+1 to you for every time someone makes a complaint along this line.
My thoughts exactly. Apple owes you nothing. You should be showing gratitude to them for even selling computers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+1 to you for every time someone makes a complaint along this line.
My thoughts exactly. Apple owes you nothing. You should be showing gratitude to them for even selling computers.
I'm fine with the first paragraph. The second paragraph is faulty logic. I could use this logic to justify Apple murdering someone. Apple would go to jail if they murdered someone. Don't you think Apple haven't thought this through? So obviously they can't ever make any mistake or commit any crime, because they are infallible.
and "Money talks, baloney walks..."
We need to show gratitude towards Apple by buying their products.
Buying Psystar products instead isn't showing Apple ANY gratitude.
End Users, feel free to buy a Dell, HP, or build-your-own, and hack it for OS X (END USER License Agreement?)
Pystar was wrong for doing it over and over AND making money off it....
I'll be happy to tell you what I want.
I want Apple to sell a midrange desktop computer running OS X. And since they won't, I want them to let someone else do it. I have seen many posts claiming that there just isn't a market for that kind of product. If that's true then Apple has nothing to fear from Psystar, does it?
Solaris (SunOS6-present) is not tied to sun hardware. They even offer it to other companies and a few small players (Fujitsu) have taken them up on their offer. The boxed version will run on any machine with a x86 or SPARC CPU, Intel Macs included.
It's a rhetorical question, not a logical statement.
Apple would have used some of the most expensive and specialised legal minds available to ensure that their license was pretty watertight. That's what lawyers do; look at things like this extremely closely before they're published. So people screaming that it's illegal clearly haven't considered that other finer legal minds wouldn't have thought of that first.
A specious comparison with murder is neither here nor there.
I should have been clearer. I meant pre-v4.
From a philosophical view (not legal):and "Money talks, baloney walks..."
We need to show gratitude towards Apple by buying their products.
Buying Psystar products instead isn't showing Apple ANY gratitude.
End Users, feel free to buy a Dell, HP, or build-your-own, and hack it for OS X (END USER License Agreement?)
Pystar was wrong for doing it over and over AND making money off it....
If I buy a Ford engine, which has dozens of patented parts in it, bore it out, throw a turbo on it and drop it in a Chevy car and do this over and over and sell it each time. I've prevented Ford from selling a car, but I bought the engine at the agreed upon price, I didn't steal it.
Have I done any damage to Ford?
No, claiming that they are right because they paid lawyers to think about it is specious. I'm not saying they aren't right by the way. I'm just saying that just because they hired lawyers has no relationship to how "right" they might be. Otherwise you could say that nobody can ever sue anybody that already has a lawyer.
In fact, many of the choices made by Apple are actually detrimental to anyone that doesn't do highly parallelized tasks. The FB-DIMMS have higher latencies than the standard fair, and Dual Socket systems incur extra overhead that can cause significant decreases in performance in applications that use less than six processors in comparison to a single socket system with the same kind of processor.
IIRC, the only thing Sun reserves the right to their name. If you wanted to, you could take their OS, remove anything with their icons and redistribute it under any name you want.
Apple is the only company I can think of that has sold the OS and said it could only be used on certain machines. Other companies have only sold the OS already on a machine, and there are always reasonable restrictions (ie. only supporting one type of processor), but I can't think of anything else that actually sells the OS and says "this is what you can do with this".
In that case, I think it was limited by the hardware it was compiled for, but I can't remember anything else that would suggest that it was particularly limiting.
Where did I claim they were definitively right? I merely inferred they were extremely likely to be right and your attempts to nitpick and divert this topic are regrettably consistent with previous discussions.
Let's talk about Psytar, Apple and licences, thanks.
We need to show gratitude to Apple for repeatedly taking thousands of dollars of our money? This is a business and comp...electronics company not a religion.
I think if you make an OS for a specific type of processor then you are ok. If you happen to be the manufacturer of said processor you are ok. So if Apple creates the "red delicious" processor for all its computers and then creates "OSX for red delicious processors" then there is no issue.
