Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar

[SimonMW]

Microsoft can modify its EULA to state that you can only install it on a machine that currently has Windows installed, ie you would have to buy a PC with windows preinstalled (sound familiar?), but they choose not to.

Why would they want to? Microsoft doesn't make PC's and laptops. By allowing Windows to run on Macs just means that they make more money from Mac users buying Windows, and hence an increase in userbase.

Apple on the other hand sell their hardware on the basis that OS X is written specifically for it, so nowhere near as many hardware compatibility issues etc. Allowing OS X to run on any hardware will only create problems with millions of different hardware configurations, which in turn will lead to bloat.

 

[gnasher729]

For all of you saying not Microsoft, consider this:

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.

However, Microsoft sells a lot of software very cheaply with a special license, like MS Office for students etc. If Psystar were to win its case (which they won't), every company in the world could switch from full licenses to student licenses for their MS Office products, everyone would buy Windows OEM versions instead of the full version, and so on.

 

[ipoppy]

Come on people!!! Its pretty obvious who is behind.

 

[gnasher729]

I still don't see how Apple could cash in. What are the damages?

Statutory damages for copyright infringement range from $750 to $150,000 per copied item, as determined by a jury. Recently a jury found damages of $220,000 for copying 24 songs appropriate. So take the number of Psystar customers, then find out how many individual items there are on a MacOS X Leopard DVD, multiply by a number between $750 and $150,000, and you end up with an amount that would make Dell blush.

False. All of Apples Licensing agreements are readilly available on their website. Here is one for Leopard(Note PDF attachment) - plain old english on page one. And I found that out in 10 seconds of google search - it was the first link.

I got that without purchasing anything.

And even if you had to purchase Leopard, and cut the box open to read the license, Psystar would have known the license after the first installation. Assuming that they sold more than one computer, that excuse would be gone for the second computer shipped. People also tend to forget that Psystar is a company and held to a different standard than you and me. If the license is hard to find, they have to search hard to find it. If they can't find it anywhere, they have the choice of not shipping MacOS X, or to agree to and be bound by a license that they never read. If they can't understand the terms of the license, they have to ask their lawyers. If their lawyers don't understand the license, then they should not ship MacOS X. They are a company, and they are bound by a license to a much higher degree than end users.

I agree with your observation. The lawyers have a history of success with Apple and since Apple, despite the downtrend is gaining profit makes for an attractive target thus the motivation.

Actually, these lawyers don't have a "history of success" against Apple. They ran a patent case against Apple, where the plaintiff asked for $100,000,000 (after getting $60,000,000 from Microsoft), and ended up losing most of their valuable patents and getting their claim reduced to a $10,000,000 settlement. They lost more in their patent portfolio than they received, so this was an overall loss.

even if Psystar won apple could go around it because they would have to sell their OS (they would never be forced to give it away) therefore they could sell their OS for say $1000 and then do complimentary knock say 900 dollars off of the hardware price for purchasing the OS so apple wins regardless they will win the actual legal battle however so if they play dirty we play dirty

Apple could slightly increase the price of the hardware and include "free software updates for life". The only problem is the accounting rules which mean Apple would have to account for Mac sales over 24 months, like they do with iPhones. So there would be an enormous drop in the official revenues from Mac sales.

 

[Buachaill Dana]

Apple makes their hardware and develops their software to compliment the hardware and make a PRODUCT.

Well. Apple doesnt make the hardware. Its supplied by many different vendors. Apple just put it together in the factory. This same hardware is found in many regular PC's.

 

[0098386]

Like all the best conspiracies it does sound like it makes sense.
But a small company doing what these Psystar chaps are doing? Hmm.

 

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

This is really strange. How many computers could they possibly be selling anyway? Their stuff is completely unsupported.

 

[dernhelm]

This is awesome. The only way this story could get better is to toss in a conspiracy theory. Thanks Apple!

But, well I don't how to say this, but suspecting Gates or Ballmer is just too obvious. I'm betting it's finally time for the revenge of Gil Amelio...
😱

 

[Shasterball]

i dont understand why this is an issue. OS X is a registered trademark of Apple. Psystar should get shut down. Simple as that...

Not how it works. It's way more complicated than I care to type out now. But, selling a copy of OS X is not trademark infringement...

