Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[drsmithy]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Windows 98 Upgrade only checked for a previous windows cd. That was an upgrade, but contained the full version. Just because something is an upgrade, doesn't mean it has to use previous version's files. Think about that, Why would an upgrade use an older file than the full version. All upgrades contain the full version.

Exactly. Every "upgrade" version of Windows ever sold is a "full install" in that it has the same files as the "full" version. The setup program just does a check for an existing copy (either installed, or via an installation disk). Many times in the past this check has been trivially simple to circumvent (eg: a floppy disk with a file - of any type - name win.com on it).

The reasons why Apple has never bothered with this sort of check - especially if you go back more than a couple of years - should be obvious.

 

[drsmithy]

Whether the law itself is unfair or not the fact is it's the law and has to be adhered to by everyone. Believe it or not, I think it's unfair and I feel sympathy for Psystar but in reality they are breaking the law and we can't bend the rules for one company.

I don't think the rules should be bent for one company, I think they should be changed for everyone.

 

[drsmithy]

Dell, Gateway, etc. don't go to their local shop and buy copies of the Windows OS to install on the PCs they're selling. They get it under the terms of a licensing agreement w/Microsoft which permits modifications, etc.

Small PC resellers do not have these sort of arrangements, however.

 

[gehrbox]

how can apple lose? I do wish that apple would let us build our own computers, or get cheeper.

Apple is a hardware maker that writes the software to make it work. Take the hardware out of the deal and they don't make enough money to stay in business.

Licensing out Mac OS in the past did not make Apple a sudden success. It just took money out of their hardware sales. Steve Jobs did not permit the cloners to license the newer versions of Mac OS and this put the clones out of business and helped return Apple to profitability.

Either pony up the money to buy an Apple product or get yourself a cheap PC running Vista. You have a choice.

 

[ihabime]

Copyright only comes into this because the EULA states that OS X is only licensed for use on an Apple-branded computer. Therefore, if you're using it on anything else, you are infringing copyright. Personally, I do not believe (and would dearly love to see a court rule) that such EULA restrictions are enforceable. I believe in some other countries such EULAs have already been found unenforceable (so from that perspective someone like Psystar might have better luck if they pulled up and moved somewhere else).

The copyright claim and the EULA claim are two very separate allegations. The copyright claim is based on psystar redistributing modified versions of official Apple updates. This is pretty much cut and dried, psystar DLed Apple updates, ran a patch against them then redistributed the modified binary. There's not much defense against that, the law does not allow redistribution of copyrighted material without the owners permission.

The EULA claim itself is pretty solid too, the 7th and 8th circuit appellate courts have upheld EULAs as valid contracts repeatedly, they are governed by the same laws as any other contract, as long as the user has a chance to accept or deny the license and can return the product if the license is rejected. The big case was ProCD, Inc., v. Zeidenberg, here's a nice summary, and other courts have affirmed that decision on multiple occasions. It's an internet myth that EULAs are invalid or untested in court in the US.

The other claims in the suit are just window dressing, the copyright and EULA claims are the solid foundation backed up by case law.

I can't see how this can be characterized as IP law gone wild, these are basic contract and copyright claims, no new fangled over extended IP laws required, they're valid now and they would have been valid 50 or 100 years ago. Psystar accepted Apples EULA when it installed OSX and it violated that contract by installing it on non-apple hardware, Psystar redistributed altered Apple updates without apples permission in violation of copyright law.

50 years ago if i signed a contract with you to publish your book only in hardcover but i decided to do a softcover edition I would be in breach of contract, If i sold altered editions of your book i would be in breach of copyright law. It's the same situation as Psystar is in now.

 

[CWallace]

IMHO a far more significant reason is that there are a few gaping holes in Apple's hardware lineup and Psystar has filled what is probably the most obvious one. People have been screaming for a mid-range Mac tower for *years* and have been almost completely ignored.

And yet Hackintoshes are a tiny part of the overall OS X installed user base and Psystar, selling a model at prices that would make a Mac Mini blush, have only moved a few thousand units.

Even on this forum, which has who knows how many (tens of?) thousands members, it's only a score or so of members who demand such a machine.

I honestly believe Apple is not denying us a "Mac Semi Pro" tower out of spite. If it was really all about marketshare, there is nothing stopping them from using iMac parts in tower if they don't want to use Intel's desktop CPUs and chipsets. And Apple could easily price it to ensure they make as much as or more then they do from every Mac Pro, so the worry about lack of profits really should not be an issue.

Looking back at what we were paying for single-CPU G4s and G5s in 2003 - $1500 and $2000, respectively - $2300 for the current Mac Pro is not terribly higher, considering that I imagine a single 2.8GHz quad-core Intel would handily out-gun a 1GHz single-core G4 or 1.6GHz single-core G5.