The problem is that Apple sells Intel x86 processor based "computers", on which a multitude of operating systems can run. They are ok with you running any operating system on said system, but they are not ok with your running their OS on any other non Apple branded "computer" even though OSX runs on the same x86 processor as the other operating systems.
Actually this also has the potential to cause them some grief. Didn't some of the pc manufacturers get into grief because of the licensing with Microsoft over the cost of the Windows license even if it was not wanted by the customer?
Regardless their could be some fun legal wrangling over this one.
3 Additional Points...
#1: It's almost certain Apple's EULA would not hold up COMPLETELY in court, maybe most of it, but probably not all. Very few EULAs ever hold up in court although they rarely get tested in court as most companies avoid having them tested like the plague (for that reason obviously).
#2: Steve Jobs would not be stupid enough to have Apple's EULA tested in court to find out whether it contains egregious demands on consumers or not. The stakes are way too high and have nothing to do with Psystar.
#3: Psystar will ultimately be shut down for the copyright infringement if they altered Mac OS X code (and I'm not sure it's clear they did or didn't honestly), and if they didn't do that, then Psystar would in fact have the better case against Apple. But I have a feeling Apple waited to sue specifically until they had them on something indisputable copyright-wise.
#1: It's almost certain Apple's EULA would not hold up COMPLETELY in court, maybe most of it, but probably not all. Very few EULAs ever hold up in court although they rarely get tested in court as most companies avoid having them tested like the plague (for that reason obviously).
#2: Steve Jobs would not be stupid enough to have Apple's EULA tested in court to find out whether it contains egregious demands on consumers or not. The stakes are way too high and have nothing to do with Psystar.
#3: Psystar will ultimately be shut down for the copyright infringement if they altered Mac OS X code (and I'm not sure it's clear they did or didn't honestly), and if they didn't do that, then Psystar would in fact have the better case against Apple. But I have a feeling Apple waited to sue specifically until they had them on something indisputable copyright-wise.
I'll be happy to tell you what I want.
No, they have nothing to fear. It's not fear, it's a matter of what's legal and what isn't. If Psystar wants to use OS X as it's OS, then they need to go to Apple, and work out an agreement [ala Microsoft]. If Apple doesn't want that kind of business model, then they can choose to decline.
If Psystar wants an OS X like OS on their systems [legally] then they need to develop it, or work with someone else to do it for them, like Apple did. It's that simple...Otherwise, they'll have to settle for building systems with no OS, or pre-install UBUNTU or some other Linux flavor of the month...
Someone else made the point in this thread or another recently, that it's not only the OS and code that Psystar are using, it's all the packaging as well. Logos etc.
So, given that the license clearly states that:
It's clear to me that with the comparative lack of resources that Psytar have, this will be resolved pretty swiftly.
Think of it as Apple saying you can connect your iPod to any car stereo so long as the car is manufactured by Apple. Even though you have a way to connect your iPod to almost every car stereo out there by way of the FM transmitter and the various other connectors out there.
If they really didn't want people installing their OS on other machines then they should not have switched from the PowerPC to x86 processor.
Who is 'copying' anything? They're INSTALLING it. What you're suggesting implies that installing MacOSX on your own Mac would be 'copying' too and therefore 'illegal' somehow because you 'copied' it onto your hard drive (oh the evil of duplicating ones and zeroes!)
Really, most of the pro-Apple arguments on here boil down to Apple is allowed to rip-off people all the want because they're Apple and we worship Apple here! Once you realize that, all the "Eula" and "Copyright" drivel disappears from the viewscreen and you realize people actually LIKE getting ripped off. If this were Microsoft instead of Apple, these SAME people would be screaming bloody murder and down with Microsoft and rooting for them to get what they deserve for being anti-competitive. But because it's their beloved Apple, they instead defend their anti-competitive practices fiercely and say they're free to do whatever they want on their OSX monopoly and more power to them! It's hilarious. Horses don't have such blinders even. Anti-competitive is anti-competitive. It doesn't matter WHOM is doing it or if they control the world or just the state of Rhode Island. It's still wrong in a free society, especially one that praises capitalism and open competition. What competition does Apple face on the hardware for OSX front? NONE (until Psystar); that's why they make so darn much money selling you a "Mac".
