from my cold dead hands or issue me a full refund.



Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

[Dmac77]

Not saying that I'm in favor of Psystar (I'm not), but there have been many cases where the "puny little company" has defeated the big corporations.

Ultimately, this case will fail b/c OS X needs to be hacked in order to run on their non-Apple made computers. This is a violation of the DMCA, so I can't see them winning at all.

That being said, I am in favor of clones and the ability to load OS X on whatever piece of hardware I wish.

I have no problem with people making hackintoshes for their own personal use. I have an issue with companies like Pystar making money off of Apple's product. Even if they were to win one court case, Apple would drag it out until Pystar went bankrupt, and would have to give in. I don;t think that any companies (Dell, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc.) should be allowed to include OS X on there computers, because they ridiculed Apple 10 years ago saying that it had no chance to come back.

Don

[Unspeaked]

No. XP upgrade doesn't require a previous version, but it does check for the CD. Just because Apple forgoes this check doesn't make it not an upgrade.

Actually.... no. The SLA requires a previous installation, even if there is no software check. It's a honor system based thing, but that doesn't affect the legalities of the situation. If the SLA says it can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer, and the SLA is found to be binding (which historically they have), then that's that.

Thanks for presuming I was saying Apple's installs aren't upgrades. :rolleyes:

The point I was trying to make was Apple consciously puts no check in place to establish a previous owner. Of course they're all upgrades - there's no such thing as a Mac that shipped without an installed OS - but it's just interesting to note that Apple choses to create their installers without any sort of previous install check.

You could argue that this is because any Mac already came with the OS, but as threads like this point out, that's not always what these discs are used for and I'm sure Apple is aware of that...

[jbernie]

That's not why Microsoft got sued. They got sued because they installed IE on your Windows machine regardless of what your choice was... and ingrained it in the OS so deeply you were forced to use it... despite what most Netscape users wanted to do they were forced to use IE for system tasks and had no choice. This is anti competitive and eventually killed Netscape because people acquiesced... Packaging an OS with a hardware purchase is hardly anti competitive... you have other choices... given that you can just as easily install Linux on that same hardware...

OS X software was never branded as multi platform... Its not like you have to buy Apple... but if you buy OS X it is analogous to buying a particular part for say your bicycle. You can't sue Trek because they don't make a universal pedal or some such...

How do you install another browser without first having a browser already installed to go get the other one? :)

[r.j.s]

Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

Adding to this, if you read the OS X SLA, if you do not agree to the terms you can return the software for refund. If that software came installed on a Mac, then you have to return both.

I guess that means they are one product, eh?

BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE
AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT
AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE APPLE
SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE". FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST
RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Psystar are a pathetic company and should go out and earn some money without having to resort to ripping off other people's work or by sueing people. Antitrust? I think not. You can choose to install all kinds of operating systems. The big Microsoft antitrust case was about them forcing IE onto people, not because they didn't make versions of IE for all the other operating systems under the sun!! Besides which, it was the government sueing them, not some mangy little criminal company trying to make a quick buck.

I hope Apple use some very expensive lawyers and Psystar end up having to pay their legal fees.

[kntgsp]

Don't forget the iPhone clones that can't run the iPhone OS. You've gotta sue Apple over that, too. They've got a monopoly on Apple iPhones.



Because there isn't a specific clone version of OS X. They'd have to raise the price for everyone.


Yea, bakeries should sell you bread but only allow you to toast it if you buy their toaster.

[Play Ultimate]

The countersuit is just a way for Pystar to get some money from all of this. The lawyer was probably signed on contingency basis and will cost nothing to Pystar unless they win. I wouldn't make to much about this countersuit.

BTW, there is no way that anyone could practically argue that Apple has a monopoly in OS. If anything, one could argue about the bundling between iTunes and iPod. However, iTunes is free and available on both OSX and Windows. I see this suit going nowhere.

[kntgsp]

This isn't about what YOU do with your license of the software, this is about whether another company can profit from Apple's research and development work by hacking OS X and selling it for their own profit.

The problem is that it's applied to to individual consumers as well. If Apple wants this to go away, they can start selling licenses for OSX to people like Psystar.

They can charge $1000 if they want, for all I care.

[jbernie]

I have no problem with people making hackintoshes for their own personal use. I have an issue with companies like Pystar making money off of Apple's product. Even if they were to win one court case, Apple would drag it out until Pystar went bankrupt, and would have to give in. I don;t think that any companies (Dell, HP, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc.) should be allowed to include OS X on there computers, because they ridiculed Apple 10 years ago saying that it had no chance to come back.

Don

So as far as you are concerned, it is ok for YOU to break the same license agreement (that you agree to by using the product) that you want Psystar to be bankrupt over. *sniff sniff* I smell some double standards in the house.

Sorry, either everyone has to agree to it or no one is obliged to agree to it.

[bemayo]

The notion that it is somehow wrong that Apple doesn't allow you to install their OS on other hardware is silly, but I think there are plenty of comments already posted that explain that quite well.

What I would address are the comments that indicate you should be able to do whatever you want to with the Mac OS install disc because you paid for it. I would point out that Apple spends large amounts of money on research and development of the OS, and those costs are offset by the profits from the hardware. They develop software to drive hardware sales, not the other way around. If you had to pay a fair retail price (what it cost them to develop the OS divided by the number of copies they sell) for that Mac OS install disc, then it would be a lot more than $129. Basically, Apple sells those discs/software to keep customers happy; they don't have to do it. They could simply say that you must buy a new computer to get 10.5. That's what you have to do with any number of consumer devices. The simple fact that it is using basic computer hardware is irrelevant.

It's really simple. If you don't think Mac OS is worth the cost of buying an Apple computer, look elsewhere. And be careful what you wish for. Should Apple lose, then we are virtually guaranteed that Apple will start charging a lot of money for OS upgrades and we will wind up with a bunch of that registration/license numbers nonsense.

[Play Ultimate]

How do you install another browser without first having a browser already installed to go get the other one? :)

Netscape was a commercial product. You installed it from the CD you bought. Or online if you already had a browser, which at the time very few people had. Not all browsers are, or were, free.

[kkat69]

This will be very interesting to prove. I'm still confident that Apple learned from MS's mistake and took appropriate measures and researched in great length the anti-trust issue so they don't fall prey to it.

Microsoft did a bad thing and fixed it and it cost them. For other companies (especially Apple) to not go and research their own practices and ensure they don't fall victim would be foolish.

The catch could be that they are a "Hardware" company and they also write software for the hardware and open the ability for others to write software for their hardware. A loophole to be sure, but the sales generated would have to be primarily on Hardware. Another issue to point out is Apple doesn't hold a majority market share so they could be exempt where as MS has held a major markshare since Jesus walked the desert.

[Play Ultimate]

What I would address are the comments that indicate you should be able to do whatever you want to with the Mac OS install disc because you paid for it.

I agree. When you "bought" the install disks you bought a license to use according to the terms described. (All of you did click 'accept'?) In any case, you don't own the software, Apple does. They are only letting you use it. This is generally true for all software that exists.

[w0ngbr4d]

A case like this will drag on for years. Hell AMD v. Intel hasn't even gone to trial and its been 3 years since the suit was filed and it will be another year till the trial starts. A case lasting that long will bankrupt a small company like Psystar.

By the time there is a resolution to this case Apple will have released the 10.8 or 10.9 equivalent. By then, none of this will matter.

[ajthomason]

You can add a second monitor to any of the new iMacs with a $15-20 mini-DVI to VGA (or mini-DVI to DVI) adapter cable that plugs into a little port on the side of it.

I ran a 20" aluminum model this way for a while.

For that matter, any Macbook Pro can handle attaching a second display, and use the built-in LCD in tandem with it, too.

both of these options are irrelevant, and off-topic. The iMac can only handle one additional monitor - You can't run two projectors with it, you can't have two monitors next to each other that are the same size/height/rez (I run two Dell 2408WFPs because they are the same height, running one of these and my MBPs screen is almost unusable.

[kntgsp]

Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

I buy things with the intent on not having someone tell me where I can and cannot place it in my own home.

But sure why not, let's let furniture manufacturers stipulate where you can place your sofas. Or how about whether or not you can stick certain brands of pots and pans in your dishwasher.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

It has been and should continue to be stricken down as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. It places the consumer in a non-negotiable stance wherein they have no choice to accept.

Either agree, or lose your job because you can't use Final Cut Studio, or some other Mac only program, since all the people in your particular field or division use OSX developed programs. Geeeee, which one do you think everyone will choose? Operating systems should be handled differently than individual programs.

It comes down to classifying software like this as a good or a license. And thankfully, in states where it's classified as a good, the EULA is not enforceable.

[billystlyes]

I am praying that Pystar wins! Apple hardware is just too niche and expensive. This could open things up own the road for real clones.

[gonyr]

Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

I haven't taken one side or the other regarding the apple v psystar, but what you've said here raises a question in my mind: If I'm buying the media, and licensing the software, what happens if I accidently break my media (say by sitting on the disk)? According to your argument, my license would still be valid, but the media obviously is no good. Shouldn't I then be provided with a new copy of the disk for the price of new media alone (a blank DVD)?

[Bubba Satori]

Apple will make Psystar an offer they can't refuse. I'm thinking $100M.

[BenRoethig]

OS X is software that is engineered to be used with specific hardware. Before you start screaming for blood, remember that this is not the only instance of software that can be purchased separately from the hardware, yet designed to work solely with particular hardware.

Not so much. If they were hard coded like video game consoles, Apple would not be able to update their own systems.

Mac OS X needs drivers, just like windows and they're found in the extensions folder among other places. Being a much newer operating system, its much more efficient in how it handles them. They've also befitted by using fewer chipsets (don't get me wrong, the OS requires support for a lot more devices than you people realize) and family chipsets families that used common drivers during the G3-5 days.

Today things on the hardware side are much more Mac-like. Both chipset and video card makers rely on chip families to cut down on expenses and the need for a number of drivers. SIS and VIA have also exited the chipset business leaving Nvidia as the last of the third party chipset makers. In short, with the exception of the ROM chip issue, Mac OS X already has the drivers to run most of the chipsets and video cards released for x86 machines in the last three years. They need them for their own machines to function.

[macFanDave]

The Mac OS has a market share of <10% so calling Apple a monopolist is absurd. I've been a Mac user since the market share was south of 2% and I've always believed that their will be an OPTIMAL market share figure and it's not 90+%.

I chose to use Macs BECAUSE Apple is a monopoly. Apple makes the hardware, the OS and many of the most important applications. As a consumer, I signed up with the apparently anti-competitive company because the user experience is superior to the Frankensteins bolted together from Dell's, Microsoft's and dozens of ISA's bits and pieces.

I've said for a long time that Apple can probably be free from anti-trust hassles until they get to about 15-20% market share. Psystar is jumping the gun since Apple can show that consumers have options other than Macs, so they don't have the power to abuse like a real monopoly has.

Furthermore, anti-trust laws are currently obsolete and unenforced. Have you heard of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco? Clear Channel Radio? The XM-Sirius merger? The government doesn't care about the consumer. It would be pretty hypocritical for the trust-busters to come back from the dead to pick on poor lil' Apple.

Maybe President Obama might be interested in restoring consumer rights, but there's a lot of other things he'll need to tend to first. If McCain gets in, look for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoBPShell and FOXClearChannelXMSiriusABCComcastTimeWarnerCBSAdelphiaSinclairNBC.

[lowbatteries]

Not sure if this was mentioned (this thread got long fast!) but Microsoft wasn't sued because of how IE was embedded in the OS, or how they tried to lock people in with proprietary features. Netscape had proprietary features too.

They were sued because Microsoft took specific actions to make sure Netscape wasn't bundled with PCs (like threatening their vendors who preinstalled Netscape). Their actions were found to be anti-competitive.

You can't be sued for having a monopoly just because you have one, you have to take unethical steps toward protecting your monopoly.

Apple is simply trying to control who distributes its software and HOW it is distributed.

Edit: Whether or not they have the right to stop the user from doing what he wants with the software is questionable, but they definitely have a right to keep another company from distributing it.

[Scooterman1]

As long as it doesn't cost them too much to battle this out with a Giant like Apple, and they win, it could be a good thing for consumer price choices.