 

[ricksbrain]

As I saw someone post a quick blurb on another site, this is likely against the OSX86 people, or whatever they're called-- the ones who cracked OSX to run on regular machines in the first place. Without them, Psystar could not have loaded the machines with OS X in the first place.

And without realizing it, Psystar may have just made several "innocent" individuals who were trying to do something they thought fun into complicit criminals.

If Apple didn't go after this group, it's argument against Psystar would fall apart in court. Good luck, guys! Sounds like you'll need it.

 

[Shasterball]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)

This is really strange. How many computers could they possibly be selling anyway? Their stuff is completely unsupported.

Well think about it. There are a lot of people that want a Mac but don't want to pay the price. That's one thing -- and that draws a enough business to keep them going.

The bigger picture is that if this is allowed to go on, either by the courts saying it's ok or by Apple's acquiescence (i.e., if Apple hadn't sued), then this would finally open up the door for Mac clones. And this is something Apple has been fighting so hard against. I mean, Apple prides itself on selling high end comps. Jobs refuses to sell low end ones -- he views Apple as a premium product company and people pay money to have an "Apple." Their view is that, by allowing knockoffs, it would devalue their comps.

I'm not saying I agree 100% with their way of doing business, but this is just a little bit of what they are concerned about.

 

[mac jones]

Or It could just be that the guy who made the start-up has deep pockets and doesn't like to lose so he will sell the farm in litigation.

If that's the case it's indeed a pity.



.

 

[0098386]

Maybe Microsoft thinks that other companies selling OSX will take money out of Apple's pocket, ultimately weakening Apple and undermining the platform.

I don't think one could fathom how much of a negative impact that would be against Microsoft if true.

 

[ogbuke]

Common Apple just license your OS already. I know so many people that want OS X, but just can't afford/justify the Apple tax.

Yeah Yeah I remember the Apple clones of the 90s, but this is a different age and time.

It's a different game now eh, so they should go back to something that failed in the past, real bright.

 

[talkingfuture]

It makes sense.

Whilst I hope this isn't true, it is possibly the most effective way of hurting Mac sales at the moment. Building better hardware isn't that effective if it still comes with Windows.

I think Apple will squash Psystar eventually through superior products or clever licensing/activation systems.

 

[alexbates]

Hopefully, some of this will change soon. If Apple does come out with netbooks in the first quarter of 2009, this could get more people to buy a Mac, that could not previously afford one, instead of a netbook that Pystar could come out with in the future.

 

[DigitalM]

I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.

He said as Alice "might" put it, so he's correct. Otherwise he would have said as "As Alice put it...".

Anyway, I agree, someone has indemnified Psystar against a defeat, I've thought so all along.

 

[ogbuke]

I certainly hope Apple keeps pushing this line in court. They'll look a right bunch of chumps. The DMCA addition was desperation. It just doesn't apply.

This is beyond desperation.

If only Apple hadn't changed to making PC clones and trying to limit OS X to their machines, by EULA... talk about dumb.

And now they're going to pay. The EULA is going to be declared invalid in court, and everyone is going to get their Mac netbook ! It just won't be made by Apple... because they're too up themselves to serve their customers needs. (We make a netbook, it's called the MacBook Air... right...)

If people want to buy a leaf-blower and run OS X, that's a sale of OS X for Apple that THEY were never going to get anyway. Somebody wants a quiet, quality machine that won't let them down... they'll buy Apple.

Apple is under no obligation to support crap PC hardware, but if manufacturers make something to Apple's standard, let them sell OS X. Might even improve the general standard of PC's too.

Now that's a legacy worth having, Apple.

Who's going to force Apple to pay, you? please.

 

[kavika411]

Regarding the substance of the OP (and sorry if this has been said; don't have time to read the whole thread); but the conspiracy allegation sounds like nothing more than what is called "fictitious defendants." A plaintiff (Apple, in this case) must sue everyone tied to the particular wrong act (Pystar's creation/sale of the computer). Some of the potential wrongdoers (perhaps a subcontractor, perhaps a partner company) may have had a hand in it, but that won't be revealed until later in the case. If Apple hasn't already pleaded "fictitious defendants" acting in a "conspiracy," they may not be able to amend their complaint.

In short, conspiracy allegations are part of any good form complaint. Just an FYI.

