Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[Macky-Mac]

as a note, the EULA is not the only thing Apple is contesting in this lawsuit. thanks to an above post with the entire case PDF, most of apple's contentions deal with copyright infringement, i.e. Psystar selling software with apple's trademarks, such as Apple (and the logo), Leopard, and Mac. because Psystar sold products bearing these names, it infringed Apple's copyrights. even if the EULA doesn't stand up in court, these things will. I'm no lawyer, or trying to be one, bu this is plain copyright infringement.

indeed, in addition to the breach of contract issue, they've made claims for copyright infringement, induced copyright infringement (which is what caused the courts to shut down the original Napster), trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and several other things too

Psyster's got a lot of well established and litigated legal issues to worry about that go far beyond the EULA

 

[myca]

I think if Apple's 7% of the market suddenly became 28% of the market, they'd be more than happy to see their sales of Final Cut and Logic increase 400% without a price increase.

I doubt that would happen in the pro market, plus apples model seems to be that the R&D of these apps are often recouped by hardware sales, plus the fact that the technology involved then leaks it's way down into the consumer software.

Plus how much piracy would happen if the platform would open up with cheap generic clones?

It's one of the stupid arguments I have with PC users who meddle with audio;

"There's no cracked software for the mac"
I always answer
"If you want something buy it cheapskate"

 

[PVguy]

right of first sale

"You don't own any commercial software. Where do people get this idea? If you own it, you can change whatever you want and resell it as your own, legally, without even crediting the original creator."
__________________

Not quite. But there is a right of first sale which was recently upheld in court as applying to software. In other words, if I buy a CD of OS X, I can go ahead and resell it to anyone, anywhere, anytime. What I can not do is make copies and sell each one. I also can't make a copy and sell the original.

There is reportedly another decision, back in 1984, that a computer maker can not require as part of the sale that the software must be run only on their own hardware. Apparently this is called "tieing" or "bundling" or something like that.

The above two points are why Apple held back attacking Psystar before. That section of the EULA about running OS X only on Apple hardware is flat illegal.

What Psystar should have done is write a patcher that modified the Apple updater on the user's disk, then installed that. If they really did modify 10.5.4 update, then distributed it, they did indeed cross the line.

I'm old enough to remember all the Appleworks (for Apple II) patchers that were distributed this way for this exact reason. And not a few Prodos and IIgs patches either.

If there is no mini-tower (or expresscard slotted iMac) by the time Nehalem comes out, I'm off to Ubuntu land myself. Linux is now where Windows 95 was in '95; good enough, and much cheaper. And Steve knows it. Why do you think he is going gadget happy?

"Milk the Macintosh for all it's worth, and get on to the next Great Thing." Ladies and Gentlemen, we have arrived.

 

[r.j.s]

Not quite. But there is a right of first sale which was recently upheld in court as applying to software. In other words, if I buy a CD of OS X, I can go ahead and resell it to anyone, anywhere, anytime. What I can not do is make copies and sell each one. I also can't make a copy and sell the original.

Again, I'm not talking about right of first sale, in which you re-sell your ONLY copy to someone else.

I'm talking about changing the software, adding your own code to someone else's work, then reselling numerous copies to benefit you.

 

[myca]

I think any one of this would rather give their money to Apple, but when they decide they don't want to take it, what do you do. Apple is a lifestyle device company now. Professional applications are no longer their focus.

I'd beg to differ, like I said in my previous post many of the Pro App features get whittled down into the iLife apps

FinalCut>iMovie
Apeture>iPhote
Logic>Garageband

Plus the margins are higher on the higher end desktops and notebooks, which to me makes perfect sense as a business model.

But saying that I do wish they'd put more resources into the Pro Apps, there's a couple of major bugs in Soundtrack Pro which means that I have to use work arounds, or dual boot and use soundforge, which I'd rather not do.

And Logic could do with updates more often (Like in the good ole' eMagic days).

 

[CWallace]

Microsoft became the most powerful software company in the world, and they did it without selling hardware. Now that OSX runs on Intel hardware, Apple could really eat into that market share.

One of the reasons Windows is such a mess is because it has to support every piece of hardware (and a shedload of software) created in the past two decades. The driver model is a disaster and the codebase is so large that nobody has any control over it. Individual fiefdoms within Microsoft code their part in isolation of every other fiefdom and then it all goes into a big final compile blender.