[ataylor]

some of the analogies that people are using are a bit misleading.

[Mal]

I haven't taken one side or the other regarding the apple v psystar, but what you've said here raises a question in my mind: If I'm buying the media, and licensing the software, what happens if I accidently break my media (say by sitting on the disk)? According to your argument, my license would still be valid, but the media obviously is no good. Shouldn't I then be provided with a new copy of the disk for the price of new media alone (a blank DVD)?

Should they? Probably. Do that have to, no. They do allow you to order replacements of the original media. If you broke your retail install media, you might could conceivably call up Apple and get them to send you another set (providing you could prove the others had broken) for slightly less. They're under no obligation to do so, though.

jW

[zombitronic]

some of the analogies that people are using are a bit misleading.

Yea, bakeries should sell you bread but only allow you to toast it if you buy their toaster.


If that bread comes with an EULA, yes.

[tsice19]

I'm going to sue Lexmark because I can't use their ink in my Canon. *

I'm going to sue Nintendo because I can't play my Wii games on my PS3. *

I'm going to sue Apple because I can't run their OS on my PC. *



Silly kids, you can't sue people for those reasons! C'mon!


If you want to use Lexmark ink, you'll use a Lexmark Printer.

If you want to play Wii games, you'll buy a Wii.

If you want to use OS X, you'll buy a Mac!



*Please do not contact your lawyers, I'm not really suing anybody :p


Edit: Just think of OS X as a game and Macs the only console that it plays on!

[w0ngbr4d]

Apple will make Psystar an offer they can't refuse. I'm thinking $100M.

Exactly. Psystar is looking for a quick payday.

2 Options:

settle the case to get Psystar off Apple's back
drag the case out as long as possible in order to pound Psystar into the ground with legal bills

The second option won't work if the lawyers are working on contingency. This will be a tough call.

[MaynardJames]

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us how far we can drive our car, or what type of maintenance we HAVE to do to it, or what we can or cannot add/subtract from the car. Ohh... wait a tick.

[ajthomason]

Should they? Probably. Do that have to, no. They do allow you to order replacements of the original media. If you broke your retail install media, you might could conceivably call up Apple and get them to send you another set (providing you could prove the others had broken) for slightly less. They're under no obligation to do so, though.

jW

On this topic, I had a copy of Flight Sim 2004 (from MICROSOFT), scratched the disk and sent them an email, I even admitted that it was my fault. A week later, I had a set of 4 disks in the post with big labels saying 'Unlicensed Software, Illegal without separate licence from Microsoft'

So... it seems that some companies do this.

[zephead]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this is what I posted on Engadget about the same topic:

Let's use an example from everyday life to prove that there's nothing wrong here. Hamburgers. Anyone who knows how to make them can sell them. Nobody has a monopoly on hamburgers.

So, let's say that Joe's Burger Place decides to sue Burger King. Joe wants the recipe so he can sell Whoppers at his burger place, because he doesn't think it's fair that you can only buy Whoppers at Burger King. The Burger King bigwigs say that they want Whoppers only sold at Burger King, because they're the ones that make them and they hold the rights to it.

Who do you think will win?

[ajthomason]

I'm going to sue Lexmark because I can't use their ink in my Canon. *

I'm going to sue Nintendo because I can't play my Wii games on my PS3. *

I'm going to sue Apple because I can't run their OS on my PC. *


The Lexmark uses different Ink to the cannon, and there are compatible ink cartridges available if you don't want to buy the real ones.

The Wii Games are completely different to the PS3 ones and would have to be COMPLETELY re-written for them.

OS X will run on a PC WITHOUT MODIFICATION if Apple just allowed it.

... There is a huge difference.

[kntgsp]

If that bread comes with an EULA, yes.

So that person should then be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for using a non bakery sanctioned toaster?

Yay dictatorial control!

[r.j.s]

OS X will run on a PC WITHOUT MODIFICATION if Apple just allowed it.

... There is a huge difference.

Then how come you have to use Psystar's version of OS X, and their updates. Check the site. It will tell you that the retail disc will not work, and Apple's updates will not work. There is something shady there.

[ajthomason]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this is what I posted on Engadget about the same topic:

Let's use an example from everyday life to prove that there's nothing wrong here. Hamburgers. Anyone who knows how to make them can sell them. Nobody has a monopoly on hamburgers.

So, let's say that Joe's Burger Place decides to sue Burger King. Joe wants the recipe so he can sell Whoppers at his burger place, because he doesn't think it's fair that you can only buy Whoppers at Burger King. The Burger King bigwigs say that they want Whoppers only sold at Burger King, because they're the ones that make them and they hold the rights to it.

Who do you think will win?

Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.

[mm1250]

I think Apple would be best if they just purchased this company and closed it vs. fighting this out in court. It's to risky. They actually have some Merritt.

but we all know Apple is Arragon so they will fight it out.

[megfilmworks]

The catch could be that they are a "Hardware" company and they also write software for the hardware and open the ability for others to write software for their hardware. A loophole to be sure, but the sales generated would have to be primarily on Hardware. Another issue to point out is Apple doesn't hold a majority market share so they could be exempt where as MS has held a major markshare since Jesus walked the desert.
I tend to agree with this approach. Hardware company and far from controlling the market with majority share.
Suit: Fail (actually they will settle out of court for a nice NDAed sum).

[ajthomason]

Then how come you have to use Psystar's version of OS X, and their updates. Check the site. It will tell you that the retail disc will not work, and Apple's updates will not work. There is something shady there.

OK, my thread was misleading - OS X will need to be modified, but ONLY to remove the stuff that Apple added to prevent people installing it on 3rd party machines. Not to add things or re-write the operating system, only to remove the 'locks'

[Unspeaked]

I'm going to sue Lexmark because I can't use their ink in my Canon. *

I'm going to sue Nintendo because I can't play my Wii games on my PS3. *

I'm going to sue Apple because I can't run their OS on my PC. *


One major difference here (and I'm not saying this validates anything, but it's worth noting) is that plenty of people are running Apple's OS on PCs.

You cannot get Lexmark ink into a Canon printer.

You cannot get a Wii game to play on a PS3.

You can run Mac OS X on a PC.

Again, I'm not saying it's right - just that it's possible.

[donlab]

Its all about design and making a great product. Apple makes the hardware and software. The software (made by apple) is designed to run on apple hardware (designed by apple). So whats the fuss all about?

[zombitronic]

So that person should then be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for using a non bakery sanctioned toaster?

Yay dictatorial control!

No, but that person doesn't have a case to sue the baker if they bought the bread under an EULA.

[Copland]

Yea, bakeries should sell you bread but only allow you to toast it if you buy their toaster.
Sure! I think that a bakery has that right, if they choose to. Now, very few people would buy it and the company would probably tank. Consumers would likely flock to other bakeries with a more lenient terms of use.

But this bakery you speak of might be appealing to some, especially if the toaster is particularly good at toasting the bakery's bread (catching my drift? ;) )

This would only be a problem if for some reason this bakery were the only ones in the world able to make bread. Then you'd have a problem...

[Joe The Dragon]

But Microsoft can now legally sell the same product at two different price points based on whether it is an "upgrade" or an original purchase. All Apple would have to do to counter a judgement is rename its current retail OS box to be the "upgrade" version and offer an "original" version at $700. In fact, Apple could do this preemptively, even before a judgement, and it possibly would make the suit moot.
they should have a low cost OEM version like windows does that costs less then the boxed upgrade and is a full install.

[r.j.s]

OK, my thread was misleading - OS X will need to be modified, but ONLY to remove the stuff that Apple added to prevent people installing it on 3rd party machines. Not to add things or re-write the operating system, only to remove the 'locks'

That's still copyright infringement, which is what Apple is suing for.

[kntgsp]

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us how far we can drive our car, or what type of maintenance we HAVE to do to it, or what we can or cannot add/subtract from the car. Ohh... wait a tick.



I'm sure you aren't allowed to use that vehicle for drastically less money than you would if you bought it. I'm sure it's just people blindly agreeing to contracts despite there being alternatives with the same fees and no usage restrictions.

Ohh.. wait a tick.

You honestly think that car companies would suddenly be able to require leases for ALL vehicles. Every car manufacturer. No one would be able to own their own vehicle anymore. There would be no sales.

Here you go consumer, there are now EULAs on all vehicles. You cannot buy one anymore. Now that we have you by the nuts, let's discuss usage.

You may not recline your seat past 90 degrees while driving. Radios will be disabled. You must purchase new tires from us at a drastically higher than market average every 3,000 miles regardless of tire wear. Etc, etc, etc.

You really wish for that? Enjoy.

Here's an analogy: All roads are made for vehicles of a certain diameter and length. Now let's say 95% of the roads in the country are built to those specifications. They all require EULAs.

Now in order to use a non EULA vehicle, you're required to use a vehicle with a slightly wider diameter. It doesn't restrict what you can do within it. However you are now limited to 5% of roads.

Regardless of whether people WANT a EULA vehicle or not, they're forced to choose one if they want to visit their children or get to work, or go on vacation. You get what I'm saying?

It is the definition of an unconscionable contract of adhesion.

[ajthomason]

Its all about design and making a great product. Apple makes the hardware and software. The software (made by apple) is designed to run on apple hardware (designed by apple). So whats the fuss all about?

The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.

[macaron1]

Me apologies, but they are so lame. They have been reinventing the wheel (http://web.archive.org/web/20011202233456/http://www.psystar.com/) since 2001. That is persistent branding.

[ataylor]

Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.

Apparently you're the one not seeing the problem. If Joe's Burger Place starts selling a burger called the Whopper without permission from Burger King, they are the ones at fault.

Is this really that hard to understand?

[ajthomason]

That's still copyright infringement, which is what Apple is suing for.

(which is what this thread is about, I want to see it made legal and hence remove the copyright infringement)

[kntgsp]

Sure! I think that a bakery has that right, if they choose to. Now, very few people would buy it and the company would probably tank. Consumers would likely flock to other bakeries with a more lenient terms of use.

But this bakery you speak of might be appealing to some, especially if the toaster is particularly good at toasting the bakery's bread (catching my drift? ;) )

This would only be a problem if for some reason this bakery were the only ones in the world able to make bread. Then you'd have a problem...

You'd still have a problem if it was one of two bakeries in the world. And the problem is that if you use the bakery analogy....MOST bakeries would be using EULAs

The bakery analogy is hard to expand on because no one would agree to things that limit their right to feed themselves (that drastically anyway), as it's a basic human right.


Let's take a car lease. It's easier to expand upon and I've already been using this analogy with someone else in this thread, so let's just simplify.

You really think a car dealership should tell you what roads you should be able to drive that leased vehicle on? And no, not how much wear and tear you put on in a year (allotted mileage). But actually which roads you can and cannot drive your vehicle on?

[Joe The Dragon]

A Mini costs $499 with osX and iLife, the profit for Apple can't be much more than $125.
$500 was the g4 mini price the new is $100 more and you have to pay $200 more on top of that to get a DVDRW and you still only have 1gb of ram and slow 2.0 cpu with the POS gma 950 video.

[ajthomason]

Apparently you're the one not seeing the problem. If Joe's Burger Place starts selling a burger called the Whopper without permission from Burger King, they are the ones at fault.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Psystar isn't selling a computer called the 'Mac Pro' here, with a huge Apple logo slapped on the side. They are selling their own version which doesn't even resemble one of Apple's products.

[squier]

Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.Except Burger King doesn't sell the recipe, they sell you a burger. Apple sells you a license to upgrade OS X from a previous version that was originally included when you bought your mac. It is ~$120 because it's an upgrade and Apple has based it's entire business around selling hardware. By Pystar selling it or installing it on a PC Apple loses all the hardware revenue and is therefore rightfully pissed off.

[commander.data]

OS X will run on a PC WITHOUT MODIFICATION if Apple just allowed it.

... There is a huge difference.
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure OS X itself and/or the install DVD will not boot on a computer with a BIOS. That isn't Apple being anti-competitive, that's just Apple being forward thinking in supporting EFI which is supposed to replace BIOS. I would assume that means some modification will be required to get OS X to run.

[MaynardJames]

Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.

