Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar

[SimonMW]

Microsoft can modify its EULA to state that you can only install it on a machine that currently has Windows installed, ie you would have to buy a PC with windows preinstalled (sound familiar?), but they choose not to.

Why would they want to? Microsoft doesn't make PC's and laptops. By allowing Windows to run on Macs just means that they make more money from Mac users buying Windows, and hence an increase in userbase.

Apple on the other hand sell their hardware on the basis that OS X is written specifically for it, so nowhere near as many hardware compatibility issues etc. Allowing OS X to run on any hardware will only create problems with millions of different hardware configurations, which in turn will lead to bloat.

[gnasher729]

For all of you saying not Microsoft, consider this:

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.

However, Microsoft sells a lot of software very cheaply with a special license, like MS Office for students etc. If Psystar were to win its case (which they won't), every company in the world could switch from full licenses to student licenses for their MS Office products, everyone would buy Windows OEM versions instead of the full version, and so on.

[ipoppy]

Come on people!!! Its pretty obvious who is behind.

http://kara.allthingsd.com/files/2008/06/austin_powers_mike_myers_as_dr_evil.jpg

[gnasher729]

I still don't see how Apple could cash in. What are the damages?

Statutory damages for copyright infringement range from $750 to $150,000 per copied item, as determined by a jury. Recently a jury found damages of $220,000 for copying 24 songs appropriate. So take the number of Psystar customers, then find out how many individual items there are on a MacOS X Leopard DVD, multiply by a number between $750 and $150,000, and you end up with an amount that would make Dell blush.

False. All of Apples Licensing agreements are readilly available on their website (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/). Here is one for Leopard (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)(Note PDF attachment) - plain old english on page one. And I found that out in 10 seconds of google search - it was the first link.

I got that without purchasing anything.

And even if you had to purchase Leopard, and cut the box open to read the license, Psystar would have known the license after the first installation. Assuming that they sold more than one computer, that excuse would be gone for the second computer shipped. People also tend to forget that Psystar is a company and held to a different standard than you and me. If the license is hard to find, they have to search hard to find it. If they can't find it anywhere, they have the choice of not shipping MacOS X, or to agree to and be bound by a license that they never read. If they can't understand the terms of the license, they have to ask their lawyers. If their lawyers don't understand the license, then they should not ship MacOS X. They are a company, and they are bound by a license to a much higher degree than end users.

I agree with your observation. The lawyers have a history of success with Apple and since Apple, despite the downtrend is gaining profit makes for an attractive target thus the motivation.

Actually, these lawyers don't have a "history of success" against Apple. They ran a patent case against Apple, where the plaintiff asked for $100,000,000 (after getting $60,000,000 from Microsoft), and ended up losing most of their valuable patents and getting their claim reduced to a $10,000,000 settlement. They lost more in their patent portfolio than they received, so this was an overall loss.

even if Psystar won apple could go around it because they would have to sell their OS (they would never be forced to give it away) therefore they could sell their OS for say $1000 and then do complimentary knock say 900 dollars off of the hardware price for purchasing the OS so apple wins regardless they will win the actual legal battle however so if they play dirty we play dirty

Apple could slightly increase the price of the hardware and include "free software updates for life". The only problem is the accounting rules which mean Apple would have to account for Mac sales over 24 months, like they do with iPhones. So there would be an enormous drop in the official revenues from Mac sales.

[Buachaill Dana]

Apple makes their hardware and develops their software to compliment the hardware and make a PRODUCT.

Well. Apple doesnt make the hardware. Its supplied by many different vendors. Apple just put it together in the factory. This same hardware is found in many regular PC's.

[Dagless]

Like all the best conspiracies it does sound like it makes sense.
But a small company doing what these Psystar chaps are doing? Hmm.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

This is really strange. How many computers could they possibly be selling anyway? Their stuff is completely unsupported.

[dernhelm]

This is awesome. The only way this story could get better is to toss in a conspiracy theory. Thanks Apple!

But, well I don't how to say this, but suspecting Gates or Ballmer is just too obvious. I'm betting it's finally time for the revenge of Gil Amelio...
:eek:

[Shasterball]

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

Not how it works. It's way more complicated than I care to type out now. But, selling a copy of OS X is not trademark infringement...

[ricksbrain]

As I saw someone post a quick blurb on another site, this is likely against the OSX86 people, or whatever they're called-- the ones who cracked OSX to run on regular machines in the first place. Without them, Psystar could not have loaded the machines with OS X in the first place.

And without realizing it, Psystar may have just made several "innocent" individuals who were trying to do something they thought fun into complicit criminals.

If Apple didn't go after this group, it's argument against Psystar would fall apart in court. Good luck, guys! Sounds like you'll need it.

[Shasterball]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

This is really strange. How many computers could they possibly be selling anyway? Their stuff is completely unsupported.

Well think about it. There are a lot of people that want a Mac but don't want to pay the price. That's one thing -- and that draws a enough business to keep them going.

The bigger picture is that if this is allowed to go on, either by the courts saying it's ok or by Apple's acquiescence (i.e., if Apple hadn't sued), then this would finally open up the door for Mac clones. And this is something Apple has been fighting so hard against. I mean, Apple prides itself on selling high end comps. Jobs refuses to sell low end ones -- he views Apple as a premium product company and people pay money to have an "Apple." Their view is that, by allowing knockoffs, it would devalue their comps.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with their way of doing business, but this is just a little bit of what they are concerned about.

[mac jones]

Or It could just be that the guy who made the start-up has deep pockets and doesn't like to lose so he will sell the farm in litigation.

If that's the case it's indeed a pity.



.

[Dagless]

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.
I don't think one could fathom how much of a negative impact that would be against Microsoft if true.

[ogbuke]

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.It's a different game now eh, so they should go back to something that failed in the past, real bright.

[talkingfuture]

Whilst I hope this isn't true, it is possibly the most effective way of hurting Mac sales at the moment. Building better hardware isn't that effective if it still comes with Windows.

I think Apple will squash Psystar eventually through superior products or clever licensing/activation systems.

[alexbates]

Hopefully, some of this will change soon. If Apple does come out with netbooks in the first quarter of 2009, this could get more people to buy a Mac, that could not previously afford one, instead of a netbook that Pystar could come out with in the future.

[DigitalM]

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

He said as Alice "might" put it, so he's correct. Otherwise he would have said as "As Alice put it...".

Anyway, I agree, someone has indemnified Psystar against a defeat, I've thought so all along.

[ogbuke]

I certainly hope Apple keeps pushing this line in court. They'll look a right bunch of chumps. The DMCA addition was desperation. It just doesn't apply.

This is beyond desperation.

If only Apple hadn't changed to making PC clones and trying to limit OS X to their machines, by EULA... talk about dumb.

And now they're going to pay. The EULA is going to be declared invalid in court, and everyone is going to get their Mac netbook ! It just won't be made by Apple... because they're too up themselves to serve their customers needs. (We make a netbook, it's called the MacBook Air... right...)

If people want to buy a leaf-blower and run OS X, that's a sale of OS X for Apple that THEY were never going to get anyway. Somebody wants a quiet, quality machine that won't let them down... they'll buy Apple.

Apple is under no obligation to support crap PC hardware, but if manufacturers make something to Apple's standard, let them sell OS X. Might even improve the general standard of PC's too.

Now that's a legacy worth having, Apple.Who's going to force Apple to pay, you? please.

[kavika411]

Regarding the substance of the OP (and sorry if this has been said; don't have time to read the whole thread); but the conspiracy allegation sounds like nothing more than what is called "fictitious defendants." A plaintiff (Apple, in this case) must sue everyone tied to the particular wrong act (Pystar's creation/sale of the computer). Some of the potential wrongdoers (perhaps a subcontractor, perhaps a partner company) may have had a hand in it, but that won't be revealed until later in the case. If Apple hasn't already pleaded "fictitious defendants" acting in a "conspiracy," they may not be able to amend their complaint.

In short, conspiracy allegations are part of any good form complaint. Just an FYI.

[iOrlando]

I dont think its neccessary a well-known pc maker like dell or hp. Instead i think apple is suggesting a group of investors are behind the efforts of psystar and not just the management. These investors have a vested interest in the matter, and apple stated they might deceide to go after each investor individually.

[ogbuke]

In a way though, sooner or later Apple's Hardware/Software bundling issue is going to become an anti-competitive issue. Lets face it, a modern Mac is effectively an Intel PC with a little hardware tweak that enables them to lock the OS to the hardware. If Microsoft announced tomorrow that they wanted to make computers and were going to be locking Windows to their own hardware they'd be in court before you could say 'competition commission'.

I'm not so sure that Apple isn't possibly on a bit of a sticky wicket.
As long as Apple's marketshare is like 3 or 5 percent, they have nothing to worry about.

[ogbuke]

Why can't a company (or individual) challenge claims by another company that restrict the use of legitimately purchased products? Psystar doesn't pirate OSX--it buys the OS and puts it to a use that Apple doesn't like because that threatens their hardware monopoly. If I want to use OSX (and I do because it's the best), I am currently forced to use Apple computers, semi-functional Hack-intoshs aside. Apple can't stand free market competition, and their over-priced, increasingly limited product line reflects it. Can you imagine if, say, Sony declared that to use their copyrighted movies, music and games one had to use Sony hardware, only. It's ridiculous.

The people behind Psystar see the opportunity to make some cash offering consumers additional hardware choices. Go Psystar!LOL, and who are you to decide what Apple should do with a product they make, or I guess you have a business plan showing they can make more money by doing what you say. Please.

[HyperZboy]

I never thought I'd use this word to describe Apple, of all companies, but this strange development just REEKS of DESPERATION on Apple's part!

Like others have mentioned, PSYSTAR is a corporation with little assets, no one will go to jail, DMCA or not, EULA violation or not. PSYSTAR really does have little to lose and it is strange that they have the cash on hand to afford this legal defense this long, let alone going forward.

Sure, Apple will probably win on some level with copyright infringement, but there's a damn good chance that all of Apple's other claims will be thrown out including their EULA. I even wonder if DMCA could face a Supreme Court challenge over this. It's certainly stretching the limits of the DMCA's original intent.

Basically, unless Apple wins the EULA or DMCA arguments, that MacOS can only be installed on Apple brand computers and/or this is theft of copyrighted property, Apple is in BIG TROUBLE. And it's doubtful Apple will win on the EULA count. So that's got to be the reason they are throwing everything but the alien UFO kitchen sink at PSYSTAR now. It's definitely an act of desperation on Apple's part in an effort to drain monetarily this company out of business BEFORE this goes to trial.

Let's say Apple wins part of the copyright suit, but not the EULA or DMCA parts. PSYSTAR could then just sell the computers without pre-installing a hacked MacOS, but give end-users the software to do the installation easily themselves. It would never turn PSYSTAR into a DELL, but I bet DELL would certainly then be interested in doing the same thing and so would tons of other PC companies.

I always predicted this would never go to trial, because Apple has way too much to lose and PSYSTAR has little to lose, but it looks like Apple is now worried it WILL go to trial and that's certainly not good news for Apple. Now the big question is, who IS behind PSYSTAR, if anybody, or is this stunt really just a sign of Apple's desperation at not being able to even buy PSYSTAR out of business? You would think it would be chump change for Apple to just buy PSYSTAR out and PSYSTAR would probably get more money than they've made selling the damn clones! But yet the legal wrangling continues. Strange happenings indeed.

And as a footnote, I've been an Apple user since 1983, but these fanboy EULA cheerleaders really kinda make me sick. Many companys' EULAs would not stand up in court and all of Apple's most certainly won't either. I may be a lifelong Apple user, but I'm not a fanboy nor do I believe everything Steve Jobs says. Please, before posting on this topic, fanboys, please turn on your Reality Distortion Field Deflector Shields. Thanks. :D

[AidenShaw]

I'm sure there are some high-end, expensive machines that run vista swell, but the masses don't see that.

Is this what you mean by "high-end, expensive" ?

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=146324&d=1227972712

When Vista was first released, the "high-end" comment was more-or-less true. Since then, however, even low-end systems have plenty of power and memory to "run Vista swell".

[ogbuke]

You cannot be serious, right?

I am sorry for the educational system of this country.

D

:D

[pdjudd]

And even if you had to purchase Leopard, and cut the box open to read the license, Psystar would have known the license after the first installation. Assuming that they sold more than one computer, that excuse would be gone for the second computer shipped. People also tend to forget that Psystar is a company and held to a different standard than you and me. If the license is hard to find, they have to search hard to find it. If they can't find it anywhere, they have the choice of not shipping MacOS X, or to agree to and be bound by a license that they never read. If they can't understand the terms of the license, they have to ask their lawyers. If their lawyers don't understand the license, then they should not ship MacOS X. They are a company, and they are bound by a license to a much higher degree than end users.

Correct. Furthermore, even if you had to purchase it (ie it wasn't on Apple's own website), I am sure that Apple would be very happy to send you a printed copy if you asked just so that you were aware of it before purchase. But as you pointed out, Psystar as a company is expected to know and research the legality of their options before attempting to become a reseller.

In short, they should know better.

[mcnallym]

That would be a disaster. There's no way they can win. Mac users like us will still stick with Apple obviously. This will hurt Apple's market share and credibility. The more people than use the OS X platform, the more idiots are gonna want to program viruses.

Already started, hence why Apple saying to get AV for your Mac. Up until before the announcement the FAQ used to say no need for AV with a Mac.

[HyperZboy]

Correct. Furthermore, even if you had to purchase it (ie it wasn't on Apple's own website), I am sure that Apple would be very happy to send you a printed copy if you asked just so that you were aware of it before purchase. But as you pointed out, Psystar as a company is expected to know and research the legality of their options before attempting to become a reseller.

In short, they should know better.

EULA SCHMULA!

All these pointless arguments over damages on EULA violations make me laugh. Most companies' EULAs skate daily on thin ice legally. They just continue to exist because many of the restrictions in many companies' EULAs never get challenged in court because it would be difficult for lawyers to claim damages or harm to anyone, i.e.: Unless a lawyer sees money potential, there is no lawsuit and EULAs like Apple's continue on. I can't believe that so many fanboys here actually think that Apple's EULA would stand completely intact if this went to trial! How naive.

Trust me, Apple does NOT want their EULA tested in a court of law.

[ogbuke]

At the same time, there's a difference between critical analysis and being disappointed that a product didn't shape up the way one hoped and the hand-wringing and histrionics of the equally powerful cult of Apple Personally Wronged Me.

As much as it might shock both sides, Apple is a corporation, and neither the answer to all life's problems nor the personal destroyer of electronic paradise. They make products and money and have a demonstrated talent for doing both. They can't serve everyone, and they don't try. If they don't have something suitable, get yourself something that is. You can't always get what you want no matter how entitled to it you might feel.

Some people can't seem to get over it and feel so personally victimized by a simple business that they have to stomp around complaining about minitowers, or Apple's thin and style obsession, or the unholy evils of a deviant port connector, or Apple "monopolies" on their own products instead of just buying something that suits their needs and moving on with their lives. Life is about making choices from less-than-perfect options.

What little of it there was to begin with. People have never been rational about their attachments or their need to complain.

Dude you've said it all. Your posts are greatly appreciated on this forum. :)

[LiveForever]

This could be Pulitzer prize winning material.

Journalsist are always better at getting to the truth far more effectively than teh authorities or companies.

I do smell something else. This is some heavy people testing the waters and trying to muscles into apples action.It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Once they have done it with PC's then they could say right lets make our own iphones now, does that not run OSX?

