Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Would you pay $500, $900 or $2000? What are you going to do if Apple starts selling what you want, but at a super-high price? Sue them over the price?

It'd be kind of hard for them to argue that the same OS X that they ship WITH the Mac-Mini for $599 is worth $900 WITHOUT hardware. I mean the problem with your comparison is that it's downright silly. Apple just ADMITTED in court that OS X is priced to compete with Windows. So how could they later argue that it's worth $500, let alone $900? Is the Mac-Mini's hardware worth $99? It's not hard to prove a price point.

But EVEN at $1000, you could STILL get a more competitive computer for $2200 than a decked out Mac Pro for $3300. It really only goes to demonstrate how far out of line Apple can get with their pricing options. Now when I say competitive, I don't mean for a workstation. I mean for a consumer wanting a 'pro' level computer. I might need a dual core or quad, but I don't need 8 cores, ultra-expensive memory formats few others use and still end up with a sub-standard GPU.

I've also said this many time - a total argument killer that I still have not seen a major problem with is if Apple loses this case, is forced to sell OS X for generic x86 hardware, and prices it as follows:

Free - With purchase of a new Mac
$129 - Upgrade Price for Macs
$1,000 - stand-alone version for generic x86 hardware.

Well, the problem there is that YOU just set the price and so this is purely speculative. And again, how would you argue out of the Mac-Mini example above? It might be worth $1000 for certain high-end hardware, but pricing it that for a $600 special would clearly be designed to prevent competition once again. So I hate to say it, but yes, you COULD sue for anti-competitive practices and all you would have to show is that they are pricing something so high as to effectively once AGAIN try to prevent all competition. If, as you say, that came AFTER a court ruling where a judge ORDERED them to allow sales for other manufacturers, that could EASILY be construed as contempt of court or non-compliance (I work for a company that got NAILED on EXACTLY that kind of thing and that got a dozen employees nice $40k 'bonus checks' due to ignoring the arbitrator's ruling. So if you're suggesting that is the kind of tactic Apple would employ if they lost a case, they COULD be in for a rude awakening if they again attempted to block competition and believe me, charging $1000 for something that comes free with $599 hardware would definitely be construed as blocking competition, not complying with a court order. Again, I know this from experience. The people I work for did it AGAIN, BTW (they apparently saved more than they lost even so) and last year and I got yet another bonus check (not as much this time, but hey, it's free money for me when they ignore binding arbitration).

And then goes on to not support the stand-alone version and not provide any drivers. What are you going to do then? Hold a gun to their head and force them to support it the way you want and sell it at a price you want?

I've addressed the driver thing. 3rd company parties would obviously use hardware that IS supported by OS X and that avoids the problem. Of course, if Apple were providing proper access to companies like NVidia, we would be getting much better and more efficient drivers to begin with. I get driver updates all the time for my Windows machine and even my Linux one gets regular driver updates and improved performance. OS X virtually NEVER gets updates unless there is a problem because Apple couldn't care less. We should be so lucky as to get 3rd party drivers, IMO.

Your argument falls apart when you realize that they are the copyright holder, and they control it's distribution.

Let's straight something out here right and now so I don't have to see it again. This idea that 'copyrights' somehow give the right to 'control' how software is USED is completely erroneous and barking up the wrong tree. Copyrights have to do with COPYING. That's where they begin and end. It is the "Eula" or licensing agreement that pretends to be able to tell you how and why you can use something. That has NOTHING to do with 'copyrights' what-so-ever. Psytar 'installing' software is not legally defined as 'copying' either so don't even go there.

Controlling distribution is not the same as controlling what hardware I'm allowed to buy because THAT is what they're actually doing and it's what people like you continually ignore. They have no business knowing or caring what hardware I use. The US Constitution provides for privacy and this is definitely a privacy issue to me. It's no more Apple's business what I do with software I've legally purchased in my home than it is what I do in my bedroom with a consenting adult (e.g. many laws regarding the latter were stricken down under privacy).

I have no personal interest in Psystar, really. They could very well be some shady people looking to make a quick buck, but what they've come to represent here is something greater than themselves and that's the consumer's freedom to choose whatever hardware he or she wants to go with whatever operating system he or she wants. You see I'm about FAIR, not free and not endless charging. FAIR competition means Apple makes the sale when they have the best product and/or best price, not because someone else isn't allowed to compete. The latter means Apple doesn't have to offer a matte screen. They don't have to do anything. They have complete control over what you can buy, what you can watch and what you can look at because we let them get away with it. Well, not me. I'm speaking up for consumers, not corporations. The laws of the US are supposed to be for the citizens, not the special interests. It's part of why we're in an economic global crisis right now. The world has long been under the deregulation and corporate influences and look where it's gotten us. Greed and Ethics are ultimately anti-thesis to one another. What's good for profit isn't good for all. But what's good for all can be FAIR to everyone.

 

[BenRoethig]

I would also like to make another note. Apple is free to do whatever it wishes, whoever what's in Apple's best short term interests aren't necessarily in the best interests of the Mac OS X platform or even its long term interests.