Thats not the same at all. Essentially what Pystar did was bought a Whopper from Burger King (not the rights to the recipe), modified a few ingredients with their ingredients, and sold it at a profit still calling it a Burger King Whopper.

[donlab]

The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.

Thats my point. The hardware configuration was (designed by apple) in such a way to benefit the OS (made by apple). Who cares who makes the chips. Its just a chip.

[Unspeaked]

Apparently you're the one not seeing the problem. If Joe's Burger Place starts selling a burger called the Whopper without permission from Burger King, they are the ones at fault.

Is this really that hard to understand?

This burger analogy is crazy, but I think you're both off.

It would be more like Joe going to Burger King, buying Whoppers and then bringing them back to his place while they're hot and trying to sell them.

Even that is pretty off, but I just don't think this weird burger analogy works at all!

[r.j.s]

(which is what this thread is about, I want to see it made legal and hence remove the copyright infringement)

That opens up a whole new can of worms, because that means no one is entitled to intellectual property anymore, and anyone can PROFIT from others' work. Because that's all this is about, Psystar's profit.

[ajthomason]

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure OS X itself and/or the install DVD will not boot on a computer with a BIOS. That isn't Apple being anti-competitive, that's just Apple being forward thinking in supporting EFI which is supposed to replace BIOS. I would assume that means some modification will be required to get OS X to run.

I think that you are mistaken and you can run the standard disk on a version with a BIOS, providing that the hardware is supported by the Kernel.

[milo]

The Mac OS has a market share of <10% so calling Apple a monopolist is absurd. I've been a Mac user since the market share was south of 2% and I've always believed that their will be an OPTIMAL market share figure and it's not 90+%.

Exactly. Any talk of "apple is a monopoly!" is completely ridiculous. Only offering software for their own hardware is perfectly legal and not "tying". Tying is only a problem when it's two unrelated products (and there's no question that a computer and its OS are related), or when it's being done by a company that has a monopoly, as happened in the MS case.

With such small market share, apple simply isn't in a position to do anything monopolistic or anti-competitive. Anything they do, consumers have the option of going with the other 90% of the population and just buying a PC instead.

The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.

Do you really think Apple made G5 chips? Apple has NEVER made that much of the hardware, mostly just assembled stock parts. The difference with intel is that the parts are just more common. Apple makes the cases and the motherboards, same as they always have.

So, let's say that Joe's Burger Place decides to sue Burger King...

Food is a terrible analogy for this. You can't copyright a recipe like you can copyright software or patent hardware.

I think that you are mistaken and you can run the standard disk on a version with a BIOS, providing that the hardware is supported by the Kernel.

Nope, you can't install OSX on generic hardware without some sort of hacking.

[ajthomason]

Thats my point. The hardware configuration was (designed by apple) in such a way to benefit the OS (made by apple). Who cares who makes the chips. Its just a chip.

Wow this thread is getting out of control - so many people posting at once!

The processor in my laptop (MBP) is exactly the same processor found in a Dell laptop, they were designed for Windows, not Mac, they have just been used by Apple.

[MaynardJames]

Psystar isn't selling a computer called the 'Mac Pro' here, with a huge Apple logo slapped on the side. They are selling their own version which doesn't even resemble one of Apple's products.

How does the Mac OSX that Pystar sells with their computers not resemble Apple's Mac OSX?

[exothermic]

I am praying that Pystar wins! Apple hardware is just too niche and expensive. This could open things up own the road for real clones.

Yes, that has worked out so well for PC users, hasn't it? I mean, who doesn't enjoy getting a new beige box PC from a local computer store and having to find drivers for on-board audio or video cards among 10 different web sites in Taiwan and hoping you've found the correct manufacturer and the correct chipset.

Precedence exists in Apple's favor; there have been "Right to Use" licenses for various operating systems for years. Buying their hardware granted you a right to use it, and that right was not extended to other hardware not made by that vendor.

There is no way that Apple will lose on the monopoly argument. Pystar is trying to profit off someone else's research and development. Apple refusing to license or otherwise make available the OS so Pystar can continue their business operations is not being anti-competitive. This is like Burger King asking the court to require McDonald's to license and make available the special sauce in Big Macs so Burger King can clone the Big Mac. The argument is ridiculous. OS X is the property of Apple, just like the special sauce is the property of McDonald's.

Yes, Macs are expensive. Do you think you're going to get a BMW experience by buying something off the Ford lot? Maybe that's why BMW autos cost a bit more.

[commander.data]

The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.
The raw processors and chipsets may be from Intel, but the firmware is Apple specific. And some things are custom, the chipset and processors on the current iMac which were specifically made to run the Santa Rosa platform with a 1066MHz FSB and DDR2 800 even though the platform only officially supports 800Mhz FSB and DDR2 667. Again custom firmware and custom drivers.

[iLunar]

I buy things with the intent on not having someone tell me where I can and cannot place it in my own home.

But sure why not, let's let furniture manufacturers stipulate where you can place your sofas. Or how about whether or not you can stick certain brands of pots and pans in your dishwasher.

You sorta have no idea what you're talking about. It's not about restriction, but liability. If you buy a sofa with wooden trim and place it 2 inches from a fireplace in YOUR home, and subsequently burn down your house and your neighbors house, then you are LIABLE for the damages. It doesn't matter that you are allowed to place a sofa wherever you want in your home, but that your actions have caused damages.

The sofa manufactures thus stipulate NOT to put near open flames in your home. They aren't telling you this because of decorative decisions, they are telling you this so they won't be liable and thus can't seek damages from them.

Both lawsuits are based on damages, Apple suing Pystar, and vice-versa.

[ataylor]

If we're going to use ridiculous analogies...

I can't believe that the Porsche dealership won't install a 911 engine into my Ford Focus!

[ajthomason]

How does the Mac OSX that Pystar sells with their computers not resemble Apple's Mac OSX?

I was continuing the burger analogy, I was referring to the computer, not the operating system.

[ajthomason]

If we're going to use ridiculous analogies...

I can't believe that the Porsche dealership won't install a 911 engine into my Ford Focus!

They won't, but I wouldn't expect Apple to install it for me.

You can go and buy a 911 engine and install it yourself into the Focus.

[MaynardJames]

I was continuing the burger analogy, I was referring to the computer, not the operating system.

I never said you were. If you are referring to Pystar, you are referring to the package that they sell, which includes a modified version of Mac OSX. There is no referring to simply the machine and not the operating system, as that is not what this is about.

[ajthomason]

Nope, you can't install OSX on generic hardware without some sort of hacking.

Sorry, I mis-read a post on another forum, you are correct.

[ataylor]

They won't, but I wouldn't expect Apple to install it for me.

You can go and buy a 911 engine and install it yourself into the Focus.

Okay, now let's say I install 911 engines into a bunch of Fords and sell them as Porsche Focuses.

[snberk103]

Yep. Let's face it, apple has been gouging us with high prices for years. Every computer manufacturer out there makes a cheap expandable tower except apple and its all because of the OS.

No one is gouging.... they are charging what the market will bear.... basic economics. No one makes you buy an Apple computer.

A cheap tower would not give the user the same experience that other Apple systems do. Apple is selling a "look and feel" they are not selling a commodity.

[ajthomason]

Okay, now let's say I install 911 engines into a bunch of Fords and sell them as Porsche Focuses.

This analogy now works for the Psystar problem. I've all along been fighting for the ability for us to do it ourselves legally, in one of my first posts in this thread I said that I didn't want Dell to sell their PCs with OS X, just for the ability to buy a Dell and install it myself and for the hardware manufacturers to be able to produce drivers for me (e.g., Shell selling you Porsche Focus specific engine oil)

[kntgsp]

You sorta have no idea what you're talking about. It's not about restriction, but liability. If you buy a sofa with wooden trim and place it 2 inches from a fireplace in YOUR home, and subsequently burn down your house and your neighbors house, then you are LIABLE for the damages. It doesn't matter that you are allowed to place a sofa wherever you want in your home, but that your actions have caused damages.

The sofa manufactures thus stipulate NOT to put near open flames in your home. They aren't telling you this because of decorative decisions, they are telling you this so they won't be liable and thus can't seek damages from them.

Both lawsuits are based on damages, Apple suing Pystar, and vice-versa.


And yet I didn't sign a EULA for my last sofa I bought. And if I tried to sue the sofa manufacturer in court if I burned down my house, the judge would laugh me out of the court room.

Otherwise you'd read about sofa manufacturers going bankrupt every day because of all the rednecks who burned down their trailers.

A EULA isn't needed in a case like that. It's excessive. It goes beyond common sense. The same goes for operating systems. By installing OSX on a machine with identical components, you are not going to create SkyNet that will subsequently destroy your neighborhood in a nuclear holocaust. Your computer may not work flawlessly with the operating system. Oh no, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. If only it worked perfectly like every other piece of software that's had a EULA and therefore was problem free.

It's not gonna happen.

The case they're arguing, quite literally, is analogous to this:

I sell hammers.

You can only use nails I sell with my hammers, despite the fact that someone else sells identical nails for less money.

I require the legal system to bail me out due to someone having a better business model. Crush the opposition because consumers like them more.

Yaaay dictatorial capitalism.

[mm1250]

Man, some of you people are so OFF!

Anyways, Psystar is obviously going to seek classifying PC operating systems in a special way where Apple can't prevent it to be installed on other brands. It's success is based on how well their attorneys can convince the Judge how PC Oses shouldn't be tied to a certain brand. This case will be a little interesting to read. Hopefully Psytar can fight it through, if so you might see Dells and HP all of a sudden selling Mac OS options.

Don't be surprised if Psystar all of a sudden gets massive money from new slient investors who will help aid in fighting Apple. Other PC manufactures perhaps???

[ataylor]

It comes down to this: Apple hardware + Apple software = One product. If you like the software, pony up the money and buy the hardware. You can get the job done with other hardware and software combinations if that's too much to ask.

[chadabshier]

Okay, now let's say I install 911 engines into a bunch of Fords and sell them as Porsche Focuses.

Besides using the names "Porsche" and "Focus" ... I would think that you could sell a custom car, that you built.

[Joe The Dragon]

OK, my thread was misleading - OS X will need to be modified, but ONLY to remove the stuff that Apple added to prevent people installing it on 3rd party machines. Not to add things or re-write the operating system, only to remove the 'locks'
They also need to add drivers as well. But that is not the that much work they mainly need to have drivers for all of the new intel chipsets, the new ati and nvidia ones. Amd cpu drivers / remove intel only locks. Drivers for the amd / nvidia gups / remove pci id locks. ATI can make there own apple drivers like they did in the past and they should add cross fire to them as well.

apple also can remove the EFI only locks as well.

You don't need to have the older drivers for chipsets and video just the ones from the past 2-3 years.

[paric]

Damn that Apple for making so much money, and investing that money into the research and development needed to make new cool products that I want but don't want to pay for.

If only they didn't make so much money on their products... then their new products wouldn't be nearly as cool, and I wouldn't want them at all! All my problems would be solved. :rolleyes:

[ataylor]

Besides using the names "Porsche" and "Focus" ... I would think that you could sell a custom car, that you built.

Right. Psystar did not develop the operating system. We're not talking about custom cars. It's as if I tried to sell Ford cars with Porsche engines as Porsche Focuses or Ford 911s.

[ajthomason]

Besides using the names "Porsche" and "Focus" ... I would think that you could sell a custom car, that you built.

Call it what you like, you could even write "With the body of a Ford and the engine of a Porsche" and no one could stop you - you are only telling the truth. I'm actually starting to like this analogy...

[Consultant]

Wow this thread is getting out of control - so many people posting at once!

The processor in my laptop (MBP) is exactly the same processor found in a Dell laptop, they were designed for Windows, not Mac, they have just been used by Apple.

LOL, do you know that OSX > Windows on the same hardware.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/26/road_to_mac_os_x_10_6_snow_leopard_64_bits.html&page=1

Why don't these shysters actually BUILD their own OS if they want to "compete"? No one is stopping them.

[r.j.s]

Call it what you like, you could even write "With the body of a Ford and the engine of a Porsche" and no one could stop you - you are only telling the truth. I'm actually starting to like this analogy...

Except, if the companies don't want you selling their product, they will sue you for Trademark infringement. Which, BTW, Apple is also suing Psystar for.