For whatever reason, Steve hasn't really supported a mid-line desktop since he came back. When he transitioned the Power Macintosh line from the Old World ROM to the New World ROM, the line dropped the minitower and desktop lines for a single "large" tower form factor and so it has been ever since.

And yet, every year it seems Apple just sells more and more computers...

 

[Tosser]

And yet Hackintoshes are a tiny part of the overall OS X installed user base and Psystar, selling a model at prices that would make a Mac Mini blush, have only moved a few thousand units.

Even on this forum, which has who knows how many (tens of?) thousands members, it's only a score or so of members who demand such a machine.

I honestly believe Apple is not denying us a "Mac Semi Pro" tower out of spite. If it was really all about marketshare, there is nothing stopping them from using iMac parts in tower if they don't want to use Intel's desktop CPUs and chipsets. And Apple could easily price it to ensure they make as much as or more then they do from every Mac Pro, so the worry about lack of profits really should not be an issue.

Looking back at what we were paying for single-CPU G4s and G5s in 2003 - $1500 and $2000, respectively - $2300 for the current Mac Pro is not terribly higher, considering that I imagine a single 2.8GHz quad-core Intel would handily out-gun a 1GHz single-core G4 or 1.6GHz single-core G5.

For whatever reason, Steve hasn't really supported a mid-line desktop since he came back. When he transitioned the Power Macintosh line from the Old World ROM to the New World ROM, the line dropped the minitower and desktop lines for a single "large" tower form factor and so it has been ever since.

And yet, every year it seems Apple just sells more and more computers...

You realise your whole post is entirely based on variations of the McDonald's argument*, right?

*http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

[gnasher729]

A straightfoward statement along the lines of "this software can only be used to upgrade an existing copy of OS X" would go a long way.

What about "this software can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer"? And guess what, all Apple-labeled computers capable of running Leopard have originally shipped with OS X. And Apple doesn't mind if you install Leopard on a Macintosh after the original OS X version has been deleted for some reason, for example if your original hard drive crashed and you decide to buy a new hard drive and a new operating system at the same time.

Oh, by the way, "this software can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer" is exactly what Apple says. I mean what kind of argument is that anyway? In either case, Apple doesn't allow installation just anywhere, but only under some condition that is very easy to verify for the customer. If one condition is something that is valid and has to be accepted by a customer, then so is the other.

 

[ihabime]

You realise your whole post is entirely based on variations of the McDonald's argument*, right?
*http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

No it's not, exactly where does he refer to popular belief to prove his argument?

At best the first two statements are generalization fallacies, that does not invalidate them on face though, it just means they don't offer a large enough sample to back up his conclusion.

And yet Hackintoshes are a tiny part of the overall OS X installed user base and Psystar, selling a model at prices that would make a Mac Mini blush, have only moved a few thousand units.

Even on this forum, which has who knows how many (tens of?) thousands members, it's only a score or so of members who demand such a machine.

The third is supposition, but he admits that

I honestly believe Apple is not denying us a "Mac Semi Pro" tower out of spite. If it was really all about marketshare, there is nothing stopping them from using iMac parts in tower if they don't want to use Intel's desktop CPUs and chipsets. And Apple could easily price it to ensure they make as much as or more then they do from every Mac Pro, so the worry about lack of profits really should not be an issue.

The fourth, fifth and sixth are verifiable facts, the computers did cost that much, those computers were cancelled and Apple has sold more machines year over year.

Looking back at what we were paying for single-CPU G4s and G5s in 2003 - $1500 and $2000, respectively - $2300 for the current Mac Pro is not terribly higher, considering that I imagine a single 2.8GHz quad-core Intel would handily out-gun a 1GHz single-core G4 or 1.6GHz single-core G5.

For whatever reason, Steve hasn't really supported a mid-line desktop since he came back. When he transitioned the Power Macintosh line from the Old World ROM to the New World ROM, the line dropped the minitower and desktop lines for a single "large" tower form factor and so it has been ever since.

And yet, every year it seems Apple just sells more and more computers...

 

[saltyzoo]

A straightfoward statement along the lines of "this software can only be used to upgrade an existing copy of OS X" would go a long way.

The straightforward statement "Copyright © 2008 Apple Inc. All rights reserved." goes a long way.

 

[Tosser]

No it's not, exactly where does he refer to popular belief to prove his argument?

He uses a variation of it, claiming that because it's a _minority_ there's no point in listening (more on that after your post). I never said that the McDonald's argument were the _only_ fallacy. I was stating that he based the entire argument on it.

At best the first two statements are generalization fallacies, that does not invalidate them on face though, it just means they don't offer a large enough sample to back up his conclusion.