I would be surprised if some journos aren't already peeling away who Psystar really is.

[ogbuke]

Well. Apple doesnt make the hardware. Its supplied by many different vendors. Apple just put it together in the factory. This same hardware is found in many regular PC's.

Hopefully, some of this will change soon. If Apple does come out with netbooks in the first quarter of 2009, this could get more people to buy a Mac, that could not previously afford one, instead of a netbook that Pystar could come out with in the future.

Right like Apple's sales are being threatened or even will be threatened by Psystar in the future. :p

[JAT]

I'm not suggesting that the gripe isn't legitimate, but is that 1.5" THAT big a deal? To some, obviously yes. I just don't think Apple cares, nor do I think they're going to one day care. Their laptop line is complete. You either get on board...or you don't. One of the perils of being an Apple customer!

See, I'm hardly an Apple apologist, I'm an efficiency freak. (hence my disgust for Windows and preference for OSX) The first sentence above is what I agree with. The rest is just the typical crap that goes on at MR. "You hate Apple" "You love Apple" "You got your peanut butter in my chocolate".....good god, just relax.

So, grue, about laptops....Dell only makes certain sizes, too. A couple more than Apple, but with your requirements as listed you will hard pressed to find ANY laptop, let alone one that size that also runs OSX. So maybe, just possibly, finding a way for a size change would be appropriate for you.

It's actually 1.8" diffference (G4 to MB), but I don't see how that can truly affect anyone's "workspace". It would have to be the user that is anorexic to make this width difference a big deal, sitting in a 1' wide space, as if such a desk exists. I have used a MB on a plane, I didn't run into any position that would have been improved if it was 1.8" slimmer. Weight is the real killer to me when I am mobile.

So, I don't see how the shape of a MB can be such a big deal that you have spent 3 years griping about it and not using one. For your livelihood. As I mentioned, Sony's TT line is almost precisely what you want in shape and is not one of those tiny things. Go for it. Or the MB is less than 2" wider but runs the software that makes far more impact on productivity. Go for it. You only hurt you if that G4 becomes too slow one day.

[mklos]

Correct. Furthermore, even if you had to purchase it (ie it wasn't on Apple's own website), I am sure that Apple would be very happy to send you a printed copy if you asked just so that you were aware of it before purchase. But as you pointed out, Psystar as a company is expected to know and research the legality of their options before attempting to become a reseller.

In short, they should know better.

All of the license agreeements are posted on Apple's websites for all of their products:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

[LiveForever]

People are already digging into them.

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

Update: Reader Robert did some more digging in the Florida Corporate filing office, and it seems that Psystar's principles are Rodolfo and Roberto Pedraza, who are officers or agents on a whole crapload of companies. Only one of these companies besides Psystar is currently active: Floridatek.

[HyperZboy]

People are already digging into them.

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax

Wow, sounds less like Michael Dell and more like the Cuban Mafia! LOL :D

[JAT]

They want backdoor hooks in Mac OS that Jobs has so far refused to provide... took a monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft to get Bill Gates to cave, and part of the reason Vista was such crap and Windows in general so vulnerable to attack.

So...Win 3.1 was secure, so was Win95, but now the US Gov't made Win suck with the release of Vista? That's a pretty nice aluminum hat you've got, friend.

[mklos]

At the same time, there's a difference between critical analysis and being disappointed that a product didn't shape up the way one hoped and the hand-wringing and histrionics of the equally powerful cult of Apple Personally Wronged Me.

As much as it might shock both sides, Apple is a corporation, and neither the answer to all life's problems nor the personal destroyer of electronic paradise. They make products and money and have a demonstrated talent for doing both. They can't serve everyone, and they don't try. If they don't have something suitable, get yourself something that is. You can't always get what you want no matter how entitled to it you might feel.

Some people can't seem to get over it and feel so personally victimized by a simple business that they have to stomp around complaining about minitowers, or Apple's thin and style obsession, or the unholy evils of a deviant port connector, or Apple "monopolies" on their own products instead of just buying something that suits their needs and moving on with their lives. Life is about making choices from less-than-perfect options.

What little of it there was to begin with. People have never been rational about their attachments or their need to complain.

You are absolutely correct. Too many people complain about things, especially Apple users, or potential Apple users. I've said it 100 times, and I'll say it again, Apple could release an 8-core 10 GHz MacPro today with 8 GB of RAM, 1TB HD, etc for $999 and someone would find something to complain about because that one or two things it doesn't have makes it so it doesn't suit their needs. So they need to complain. Well, someone out there makes what you want so you look and buy it. There are over 25 Million Mac users and probably just as many potential Mac users and everyone wants/needs something different. Apple can't can't suit the needs of everyone. They have a simplified product line and suits the needs of the "most" consumers. Those who are not suited by Apple's product lineup are more than welcomed to go find a company that suits their needs. Its just the way it is in this world and all the b-itching and complaining in the world isn't going to stop it.

[ritzuk]

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

Was it Alice herself?

I thought it was another character!

[dr Dunkel]

Keep in mind Psystar's only product filled the biggest gap in Apple's product line, a reasonably priced midtower/desktop system that the owner can update/expand easily over the life of the machine. No doubt it selected this segment deliberately as Apple has zero offerings in this segment.

This is a very good point. The force of the market at its most beautiful - if the people want this product and Apple don't realise it then this is what you will get.

I wonder when Apple will get it?

[LeoNobilis]

I never thought I'd use this word to describe Apple, of all companies, but this strange development just REEKS of DESPERATION on Apple's part!

Like others have mentioned, PSYSTAR is a corporation with little assets, no one will go to jail, DMCA or not, EULA violation or not. PSYSTAR really does have little to lose and it is strange that they have the cash on hand to afford this legal defense this long, let alone going forward.

Sure, Apple will probably win on some level with copyright infringement, but there's a damn good chance that all of Apple's other claims will be thrown out including their EULA. I even wonder if DMCA could face a Supreme Court challenge over this. It's certainly stretching the limits of the DMCA's original intent.

Basically, unless Apple wins the EULA or DMCA arguments, that MacOS can only be installed on Apple brand computers and/or this is theft of copyrighted property, Apple is in BIG TROUBLE. And it's doubtful Apple will win on the EULA count. So that's got to be the reason they are throwing everything but the alien UFO kitchen sink at PSYSTAR now. It's definitely an act of desperation on Apple's part in an effort to drain monetarily this company out of business BEFORE this goes to trial.

Let's say Apple wins part of the copyright suit, but not the EULA or DMCA parts. PSYSTAR could then just sell the computers without pre-installing a hacked MacOS, but give end-users the software to do the installation easily themselves. It would never turn PSYSTAR into a DELL, but I bet DELL would certainly then be interested in doing the same thing and so would tons of other PC companies.

I always predicted this would never go to trial, because Apple has way too much to lose and PSYSTAR has little to lose, but it looks like Apple is now worried it WILL go to trial and that's certainly not good news for Apple. Now the big question is, who IS behind PSYSTAR, if anybody, or is this stunt really just a sign of Apple's desperation at not being able to even buy PSYSTAR out of business? You would think it would be chump change for Apple to just buy PSYSTAR out and PSYSTAR would probably get more money than they've made selling the damn clones! But yet the legal wrangling continues. Strange happenings indeed.

And as a footnote, I've been an Apple user since 1983, but these fanboy EULA cheerleaders really kinda make me sick. Many companys' EULAs would not stand up in court and all of Apple's most certainly won't either. I may be a lifelong Apple user, but I'm not a fanboy nor do I believe everything Steve Jobs says. Please, before posting on this topic, fanboys, please turn on your Reality Distortion Field Deflector Shields. Thanks. :D


Well, mate? What were the alternatives in '83? Windows 95? Or Ubuntu?
Not strange that, provided your age (and possibly, your financial aptitude at the time, as you sound as tediously jurisprudence-competent as any lawyer), you used an Apple computer then, is it? You could have a Lamborghini and handle it as a Jeep? Not the exemplary Lamborghini owner, then... Tell me what's wrong with being a fan of the platform that glows with the distinction of being leaps and bounds better than the alternatives? If you can't make a distinction between Apple and Windoze junk, then what detains you from switching to Windoze, unconditionally and exclusively (as you clearly wouldn't mind, would you)?

[cameronjpu]

However, if Apple's going to continue pandering to idiots and trendtards,

I'm asking for a small machine that isn't horrifyingly compromised. I'll even settle for the godforsaken trash that is a glossy screen. Just give me something the size of a 12" PowerBook, no larger.

Wouldn't "pandering to trendtards" kinda include following the current hot trend to offer a netbook?

[Zw42a]

In regards to Finder, here's a list of flaws compared to Explorer just off the top of my head:

no way to quickly "get to" a deep down folder structure, because there's no path bar to copy/paste the location to/from. I know you can drag the little folder from one Finder window into another to "jump" to that path, but it's a pain, and half the time you can't grab it properly

Try using Spotlight. Use :apple:+space to quickly enter Spotlight an d start typing the name of the folder you're looking for. I tend to use this more than browsing the Finder.

- no cut and paste

OS X is a drag and drop orientated OS. Never missed a cut-function.

If you have troubles with grabbing a file, try to grab it by its icon and you'll never see those troubles again :D

- when Finder is generating thumbnails for media files (which it doesn't even cache, so it has to do this EVERY FRICKIN TIME) if you want to rename a file, it'll stop the rename process while you're typing once it gets to the next file in the window it needs to generate a thumbnail for. So if you have hundreds of files in there that need thumbnails generated for, you essentially can't rename things until it's done. WHY ISN'T THIS FIXED?

You can rename the file, you'll only see the result a bit later. But it is confusing.

- anytime I want to save something and it defaults to column view, there's no way to make it auto-expand the column length for the necessary width required to show the longest file name

Double click on the resize handle when in column-view. Too bad it doesn't work when in list-view.

- search is totally busted. Why does it always default to showing the results of the entire system? If I'm typing specifically in a Finder window to search for something and not universally using Spotlight it should default results to just that damn folder (or window) and its sub-folders

Yep, really frustrating sometimes. Hopefully there will be a fix soon!

- you can't even sort search results by size

Don't use it myself but I think it should be there, yes.

- in Vista you can set literally HUNDREDS of different columns to sort things by. Megapixel, sure? You can do it. Give us the option.
- give Finder a small to large view slider like iPhoto for window management.

Options are always welcome!

[gnasher729]

EULA SCHMULA!

All these pointless arguments over damages on EULA violations make me laugh. Most companies' EULAs skate daily on thin ice legally. They just continue to exist because many of the restrictions in many companies' EULAs never get challenged in court because it would be difficult for lawyers to claim damages or harm to anyone, i.e.: Unless a lawyer sees money potential, there is no lawsuit and EULAs like Apple's continue on. I can't believe that so many fanboys here actually think that Apple's EULA would stand completely intact if this went to trial! How naive.

Trust me, Apple does NOT want their EULA tested in a court of law.

I am sure you can give us an example or two of some terms in Apple's Leopard EULA that wouldn't stand up in court. We are all waiting.

At the moment I can only see that Psystar is in clear violation of "MacOS X may be installed only on one Apple-labeled" computer, which, as a court has decided last week, is something that is completely within Apple's rights to put into a EULA and to enforce.

[matticus008]

as you sound as tediously jurisprudence-competent as any lawyer)
Not really. Just tedious.

The SLA claim is the copyright infringement claim. Admitting that Apple will prevail on copyright infringement but somehow won't be able to enforce its SLA is pure cognitive dissonance--the violation steps on Apple's exclusive right to control reproduction and distribution; Apple can't win without finding that their restriction to Macs is an exercise of that right, and naturally it is. As for "desperation", this is a fairly textbook infringement case so far. People talking out of their asses will always find things to read into it, though.
They just continue to exist because many of the restrictions in many companies' EULAs never get challenged in court because it would be difficult for lawyers to claim damages or harm to anyone
If there is no claim, there is no basis to strike down the provision.
that Apple's EULA would stand completely intact if this went to trial!
Neither the practice of software licensing nor the entirely of Apple's SLA is at issue to go to trial.

[ogbuke]

This is a very good point. The force of the market at its most beautiful - if the people want this product and Apple don't realise it then this is what you will get.

I wonder when Apple will get it?

People are lining up to buy these guys computers, they are making a killing of of it.

[zacman]

Wrong. Most Windows PCs are sold with OEM install, which has a EULA clause that prevents it being installed in any other computer. So you can't take the XP copy from the old P4 dell and put it on your new homebuilt superbox.

If the EULA goes down then first sale doctrine applies and you can take your copy of XP and put it on any computer that will have it. This will cost Microsoft a lot.


That has already happened in Germany. Dealers sold normal OEM Windows DVDs and Microsoft sued them. MS lost the case. The EULA didn't apply to the end user because you cannot be forced to accept an EULA when you bought a boxed version of standard software. The courts say that the click to "I accept the EULA" doesn't establish any contract between the customer and the software manufacturer at all. Since then you can get Windows for 60-70€ (Vista Home OEM) in any German computer store.

There was a similar court decision against HP in the 1990s. Back then HP tried with its EULA to force customers to run software only on specific machines sold by HP. HP lost the case.

It's probably the same in other EU countries as well.

[BenRoethig]

At the same time, there's a difference between critical analysis and being disappointed that a product didn't shape up the way one hoped and the hand-wringing and histrionics of the equally powerful cult of Apple Personally Wronged Me.

And difference is shutting up and doing as your told right?

As much as it might shock both sides, Apple is a corporation, and neither the answer to all life's problems nor the personal destroyer of electronic paradise. They make products and money and have a demonstrated talent for doing both. They can't serve everyone, and they don't try. If they don't have something suitable, get yourself something that is. You can't always get what you want no matter how entitled to it you might feel.

You're right. Why devote resources to R&D to the Power user who expects new functionality when you can make a lot more money off of a more mainstream using buying Macs for social reasons who expect nothing from you except hype. Nothing is more profitable than ignorance.

Some people can't seem to get over it and feel so personally victimized by a simple business that they have to stomp around complaining about minitowers, or Apple's thin and style obsession, or the unholy evils of a deviant port connector, or Apple "monopolies" on their own products instead of just buying something that suits their needs and moving on with their lives. Life is about making choices from less-than-perfect options.

Try spending a decade and a half on a platform and investing thousands of dollars on a platform only to have to rug pulled out. And there used to be some very easy choices. There used to be this computer company called Apple who focused on making a better and more useable computer while adding a bit of style to the mix. It wasn't until your kind started diluting the Mac gene pool that we started to have problems.

What little of it there was to begin with. People have never been rational about their attachments or their need to complain.

You've never met a Mac user have you? Not one of the cultists or fanboys who wants to be cool or different, but someone who actually uses the platform for its benefits.

[GenNovE]

For the uninformed.

Viruses= Millions of dollars=New Jobs=A whirlwind of profit for companies even the ones affected by it.

Everything is caused for a reason. Is a balance. Hackers/Viruses force security.

[RTiii320]

Mac OS-X Compatible PC's?

...yuck

[heisetax]

With Apple only producing a limited number of models in a limited price range, the pressure is on everyone to make a Mac Clone. They just needed to do it in a little better way.

Even though Psystar didn't handle the use of OS X in the best way, I am still on their side in this legal battle. For the above mentioned reasons & others unmentioned, Apple is daring companies to make Mac Clones. Psystar just isn't going away as fast as Apple had expected.

I would like to have a Mac Clone laptop with FW.

[ogbuke]

With Apple only producing a limited number of models in a limited price range, the pressure is on everyone to make a Mac Clone. They just needed to do it in a little better way.