[MaynardJames]

Call it what you like, you could even write "With the body of a Ford and the engine of a Porsche" and no one could stop you - you are only telling the truth. I'm actually starting to like this analogy...

If you wanted to sell them commercially, no, you couldn't.

[ajthomason]

Except, if the companies don't want you selling their product, they will sue you for Trademark infringement. Which, BTW, Apple is also suing Psystar for.

I'm not a law expert, but I don't see how they would win. If ATI decided that they didn't want me to make computers that use an ATI graphics card and an Intel motherboard, could they actually stop me?

[iLunar]

And yet I didn't sign a EULA for my last sofa I bought. And if I tried to sue the sofa manufacturer in court if I burned down my house, the judge would laugh me out of the court room.

Um, no. He probably wouldn't if the sofa manufacture was negligent in instructing you how to use the sofa.

Otherwise you'd read about sofa manufacturers going bankrupt every day because of all the rednecks who burned down their trailers.

Ever see tags on blankets that say DO NOT REMOVE in big bold letters? They do this so they won't be sued.

A EULA isn't needed in a case like that. It's excessive. It goes beyond common sense. The same goes for operating systems. By installing OSX on a machine with identical components, you are not going to create SkyNet that will subsequently destroy your neighborhood in a nuclear holocaust.

No, but you will incur MONETARY DAMAGES to the company in question. This is why intellectual property rights are so hard to navigate, because liability is extremely difficult to establish. EULA is just like all those tags on clothing and blankets.

Your computer may not work flawlessly with the operating system. Oh no, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. If only it worked perfectly like every other piece of software that's had a EULA and therefore was problem free.

Like I said, it's not about restriction, but about damages. If a company is causing Apple financial harm, or even has the potential to cause potential harm, Apple is absolutely within their right to seek damages. Pystar, in this case, by hacking copyrighted software, is the one liable for damages.

Pystar is trying to argue that Apple is responsible for it's financial damages based on anti-competitive practices. They can't challenge a copyright or corporation if there are no damages.

[macenforcer]

I buy things with the intent on not having someone tell me where I can and cannot place it in my own home.

But sure why not, let's let furniture manufacturers stipulate where you can place your sofas. Or how about whether or not you can stick certain brands of pots and pans in your dishwasher.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

It has been and should continue to be stricken down as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. It places the consumer in a non-negotiable stance wherein they have no choice to accept.

Either agree, or lose your job because you can't use Final Cut Studio, or some other Mac only program, since all the people in your particular field or division use OSX developed programs. Geeeee, which one do you think everyone will choose? Operating systems should be handled differently than individual programs.

It comes down to classifying software like this as a good or a license. And thankfully, in states where it's classified as a good, the EULA is not enforceable.


Bravo! He is exactly correct.

[r.j.s]

I'm not a law expert, but I don't see how they would win. If ATI decided that they didn't want me to make computers that use an ATI graphics card and an Intel motherboard, could they actually stop me?

Yes, by not selling you the cards. If you chose to buy them some other way, you are infringing on their trademark by implying endorsement.

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

[Joe The Dragon]

Yes, that has worked out so well for PC users, hasn't it? I mean, who doesn't enjoy getting a new beige box PC from a local computer store and having to find drivers for on-board audio or video cards among 10 different web sites in Taiwan and hoping you've found the correct manufacturer and the correct chipset.
.
That is not true for most systems they have AMD / INTEL / NVIDIA video maybe the super low cost systems have that no name video / chipsets.

[ataylor]

Here's another thought. You do not own the software. You are basically paying to use it. The same is true with music. It would be like Walmart (or any other entity) buying a Beatles album and then using one of the songs from the album in a commercial. Not legal.

[ajthomason]

Yes, by not selling you the cards. If you chose to buy them some other way, you are infringing on their trademark by implying endorsement.

Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Firstly, US law does not apply in the UK, and secondly, I still don't see how they could stop me - I am purchasing the products that they sell and using them for what they are designed for, I am accepting all EULAs and not violating any T&Cs.

[milo]

The case they're arguing, quite literally, is analogous to this:

I sell hammers.

TERRIBLE analogy.

Unless you consider hammers to be copyrightable intellectual property.

Copyright law says it's illegal to modify and distribute copyrighted materials, which is exactly what Psystar is doing.

It's amazing how the Psystar stories seem to be magnets for the most idiotic comments.

[ajthomason]

Here's another thought. You do not own the software. You are basically paying to use it. The same is true with music. It would be like Walmart (or any other entity) buying a Beatles album and then using one of the songs from the album in a commercial. Not legal.

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

[r.j.s]

Firstly, US law does not apply in the UK, and secondly, I still don't see how they could stop me - I am purchasing the products that they sell and using them for what they are designed for, I am accepting all EULAs and not violating any T&Cs.

But Apple and Psystar are based in the US.

They don't have to sell you anything, try to become a dealer of a product. Normally there are quite strict criteria. Even if you meet them, nothing says they have to sell to you.

[iLunar]

The case they're arguing, quite literally, is analogous to this:

I sell hammers.

You can only use nails I sell with my hammers, despite the fact that someone else sells identical nails for less money.

I'm a bit sick of bad analogies, but no, that is not the case at all. If you sell a hammer and used it on any kind of nail possible, that is fine.

Joe's Hammer&Nails sells a 10inch hammer along with super-duper nails that go with it, for sure the best fit possible for the easiest hammering action you'll ever see.

You see a business opportunity cause everyone loves the 10inch hammer, but hates the nails. You make cheaper nails than Joe does, so you decide to incorporate and but thousands of Joe's Hammers&Nails, then re-package the hammer with your nails, and call it kntgsp's Nails&Hammers.

You are now causing monetary damages to Joe based on his own property. You are liable, and thus, Joe can sue.

If you are a consumer, and buy Joe's Hammer&Nails, and use your own Nails, you have caused no damage to anyone, and thus Joe cannot sue you.

[r.j.s]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

No, that would be the damages awarded to The Beatles' record company. If they do not license the song, they cannot use it, and nothing says they have to license the song. Ever wonder why The Beatles aren't available on iTunes?

[ajthomason]

But Apple and Psystar are based in the US.

They don't have to sell you anything, try to become a dealer of a product. Normally there are quite strict criteria. Even if you meet them, nothing says they have to sell to you.

Hold on... I honestly can't remember how this argument started :rolleyes:

Let me go back and find out how we got onto this.

[ataylor]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

No, because it is illegal for them to install the software on a non-Apple computer. Also, in doing so, they are modifying the software. Also illegal.

[milo]

It would be legal if they bought a copy of the song for every single person who heard the commercial - it's not like Psystar are duplicating one copy of OS X, every one they sell has a legal copy (doesn't it?)

Actually, no it still wouldn't.

You can't use a song in things like commercials (derivative works) without permission of the original copyright holder. Copyright law requires permission for derivative works, it's not good enough to buy a copy.

[ataylor]

Walmart would have to have the rights to the song to even have a different artist's version of the Beatles song in their commercial.

[ajthomason]

Actually, no it still wouldn't.

You can't use a song in things like commercials (derivative works) without permission of the original copyright holder. Copyright law requires permission for derivative works, it's not good enough to buy a copy.

Fair enough, I know it's true, I was just trying to relate it back to the topic ;)

[paric]

It pretty much says it all that they are using Anti-trust laws as the basis of their countersuit. Those laws deal with a company's impact on an industry. Mac OS X is not an industry. It's a product.

The complaint against Microsoft was that they were illegally trying to control the entire PC industry, and therefore doing harm to consumers.

This lawsuit is about a new company wanting to resell a larger company's product without and agreement to do so. They are trying to resell the Mac OS, packaged in their computers, using Apple's branding.

They have no entitlement to do so.

[kntgsp]

Um, no. He probably wouldn't if the sofa manufacture was negligent in instructing you how to use the sofa.


Really. I mean....REALLY? You think sofa manufacturers need to instruct people not to place something made out of wood and cloth next to an open flame?

I'm speechless. Should we sell all forks with corks on them, lest someone accidentally think it's for removing their eye?

Don't tell this guy:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/actors_films_images/Steve_Martin_portrait.jpg


Ever see tags on blankets that say DO NOT REMOVE in big bold letters? They do this so they won't be sued.


And yet there are millions of people who when they accidentally wash their blanket with the wrong settings or place it near the fireplace, don't sue corporations for millions of dollars.

It's amazing how people have this concept of responsibility. But boy howdy, we better legislate responsibility, lest people forget about it.


No, but you will incur MONETARY DAMAGES to the company in question. This is why intellectual property rights are so hard to navigate, because liability is extremely difficult to establish. EULA is just like all those tags on clothing and blankets.


Yea I bought a blanket from a company and ruined it in the washing machine because I used the wrong settings. I should pay them a penalty.

Yea. That's the ticket!



Like I said, it's not about restriction, but about damages. If a company is causing Apple financial harm, or even has the potential to cause potential harm, Apple is absolutely within their right to seek damages. Pystar, in this case, by hacking copyrighted software, is the one liable for damages.


I sell oranges. You sell oranges cheaper than I do. I should be able to have the court shut you down because you are causing me "financial harm".

Give. Me. A. Break.

It's dictatorial capitalism. Plain and simple.



Pystar is trying to argue that Apple is responsible for it's financial damages based on anti-competitive practices. They can't challenge a copyright or corporation if there are no damages.
[/QUOTE]

What financial damages? People don't take their Psystar computers to Apple when it breaks down, they take it to Psystar. If a hard drive in a computer fails, Dell doesn't make Microsoft pay for it.

[MaynardJames]

Some of you need to learn what analogy means. It does NOT have to be a perfect, complete comparison of two things, but instead a comparison of like features of two things.

[zombitronic]

Directly from clause 2 from the SLA in the back of the booklet that comes with a Leopard install DVD:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

[paric]

Bravo! He is exactly correct.

Not even close. Those are all personal use issues. This is creating a company by selling someone else's product.

[sfh]

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install. The updates that Psystar did the same thing. Psystar from what I can tell has not changed OSX code ... therefore no infringement

[HLdan]

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

You're almost right, the retail version of Mac OS X are in fact stand alone versions. Yes, they are Mac only but they are full versions in case someone needs to replace their hard drive, they will be able to install a full copy of Mac OS X on an empty formatted HDD. They are not upgrade discs.

[r.j.s]

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install. The updates that Psystar did the same thing. Psystar from what I can tell has not changed OSX code ... therefore no infringement

This is something that can only be proven in court. No sense in arguing it here. However, if they didn't modify it, why don't Apple's updates work?

[MacAerfen]

Threads like this make me laugh so hard at some people's comments.

First off Psystar tried to damage Apple's business and seems surprised that Apple took offense and is suing. Apple's business is based on offering an alternative to windows and open hardware computers. Open hardware computers and the OS that supports them are naturally going to have more bugs and other problems because there are literally thousands of options that have to be supported. So yes Apple locks their software to their hardware because that is what makes it unique. OS X is not anything inherently new as to what it does. It is an operating system with a GUI. Yes it has some features other OS's don't but it is nothing vastly different from Windows in what its function is. The key is how it accomplishes that function which is tied directly to the fact that they are able to build it based on a much more narrow hardware profile.

If Apple were to sell it unlocked so it could be put on any system they would loose that whole feature and their reputation would suffer as the majority of computer users are idiots who would not understand that OS X on their AMD clone is buggy because the third party manufacturers who made the drivers didn't put a lot of effort into it. They would simply assume that OS X is buggy and call Apple and complain. Apple does not want to deal with this and shouldn't be forced to.

As for peoples complaint that Macs are over priced because there is no cheap version is complete crap. How many people own a Porsche? Should Porsche be sued because they do not make a cheap car for the average people who can't afford or do not want to pay the premium for premium products. Part of what makes a Porsche worth owning is the fact that it is not cheap and as such is a status symbol. Companies are not forced to cater to those who can not afford their product no matter how much people want them to be. The same configuration of Mac is not that much more than a similar Dell or Sony. The difference is Apple doesn't offer a cheap version for those that don't want to pay for a high end system. Why should Apple have to sacrifice its reputation as a premium product to appease people who want a cheap computer. You want a cheap computer buy a dell. You want a good computer with a good OS buy a Mac. Just like you can buy a little Honda for 12K but if you want a good sports car buy a Porsche.

