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.
Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would be interesting to find out who/what was really behind Pystar, because I seriously doubt the undercapitalized pizza delivery boys and their ambulance chasers decided to go up against aapl for the fun of it. And there really was no way for Pystar to "win"--if they prevailed, bigger fish would do the same thing and Pystar would go belly up. Pystar added nothing of value. I doubt we'll ever find out --probably too many layers removed and done through their attorneys from day 1. This was not the David versus Goliath story that too many here have swallowed, of that I'm sure.
Many here seem to think it's extremely unfair that they can't put OSX on whatever they please, since they "own" it. Those "individuals" might want to wade into some Ayn Rand--"Fountain Head" or "Atlas Shrugged." Very two dimensional, cartoonish characters presenting her black and white views on society and "individualism", but her views do seem relevant in the intellectual property arena. [I'm not a Rand proponent, but it's a bit scary that so many today have so little respect for the intellectual property creations of others.]
monopoly has to do with choices from the customer's vantage point of view and the provider's practices to limit these choices.
- from the customer's view: Apple products are far from a monopoly
- from Apple's point of view: their practices are limited to their products and others can add value to these products in a rather fair and lucrative way (think mac OS + iPone apps)
Py* definition of monopoly implies that just about every one that has any product would then have an exclusive market, and therefore be a 'monopoly', etc... As someone pointed out earlier: sophomoriuc way of thinking.
Py* could still sell hardware that is 'Mac OS capable', and let the user purchase the OS of their choice to install in this hardware. This OS could be Mac OS. This would be fair for both parties: Py* and Apple.
- from the customer's view: Apple products are far from a monopoly
- from Apple's point of view: their practices are limited to their products and others can add value to these products in a rather fair and lucrative way (think mac OS + iPone apps)
Py* definition of monopoly implies that just about every one that has any product would then have an exclusive market, and therefore be a 'monopoly', etc... As someone pointed out earlier: sophomoriuc way of thinking.
Py* could still sell hardware that is 'Mac OS capable', and let the user purchase the OS of their choice to install in this hardware. This OS could be Mac OS. This would be fair for both parties: Py* and Apple.
I would think they would have to have a much larger share than 50% to be considered a monopoly.
Hardware clauses in EULAs are illegal in Germany (and probably in most other EU countries too). HP (I think it was HP) has been successfully sued because of that back in the 1990s.
Mac OS X is heavily based on BSD, namely OpenDarwin. Google it
I'd have to agree with the other poster... really this entire thing has little to do with open source, though i'll bite (please read the following):
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Now please point out which section of this license contains the "Sharing is Caring" clause...
IMHO, I think what Apple does actually hurts us the Apple consumers. By locking us into Apple branded hardware, we have very limited options. The OSx86 community has already shown that Leopard works fine on netbooks, tablets, and a variety of other hardware, that Apple refuses to produce. I don't have too much pity for Psystar, but I would like them to force Apple to allow for some sort new products. I've owned quite a few Apple's since they came out with OSX, so I'm obviously not anti-Apple. The fact is people want BluRay, Netbooks, Tablets, TouchScreens, and various other products that Apple isn't making. And from my experience, if people desire something it will create a market for that product, so Apple has created some of this problem themselves.
The problem for Germans is that if someone were to take Apple to court on that, and Apple loses - they would merely stop selling Apple computers in Germany.
"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.
This is why it is terrible to argue philosophical things with lawyers.
With my $129, Apple granted me the right to install and use OS X on a genuine Macintosh. I knowingly installed it on a computer that was 95% equivalent to a Macintosh. Did I break the license agreement? Yes. Do I have the legal right to do so? No. Do I find my actions to be unethical? No. Like I said, Apple earned the software sale but not the hardware sale. It's as simple as that. They should not get my money for something they did not earn my sale.
No, absolutely not. I'll admit it's illegal, but I will not admit it is wrong.
I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.
Nay, I argue. By allowing Apple to bundle the unrelated products which are its hardware and software, you are allowing Apple to steal $500 to $5000 or more from me. Apple's hardware has not earned my sale. Why should I be forced to buy it? That is the antithesis of the free market.
I never denied breaking the law. I denied wrongdoing.
I was like you once. Then I discovered the Nolan Chart. I decided that I wanted to support not only economic freedom but ALSO personal freedom.
I acknowledge that there is delicate balance in what we can and cannot dictate by law, but the more laws we sign, the fewer freedoms we have. I said this above and I will say it again:
I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.
Well then it's a good thing I didn't pirate the software. Apple is sitting on my $129 dollars right now. The exact amount they earned.
One wasn't required by law to own a slave, but it would've been within one's rights to do so. Just because it's a right, doesn't make it right. It's not spin, my friend, just a comparison that works unfavorably for your argument.