Yes, they're that too, but also a variation on the McD-argument.

The third is supposition, but he admits that

The fourth, fifth and sixth are verifiable facts, the computers did cost that much, those computers were cancelled and Apple has sold more machines year over year.

Okay,:

My emphasis:

And yet Hackintoshes are a tiny part of the overall OS X installed user base and Psystar, selling a model at prices that would make a Mac Mini blush, have only moved a few thousand units.

That whole paragraph is based on the notion that only things popular have merit.

Even on this forum, which has who knows how many (tens of?) thousands members, it's only a score or so of members who demand such a machine.

See above, and you 'll notice that he uses the McD-premise to conclude everything in the following:

I honestly believe Apple is not denying us a "Mac Semi Pro" tower out of spite. If it was really all about marketshare, there is nothing stopping them from using iMac parts in tower if they don't want to use Intel's desktop CPUs and chipsets. And Apple could easily price it to ensure they make as much as or more then they do from every Mac Pro, so the worry about lack of profits really should not be an issue.


Looking back at what we were paying for single-CPU G4s and G5s in 2003 - $1500 and $2000, respectively - $2300 for the current Mac Pro is not terribly higher, considering that I imagine a single 2.8GHz quad-core Intel would handily out-gun a 1GHz single-core G4 or 1.6GHz single-core G5.


For whatever reason, Steve hasn't really supported a mid-line desktop since he came back. When he transitioned the Power Macintosh line from the Old World ROM to the New World ROM, the line dropped the minitower and desktop lines for a single "large" tower form factor and so it has been ever since.

To further emphasize the McD-argument, he even ends his post with a "clean" version of it:

And yet, every year it seems Apple just sells more and more computers...

 

[CWallace]

You realize your whole post is entirely based on variations of the McDonald's argument*, right?

Well so are the claims that Apple must have a Mini Tower, so I guess we cancel each other out.

And I've never begrudged those who want a machine cheaper then a Pro and more expandable then a Mini.

 

[drsmithy]

And yet Hackintoshes are a tiny part of the overall OS X installed user base and Psystar, selling a model at prices that would make a Mac Mini blush, have only moved a few thousand units.

Well, duh. Even ignoring the fact that the questionable support status of the machines would rule them out for all but advanced users, their marketing sphere of influence is miniscule.

I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at with your dig about the price, either. An "OpenMac" is cheaper than the base Mini, but has significantly higher specifications. Indeed, you simply couldn't configure a Mini to equivalent specs as the "OpenMac".

Even on this forum, which has who knows how many (tens of?) thousands members, it's only a score or so of members who demand such a machine.

Bollocks. Hell, I'm one person and I could pretty much guarantee more than "a score" of sales tomorrow, if such a machine existed.

I'd be quite surprised if any less than half the people who bought Mac Pros, would have bought a machine like this instead, had it been available.

I honestly believe Apple is not denying us a "Mac Semi Pro" tower out of spite. If it was really all about marketshare, there is nothing stopping them from using iMac parts in tower if they don't want to use Intel's desktop CPUs and chipsets. And Apple could easily price it to ensure they make as much as or more then they do from every Mac Pro, so the worry about lack of profits really should not be an issue.

If they price it as you suggest - highly - then they're not going to shift anywhere near as many as they would otherwise.

Looking back at what we were paying for single-CPU G4s and G5s in 2003 - $1500 and $2000, respectively - $2300 for the current Mac Pro is not terribly higher, considering that I imagine a single 2.8GHz quad-core Intel would handily out-gun a 1GHz single-core G4 or 1.6GHz single-core G5.

The "they're so much more powerful today" argument is rubbish (not to mention just plain stupid). *Every* machine is "so much more powerful". Fact is that Apple used to have machines (sort of) in this market segment and don't any more, and that the same types of people who wanted them then are still around today (only now they have to spend twice as much on a base-level Mac Pro).

For whatever reason, Steve hasn't really supported a mid-line desktop since he came back. When he transitioned the Power Macintosh line from the Old World ROM to the New World ROM, the line dropped the minitower and desktop lines for a single "large" tower form factor and so it has been ever since.

Because it's easier to justify higher prices and higher profits on a high end "professional" machine.

And yet, every year it seems Apple just sells more and more computers...

So what ?

Your whole argument is, basically, "Apple don't make this but are still successful, therefore nobody wants it". Which is about as intelligent as saying "Microsoft didn't update XP for 7 years but were still successful, therefore there was no point in them updating it at all".

 

[ihabime]

He uses a variation of it...

Yeah, I may have to give you this one, it seems I misread the posts intent as more of an explanation than a direct refutation of drsmithy's argument.