The problem is they used to say Mac hardware was unique and to some extent it really was. Because of their move to generic Intel clone hardware, that is simply no longer the case. They want to sell you a Chevy, change the on-board software to their own and call it special (a Mac), even though it's still just a Chevy with a different computer operating system. And even though that same operating system will work on Fords too, they say TOO BAD; you can only buy their modified Chevy at 2x the cost of a regular Chevy. Meanwhile, they'll gladly sell you the operating system at Best Buy all by itself, but tell you that you can't install it on a Ford or Toyota even though it will run on them with very little modification to car needed. Too bad. You must buy our modified chevy to use that system! THAT is TYING. That has ALREADY been ruled ILLEGAL in past precedent and that is why if Psystar could manage the money to fight this, they SHOULD (barring idiot tech-impaired judges) win hands down. There is no longer a "special Mac". It's just a CLONE in disguise, one they charge you a premium for.
Some people WOULD rather pay $400 for the Mac operating system and put it on the hardware of their choice than be forced to buy a "Mac" that doesn't meet their needs period. I could easily put together a clone tower for $1000 that blows away the MacPro for things like gaming at less than 1/2 the price and so even having to pay $400 for the OS would leave my total cost $1000 cheaper than the cheapest expandable Mac! Most comparison that claim the Mac is competitive to 'identical' hardware fail to recognize the fact that most of that hardware has little to do with things like 3D and/or gaming performance, for example. It's not what you can get for the same computer, but the fact you can get a FAR BETTER computer for 1/2 the price in the clone sector. The fact such a machine can be made to run OSX reliably proves that OSX's relationship to Apple's own hardware is completely irrelevant. The hardware no longer has ANYTHING to do with the operating system other than to give Apple a monopoly on selling the hardware for OSX.
Really and truly, Psystar should be able to take that argument (without a lawyer even) to court and win. It really is cut and dry. Tying has already been ruled illegal and it's obvious Apple is artificially tying their operating system (via minor checks and Eulas) to their hardware to monopolize the market FOR OSX (not the greater PC market in general which means NOTHING to someone that wants OSX, but doesn't want Apple hardware running it do the lack of decent lower and mid-range hardware...Apple pushes you to $2000+ range to get something an $800 machine at Best Buy can easily do (i.e. decent 3D graphics and a few lousy expansion slots so the machine isn't obsolete in a year's time).
For all the doubters, I say if OSX is meant to be 'closed loop' then how come I can buy a FULL RETAIL copy at Best Buy? It doesn't say 'upgrade' on it. It doesn't need a previous version of OSX to install. It's a full public retail version of OSX that I can buy independent of an Apple computer. The only thing keeping me from installing it on a plain Jane clone is the EFI versus Bios thing and some internal illegal ties to Apple hardware. Beyond that, Apple hardware is just plain clone technology. In effect, they're saying OSX is for their hardware but their hardware is no different from anyone else's so why do they get to control the clone market for OSX in its entirety? Because they want to make more money? That's no excuse for doing something illegal (anti-trust). Oh but it's OK if the lobbyist laws in a given country FAVOR bad behavior from companies? Who are making those laws and are they in the public's best interest or are they in the best interest of money-grubbing corporations who move their manufacturing jobs (Apple included) to Communist countries because money is more important to them than ethics? It's OK. Go Apple! Crush your competition not through competition, but because you have more money than a tiny little company and will therefore win in court before it ever comes to a judge because you know you can outspend them. Justice isn't about who's right or wrong in this country anymore. It's about who can afford the best lawyer. It's why people like OJ can get away with murder while they discover innocent people on death row every day only through the advent of DNA testing which proves people's emotions (juries) and desire to punish someone clearly prevail over guilt or innocence and the best lawyers are good at manipulating emotions, not proving guilt or innocence. Apple will 'win' because they have more money, not because they're 'right'.
