I never thought of it that way. The software subsidized by the hardware's price. Oh, and it's been a long time grue
How's it goin'?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How's it goin'?
The BIG Picture...
It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here and arguing over legal minutiae and missing my points. I'm not defending PSYSTAR, and they will certainly lose at least part of this case and already have had their case thrown out. But, clearly Apple still has more to lose ultimately since nothing is settled.
My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did minus their stupid blunders or just SELL Mac OS X and a PC and the software to install it YOURSELF and it then would be difficult for Apple to stop it since there would then be a legal precedent. The decisions made so far in this case do not preclude that from happening, they only allow Apple's case to go forward and PSYSTAR's countersuit to be thrown out and right now nothing is settled. It's still possible for Apple to win the vast majority of the battles, put PSYSTAR out of business, but ultimately, still open up the door for others to follow in PSYSTAR's footsteps. Let's face it, this company did some stupid things.
I realize it scares many people here, the idea of Mac clones, but having used an Apple computer since 1983, I've even used SuperMacs and PowerComputing machines before and back then they were better machines for the money than what Apple was offering.
Now times have changed. Apple's products are so much better than back then.
I really don't think these clones pose a serious threat to Apple at this point nor will that many sell and I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.
I for one cannot WAIT to find out who, if anybody, is behind PSYSTAR.
It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here and arguing over legal minutiae and missing my points. I'm not defending PSYSTAR, and they will certainly lose at least part of this case and already have had their case thrown out. But, clearly Apple still has more to lose ultimately since nothing is settled.
My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did minus their stupid blunders or just SELL Mac OS X and a PC and the software to install it YOURSELF and it then would be difficult for Apple to stop it since there would then be a legal precedent. The decisions made so far in this case do not preclude that from happening, they only allow Apple's case to go forward and PSYSTAR's countersuit to be thrown out and right now nothing is settled. It's still possible for Apple to win the vast majority of the battles, put PSYSTAR out of business, but ultimately, still open up the door for others to follow in PSYSTAR's footsteps. Let's face it, this company did some stupid things.
I realize it scares many people here, the idea of Mac clones, but having used an Apple computer since 1983, I've even used SuperMacs and PowerComputing machines before and back then they were better machines for the money than what Apple was offering.
Now times have changed. Apple's products are so much better than back then.
I really don't think these clones pose a serious threat to Apple at this point nor will that many sell and I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.
I for one cannot WAIT to find out who, if anybody, is behind PSYSTAR.
I asked about that on Groklaw: When you buy a box with Leopard, you pay for the cardboard box, for the DVD, and the biggest amount of money is payment for the license. The EULA states not only that you have no license to install Leopard on a Psystar computer, but also that violating the license _terminates_ the license. So once Psystar installs Leopard on their computers, that particular box has lost its license, forever. At that point, not only is the copy on the Psystar box illegal, installing the software on a proper Macintosh would also be illegal.
I think summary judgement would not be possible at this stage. Summary judgement only happens when the judge can decide based on "undisputed facts". At the moment, Psystar claims they are not committing any copyright infringement; so Apple will need discovery to prove it. At the very least, the judge would need a number how many Psystar computers have been sold with MacOS X installed.
We shall see if that EULA holds up in court. I suspect it will not. Right now, it's undecided.
PSYSTAR suing Apple and Apple suing PSYSTAR are 2 different things.
The later is undecided. People keep forgetting that.
What's next? You can't buy a FORD engine and install it in a Chevy without being arrested, sued, or having the car mod shop shut down? Wouldn't some of that EULA be against the right of fair use?
I think this is the reason Apple will NOT want this stuff tested in court.
FACT #3: Nothing ELSE has been decided in Apple's favor other than FACT #2
Even if Apple wins part of it and loses some of it, the Mac clone market STILL could be opened up ultimately to others even if PSYSTAR is put out of business. Apple wouldn't be coming up with these conspiracy theories if they weren't being re-buffed at settling this thing in my opinion.
