Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[BenRoethig]

a crux of this argument is that Apple considers macs and mac os x to be one "product" or "entity." the only reason they are sold separately is to update older computers. you don't see anyone clammoring for Apple to sell their iPod software for other mP3 players or the iPhone software for other smartphones. the only reason there is an issue at all is because Apple sells Mac OS X separately. again, the only reason for this is to update older computers. it is still a closed system, and you cant separate the two, just like you can't separate the iPod/iPhone and its software.

First this wouldn't be an issue if Apple hadn't dropped the low and mid-range PowerMacs from its lineup in favor of an expanded range of iMacs in addition to having other holes. I think buying from Apple is the first choice of everyone where but when it becomes a matter of going way over budget (MacPro) or not having your needs entirely met (iMac), you start to look at other options.

Second, the iPod and iPhone are embedded platforms. I can't conduct my business interests and hobbies on one. The lack of power and memeory compared to a computer and much smaller screen also dictates the OS be highly specialized for them. My iMac is an Intel core 2 Duo connected to a Intel PM965 north bridge and ICH8M south bridge, broadcom Wireless-N, western digital hard drive, Pioneer CD Burner and Radeon Mobility HD 2600. The only things that differentiates it from about 5,000 BIOS-based windows computers with the same exact configuration are the EFI ROM chip and the casing.

 

[englishman]

*sigh* Then it would be an illegal monopoly. There's a huge difference between making one computer that has 8% market share and making the only computer with 100% market share.

No I didn't mean that - I was only talking about Apples being closed.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

No I didn't mean that - I was only talking about Apples being closed.

The entire technology industry shudders at the though of a successful legal attack on the concept of the closed platform. Apple is not fighting this battle alone...I don't care how much you hate closed platforms - there isn't a hope in hell that this lawsuit will lead to a legal overturning of that status quo.

 

[englishman]

What are you talking about? What "western literature and art" is comprised of 98% someone else's work and 2% of your own?

And that is the crux of the "problem" in this discussion. You are applying what you think would be ok and what you are used to (Your MS example) to something that it isn't your decision to make (It's Apple's decision to make) and to a different business model than MS's.

Like I keep saying. Just because we really really want it, and we think it would be better doesn't mean it's "fair" to force Apple to do it. It's not.

Not so sure about the 98/2 split but most of everything is based on other things isn't it, Art etc. If James Joyce was still alive and he was participating in this discussion I'd prefer him to try to explain.

Its not a case of what I/people want - its what is fair business practice - its unreasonable restrictions placed by Apple.

I think I may have to leave this discussion - we seem to be going round in circles. And perhaps even backwards.

I am afraid I feel beaten here. And I don't think forums lend themselves easily to this type of discussion - it gets dragged out and can become more personal and less polite because we aren't face to face.

Let's agree to differ - its pretty clear that folks like myself are in the clear minority.

Have a nice day y'all.

 

[englishman]

The entire technology industry shudders at the though of a successful legal attack on the concept of the closed platform. Apple is not fighting this battle alone...I don't care how much you hate closed platforms - there isn't a hope in hell that this lawsuit will lead to a legal overturning of that status quo.

Yes, but it could get worse.

This little spat could highlight some of the issues. There are powerful forces trying to make all computer systems closed and disallow 3rd party apps to be installed on anything.

 

[saltyzoo]

Not so sure about the 98/2 split but most of everything is based on other things isn't it, Art etc. If James Joyce was still alive and he was participating in this discussion I'd prefer him to try to explain.

Its not a case of what I/people want - its what is fair business practice - its unreasonable restrictions placed by Apple.

I think I may have to leave this discussion - we seem to be going round in circles. And perhaps even backwards.

I am afraid I feel beaten here. And I don't think forums lend themselves easily to this type of discussion - it gets dragged out and can become more personal and less polite because we aren't face to face.

Let's agree to differ - its pretty clear that folks like myself are in the clear minority.

Have a nice day y'all.

