Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[Scooterman1]

Isn't this very close to what Microsoft was sued for by the U.S. Government a few years back, and got certain segments of Microsoft split up. They had everything in ONE OS. Browsers, everything, and wouldn't share the inside secrets with anyone which gave the competitors an unfair advantage. Do you think this may be how Psystar will go after Apple?

 

[BenRoethig]

No they won't. Apple hates inexpensive computers for poor people. Let them eat Windoze.

$1299-2000 is not inexpensive. What Apple doesn't like is those who feel the need to think and decide for themselves.

 

[Peace]

Isn't this very close to what Microsoft was sued for by the U.S. Government a few years back, and got certain segments of Microsoft split up. They had everything in ONE OS. Browsers, everything, and wouldn't share the inside secrets with anyone which gave the competitors an unfair advantage. Do you think this may be how Psystar will go after Apple?

Microsoft was ( and still is imho ) acting as a monopoly. Apple has nowhere near a monopoly.

 

[milo]

Isn't this very close to what Microsoft was sued for by the U.S. Government a few years back, and got certain segments of Microsoft split up. They had everything in ONE OS. Browsers, everything, and wouldn't share the inside secrets with anyone which gave the competitors an unfair advantage. Do you think this may be how Psystar will go after Apple?

This isn't remotely close to that for one reason - MS had 90% market share for computer OS and was declared a virtual monopoly. Since apple only has <10% market share, none of those things apply.

 

[ibwb]

The idea that Psystar will somehow win this lawsuit on the basis that EULAs are "invalid" is very much wishful thinking. The giant problem here is that Psystar is installing OSX on its machines. Thus they are shipping you TWO copies: one is a retail Leopard disk, and the other is the Leopard installation on the hard drive. Thus they are making a copy, and this copy does not full under the very limited terms of "fair use". Without some license to make this copy, they are in trouble with copyright law.

This is different from an EULA case where the EULA combines a license with unreasonable provisions restricting the rights of a valid license-holder. This is more a traditional copyright case where Psystar is not a valid license holder at all.

 

[alexmarchuk]

Wrong. That's like saying I could buy a Ford and modify it with batteries to make it more like a Prius. You probably think I shouldn't be allowed to, don't you.



If you're required to buy a full copy of the CD (in this case, Leopard) like everyone is doing, I really don't see the problem.

I can record/remix do whatever I want with a CD I've purchased. Why not with software?

Um. You DO NOT get a Leopard DVD with Psystar. Notice they charge you $155 for in Leopard install, it comes pre-installed. They modified the software no doubt.

 

[zacman]

Sounds to me like the first system they sold didn't modify OS X and thus Apple was having difficulty finding a way to sue them.

It looks like they knew the day would come when they needed to modify something and they were just waiting for it to happen...legal plan in place, ready to spring.

Exactly. This lawsuit will only stop Psystar to distribute the modified combo update but not their hackintoshs with pre installed OS X.

Psystar will probably simply distribute a new install script for the original non modified combo update.

 

[oban14]

thank god... the whole basis behind their company was a slap in the face to apple's EULA. more than that, though, i'm glad to see that those crappy computers aren't going to be sold to people thinking they're going to be getting a good, cheap apple computer. cheap, yeah... good, probably not so much.

i'm sorry to those people out there that just wanted a cheap apple computer that's upgradeable, but with such a blatant disregard for apple's terms and conditions, i'm glad to see psystar go.

I don't think anyone was expecting Mac Pro quality at a Dell deal price. They were willing to pay a lot less for a computer that met their needs. Lots of people have monitors and don't need an iMac, lots of people don't need/can't afford a Mac Pro, and lots of people find a Mac Mini to be too weak video wise. It's a glaring hole in Apple's product line.

Do you think you have the right to then turn around and SELL that remix you made?

No, but I see nothing wrong with selling the original CD (which Psystar did) while giving the remix away for free as well.

YOU, an individual end consumer, can probably do anything you want. Psystar isn't an individual customer, they are a corporation hacking and reselling. Get the difference.

OK, so if a mechanic buys a Ford Fusion, puts in batteries and gives it Prius like performance at a lower cost, should he legally be allowed to sell it?

I say yes. Sounds like you might disagree.

The problem is that copyright law forbids distribution of derivative works. You can't create new material from copyrighted material and distribute it without permission from the original author.

Again, you can do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. But if you try to sell remixes you created from a copyrighted CD, that IS illegal and you could get busted for it.

Again, what if I give them away free with a full, legal copy of the album?

It's about time those hackers died a quick death; Apple can't let such script kiddies taint its products and intellectual property...

I just feel for those poor sods that bought one; it's gonna be great getting support from a dead company... GO APPLE! CRUSH THEM!

They'll be fine, they'll just have to torrent the latest patched OSX version. Why are you so happy to see them put out of business? They were putting OSX into the hands of more people, and answering a demand from the marketplace that Apple chose to ignore.

 

[BenRoethig]

The idea that Psystar will somehow win this lawsuit on the basis that EULAs are "invalid" is very much wishful thinking. The giant problem here is that Psystar is installing OSX on its machines. Thus they are shipping you TWO copies: one is a retail Leopard disk, and the other is the Leopard installation on the hard drive. Thus they are making a copy, and this copy does not full under the very limited terms of "fair use". Without some license to make this copy, they are in trouble with copyright law.