Right now you have exactly two choices: either accept what Apple gives you or switch to windows. Apple has been acting very arbitrary and erratic of late. They cut firewire, a very useful technology and staple of the mac platform for years for more or less Aesthetic reasons. Then there is the app store. I know this just an handheld thing for now, but its fairly likely that it will come to the computer form of OSX sooner or later, especially if Apple would like to move past optical drives. The way Apple has been acting, cutting features and rejecting development without any set direction or rules, it makes anyone who isn't a teenager using a Mac for the coolness factor very uneasy about the future of this platform.

 

[hiimamac]

I would also like to make another note. Apple is free to do whatever it wishes, whoever what's in Apple's best short term interests aren't necessarily in the best interests of the Mac OS X platform or even its long term interests.

Right now you have exactly two choices: either accept what Apple gives you or switch to windows. Apple has been acting very arbitrary and erratic of late. They cut firewire, a very useful technology and staple of the mac platform for years for more or less Aesthetic reasons. Then there is the app store. I know this just an handheld thing for now, but its fairly likely that it will come to the computer form of OSX sooner or later, especially if Apple would like to move past optical drives. The way Apple has been acting, cutting features and rejecting development without any set direction or rules, it makes anyone who isn't a teenager using a Mac for the coolness factor very uneasy about the future of this platform.

I see it like this.

A hack worked perfect and got me to a MBP.

Now that MB's have no firewire, I am looking at EFI-X for a real true work station.

Apple simply will not give the people what they want. They crippled original MB that could run motion (NO GAMES OF COURSE) so the less than 1% of PRO market could not use PRO apps - now they rip out the firewire.

Now I am more hack than ever, hope EFI-X goes a long long way and hope someday, Microsoft has the nads to create code that allows MAC OS to run on windows machines (yes, I know not a hard ware company), but maybe we can hope microsoft buys up asus and abit and does something like that. Give Jobs a taste of his own medicine.

Ironically, everyone bashes on WINDOWS and how it crashes failing to realize how hard it is to work with so many vendors - then Apple release .ME and has trouble out the ying yang, still has no push for mail, has trouble with crashes on iPhone - good, serves them right, not so easy is it Apple when you have to deal with other open source developers.

In that light, you can see MSFT has done well. SP1 has fixed a lot of problems and I think Windows 7, fast boot up times, and such is going to be a huge hit, espeicially if all CPU's are 4 core by next year. Apple will be in for a world of hurt.

Long live OSX86 and EFI-X

 

[charlituna]

And just because you love Apple

this has NOTHING to do with whether I love Apple or not. although it seems that your responses have everything to do with that you don't. but whatever. enjoy that 'tude if you wish. still doesn't make you correct.

but the law is quite clear.

if that was true, Apple would have been shut down a long time ago. When they tried to shut down the whole clone program, if not sooner.

the fact that they were not shows that the law is not as clear as you think it is. That the question that they are most certainly being a monopoly over a market is not as you want to believe it so clearly is.

Or maybe the answer has been made and they are not as you believe. Perhaps you and your law degree (you must be a lawyer and an antitrust one at that to so firmly believe you get the issue and are correct about it) are wrong about the answer. Perhaps the fact that Apple could shut down the cloning program without any problems is an indication that they have been and are now doing nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

What I fail to understand is why people like yourself would WANT Apple to be able to limit your hardware choices. Do you enjoy not being able to decide for yourself if you next computer has a matte screen or a firewire port? Do you really want Apple making those kinds of decisions FOR you?

the answers to those questions is easy. if sooooooo many folks had a problem with it, they wouldn't buy Apple. I mean come on is the OS really that much better than the competition. Is the software really that much better.

Outside of a select few that must use Final Cut Pro and the like for work, no it's not. From a strictly OS question view, Windows is fine for 95-99% of the world. Especially now that it's practically a clone of the Mac OS GUI. So if the price etc really matters, folks will just buy a Windows based machine.

So that Apple hasn't gone under for lack of sales is a sign, to me, that it is more than just the OS that attracts folks. what that more is, is likely different for folks.

And then charging you twice as much to boot?

again, if price was the end all and be all of the issue, folks wouldn't buy Apple. company fails. end of game.

Some of you should actually think about that instead of spouting off support for Apple when Apple only has one thing in mind when it makes these decisions and that's PROFIT (i.e. greed is their motive).

that is every company out there. that is Microsoft, Dell, that is Psystar. In the end, that company was about making money and didn't care if they were doing wrong. And they had the cajones to step up and say that they didn't agree with Apple's rights and were going to make their money. They are the ones that want this thing kept out of court because if they lose they will likely have to either pay Apple for every machine sold or recall the machines and pay back the customers. if they can keep it out of court they might be able to hang their heads, admit their wrong and shut down the division but let the sold machines stay out there and/or keep the money made.

The hardware doesn't care which one of them I run or even if I run all of them at once with something like VMware.

you actually just proved my point. take all 3 OS off your hardware and run it. How great it is now. how much work are you getting done with your OS free hardware. not so great is it.

Microsoft has the right to choose what hardware Windows runs on, same for Linux. that they choose pretty much all hardware doesn't mean that Apple, which choose different, is doing something bad.

