Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[CWallace]

On average adding another CPU lowers performance, because anything that needs more than two cores is generally going to be bandwidth limited and messing with the FSB like you have to with a dual socket MB lowers memory bandwidth.

Our single quad-core workstations do seem to perform better in many basic applications then our dual quad-core workstations.

Fortunately, Intel's move to QPI and integrated memory controllers should help overcome much of this, and Apple's move to leverage multi-core and multi-CPU architectures should result in better performance across the board from dual-CPUs then single CPUs.

 

[NovemberMike]

With Nehalem you have an eight core single socket option (that hyperthreads to sixteen virtual cores). I really don't see any standard tools (ie. Photoshop, FCP, Decoding tasks) being parallelizable to the degree that making it dual socket will help.

You also have to remember that this grand central stuff isn't going to be some magic fix. Some tasks just can't be split to multiple threads and there is nothing you can do about it, and it is a task that everybody and their mother has been working on for the last twenty years. They will probably come out with a good product, but don't expect anything that just demolishes the competition.

 

[aoresteen]

Hello guys! I been out of the loop for awhile as I just got back from Iraq and relocated to Florida.

I read the first 20 pages or so of this thread and the last two so if I missed something I apologize.

I located and read the actual 17 page complaint that Apple filed on July 3rd. Apple alleges ten claims for relief in their filing. They are suing not only on copyright infringement but breach of contract and trademark infringement as well.

The ten claims that Apple makes are:

1. Copyright Infringement

2. Contributory and Induced Copyright Infringement

3. Breach of Contract

4. Inducing Breach of Contract

5. Trademark Infringement

6. Trademark Infringement

7. Trade Dress Infringement

8. Trademark Dilution

9. State Unfair Competition

10. Common Law Unfair Competition

Apple is claiming venue in the USDC Northern District of California. Apple claims that Pystar has done business there and has infringed there as well.

Apple claims violation of its EULA as Pystar has loaded OSX on non-Apple branded computers.

On page 6 line 23 of the complaint Apple states that "Mac OS, Mac OS X, Mac OS X version 10.5, and Mac OS X Server are all original works of authorship created by Apple constituting copyrightable subject matter (hereafter, "the Copyrighted Works')." No mention is made of BSD or the underlying open source that OS X is built on.


Pystar has until 18 Aug to reply to Apple's claims. It will be interesting reading for sure. They hired Carr & Ferrell LLP to represent them.

This is more than a copyright infringement claim. Apple has pulled out all the guns.

 

[Umbongo]

With Nehalem you have an eight core single socket option (that hyperthreads to sixteen virtual cores). I really don't see any standard tools (ie. Photoshop, FCP, Decoding tasks) being parallelizable to the degree that making it dual socket will help.

The problem is that it would be a step backwards to go from dual socket to single socket and they had no choice but to go with dual socket originally. Of course this can be solved by just adding the much desired xMac to the range, but we know that isn't likely to happen.

 

[Bloomedis]

Personally, I find it no more outrageous than a company telling me what computer I can or can't install their operating system on. If I buy a copy of Leopard, I should have a right to install it on any (ONE) machine I want to. Apple may not support it, they may not encourage it, and they can even try to restrict it but so long as I'm not violating the one computer/one license rule, it should be fine.

But no, it isn't like I think I should be able to go to Apple tech support when I have a problem.

Personally, that is an opinion which has no legal effect whatsoever. It's like me saying "oban14 should drink only coffee for the rest of his life". That's not going to make you do that. Plus, you never buy a copy of Leopard, you buy the license, which doesn't give you a right at all to install it on anything you want, it only gives you the right to install it on whatever you and Apple agreed upon in the SLA (Software License Agreement). If you didn't agree, don't install it at all.

I think if I buy a CD, there are certain inherent rights. I can rip it, I can re-sell it (provided I delete any of my own copies), I can make copies for my own use, and I can play it on any CD player I choose.

If I buy a copy of OSX, I feel I have certain inherent rights. That includes building my own computer and installing it there.

1. For that CD, you do have the legal rights. Period.

2. For OS X, YOU FEEL, YOU FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU DON'T!

Wrong. The Apple EULA states that I can only install Leopard onto an Apple branded computer. I don't think that is legal, but I guess we might find out in this court case.

Man, wtc is wrong with you. YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS LEGAL. WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT YOU THINK. IT'S AN OPINION. NOT A LEGAL AGREEMENT.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I think if I buy a CD, there are certain inherent rights. I can rip it, I can re-sell it (provided I delete any of my own copies), I can make copies for my own use, and I can play it on any CD player I choose.

If I buy a copy of OSX, I feel I have certain inherent rights. That includes building my own computer and installing it there.T!

I might like to point out all copies of OSX sold are upgrade copies not full installs. They are upgrade copies because they require you to have a previous version of OSX.