Even though Psystar didn't handle the use of OS X in the best way, I am still on their side in this legal battle. For the above mentioned reasons & others unmentioned, Apple is daring companies to make Mac Clones. Psystar just isn't going away as fast as Apple had expected.

I would like to have a Mac Clone laptop with FW.

What makes you think you are entitled to anything Apple makes? If Apple doesn't make something you want, you go somewhere else, there are plenty of alternatives. I guess if I want a 100 dollar computer and Apple doesn't make it, I should throw a fit.

[kas23]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so could someone help me out? Why is Pystar winning this case such a bad thing? All this is going to do is give the consumer more options and possibly more improved products. It may even drive down the prices of Macs, but who cares if it doesn't. People are still going to buy Macs. They're sleek machines that run very seemlessly. They have a lot of loyal customers and their Apple Care Plan and customer service is the best in the business.

It is true, OS X may run a bit buggy on these other computers, but who says Apple has to offer support? Apple can just continue to offer OS X support on their own hardware. And Apple will still make money off every copy of OS X sold.

I really don't see what bad could come of this. This certainly isn't going to put Apple out of business or even come close to it.

I'm actually excited for this. Bring on the 10 or 11 inch netbook that Jobs refuses to sell and thinks is a "nascent" technology. I really wouldn't feel like I am "betraying" Apple by purchasing this since Apple doesn't offer it.

[pdjudd]

All of the license agreeements are posted on Apple's websites for all of their products:

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

Yep, I posted that link a few pages ago (this tread goes faster than I can post). I was continuing a theory of saying if they were only available in box. Obviously they are not.

[matticus008]

And difference is shutting up and doing as your told right?
Yeah, about that rationality you were talking about...

The difference is in the whining and accusations of "diluting gene pools" by the rabid, and the utter lack of professionalism. Anyone who bandies about the "fanboy" label ultimately has nothing of substance to stand on. Way to undermine your valid points with melodramatic crap. And it's neither here nor there, but it's "you're".
It wasn't until your kind started diluting the Mac gene pool that we started to have problems.
Note that you're the one foaming at the mouth here, and that "my kind" is a meaningless epithet for someone who has been using Apple computers since 1984, and someone who uses all three major platforms on a regular basis.
You've never met a Mac user have you?
Having met and worked with Apple designers and engineers, I find the question absurd.

[pdjudd]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so could someone help me out? Why is Pystar winning this case such a bad thing?

That's not the point. Psystar is illegally using Apple's brands and trademarks. They cannot do this. The courts have already rules that Apple faces competition in the market. Heck, Psystar has asserted that point that users have an option of Windows and other *nix systems. Apple has plenty of competiton.

This case is about trademark infringement and breech of contract (I think that is still being asserted.

[ditzy]

I don't think so the counter argument by pyster was to weak to have come from a larger organisation.

[IJ Reilly]

That's not the point. Psystar is illegally using Apple's brands and trademarks. They cannot do this. The courts have already rules that Apple faces competition in the market. Heck, Psystar has asserted that point that users have an option of Windows and other *nix systems. Apple has plenty of competiton.

This case is about trademark infringement and breech of contract (I think that is still being asserted.

Exactly. If we took away all the discussion about EULAs, the relative merits and costs of hardware, and all the other things which are irrelevant to this lawsuit, we'd have about 20 posts remaining in this thread that are even remotely on-topic.

[HyperZboy]

At the moment I can only see that Psystar is in clear violation of "MacOS X may be installed only on one Apple-labeled" computer, which, as a court has decided last week, is something that is completely within Apple's rights to put into a EULA and to enforce.

SIMPLY NOT TRUE (except in your own mind).

The court only decided that the case had merits and would not be thrown out.

BIG DIFFERENCE from the EULA being tested in a court of law.

That has NOT happened. This case has NOT even gone to trial yet!

And EULA's don't often get tested and I would bet the farm Apple doesn't want theirs to go to trial either, just like MOST corporations don't want such egregious licensing arrangements to be court tested. Why take the enormous risk? It's just that simple. Apple has so much MORE to lose here.

[Gasu E.]

Conspiracy?

On the bottom of this page there is an advertisement for the DVD of the X Files movie. With an O around the X.

The OS X Files?

Hmmm...

[Rot'nApple]

It's Nick Ciarelli and Think Secret's Revenge! :eek:

[pdjudd]

SIMPLY NOT TRUE (except in your own mind).

The court only decided that the case had merits and would not be thrown out.

Actually, the case that psystar asserted (regarding anti-competitive behavior) was dismissed simply because Pystar's claims were without merit. The judge stated that what Apple was doing was perfectly allowed and understood by the end user.

[specialbuddy]

That's not the point. Psystar is illegally using Apple's brands and trademarks. They cannot do this. The courts have already rules that Apple faces competition in the market. Heck, Psystar has asserted that point that users have an option of Windows and other *nix systems. Apple has plenty of competiton.

This case is about trademark infringement and breech of contract (I think that is still being asserted.

It will be sorted out in court. Their not guilty of anything yet.

[randyhudson]

Since day one I've always thought the people behind Psystar must have balls like baked potatoes to do what they're doing.


Do they have to be "baked"? :) Well, I guess you get kudos for consonance.

[pdjudd]

It will be sorted out in court. Their not guilty of anything yet.

I never said they were actually guilty - I am accusing them (like apple except I am not suing them) of illegally violating copyright and trademark. I have yet to use the guilty word.

[JGowan]

I would just FREAKING LOVE for Apple to find out for sure it was a big company (a Dell or even better, Microsoft) -- and to sue them and the court's demand Gates/Ballmer to pay Steve a HUMONGOUS chunk of change.

[BenRoethig]

Mac OS-X Compatible PC's?

...yuck

What is a Mac, but an off the shelf intel machine a custom case.

What makes you think you are entitled to anything Apple makes? If Apple doesn't make something you want, you go somewhere else, there are plenty of alternatives. I guess if I want a 100 dollar computer and Apple doesn't make it, I should throw a fit.

Exactly how many of those options are compatible with your existing software and files? This isn't like going from a HP to a Dell here. If you're a lower end general purpose user with little investment in a platform beyond what came preloaded, the switch is going to be of minimal difficulty. Then again, Apple already this class of user very well with the iMac, new Macbook, and the left for dead Mac Mini. If you're one with a substantial investment in both hardware and software, you have to make another substantial invest in a completely different platform.

Also, if you're well served by Apple and their current lineup, that's great. However who the hell gave you the right to pass judgement on those who aren't, especially those with over a decade and thousands of dollars invested in the Mac? We didn't choose to have different needs than Apple's hardware allows. Apple decided to go in a more lifestyle consumer direction. Our years of loyalty were repaid by having the rug pulled out from under us and being spit on by people like you. Excuse me if we're a little bitter. When they decide that you no longer fit their philosophy, you;ll understand.

[JohnLee]

I would just FREAKING LOVE for Apple to find out for sure it was a big company (a Dell or even better, Microsoft) -- and to sue them and the court's demand Gates/Ballmer to pay Steve a HUMONGOUS chunk of change.

That would just be crazy! I can't imagine large companies engaging in this kind of activity. That's just asking for public backlash. Bad PR if you ask me.

[zacman]

I would just FREAKING LOVE for Apple to find out for sure it was a big company (a Dell or even better, Microsoft) -- and to sue them and the court's demand Gates/Ballmer to pay Steve a HUMONGOUS chunk of change.

It more looks like it's Apple who is behind Psystar and tries to get a court order in Apple's favor through bad defending.

Afterwards Apple will shut down macrumors.com. They'll claim macrumors.com is in violation with the DMCA because its forums support jailbroken iphones which is clearly a violation of the iphone EULA as it modifies OS X mobile.
:eek:

[n8mac]

PSYSTAR = SYSTRAP

[bplein]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so could someone help me out? Why is Pystar winning this case such a bad thing? All this is going to do is give the consumer more options and possibly more improved products.

And quite possibly a very bad OS X experience (due to lack of support).

As soon as people start using a Psystar desktop, for example, and hacked drivers for unsupported cards, they may very well have a bad OS X experience, and blame it on OS X.

I put together a Hackintosh and although it was fun to do, it didn't feel like a Mac. Something about the video (a fast accelerated NVidia gaming card that was jerky under OS X) and the mouse (felt like a Windows mouse, not like the same mouse connected to a MacBook, and I have NO reason why that should be the case). It was a very fast system (dual core AMD with fast NVidia graphics) under Windows, and very "blah" under OS X. So I abandoned that system and replaced it with a real Mac.

I knew what a real Mac experience was like because I had a Mac already. But for those who are trying to get a Mac-for-cheap, Apple has no control over the end-user experience.

This is what Apple is trying to protect over-and-above the net dollars that they might lose on hardware.

It's about controlling the BRAND.

[Eric S.]

Is it a coincidence that the X-Files movie was just released on DVD? I think not ...

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Hasn't Apple convinced everybody by now that there's no market for a mid-range tower? :rolleyes:

[gnasher729]

SIMPLY NOT TRUE (except in your own mind).

The court only decided that the case had merits and would not be thrown out.

BIG DIFFERENCE from the EULA being tested in a court of law.

That has NOT happened. This case has NOT even gone to trial yet!

And EULA's don't often get tested and I would bet the farm Apple doesn't want theirs to go to trial either, just like MOST corporations don't want such egregious licensing arrangements to be court tested. Why take the enormous risk? It's just that simple. Apple has so much MORE to lose here.

You may have missed the 400+ posting thread about Psystar's counterclaims being thrown out. In the decision (which is freely available if you can be bothered to look for it), the judge made very clear that a. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the MacOS X market. b. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the market for MacOS X compatible computers. c. Apple has the right to decide whether to license MacOS X, who to license it to, and under which conditions to license it. d. Apple has the right to license MacOS X under terms that only allow installation on an Apple computer.

Now if you are so sure that Apple doesn't want this case to go to a trial, what is your explanation that Apple has gone to the court and asked for a trial?

[IJ Reilly]

You may have missed the 400+ posting thread about Psystar's counterclaims being thrown out. In the decision (which is freely available if you can be bothered to look for it), the judge made very clear that a. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the MacOS X market. b. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the market for MacOS X compatible computers. c. Apple has the right to decide whether to license MacOS X, who to license it to, and under which conditions to license it. d. Apple has the right to license MacOS X under terms that only allow installation on an Apple computer.

Now if you are so sure that Apple doesn't want this case to go to a trial, what is your explanation that Apple has gone to the court and asked for a trial?

I am actually surprised that Apple hasn't filed a motion for a summary judgement, since it appears that Psystar's entire defense has already been shredded.

[gnasher729]

I haven't read through this whole thread, so could someone help me out? Why is Pystar winning this case such a bad thing?

The problem is that what Psystar is trying to pull off is deeply anti-competitive and against everything that a free market is supposed to be.

Apple has the copyright for MacOS X. That didn't happen by coincidence; it happened because Apple paid $400 million for NeXT and invested many, many years of hundreds of developers to improve on it. This is called competition: You invest money and effort to produce a product that people want to buy. The same thing that Dell does, except that Dell doesn't concentrate on adding the best possible software to their computers, but on keeping the prices as low as possible.

This kind of competition gave you Macs with a very nice operating system, and Dells that are very affordable. But the system only works because a company can rely on being awarded for their efforts and not being ripped off. Dell wouldn't build a plant where they build cheap computers if Apple could just waltz in and say "Sorry Michael, this plant is now ours, and we use it to build Macs really cheaply". And Apple wouldn't invest all that effort into MacOS X if Dell could walk in and say "Sorry Steve, all Dell computers now ship with MacOS X as well".

But that is what Psystar is trying to do: Instead of competing, they try to rip off Apple. There are plenty of operating systems around that they can install on their computers, completely legally because the copyright holder allows it. And there is one operating system that the copyright holder uses as a competitive advantage, created at huge effort, and that the copyright holder doesn't allow them to license, and that is MacOS X. If Psystar wants an operating system that is better than Windows or Linux, they'll have to write their own one, just as Apple did.

[G4scott]

Here's why licensing the OS would be a terrible idea...

I'm using a Dell M1530 at work with Windows XP (which is not supported by Dell on this computer...). Recently, my internet connection has been randomly dropping out. Nobody else on the network has the issue but me. What's the problem? Who knows? It could be gnomes in my laptop screwing with the connection for all I know. Because Microsoft doesn't control what devices it's using, it can't help me diagnose the problem other than suggesting the hardware could be the problem. Because Intel doesn't make the OS, they can't tell me if it's an OS issue.

I love using my Mac because I didn't have to scour the internet for drivers just to get the dang thing to work.

Licensing the OS for anyone to install on any machine would be a tech support nightmare. There would be so many issues with people expecting things to be 'easier', when in fact, they would be just as bad as they were with windows.

Let the people who want to buy PCs stick with Windows or Linux (talk about a configuration nightmare!) They probably know what they're doing, or can manage to get their computer to a point where it is usable to them.

My question to this whole Psystar thing is WHY?

There doesn't seem to be any way for them to turn a profit and not have it snatched up by Apple's lawyers.

[rockdog]

Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Corporate shenanigans happen all the time.

[pdjudd]

Is it a coincidence that the X-Files movie was just released on DVD? I think not ...

I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Hasn't Apple convinced everybody by now that there's no market for a mid-range tower? :rolleyes:

I am actually surprised that Apple hasn't filed a motion for a summary judgement, since it appears that Psystar's entire defense has already been shredded.

My guess is that Apple is more interested in Psystar buckling before a trial happens so that they not only loose, but cannot return. Apple has the resources to wait and I don't think Psystar does.

Possibility two: Apple wants to make a point and say "we don't tolerate cloners" and wants that message to hit as hard as possible. A settlement has a chance of confidentiality attatched to it, but a court decision is going to get alot more press.

[HyperZboy]

You may have missed the 400+ posting thread about Psystar's counterclaims being thrown out. In the decision (which is freely available if you can be bothered to look for it), the judge made very clear that a. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the MacOS X market. b. Apple doesn't have a monopoly in the market for MacOS X compatible computers. c. Apple has the right to decide whether to license MacOS X, who to license it to, and under which conditions to license it. d. Apple has the right to license MacOS X under terms that only allow installation on an Apple computer.

Now if you are so sure that Apple doesn't want this case to go to a trial, what is your explanation that Apple has gone to the court and asked for a trial?

Yes, I skipped through the 400+ stupid fanboy Apple cheering posts conveniently for the sake of my sanity.

FACT #1: This case has NOT been decided in any way shape or form so the fanboys cheering, while humorous, has reached annoying heights.

FACT #2: Only PSYSTAR's weak at best countersuit was thrown out, which in no way means Apple is guaranteed to win their case.

FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2

Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.

So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial, but they've just been unable to settle with PSYSTAR for what they believe are suspicious reasons.

I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see. :D

[LeoNobilis]

With Apple only producing a limited number of models in a limited price range, the pressure is on everyone to make a Mac Clone. They just needed to do it in a little better way...

I would like to have a Mac Clone laptop with FW.



Be prudent to ask yourself: 'Why is the OS X so affordable (in monetary terms)", for I assure you that to attain the finesse of the UI (and whatnot!) specific to the OS X and Apple's software in general would necessitate superior resources as and expertise compared to the effort and resources put into making Windoze OS. The same goes for the hardware. For justice's sake, if Macbooks cost €500,-, your low-end Dell would have to cost €100,- or less! Actually, less, else it would make no sense! But you'd complain still...
If you ask me, Apple computers are too affordable and therefore too popular, but not enough for you it seems...