Apple won't even sell Blu-Ray drives

And that is Apple's right. it doesn't give someone else the right to do what Psystar did.

Um, I don't think they 'agreed' to the Eula. That's why they're going to court. They've declared the Eula invalid and it IS invalid so your point is moot.

oops, the lawyer hasn't kept up with his case law. Because the current case law says you are the one in error. That the moment someone installs software with either a printed agreement or an onscreen one that person has agreed to the conditions of the agreement. if someone hits accept or doesn't read before installing doesn't invalidate the agreement. just like the fact that I didn't know that the law says I can't drink myself into a stupor and then drive home doesn't mean I"ll get off of a DUI charge. And current case law holds that EULAs are at the moment valid. which is why Psystar had to file a suit in the first place, to try to bust that current case law.

 

[charlituna]

Yes, thanks for reminding me that I cannot watch Blu-ray on my brand new MBP because Steve doesn't want to pay for licensing.

you know that's frakking hilarious. You just ranted about companies wanting to make a profit and trying to rake over the customers to make that profit.

and now you are griping cause of a lack of feature that the company is blaming on costs that, at this point, they feel are not effective for the company and the buyers.

specifically, that folks wanting Blu-ray is high enough that they will want to pay the extra cost.

You don't want to pay $1999 for your MBP, how are you going to feel paying $2499 for the same machine with Blu-ray in it. Cause that's how the whole thing could turn out. Jobs doesn't think you or many others would pay that amount so why bother, put the money into something else.

 

[sneezymarble]

Not crippled, but they do lose some performance due to emulating EFI.

I don't think there's a performance loss due to EFI emulation.

 

[czachorski]

Controlling distribution is not the same as controlling what hardware I'm allowed to buy because THAT is what they're actually doing and it's what people like you continually ignore.

You wrote a lot that is irrelevant to the crux of the issue, which is the part I copied. The core issue as I see it: Is controlling the hardware you can buy a reasonable part of controlling distribution of copyrighted material. It is a good questions, and not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be here.

Another example to this crux question that I've used before with very little flaws pointed out: what if an author writes novels and only sell them in expensive hard-cover form? Many customers may want them in paper-back, but the book is in such hot demand, that they only sell them in hardcover so that they can continue to rake in the high price. Is that their right to do as the copyright holder? Yes - it certainly is. They control the form of the book as part of controlling distribution. Even if it is high price, the customer want cheap paper backs, and the copyright holder refuses to give it to them. This is just one example, but I am sure there are many others. In this example the fact that the copyright holder decides to ignore a particular market segment (paper backs) absolutely does not give the right to anyone else to begin re-printing the books in paperback and sell them. No way.

At the end of the day, with Apple as the OS X copyright holder, they control the distribution and the price. I believe with those two protections in place, there will not be any possible way legally that you can force them to address the lower-end market. They will always be able to control hardware as long as they can control distribution of their copyrighted material and its price, and sell to the markets they desire.

They are free to succeed or fail in the free market with those choices. You or others are not free to decide for them what markets they should address, how they should price their products, or what hardware they should sell. As someone pointed out earlier, and correctly so: you're only choice is to buy or not to buy. Of course, that answer really angered you, and you bit their head off, but they were correct.

 

[aoresteen]

You wrote a lot that is irrelevant to the crux of the issue, which is the part I copied. The core issue as I see it: Is controlling the hardware you can buy a reasonable part of controlling distribution of copyrighted material. It is a good questions, and not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be here.

Another example to this crux question that I've used before with very little flaws pointed out: what if an author writes novels and only sell them in expensive hard-cover form? Many customers may want them in paper-back, but the book is in such hot demand, that they only sell them in hardcover so that they can continue to rake in the high price. Is that their right to do as the copyright holder? Yes - it certainly is. They control the form of the book as part of controlling distribution. Even if it is high price, the customer want cheap paper backs, and the copyright holder refuses to give it to them. This is just one example, but I am sure there are many others. In this example the fact that the copyright holder decides to ignore a particular market segment (paper backs) absolutely does not give the right to anyone else to begin re-printing the books in paperback and sell them. No way.

At the end of the day, with Apple as the OS X copyright holder, they control the distribution and the price. I believe with those two protections in place, there will not be any possible way legally that you can force them to address the lower-end market. They will always be able to control hardware as long as they can control distribution of their copyrighted material and its price, and sell to the markets they desire.

They are free to succeed or fail in the free market with those choices. You or others are not free to decide for them what markets they should address, how they should price their products, or what hardware they should sell. As someone pointed out earlier, and correctly so: you're only choice is to buy or not to buy. Of course, that answer really angered you, and you bit their head off, but they were correct.

You make a couple of significant errors in your argument. First of all, you can NOT control who sells your product after it has been sold. The Supreme Court rulled on this in 1909. It's called the the 1st Sale Doctrine. Ford can not prevent you from selling your 2009 Ford automobile to anyone you want to.

Ditto for books, CDs, and DVDs. Try telling people that they can not sell their DVDs, CDs, or books if the copyright holder doesn't want you to.