[kntgsp]

I'm a bit sick of bad analogies, but no, that is not the case at all. If you sell a hammer and used it on any kind of nail possible, that is fine.

Joe's Hammer&Nails sells a 10inch hammer along with super-duper nails that go with it, for sure the best fit possible for the easiest hammering action you'll ever see.

You see a business opportunity cause everyone loves the 10inch hammer, but hates the nails. You make cheaper nails than Joe does, so you decide to incorporate and but thousands of Joe's Hammers&Nails, then re-package the hammer with your nails, and call it kntgsp's Nails&Hammers.

You are now causing monetary damages to Joe based on his own property. You are liable, and thus, Joe can sue.

If you are a consumer, and buy Joe's Hammer&Nails, and use your own Nails, you have caused no damage to anyone, and thus Joe cannot sue you.

That analogy only works if PsyStar was branding and selling their computers as Apple computers. They are not. They are selling PsyStar computers with OSX installed.

Your analogy fails because they are not buying Apple computers, putting the internals in a different box and reselling them.


If PsyStar is only installing a copy of OSX you purchase onto their hardware they are not doing anything wrong.

If I buy a computer from Psystar, I purchase a copy of OSX, their hardware, and pay them to install it on that hardware for me.

If I bought a copy of OSX myself, shipped it to PsyStar and paid them to install it onto one of their computers, what crime have I committed?

The only thing PsyStar would be doing if they did this is saying "we'll buy the copy of OSX" on your behalf and cut out the double shipping.

[jbernie]

You can make a burger that has the same ingredients as the BK Whopper as the ingredients/recipe per sae is not trademarked, and you can sell that burger in your store but it would be under another name that cannot be associated with a BK menu item ie "the big burger", you cannot however sell a burger named the "whopper" regardless of what ingredients you use as BK owns the "Whopper" name.

You can should you so chose, install any engine in any car you own (you would be violating a lease I would think) for your own use. You could potentially do the same thing and resell the cars but for the most part the engine maker (other than aftermarket parties like Edelbrock) would not give you any warranty coverage and likewise the car manufacturer would not cover most things either.

Though certain parts of the vehicle/engine could remain under warranty if they were not modified from the original state when you made the changes. ie even though you butchered the front of the Focus to get the Porsche engine installed, the rear hatch strut would still be under warranty should there be a recall.

Jerry Seinfeld has/had a VW combi bus and stuck a Porche engine in it. Was going to use it on a cross country road trip with friends, he was on Letterman or Leno and talking about it a year or so ago. The whole aftermarket car part/modification business is based around the fact that you can take any donor vehicle and any other parts you desire and assemble them in anyway you desire so long as you can afford to do so. The only restriction in these cases is whether or not the final product meets DOT regulations such as emissions, crash safety etc. The manufacturers have no control over the customizations.

The sticking point in the Apple/Psystar case will be is there any reason/point in time where a non Apple authorized entity can install the OSX software on a generic personal computer and sell it at a profit and whether the terms of the license are in fact violated by Psystar or by the purchaser.

In part you also need to determine how the profit is derived. Is it related to the inclusion of the OSX software or is it related to the cost of purchasing the components, assembling said components, installing software, advertising & supporting the product and then adding the profit margin.

Included in this is the fact that Psystar only installs OSX at the request of the customer, this can clearly shown by the fact that they also offer systems with other operating systems (ie MS Vista) so the ultimate end user of the system is the person who purchases the device and requested the OS be installed.

I am thinking Apple is more likely to win, based on the fact it is more able to fund an ongoing legal case, but with the right lawyers and maybe having lawyers who will work for a % of any monetary award to Psystar I would not be comfortable in saying an Apple victory is a surething.

[zombitronic]

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install.

see:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

[severe]

I've read a few pages here and I just want to add that I hope this "Psystar" gets their ass handed to them.

[MacTheSpoon]

Those Psystar guys are a bunch of low-life bottom-feeders. They should be forced to reimburse Apple's legal costs when their suit fails.

[r.j.s]

Those Psystar guys are a bunch of low-life bottom-feeders. They should be forced to reimburse Apple's legal costs when their suit fails.

I think that is part of Apple's suit. They are also demanding that Psystar recalls all the computers they have sold.

[kntgsp]

TERRIBLE analogy.

Unless you consider hammers to be copyrightable intellectual property.

Copyright law says it's illegal to modify and distribute copyrighted materials, which is exactly what Psystar is doing.

It's amazing how the Psystar stories seem to be magnets for the most idiotic comments.

The problem lies in that people think it's Psystar sticking a Psystar logo on an Apple product.

Which it isn't doing. It's buying the same internals that any person can freely buy on the open market and installing a copy of OSX that YOU pay for onto that machine for you.

As long as they charge you the same price for OSX as they bought it for, they are not profiting off of Apple.

The only way Apple can spin this in financial theft is if they are selling OSX on their computers for more than what they bought the copies for. Otherwise all they are doing is providing a service in installing the software on some hardware. That is not wrong.

If PsyStar is not including the OSX disc with the computer, THEN they are doing wrong. But as long as they only act as a service for installing the software onto the hardware and charge only for that, they are not doing anything wrong.

[JAT]

Not so much. If they were hard coded like video game consoles, Apple would not be able to update their own systems.


This makes no sense. Consoles have updates all the time. I mean, current ones. Technology has advanced since my Intellivisions were built. What's the PS3 had, 1000 updates? Individual games also have updates, fixes, additional levels, etc.

[severe]

Those Psystar guys are a bunch of low-life bottom-feeders. They should be forced to reimburse Apple's legal costs when their suit fails.

Yes, they are a bunch of hyphenated things. ;)

[JAT]

On this topic, I had a copy of Flight Sim 2004 (from MICROSOFT), scratched the disk and sent them an email, I even admitted that it was my fault. A week later, I had a set of 4 disks in the post with big labels saying 'Unlicensed Software, Illegal without separate licence from Microsoft'

So... it seems that some companies do this.

Apple used to charge a nominal $10 "shipping charge" for replacement discs. Haven't ever tried to use this, do they still?

[MacRumors0108]

They've got cojones for taking on Apple in such a longshot. It would send shockwaves through the entire tech industry if they prevailed - bye bye proprietary software, locked cellphones and probably many other things on that slippery slope.

They had better be well financed, because strategy number one will be to bury their certainly overmatched lawyers with spurious motions and paperwork. This could drag on a long time if it doesn't get dismissed. And Psystars only reward would be to have the legal right to build non-Apple branded Macs - which Dell and the other big boys would do better and faster than these chumps could anyway.

[r.j.s]

The problem lies in that people think it's Psystar sticking a Psystar logo on an Apple product.


It's not that. By advertising the computers as being sold with Leopard, they are giving the impression of endorsement by Apple, which they do not have. That alone is enough for trademark infringement.

[Artofilm]

If there ever comes at time in which the Mac OS is open to anyone. That will be the day that Mac OS becomes faulty.

Mac designed their OS to be hardware specific. Apple has such good computer system because the hardware they use is very high end and the OS responds well to that.

PC consumers, on the other hand, like very cheap PCs. Cheap PCs + Mac OS means bad news for Apple.

Saying Apple should release their own OS to public computers is like saying Ferrari should release their engines to public use as well...

Suddenly, Apple will no longer look so great...

[zombitronic]

If PsyStar is only installing a copy of OSX you purchase onto their hardware they are not doing anything wrong.

If I buy a computer from Psystar, I purchase a copy of OSX, their hardware, and pay them to install it on that hardware for me.

If I bought a copy of OSX myself, shipped it to PsyStar and paid them to install it onto one of their computers, what crime have I committed?

How do you not understand what they're doing wrong?

On the outside of the Leopard install DVD box:
Important Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package.

and again:
You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Psystar is clearly violating Apple's software license agreement, yet they want to sue Apple for not letting them make a profit while doing that.

If you, as a consumer, want to make a Hackintosh, fine. You're in clear violation of the SLA, but Apple will probably not come after you as an individual.

If you, as a business, want to sell a Hackintosh, not fine. Expect the consequences.

[sfh]

This is something that can only be proven in court. No sense in arguing it here. However, if they didn't modify it, why don't Apple's updates work?

Apples update program searches for the same type of information, psystar packaged their program to "give" the updater the information that it was looking for, a alternate video driver (for the systems that had the different video card *one of the OSX updates was for video cards*).

The latest updates have loaded directly from the system update.

... Personally i wouldn't buy anything but a Apple, because i know as well as you that the "end to end experience" would be lacking if apple was forced to allow OSX to be installed on other machines. ... seriously can you imagine how many people would whine that their $2 printer driver (coded by some contract company) doesn't work and "it's all be cause of OSX" ( That's one of the huge problems with windows).

[quagmire]

The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.

The hardware wasn't made by Apple before the Intel switch. IBM and Motorola did.

[jbernie]

Originally Posted by ajthomason
Call it what you like, you could even write "With the body of a Ford and the engine of a Porsche" and no one could stop you - you are only telling the truth. I'm actually starting to like this analogy...

If you wanted to sell them commercially, no, you couldn't.

So long as you cover yourself with disclaimers saying it is not an official product of either company, state clearly that neither company will provide warranty support and that you are either providing a warranty or selling as is, do violate any trademarks, did not misuse confidential information for either companies products, and a few other things no doubt then yes you can sell such a vehicle.

Yes if you buy an engine from Porsche you are 99.9% of the time going to use it in a Porsche car body.... but you can install it in a car body from another manufacturer if you want. If you are going to resell the vehicle then you may want to try and buy the engines at a wholesale price as opposed to a retail price (like Apple buys processors) so you don't overspend on the parts but you can do it.

[kntgsp]

It's not that. By advertising the computers as being sold with Leopard, they are giving the impression of endorsement by Apple, which they do not have. That alone is enough for trademark infringement.

I think a key difference is whether or not they display the Apple logo or advertise it as being an endorsement by Apple.

That, obviously, is a problem.


But when they advertise their computers and say they can be installed with XP, Linux or OSX, I think it's going to be much much harder for them to apply for trademark infringement.

I haven't bought a Psystar computer or seen their advertisements though.

[milo]

I sell oranges. You sell oranges cheaper than I do. I should be able to have the court shut you down because you are causing me "financial harm".

What is with the idiotic analogies of things like oranges?

Oranges are not intellectual property.

Psystar uses a separate program to "Give" OSX the information that it wants to be able to install. The updates that Psystar did the same thing. Psystar from what I can tell has not changed OSX code ... therefore no infringement

Sorry, but I don't think that's right. OSX simply isn't written to run on generic hardware, so there's no way that the version of OSX shipping on their machines is the same as the official version.

Whether they have created a hacked install disk or have some sort of modification software running during the install, either way it's modifying the OS and distributing that modified version.

If PsyStar is only installing a copy of OSX you purchase onto their hardware they are not doing anything wrong.

But they are not doing that, they are installing a HACKED version of the OS, which is a violation of the derivative works part of copyright law.

The problem lies in that people think it's Psystar sticking a Psystar logo on an Apple product.

Nope, not it at all.

It's buying the same internals that any person can freely buy on the open market and installing a copy of OSX that YOU pay for onto that machine for you.

You mean installing a HACKED version of OSX. Meaning they're violating copyright law.

[iMACTASTIC]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

Apple has been doing it for so long they PYST will get buried for years.Apple wont even let them get to the part if they are right or not.
Well hear about this case when we are relaxing on the moon drinking beer from our lazy boy.

[paric]

Threads like this make me laugh so hard at some people's comments.

First off Psystar tried to damage Apple's business and seems surprised that...

Exactly. Of course no one arguing for Psystar cares about legal issues and personal property rights. This is because it is NOT their property.

They have probably never worked hard to create something of their own, and so they have never had someone else try to steal it. I bet if they did a little graphic design work for someone else, and that image ended up on Apple's homepage, they would be suing Apple just like Apple is suing Psystar.

[ABernardoJr]

I sell oranges. You sell oranges cheaper than I do. I should be able to have the court shut you down because you are causing me "financial harm".

Give. Me. A. Break.

It's dictatorial capitalism. Plain and simple.