All Macs comes with OSX installed and OSX is supposed to only be installed on an apple computer hence upgrade copy.

 

[rjohnstone]

I might like to point out all copies of OSX sold are upgrade copies not full installs. They are upgrade copies because they require you to have a previous version of OSX.

All Macs comes with OSX installed and OSX is supposed to only be installed on an apple computer hence upgrade copy.

No, they do not require a previous version be present.
The install disk contains a COMPLETE and FULL version of OS X.
Nowhere on the disk or the packaging does it say it's an upgrade or that a previous version is required.

 

[oban14]

Personally, that is an opinion which has no legal effect whatsoever. It's like me saying "oban14 should drink only coffee for the rest of his life". That's not going to make you do that. Plus, you never buy a copy of Leopard, you buy the license, which doesn't give you a right at all to install it on anything you want, it only gives you the right to install it on whatever you and Apple agreed upon in the SLA (Software License Agreement). If you didn't agree, don't install it at all.

I think Apple's EULA is illegal, and the good thing about this Psystar suit is that it may be clarified in a court of law. I think any reasonable judge will agree that if you buy a piece of software (or license), you have the right to install it on one computer.

If you'd like to go back to grasping at straws, answer the following questions:

1) Is it legal for me to install OSX on a Mac Pro?
2) What if I've replaced the CPU, hard drive, ram and video card with third party components?
3) What if I've replaced the motherboard?
4) At what point is a computer no longer "Apple branded"? It still has the apple logo on the case, after all.

1. For that CD, you do have the legal rights. Period.

2. For OS X, YOU FEEL, YOU FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS. BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU DON'T!

Because the law has yet to be determined in this case. I fail to see why I should have certain rights with a CD that I don't have with OSX.

Man, wtc is wrong with you. YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS LEGAL. WHO GIVES A CRAP WHAT YOU THINK. IT'S AN OPINION. NOT A LEGAL AGREEMENT.

Lay off the caps lock, buddy. It makes you come across as... well, not so intelligent.

Apple's EULA doesn't appear to be a legal agreement either. Sure, they have a bunch of legalese in there but it doesn't mean that it's binding. They could write in there that I have to donate my first born to Steve Jobs, but it wouldn't make it legal.

I guess we'll find out when this Psystar/Apple lawsuit is resolved. Until then, neither one of us is right. Deal with it.

 

[timestoby]

youd think this company would at least hook you up with a better casing,that macusers are used to style not this cheap lookn thing lol

 

[NovemberMike]

The problem is that it would be a step backwards to go from dual socket to single socket and they had no choice but to go with dual socket originally. Of course this can be solved by just adding the much desired xMac to the range, but we know that isn't likely to happen.

IIRC, the Mac Pro has always had two quad core processors (correct me if I'm wrong). Set up like that, it is almost always going to be slower than the same processor in a single socket barring special tasks (3D content creation for example).

 

[CWallace]

1) Is it legal for me to install OSX on a Mac Pro?

Yes, because it is an Apple-branded computer.

2) What if I've replaced the CPU, hard drive, ram and video card with third party components?

Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.

3) What if I've replaced the motherboard?

EDIT - No, because it is no longer an Apple-branded computer (at least per Apple).

4) At what point is a computer no longer "Apple branded"?

When it isn't designed, engineered and sold (direct or through a third-party) by Apple?

IIRC, the Mac Pro has always had two quad core processors (correct me if I'm wrong).

The Mac Pro has been available with single or dual Intel Xeon CPUs with two or four cores per CPU.

 

[minicoop503]

Yes, because it is an Apple-branded computer.



Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.



Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.



When it isn't designed, engineered and sold (direct or through a third-party) by Apple?




The Mac Pro has been available with single or dual Intel Xeon CPUs with two or four cores per CPU.

That doesn't make sense. So, we could just buy a mac pro case and put our own components in it and it would still be an Apple-Branded computer?

 

[Umbongo]

IIRC, the Mac Pro has always had two quad core processors (correct me if I'm wrong). Set up like that, it is almost always going to be slower than the same processor in a single socket barring special tasks (3D content creation for example).

When they introduced it the only way to offer a system at least as good as the quad G5 was to use a dual socket board as there were no single socket quad cores. Single socket boards also only supported up to 8GB of memory too where the G5 had supported 16GB. They can't undo thatso the Mac Pro has to remain a dual socket workstation, as it should.

Macs aren't suited to 3D content creation anyway

 

[Umbongo]

That doesn't make sense. So, we could just buy a mac pro case and put our own components in it and it would still be an Apple-Branded computer?

If you replaced the motherboard with a non-apple replacement part you would invaildate your warranty and support from Apple and you would be in the same group as the hackintosh owners.

 

[Eric S.]

If you replaced the motherboard with a non-apple replacement part you would invaildate your warranty and support from Apple and you would be in the same group as the hackintosh owners.