So I'll assert again, that Apple does NOT want this to go to trial, but they've just been unable to settle with PSYSTAR for what they believe are suspicious reasons.
I think I'll be proven right in the end. We'll see.
I agree with you. Apple has a lot to loose and nothing to gain by going to trail. While Psystar has nothing, to loose and a lot to gain
Psystar's business plan all along was never to make money by selling cheap computers at near cost. No, they were hoping to be sued by Apple and win at least some nugget. Maybe all they need to do is have a court invalidate a few paragraphs of the Apple's EULA. That might be Psystar's entire reason for being.
Some of those EULA terms are just plain nuts and may likely be invalided but just maybe Psystar can hit the jackpot and claim "first sale".
"First sale" basically means that if you buy something it's yours and the guy who sold it to you now longer owns it. I reasonable person might think "first sale" applies to a physical retail boxed copy of Mac OS X.
Then there is the question about contracts. The EULA is a contract but there is this silly legal rule that says BOTH parties must agree to a contract before it is binding on them. With a EULA you have no realistic option to disagree. Just try and return an opened box of software.
So Apple just might loose on a few small points or a few larger points.
Likely Apple's lawyers know all this and REALLY, REALLY do NOT want a trail and have offered to buy out Psystar for truckloads of cash and were surprised when the cash was declined. Likely Psystar's real owners are so rich they don't want a puny little truckload of cash. Who might that be? I'm guessing ... someone like Lenovo? Compaq? I don't know. I'm sure some of the big PC makers are just hating the fact that they have only ONE operating system supplier and would like a choice of suppliers.
It's amazing to me how many people are missing THE BIG PICTURE here and arguing over legal minutiae and missing my points. I'm not defending PSYSTAR, and they will certainly lose at least part of this case and already have had their case thrown out. But, clearly Apple still has more to lose ultimately since nothing is settled.
My point is that if Apple's EULA gets tested in court and some parts are tossed, there are lots of possibilities for another company to easily swoop in and do the same thing PSYSTAR did minus their stupid blunders or just SELL Mac OS X and a PC and the software to install it YOURSELF and it then would be difficult for Apple to stop it since there would then be a legal precedent. The decisions made so far in this case do not preclude that from happening, they only allow Apple's case to go forward and PSYSTAR's countersuit to be thrown out and right now nothing is settled. It's still possible for Apple to win the vast majority of the battles, put PSYSTAR out of business, but ultimately, still open up the door for others to follow in PSYSTAR's footsteps. Let's face it, this company did some stupid things.
I realize it scares many people here, the idea of Mac clones, but having used an Apple computer since 1983, I've even used SuperMacs and PowerComputing machines before and back then they were better machines for the money than what Apple was offering.
Now times have changed. Apple's products are so much better than back then.
I really don't think these clones pose a serious threat to Apple at this point nor will that many sell and I don't think Apple would be bringing these conspiracy theories up if they didn't desperately want to stop this case from going to trial.
I for one cannot WAIT to find out who, if anybody, is behind PSYSTAR.
Two things.
1. If some parts of the EULA are tossed in your scenario, nothing would stop Apple from rewriting their EULA. I can't imagine any scenario where the court forces Apple to license its software to Psystar and others.
2. Apple has the most to gain from winning this trial, not a settlement. Winning would likely end any commercial cloning. Losing would likely cause them to rework their EULA slightly. Not a big risk.
I don't know how many times I can say this - the case that Apple is asserting up does not involve the EULA at all. This case involves trademark and breech of contract. Psystar cannot argue the EULA as invalid - they are not an end user and cannot accept it as a business entity. The only legal license they can accept is one granted to them from Apple that they have not obtained.
Any discussion about Apple's sales of OS X being illegal were already addressed in Pystar suit which was dismissed. The judge already ruled that Apple's sales of OSX were fine.
People keep bringing up the EULA - Apple is not arguing their EULA directly and even if they were - it can simoply be modified by Apple at any point (sicne they own the IP). It does not apply in this case.
What is this apple tax?