I'm not taking anything personal. I totally understand how you FEEL. But feelings aren't what matters. You have to look at it objectively to see that the law is on Apple's side - and that it's fair.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Yes, but it could get worse.

This little spat could highlight some of the issues. There are powerful forces trying to make all computer systems closed and disallow 3rd party apps to be installed on anything.

Perhaps a kernel of truth to that, but you're making it sound too much like a campfire ghost story...I don't think there is anything wrong with the notion of a totally closed computer platform so long as

1. That platform does not have a monopolistic market share

2. Viable alternative platforms are available.

At this point there are three major platforms available with three different levels of openness. Windows, in the middle in terms of openness, still dominates the market, without being a real monoply. Apple is growing fast but is still nowhere near the market leader, let alone a monopoly.

And there's always *nix.

 

[englishman]

I'm not taking anything personal. I totally understand how you FEEL. But feelings aren't what matters. You have to look at it objectively to see that the law is on Apple's side - and that it's fair.

Its not feelings. Its is's and should's.

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/JoelKatz/ethics.html

The law as it stands may well be on Apple's side.

But Laws and morals are about should's.

Then the law is a bad one and needs to be changed - not because of feelings - but because of what is right/wrong (what ought to be)

 

[englishman]

Perhaps a kernel of truth to that, but you're making it sound too much like a campfire ghost story...I don't think there is anything wrong with the notion of a totally closed computer platform so long as

1. That platform does not have a monopolistic market share

2. Viable alternative platforms are available.

At this point there are three major platforms available with three different levels of openness. Windows, in the middle in terms of openness, still dominates the market, without being a real monoply. Apple is growing fast but is still nowhere near the market leader, let alone a monopoly.

And there's always *nix.

Exactly the point - there are views that want to make all platforms closed - you will have alternative platforms but they will all be closed. It maybe hard to see now, but...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Exactly the point - there are views that want to make all platforms closed - you will have alternative platforms but they will all be closed. It maybe hard to see now, but...

I don't know, I just don't see it happening. Third-party software is such an integral part of the picture, even on the Mac, that it would take a totally unprecedented shift in the computer industry for your fears to be realized.

And, like I said, there's always *nix. They have enough clout now to go it alone even if Apple and Windows went 100% closed overnight.

 

[englishman]

I don't know, I just don't see it happening. Third-party software is such an integral part of the picture, even on the Mac, that it would take a totally unprecedented shift in the computer industry for your fears to be realized.

And, like I said, there's always *nix. They have enough clout now to go it alone even if Apple and Windows went 100% closed overnight.

Its hard to see it happening - and I can't remember where I heard it now in the last few weeks - but in the nightmare scenario even *nix would be down - just all closed systems to choose from.

Its sort of already like that in console gaming isn't it? I'm not a gamer.

 

[CWallace]

According to Apple's complaint:

"Psystar's Chief Executive Offcer has been quoted as saying that Psystar has sold 'thousands' of these computers."

Ah, thanks.

And considering Psystar says Apple would charge twice as much, I suppose that means if Apple released the "Mac Semi Pro" mini-tower next Tuesday, they could comfortably meet demand by sending one or two to each Apple store.

So Apple should be suing the end users, not Psystar... imo.

If Psystar sells an end-user a computer with no operating system installed, and that end-user then installs a retail copy of OS X on it, then yes, the end-user alone is in violation of the EULA as written and could be susceptible to a lawsuit.

However, if Psystar sells the end-user a computer with OS X already installed on it, then Psystar is the party that has violated the EULA as written and they are the ones susceptible to a lawsuit.

 

[saltyzoo]

Its not feelings. Its is's and should's.

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/JoelKatz/ethics.html

The law as it stands may well be on Apple's side.

But Laws and morals are about should's.

Then the law is a bad one and needs to be changed - not because of feelings - but because of what is right/wrong (what ought to be)

LOL The VAST majority of people in Western countries, when discussing a generic situation (read that as something you aren't biased about) believe that copyright law is what *should* be. That's why the laws exist and have existed for hundreds of years.