Of course the scope of the injustice of slavery is many magnitudes larger than that of the injustice of not protecting the freedom of consumers to do with a legally-purchased product what he or she chooses, so long as it harms no one else.
People *should* have a right to be stupid and fail for their stupid actions. That's how free markets work. I happen to see Psystar as pretty brilliant for their idea, but stupid on their execution. They used without permission the technology to hack their toshes, and they sold OS X pre-installed without permission. These are two big no-nos. They should've sold computers that were install-ready via the retail DVD and told the people to go buy the software themselves. Then their business would've been air-tight and, in my opinion, genius.
By the way, I can tell you're a conservative, which is what I used to be until recently, so let me ask you a question: How do you justify to yourself triumphing free markets but not consumer rights? The two go hand-in-hand. Free markets work so long as corporate greed doesn't abuse the system. Bundling these two unrelated products with no alternative but to submit or break EULA is about greed, not product performance. Anyone who knows anything about computers should be able to tell you that.
There's a delicate balance we must maintain between corporate power and consumer power. In this case, I firmly believe that we are currently favoring corporations over consumers.
-Clive
If they were to do this, I think they would be fine - however, even Psystar says the retail DVD of Leopard will not install on their computers - you must get it preinstalled and use their restore DVD to reinstall it.
Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now...
Good news for whom exactly? Maybe for you if you like to be told what and what not to do:
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/18/apple-incorporates-hdcp-copy-protection-in-new-laptops/
There are ways to prep a computer for retail DVD installation... Want to start a business, rjs?
By the way, the court decision is now available at www.groklaw.net . (PJ says: Told you so! )
You are absolutely wrong there. People who pay $129, get Leopard, and install it according to the license, are all people who previously bought a Macintosh (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that each $129 Leopard sale is directly linked to a previous profitable hardware sale), and have a valid license to a previous operating system (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that this is actually an update, which always sells for less than a complete new software package).
Let's assume hypothetically that Apple started selling a range of Windows PCs; basically Macintosh hardware like an iMac but with a Windows license and Windows installed instead of MacOS X license and MacOS X installed. If that happened, I would assume that Apple would change its Leopard license and offer two products: An "upgrade" license for $129 for use on Apple computers with a MacOS X license, and a "full Apple" license for $229 or something like that for users of Apple computers without a MacOS X license.
Same if Apple offered Leopard for installation on _any_ computer: I would expect a different, higher price. And fair is fair, once you paid for the MacOS X license, your next OS (Snow Leopard or whatever) would be the plain "upgrade" license. But your assumption that a license for MacOS X on non-Macs would be the same $129 is clearly wrong.
You are absolutely wrong there. People who pay $129, get Leopard, and install it according to the license, are all people who previously bought a Macintosh (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that each $129 Leopard sale is directly linked to a previous profitable hardware sale), and have a valid license to a previous operating system (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that this is actually an update, which always sells for less than a complete new software package).
Let's assume hypothetically that Apple started selling a range of Windows PCs; basically Macintosh hardware like an iMac but with a Windows license and Windows installed instead of MacOS X license and MacOS X installed. If that happened, I would assume that Apple would change its Leopard license and offer two products: An "upgrade" license for $129 for use on Apple computers with a MacOS X license, and a "full Apple" license for $229 or something like that for users of Apple computers without a MacOS X license.
Same if Apple offered Leopard for installation on _any_ computer: I would expect a different, higher price. And fair is fair, once you paid for the MacOS X license, your next OS (Snow Leopard or whatever) would be the plain "upgrade" license. But your assumption that a license for MacOS X on non-Macs would be the same $129 is clearly wrong.
Looks like I got a bit ahead of myself, but that's what happens when I post at 1AM.
Anyway, as you said, Microsoft will let you install Windows on anything. They don't care, it's all the same money. They have nothing to do with hardware that other companies make, and they're OK with that.My point being that Microsoft chose to let anyone and everyone (HP, Dell, etc) install Windows on a PC they built and sell it to an end user. They've allowed companies to do that because that's how they've decided to make their money.
Apple chose to not allow third parties from installing and selling their software. Both companies can make these choices because they created the product.
You are making the same mistake repeatedly. The ease with which a copyright, trademark or patent can be violated in no way affects the legality of doing so. Even if Apple's hardware was seen to be "generic" the product known as a Macintosh is not just hardware, it's the combination of the hardware and the operating system. A book may be just "generic" paper and ink, but the combination of the paper, ink and words creates a work which is owned by its creator. A book is not a book unless it contains a combination of paper, ink and words. They cannot be arbitrarily deconstructed.
The law certainly is moral and ethical, if you happen to own the property protected by the law.