This is different from an EULA case where the EULA combines a license with unreasonable provisions restricting the rights of a valid license-holder. This is more a traditional copyright case where Psystar is not a valid license holder at all.

They aren't suing over the EULA issue.

Exactly. This lawsuit will only stop Psystar to distribute the modified combo update but not their hackintoshs with pre installed OS X.

Psystar will probably simply distribute a new install script for the original non modified combo update.

In theory, but Pystar being basically a basement company won't have the resources to stay in business.

 

[milo]

Um. You DO NOT get a Leopard DVD with Psystar. Notice they charge you $155 for in Leopard install, it comes pre-installed. They modified the software no doubt.

Are you sure about that? I can't find the info on the website right now, but I'm pretty sure they included the Leopard DVD even though you couldn't install from it.

 

[PowerFullMac]

Are you sure about that? I can't find the info on the website right now, but I'm pretty sure they included the Leopard DVD even though you couldn't install from it.

Yes, it comes with a DVD, look at Engadget's unboxing of it.

 

[RichardI]

Apple needs to tread very lightly here. I don't believe they can copyright any hardware when it comes right down to it. I can remember back to when IBM controlled the PC market - and where are they now? I agree with the poster who said "let them sell the hardware without the OS". Apple is just as vulnerable now as IBM was then.

Mark my words

Rich

 

[kungming2]

But this is weak because all Pystar needs to do now is sell the machines with no software and tell users to order a copy of Mac OS X from Amazon.com Even if Apple wins this they will not have resolved the clone isue

But a Hackintosh is way to advanced for most users to do by themselves. If they make tools that assist in that as well, they will still be in trouble for facilitating that breach.

 

[Scooterman1]

Microsoft had 100% of the Market Share for an OS for a PC made by others. And lost.
Apple has 100% of the Market Share for OS X. AND 100% of the Market Share for the hardware their OS runs on, offering NO choice in Hardware. They are still getting the same profit on their OS X that is purchased from Psystar.
It's the unrealistic hardware charges AND hardware purchased from anyone else but them that has them worried. If lower prices are charged for the same internal hardware, they won't be able to sell as much.
But if they have that many new products out there, they could grow like Microsoft with their OS sales.
Apple makes an excellent product, unless you read the iPhone 3G and MobileMe forums. And these Forums can't be helping much.
I'm looking at OS X because of my 1st Gen iPhone. But the prices are high.

 

[bilboa]

A bottom-of-the-line Mac Pro costs $2,300, and it's much larger than I want as well. It's crazy to spend that much when all I need is basically a Mac Mini with a better video card.

Whats wrong with a iMac? Im not saying its not a hole in the product line, but it sounds like you need a base iMac to me.

The problem with the iMac for me is it has a builtin monitor. What I want is a computer that sits under my 42" HDTV and uses the TV as its monitor. A Mac Mini is almost perfect except it comes with a low end non-upgradable video card which is inadequate for playing video games. Instead of thinking of what I want as a Mac Mini with a better video card, you could think of it as an iMac without a built-in monitor. I assume this is similar to what a lot of the people asking for a mid-range desktop computer want; they want to use their own monitor, and want more upgrade options than the Mini or iMac have, but the Mac Pro starting at $2300 is overkill. In the PC world there are tons of options in this niche.

 

[ruckus]

I'm glad. I hope psystar gets shut down.

I have no problem with the x86 project. I do have a problem with a company thinking they can steal a communities effort and sell it like they did.

I'm hoping this doesn't bring apple knocking on the door of the x86 project, but I don't think it will.

 

[oban14]

The idea that Psystar will somehow win this lawsuit on the basis that EULAs are "invalid" is very much wishful thinking. The giant problem here is that Psystar is installing OSX on its machines. Thus they are shipping you TWO copies: one is a retail Leopard disk, and the other is the Leopard installation on the hard drive. Thus they are making a copy, and this copy does not full under the very limited terms of "fair use". Without some license to make this copy, they are in trouble with copyright law.

This is different from an EULA case where the EULA combines a license with unreasonable provisions restricting the rights of a valid license-holder. This is more a traditional copyright case where Psystar is not a valid license holder at all.

Wrong. Apple, Dell, every company sells a copy of the OS (on a physical DVD) as well as having it pre-installed on the computer.

Um. You DO NOT get a Leopard DVD with Psystar. Notice they charge you $155 for in Leopard install, it comes pre-installed. They modified the software no doubt.

Wrong. Psystar, just like Apple, Dell, Lenovo and everyone else, gives you a legal DVD of the OS as well as installing it for you.

Don't let your fanboi beliefs blind you to reality. The reality distortion field isn't supposed to be THAT strong, except on those who are very weak mentally.

 

[BenRoethig]

Yes, it comes with a DVD, look at Engadget's unboxing of it.

Apple only sell retail licenses of OSX. Not including the DVD (and Box) would be piracy.