Well, what if it's an old computer that is out of warranty? It doesn't seem like the warranty status of the machine is the issue. In fact the EULA only states that it has to be an "Apple-labeled computer."

 

[oban14]

Yes, because it is an Apple-branded computer.



Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.



Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.



When it isn't designed, engineered and sold (direct or through a third-party) by Apple?




The Mac Pro has been available with single or dual Intel Xeon CPUs with two or four cores per CPU.

Wrong. According to Apple, once you replace the motherboard, it's no longer an Apple branded computer.

So if Psystar buys a bunch of old Apple cases and loads them up with PC components, is it legal to install OSX then?

 

[gehrbox]

Nope

"3) What if I've replaced the motherboard?"
Yes, because it is still an Apple-branded computer.

Gotta disagree with you here. When you replace a Mac motherboard with a motherboard not approved for use in the computer by Apple it's no longer an Apple engineered computer. A Mac consists of some key components that differentiate it from other computers. The case is one item and the motherboard is another.

 

[Eric S.]

Wrong. According to Apple, once you replace the motherboard, it's no longer an Apple branded computer.

Gotta disagree with you here. When you replace a Mac motherboard with a motherboard not approved for use in the computer by Apple it's no longer an Apple engineered computer. A Mac consists of some key components that differentiate it from other computers. The case is one item and the motherboard is another.

So where does Apple define exactly what constitutes an "Apple-labeled computer"?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

No, they do not require a previous version be present.
The install disk contains a COMPLETE and FULL version of OS X.
Nowhere on the disk or the packaging does it say it's an upgrade or that a previous version is required.

Let me put it another way. I used term upgrade loosely. It is an "UPGRADE" because it is required to be an apple label computer and because of that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a apple label computer with out a previous version or OSX on it.

This is why all version sold in stores are upgradeds and not full versions.

 

[gehrbox]

So where does Apple define exactly what constitutes an "Apple-labeled computer"?

Apple labels the case and every motherboard I have ever seen.

 

[Eric S.]

Let me put it another way. I used term upgrade loosely. It is an "UPGRADE" because it is required to be an apple label computer and because of that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a apple label computer with out a previous version or OSX on it.

This is why all version sold in stores are upgradeds and not full versions.

That's what Apple would like to call it, of course. But I can stick a blank disk in an Apple computer and OS X will install just fine on it. So I'm not actually "upgrading" anything.

Apple labels the case and every motherboard I have ever seen.

That's not an official definition then. I mean, you could just as easily assume that a computer is "Apple-labeled" if it has an Apple-labeled case OR an Apple-labeled motherboard.

 

[gehrbox]

That's not an official definition then. I mean, you could just as easily assume that a computer is "Apple-labeled" if it has an Apple-labeled case OR an Apple-labeled motherboard.

You really want somebody to define it here? Clearly Apple is pursuing this case with a number of angles. One of which would be what they consider "Apple labeled".

Your view would appear to be analogous to a car. Where an owner can replace the engine with a new engine made by another company. Say somebody puts a corvette engine in a new mustang. The car is still a mustang right? GM is not going to hunt down the company replacing the motors. They might sue them if they started selling the cars under their own name though.

What do you think GM would do if another company duplicated the body of the car and sold it under another name without license? I read recently that some car companies as well as aerospace companies are forcing plastic model kit makers to pay license fees for rendering their products in miniature form.

If I were a singer and I performed and SOLD Beatles music how long do you think it would take before I was sued for doing the covers? Gotta get a license to do it if money is being made.

What happens when you take somebodies work and sell it as your own? Mac's have always been more then the sum of their parts. It is a complete product which includes the software and hardware. Psystar is modifying the code of OS X in order to make it run on their hardware and no matter what label is on the box the modification of the code is where Apple is going to nail them.

 

[Eric S.]

You really want somebody to define it here?

No, I want to know what Apple's definition is. I don't care what anybody else thinks the definition is, including myself, all of which is totally irrelevant. I want to know what Apple means exactly when they say "Apple-labeled." Some earlier posts seemed to indicate that the posters had seen some definition from Apple.

Your view would appear to be analogous to a car.

I have not stated my view; in fact, I don't have a settled position on what "apple-labeled" means.

 

[gehrbox]

No, I want to know what Apple's definition is. I don't care what anybody else thinks the definition is, including myself, all of which is totally irrelevant. I want to know what Apple means exactly when they say "Apple-labeled." Some earlier posts seemed to indicate that the posters had seen some definition from Apple.



I have not stated my view; in fact, I don't have a settled position on this question.

I said "appeared". Meaning you did not want to accept the logical answer.

 

[Eric S.]

I said "appeared". Meaning you did not want to accept the logical answer.

All I'm asking is what has Apple said about it? I don't want to argue over it. If Apple has never defined it any further, then obviously different people are going to interpret the language in different ways.