That the cheapest Mac costs only twice as much as the cheapest PeeCee (the inferior hardware specifications alone should suffice an explanation - and I haven't yet started on the GUI, stability, design (in a broad sense, including the choice of material used)) must cause your delight, but you nag nonetheless!..

"Cheap-cheap-cheap-cheap!.." - you want cheap, then have cheap quality! What do you expect?

[gnasher729]

I would just FREAKING LOVE for Apple to find out for sure it was a big company (a Dell or even better, Microsoft) -- and to sue them and the court's demand Gates/Ballmer to pay Steve a HUMONGOUS chunk of change.

That is something I find overall confusing.

I think it is quite clear that this is not some guys who want to make a bit of money by ripping off Apple. If that was what they had wanted, they would have been a lot less obnoxious to swim under Apple's radar, like the x86 crowd. And they so don't have the slightest chance to survive the court case that I can't imagine Microsoft or Dell being behind this; the whole thing is just too stupid. Dell might have sponsored this if there had been any chance to win the case, but there isn't, and Dell employs some real lawyers that would have told them.

The most reasonable explanation I can come up with is that the plan was to annoy Apple enough to get bought out and get paid off. But that doesn't work with Apple (or with IBM, as SCO found out). Their lawyers must have cost more by now than two guys in garage could afford to spend, so there must be some medium sized amount of money somewhere behind it sponsoring it.

Apple wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.

Maybe Apple just followed my reasoning and concluded that two guys in a garage couldn't have paid for these lawyers. And since the case must be quite annoying to Apple, they want the people behind it to be hung, quartered, and violently separated from their money so that nobody else gets the idea to mess with Apple. Plus the DMCA act opens the possibility of criminal charges.

[LeoNobilis]

Yes, I skipped through the 400+ stupid fanboy Apple cheering posts conveniently for the sake of my sanity.

FACT #1: This case has NOT been decided in any way shape or form so the fanboys cheering, while humorous, has reached annoying heights.

FACT #2: Only PSYSTAR's weak at best countersuit was thrown out, which in no way means Apple is guaranteed to win their case.

FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2

Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these crazy conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.

So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial.

I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see. :D


"Fanboys"... why don't you instead type the word for a two-page long sequence to soothe your satisfaction having therewith expressed exactly what you want to express? Or, better yet, be inventive, go get a thesaurus and look up for synonyms for "fanboy" (if you manage to find any... except for 'zealot": that one, too, has been used by Windoze-community quite broadly, hasn't it?)? And you, Windoze fanboy? How would one name you, then? Pick a different term, devise one yourself, or engage yourself in more sound contemplations here...

[pdjudd]

Yes, I skipped through the 400+ stupid fanboy Apple cheering posts conveniently for the sake of my sanity.
If you refuse to read prior discussion, you deserve to be criticized when you find that your points have already been discussed and dismissed. Ad hominum attacks don't serve you well either.

FACT #1: This case has NOT been decided in any way shape or form so the fanboys cheering, while humorous, has reached annoying heights.

I find people spouting complete nonsense to justify willful violation of licenses bothersome as well. Point?

FACT #2: Only PSYSTAR's weak at best countersuit was thrown out, which in no way means Apple is guaranteed to win their case.
And what argument does Psystar have to justify the claims that Apple contends - The only one we have heard was shot down and the Judge re-affirmed Apple's rights - the heart of Psystars clone argument. Please read the prior cases and the relivant posts on this forum from people like Matticus (who is a lawyer) and understand that Psystar's only defence that they have asserted was quashed. Unless they make another assertion, we are left with the fefault assumption - no defence.

FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2

THe dismissal was really big in helping Apple in their claims against Psystar - my brief reading of the summary made that very clear,

Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these crazy conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.

See the dismissal summary, it would stil violate Apple's trademarks - a Judge has allready affirmed that Apple's business model is perfectly legal.

The only thing that can change this is an appeal - and I haven't heard Psystar amking any such appeal.

[pdjudd]

Maybe Apple just followed my reasoning and concluded that two guys in a garage couldn't have paid for these lawyers. And since the case must be quite annoying to Apple, they want the people behind it to be hung, quartered, and violently separated from their money so that nobody else gets the idea to mess with Apple. Plus the DMCA act opens the possibility of criminal charges.

That is what I figured as well - a long time ago. All it took was me asking "How can Psystar - a no name company, afford to keep fighting a multi-billion dollar company like they have been doing." Admittedly, their legal prowess is pretty bad, but I figured that somebody is supporting them. Anybody else with simple business sense would be.

[milatchi]

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...
Yeah, but Apple can't kick in my door, slam my face against the desk, and tell me what I can and can't do with my copy of OS X, a copy that I own.

And I want the guts of a Ferrari in my Toyota. It certainly doesn't cost the premium that Ferrari charges to actually make those engines and components ... why won't Ferrari just open up and license their technology?
It's just not fair! ;)
I agree.

OS X exists to sell Macs. If Apple licenses OS X, the price of the OS will go up EXPONENTIALLY.
I never thought of it that way. The software subsidized by the hardware's price. Oh, and it's been a long time grue :-)

[jbernie]

Except I think Ferrari builds their own engines in-house. Someone correct me if I am wrong. And they are not obligated to sell their engines to wanna-be companies.

You could potentially ask Ferrari to be an engine supplier for your company just as companies like Ford, GM, Mercerdes Benz etc supply engines to other smaller companies for niche vehicles. That being said generally those engines are not provided to a direct competitor.

You can actually buy Ferrari F1 engines, but generally these are two generations old or more so that Ferrari doesn't sell current engine secrets to competitors.

You can also buy regular Ferrari egnines. Though you might be getting them from a wrecked car :)


As I saw someone post a quick blurb on another site, this is likely against the OSX86 people, or whatever they're called-- the ones who cracked OSX to run on regular machines in the first place. Without them, Psystar could not have loaded the machines with OS X in the first place.

And without realizing it, Psystar may have just made several "innocent" individuals who were trying to do something they thought fun into complicit criminals.

If Apple didn't go after this group, it's argument against Psystar would fall apart in court. Good luck, guys! Sounds like you'll need it.

Unfortunately those "innocent" people are just as guilty as Psystar, their only saving grace to now may have been they weren't doing it for profit (?). Violating the EULA and installing OSX on a non Apple system is illegal regardless of whether you do it for profit or not.

[pdjudd]

Yeah, but Apple can't kick in my door, slam my face against the desk, and tell me what I can and can't do with my copy of OS X, a copy that I own.

For starters you do not own it - you license it. Big difference. And theoretically, yes they can go after you (although not in the matter you describe). However, the chances of them doing that is practically nill - the amount of effort and reward is just not enough.

However you are simply making another irrelevant point and throwing a red herring. This case is not about you the end user - it is about the actions of a business (Psystar). The EULA of OSX is immaterial in this case. Please read the relivant threads and the case filings where this has been stated repeatidly.

[robotnik]

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

you tool. they're not breaking copyright by installing it on their compatible comps. i go to the store, buy a box of leopard, and no one will tell me where i can install it. i dont sign an agreement upon purchase saying i will install it on what apple desires. this is a bigger issue. you are clueless. :D

[Nano-tube]

I say Dell are behind these guys.

If Psystar will be able to beat apple in court, Dell will be able to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed. Michael Dell said before that he would be happy to do so.

The truth is that it stank to high heaven from the very beginning.
Psystar is just a front in my opinion and I agree with Apple on this one.

[joebu21]

Doesn't Alice say "curiouser and curiouser"

[dejo]

i dont sign an agreement upon purchase saying i will install it on what apple desires. this is a bigger issue. you are clueless. :D
You don't sign something and you don't do it upon purchase but you do agree to it before you can install. So, who's clueless?

[IJ Reilly]

My guess is that Apple is more interested in Psystar buckling before a trial happens so that they not only loose, but cannot return. Apple has the resources to wait and I don't think Psystar does.

Possibility two: Apple wants to make a point and say "we don't tolerate cloners" and wants that message to hit as hard as possible. A settlement has a chance of confidentiality attatched to it, but a court decision is going to get alot more press.

These theories are a good as any. Maybe they want to make Psystar an example -- though at the risk of turning them into a martyr. I suppose Apple would get much the same impact with less risk by successfully moving for a summary judgement, which would be the judge telling Psystar that they came into court with nothing. I'm no lawyer, but I believe a lawyer might say that's even more humiliating than losing after a trial.

[skunk]

Doesn't Alice say "curiouser and curiouser"This has been pointed out several times already, but in fact the article says "as Alice in Wonderland might put it", making it clear that it is not meant to be a quotation but a play on the use of a doubtful comparative.

[dgtlchild]

It was... Kind of funny when people misquote books.

My money is on the RAND Corporation in conjunction with the saucer people and reverse vampire... It make perfect sense.

The author noted that this is something Alice *might* say as a way of indirectly referencing the original quote. Kind of funny when people don't get the jokes.

BTW - I heard somewhere that Psystar was also behind those so-called "Moon Landings" starting in the late 60s.

Interestinger and Interestinger.

EDIT: Sorry, Skunk - didn't see your post directly above before adding my $.02!

[Maxington]

I smell a rat...

...time to drop the hammer on Pystar!

[tcgjeukens]

Poor Apple !

Apparently :apple: tried to pull the "me big, you small" on Psystar and failed to impress them. Sad to hear that :apple: needs a conspiracy theory to prove its "right".

Even more sad to see development and innovation dollars to be rerouted to lawyers.
:apple: please continue making more of those great products. Enlarge your competetive advantage and drain competitor resources in stead of looking back.

Do give me firewire, blu-ray support and snow leopard.

[IJ Reilly]

This has been pointed out several times already, but in fact the article says "as Alice in Wonderland might put it", making it clear that it is not meant to be a quotation but a play on the use of a doubtful comparative.

Or as Alice might also have put it, "four score and twenty years ago, our forefathers..."

[JG271]

It does make sense. They've got to have a fair amount of funding for all the things that they offer, and if the rumor that they're working on a laptop is true that would cost a load in r+d. I doubt its anyone well known, unfortunately!

[cab91]

If Pystar wins, what would prevent Apple from changing the pricing of OSX? As mentioned in earlier posts, they could charge say, $1000 for a copy of it, but not pass that cost along into their hardware line to prevent other companies (Dell, HP, etc.) from undercutting their pricing. But I think that they could also drop the price to $129 if you buy it at an Apple Store AND get it installed by a Mac Genius so that actual Mac owners, and ONLY Mac owners, could still upgrade their OS relatively inexpensively. I don’t know if Apple could really do this, and I’m sure it would piss off a lot of Mac owners who don’t live close to an Apple Store, but it would prevent other companies from being able to sell OSX on PCs for less money than a Mac, while still allowing Mac owners to upgrade.

Also, I think that the unnamed defendants might just be people involved in the OSX86 Project. I don’t think that Apple really wants to go after everyone that makes their own Hackintosh. I don’t think that they really care that much about people doing it themselves at home. But, if this is the case, maybe they just want to give people that know how to do it, an incentive (ie. being named as a defendant in a lawsuit, leading to possible fines) to not show others how to do it.

That being said, I don’t think that Apple really has a lot to lose in this case. If they lose it, they can just alter their pricing structure to negate the outcome. But if they win, they have the chance to prevent anyone from even attempting to stand up to them in the future.

[pdjudd]

If Pystar wins, what would prevent Apple from changing the pricing of OSX?

A valid question (remember this is not about an EULA really) and the answer is "nothing" All that would happen is that Apple would sell future versions of their OS through system specific upgrade discs (like the drop-in discs that are placed in systems sold between OS revisions) or through iTunes in some fashion that can only be done on a real Mac. I don't think in store is practical for businesses unless they have an on-site option...

In summary, Apple would just change how OSX is sold so that it cannot be interpreted or purchased as a "full version" by anybody purchasing it. Remember, the Judge has already said that Apple can sell OSX the way it currently is - nothing psystar can do will change that ruling at this point.

[grue]

Wouldn't "pandering to trendtards" kinda include following the current hot trend to offer a netbook?

Netbooks are a fair bit smaller than what I'm hoping for ;)

[grue]

I never thought of it that way. The software subsidized by the hardware's price. Oh, and it's been a long time grue :-)

:D

How's it goin'?

[HyperZboy]

It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here and arguing over legal minutiae and missing my points. I'm not defending PSYSTAR, and they will certainly lose at least part of this case and already have had their case thrown out. But, clearly Apple still has more to lose ultimately since nothing is settled.

My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did minus their stupid blunders or just SELL Mac OS X and a PC and the software to install it YOURSELF and it then would be difficult for Apple to stop it since there would then be a legal precedent. The decisions made so far in this case do not preclude that from happening, they only allow Apple's case to go forward and PSYSTAR's countersuit to be thrown out and right now nothing is settled. It's still possible for Apple to win the vast majority of the battles, put PSYSTAR out of business, but ultimately, still open up the door for others to follow in PSYSTAR's footsteps. Let's face it, this company did some stupid things.

I realize it scares many people here, the idea of Mac clones, but having used an Apple computer since 1983, I've even used SuperMacs and PowerComputing machines before and back then they were better machines for the money than what Apple was offering.

Now times have changed. Apple's products are so much better than back then.
I really don't think these clones pose a serious threat to Apple at this point nor will that many sell and I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.

I for one cannot WAIT to find out who, if anybody, is behind PSYSTAR. :D

[gnasher729]

Unfortunately those "innocent" people are just as guilty as Psystar, their only saving grace to now may have been they weren't doing it for profit (?). Violating the EULA and installing OSX on a non Apple system is illegal regardless of whether you do it for profit or not.

I asked about that on Groklaw: When you buy a box with Leopard, you pay for the cardboard box, for the DVD, and the biggest amount of money is payment for the license. The EULA states not only that you have no license to install Leopard on a Psystar computer, but also that violating the license _terminates_ the license. So once Psystar installs Leopard on their computers, that particular box has lost its license, forever. At that point, not only is the copy on the Psystar box illegal, installing the software on a proper Macintosh would also be illegal.

These theories are a good as any. Maybe they want to make Psystar an example -- though at the risk of turning them into a martyr. I suppose Apple would get much the same impact with less risk by successfully moving for a summary judgement, which would be the judge telling Psystar that they came into court with nothing. I'm no lawyer, but I believe a lawyer might say that's even more humiliating than losing after a trial.

I think summary judgement would not be possible at this stage. Summary judgement only happens when the judge can decide based on "undisputed facts". At the moment, Psystar claims they are not committing any copyright infringement; so Apple will need discovery to prove it. At the very least, the judge would need a number how many Psystar computers have been sold with MacOS X installed.

[HyperZboy]

I asked about that on Groklaw: When you buy a box with Leopard, you pay for the cardboard box, for the DVD, and the biggest amount of money is payment for the license. The EULA states not only that you have no license to install Leopard on a Psystar computer, but also that violating the license _terminates_ the license. So once Psystar installs Leopard on their computers, that particular box has lost its license, forever. At that point, not only is the copy on the Psystar box illegal, installing the software on a proper Macintosh would also be illegal.

We shall see if that EULA holds up in court. I suspect it will not. Right now, it's undecided.
PSYSTAR suing Apple and Apple suing PSYSTAR are 2 different things.

The later is undecided. People keep forgetting that.

What's next? You can't buy a FORD engine and install it in a Chevy without being arrested, sued, or having the car mod shop shut down? Wouldn't some of that EULA be against the right of fair use?

I think this is the reason Apple will NOT want this stuff tested in court.

[ChrisA]

FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2

Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.