One of the reasons Macintosh applications are so good is the coders care. They care because the market is so small if they write junk code, nobody will buy it. On Windows, you can write junk and still get a tens of millions of people to buy it because there are hundreds of millions of users.

If Apple just decided to openly license OS X, it would have to morph into a disaster in order to have any hope of penetrating the market by supporting all the old hardware and applications people run now under Windows. And then one of the major reasons of using OS X - it just works - is now moot.

And Microsoft sure as heck won't roll over. If Apple signs distribution deals with major hardware vendor, MS will apply enormous pressure to kill or undercut those deals. There is a reason I pay more to put a factory-installed and supported copy of Linux on an HP workstation then I do Windows - Microsoft makes it more expensive to not put Windows on a machine. Microsoft got to their position by being ruthless and they'll shiv Apple in a heartbeat if they look to be a threat.

 

[dejo]

Can Apple license OS X to generic PCs and still stay in business? Hmm...

Based on the financial data from Apple's last quarter, the average revenue they get from a Mac is $1530. If you say that, at this point, selling a copy of Mac OS X for $129 is pure-profit (which we all know it's not), Apple would have to sell nearly twelve copies of Leopard for every Mac they don't sell. Do we really think there is 12x more people interested in buying just Mac OS X for their PC than there is people buying Macs? Discuss...

 

[mklos]

I have mixed feelings. I like being able to play around and put OS X on a cheap computer (that I built). On the other hand I think if Apple loses...it gives other companies, or someone else more incentive to start another company to sell Mac Clones. IMO that kills the Apple brand for the reason that many have mentioned here. I think it will also kill resale values of genuine Apple Computers. Also there's little to no support, clunky loud boxes, etc. Apple Computers aren't like this. Ok...some were on the loud side, but there was full support for it, and it wasn't built cheap. So I guess I would like to see Apple win this case. I don't really agree with Psystar's argument. Microsoft is primarily a software company. So its a stupid argument to say its like Microsoft only allowing to install their software on a Dell. Apple makes an OS for their computers. Not computers for the rest of the world like Microsoft does. I guess Apple should have to take the iPod and iPhone OS and be made to release it for the Zune and Blackberry too if you want to think that way. There is such a thing as making a proprietary OS without disrupting "anti-trust laws". Its not like Apple has a 95% marketshare or anything here....

 

[PCMacUser]

Apple should leave Psystar alone. The OpenComputers don't look anywhere near as sexy as the Macs do, which is the main reason people buy Macs (don't say it's because of the operating system - I'll know you're lying...)

Filing lawsuits, etc, just makes Apple look like the next Microsoft. The good old 'stomp on the little guys to enforce your monopoly' routine.

Or maybe Apple should sue Psystar so that they don't get a foothold in the market and potentially damage the image of what an Apple computer is. "Say, is that the new Apple desktop computer? Well, yes it is, but no it isn't".

Perhaps Apple should buy Psystar and then shut them down. It's a technique that's worked for MS in the past, and I really don't see Apple as being any different.

I'm playing devil's advocate...

 

[BenRoethig]

Can Apple license OS X to generic PCs and still stay in business? Hmm...

Based on the financial data from Apple's last quarter, the average revenue they get from a Mac is $1530. If you say that, at this point, selling a copy of Mac OS X for $129 is pure-profit (which we all know it's not), Apple would have to sell nearly twelve copies of Leopard for every Mac they don't sell. Do we really think there is 12x more people interested in buying just Mac OS X for their PC than there is people buying Macs? Discuss...

You're also forgetting iLife and iWork. Are there many who be more interested in Mac OS X than Apple's lineup allows? Absolutely. Would There still be a market for Apple's own machines, once again absolutely. Apple makes a lot of money, but they also send a lot that could be theirs straight to Redmond.

 

[PVguy]

right of first sale

"I'm talking about changing the software, adding your own code to someone else's work, then reselling numerous copies to benefit you."

As long as they bought one retail copy or OS X for each machine they sold, that is not copyright infringement. Where is the copying?

Where they messed up is in the "adding their own code to someone else's work, then reselling..." which is creating an unauthorized derivative work. Apple's work must remain unmodified until it is on the customer's hard drive. Then you can patch it to your heart's content.

So, if they had written a program that loaded itself in memory, then installed Leopard from the original disk, adding in the modifications as the files are being written to disc, they could very well be legal. Especially since the Darwin OS core is open sourced by Apple.

But they didn't do it that way, so now they are in trouble.