Just because one person, or one small group of people think one company *should* do something, doesn't mean the law is bad. That is the whole point. When you are objective about it, it becomes obvious what *should* happen. The problem is, for people like us that love OS X and want to use it, it is very difficult to be objective.

If Microsoft were suing Apple for this very same thing I guarantee you we'd feel very differently about it emotionally. The *should* would be very different.

 

[James17]

Some people may feel sympathy for Psystar in this instance as I do but I know that above sympathy they are breaking the law and Apple are right which means if Apple wins this case which they probably will, it's fair.

 

[KingYaba]

Well what do you know. Psystar HQ for sale?

 

[northy124]

Damn I was just going to post about that oh well you beat me to the punch, $4.6 million it is going for according to Information week

Internet real estate sites show that the building that houses Psystar is on the market for $4.6 million.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
July 18, 2008 04:04 PM

If Mac clone maker Psystar manages to survive what's sure to be an expensive copyright battle with Apple over its right to sell Mac clones, the company may need to find new headquarters -- again.

Internet real estate sites show that the building that houses Psystar -- a Doral, Fla., property that is essentially a distribution warehouse -- is on the market for $4.6 million.

Edit: Woops didn't notice you had already linked to Info Week oh well.

 

[drsmithy]

LOL The VAST majority of people in Western countries, when discussing a generic situation (read that as something you aren't biased about) believe that copyright law is what *should* be.

The differences between copyright laws in various "western countries", alone, make this argument laughable.

For example, until fairly recently (last couple of yearsor so) there was no legal way to get music onto an iPod in Australia, because Australian copyright law disallowed format shifting. Similarly, recording just about anything off TV, until quite recently, was also a copyright violation.

There are only a couple of things I imagine most "western people" would agree on:

• You shouldn't misrepresent someone else's work as your own (or anyone else's)
• You shouldn't redistribute multiple copies of a single work to multiple people for profit

Outside of that, their opinions are going to be shaped by both local laws and whatever they feel is right. For example, a rather large proportion of people would not consider download music (or movies, for that matter) from torrent sites to be particularly "bad". To say nothing of places where it has been _explicitly_ identified as non-infringing.

That's why the laws exist and have existed for hundreds of years.

Copyright law as it exists today and copyright law as it existed "hundreds of years ago" (or, hell, even a few decades ago) are _very_ different.

Just because one person, or one small group of people think one company *should* do something, doesn't mean the law is bad. That is the whole point. When you are objective about it, it becomes obvious what *should* happen. The problem is, for people like us that love OS X and want to use it, it is very difficult to be objective.

I am being quite objective about it. I am asking Apple to behave little differently to the way I would were it my "work" (indeed, I am not even asking them to be as liberal as I would).

If Microsoft were suing Apple for this very same thing I guarantee you we'd feel very differently about it emotionally. The *should* would be very different.

If Apple were sellings Macs with Windows included, and were installing a few drivers to make it work, Microsoft would be happy for the extra income.

I know you're having a great time building up this "Psystar are claiming Apple's work as their own" straw man and then tearing it down (or at least I assume you are, since you've done it so many times), but it's just not an honest evaluation on what's actually happening.

 

[CWallace]

What, exactly, is Psystar doing to get OS X to run on their computers?

Are they just installing OS X and then adding additional drivers/programs to hook into it to make it run?

Or have the actually de-compiled the OS X codebase, modified it directly to make it compatible with their hardware, then re-compiled it and installed that re-compiled version on their computer?

If the former, all I can see them being in violation of is the terms of the EULA that require OS X to be installed on an Apple-branded computer.

If the latter, they are at least in violation of the DMCA, any patent applications Apple holds that Psystar modified, and at least part of copyright legal code.

 

[saltyzoo]

There are only a couple of things I imagine most "western people" would agree on:

* You shouldn't misrepresent someone else's work as your own (or anyone else's)
* You shouldn't redistribute multiple copies of a single work to multiple people for profit

Add *You shouldn't misrepresent your work as anyone else's

and I agree with you.