Apple has decided to put OSX software on the market. Pystar buys it and then sells it again. No one is forcing Apple to sell OSX in any form. No one is demanding a 'paperback' copy as you suggest. Apple is free to withdraw OSX copies from the market. Or raise the price to $500 per copy if they want to. But Apple hasn't done this. What they have done is offer for sale a copy of OSX to anyone who walks into an Apple store and puts down $129.

Are you contending that Apple can control who you can sell your copy of OSX to?

If so read this:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

As to your question can they use tying their software to their hardware to control distrubution the answer is no, not according to case law on the matter.

DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General (734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)).

What Apple is trying to do here is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and use the copyright law to prevent the right to sell property that has been purchased. They are tying their OS to a hardware platform. While the Mac fanboys may think that this is fine, the courts do not.

If you truly believe that copyright holders can control who buys their copyrighted works after the first sale, please quote some case law that supports your position.

Hint: If that were true, why does eBay alow the sale of books, DVDs, CDs and SOFTWARE on their site?

While you are correct in stating that Apple is free to decide what hardware to make, what markets to address, etc you are wrong to state that the only choice the consumer has is to buy or not to buy. I can buy OSX new or used. I can load it on a Mac or or any computer that will run it. I can buy from Pystar or Apple. Or I can build my own PC with the features I want and load OSX on it. If what Apple offers me doesn't meet my needs, I can go eleswhere for a solution. Apple may loose a hardware sale but they get a software sale.

Apple can sue me claiming I violated the EULA. They won't. If I do build my own Hackentosh I have no expectation of support from Apple.

I don't understand why all the fanboys are opposed to more choices in the free market. If you are satisfied with Apples offerings, by all means buy Apple. But if you need something Apple doesn't offer (say PCI and PCIe slots on the same motherboard), why should Apple be able to prevent you from buying what you need? As long as you PAY what Apple is asking for a copy of OSX, it is your decision on which platform you load it.

 

[Blue Velvet]

What Apple is trying to do here is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and use the copyright law to prevent the right to sell property that has been purchased. They are tying their OS to a hardware platform. While the Mac fanboys may think that this is fine, the courts do not.

There's far more to this than just the first sale doctrine. Somewhere back on page something-or-another , I posted a link to the submission by Apple to the courts; it covers a whole range of issues. Just because people disagree, doesn't make them a fanboy; one of the most overused and empty words around here.

 

[czachorski]

You make a couple of significant errors in your argument. First of all, you can NOT control who sells your product after it has been sold. The Supreme Court rulled on this in 1909. It's called the the 1st Sale Doctrine. Ford can not prevent you from selling your 2009 Ford automobile to anyone you want to.

Ditto for books, CDs, and DVDs. Try telling people that they can not sell their DVDs, CDs, or books if the copyright holder doesn't want you to.

Apple has decided to put OSX software on the market. Pystar buys it and then sells it again. No one is forcing Apple to sell OSX in any form. No one is demanding a 'paperback' copy as you suggest. Apple is free to withdraw OSX copies from the market. Or raise the price to $500 per copy if they want to. But Apple hasn't done this. What they have done is offer for sale a copy of OSX to anyone who walks into an Apple store and puts down $129.

Are you contending that Apple can control who you can sell your copy of OSX to?

If so read this:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...desk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

As to your question can they use tying their software to their hardware to control distrubution the answer is no, not according to case law on the matter.

DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General (734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)).

What Apple is trying to do here is to bypass the 1st sale doctrine and use the copyright law to prevent the right to sell property that has been purchased. They are tying their OS to a hardware platform. While the Mac fanboys may think that this is fine, the courts do not.

If you truly believe that copyright holders can control who buys their copyrighted works after the first sale, please quote some case law that supports your position.

Hint: If that were true, why does eBay alow the sale of books, DVDs, CDs and SOFTWARE on their site?

While you are correct in stating that Apple is free to decide what hardware to make, what markets to address, etc you are wrong to state that the only choice the consumer has is to buy or not to buy. I can buy OSX new or used. I can load it on a Mac or or any computer that will run it. I can buy from Pystar or Apple. Or I can build my own PC with the features I want and load OSX on it. If what Apple offers me doesn't meet my needs, I can go eleswhere for a solution. Apple may loose a hardware sale but they get a software sale.

Apple can sue me claiming I violated the EULA. They won't. If I do build my own Hackentosh I have no expectation of support from Apple.

I don't understand why all the fanboys are opposed to more choices in the free market. If you are satisfied with Apples offerings, by all means buy Apple. But if you need something Apple doesn't offer (say PCI and PCIe slots on the same motherboard), why should Apple be able to prevent you from buying what you need? As long as you PAY what Apple is asking for a copy of OSX, it is your decision on which platform you load it.

I hear you, and agree to most of what you said. I am offering an situation, a hypothetical, if you will, where Apple loses the current case, and then can very easily and legally slip back into the exact same business model by means of control of both distribution of their copyrighted work and price. I don't think that I read anywhere that you were disagreeing with that.