There's a difference between selling a product with competition selling the same product versus you producing and selling your product and having someone else sell YOUR product for a cheaper price. If your analogy were to make more sense it'd probably be better suited in a comparison between the Windows OS and OSX.

The "oranges" don't compare to the criteria of Apple's own produced OS, because Apple, of course, produced their own operating system for their sale. If in this situation, one company (Windows) sells their own oranges (operating system) for one price, and a competitor (Apple) would sell their own oranges (OSX of course), there is no harm.

But as Psystar is doing, it'd be one company (Apple) selling their oranges (OSX) and having another competitor (Psystar) selling the other company's oranges (OSX again) for a lesser price/bundle.

Apple makes it clear that their operating system isn't intended for non-Apple computers. Taking it's operating system and modifying it to be compatible with Psystar's computers without any agreement or settlement is hardly practical on Psystar's part.

P.S. I don't like working in extended analogies like that. *sigh*

[iMACTASTIC]

Threads like this make me laugh so hard at some people's comments.

First off Psystar tried to damage Apple's business and seems surprised that Apple took offense and is suing. Apple's business is based on offering an alternative to windows and open hardware computers. Open hardware computers and the OS that supports them are naturally going to have more bugs and other problems because there are literally thousands of options that have to be supported. So yes Apple locks their software to their hardware because that is what makes it unique. OS X is not anything inherently new as to what it does. It is an operating system with a GUI. Yes it has some features other OS's don't but it is nothing vastly different from Windows in what its function is. The key is how it accomplishes that function which is tied directly to the fact that they are able to build it based on a much more narrow hardware profile.

If Apple were to sell it unlocked so it could be put on any system they would loose that whole feature and their reputation would suffer as the majority of computer users are idiots who would not understand that OS X on their AMD clone is buggy because the third party manufacturers who made the drivers didn't put a lot of effort into it. They would simply assume that OS X is buggy and call Apple and complain. Apple does not want to deal with this and shouldn't be forced to.

As for peoples complaint that Macs are over priced because there is no cheap version is complete crap. How many people own a Porsche? Should Porsche be sued because they do not make a cheap car for the average people who can't afford or do not want to pay the premium for premium products. Part of what makes a Porsche worth owning is the fact that it is not cheap and as such is a status symbol. Companies are not forced to cater to those who can not afford their product no matter how much people want them to be. The same configuration of Mac is not that much more than a similar Dell or Sony. The difference is Apple doesn't offer a cheap version for those that don't want to pay for a high end system. Why should Apple have to sacrifice its reputation as a premium product to appease people who want a cheap computer. You want a cheap computer buy a dell. You want a good computer with a good OS buy a Mac. Just like you can buy a little Honda for 12K but if you want a good sports car buy a Porsche.

Ill toast to that. Very well said. Its like complaining Nike doesnt sell the swoosh separately.

[kntgsp]

How do you not understand what they're doing wrong?

On the outside of the Leopard install DVD box:


and again:


Psystar is clearly violating Apple's software license agreement, yet they want to sue Apple for not letting them make a profit while doing that.

If you, as a consumer, want to make a Hackintosh, fine. You're in clear violation of the SLA, but Apple will probably not come after you as an individual.

If you, as a business, want to sell a Hackintosh, not fine. Expect the consequences.

The issue lies with the EULA on operating system software being an unconscionable contract of adhesion.

Installing OSX on a computer, selling it, and charging $20 more for the OSX disc than what it can be bought for, is clear financial harm.

But what if you don't make a profit off of the OSX license. People are just paying you to install a copy of OSX on hardware that they would have done themselves anyway. Only instead of making a hackintosh, they pay someone to install it onto hardware for them. Those people weren't going to buy an Apple computer anyway.

It's a monopoly almost akin to the textbook price fixing in the educational system.

The biggest issue is that, if a consumer went and bought a copy of OSX, mailed it to Psystar, paid them for a computer and to install OSX and Psystar mailed it back to them, the only difference is that it was mailed twice.

The end result is the same, only UPS or FedEx made more money. But Apple would be trying to make the exact same case.

And using the courts to force Psystar out of business isn't going to stop this. The only way they can enforce that part of the EULA is to remove OSX boxes from shelves.

[paric]

They've got cojones for taking on Apple in such a longshot.

Don't confuse bravery with stupidity. What if Apple requests legal fees after they win, and are granted them? Do you think these guys have a properly maintained corporation? It is not that hard to pierce the corporate veil in most states. Co-mingle funds, neglect board meetings and recorded minutes, don't maintain proper capitalization... these are all used to establish that the corporate protection is not valid. If Apple is aggressive enough, they could theoretically end up with huge personal judgments.

[ajthomason]

The hardware wasn't made by Apple before the Intel switch. IBM and Motorola did.

Yeah, but it wasn't widely used by Apples competitors, it was mainly used by Apple.

I'll just clear up my position on this matter, as many of my posts seem to be distracting :) I don't care about psystar - they did break the law. I just want it to set an example and make Apple produce a version that can be installed on other machines, I'm not saying that they should licence it to Dell etc., but just have one that I can use on a machine and allow hardware manufacturers to produce drivers.

[JAT]

You MacRumors folks and your analogies. Give me a break. Metaphors, similies and analogies are used to explain something that is otherwise difficult to understand. Nothing is difficult about this. It is a EULA, a contract. Read it, follow it. Maybe fight it out in court. That's all we need.

Cars, toast (not the DVD-burning kind), hammers or any other non-software product do not relate well to the software industry. Software purchasing is different, so using analogies such as these is pointless. You are just trying to pound a square peg into a smaller, round hole.

see, that one actually works :cool:

[kntgsp]

There's a difference between selling a product with competition selling the same product versus you producing and selling your product and having someone else sell YOUR product for a cheaper price. If your analogy were to make more sense it'd probably be better suited in a comparison between the Windows OS and OSX.

The "oranges" don't compare to the criteria of Apple's own produced OS, because Apple, of course, produced their own operating system for their sale. If in this situation, one company (Windows) sells their own oranges (operating system) for one price, and a competitor (Apple) would sell their own oranges (OSX of course), there is no harm.

But as Psystar is doing, it'd be one company (Apple) selling their oranges (OSX) and having another competitor (Psystar) selling the other company's oranges (OSX again) for a lesser price/bundle.

Apple makes it clear that their operating system isn't intended for non-Apple computers. Taking it's operating system and modifying it to be compatible with Psystar's computers without any agreement or settlement is hardly practical on Psystar's part.

P.S. I don't like working in extended analogies like that. *sigh*

No I get where you're coming from.

The problem is that what if a company isn't reselling your product at a lower or higher price point.

Let's say Apple sells OSX for $100.

You pay me $500 for a computer with OSX on it. That's $400 for the computer and installation, and $100 for the OSX disc.

I'm not making a profit off OSX or undercutting your sale of it, as I still have to buy the software from you. Or if the customer buys the software and gives it to me to install on a computer they purchase from me. Same difference, only I'm cutting out the redundancy of forcing the consumer to purchase two things separately.

If Psystar is charging less or more for OSX via this method, then yes there is a problem as it is causing financial harm. But only if this is the case. Otherwise I don't see the harm.

But if the OSX license is simply being slid over without any money exchanging hands, Apple isn't losing money on OSX sales. These are people who would have installed OSX on a hackintosh regardless of Psystars existence, or continued to use XP/Linux. Both endings result in no Apple computer being sold.

They are saying if you don't buy an Apple computer, we don't want your money. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue their business pratices. But I think it's a little ridiculous to then try to squash these people because they don't want to wholeheartedly embrace every single product you make, and only desire one.

It's a case of Apple being mad that they can't pigeonhole the consumer into paying for market up hardware. THAT's what they are mad about. It's like saying you can buy my orange, but you can't eat it unless you buy one of every one of my other pieces of produce. How nuts is that?

At the risk of too many analogies, it's like a Ford dealership selling tires. They say you can only put them on a Ford. But they fit just as well on a Toyota. So I go to the Ford dealership, buy some tires and put them on my Toyota.

What's the issue?

And if there's a market for people who like putting Ford tires on their Toyotas, I open a business, buy tires from Ford, and charge people to put them on their car, saving them the trouble. Ford still makes money on the tires, and I am not reselling their product. The only thing I charge for is my labor.

I am selling my service utilizing a product which would have been purchased anyway or not at all. It's a win financially for Ford. And if the tire falls off, they come to me to bitch, not Ford, since the liability waiver they force you to sign says they aren't responsible for my service.

It doesn't hurt them financially.

[paric]

It would send shockwaves through the entire tech industry if they prevailed - bye bye proprietary software, locked cellphones and probably many other things on that slippery slope.

They had better be well financed, because strategy number one will be to bury their certainly overmatched lawyers with spurious motions and paperwork. This could drag on a long time if it doesn't get dismissed. And Psystars only reward would be to have the legal right to build non-Apple branded Macs - which Dell and the other big boys would do better and faster than these chumps could anyway.

It would send shockwaves through more than just tech. So, yeah, it won't happen.

And spurious motions and paperwork? Really? Apple will argue this purely on merits in order to establish precedence. Cheap lawyer tricks are used when you don't have a case.

[JAT]

Sorry, but I don't think that's right. OSX simply isn't written to run on generic hardware, so there's no way that the version of OSX shipping on their machines is the same as the official version.

Whether they have created a hacked install disk or have some sort of modification software running during the install, either way it's modifying the OS and distributing that modified version.


That is one of the key points of the case, I believe. To Be Decided In Court! By judges (it'll be plural, don't worry) who have a firm, intelligent understanding of the laws as they relate to the software industry. *ahem* Well, something like that.

[tsice19]

One major difference here (and I'm not saying this validates anything, but it's worth noting) is that plenty of people are running Apple's OS on PCs.

You cannot get Lexmark ink into a Canon printer.

You cannot get a Wii game to play on a PS3.

You can run Mac OS X on a PC.

Again, I'm not saying it's right - just that it's possible.

Sure, while this is true, you still can't legally run OS X on a PC.

And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could make an emulator for PS3 to play other platforms on it. And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could modify a Cannon printer to use Lexmark ink. And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could modify OS X to-- Oh wait. The latter has already been done.

The fact of the matter is, people need to realize that OS X is for Macs. If OS X is released for PCs, it will just become another Windows.

[chameleon81]

I used to think that OS X would be best just running on Macs, but now I'm all for running it on other PCs.

The reason?

The cheapest (and only) mac that can physically handle dual monitors is the Mac Pro which costs at least £1,700. You can buy a dell that has pretty much any dedicated graphics card for £350 that can do the same, and even cheaper if you build it yourself.

Why should we be forced to pay £1350 extra for such a small feature? I bought a Matrox TrippleHead2Go for my MacBook Pro to run dual monitors, it cost £200 and is no where near as good as two independent monitors.

I'm not saying that Apple should licence OS X to Dell, but I am saying that they should allow us to install it on any compatible system without having to torrent a hacked version, just provide basic motherboard support and allow major manufacturers to produce OS X drivers just as they would for Windows.

Microsoft was forced to produce a copy of XP that didn't have Media Player on it, so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?

that is not ture, mate. you wont get a decent desktop for 350, never and nowhere...

[Orlandooo]

And if there's a market for people who like putting Ford tires on their Toyotas, I open a business, buy tires from Ford, and charge people to put them on their car, saving them the trouble. Ford still makes money on the tires, and I am not reselling their product.

The difference is that putting Ford tires on Toyotas won't significantly bring Ford car sales down.

Putting OS X on a PC will significantly bring the Mac sales down as the OS is such a deciding factor.

Its sad that this society thinks it should have complete control over everything they buy, and should have more rights than the company supplying them with products!

[tsice19]

You MacRumors folks and your analogies. Give me a break. Metaphors, similies and analogies are used to explain something that is otherwise difficult to understand. Nothing is difficult about this. It is a EULA, a contract. Read it, follow it. Maybe fight it out in court. That's all we need.

Cars, toast (not the DVD-burning kind), hammers or any other non-software product do not relate well to the software industry. Software purchasing is different, so using analogies such as these is pointless. You are just trying to pound a square peg into a smaller, round hole.

see, that one actually works :cool:

Here's to the crazy one's...