In my defense, I just tried to follow this thread back through the skein and I think I'm now more confused, drsmithy has arguments going with just about everyone

 

[drsmithy]

The copyright claim and the EULA claim are two very separate allegations. The copyright claim is based on psystar redistributing modified versions of official Apple updates. This is pretty much cut and dried, psystar DLed Apple updates, ran a patch against them then redistributed the modified binary. There's not much defense against that, the law does not allow redistribution of copyrighted material without the owners permission.

The facts available do not show - "cut and dried" - that Psystar have modified any of Apple's code (at least not for any meaningful sense of "modified").

I can't see how this can be characterized as IP law gone wild, these are basic contract and copyright claims, no new fangled over extended IP laws required, they're valid now and they would have been valid 50 or 100 years ago.

"50 or 100 years ago" the equivalent would have been a book that could "only be read with Apple-branded spectacles". Or a record that could "only be played on Apple-branded record players".

50 years ago if i signed a contract with you to publish your book only in hardcover but i decided to do a softcover edition I would be in breach of contract, If i sold altered editions of your book i would be in breach of copyright law. It's the same situation as Psystar is in now.

An EULA is not a contract and there's no hard evidence of any modification going on - at least not the sort of modification you're talking about.

 

[drsmithy]

What about "this software can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer"?

No, because it leaves the status of the software as a "full version" or "upgrade" as an ambiguous implication, rather than explicit description. To say nothing of the vague notion of "an Apple branded computer".

Oh, by the way, "this software can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer" is exactly what Apple says. I mean what kind of argument is that anyway?

What's an "Apple branded computer" ? If I slap one of my Apple stickers onto something, does it become "Apple branded" ?

 

[ihabime]

An EULA is not a contract and there's no hard evidence of any modification going on - at least not the sort of modification you're talking about.

Nice try, but i've read your history.

 

[CWallace]

The "they're so much more powerful today" argument is rubbish (not to mention just plain stupid). *Every* machine is "so much more powerful".

I wasn't around in 2003, but when Apple replaced the 1GHz Power Mac G4 at $1499 with the 1.6GHz Power Mac G5 at $1999, did everybody scream bloody murder because the price was $500 more?

Fact is that Apple used to have machines (sort of) in this market segment and don't any more...

Fact is Apple has not offered a non-Mini, non-AIO desktop computer in more then one form factor since the Power Macintosh G3 launched in 1999. So if the current single-CPU Mac Pro is overpriced and overpowered and needs a cheaper alternative, then by that same logic and argument so was every single-CPU Power Mac G5, Power Mac G4 and Power Mac G3.

 

[Tosser]

What's an "Apple branded computer" ? If I slap one of my Apple stickers onto something, does it become "Apple branded" ?

It's even worse: It's not an Apple branded computer, no, it's merely an "Apple labeled" one.

 

[drsmithy]

Yeah, I may have to give you this one, it seems I misread the posts intent as more of an explanation than a direct refutation of drsmithy's argument.

In my defense, I just tried to follow this thread back through the skein and I think I'm now more confused, drsmithy has arguments going with just about everyone

There are certain aspects of copyright I feel rather strongly about .

 

[Tosser]

Yeah, I may have to give you this one, it seems I misread the posts intent as more of an explanation than a direct refutation of drsmithy's argument.

In my defense, I just tried to follow this thread back through the skein and I think I'm now more confused, drsmithy has arguments going with just about everyone

Haha, he certainly has

 

[drsmithy]

Fact is Apple has not offered a non-Mini, non-AIO desktop computer in more then one form factor since the Power Macintosh G3 launched in 1999. So if the current single-CPU Mac Pro is overpriced and overpowered and needs a cheaper alternative, then by that same logic and argument so was every single-CPU Power Mac G5, Power Mac G4 and Power Mac G3.

I didn't say the Mac Pro was overpriced and overpowered, I said there is significant demand for a machine which has approximately half the specifications (and would sell for around - hopefully a bit less - half the price).

 

[CWallace]

I didn't say the Mac Pro was overpriced and overpowered, I said there is significant demand for a machine which has approximately half the specifications (and would sell for around - hopefully a bit less - half the price).

Fair enough.

 

[r.j.s]

Slapping an apple sticker on any old pc would be a trademark infringment, nice try though.

 

[Tosser]

Slapping an apple sticker on any old pc would be a trademark infringment, nice try though.

No it wouldn't. Not unless one did it commercially. Do you not remember those stickers that came with at least the portables back in the day? Are you seriously trying to convince anyone that slapping it somewhere on a computer (as oppsed to, say, your car or window) would be "copyright infringement"?
I think you need to look up what copyright infringement is – even if it does differ from country to country.