I concede your points, and that of many others, that they may be on shaky legal ground now. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in the argument of many, including Magus, that this challenge by Psystar is a means to an end of forcing Apple to address a market that some wish them to. It simply can't be done. Apple controls what market to address, and if they desire to continue to do that, even after losing a case like Psystar, they can make very simple changes to their practices, and continue to do so.

 

[aoresteen]

There's far more to this than just the first sale doctrine. Somewhere back on page something-or-another , I posted a link to the submission by Apple to the courts; it covers a whole range of issues. Just because people disagree, doesn't make them a fanboy; one of the most overused and empty words around here.

You should also read Pystar's response and Apple's reply to the same. Apple has made a number of CLAIMS. Just because they say something doesn't mean it’s true. Or that the court will hear it. Ditto for Pystar. Of the 10 claims that Apple made I would guess that Pystar will get a number of them tossed by the court.

In Apple's filing that you linked to, Apple claims to be the sole author of OSX. Do you believe that? If so what about BSD and the open source components of OSX?

What is true is that there are lot of folks here who refuse to accept that Pystar has a strong legal position supported by case law. They simply accept as truth what Apple proclaims.

The core issue here is the 1st Sale Doctrine and the tying of the OS to hardware. If Apple looses on these two issues then their other claims fall as well.

Apple HAS to convince the court that they are not violating the 1st Sale doctrine and that they are not tying software to hardware.

What everyone needs to understand is that there are multiple outcomes possible here. Apple & Pystar could work things out and the case gets dropped, and we never find out the details of the settlement.

The case could go to trial and Pystar wins. Or loses.

If it does go to trial, a judge will decide who wins. The looser will likely appeal. It will take a number of years before this is finally resolved.

 

[BenRoethig]

Ironically, everyone bashes on WINDOWS and how it crashes failing to realize how hard it is to work with so many vendors - then Apple release .ME and has trouble out the ying yang, still has no push for mail, has trouble with crashes on iPhone - good, serves them right, not so easy is it Apple when you have to deal with other open source developers.

actually there are really only three vendors: AMD, Intel, and Nvidia. All Dell, HP, and the like give you is a case to put it all in. Windows supports a lot of legacy hardware, but since the core series CPUs were introduced, Mac OS X has had to support most of the same hardware as windows.

 

[aoresteen]

I hear you, and agree to most of what you said. I am offering an situation, a hypothetical, if you will, where Apple loses the current case, and then can very easily and legally slip back into the exact same business model by means of control of both distribution of their copyrighted work and price. I don't think that I read anywhere that you were disagreeing with that.

I concede your points, and that of many others, that they may be on shaky legal ground now. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in the argument of many, including Magus, that this challenge by Psystar is a means to an end of forcing Apple to address a market that some wish them to. It simply can't be done. Apple controls what market to address, and if they desire to continue to do that, even after losing a case like Psystar, they can make very simple changes to their practices, and continue to do so.

Yes, I do agree that Apple can change its business model and raise the price of OSX to make it costly to build a Hackentosh.

I also agree that no one can force Apple to produce anything or serve any particular market. (Well, their Board of Directors can force them to serve a particular market!).

The problem that Apple has is largely caused by Apple themselves. They put OSX on the market for $129. That has allowed Pystar to do what they are doing.

If Apple loses this case I think you are right and we can expect to see $129 copies of OSX to disapear. Steve Jobs doesn't like to lose.

 

[NT1440]

In Apple's filing that you linked to, Apple claims to be the sole author of OSX. Do you believe that? If so what about BSD and the open source components of OSX?

I haven't given it a read yet, but does it say author or owner? I know that they own OSX, though I'm not entirely sure if that also gives them (in a legal sense) authoring rights.

 

[czachorski]

Yes, I do agree that Apple can change its business model and raise the price of OSX to make it costly to build a Hackentosh.

I also agree that no one can force Apple to produce anything or serve any particular market. (Well, their Board of Directors can force them to serve a particular market!).

The problem that Apple has is largely caused by Apple themselves. They put OSX on the market for $129. That has allowed Pystar to do what they are doing.

If Apple loses this case I think you are right and we can expect to see $129 copies of OSX to disapear. Steve Jobs doesn't like to lose.

Again, I agree with most of your points. This thread of logic we are discussing now is why I think most of this banter is just semantics. Win or lose, Apple will be able to continue the exact same business model, serving the exact same high-end of the market they desire. If they don't want OS X in a low-end desktop, it's not going to happen.

Personally, if they lost, I think we would still see $129 boxes of OS-X, but they would just be "upgrade" boxes, and would require a previous install of OS X to work. I think that is the only real change they would have to make. After all, Apple sells every new Mac with an OS-X disc, and selling the retail box as an "upgrade" and requiring a previous install wouldn't hurt Mac users a bit, other than the hassles of needing the original discs to do an upgrade or clean install.

 

[haydn!]

I've been reading this topic quite closely and something that I can't help but question is that if, by only allowing users to install Mac OS X on Mac hardware Apple are preventing competition, then why haven't any of the bigger hardware manufacturers, for example Dell, HP or Vaio challenged this already? Either publically or legally. Could this be because no restriction on competition actually exists?