 

[r.j.s]

As long as they bought one retail copy or OS X for each machine they sold, that is not copyright infringement. Where is the copying?

Where they messed up is in the "adding their own code to someone else's work, then reselling..." which is creating an unauthorized derivative work. Apple's work must remain unmodified until it is on the customer's hard drive. Then you can patch it to your heart's content.

So, if they had written a program that loaded itself in memory, then installed Leopard from the original disk, adding in the modifications as the files are being written to disc, they could very well be legal. Especially since the Darwin OS core is open sourced by Apple.

But they didn't do it that way, so now they are in trouble.

That is my point. Not reselling OS X in it's original form. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Squozen]

Apple doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell macs. Honda doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell Priuses. And Coke Inc. doesn't have a monopoly because nobody else can sell Cokes.

At some point during the 18 pages of thread so far, does anybody point out that Toyota sells Priuses, not Honda?

 

[r.j.s]

At some point during the 18 pages of thread so far, does anybody point out that Toyota sells Priuses, not Honda?

Yes, somebody did point that out.

 

[Sun Baked]

That is my point. Not reselling OS X in it's original form. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yes...

Long history of people making boot loaders and "patching around" limits to Apple's software to get it to run on machines it wasn't supposed to -- or to get your HW hack to run on the Mac.

Apple let those slide, and every now and then the hacks were so good Apple licensed the technology, but the ones that modified their System files they almost always stepped on.

Add another file, but don't modify their files.

The old Mac hackers were really smart and industrious, seems these days they are just plain lazy, and don't take that extra step.

 

[kevbryant]

i didnt bother to read the whole thread its too damned long. but Ill say this much... the reason apple didn't sue earlier- is because truthfully a company doing this is really drawing more publicity/attention towards apple's product than its own. these things are practically commercials for actual macs.

I know as well as most that if this company sticks to a standard set of hardware that they have tested to work within osx - they may be able to produce an even better machine than a mac (performance wise). I hear the fan is loud and i doubt they've nailed the hardware down. but - if someone buys one or even considers buying one - chances are in the future, they will buy the real deal.

So if you're wondering why they took so long to sue? They were probably actually hoping that these caught on first.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Can Apple license OS X to generic PCs and still stay in business? Hmm...

The answer would be a very simple yes. The question should be would Apple ever do this and the answer would be no.

 

[oban14]

One of the reasons Windows is such a mess is because it has to support every piece of hardware (and a shedload of software) created in the past two decades. The driver model is a disaster and the codebase is so large that nobody has any control over it. Individual fiefdoms within Microsoft code their part in isolation of every other fiefdom and then it all goes into a big final compile blender.

One of the reasons Macintosh applications are so good is the coders care. They care because the market is so small if they write junk code, nobody will buy it. On Windows, you can write junk and still get a tens of millions of people to buy it because there are hundreds of millions of users.

If Apple just decided to openly license OS X, it would have to morph into a disaster in order to have any hope of penetrating the market by supporting all the old hardware and applications people run now under Windows. And then one of the major reasons of using OS X - it just works - is now moot.

And Microsoft sure as heck won't roll over. If Apple signs distribution deals with major hardware vendor, MS will apply enormous pressure to kill or undercut those deals. There is a reason I pay more to put a factory-installed and supported copy of Linux on an HP workstation then I do Windows - Microsoft makes it more expensive to not put Windows on a machine. Microsoft got to their position by being ruthless and they'll shiv Apple in a heartbeat if they look to be a threat.

This is incorrect. Apple could support a set amount of hardware (just like they do now). They could even be snobs about it - high end, name brand stuff. Intel motherboard, Intel CPUs, specific chipsets and ram. Limit it. But let people build something to suit their needs.

Just because Microsoft supports every type of hardware out there doesn't mean Apple needs to, or should, in order to penetrate the market place.

 

[reallynotnick]

What is with all those snooting Apple fans, a Mid-range tower is great. They are way more powerful then an iMac using desktop CPUs and GPUs for the same price and are way more expandable. The Mac Pro has some ridiculous server CPU's that I have no need for.
I also want to use my own screen, not the built in one on the iMac. The Mac Mini is too slow for what I want.

Intel has a whole line of chips that Apple has not touched and if Apple wants to get serious about games a midrange tower is the best way to do it.

 

[Hugh]

updates

Yes I see Apple is saying the boxed version is an updater, but any where on the box state this? Before opening the box does it say this is only a upgrade and not a full version?