So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial, but they've just been unable to settle with PSYSTAR for what they believe are suspicious reasons.

I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see. :D

I agree with you. Apple has a lot to loose and nothing to gain by going to trail. While Psystar has nothing, to loose and a lot to gain

Psystar's business plan all along was never to make money by selling cheap computers at near cost. No, they were hoping to be sued by Apple and win at least some nugget. Maybe all they need to do is have a court invalidate a few paragraphs of the Apple's EULA. That might be Psystar's entire reason for being.

Some of those EULA terms are just plain nuts and may likely be invalided but just maybe Psystar can hit the jackpot and claim "first sale".

"First sale" basically means that if you buy something it's yours and the guy who sold it to you now longer owns it. I reasonable person might think "first sale" applies to a physical retail boxed copy of Mac OS X.

Then there is the question about contracts. The EULA is a contract but there is this silly legal rule that says BOTH parties must agree to a contract before it is binding on them. With a EULA you have no realistic option to disagree. Just try and return an opened box of software.

So Apple just might loose on a few small points or a few larger points.

Likely Apple's lawyers know all this and REALLY, REALLY do NOT want a trail and have offered to buy out Psystar for truckloads of cash and were surprised when the cash was declined. Likely Psystar's real owners are so rich they don't want a puny little truckload of cash. Who might that be? I'm guessing ... someone like Lenovo? Compaq? I don't know. I'm sure some of the big PC makers are just hating the fact that they have only ONE operating system supplier and would like a choice of suppliers.

[BaldiMac]

It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here and arguing over legal minutiae and missing my points. I'm not defending PSYSTAR, and they will certainly lose at least part of this case and already have had their case thrown out. But, clearly Apple still has more to lose ultimately since nothing is settled.

My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did minus their stupid blunders or just SELL Mac OS X and a PC and the software to install it YOURSELF and it then would be difficult for Apple to stop it since there would then be a legal precedent. The decisions made so far in this case do not preclude that from happening, they only allow Apple's case to go forward and PSYSTAR's countersuit to be thrown out and right now nothing is settled. It's still possible for Apple to win the vast majority of the battles, put PSYSTAR out of business, but ultimately, still open up the door for others to follow in PSYSTAR's footsteps. Let's face it, this company did some stupid things.

I realize it scares many people here, the idea of Mac clones, but having used an Apple computer since 1983, I've even used SuperMacs and PowerComputing machines before and back then they were better machines for the money than what Apple was offering.

Now times have changed. Apple's products are so much better than back then.
I really don't think these clones pose a serious threat to Apple at this point nor will that many sell and I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.

I for one cannot WAIT to find out who, if anybody, is behind PSYSTAR. :D

Two things.

1. If some parts of the EULA are tossed in your scenario, nothing would stop Apple from rewriting their EULA. I can't imagine any scenario where the court forces Apple to license its software to Psystar and others.

2. Apple has the most to gain from winning this trial, not a settlement. Winning would likely end any commercial cloning. Losing would likely cause them to rework their EULA slightly. Not a big risk.

[pdjudd]

We shall see if that EULA holds up in court.

I don't know how many times I can say this - the case that Apple is asserting up does not involve the EULA at all. This case involves trademark and breech of contract. Psystar cannot argue the EULA as invalid - they are not an end user and cannot accept it as a business entity. The only legal license they can accept is one granted to them from Apple that they have not obtained.

Any discussion about Apple's sales of OS X being illegal were already addressed in Pystar suit which was dismissed. The judge already ruled that Apple's sales of OSX were fine.

People keep bringing up the EULA - Apple is not arguing their EULA directly and even if they were - it can simoply be modified by Apple at any point (sicne they own the IP). It does not apply in this case.

[Speedtoy]

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

What is this apple tax?

Is that what jealous people say when they cant afford a powerful laptop or desktop machine than $900 will get ya?

[matticus008]

It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here [...] My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did
The "big picture" isn't what you make it out to be, is the issue. There's not exacting a deep gulf of unknowns here. The antitrust claim was their one shot at nullifying the platform restriction, and it's gone now. What other provision at issue do you feel might be found unenforceable and thus allow this scenario of yours to take place?
I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.
Ascertaining the identity of the financiers and naming them in an unsealed pleading is not the posture of trial avoidance. Once the information is disclosed, the financial backers have no incentive to settle because their cover's blown. Finding the full pockets behind the asset-less corporation is something you do when you're out for blood and want to make sure to get a judgment against someone who can pay.
I agree with you. Apple has a lot to loose and nothing to gain by going to trail. While Psystar has nothing, to loose and a lot to gain
That much is certain.
Some of those EULA terms are just plain nuts and may likely be invalided but just maybe Psystar can hit the jackpot and claim "first sale". "First sale" basically means that if you buy something it's yours and the guy who sold it to you now longer owns it. I reasonable person might think "first sale" applies to a physical retail boxed copy of Mac OS X.
You can't "claim" "first sale". First sale is an exclusive right of a manufacturer. The First Sale Doctrine is a limitation on the rights of a copyright owner. It does apply to copies of OS X. But DFS is an exhaustion rule--the right of first sale is with the original owner, after which the sold interest is exhausted. It does not under any distortion of reality, however, ever give you ownership of more than you purchased. It gives you the right to transfer your interest to someone else without the copyright owner's permission, but only the specific rights and their associated restrictions possessed by you, the first buyer, can be transferred to someone else.
The EULA is a contract but there is this silly legal rule that says BOTH parties must agree to a contract before it is binding on them.
Assent is not an issue with click-through agreements; manifestation of assent is unequivocal. You're conflating two different kinds of license agreements here--assent is the critical missing element in shrinkwrap licenses, which are quite uncommon these days.
With a EULA you have no realistic option to disagree. Just try and return an opened box of software.
One has nothing to do with the other. The big, shiny disagree button is quite real. Difficulty obtaining a refund from a retailer is a separate matter, and one easily avoided by reading the terms in advance. Even absent that, all it takes is a written demand CCed to the publisher if the retailer refuses to comply.
I don't know how many times I can say this - the case that Apple is asserting up does not involve the EULA at all.
This is patently untrue. Apple's main thrust is based on their license agreement. If you want to be technical about it, there is no "EULA" for OS X. Apple's SLAs are not limited to end users. And the SLA is far from not applying--it's the textual basis of this case. The other claims are ancillary, and all stem from the primary infringing act: asserting rights outside those granted by the owner.

[kas23]

That's not the point. Psystar is illegally using Apple's brands and trademarks. They cannot do this. The courts have already rules that Apple faces competition in the market. Heck, Psystar has asserted that point that users have an option of Windows and other *nix systems. Apple has plenty of competiton.

This case is about trademark infringement and breech of contract (I think that is still being asserted.

Yes, it may be illegal, but that's up to the courts to decide - not necessarily the public to decide. And, even if it is illegal, I'm not going to sit here and righteously state that I don't do anything "illegal." Haven't you ever sped in your car before or downloaded copyrighted material of the internet (like a music album)? I'm just glad no one is getting hurt by this.

This is between Apple, Pystar, and the courts. People shouldn't be getting so upidy about it. If Pystar wins, I think it a win for the consumer, a win for capitalism. I love Apple products and will always buy their products (no matter if clones come out or not), but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears about a multi-billion dollar corporation losing to a dinky company trying to make money (just as Apple is doing).

[kas23]

And quite possibly a very bad OS X experience (due to lack of support).

As soon as people start using a Psystar desktop, for example, and hacked drivers for unsupported cards, they may very well have a bad OS X experience, and blame it on OS X.

Yeah, it would be a crappy experience. But, doesn't Apple just have to say that you need Mac hardware to run this OS. Apple can simply say "well, it's not working right because you have the wrong hardware." They could probably force to place this disclaimer on every box.

I think that Apple selling OS X at $100-$200 a pop will make them more money in the long run. There are plenty of people out there not even touching an Apple do their prohibitive pricing. These are the people who are not going to buy a Mac anyways - thus Apple has no way of getting any money from them right now. At least with selling OS X, they could be getting $100-$200 dollars off of them.

[NT1440]

Yeah, it would be a crappy experience. But, doesn't Apple just have to say that you need Mac hardware to run this OS. Apple can simply say "well, it's not working right because you have the wrong hardware." They could probably force to place this disclaimer on every box.


:rolleyes:

And the lawsuits and bitching would be endless.

[IJ Reilly]

I think summary judgement would not be possible at this stage. Summary judgement only happens when the judge can decide based on "undisputed facts". At the moment, Psystar claims they are not committing any copyright infringement; so Apple will need discovery to prove it. At the very least, the judge would need a number how many Psystar computers have been sold with MacOS X installed.

I'm unsure. I believe typically once one side in a lawsuit has (apparently) exhausted their legal theories, the other side at least files a motion of summary judgement. They may not get it, but I think they normally file the motion; if it's denied, it gives them some idea what the judge may be thinking about the facts and law potentially still to be decided. It can also put the other side on the defensive and require them to make legal arguments to the judge that they might have preferred to reserve for trial. Could well be wrong about this though. If we've got any attorneys present, they might offer to fill in the details.

[PaThKu]

I don't think Psystar is mis-using Apple's tradmark. Apple is not claiming they are.

I have written here many times that I'm absolutely sure it was Psystar's intent from day one to let Apple sue them. They were just baiting Apple. Why? It's a gamble. and a not so good gamble for Apple. Apple is the only one who has anything to loose. Psystar has nothing to loose, no assets. But if they win they win big. Why not take a gamble if there is nothing to loose?

Psystar's goal is NOT to make money by selling cheap PCs at near cost. No what they want is a win in court that would alow them to sell clones. Owning that would make the company very valuable and they could then sell the company (with it's judgment) to Dell, Compaq or whoever.

I agree. I don't think that Psystar and its possible co-conspirators were ever in it for the money. I don't think they could get any money from Apple, as Apple never wronged them. The only thing that they can do to Apple would to have the courts force Apple to expand it's market, so whoever is behind Psystar just wants to make some radical changes to the computing world.

One question though: Why can Apple make computers that run OS X and Windows, but others cant make systems with OS X? Couldn't MS do something to prevent Windows on Macs?

[IJ Reilly]

One question though: Why can Apple make computers that run OS X and Windows, but others cant make systems with OS X? Couldn't MS do something to prevent Windows on Macs?

This question has been asked and answered a hundred times already.

The reason is, simply, because Microsoft licenses Windows to hardware manufacturers and Apple does not. Microsoft could not suddenly decide to license Windows to some hardware manufacturers and not others. That would be an antitrust violation.

[matticus008]

If Pystar wins, I think it a win for the consumer, a win for capitalism.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this thought. It's a pyrrhic victory for the consumer on the whole and a certain loss for Apple customers. A hypothetical, fantasy island Psystar victory would have exactly one consequence: Apple changing its OS X distribution model. This is Apple we're talking about. They're not going to roll over. And how on earth is it a win for capitalism?

Capitalism fundamentally requires an owner to have complete control over that which he produces, and the full freedom to divest it however he pleases, with whatever combination of lease, license, sale, or exchange under any terms he wants. Capitalism is inherently consumer-unfriendly, in theory canceled out by the need for market efficiency. Consumers have no "rights" to exercise against sellers, because they are by definition the party purchasing rights. Consumer power lies solely in their possession of money to give away.

[stormj]

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

You don't know what a trademark is, apparently, so it's unlikely you would understand.

As for suggesting there are conspirators, etc., well, that's just legal boilerplate. I put it in filings all the time. I doesn't mean anything; it just looks like it does.

[stormj]

Two things.

1. If some parts of the EULA are tossed in your scenario, nothing would stop Apple from rewriting their EULA. I can't imagine any scenario where the court forces Apple to license its software to Psystar and others.

2. Apple has the most to gain from winning this trial, not a settlement. Winning would likely end any commercial cloning. Losing would likely cause them to rework their EULA slightly. Not a big risk.

The point would be that the kind of provision that is included in the EULA is unenforceable as a matter of law. So it wouldn't be a forced licensing, and rewriting it wouldn't make it more legal.

Seriously, some of you. Go get a law degree, pass the bar, practice intellectual property law for a few years and then call me in the morning.

[albusseverus]

What some people seem to be forgetting is that it's Apple that is making PC clones now, not the other way around.

Does anyone go running to Microsoft if Windows has problems running on their Mac? It's not Microsoft's problem.

Psystar has been a 'model' cheap-Mac-hardware vendor. Apple doesn't support them, but they support their product 100%.

Any dispute about OS X running on non-Apple hardware is between the purchaser and the company from which they purchased the 'package', not with Apple.

[NT1440]

What some people seem to be forgetting is that it's Apple that is making PC clones now, not the other way around.

Does anyone go running to Microsoft if Windows has problems running on their Mac? It's not Microsoft's problem.

Psystar has been a 'model' cheap-Mac-hardware vendor. Apple doesn't support them, but they support their product 100%.

Any dispute about OS X running on non-Apple hardware is between the purchaser and the company from which they purchased the 'package', not with Apple.

No they dont, something is different with psystars product, hence why you cant install OSX from the restore disc yourself.

[stormj]

I'm unsure. I believe typically once one side in a lawsuit has (apparently) exhausted their legal theories, the other side at least files a motion of summary judgement. They may not get it, but I think they normally file the motion; if it's denied, it gives them some idea what the judge may be thinking about the facts and law potentially still to be decided. It can also put the other side on the defensive and require them to make legal arguments to the judge that they might have preferred to reserve for trial. Could well be wrong about this though. If we've got any attorneys present, they might offer to fill in the details.

You are wrong.

Apple is the Plaintiff. Anyway, a summary judgment motion means that uncontested facts applied to law can resolve all (or part) of a case. It's more often successful for defendants.

Apple already got Psystar's *counter*-complaint dismissed; they were the cross-defendant in that one.

Anyway, any attorney who bills by the hour will try to file an MSJ if they can, but anyway, this case is really all about the enforceability of the SLA, the contents of which aren't really in dispute.

Psystar should have just made the computer and shut up. You can just sell a computer that magically happens to have all the right components not use apple's marks or sell their software with the intent of people putting apple's **** on them.

If that weren't the case, Apple could sue Dell for making the laptop I have run OS X.

And the conspiracy allegations are just boilerplate. Chill.

[IJ Reilly]

What some people seem to be forgetting is that it's Apple that is making PC clones now, not the other way around.

By who's or what definition?

Does anyone go running to Microsoft if Windows has problems running on their Mac? It's not Microsoft's problem.

Psystar has been a 'model' cheap-Mac-hardware vendor. Apple doesn't support them, but they support their product 100%.

Any dispute about OS X running on non-Apple hardware is between the purchaser and the company from which they purchased the 'package', not with Apple.

You are confusing Microsoft's approach to selling operating systems with Apple's approach to selling computers. They are very different businesses. Apple cannot be forced to adopt Microsoft's business model simply because some people would find it convenient for them to do so.

[IJ Reilly]

You are wrong.

Apple is the Plaintiff. Anyway, a summary judgment motion means that uncontested facts applied to law can resolve all (or part) of a case. It's more often successful for defendants.

Apple already got Psystar's *counter*-complaint dismissed; they were the cross-defendant in that one.

Anyway, any attorney who bills by the hour will try to file an MSJ if they can, but anyway, this case is really all about the enforceability of the SLA, the contents of which aren't really in dispute.

Psystar should have just made the computer and shut up. You can just sell a computer that magically happens to have all the right components not use apple's marks or sell their software with the intent of people putting apple's **** on them.

If that weren't the case, Apple could sue Dell for making the laptop I have run OS X.