Many could also argue that by locking themselves into a closed system Apple are infact dampening thier own ability to compete in the consumer market, not preventing others competing with them? Afterall, the majority of consumers by a computer - not an operating system. So a computer that may have compatibility issues with 95% of the software market can suddenly look very unappealing to the mass market buyer.

I think Apple could also argue that Mac OS was designed as a feature of a the Mac computer, and not a mass market product. Apple chose not to follow the mass market and use windows on thier hardware, instead they designed thier own OS. There is absolutely nothing stopping Dell, HP or any other hardware manufacturer doing the same thing, but they've chosen not to and instead they offer thier customers windows.

Because they chose not to use thier own OS or because Apple chose not to allow other hardware manufacturers use the OS they designed for thier computers is not unfair competition. Its competitors choosing not to compete. Lack of consumer choice in this case could easily be blamed on other manufacturers and not Apple. Afterall, Apple are the ones offering the alternative, it's just seems that some hardware makers namely Psystar are jealous of the benefits the have been enjoyed from the alternative Apple chose to offer.

I'd also think Apple could argue that the EULA is in place because Mac OS was ultimately designed specifically for Mac hardware. Perhaps its in place because Apple know that consumers won't be able to benefit from, or use the OS system on other hardware without modifications or emmulators etc. Software should be able to run out of the box - users shouldn't have to play around with it and tweak settings as is the case with Mac OS on a standard PC. Perhaps the EULA really is just protecting the consumer experience? Maybe they'd get away with replacing the section in the agreement with something like: "Mac Os has been designed specifically for use on Mac Computers or Apple approved hardware. Apple are unable to offer support to any users who choose to use this OS on non Mac, or Apple approved hardware"

Or, they could simply stop selling Mac OS as a standalone product. They could quite easily only sell it as preinstalled on Mac hardware, and develop an upgrade version only for existing Mac users - which would require a previous, pre-installed edition to validate the registration process. A contraversial yet perfectly legal move. What people have to remember is Apple don't have to sell Mac OS at all. As the manufacturer they have this right.

Alot of the arguments I've seen raised seem to focus on price, and the very obvious premium price tag that accompanies Mac hardware. Which really does make this whole court case resemble a maker of fake Nike trainers taking Nike to court because he can offer the "same" product as them at a lower price. If Apple computers were priced the same as Dell, HP or Vaio - we would not be having this very discussion!


Sorry if I have gone on a bit, and probably made little sense. And yes, I joined simply to reply to this thread but I'm sure I'll be sticking around!

 

[BenRoethig]

I've been reading this topic quite closely and something that I can't help but question is that if, by only allowing users to install Mac OS X on Mac hardware Apple are preventing competition, then why haven't any of the bigger hardware manufacturers, for example Dell, HP or Vaio challenged this already? Either publically or legally. Could this be because no restriction on competition actually exists?

They make the same amount of money making a windows based system as they would making a Mac OS X based system. Besides, the larger computers usually sit back and have a smaller vendor do it for them.

Many could also argue that by locking themselves into a closed system Apple are infact dampening thier own ability to compete in the consumer market, not preventing others competing with them? Afterall, the majority of consumers by a computer - not an operating system. So a computer that may have compatibility issues with 95% of the software market can suddenly look very unappealing to the mass market buyer.

For the most part they've made very good inroads into the trendy end of the consumer market. The problem is that they're leaving their more traditional markets behind to get these consumers.

I think Apple could also argue that Mac OS was designed as a feature of a the Mac computer, and not a mass market product. Apple chose not to follow the mass market and use windows on thier hardware, instead they designed thier own OS. There is absolutely nothing stopping Dell, HP or any other hardware manufacturer doing the same thing, but they've chosen not to and instead they offer thier customers windows.

The OS designed for the hardware defense became invalid when Apple transitioned to the same x86 stuff as the windows side. Its kind of hard to argue that you'd have problems using a Dell laptop on OS when with the exception of the firmware type, its uses the exact as parts as a Macbook. It was a very valid excuse when they used PowerPCs though.

 

[haydn!]

The OS designed for the hardware defense became invalid when Apple transitioned to the same x86 stuff as the windows side. Its kind of hard to argue that you'd have problems using a Dell laptop on OS when with the exception of the firmware type, its uses the exact as parts as a Macbook. It was a very valid excuse when they used PowerPCs though.

This is perhaps a fair response to the point I made about quality of experience as its quite obvious its becoming increasingly easy to replicate the Mac OS experience. But it doesn't respond to the point you highlighted?

Again, there is nothing wrong with Apple choosing to ship their hardware with a unique OS they designed and there is nothing stopping other hardware manufacturers doing the same. I think its unjust to call unfair competition simply because companies have chosen not to compete.

 

[aoresteen]

.....
Personally, if they lost, I think we would still see $129 boxes of OS-X, but they would just be "upgrade" boxes, and would require a previous install of OS X to work. I think that is the only real change they would have to make. After all, Apple sells every new Mac with an OS-X disc, and selling the retail box as an "upgrade" and requiring a previous install wouldn't hurt Mac users a bit, other than the hassles of needing the original discs to do an upgrade or clean install.