Hugh

According to Apple, their boxed OS is an UPGRADE, as all Macs come with an OS already.


Bye, bye, Psystar...

 

[deputylove8]

ayoyoyoyoy...i wonder what will happen now

 

[domain]

I continue to be amazed that people DON'T WANT the Apple OS to be available for EVERY computer system in the world. Why WOULDN'T you want to walk into your local Best Buy and have the option of installing OS X on the computer INSTEAD of Vista or Linus or whatever?

Maybe someday somebody will be able to offer some logical rational for this.

See CWallace's post above... the rational is very apparent...

When you buy a mac you pay for a "integrated" experience... a luxury afforded by only having to support a small subset of hardware (much like your day to day consumer electronics devices). This results in things that "just work"... when you put a DVD in your DVD player, it should play... or you probably wouldn't buy it right? When I install OSX, I don't have know what chipset my video/sound/motherboard/etc. have (yay windows drivers), manually configure my monitor resolutions (yay Xwindows), or do any other manner of mucking around to get the installation to work (other then clicking a few buttons). Granted this is somewhat of an gross oversimplification but...

Now... take that experience and unleash it on to a mass market of millions of devices and what do you get? Oh dear... (I shouldn't have to spell it out, look above).

So... in the end you get what you pay for... Apple is (and definitely shouldn't be) under no obligation to spend their time and money (and it would cost serious money) to do anything other then they are doing. The choices are out there... but there shouldn't be any complaining if they aren't exactly the choices that meet everyones criteria (can't please em all eh?)

As for Psystar, I see little other then doom and gloom... Again Apple is under no obligation to spend their time and effort to develop something, only to have someone else turn a quick profit on their work. If Psystar really wants to sell a openMac... or even those who complain about OSX not being open source... put your fingers to keyboard and start writing it yourself...

 

[Hugh]

Apple Monopoly???

I keep reading you guys saying Apple is an monopoly, because the OS only works on one type of hardware. Well Apple makes the hardware and the OS for their hardware. You have a choice, if you don't want to use Mac OS X you can buy a PC (or install Windows or Linux on your Mac) But if you want Mac OS X then you have to buy a Mac.

If MS came out with their own machine and OS for it, that wouldn't be a monopoly either. The other PCs would have another stepped in covered the non MS machines, like Linux.

I fail to see how these examples prove Apple has an monopoly on the OS.

Hugh

Here's to hoping this brings up talks about Apple possibly practicing monopolistic policies. What Apple does is in a gray area, restricting software to only there own hardware is a bit sketchy at this point. Imagine if Windows only ran on a Microsoft PC (if it existed). It's a very anti-competitive practice towards other PC hardware manufacturers. Sure it helps with quality control, but at least give the user the option to run OS X on a PC. I almost wonder if Apple toyed with the idea of making Snow Leopard PC compatible, but changed there mind. They might have a had a deal go south with Dell or HP and decided to suddenly pursue Psystar.

 

[Bubba Satori]

One of the reasons Windows is such a mess is because it has to support every piece of hardware (and a shedload of software) created in the past two decades. The driver model is a disaster and the codebase is so large that nobody has any control over it. Individual fiefdoms within Microsoft code their part in isolation of every other fiefdom and then it all goes into a big final compile blender.

One of the reasons Macintosh applications are so good is the coders care. They care because the market is so small if they write junk code, nobody will buy it. On Windows, you can write junk and still get a tens of millions of people to buy it because there are hundreds of millions of users.

If Apple just decided to openly license OS X, it would have to morph into a disaster in order to have any hope of penetrating the market by supporting all the old hardware and applications people run now under Windows. And then one of the major reasons of using OS X - it just works - is now moot.

And Microsoft sure as heck won't roll over. If Apple signs distribution deals with major hardware vendor, MS will apply enormous pressure to kill or undercut those deals. There is a reason I pay more to put a factory-installed and supported copy of Linux on an HP workstation then I do Windows - Microsoft makes it more expensive to not put Windows on a machine. Microsoft got to their position by being ruthless and they'll shiv Apple in a heartbeat if they look to be a threat.

Nice straw dog.

 

[Sun Baked]

I fail to see how these examples prove Apple has an monopoly on the OS.

Hugh

Not much different than Amiga OS 4.0 though of course they actually had problems releasing new HW due to more financial issues ... so go figure about people not complaining that they should be selling Amiga G4/G5s clones with their hacked OS on the drive to take up the slack for the parent company's inability to ship new HW for the new OS.