And the conspiracy allegations are just boilerplate. Chill.

I understand that Apple is the plaintiff, and that a summary judgement is more often successful for defendants. The reason I brought this up is because the judge completely rejected Psystar's arguments in their cross complaint, which appears to have gutted their entire defense. I am suggesting that Apple might file for summary judgment if only to find out if the judge thinks Psystar still has any legal theories worth entertaining.

Thanks, but I am already chilly. Practically freezing.

[Mr. Giver '94]

Bill Gates...I KNEW IT!!!!! He has sooo much free time now that he's ruined Windows (yet again) with Vista... :D

[slughead]

This is great news.

Oddly enough, it'd be best if Psystar wins. Why? Because that would basically unmake the DMCA!

Hope they win! Even if I'd never buy their products.

[pdjudd]

This is patently untrue. Apple's main thrust is based on their license agreement.
Only as far as breach of contract is concerned. I seriously doubt that Apple is going to let the courts decide on the legality of their EULA. They are of course going to use the SLA to say that Psystar violated the contract (one that really is non-existent). I think I have been explaining my point. This case doesn't concern the legality of Apple's EULA or SLA. I should have been more clear.

Of course we can agree that the defense that Psystar would make "the EULA is not valid" isn't going to fly - that train was derailed allready.

If you want to be technical about it, there is no "EULA" for OS X. Apple's SLAs are not limited to end users. And the SLA is far from not applying--it's the textual basis of this case. The other claims are ancillary, and all stem from the primary infringing act: asserting rights outside those granted by the owner.

I only use the words EULA because others have done so. It does apply, but I would say that it only goes so far as to say "Psystar broke a license it had no business even accepting in the first place". You are the lawyer of course, and I defer to your analysis simply because you are far better equipped to argue these things in the first place.

[matticus008]

At the moment, Psystar claims they are not committing any copyright infringement; so Apple will need discovery to prove it.
They've already stipulated to the reproduction. Apple's copyright registration brings with it a presumption of validity. The prima facie case of copyright infringement is therefore established and no additional Apple discovery is required on that claim. All that remains are Psystar's affirmative defenses--their negative defenses are gone, and they are infringing copyright unless Psystar can prove otherwise. As I said a few weeks ago, though, summary judgment remains premature here because of the extent of additional claims Apple is making. I would expect a partial SJ filing in the near future just to streamline the case and cut out a chunk of Psystar's crap.
I believe typically once one side in a lawsuit has (apparently) exhausted their legal theories, the other side at least files a motion of summary judgement.
Summary Judgment can happen at any time prior to a final judgment, in some cases essentially with the complaint. The exhaustion of arguments hasn't happened yet, but is not a reliable benchmark in any case because of the vagaries of burden shifting and the practical need to achieve SJ before this point. Psystar still has some 30-odd affirmative defenses, at least half of which don't actually make any sense, but they must still be disposed of. This seems contradictory because it is. SJ is a tricky beast. This case is not eligible yet for anything other than partial SJ.
They may not get it, but I think they normally file the motion; if it's denied, it gives them some idea what the judge may be thinking about the facts and law potentially still to be decided.
Standards for summary judgment are more rigorous than what would be required at trial, and so often create false negatives in response to the movant's arguments. Rejections sometimes help pinpoint the open questions, but usually don't, either because the rejection is terse or overcautious or because the open questions aren't unknown.
It can also put the other side on the defensive and require them to make legal arguments to the judge that they might have preferred to reserve for trial.
Not really. Contrary to TV, there are usually few to no surprises in an actual trial, and generally, any argument not introduced in the complaint or answer is off the table (this is why initial pleadings are as broad as possible). The non-movant's burden is slight--all they have to do is keep the door open by suggesting that there is a non-trivial possibility of them making their case. If the question is so close as to require effectively trying the whole thing, the motion will simply be denied as a matter of course, rather than taking the risk.

[pdjudd]

Oddly enough, it'd be best if Psystar wins. Why? Because that would basically unmake the DMCA!

Exactly how would a civil court decision invalidate a federal law?

[NT1440]

Bill Gates...I KNEW IT!!!!! He has sooo much free time now that he's ruined Windows (yet again) with Vista... :D

Actually im pretty sure its his LACK of involvment that may have contributed to the vista fiasco. He USED to be pretty involved in development and ideas, but not this go around (he was phasing himself out during xp too but something went right there).

[pdjudd]

All that remains are Psystar's affirmative defenses--their negative defenses are gone, and they are infringing copyright unless Psystar can prove otherwise.

This is the best summary of the current case I have yet to see. That is exactly what people are missing here and going about on ridiculous arguments trying to support Psystar. Unless they can prove they are not infringing copyright (which if I understand grorklaw, they kind of admit that Apple implements technical barriers to installing OSX on generic hardware that they have to get around). They have a huge mountain to climb and their gear just got repossessed. All they have is "we are right". That just aint good enough.

I appreciate all of the insight that you have provided thus far. You impress me with your arguments.

[domain]

We shall see if that EULA holds up in court. I suspect it will not. Right now, it's undecided.
PSYSTAR suing Apple and Apple suing PSYSTAR are 2 different things.

The later is undecided. People keep forgetting that.

What's next? You can't buy a FORD engine and install it in a Chevy without being arrested, sued, or having the car mod shop shut down? Wouldn't some of that EULA be against the right of fair use?

I think this is the reason Apple will NOT want this stuff tested in court.

EULA, EULA, EULA... blah blah blah.

I'm not sure why this is continually being argued... they need not even bother mentioning this, as I suspect they can win on the DMCA argument alone (it is very simple in nature). Pystar installs OSX, but OSX will not run on standard unmodified x86 hardware without software assisted emulation... therefore they have knowingly circumvented the "protection" mechanism (regardless of how trivial it is) that prevents installation from being allowed. To make things worse for themselves, they then distribute this modification, and for profit to boot... for better or worse this is most likely a violation of the law.

What troubles me is that everyone that is cheering for these idiots (and assuming they somehow miraculously fool the legal system) will only make Apple owner's lives that less friendly... OSX is fairly unencumbered by protections/internet activation requirements/remote "kill switch" type protections, and most of us would rather keep it that way. Push them into a corner however, and we may end up with another nightmare much like the Windows platform in these regards...

And... again IANAL, but actually I think your car analogy may be working against you there... Depending on were you live you might be in violation of the law, as you would have to tamper with the emission control systems on the vehicle to make that work.

[macsimcon]

[QUOTE=pdjudd;6708692]False. All of Apples Licensing agreements are readilly available on their website (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/). Here is one for Leopard (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)(Note PDF attachment) - plain old english on page one. And I found that out in 10 seconds of google search - it was the first link.

Right, but Apple doesn't require you to read it before you enter into the contract for the software, but after you've already purchased it. If you disagree (again, after they already have your money and the contract has been established), then your only recourse is a store credit, and not a refund. Does this seem fair?

If Apple or Microsoft want users to abide by a EULA, the EULA needs to be part of the contract: the purchaser needs to be required to both read AND agree to it in writing before the software is sold. Otherwise the EULA has no legal effect.

[gnasher729]

I'm not sure why this is continually being argued... they need not even bother mentioning this, as I suspect they can win on the DMCA argument alone (it is very simple in nature). Pystar installs OSX, but OSX will not run on standard unmodified x86 hardware without software assisted emulation... therefore they have knowingly circumvented the "protection" mechanism (regardless of how trivial it is) that prevents installation from being allowed. To make things worse for themselves, they then distribute this modification, and for profit to boot... for better or worse this is most likely a violation of the law.

No, Apple does need the EULA. Without the EULA, installing MacOS X on a Psystar computer would be legal, and then circumventing protection mechanisms might be legal as well. For example, if you have a 733 MHz G4 Macintosh, then the EULA allows you to install Leopard (it is an Apple-labeled computer), but the installer won't do it. I am quite sure it is legal to get around this restriction in the installer.

The DMCA just makes the situation a lot worse for Psystar _if_ installing MacOS X was illegal in the first place.

Right, but Apple doesn't require you to read it before you enter into the contract for the software, but after you've already purchased it. If you disagree (again, after they already have your money and the contract has been established), then your only recourse is a store credit, and not a refund. Does this seem fair?

If Apple or Microsoft want users to abide by a EULA, the EULA needs to be part of the contract: the purchaser needs to be required to both read AND agree to it in writing before the software is sold. Otherwise the EULA has no legal effect.

I am not quite sure: Do you claim that is what the law says, or what the law _should_ say in your opinion? In the first case, you are wrong. You are especially wrong in this case, since Psystar is a company, and as a company they are absolutely required to find out the license terms before installing the software. If they don't, all the consequences of not complying with the license are their own fault.

[jbernie]

If Pystar wins, what would prevent Apple from changing the pricing of OSX? As mentioned in earlier posts, they could charge say, $1000 for a copy of it, but not pass that cost along into their hardware line to prevent other companies (Dell, HP, etc.) from undercutting their pricing. But I think that they could also drop the price to $129 if you buy it at an Apple Store AND get it installed by a Mac Genius so that actual Mac owners, and ONLY Mac owners, could still upgrade their OS relatively inexpensively. I don’t know if Apple could really do this, and I’m sure it would piss off a lot of Mac owners who don’t live close to an Apple Store, but it would prevent other companies from being able to sell OSX on PCs for less money than a Mac, while still allowing Mac owners to upgrade.

You would end up paying $1000 to upgrade to the latest version of OSX because of all the overhead created in needing the Mac Genius crew to install it, let alone just about every single Apple customer would be protesting the stupidity of wasting time taking their systems (MacPro anyone?) to a store to get an upgrade they can do any time they chose and not when Apple decides to upgrade for you. I would venture to say that alot of loyal Apple fans would either switch to Windows or never upgrade again.

[Glideslope]

PayStar=IBM

[macsimcon]

Hogwash. Part of being on the board of a corporation or a partner at a firm is being on the hook for the company's behavior. Plenty of executives have been sent to jail for corporate criminal acts. That's partly why their salaries are so high; the risk is high. Generally, though, it's more effective to punish the corporation's finances.

It is difficult to pierce the corporate veil of a properly run corporation, and for every one executive "sent to jail" as you put it, there are thousands who are never touched. The whole point of having a corporation is to shield actors from responsibility for their actions, and in practice that includes many criminal acts. How many executives went to prison for Firestone's tires killing people? How many Union Carbide execs went to jail for Bhopal?

There are literally hundreds of software licensing cases on the books.

On point? Cite them. Cite all those cases which have ruled the EULAs in use today constitute binding contracts when the customer hadn't read them prior to purchase.

[domain]

No, Apple does need the EULA. Without the EULA, installing MacOS X on a Psystar computer would be legal, and then circumventing protection mechanisms might be legal as well. For example, if you have a 733 MHz G4 Macintosh, then the EULA allows you to install Leopard (it is an Apple-labeled computer), but the installer won't do it. I am quite sure it is legal to get around this restriction in the installer.

The DMCA just makes the situation a lot worse for Psystar _if_ installing MacOS X was illegal in the first place.

I don't think they have to argue this any longer... based on the original dismissal of the "Monopoly" claim against Apple, I believe the following was said:

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

[Bubba Satori]

PayStar=IBM

At least get the name right for that bit of nonsense. :rolleyes:

[NT1440]

At least get the name right for that bit of nonsense. :rolleyes:

something tells me it was supposed to be a pun....

[Beta]

Psystar was not trying to defeat the EULA. They were trying to make it mean "this software can be used on any machine."

That would not hurt Microsoft in the slightest.

What would make you think that? Microsoft EULA makes many statements on what machines a given piece of software can be installed on. Limits such as Number of processors, Number of processor cores, as well as current educational status of hardware owner.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac
Two things.

1. If some parts of the EULA are tossed in your scenario, nothing would stop Apple from rewriting their EULA. I can't imagine any scenario where the court forces Apple to license its software to Psystar and others.

2. Apple has the most to gain from winning this trial, not a settlement. Winning would likely end any commercial cloning. Losing would likely cause them to rework their EULA slightly. Not a big risk.The point would be that the kind of provision that is included in the EULA is unenforceable as a matter of law. So it wouldn't be a forced licensing, and rewriting it wouldn't make it more legal.

Seriously, some of you. Go get a law degree, pass the bar, practice intellectual property law for a few years and then call me in the morning.

Why would I need a law degree to discuss something on MacRumors?

Just because a specific provision of the EULA is found unenforceable, does not mean that Psystar will be able to continue to sell OS X under the current license sans the stricken provision. They would still need some sort of license from Apple in order to sell OS X. If the court does not force the licensing, Apple is under no obligation to sell such a license to them regardless of what the current EULA says.

On a separate note, Apple could also rewrite the EULA to limit OS X to Apple hardware through different licensing provisions than what the court found fault with. I am not saying that this would definitely work. It would depend on the courts specific findings against your mythical unenforceable provision.

[m1stake]

What right minded venture capital firm would pump money into a start-up that's only arguably legal? There is little chance to make money, and there is a big chance of losing it.

Based on the above, the obvious question is: who would benefit from a ruling in Psystar's favor? Other hardware companies.

Still, it's a conspiracy theory. I wouldn't give it much credit with this "rumor" by itself.

[Hugh]

Agreed. This is better than TV! Conspiracies are fun. I'd love to see Steve Jobs at the end of the keynote, at the "one more thing" going "What the hell, Psystar? Seriously?" showing screenshots of their web store.

Maybe this whole thing will lead to more upgradable Macs. I mean, you can easily swap out the hard drive and RAM on all the laptops, but god forbid if you want to exchange the dead hard drive on your iMac or Mac Mini. I'd love to be able to loosen a few screws to swap out the hard drive and RAM on my Mac Mini. I'd feel bad tossing away (selling on eBay) a perfectly fine computer, just because the hard drive wore off.

Just open the MacMini and replace the dead hard drive. The hard drive is replaceable in the MacMini. Yes opening the MacMini is a little hard to open, but people have done it. In fact there are videos on how to open the case.

Hugh

[matticus008]

Right, but Apple doesn't require you to read it before you enter into the contract for the software, but after you've already purchased it.
You're never required to read it. You're responsible for knowing and complying. You can willfully ignore that responsibility, but it's on you. It simply isn't possible for Apple to psychically predict when you're thinking about buying some software and automagically present you with terms. You have to take responsibility and do your research in advance, or at least between purchase and opening the box if you think you're going to want out.
If you disagree (again, after they already have your money and the contract has been established)
If you disagree, no contract or license is established.
If Apple or Microsoft want users to abide by a EULA, the EULA needs to be part of the contract: the purchaser needs to be required to both read AND agree to it in writing before the software is sold.
Purchase of the box and access to the software are two separate transactions. You don't have to agree to anything to buy the box. It's exactly like a prepaid phone card. The store sells you the plastic card. What you're after is what the card gives you access to, though, which is not the store's to give you.
It is difficult to pierce the corporate veil of a properly run corporation, and for every one executive "sent to jail" as you put it, there are thousands who are never touched.
We as a society have deemed that to be most efficient.
On point? Cite them. Cite all those cases which have ruled the EULAs in use today constitute binding contracts when the customer hadn't read them prior to purchase.
Reading isn't a requirement, and EULA is a meaningless term, so the question is irrelevant. It's really very simple. No court has ever rejected a software license on the grounds that it is a software license--the mechanism is fully legal and perfectly valid. No software license has ever been ruled categorically unenforceable. The issue of assent is also firmly resolved: "Reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of contract terms and unambiguous manifestation of assent to those terms by consumers are essential if electronic bargaining is to have integrity and credibility." Specht v. Netscape (holding a specific license agreement unenforceable on the grounds that the terms and the acceptance were isolated from each other by a hyperlink). "I Accept" is notice and assent when terms are presented directly to the user and queried. That's to say nothing of ProCD and its progeny, which don't care about direct presentation. Then of course there's Jacobsen v. Katzer, hailed for affirming that open source licenses were just as enforceable as proprietary licenses in copyright infringement litigation. The strong showing of support for the Artistic License (which has no "I agree" button at all, but merely a distribution note) relies on the validity of the licensing mechanism generally. Then you've got Bowers and Magic Software and Graham v. James and all the greatest hits.