I don't think that Apple would take this approach. It might keep Pystar from doing it but individuals would continue to run OSX on their own boxes.

I could buy the upgrade and buy an original install DVD off of eBay. Load the original, then do the upgrade. Apple is still in the same boat.

They might start to use the TPM chip but this leaves a large number of existing Mac users out in the cold that have Apple Macs with no TPM chip.

What if the hard drive dies and you need a new one? Or if you have a supported Mac that didn't come with OSX (I'm not sure if there are any left but my B&W G3 did not come with OSX and I bought 10.4 for it) what happens? How do you load the OS?

Apple has had a long history of making things simple for their users so I not sure how draconian they will be.

Someone will develop a utility that will bypass the upgrade check and the OS install will proceed.

If they lose I bet you see a drop in their hardware prices and more features to compete with the clone makers. That could be good for Apple users.

I have a new Intel quad core 3 GHz 4 GB system that I built for recording audio. I left a 40 GB partition on the boot drive for OSX. So far I haven't bothered to load it as I don't have any Mac OS applications that I need. Windows XP does everything I need rather well. Plus I have way too much to do rather than spending a couple of days to get 10.4 up and running. If I need to play with a new OS I will just throw Fedora at it.

My son graduates from college in Dec. For his graduation gift he wanted a laptop. I could have saved a few bucks and gotten him a Windows machine but he wanted a MacBook. So an Apple MacBook plus Ipod was purchased for him. I insisted that he get the largest hard drive and the max RAM that Apple offered. I also bought him a copy of Office so he could legally still use his Mac Mini. He is happy so I am happy. It is serving him well. Would I have bought him a Pystar box? No way. I'd end up having to support him and as it stands he can go to any Apple store and get support without calling me.

 

[aoresteen]

I haven't given it a read yet, but does it say author or owner? I know that they own OSX, though I'm not entirely sure if that also gives them (in a legal sense) authoring rights.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/images/apple.pdf

Paragraph 23

authorship

 

[Sun Baked]

Looks like the results of the case management conference is in.

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 6/26/2009. Jury Trial set for 11/9/2009 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motions due by 8/20/2009. Pretrial Conference set for 10/26/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/7/2008. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2008)

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER.pdf

Edit: And the mediation is supposed to be completed by Jan 31, 2009 -- so we should be able to stop arguing about arbitration vs. mediation in a few months.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Another example to this crux question that I've used before with very little flaws pointed out: what if an author writes novels and only sell them in expensive hard-cover form? Many customers may want them in paper-back, but the book is in such hot demand, that they only sell them in hardcover so that they can continue to rake in the high price. Is that their right to do as the copyright holder? Yes - it certainly is. They control the form of the book as part of controlling distribution. Even if it is high price, the customer want cheap paper backs, and the copyright holder refuses to give it to them. This is just one example, but I am sure there are many others. In this example the fact that the copyright holder decides to ignore a particular market segment (paper backs) absolutely does not give the right to anyone else to begin re-printing the books in paperback and sell them. No way.

Again you keep making comparisons that don't make any sense. Apple's copyrighted product here is limited to OS X. If they want to sell it in a platinum jewelry box instead of that black cardboard box, that IS their business. But you can't compare a book binder to a computer. They're two SEPARATE products. Apple is selling OS X by itself. Psystar bought it by itself and is selling it AND its license to the consumer. So a more accurate comparison would be someone selling a house that has a library that has a book in it. Can you sell a book or any other object WITH a house? Sure. Do you need the copyright owner's permission to sell the book with the house? Nope. They're two different products and so is the bookshelf it's sitting on. Just because a book belongs in a bookshelf that doesn't mean the author should be allowed to tell you which bookshelf you can put their book in or what book cover to put over it or whose house you're allowed to read it in or what kind of light source you can have over it while you read it or where you can get the glasses that you read the book with!

Apple's distribution rights begin and end with OS X. The hardware you use with it is beyond the scope of their control (even though you and Apple don't think so and their motives to try and control it are based on greed and profit PERIOD). My motivation is based on free market CHOICE. If they don't have or sell the hardware I feel I need (such as a matte laptop screen), I shouldn't have to switch entire platforms to get it, which would be ridiculous if you think about it. A platform is bigger than simply not liking hardware and yet I shouldn't have to jump through hoops or do without because Apple doesn't want to compete directly with anyone. It's that simple. You keep trying to make it more complicated than it is. Apple is actively trying to prevent competition and there can be NO DOUBT about that.

Frankly, I would think the whole firewire and matte screen issue would make it more clear to a lot more Apple 'fans' because it SUCKS to not even have a choice REGARDLESS of price. People who need expansion (but not at workstation price levels which is beyond the typical consumer) or even just need a matte screen are forced to either buy hardware they don't WANT or have to face moving to an entirely different platform where all their current software will no longer function. And that SUCKS to be put in that position. The thing is, the consumer should NEVER have to be put in that situation because he should be able to buy the hardware and OS separately and put together any combination that OS X has driver support for. Sure, Apple isn't likely to try and sue hobbyists, but not everyone out there wants to build their own computer either and they shouldn't have to. Apple should get their share from OS X sales and if someone likes their hardware, they can get that sale too. Really, this should be beneficial to the consumer at all ends. It would force Apple to actually consider their customers' desires instead of just doing what Steve feels like doing and it would cover areas they don't feel they can make enough sales in to support another model. Some of us don't care about 'pretty' so long as its functional. I find the beauty of a "Mac" in the operating system, not the case it's in.