Is that what jealous people say when they cant afford a powerful laptop or desktop machine than $900 will get ya?
The "big picture" isn't what you make it out to be, is the issue. There's not exacting a deep gulf of unknowns here. The antitrust claim was their one shot at nullifying the platform restriction, and it's gone now. What other provision at issue do you feel might be found unenforceable and thus allow this scenario of yours to take place?
Ascertaining the identity of the financiers and naming them in an unsealed pleading is not the posture of trial avoidance. Once the information is disclosed, the financial backers have no incentive to settle because their cover's blown. Finding the full pockets behind the asset-less corporation is something you do when you're out for blood and want to make sure to get a judgment against someone who can pay.
That much is certain.
You can't "claim" "first sale". First sale is an exclusive right of a manufacturer. The First Sale Doctrine is a limitation on the rights of a copyright owner. It does apply to copies of OS X. But DFS is an exhaustion rule--the right of first sale is with the original owner, after which the sold interest is exhausted. It does not under any distortion of reality, however, ever give you ownership of more than you purchased. It gives you the right to transfer your interest to someone else without the copyright owner's permission, but only the specific rights and their associated restrictions possessed by you, the first buyer, can be transferred to someone else.
Assent is not an issue with click-through agreements; manifestation of assent is unequivocal. You're conflating two different kinds of license agreements here--assent is the critical missing element in shrinkwrap licenses, which are quite uncommon these days.
One has nothing to do with the other. The big, shiny disagree button is quite real. Difficulty obtaining a refund from a retailer is a separate matter, and one easily avoided by reading the terms in advance. Even absent that, all it takes is a written demand CCed to the publisher if the retailer refuses to comply.
This is patently untrue. Apple's main thrust is based on their license agreement. If you want to be technical about it, there is no "EULA" for OS X. Apple's SLAs are not limited to end users. And the SLA is far from not applying--it's the textual basis of this case. The other claims are ancillary, and all stem from the primary infringing act: asserting rights outside those granted by the owner.
Yes, it may be illegal, but that's up to the courts to decide - not necessarily the public to decide. And, even if it is illegal, I'm not going to sit here and righteously state that I don't do anything "illegal." Haven't you ever sped in your car before or downloaded copyrighted material of the internet (like a music album)? I'm just glad no one is getting hurt by this.
This is between Apple, Pystar, and the courts. People shouldn't be getting so upidy about it. If Pystar wins, I think it a win for the consumer, a win for capitalism. I love Apple products and will always buy their products (no matter if clones come out or not), but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears about a multi-billion dollar corporation losing to a dinky company trying to make money (just as Apple is doing).
Yeah, it would be a crappy experience. But, doesn't Apple just have to say that you need Mac hardware to run this OS. Apple can simply say "well, it's not working right because you have the wrong hardware." They could probably force to place this disclaimer on every box.
I think that Apple selling OS X at $100-$200 a pop will make them more money in the long run. There are plenty of people out there not even touching an Apple do their prohibitive pricing. These are the people who are not going to buy a Mac anyways - thus Apple has no way of getting any money from them right now. At least with selling OS X, they could be getting $100-$200 dollars off of them.
I'm unsure. I believe typically once one side in a lawsuit has (apparently) exhausted their legal theories, the other side at least files a motion of summary judgement. They may not get it, but I think they normally file the motion; if it's denied, it gives them some idea what the judge may be thinking about the facts and law potentially still to be decided. It can also put the other side on the defensive and require them to make legal arguments to the judge that they might have preferred to reserve for trial. Could well be wrong about this though. If we've got any attorneys present, they might offer to fill in the details.
I agree. I don't think that Psystar and its possible co-conspirators were ever in it for the money. I don't think they could get any money from Apple, as Apple never wronged them. The only thing that they can do to Apple would to have the courts force Apple to expand it's market, so whoever is behind Psystar just wants to make some radical changes to the computing world.
One question though: Why can Apple make computers that run OS X and Windows, but others cant make systems with OS X? Couldn't MS do something to prevent Windows on Macs?