[m1stake]

Reading isn't a requirement, and EULA is a meaningless term, so the question is irrelevant. It's really very simple. No court has ever rejected a software license on the grounds that it is a software license--the mechanism is fully legal and perfectly valid. No software license has ever been ruled categorically unenforceable.

I was under the impression that the EULA had never been tried in court. Neat.

[pdjudd]

Why would I need a law degree to discuss something on MacRumors?
You don't. However having knowledge of the law helps when you are discussing a topic of legal issues. Note that "knowledge of the law" does not equal "law degree"

Look at it this way. Some of the best (and most relevant) comments on this topic are made by people like matticus who happens to be a lawyer. He knows his stuff. Other people like Gnasher and IG Rielly and myself (and others) have actually done research and have attempted to grasp the complicated aspects of this case. I along with these other guys do not posses law degrees (as far as I am aware), but we attempt to rationally argue the facts of the case.

You can say what you want of the matter - moderation is an issue for Arn and his minions and not me, but as a rule of thumb, you open your mouth, you are responsible for what comes out of it. We don't require anything of you formally - however if you try to make inaccurate statements (which I myself am guilty of) don't blame us when we call you on it and ask that you do something.

[monke]

I read this yesterday and it just kinda brushed it off, never really thought about it.
I read it again today and all of a sudden thoughts started swirling.

It has to be a conspiracy. There's no way that a start up company like Pystar has the money to pay off a law firm like that. Now the first question would be who's behind it? Well, quite honestly, it could be anyone, but there are some companies who come to mind. Dell, HP, Sony, or anyone related to hardware could easily be funding them. Microsoft, however, I doubt is.

Any hardware manufacturer would love to be able so sell Mac OS X on their machines. For one of them to back Pystar in hopes of winning, the payoff in the end could be huge for them. Think if Dell or HP were able to sell OS X on their machines... they would make loads of money. I don't think Microsoft is really backing Pystar on this issue though, because they wouldn't gain anything out of it. If Apple loses and Mac OS X can be sold on other machines, I don't think Microsoft would be happy and I also don't think they would be making more money because of it.

It just makes sense.

[PVguy]

"They would still need some sort of license from Apple in order to sell OS X."

No you don't.

Apple EULA quote.

"Subject to the restrictions set forth below, you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts (excluding Apple Boot ROM code and firmware), original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple
Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License. "

You can too resell the software you purchased, even by apple's license terms.

[BaldiMac]

You don't. However having knowledge of the law helps when you are discussing a topic of legal issues. Note that "knowledge of the law" does not equal "law degree"

Look at it this way. Some of the best (and most relevant) comments on this topic are made by people like matticus who happens to be a lawyer. He knows his stuff. Other people like Gnasher and IG Rielly and myself (and others) have actually done research and have attempted to grasp the complicated aspects of this case. I along with these other guys do not posses law degrees (as far as I am aware), but we attempt to rationally argue the facts of the case.

You can say what you want of the matter - moderation is an issue for Arn and his minions and not me, but as a rule of thumb, you open your mouth, you are responsible for what comes out of it. We don't require anything of you formally - however if you try to make inaccurate statements (which I myself am guilty of) don't blame us when we call you on it and ask that you do something.

What inaccurate statement did I make? Please not that I was responding to a comment by stormj where he said to "go get a law degree" before continuing the discussion. I have also done a great deal of reading on this case, what comments of mine would you like to call me on?

[n8mac]

Just in case some of you didn't get my earlier post.

Psystar = Systrap = SystemTrap

And now back to your regularly scheduled digital court battle.

[pdjudd]

What inaccurate statement did I make?
I did not mean to imply that you made an inaccurate statement. I apologize if I implied that, but I was intending to imply a general usage of inaccurate statements and not one that you would have made (and I am not saying that you were making any).

Again, apologies for any miscommunication.

[BaldiMac]

I did not mean to imply that you made an inaccurate statement. I apologize if I implied that, but I was intending to imply a general usage of inaccurate statements and not one that you would have made (and I am not saying that you were making any).

Again, apologies for any miscommunication.

Thanks for the clarification. When you respond to a question in my comment and use the word "you", I assumed you were talking directly to me, rather than in generalities. :)

[pdjudd]

Thanks for the clarification. When you respond to a question in my comment and use the word "you", I assumed you were talking directly to me, rather than in generalities. :)

Its a usual habit for me when I mean "general you" to use (g)you. I obviously have been loosing that habit. :D

[BaldiMac]

Its a usual habit for me when I mean "general you" to use (g)you. I obviously have been loosing that habit. :D

You just need to embrace the good old southern "y'all"! :D

[greenmeanie]

If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?

[BaldiMac]

If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?

Because Apple is not a monopoly? Is that a trick question?! :confused:

[Durandal549]

If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?

Seriously!?!?

It says your a regular so I would think you have been around for at least one of the times this has been gone over. I am just a noob and could probably recite the reasons verbatim.

[xbjllb]

Wow, sounds less like Michael Dell and more like the Cuban Mafia! LOL :D

I TOLD you Psystar was CIA...

:apple:

[pdjudd]

You just need to embrace the good old southern "y'all"! :D

Unfortunately, my southern accent is terrible so I will have to go with the fallback of "You All":D

[Belly-laughs]

Someone at AppleInsider called it. I don't remember who it was but someone had a hunch some bigger companies were behind this to test the waters.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6125312&postcount=338

[Darkroom]

this was probably already mentioned somewhere in the previous 400 comments, but i would suspect Dell before Microsoft... in fact, i wouldn't even suspect Microsoft...

[kas23]

this was probably already mentioned somewhere in the previous 400 comments, but i would suspect Dell before Microsoft... in fact, i wouldn't even suspect Microsoft...

You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.

[Quillz]

If people can play the Monopoly card on Microsoft why not Apple?
Because Apple does not presently have a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as existing when there is "no viable alternative" to a company's products. With Apple, there is a viable alternative. You could use OSx86, or you could use Microsoft Windows, or Linux. Microsoft was judged a monopoly because of the way it tried to shut down competition from Netscape. For a time, there was little real alternative to Internet Explorer.

[Quillz]

You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.
The amount of sales Microsoft would lose form this would be so small, it wouldn't make a difference at all to Microsoft. Do you really think the average computer user is going to take the time to learn about OSx86, install it and then fiddle with all the drivers to get it working properly? It's probably harder to install than a Linux distro like Slackware.

[pdjudd]

You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.

Correct. Microsoft makes tons of money on its OEM relationships with Dell, HP, etc. These companies go with Microsoft since they are they only real mainstream operating system that they can use to drive sales of their hardware. Many companies have pined for the days of an alternative (linux doesn't count - most of the OEM's have accepted long ago that people will not move to linux in droves) so that at the bare minimum, they can better negociate with Microsoft on their pricing. As it stands right now, its either Microsoft or nothing and having nothing doesn't sell much hardware. Microsoft knows this and isn't going to change that pattern willingly.

[pdjudd]

The amount of sales Microsoft would lose form this would be so small, it wouldn't make a difference at all to Microsoft. Do you really think the average computer user is going to take the time to learn about OSx86, install it and then fiddle with all the drivers to get it working properly? It's probably harder to install than a Linux distro like Slackware.

Not if the OEM does all the work and can do it legally. Not saying that will happen of course.

[ogbuke]

Because Apple is not a monopoly? Is that a trick question?! :confused:

It's called being ignorant. :)

[ogbuke]

Not if the OEM does all the work and can do it legally. Not saying that will happen of course.The majority of the world uses windows, that's all they know, if other manufacturers start to offer OSX, they wouldn't just start switching in droves, because it's something new to them. This is why I don't think it would be good for Apple and it probably wouldn't hurt Microsoft too much.

[TechHistorian]

You can too resell the software you purchased, even by apple's license terms.

Except those terms specifically state (and I quote from your post) "(c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License."

Note that one of the conditions of the Apple license is that the software be installed only on Apple-branded machines.

[pdjudd]

The majority of the world uses windows, that's all they know, if other manufacturers start to offer OSX, they wouldn't just start switching in droves, because it's something new to them. This is why I don't think it would be good for Apple and it probably wouldn't hurt Microsoft too much.

Except for the fact that several major OEM's like Dell and HP have shown their desire in the past to resell OSX (through showing disdain for Microsoft) if it was allowed to. I am not saying that they will dump Windows entirely and I don't think that anybody is seriously suggesting that. However, it would be bad for Microsoft if its once guarenteed revinue stream is reduced. I honestly don't know how much it would be, but I would argue that Microsoft doesn't want that to happen at all. They don't care that Apple sells it's own computers - if users want to run Windows, they have to pay full price on them. A more diverse hardware range for Macs means less opportunies for a sale.

Remember, most people gets Windows by default - Microsoft wants it to remain that way as much as possible. I also do not think they would support a company that distributes Linux on their hardware either. Also we can't forget that Apple and Microsoft have a heathth partnership thats bennefial to the both of them - the last time Apple went downhill, MS was in deep anti-trust issues. Why would Microsoft repeat that history?

[PDXoPDX]

Correct. Many companies have pined for the days of an alternative (linux doesn't count - most of the OEM's have accepted long ago that people will not move to linux in droves) so that at the bare minimum, they can better negotiate with Microsoft on their pricing.

Hmmm...I didn't give much credence to this rumor before, but you've got me thinking that one of the OEMs might have been ballsy enough to contract with some tech geeks to open up OSX so they could reduce their licensing overhead. Dell/HP have a lot to lose if this backfires so I'd bet money on a 2nd tier PC maker or foreign rival trying to break into the big boys' market. Successfully being the first to offer OSX on their machines would give them a competitive advantage for a short while and allow them to put pressure on M$.

I wonder who the mystery OEM will be...

[BenRoethig]

Hmmm...I didn't give much credence to this rumor before, but you've got me thinking that one of the OEMs might have been ballsy enough to contract with some tech geeks to open up OSX so they could reduce their licensing overhead. Dell/HP have a lot to lose if this backfires so I'd bet money on a 2nd tier PC maker or foreign rival trying to break into the big boys' market. Successfully being the first to offer OSX on their machines would give them a competitive advantage for a short while and allow them to put pressure on M$.

I wonder who the mystery OEM will be...

Correct, those who think that Dell and HP are behind this, so they can sell unauthorized OSX machines using Psystar's hack really don't have a clue how things work. Neither corporations nor retail customers are going to buy a machine without support, especially if the operating system install is based on a hack to trick the OS into thinking its running EFI instead of windows. Business and education contracts in particular require full support. They would have nothing to gain unless the judge ordered Apple that they would have to license the OS to others.

If they want to know who's paying the legal fees, I'd advise they look at the law firm representing Psystar. In high profile cases, laws firms occasionally make arrangements to be paid part of the settlement if their client wins or just take the case pro bono as to build up their notoriety in order to attract high profile clients to their firm.

[IronRoses]

Who cares. Apple are just another corprate ratty business.

Tell you what though. If psystar, or whatever their called win. it'll open the market for osx and i say good. What i find annoying is that the mac support (due to the intel cpu) xp yet pc are unable to run osx natively. This si because of a little chip on apples motherboard (read documents if you don't believe me)

I find it annoying that i gotta pay extra just to run a bloody os that i like.

I'm no true fan of apple, infact, put it this way....
I'm not a fan of any company. The way i see it, if it works, buy it if it's too expensive and not worth it then don't bother with it.

IF apple were forced to release OS X on to pc i'd go back to pc,purely because i'd be able to use hardware i WANt to use not what apple want me to use and don't go on about hardware problems. Windows users are already use to this.

Get the **** over yourselfs. So what if apple loose market share, i don't think they will. I assume the market share would gorw due to the fact os xwould be on more computers this way. Apple are selfish pricks, allowing xp on mac yet not alolowing osx on a pc. **** this and **** apple.

[NT1440]

Who cares. Apple are just another corprate ratty business.

Tell you what though. If psystar, or whatever their called win. it'll open the market for osx and i say good. What i find annoying is that the mac support (due to the intel cpu) xp yet pc are unable to run osx natively. This si because of a little chip on apples motherboard (read documents if you don't believe me)

I find it annoying that i gotta pay extra just to run a bloody os that i like.


Well, ignoring the crap that is the rest of your post.

I thought it was that pc's use bios, while macs use EFI.

[jbernie]

Because Apple does not presently have a monopoly. A monopoly is defined as existing when there is "no viable alternative" to a company's products. With Apple, there is a viable alternative. You could use OSx86, or you could use Microsoft Windows, or Linux. Microsoft was judged a monopoly because of the way it tried to shut down competition from Netscape. For a time, there was little real alternative to Internet Explorer.

Apparently the XM/Sirius merger would have created a monopoly as well, yet there are thousands of free radio stations all around the country that you do not need to pay for. So if you can potentially have a monopoly in subscriber radio which has a small share of all radio market share then you can potentially have a monopoly with Apple in the OSX market.

Just saying.

[pdjudd]

So if you can potentially have a monopoly in subscriber radio which has a small share of all radio market share then you can potentially have a monopoly with Apple in the OSX market.

Just saying.

Psytar has already attempted to argue illegal monopoly. The judge threw out the case since there was no basis in fact. Apple does not have a monopoly that runs contrary to law.

[localoid]

... What i find annoying is that the mac support (due to the intel cpu) xp yet pc are unable to run osx natively. This si because of a little chip on apples motherboard (read documents if you don't believe me)...

You're annoyed over something that does not exist -- there is no "little chip on apples motherboard" that prevent running OSX natively.


Read -- "TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die (http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/)

[Winni]

Well, ignoring the crap that is the rest of your post.

I thought it was that pc's use bios, while macs use EFI.

Yes, Macs use an old version of EFI, namely v1.1. Vista 64-Bit supports EFI 2.0 and BIOS, so in the future you will see more PCs, servers and workstations with EFI support.

But the poster was right - Apple also checks wether there is a certain chip on the main board. Actually, it is the chip that controls the cooling fan; it contains a key that the software queries during the boot strapping process. A programmer named Alexander Graf wrote a software emulation for this chip that can be used to run an unmodified version of OS X in a virtualization environment like Qemu.

Read more here: http://alex.csgraf.de/self/?qemu/

UPDATE: This has nothing to do with TPM. TPM -can- be used as a hardware support for trusted communication. And maybe Apple -could- use the TPM chip as a dongle, but they've chosen to implement it differently. So while it is correct that Apple does not use the TPM chip on their computers to dongle OS X to their hardware, it is NOT correct to say that Apple is not using a hardware dongle. They do, it's just not the obvious choice that they're using.

[localoid]

Yes, Macs use an old version of EFI, namely v1.1. Vista 64-Bit supports EFI 2.0 and BIOS, so in the future you will see more PCs, servers and workstations with EFI support.