 

[czachorski]

Again you keep making comparisons that don't make any sense. Apple's copyrighted product here is limited to OS X. If they want to sell it in a platinum jewelry box instead of that black cardboard box, that IS their business. But you can't compare a book binder to a computer. They're two SEPARATE products. Apple is selling OS X by itself. Psystar bought it by itself and is selling it AND its license to the consumer. So a more accurate comparison would be someone selling a house that has a library that has a book in it. Can you sell a book or any other object WITH a house? Sure. Do you need the copyright owner's permission to sell the book with the house? Nope. They're two different products and so is the bookshelf it's sitting on. Just because a book belongs in a bookshelf that doesn't mean the author should be allowed to tell you which bookshelf you can put their book in or what book cover to put over it or whose house you're allowed to read it in or what kind of light source you can have over it while you read it or where you can get the glasses that you read the book with!

Apple's distribution rights begin and end with OS X. The hardware you use with it is beyond the scope of their control (even though you and Apple don't think so and their motives to try and control it are based on greed and profit PERIOD). My motivation is based on free market CHOICE. If they don't have or sell the hardware I feel I need (such as a matte laptop screen), I shouldn't have to switch entire platforms to get it, which would be ridiculous if you think about it. A platform is bigger than simply not liking hardware and yet I shouldn't have to jump through hoops or do without because Apple doesn't want to compete directly with anyone. It's that simple. You keep trying to make it more complicated than it is. Apple is actively trying to prevent competition and there can be NO DOUBT about that.

Frankly, I would think the whole firewire and matte screen issue would make it more clear to a lot more Apple 'fans' because it SUCKS to not even have a choice REGARDLESS of price. People who need expansion (but not at workstation price levels which is beyond the typical consumer) or even just need a matte screen are forced to either buy hardware they don't WANT or have to face moving to an entirely different platform where all their current software will no longer function. And that SUCKS to be put in that position. The thing is, the consumer should NEVER have to be put in that situation because he should be able to buy the hardware and OS separately and put together any combination that OS X has driver support for. Sure, Apple isn't likely to try and sue hobbyists, but not everyone out there wants to build their own computer either and they shouldn't have to. Apple should get their share from OS X sales and if someone likes their hardware, they can get that sale too. Really, this should be beneficial to the consumer at all ends. It would force Apple to actually consider their customers' desires instead of just doing what Steve feels like doing and it would cover areas they don't feel they can make enough sales in to support another model. Some of us don't care about 'pretty' so long as its functional. I find the beauty of a "Mac" in the operating system, not the case it's in.

Much like aerosteen's posts, I don't disagree with much of what you are saying with the way Apple is currently selling OS X. I think I've made it abundantly clear that my main point is that if Apple loses this case, it would be incredibly easy and perfectly legal for them to make slight changes to their practices and keep on selling OS X exclusively with Macs in exactly their own vision for the hardware. Your personal desire to open the hardware up will not be determined by this case. It will be determined by Apple, as much as that irritates you.

 

[aoresteen]

Much like aerosteen's posts, I don't disagree with much of what you are saying with the way Apple is currently selling OS X. I think I've made it abundantly clear that my main point is that if Apple loses this case, it would be incredibly easy and perfectly legal for them to make slight changes to their practices and keep on selling OS X exclusively with Macs in exactly their own vision for the hardware. Your personal desire to open the hardware up will not be determined by this case. It will be determined by Apple, as much as that irritates you.

I think czachorski is right here. Apple does have some downside to this case but should they loose, they will change how OSX is sold. It's Steve Jobs' Plan B. Steve will not let clone makers have easy access to OSX.

Exactly just what is Plan B no one outside of Apple knows. The trial is scheduled for November 2009. A lot could happen by then. We will just have to wait to see what happens.

 

[czachorski]

I think czachorski is right here. Apple does have some downside to this case but should they loose, they will change how OSX is sold. It's Steve Jobs' Plan B. Steve will not let clone makers have easy access to OSX.

Exactly just what is Plan B no one outside of Apple knows. The trial is scheduled for November 2009. A lot could happen by then. We will just have to wait to see what happens.

What do you know - we found our overlap of opinions.

I really feel for people like Magus. He is being left behind by Apple's chasing of new markets and customers. They had to do something, though. It was only 6 years ago that the "beleaguered" computer maker was against the ropes and close to going down for the count. They found a new niche market, and are finding a lot of success with it. Personally, I am glad that's the case, because I strongly gravitate to the "Apple" design and UI ways of doing things, and don't see many other options out there like that. To me, complaining about the limited Apple hardware choices is a bit myopic compared to the vacuum of overall choices out there in the PC world for good design, UI, software, that works they way I want it to, and the unique choice that Apple presents in that overall computer market.