This question has been asked and answered a hundred times already.
The reason is, simply, because Microsoft licenses Windows to hardware manufacturers and Apple does not. Microsoft could not suddenly decide to license Windows to some hardware manufacturers and not others. That would be an antitrust violation.
I don't understand the reasoning behind this thought. It's a pyrrhic victory for the consumer on the whole and a certain loss for Apple customers. A hypothetical, fantasy island Psystar victory would have exactly one consequence: Apple changing its OS X distribution model. This is Apple we're talking about. They're not going to roll over. And how on earth is it a win for capitalism?
Capitalism fundamentally requires an owner to have complete control over that which he produces, and the full freedom to divest it however he pleases, with whatever combination of lease, license, sale, or exchange under any terms he wants. Capitalism is inherently consumer-unfriendly, in theory canceled out by the need for market efficiency. Consumers have no "rights" to exercise against sellers, because they are by definition the party purchasing rights. Consumer power lies solely in their possession of money to give away.
@*&#$#?
You don't know what a trademark is, apparently, so it's unlikely you would understand.
As for suggesting there are conspirators, etc., well, that's just legal boilerplate. I put it in filings all the time. I doesn't mean anything; it just looks like it does.
You don't know what a trademark is, apparently, so it's unlikely you would understand.
As for suggesting there are conspirators, etc., well, that's just legal boilerplate. I put it in filings all the time. I doesn't mean anything; it just looks like it does.
The point would be that the kind of provision that is included in the EULA is unenforceable as a matter of law. So it wouldn't be a forced licensing, and rewriting it wouldn't make it more legal.
Seriously, some of you. Go get a law degree, pass the bar, practice intellectual property law for a few years and then call me in the morning.
What some people seem to be forgetting is that it's Apple that is making PC clones now, not the other way around.
Does anyone go running to Microsoft if Windows has problems running on their Mac? It's not Microsoft's problem.
Psystar has been a 'model' cheap-Mac-hardware vendor. Apple doesn't support them, but they support their product 100%.
Any dispute about OS X running on non-Apple hardware is between the purchaser and the company from which they purchased the 'package', not with Apple.
Does anyone go running to Microsoft if Windows has problems running on their Mac? It's not Microsoft's problem.
Psystar has been a 'model' cheap-Mac-hardware vendor. Apple doesn't support them, but they support their product 100%.
Any dispute about OS X running on non-Apple hardware is between the purchaser and the company from which they purchased the 'package', not with Apple.
No they dont, something is different with psystars product, hence why you cant install OSX from the restore disc yourself.
You are wrong.
Apple is the Plaintiff. Anyway, a summary judgment motion means that uncontested facts applied to law can resolve all (or part) of a case. It's more often successful for defendants.
Apple already got Psystar's *counter*-complaint dismissed; they were the cross-defendant in that one.
Anyway, any attorney who bills by the hour will try to file an MSJ if they can, but anyway, this case is really all about the enforceability of the SLA, the contents of which aren't really in dispute.
Psystar should have just made the computer and shut up. You can just sell a computer that magically happens to have all the right components not use apple's marks or sell their software with the intent of people putting apple's **** on them.
If that weren't the case, Apple could sue Dell for making the laptop I have run OS X.
And the conspiracy allegations are just boilerplate. Chill.
By who's or what definition?
You are confusing Microsoft's approach to selling operating systems with Apple's approach to selling computers. They are very different businesses. Apple cannot be forced to adopt Microsoft's business model simply because some people would find it convenient for them to do so.
I understand that Apple is the plaintiff, and that a summary judgement is more often successful for defendants. The reason I brought this up is because the judge completely rejected Psystar's arguments in their cross complaint, which appears to have gutted their entire defense. I am suggesting that Apple might file for summary judgment if only to find out if the judge thinks Psystar still has any legal theories worth entertaining.
Thanks, but I am already chilly. Practically freezing.
Bill Gates...I KNEW IT!!!!! He has sooo much free time now that he's ruined Windows (yet again) with Vista...