 

[fat phil]

Unfortunately Apple isn't what it once was in either aspect. I can't count the new machines to flawlessly for half a decade or more like my old PowerMacs. The super thin designs are too fragile and the legacy PowerPC support is dragging leopard down in the reliability aspect as well.



There is little difference anymore besides the EFI ROM chip and the casing.

I can't really argue the reliability, especially lately (MobileMe, ouch), but if my missus installed MacOSX on her Sony Vaio laptop (assuming for arguments sake that it was ligitimate), and asked me why her wireless or bluetooth wasn't working, I'd have to go to the pub to recover from the ensuing argument.

There's a reason Air Traffic Controllers don't use Acer monitors from PC World. They're use good kit built to spec. And for all the common parts in a Mac Pro, there's a certain satisfaction that Apple at least know what those parts are, and they'll answer to them.

The day that ends will be the day that the Mac becomes a Windows PC. And just as some say Apple is the new Microsoft, and that's not a happy thing, deep down you have to feel ever so slightly restless about the idea of Macs losing their last vestige of uniqueness.

 

[PowerFullMac]

The problem with the iMac for me is it has a builtin monitor. What I want is a computer that sits under my 42" HDTV and uses the TV as its monitor. A Mac Mini is almost perfect except it comes with a low end non-upgradable video card which is inadequate for playing video games. I assume this is similar to what a lot of the people asking for a mid-range desktop computer want; they want to use their own monitor, and want more upgrade options than the Mini or iMac have, but the Mac Pro starting at $2300 is overkill. In the PC world there are tons of options in this niche.

Ahh, so you want a nice media/gaming Mac... I think Apple will do this later on as they do want to get the gaming market (look at all the new OS X EA games and the high-end graphics card in the 3.66GHz iMac), not sure how long they will take to do it, though.

 

[oban14]

I'm glad. I hope psystar gets shut down.

I have no problem with the x86 project. I do have a problem with a company thinking they can steal a communities effort and sell it like they did.

I'm hoping this doesn't bring apple knocking on the door of the x86 project, but I don't think it will.

Let me guess - you want Red Hat to get sued out of business as well?

Don't forget that Apple was founded on a community's effort (the homebrew computer club) and selling it.

If the rabid fanbois had been around in the 70s, Apple wouldn't even exist today. It's so sad that computer and electronics development, which once encouraged hacking and skirting the law by people like Wozniak has been castrated to such a degree by people with this mindset.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Wow, the replies are coming as fast as I am reading them!

 

[sanford]

Yes, really, this is unfortunate. Apple seems to have done nothing, nothing overtly intentional, to prohibit hobbyists from working out ways to install Intel OS X on non-Apple hardware. They just don't do anything to make it easy, either. But when a clone-maker jumps in to make money off the deal, they may respond by locking everything down as much as possible.

I get the "should be my right to use an OS I buy on any hardware upon which it will operate" argument. But Apple's Mac business model cannot survive on OS says alone. Their market share is just not high enough. They have to sell Macs. So when lots of people get hurt for the philosophical rights of others, there are no winners. We're not talking habeas corpus or the debate over the right to keep and bear arms, here. We're talking about choosing a Mac to run Mac OS X, or choosing from a variety of pre-built and built-your-own PC configurations and running Windows, Linux or another OS not restricted by license from operating on that PC.

It's like, most people have some MP3s or movies in their collections they didn't buy, whether or not they admit it. But we don't want the vast majority of media consumer to get their media by some method other than paying for it, or you kill the cow that gives the milk, so we support these industries by buying most of our media. I bet most people who've installed OS X on a non-Apple PC and regular use it, they have at least one Mac, too, and have probably bought several over the years.

Perhaps they should just sell the clone with no operating system and leave the infringement on the consumer?

 

[milo]

No, but I see nothing wrong with selling the original CD (which Psystar did) while giving the remix away for free as well.

You may see nothing wrong, but it's still against copyright law.

OK, so if a mechanic buys a Ford Fusion, puts in batteries and gives it Prius like performance at a lower cost, should he legally be allowed to sell it?

The car thing is an analogy and it only goes so far. The point is that Ford can't sell a Prius just because consumers want it ("freedom of choice").

Again, what if I give them away free with a full, legal copy of the album?

Sorry, still illegal. Copyright law applies whether you are selling the copied material or giving it away free.

Microsoft had 100% of the Market Share for an OS for a PC made by others. And lost.
Apple has 100% of the Market Share for OS X. AND 100% of the Market Share for the hardware their OS runs on, offering NO choice in Hardware.

EVERY company has 100% of the market share of their own products - that's not a monopoly, it's how much of the whole market. In the case of Apple, the market is computers and OS, and they have a small share of it.

You might as well say McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs so Wendys should be able to sell them.

 

[Peace]

Apple needs to tread very lightly here. I don't believe they can copyright any hardware when it comes right down to it. I can remember back to when IBM controlled the PC market - and where are they now? I agree with the poster who said "let them sell the hardware without the OS". Apple is just as vulnerable now as IBM was then.

Mark my words

Rich

Apple isn't copyrighting hardware. They are suing because Psystar modified Apple's O/S without permission.