[AidenShaw]

Apple has such good computer system because the hardware they use is very high end and the OS responds well to that.

Please, enough with this argument.

The BOM for an Apple computer is virtually identical to every other Intel box - the same components from the same manufacturers. Some very cheap boxes might cut corners on the power supplies or some other things, but the CPUs, chipsets, disks, NICs, etc are all the same.

I'd love to know how an OS can "respond well" to a better power supply ;) .

[kntgsp]

The difference is that putting Ford tires on Toyotas won't significantly bring Ford car sales down.

Putting OS X on a PC will significantly bring the Mac sales down as the OS is such a deciding factor.

Its sad that this society thinks it should have complete control over everything they buy, and should have more rights than the company supplying them with products!

But that's just it, I highly doubt it does bring Mac sales down.

These are people who didn't want a Mac computer to begin with. They just like the operating system. They would have built a hackintosh themselves, or continued to use XP/Linux. A lot of people don't give half a rat's ass what the computer looks like. It could be a dodecahedron painted bright purple, and if they liked the operating system, they would still buy it.

The people who care about the shiny case and the inflated sense of self worth will still buy Apple's computers. That will never change. And that's great for them.

But to argue that it's suddenly siphoning off all their computer sales is ludicrous.

[zombitronic]

The problem is that Psystar's own claims for the countersuit are "misinformed and mischaracterized."

Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.

Their argument that they "simply 'leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS' to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system" is the entire reason that they're in the wrong.

The issue lies with the EULA on operating system software being an unconscionable contract of adhesion.

The opinion of some that Apple's software license agreement is justified or not is a moot point in this case. The SLA exists and Psystar violated it.

Installing OSX on a computer, selling it, and charging $20 more for the OSX disc than what it can be bought for, is clear financial harm.

But what if you don't make a profit off of the OSX license. People are just paying you to install a copy of OSX on hardware that they would have done themselves anyway. Only instead of making a hackintosh, they pay someone to install it onto hardware for them. Those people weren't going to buy an Apple computer anyway.

There's no way to prove that people weren't going to buy an Apple computer before they learned of an alternative, but that's not the point. The point is that Psystar is attempting to make profit while violating Apple's SLA.

And using the courts to force Psystar out of business isn't going to stop this. The only way they can enforce that part of the EULA is to remove OSX boxes from shelves.

Using the justice system is a great way to stop this. Without being able to enforce them, SLAs would be meaningless.

[ajthomason]

that is not ture, mate. you wont get a decent desktop for 350, never and nowhere...

I was referring to the ability to have a PC with two DVI/VGA ports, not a powerful machine. I've actually just found one for £199 on Dell's site (ex VAT, but that doesn't matter to me)

[MattInOz]

The countersuit is just a way for Pystar to get some money from all of this. The lawyer was probably signed on contingency basis and will cost nothing to Pystar unless they win. I wouldn't make to much about this countersuit.

BTW, there is no way that anyone could practically argue that Apple has a monopoly in OS. If anything, one could argue about the bundling between iTunes and iPod. However, iTunes is free and available on both OSX and Windows. I see this suit going nowhere.


But the countersuit is going to oopen them to more damages.
Why?
They say they are leaveraging Open Source underpinning to archieve their product.
Open Source Licenses are also enforceable, thanks to a recent court ruling, so if they are not abiding by the terms of those licenses as well, but admitting they are using them for commercial gain in legal documents, it's a no brainer of a case.

Seeing as Apple hosts many of the projects, I wouldn't be surprise if we don't see counter-countersuit on that basis. It maybe the fastest route for Apple.

Although I can't see getting Hackintosh involved, so it have to be abuse of say Darwin License .

[bboucher790]

You people can argue in here all day, but at the end of the day, I'd like to see Psystar win. There is a place for Psytar and a place for the Apple store. Both existing only HELPS customers. Damaging the Apple "image" is for fanboys, I want options!

[tsice19]

Everyone knows what's going to happen...

Psystar isn't going to stand a chance against Apple. If they had a chance, maybe they would have one the first time.

[paric]

But that's just it, I highly doubt it does bring Mac sales down.

These are people who didn't want a Mac computer to begin with. They just like the operating system. They would have built a hackintosh themselves, or continued to use XP/Linux.

They just want the operating system, and currently, they need to buy a Mac to get it.

If they can build a hackintosh themselves, then they don't need Psystar. If they're happy with XP/Linux, they don't need Psystar.

Psystar fills the need for those who can't do the hack, and don't want XP. It is a substitute for Apple, leveraging Apple's own product against them, so Apple is being harmed.

[paric]

You people can argue in here all day, but at the end of the day, I'd like to see Psystar win. There is a place for Psytar and a place for the Apple store. Both existing only HELPS customers. Damaging the Apple "image" is for fanboys, I want options!

That is a shortsighted view.

The less money Apple makes, the less they can innovate. How does that help consumers?

[r.j.s]

Apples update program searches for the same type of information, psystar packaged their program to "give" the updater the information that it was looking for, a alternate video driver (for the systems that had the different video card *one of the OSX updates was for video cards*).

The latest updates have loaded directly from the system update.

... Personally i wouldn't buy anything but a Apple, because i know as well as you that the "end to end experience" would be lacking if apple was forced to allow OSX to be installed on other machines. ... seriously can you imagine how many people would whine that their $2 printer driver (coded by some contract company) doesn't work and "it's all be cause of OSX" ( That's one of the huge problems with windows).

Read Psystar's site, Apple updates will not work. They changed OS X to look to their servers for software updates, not Apple's.

[kntgsp]

Using the justice system is a great way to stop this. Without being able to enforce them, SLAs would be meaningless.

Ok it's getting late here, so I'm just gonna post a few more.

My point was there is no way to enforce it completely. There's no way for Apple to come after every single person who builds their own hackintosh. They'd have thousands of court cases that would stretch for years.

[r.j.s]

I think a key difference is whether or not they display the Apple logo or advertise it as being an endorsement by Apple.

That, obviously, is a problem.


But when they advertise their computers and say they can be installed with XP, Linux or OSX, I think it's going to be much much harder for them to apply for trademark infringement.

I haven't bought a Psystar computer or seen their advertisements though.

They show their computers on their site next to an OS X DVD box. That implies endorsement.

[kntgsp]

They just want the operating system, and currently, they need to buy a Mac to get it.

If they can build a hackintosh themselves, then they don't need Psystar. If they're happy with XP/Linux, they don't need Psystar.

Psystar fills the need for those who can't do the hack, and don't want XP. It is a substitute for Apple, leveraging Apple's own product against them, so Apple is being harmed.

The problem is that they freely sell the OS on their shelves and on the shelves of countless retailers.

If they don't want people installing OSX on computers outside of their own, stop selling it freely in the store and require proof of ownership of a Mac to purchase it.

If Psystar was pulling OSX off of macs and then distributing software that isn't freely available in any retailer, I would agree there's a problem.

But Apple has done everything possible to make it freely available in the store in a nice pretty box. They want a completely closed system, restrict OSX like I stated above.

[megfilmworks]

Here's another thought. You do not own the software. You are basically paying to use it. The same is true with music. It would be like Walmart (or any other entity) buying a Beatles album and then using one of the songs from the album in a commercial. Not legal.
Absolutely right. You never buy the software, you buy a license to use it under certain conditions....period.
All these car and bread analogies fall flat because they are physical products produced for your exclusive use.
Software is a copy of the underlying work and copyright.

[kntgsp]

They show their computers on their site next to an OS X DVD box. That implies endorsement.

That shows the OSX software they install and one of the products you buy.

That does not imply endorsement. If I show a picture of a car I'm selling with Firestone tires on it, that doesn't mean Firestone endorses my company.

[paric]

The problem is that they freely sell the OS on their shelves and on the shelves of countless retailers.

If they don't want people installing OSX on computers outside of their own, stop selling it freely in the store and require proof of ownership of a Mac to purchase it.

If Psystar was pulling OSX off of macs and then distributing software that isn't freely available in any retailer, I would agree there's a problem.

But Apple has done everything possible to make it freely available in the store in a nice pretty box. They want a completely closed system, restrict OSX like I stated above.

Apple makes it available, but not 'freely available'. It is available with restrictions spelled out in their EULA.

You are correct that changing their distribution model would be a solution, but why should they have to do that? You're saying that the best remedy for Apple to keep people from misusing their product is to limit distribution of it by some means. In this circumstance, Apple is being harmed as well.

[HLdan]

The people who care about the shiny case and the inflated sense of self worth will still buy Apple's computers. That will never change. And that's great for them.

But to argue that it's suddenly siphoning off all their computer sales is ludicrous.

That is BS and you know it! Here's a thought for you, maybe people buy Macs because they like Apple's product build and quality of their service. I also got news for you, this world is built upon shiny looks, cars, sneakers, clothing, homes. You're on something if you remotely think that most people buy on what's sufficient for their needs without looking at aesthetics.

And it would take some of Apple's sales. Kids with no responsibilities want to sit around and tinker with computers and they are just the one's that would install OS X and never consider a Mac.

[gnasher729]

So that person should then be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for using a non bakery sanctioned toaster?

You seem to think that a baker telling you what toaster you can use is absurd. It is absurd, but not because it would be somehow illegal, but because it would be economically stupid for the baker to do so. Nobody would buy their bread, so they would go out of business rather quickly.

But now imagine a new bakery opens their shop, and their bread is absolutely fantastic and everyone wants to buy it, no matter what the price. People would indeed buy their toasters in order to get the bread. So why do you think would that be illegal? It is your choice to buy boring old bread from the supermarket and use any toaster you like, or buy the fantastic new bread and use their toaster.

[r.j.s]

That shows the OSX software they install and one of the products you buy.

That does not imply endorsement. If I show a picture of a car I'm selling with Firestone tires on it, that doesn't mean Firestone endorses my company.

Actually it does, if you read the trademark law I posted (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm), it says that the association just needs to cause enough confusion to the average person. All of us here are above average in that we know that Apple does not endorse Psystar. However, Joe Schmoe may not know that, and goes to buy an open computer because he used his buddy's Mac, liked what he saw, wants his own, but cannot afford an Apple one.

[kntgsp]

Apple makes it available, but not 'freely available'. It is available with restrictions spelled out in their EULA.

You are correct that changing their distribution model would be a solution, but why should they have to do that? You're saying that the best remedy for Apple to keep people from misusing their product is to limit distribution of it by some means. In this circumstance, Apple is being harmed as well.

But it is freely available. I can walk into any Apple store, or Best Buy or MicroCenter, say "I would like to purchase this box of OSX". And they sell it to you no questions asked.

If you want enforceability of EULAs, they should be behind glass and you should be asked if you're purchasing it for use on a Mac computer or sign a written consent form.

This "shrink wrap" licensing is such nonsense. The model needs to be changed. It's partially the same principal behind those radio ads where the disclaimers are read to you at incomprehensible speed. A lot of those dealerships have been forced to discontinue those ads due to it being unconscionable in the eyes of the court.

[domain]

/ranton

Blah Blah Blah....

First off, Pystar is only relevant for one reason... Mac OSX. Such a poorly designed machine (horribly acoustically flawed for sure), with such poor components, along with the offered price would be *completely* irrelevant if they weren't riding the Apple name. No OSX... no one would care what-so-ever. Another fly-by-night that would crash and burn before takeoff.

As for the arguments against Apple's pricing? Don't like it, don't buy it... and no don't compare a Mac Pro to the "zomg super cheap components" you priced on Newegg.... Do you even know what fully buffered ECC memory is? :(

Finally as for the complaints towards OSX licensing etc etc.... ask your self the following questions:

1.) I own a Mac
2.) I bought and payed for a copy of Mac OSX to specifically install on non-Apple Hardware (and no where else)
3.) Mac OSX is good enough that i'd like to run it on non-Apple hardware.

If you can't answer yes to at least 2 of the 3 above questions, what you have to say is IMHO irrelevant. I'm not sure at what point we turned into an "entitlement" society... but all the complaining is getting old. Either pay the man, make something better, or go away.

/rantoff

[kntgsp]

Actually it does, if you read the trademark law I posted (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm), it says that the association just needs to cause enough confusion to the average person. All of us here are above average in that we know that Apple does not endorse Psystar. However, Joe Schmoe may not know that, and goes to buy an open computer because he used his buddy's Mac, liked what he saw, wants his own, but cannot afford an Apple one.