 

[iOrlando]

I dont think its neccessary a well-known pc maker like dell or hp. Instead i think apple is suggesting a group of investors are behind the efforts of psystar and not just the management. These investors have a vested interest in the matter, and apple stated they might deceide to go after each investor individually.

 

[ogbuke]

In a way though, sooner or later Apple's Hardware/Software bundling issue is going to become an anti-competitive issue. Lets face it, a modern Mac is effectively an Intel PC with a little hardware tweak that enables them to lock the OS to the hardware. If Microsoft announced tomorrow that they wanted to make computers and were going to be locking Windows to their own hardware they'd be in court before you could say 'competition commission'.

I'm not so sure that Apple isn't possibly on a bit of a sticky wicket.

As long as Apple's marketshare is like 3 or 5 percent, they have nothing to worry about.

 

[ogbuke]

Why can't a company (or individual) challenge claims by another company that restrict the use of legitimately purchased products? Psystar doesn't pirate OSX--it buys the OS and puts it to a use that Apple doesn't like because that threatens their hardware monopoly. If I want to use OSX (and I do because it's the best), I am currently forced to use Apple computers, semi-functional Hack-intoshs aside. Apple can't stand free market competition, and their over-priced, increasingly limited product line reflects it. Can you imagine if, say, Sony declared that to use their copyrighted movies, music and games one had to use Sony hardware, only. It's ridiculous.

The people behind Psystar see the opportunity to make some cash offering consumers additional hardware choices. Go Psystar!

LOL, and who are you to decide what Apple should do with a product they make, or I guess you have a business plan showing they can make more money by doing what you say. Please.

 

[HyperZboy]

1 Word... DESPERATION!

I never thought I'd use this word to describe Apple, of all companies, but this strange development just REEKS of DESPERATION on Apple's part!

Like others have mentioned, PSYSTAR is a corporation with little assets, no one will go to jail, DMCA or not, EULA violation or not. PSYSTAR really does have little to lose and it is strange that they have the cash on hand to afford this legal defense this long, let alone going forward.

Sure, Apple will probably win on some level with copyright infringement, but there's a damn good chance that all of Apple's other claims will be thrown out including their EULA. I even wonder if DMCA could face a Supreme Court challenge over this. It's certainly stretching the limits of the DMCA's original intent.

Basically, unless Apple wins the EULA or DMCA arguments, that MacOS can only be installed on Apple brand computers and/or this is theft of copyrighted property, Apple is in BIG TROUBLE. And it's doubtful Apple will win on the EULA count. So that's got to be the reason they are throwing everything but the alien UFO kitchen sink at PSYSTAR now. It's definitely an act of desperation on Apple's part in an effort to drain monetarily this company out of business BEFORE this goes to trial.

Let's say Apple wins part of the copyright suit, but not the EULA or DMCA parts. PSYSTAR could then just sell the computers without pre-installing a hacked MacOS, but give end-users the software to do the installation easily themselves. It would never turn PSYSTAR into a DELL, but I bet DELL would certainly then be interested in doing the same thing and so would tons of other PC companies.

I always predicted this would never go to trial, because Apple has way too much to lose and PSYSTAR has little to lose, but it looks like Apple is now worried it WILL go to trial and that's certainly not good news for Apple. Now the big question is, who IS behind PSYSTAR, if anybody, or is this stunt really just a sign of Apple's desperation at not being able to even buy PSYSTAR out of business? You would think it would be chump change for Apple to just buy PSYSTAR out and PSYSTAR would probably get more money than they've made selling the damn clones! But yet the legal wrangling continues. Strange happenings indeed.

And as a footnote, I've been an Apple user since 1983, but these fanboy EULA cheerleaders really kinda make me sick. Many companys' EULAs would not stand up in court and all of Apple's most certainly won't either. I may be a lifelong Apple user, but I'm not a fanboy nor do I believe everything Steve Jobs says. Please, before posting on this topic, fanboys, please turn on your Reality Distortion Field Deflector Shields. Thanks. 😀

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm sure there are some high-end, expensive machines that run vista swell, but the masses don't see that.

Is this what you mean by "high-end, expensive" ?

When Vista was first released, the "high-end" comment was more-or-less true. Since then, however, even low-end systems have plenty of power and memory to "run Vista swell".

 

[ogbuke]

You cannot be serious, right?

I am sorry for the educational system of this country.

D

😀