But the poster was right - Apple also checks wether there is a certain chip on the main board. Actually, it is the chip that controls the cooling fan; it contains a key that the software queries during the boot strapping process. A programmer named Alexander Graf wrote a software emulation for this chip that can be used to run an unmodified version of OS X in a virtualization environment like Qemu.

Read more here: http://alex.csgraf.de/self/?qemu/

UPDATE: This has nothing to do with TPM. TPM -can- be used as a hardware support for trusted communication. And maybe Apple -could- use the TPM chip as a dongle, but they've chosen to implement it differently. So while it is correct that Apple does not use the TPM chip on their computers to dongle OS X to their hardware, it is NOT correct to say that Apple is not using a hardware dongle. They do, it's just not the obvious choice that they're using.

Right, "the chip" isn't TPM, and OSX can run "native" with appropriate emulation of the "checkpoint" (which then allows Aqua to run). The same author I cited previously has info on this general subject area -- Understanding Apple's Binary Protection in Mac OS X (http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/binaryprotection/).

The devil is always hiding in the details... :) Most people seem to fall into the trap of thinking "the chip" = TPM, without ever bothering to run -- ioreg -x | grep TPM --- on their "real" Mac.

[Joe The Dragon]

Apparently the XM/Sirius merger would have created a monopoly as well, yet there are thousands of free radio stations all around the country that you do not need to pay for. So if you can potentially have a monopoly in subscriber radio which has a small share of all radio market share then you can potentially have a monopoly with Apple in the OSX market.

Just saying.
XM/Sirius is like the cable or sat ver of tv and even then comcast still fails under monopoly rules in some areas.

[kockgunner]

This has been pointed out several times already, but in fact the article says "as Alice in Wonderland might put it", making it clear that it is not meant to be a quotation but a play on the use of a doubtful comparative.

Well said. I was going to say the same thing, but couldn't put it into words :)

[babyj]

Since day one, Psystar seem to have been doing everything they can to push every single button at Apple. They could of easily sold the clones differently and reduced the legal arguments Apple would have against them, but they've done the opposite.

Its almost as if they wanted a court case and had some goal other than selling a lot of hardware. Which seems stupid but could make sense for some presently unknown reason if there is some unknown party / conspirator behind Psystar. But who?

Microsoft wouldn't even dream of it after all the cheques they had to write out for the crazy stuff they've done in the past. IBM are a services company now and have little real interest in software and hardware. Some of the big PC manufacturers are possibilities - Dell or Lenovo for example.

My best guess though would be some individuals or organisations that fundamentally oppose any link like this between hardware and software - supporters of open source and the like. They're not looking for financial rewards, just giving consumers more choice.

Or I could be talking complete and utter cr*p.

[ebouwman]

i want to know if anyone's actually even bought one of these?

[gnasher729]

You're right. Microsoft will lose big time of Psystar wins. If Psystar wins, people will be installing OS X on their Dells and not opting for Windows. Therefore, Microsoft will lose sales.

Microsoft would lose, but for a completely different reason.

The real argument is this: Apple says in its EULA "you may only install MacOS X on an Apple-labeled computer" and Psystar says that doesn't count. Microsoft for example sells versions of Microsoft Office to students very cheaply with a license that say "you may only use this version of Microsoft Office if you are a student" (someone with access to the license can correct any inaccuracies). If Psystar is right, then any company in the world can start using student versions of Microsoft Office instead of the much more expensive full versions. Or Microsoft has to stop selling student versions.

[ObaMaciden]

Well, being no fan of conspiracy speculations in general, I'm now intrigued.
Just thinking with my toes, here's my list of suspect culprits:

Software side:
A popularization of Apple OS would mean a push towards UNIX based systems. It should hurt Microsoft and help the Linux/GNU movement.

Virtualization software firms like VMware would stand to gain tremendously in both OLD and NEW PC markets. Who wouldn't want to try putting OSX on their currently under-used pcs with a more stable Apple OS?

Other software companies that specialize in OSX software will also stand to gain with mass distribution.

Hardware Side:
HP, Dell, Sony and the like would love a hearty bite not only of Apple's not insignificant marketshare, but also the overall PC market. If Apple were to authorize clones, one would expect Apple to license to big boys like HP or Dell rather than eMachines.

In either hard/software case, the big wigs in these companies would have to be pretty insane to pull this!:eek:

Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".;)

[pdjudd]

Well, being no fan of conspiracy speculations in general, I'm now intrigued.
I am also a not a fan of conspiracy theories simply because they almost always turn out to be false

Software side:
A popularization of Apple OS would mean a push towards UNIX based systems. It should hurt Microsoft and help the Linux/GNU movement.

It would hurt Microsoft, sure, but not really. THey are far too entrenched to make a difference. This case isn't so much about popularity of the Mac OS - just its legal usage and sale by a third party. People are already aware of OSX - Apple's sales prove this. Apple also already supports Unix and open source development the moment that they announced that OSX was unix based. That was years ago

Virtualization software firms like VMware would stand to gain tremendously in both OLD and NEW PC markets. Who wouldn't want to try putting OSX on their currently under-used pcs with a more stable Apple OS?


Except VMware has several products already that are Linux based as well as Windows based. Their Fusion product line is still quite new. Virtualization has been around for a long time and its starting to have value on the server side of things where network admins are already aware of Linux and have been running it on their servers for years. IBM is a big proponent of Linux servers as well. There is a catch - under powered systems aren't going to virtualize any system real well (except for small footprint systems). Desktop operating systems like Windows and Mac OS require more powerful hardware to run them with each iteration. Servers are well equipped to handle that load since they are really powerful machines (and are not run like desktops are). Its just cheaper to buy new hardware to run modern operating systems.

VMware is growing in popularity, but outside of Fusion (mac product) their strength is server products where Windows and Linux already dominate - Linux purely because of the lack of licensing.

Other software companies that specialize in OSX software will also stand to gain with mass distribution.

If they wanted to gain mass distribution like you talk about, it would make more sense (in my mind) to develop versions for other well established operating systems than to hope for rapid acceptance of an OS with around 10 percent market share already. Heck, thats why Apple developed iTunes for Windows - they knew that the iPods popularity alone wouldn't drive people to Macs en mass - if Apple believed that, they would have kept the whole ecosystem on the Mac - which would have inhibited adoption.

Hardware Side:
HP, Dell, Sony and the like would love a hearty bite not only of Apple's not insignificant marketshare, but also the overall PC market. If Apple were to authorize clones, one would expect Apple to license to big boys like HP or Dell rather than eMachines.

And destroy their own hardware business like what happened in the 90's? THe hardware makers you quote compete primarily on price and the lowest common denominator. Hardware profits for these guys are razor thin. Thats why they resell Windows. Microsoft doesn't have a hardware division that they have to worry about undercutting and the hardware vendors won;t get far selling computers without operating systems and relying on people to buy Windows afterwards. Most people do not buy Windows. They get whatever is currently offered by the OEM's and they tend to upgrade when they get a new computer. Most of these people buy the cheapest computer they can. Apple already knows that trying to compete in this area is a fools errand when you have a hardware division.

The reason that Apple does not sell cheap computers is the same on that BMW doesn't price their cars like Toyota does. By happen chance their market share is about the same.

Steve Jobs on market share: (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=445309)
We would like to see our market share grow," Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, admitted to The Independent on Sunday last week at the Apple Expo held in Paris. But he argued: "Our strategy is to innovate. We are the innovator of the industry. Most of our competitors try to copy us. Our strategy has worked really well for us."

Others agree. "Apple is not going to be a vendor that can buy market share, or one that can easily enter new markets," suggests Ranjit Atwal, PC industry analyst at the research firm Gartner. "It is concentrating on its existing markets, and on making sure its average selling price and revenues make it viable. Volume isn't its game."

[...]

"If you went to BMW and asked them why they don't outsell the Ford Taurus, they would say they don't want to make that sort of car," says Mr Jobs. "Apple has 25 million customers around the world, and our goal is to give them the best personal computer that we can, with the best operating system and some of the best applications."

In either hard/software case, the big wigs in these companies would have to be pretty insane to pull this!:eek:

Not if they excepted not to get caught or hoped for a settlement of some kind. Apparently Apple wants to go for the jugular.

Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".;)

1) People have wanted Apple to clone for years
2) Why would Apple want to waste the courts time in identifying psystars backers if they know who they are. The minute the answer becomes public, the court is not going to be happy.
3) Supposing this is true, why is Apple trying to keep a lawsuit going so long even to the effect of suing themselves. Why not end the case from day one and have a public settlement that benefits Apple?
4) You seem to forget that Apple's last legal cloning era was a disaster for Apple. Why test the waters that Jobs was very vocal about not testing a decade ago when he killed cloning? Why do it with a company that would be breaking other laws that trademark infringement that would invalidate market interest studies and a poor cloning method. Why do it in a way that angers the open source community?

You are talking about a high risk scenario that would require complicity with a lot of people at Apple. This is contrary with a company that has millions of people that pay attention to Apple every day. A company that despite its best intentions, has leaks from people willing to break NDA on this very forum and others. Not to mention the person squealing would have an exclusive and would be rich. With a company so rich with speculation about its actions, you would think we would have heard something from people with well placed sources like Kevin Rose or what not - instead we have tons of people who are criticizing Psystar. You are talking about a secret that is next to impossible to keep.

Which is easier to believe - An Apple conspiracy, or a company that sees itself with little to loose and is fighting a loosing battle terribly. Maybe Psystar has support. I doubt its a mainstream company like Dell or Microsoft, but its possible.

ETA: We also have to remember that Apple has largely ignored the home brew aftermarket hackers and the OSX86 project. THe reason is twofold: They aren't selling anything, and they are not worth going after. The minute that there is a commercial company involved? Apple starts suing. Exactly what one would expect of a company like Apple. You don't see Nintendo legally suing homebrew game makers or Sony suing PSP hackers - they just change the system and not support them.

[jbernie]

Microsoft would lose, but for a completely different reason.

The real argument is this: Apple says in its EULA "you may only install MacOS X on an Apple-labeled computer" and Psystar says that doesn't count. Microsoft for example sells versions of Microsoft Office to students very cheaply with a license that say "you may only use this version of Microsoft Office if you are a student" (someone with access to the license can correct any inaccuracies). If Psystar is right, then any company in the world can start using student versions of Microsoft Office instead of the much more expensive full versions. Or Microsoft has to stop selling student versions.

Except that the Office Home & Student version only gives you Word, Excel, Powerpoint & OneNote which reduces the desire for many people to use it in a corporate environment. Though at least in a Windows environment you could use the Windows Mail application if need be, though web mail offerings can reduce the need for this in a home/small office setup

[xbjllb]

Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".;)

Oh just great... Apple corrupt and shameless enough to pull their own 9-11...

what's really sad is it's not all that hard to believe.

:apple:

[jonnyspeed]

i wonder if Apple really want to test the legality of OS X locked to Apple Hardware if you buy a copy?

[jonnyspeed]

Except that the Office Home & Student version only gives you Word, Excel, Powerpoint & OneNote which reduces the desire for many people to use it in a corporate environment. Though at least in a Windows environment you could use the Windows Mail application if need be, though web mail offerings can reduce the need for this in a home/small office setup

I can not understand any student paying for software. nutters.

[gnasher729]

Except that the Office Home & Student version only gives you Word, Excel, Powerpoint & OneNote which reduces the desire for many people to use it in a corporate environment. Though at least in a Windows environment you could use the Windows Mail application if need be, though web mail offerings can reduce the need for this in a home/small office setup

Yeah, £50 for "only Word, Excel, Powerpoint and OneNote" instead of six times as much for the "complete" package... No corporation would want to save £2,000,000 for about 10,000 seats.

[kaiwai]

Anyone find it rather troubling that a company out of no where suddenly finds the funds (and the knackers) to take Apple on? conspiracy theory abound as to where this company came from and where their funding came from.

I find that the biggest whiners about Mac OS X from the OEM vendors are those who refuse to do anything to make a linux/freebsd/opensolaris distribution and brand it themselves. It seems that they want a free ride to make money with next to no investment.

[BenRoethig]

Anyone find it rather troubling that a company out of no where suddenly finds the funds (and the knackers) to take Apple on? conspiracy theory abound as to where this company came from and where their funding came from.

Like I've said before, many times in these sorts of high profile cases regarding a small company, either agree to be paid after the fact from the settlement if their client wins or do it pro bono (for free) to increase the firm's notoriety so they can secure high profile clients in the future.

I find that the biggest whiners about Mac OS X from the OEM vendors are those who refuse to do anything to make a linux/freebsd/opensolaris distribution and brand it themselves. It seems that they want a free ride to make money with next to no investment.

And how would a custom linux variant with no developer support attract the semi-professional users that Jobs has alienated?

[kaiwai]

Like I've said before, many times in these sorts of high profile cases regarding a small company, either agree to be paid after the fact from the settlement if their client wins or do it pro bono (for free) to increase the firm's notoriety so they can secure high profile clients in the future.

I doubt it. Iv'e seen it many times, a larger company or a person with interests in something funding legal proceedings in another closely related case. It is nothing new, and certainly not unreasonable.

And how would a custom linux variant with no developer support attract the semi-professional users that Jobs has alienated?

Is your intension to make me cry? Do I really have to walk you through what I would consider something that would require no explanation? if you can't work it out in your head of building a model on a customised version of FreeBSD/OpenSolaris or Linux, then you're beyond help. Any time wasted explaining it to you would be time better spent elsewhere.

[dejo]

Microsoft was judged a monopoly because of the way it tried to shut down competition from Netscape. For a time, there was little real alternative to Internet Explorer.
No, Microsoft was found to be guilty of anti-trust violations and labeled an "abusive monopoly" due to their actions. Being a monopoly is, in and of itself, not illegal.

[Pigumon]

This has been pointed out several times already, but in fact the article says "as Alice in Wonderland might put it", making it clear that it is not meant to be a quotation but a play on the use of a doubtful comparative.

Dang it's amazing how people are so anxious to prove someone else wrong that they just show how stupid, in fact, they are. I thought "hey she didn't say that!" re-read it, "ooooh, she MIGHT say that (if she would say something like curiouser and curiouser)". Hah.

See how easy that was people?

If everyone would think just ONE step more than they do, we'd all be living in a perfect world. Perfect like me :p But anyway..

Why didn't they just say "curiouser and curiouser"? It works just as well here.

AND

It makes sense for Apple to give themselves that right, just in case. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're wrong.

[ObaMaciden]

Which is easier to believe - An Apple conspiracy, or a company that sees itself with little to loose and is fighting a loosing battle terribly. Maybe Psystar has support. I doubt its a mainstream company like Dell or Microsoft, but its possible.

ETA: We also have to remember that Apple has largely ignored the home brew aftermarket hackers and the OSX86 project. THe reason is twofold: They aren't selling anything, and they are not worth going after. The minute that there is a commercial company involved? Apple starts suing. Exactly what one would expect of a company like Apple. You don't see Nintendo legally suing homebrew game makers or Sony suing PSP hackers - they just change the system and not support them.

Kudos to pbjudd's extensive analysis. Thinking with my toes...Apple Pre-emptive 9-11 style consiracy.... Well, now that I thought more about your analysis, respecting what scientific folks call the law of parsimony, the thugs now appear to me more likely on PsyStar's side than anything else. Apple's first battle has been won--the court threw out the bogus anti-trust counter-claim. Now let's hope that Apple can get to the bottom of it all. I suppose PsyStar's law firm also scored a few points for notoriety--being willing to side with thugs and frivolous claims at whatever cost. :mad:

As an Apple consumer, I hope that Apple will strengthen the pro line of products so that we truly get the BMW value out of Apple.:)