You know how easy that is to circumvent? Put a little disclaimer on any Psystar ad:

"Not endorsed by Apple Inc."

[r.j.s]

You know how easy that is to circumvent? Put a little disclaimer on any Psystar ad:

"Not endorsed by Apple Inc."

But they didn't even bother to do that ... hence the trademark infringement suit.

[ThirteenXIII]

so can i sue my wireless company over the choices of phones i can use with their service or vice versa?

i mean this is kind of ridiculous to me...it seems that any company could be sued by someone because their software doesnt work with "x" OS, or doesnt run on computers slower than a certain speed. etc etc.


In retrospect, itd be nice to have Mac OS be able to be installed on a custom built PC, but then there are ALOT of negatives to having that as well.


to me its a fine all around end product that clearly states its purpose and agreements...and Pystar are just acting like (excuse my language) bastards.

[zombitronic]

My point was there is no way to enforce it completely. There's no way for Apple to come after every single person who builds their own hackintosh. They'd have thousands of court cases that would stretch for years.

I agree with you, there.

I think Apple feels confident enough with their product line that they're not threatened by the few computer geeks that will build a Hackintosh, themselves. That said, a cheaper, "ready to use" system with OS X preinstalled is a threat to Apple's current product line.

If Psystar just sold "OS X capable computers" without OS X preinstalled and did not advertise how to install it, they might be alright, as far as not violating any EULA or SLA. The end user would have to be knowledgeable enough to get this info from another source. However, the moment they installed OS X on non-Apple labeled hardware, they violated the SLA and brought the wrath of Apple Legal upon themselves.

[paric]

But it is freely available. I can walk into any Apple store, or Best Buy or MicroCenter, say "I would like to purchase this box of OSX". And they sell it to you no questions asked.

If you want enforceability of EULAs, they should be behind glass and you should be asked if you're purchasing it for use on a Mac computer or sign a written consent form.

This "shrink wrap" licensing is such nonsense. The model needs to be changed.

Yes, sorry, it is freely available to purchase, but not to use. They could change their distribution method, but why would they when all they have to do is go to court to enforce the EULA, trademark laws, etc.?

Either way, the EULA is enforced, and Psystar is out of business, so I'm not understanding your point. If it is a choice between complicating the purchase of Mac OS X, or taking Psystar to court, of course they will take that route.

[kntgsp]

But they didn't even bother to do that ... hence the trademark infringement suit.

Ah, well in that case, they're up ***** creek.

People seem to confuse my arguments with "down with Apple, Apple bad, blah blah".

I like Apple products. I like OSX.

But I'm not above criticizing or playing devil's advocate. People who blindly follow anything their shepherd says are eventually led to the slaughter.

[kntgsp]

Yes, sorry, it is freely available to purchase, but not to use. They could change their distribution method, but why would they when all they have to do is go to court to enforce the EULA, trademark laws, etc.?

Either way, the EULA is enforced, and Psystar is out of business, so I'm not understanding your point. If it is a choice between complicating the purchase of Mac OS X, or taking Psystar to court, of course they will take that route.

I realize that.

It's part of trademark law. Even if Apple doesn't give a rat's about Psystar, they are forced to take them to court to defend their trademarks.

It's the nature of trademark law. Either bring legal action in every case, or potentially lose your trademark. That's not Apple's fault, it's the way the legal system is set up regarding trademark.

[kntgsp]

I agree with you, there.

I think Apple feels confident enough with their product line that they're not threatened by the few computer geeks that will build a Hackintosh, themselves. That said, a cheaper, "ready to use" system with OS X preinstalled is a threat to Apple's current product line.

If Psystar just sold "OS X capable computers" without OS X preinstalled and did not advertise how to install it, they might be alright, as far as not violating any EULA or SLA. The end user would have to be knowledgeable enough to get this info from another source. However, the moment they installed OS X on non-Apple labeled hardware, they violated the SLA and brought the wrath of Apple Legal upon themselves.

I'm going to skip over some other comments because you address some of my rebuttals in your post, coincidentally.

That is the main issue. Psystar is simply doing what these people would have done themselves. If they wanted to avoid legal trouble, they should have sold computers and advertised them as "identical in components to Apple computer".

And leave it to the individuals to violate the EULAs. But then of course Apple would issue updates that brick the computers because the board members are greedy killjoys. But Psystar took the more "grey" route and they'll likely lose. Which is a shame.

I don't think Apple realizes how much and how quickly they could expand their market share by adopting a bit of laissez-faire. Or absorbing Psystar and using them as a low-end Apple reseller.

Imagine all those people adopting OSX, without having to grapple with the stigma of "elitism" or whatever the media plays up surrounding Apple. All those low-income consumers putting OSX in their homes.

All those people using iTunes, and then buying iPods to use with iTunes, etc. The revenue stream would be exponential.

That's my main criticism. I think they could make more money by embracing this than by squashing it. But the nature of trademark law is either defend it or lose it, which sucks.

[paric]

I realize that.

It's part of trademark law. Even if Apple doesn't give a rat's about Psystar, they are forced to take them to court to defend their trademarks.

It's the nature of trademark law. Either bring legal action in every case, or potentially lose your trademark. That's not Apple's fault, it's the way the legal system is set up regarding trademark.

Rock on.

I'm outahere.

[gnasher729]

It comes down to this: Apple hardware + Apple software = One product. If you like the software, pony up the money and buy the hardware. You can get the job done with other hardware and software combinations if that's too much to ask.

Actually, that's not what it comes down to. What it comes down to is: Apple is the copyright holder of MacOS X and can sell it any way they see fit and no other way. Arguments can be made what is the best for consumers, or the best for Apple, but the only real argument is that Apple owns MacOS X and therefore Apple makes the rules.

Psystar claims that Apple is acting in an anti-competitive way. People sometimes confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Apple competes with Dell, HP, and every other PC maker including Psystar, and they do this among other things by taking advantage of the unique value that MacOS X represents. That is the essence of being competitive, to create a unique value to convince customers to buy your products and not the competitors'. Apple has every right to protect their unique value.

Does Apple prevent Psystar from competing? Not at all. Psystar is free to produce hardware that is cheaper or better than Apple's hardware, make it work well with an OS like Windows Vista or Linux, add some additional software to it, design attractive cases, do some clever advertising, give three years warranty, anything they want to do to beat Apple (and Dell or HP) in the market. What they cannot do is to commit copyright infringement to take advantage of Apple's unique value.

[corinhorn]

All the analogies in this thread are flawed and pointless. Hamburgers, gum, cars, furniture, toilets, etc are not computers or software. I realize that analogies are used to simplify confusing scenarios, but they are also used to be one-sided to lead and slant to a specific point without taking in regards to other factors. Most analogies can be picked apart with very little difficulty rendering them mute.

From reading the majority of the posts on this thread, there are 3 things that the Pro-PissStar people are rooting for.

1. A mid-level tower - I can honestly see both sides of the mid-level tower argument. The problem is that mid-level towers by nature are marketed to consumers, not professionals. The iMac is Apple’s main consumer desktop and I believe they want to keep it that way. Apple believes in a simple over-all experience for their consumer machines and a mid-level tower could conflict with that philosophy—like it or not, that is the way Apple is. Also, the #1 goal of Apple Inc. is to make money. If they felt that there was a market for a mid-level tower (or a stripped down Mac Pro) they would fill that market. The number of posts at sites like MR that are calling for a mid-level tower is not evidence of market demand. Sites like MR by their nature are going to have spirited and vocal users .

2. Competitively priced machines - If you compare most of Apple’s machines to competitors spec for spec, they are priced equally. You can’t simply match processor speed and RAM capacity—you must compare bus speed, cache, HD speed, HD capacity, OS (Vista Ultimate is the closest Leopard equivalent), RAM speed, screen size and resolution, viewing angle of the screen, battery life, everything. The exceptions are the MacMini and the MacBook Pro. There are some other differences here and there, but I think the “Apple premium pricing” mind-set is not as you think.

3. Ability to install Mac OS X on any POS - Apple has been spreading itself thin of late and a ruling to force Apple to produce MAc OS X to function on all POS hardware would spread Apple’s resources even more—thinner resources = sub-par products. I feel that those who think they have the right to do what ever the hell they want to with Mac OS X have been mislead. Everyone who buys a Mac and Mac OS X agree to terms that come attached to the products. That’s the way it is with Apple. If you don’t like it, don’t buy Apple—as a consumer, you have choices and if you don’t like the terms that come with the choices, hard cheese.

[ZiggyPastorius]

*sigh* All the same bickering about the same topic, just three different threads.

Please, Psystar, if you won't stop doing stupid things for your own sake, please do it to end these threads.

*tear*

[macenforcer]

Everyone who buys a Mac and Mac OS X agree to terms that come attached to the products. That’s the way it is with Apple. If you don’t like it, don’t buy Apple

Well there in is the problem. Its illegal for apple to do this. Just because some company says something does not make it fair or legal hence the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Does anyone really think its fair for apple to intensionally make you buy THEIR version of a video card when the card is exactly the same as the pc version but twice the price? These are the things apple does. I love apple but I have spent way too much money on their computers when in reality I could have spent 1/3rd that cost and its all because of OS X being tied to it.

[kabunaru]

Mac OS X on a Sony would be fine. Mac OS X on a Dell would be a disgrace.
If anything, Apple should just license OS X to one or two PC Manufacturers. Not release OS X for all PCs.

[bemayo]

This thread is really unbelievable and I should just let it go, but I can't help myself.

I am stunned by the number of times that posters (or at least one poster saying it over and over) have stated that there would be no harm to Apple if people could install Mac OS on any PC. I guess you guys haven't been around that long, but I cannot be the only person that remembers when Apple actually did license Mac OS. I think that it was Michael Spindler that did it, right before Gil Amelio came on. It was a complete disaster for Apple. The licensees simply cannibalized Apple's sales, and Apple very nearly went out of business as a result of it. Luckily, Steve came back and froze the licensees out of Mac OS 9 (by saying that had licensed Mac OS 8 only (I could have the versions wrong)). They even had to buy out Power Computing to keep them from suing.

Things have changed somewhat since then, but the fact is that Apple does not have a business model that allows them to function as a software company. They are a hardware company, and without those hardware margins, they are in trouble. As I said earlier, Apple subsidizes the cost of the OS development with hardware sales. The fact that Apple charges $129 for OS upgrades (and that is what they all are), does not mean that the cost of the computer is the price you pay minus $129. I'm sure they have some dollar amount they use for accounting purchase per computer sold, but I am sure that it is not an accurate representation of the actual development costs.

Apple can sell (relatively) expensive computers because they have a great OS. Apple can't live off their OS sales any more than they could live off selling their computers to Windows users (sans OS X).

[Sedulous]

I bought a new CD/album of a new popular group. Anyone want a CR-R copy? No, it doesn't have cover art or anything but I can sell copies on the cheap. Seems fair to me. Although I don't have permission to sell copies it should be ok, because I think the original album cost too much anyways and there is nothing special about the CD such that I cannot make cheap copies.

[ZiggyPastorius]

Mac OS X on a Sony would be fine. Mac OS X on a Dell would be a disgrace.
If anything, Apple should just license OS X to one or two PC Manufacturers. Not release OS X for all PCs.

Ugh, Apple better not license their OS on Sony products. It's like everything Sony touches becomes instantly terrible *shudders*

[r.j.s]

Ah, well in that case, they're up ***** creek.

People seem to confuse my arguments with "down with Apple, Apple bad, blah blah".

I like Apple products. I like OSX.

But I'm not above criticizing or playing devil's advocate. People who blindly follow anything their shepherd says are eventually led to the slaughter.

I'm not above criticizing Apple either, but their has to be a reason for it. Unfortunately, feelings have little to do with facts in legal cases. Just because people feel one way about something, doesn't make it legal, that's all I'm trying to get across.

[spectravp]

I so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?
And a Ferrari should cost as much as a Volkswagon. I mean, they both have power windows. They both have heat and air conditioning. Why should I pay $200,000 more for a few seconds off the quarter mile time. After all, forward momentum is a basic and essential feature, no?