Antitrust has more to do with the abuse of market power than monopoly. I think this concept has already been explained pretty thoroughly. The important point is that any patent or copyright is in reality a government-protected monopoly. Monopolies are not illegal -- abuse of market power to restrain competition is. There's no magic market share threshold for when this can occur.
The box doesn't say upgrade, store.apple.com doesn't mention upgrade, and in his keynotes, Steve pitches it as the "full version of OS X."
A technicality, yes, but true, nonetheless. There's no reason for a consumer to assume otherwise.
That said, only Apple can be blamed for being so vague.
If it makes you feel any better, I've been using genuine Apple products for over 20 years. After all these years, they've managed to alienate a faithful customer like me with terrible hardware offerings and cheap lock-in/lock-out tactics.
Enter consumer revolt.
I made no such mention of "ease" of breaking copyright, trademark, whatever. Neither did I make any mention of Psystar selling Macintoshes! They are selling OS X-equipped computers. Macintoshes are OS X + "Apple-labeled" hardware by Apple's own definition.
The reason I hate arguing with you, IJ Reilly, is because you create arguments out of nothing to make yourself look spectacular. Why don't you respond to the content of my posts instead of tackling arguments you manifest in your own responses?
Yes, you did. You suggested that if Apple's hardware could be defined as "generic" that maybe Psystar had an argument in its own defense. This is not the case. If they sell a computer with OSX installed, they are selling a Macintosh computer, no matter how you believe Apple has "defined" it.
I'm clipping this piece out because this is your most pertinent point. Keep in mind that--as yet--Apple has not litigated against any single individual doing what you have done and they seem to consider what you have done as perfectly legitimate--for yourself.
On the other hand, Psystar attempted to not only do what you are doing for yourself, but exacerbated it by then reselling the end product as a retailer without explicit permission from Apple. The resale of Apple's software is regulated and only sold by Apple Authorized dealers, who happen to be scattered all across the country frequently in places where Apple has yet to install one of their own stores. This one thing alone violates the Apple copyright as well as the EULA which prohibits resale of the software unless completely removed from the hardware upon which it was installed. In other words, Psystar is neither an End User nor an Authorized Reseller.
As far as your putting OS X onto the hardware of your personal choice, I have no problem with that; but when you consider the poor quality of the majority of the non-Apple-branded hardware on the market, you should easily understand why Apple does not wish to dilute their Brand Identification by letting OS X become commercially available on otherwise generic hardware. If you buy a PC at about the same price range of an Apple, the hardware is frequently at the same quality as Apple's hardware and not the mass-produced entry-level junk frequently purchased from Dell or WalMart*.
Exactly. I'd expect Apple to remain silent on this issue, if only because they'd have so little to gain by trying to find and sue customers who violate the EULA in this way. An individual purchasing a retail copy of OSX could quite easily install it on generic PC hardware for their own use, or on multiple Macs that they own. The fact that Apple hasn't made any effort to stop this practice does not mean it's not a violation of the EULA, though. The big difference with Psystar is that they are trading on Apple's copyrights, patents and trademarks. They are selling the final product. This Pandora's box must be kept closed, or Apple risks losing control of their intellectual property.
Again, a fabricated argument. Ease of the hack/violation/what-have-you has no relation to whether or not the hardware is generic. Congrats, IJ, you won your own argument. Again.
And how can you say that "Macintosh" isn't defined by Apple??! They created it! They own the trademark! They define it in their EULAs!
Your mentally rigidity is inconceivably frustrating.
I don't disagree. In fact, I've stated so in this very thread. What Psystar is doing is plainly illegal. I understand Apple's obsession with closed architecture and why they chose it over an open platform. The average consumer is in many cases not capable of selecting decent hardware. But Apple fails to pick hardware that is best for me, a prosumer. I am informed enough to know what hardware is good, as are 90% of hackintosh builders. Apple knows this. I don't think they've become a completely heartless company as their entire entity was birthed out of our type of mentality. This is why I don't think they will pursue legal action against Hackintosh builders, nor take drastic steps to stop us.
The fact remains, however, that US law prohibits what we do. I think that it oversteps its bounds in favor of corporations. That would be the main thesis of my standpoint.
You simply can't accept that you are wrong, even when the courts rule on the matter. Call that what you will, you're the one who seems to be good at it.
I understand that the original counterclaim was that Apple held a monopoly over the "OS X market" and abused that market. I understand how this is a flawed claim, which I stated in my very first post.
The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.
Never did I mention the "ease" of breaking copyright or licenses, or any of the other stuff you invented. In fact, I've stated point-blank in other posts that what Psystar is doing is illegal.
So where exactly is your argument -- other than in your head?