The first and my addition are exactly what Psystar has done "wrong".

I know you're having a great time building up this "Psystar are claiming Apple's work as their own" straw man and then tearing it down (or at least I assume you are, since you've done it so many times), but it's just not an honest evaluation on what's actually happening.

You know, using concepts like straw man don't make you look smart. Especially when they don't apply.

When I'm claiming exactly what Apple is claiming in their suit, you can't accuse me of a straw man argument. It's pointless, weak, and doesn't change anybodies mind so stick to the subject. Geez, I agree with you on everything but one point. Can't you focus on that fact and discuss the one point in a friendly manner?

 

[saltyzoo]

What, exactly, is Psystar doing to get OS X to run on their computers?

Are they just installing OS X and then adding additional drivers/programs to hook into it to make it run?

Or have the actually de-compiled the OS X codebase, modified it directly to make it compatible with their hardware, then re-compiled it and installed that re-compiled version on their computer?

If the former, all I can see them being in violation of is the terms of the EULA that require OS X to be installed on an Apple-branded computer.

If the latter, they are at least in violation of the DMCA, any patent applications Apple holds that Psystar modified, and at least part of copyright legal code.

This is a good question, and I agree with your assessment. If none of the actual code on the install disk is modified then I don't see how it is copyright infringement. If even a settings file is changed, then I think Apple has an argument. If "code" is changed, then it is clear cut.

 

[drsmithy]

I think that is an important point. And its wider too. There is a feeling within the computer industry that they want to do away with general purpose computing/ers altogether and make all systems closed - and tied to certain products only (look out for info if you haven't heard this view) - that's exactly why this case is so important.

Where is this "feeling" coming from ?

MS weren't allowed to bundle OS/browser - neither should Apple. It "is" a closed system - it "shouldn't" be.

Microsoft were allowed to do this (as they should have been).

 

[drsmithy]

Some people may feel sympathy for Psystar in this instance as I do but I know that above sympathy they are breaking the law and Apple are right which means if Apple wins this case which they probably will, it's fair.

In what way is the enforcement of a bad law fair ?

The number of people here going "it's against the law, and that's all there is to it", is scary.

 

[drsmithy]

Add *You shouldn't misrepresent your work as anyone else's

and I agree with you.

The first and my addition are exactly what Psystar has done "wrong".

Where is Psystar claiming that OS X is their own work or that theirs is Apple's ?

When I'm claiming exactly what Apple is claiming in their suit, you can't accuse me of a straw man argument. It's pointless, weak, and doesn't change anybodies mind so stick to the subject. Geez, I agree with you on everything but one point. Can't you focus on that fact and discuss the one point in a friendly manner?

That Apple is claiming it in their suit doesn't make it any less a straw man. Having had a quick browse of Psystar's website, I can't see anywhere where they are claiming that OS X is theirs, or that their procedure is endorsed or supported by Apple.

This is a good question, and I agree with your assessment. If none of the actual code on the install disk is modified then I don't see how it is copyright infringement. If even a settings file is changed, then I think Apple has an argument. If "code" is changed, then it is clear cut.

So in your view a reseller who customises a Mac for a customer has infringed copyright because "even a settings file" has been changed ?

 

[saltyzoo]

In what way is the enforcement of a bad law fair ?

The number of people here going "it's against the law, and that's all there is to it", is scary.

Sorry, but most of us here believe that if you disagree with a law you work through your legislators to get it changed rather than just ignoring it at will.

But, besides that, most people believe that copyright law does more good than harm. And that the law in this case is fair, even though we wish it were not so.

 

[r.j.s]

In what way is the enforcement of a bad law fair ?

The number of people here going "it's against the law, and that's all there is to it", is scary.

You keep saying the law is bad, but as I see it, it does exactly what it is supposed to, it protects those that create works from those looking to make money from them without permission.

There is nothing wrong with the copyright law. Stop basing your entire argument on that weak claim.