Most of the articles I've read on the whole Psystar thing suggest they do have a case against Apple for Apple holding a monopoly not on the PC market, but on the OSX market. The problem is they don't believe Psystar can afford to go to court. This is one of the biggest problems in the US Justice system (or in most justice systems). When you consider legal council costs money...a LOT of money, it's not hard to see that Big Fish tend to eat little fish in court (or before they ever get to court) simply by having more funds, NOT because they're 'right' or would win if the playing field was level. It all comes down to who has the most money. That's not justice. It's a mockery of the justice system and those whom founded it. Money really can get you out of almost anything.
This would actually be a good time for someone like Dell to make a deal with Psystar and provide their legal defense or countersuit in this area because if they win, the clone market floodgates open for OSX and the consumer wins big time with actual choices for hardware, not just what limited non-expandable and/or overpriced system Steve Jobs wants to shove down your collective throats.
Sure, you can cheer Apple on and gloat with glee at the thought of Psystar going away, but you're really only harming your own choices and pocket book when you do so and saying you really do prefer living in Russia or China (where choices are limited artificially across the board) than the Western World where free competition is supposed to be the norm. Right now Apple has competitors for its Operating System (that would be Windows and Linux) but it does not have ANY competitors for its hardware...until Psystar that is. So it's clear why they'd want to protect that money-making front, but that doesn't make it ethically OK or even legal to have that monopoly on hardware for OSX.
I believe Psystar should hang on even if they have defend themselves in court (I seem to recall them saying early on they were willing to take on Apple in court so I hope they do). It's really not that hard to build a precedent case. Most of the work has already been done and ruled in their favor anyway. Maybe take on a lawyer that would settle for a piece of the pie instead (part ownership) of straight capital because I really don't believe Apple can win the monopoly/tying argument. This isn't PalmOS. It's an OS that runs on generic clone hardware as Psystar has proven and is sold by itself at Best Buy. They have no right to tell you to buy THEIR clone instead of whatever clone you want.
When does anyone actually agree with the license? According to some arguments I have seen, any restrictive license that occurs after the person has bought the product is void unless the company will refund those who disagree. Apple does not do so, so they could very easily have some trouble from that angle.
That happens to be well-established law, not drivel. A small and inconvenient fact, I know.
Having a driver in a folder is not the same as running code. Your Intel machine is not using those drivers nor do they impair your machine in any way by being there. I believe current XCode basically gives PPC code for free, so it's not hurting anything by simply existing on someone else's machine (see the whole Snow Leopard argument). You also seem to ignore the fact that Intel code has existed ALL ALONG internally. Apple simply never released it until two years ago. So the idea that PowerPC code is somehow 'holding back' Intel code seems erroneous to me at best. You simply never had access to it before.
Not sure if this was posted or not but Apple is going for Psystars throat.
From Gizmodo :
"Not only have they hit them with eight claims of copyright infringement, breach of contract, trademark and trade infringement, and unfair competition, they're asking that every Psystar Mac clone sold be recalled. That would obviously bankrupt them, and then Apple wants whatever's left, asking for all profits made in addition to both actual and statutory damages. "
From Gizmodo :
"Not only have they hit them with eight claims of copyright infringement, breach of contract, trademark and trade infringement, and unfair competition, they're asking that every Psystar Mac clone sold be recalled. That would obviously bankrupt them, and then Apple wants whatever's left, asking for all profits made in addition to both actual and statutory damages. "
From my reading of previous articles, that argument may have more strength under UK/EU law. I'm not entirely sure... but they're all at it. I bought a Canon camera recently, opened the box and camera, looked at the manual and documentation, and discovered that I was not permitted to use it to make obscene images.
Unfair competition? Thats stupid! Why not sue Microsoft under that, too?
Asking them to recall all the Pystar computers is stupid, too, I highly doubt they will get away with that.