Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[Clive At Five]

If the "car thief" drops a pile of cash on the desk and takes the car, that does not mean he hasn't stolen the car.

"Stolen," mayhap by legal definition. Yet the merchandise was fully paid-for.

Once again, we're back to the original argument. You're a lawyer. You're programmed to think that "illegal" - by definition - means wrong. Let me tell you something: "illegal" only means "illegal" and nothing else. "Right" and "wrong" are undefinable constructs that we attempt to harness into laws.

-Clive

 

[IJ Reilly]

Fair enough point, Apple increased hardware choices at one point, but perhaps a more relevant comparison today might be between Apple's hardware choices now & that of more recent times.

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers. Well for those who've invested heavily in OS X, & not just financially, who also work under variable conditions principally on laptops, but can't work with glossy screens, I have only sympathy for & can quite understand at least the temptation to access any one of a number of Hackintosh sites in order to run OS X on a matte-screen, laptop PC. If they succeed & that's the solution that works for them, then I have no issues with that whatsoever.

Somebody is bound to complain about the absence of any given feature. I've heard something like an uproar over the lack of Blu-ray support, though in reality nobody can really say why they need it in the first place. The problem here is that if a comparison is made between Apple and every Windows OEM, including the screwdriver shops and home-builders, then Apple is obviously going to come up short in the variety department. The same would be true if any given Windows OEM is compared to the rest of the market. Does everyone give you the choice between matte and glossy displays? So it seems to me that some are saying that if Apple can't provide as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market, combined (hardly a realistic expectation), that they feel justified in violating Apple's terms of use for OSX. This sounds to me like another convenient rationalization.

 

[matticus008]

"Stolen," mayhap by legal definition. Yet the merchandise was fully paid-for.

It doesn't matter. If someone takes something of yours, but reimburses you fully for its current value in their judgment, that does not excuse their act because it was not theirs to take, regardless of value or reimbursement. It does not invalidate their legal action against you, nor does it have any impact on the legal, ethical, and commonly moral wrong you have committed.

You're programmed to think that "illegal" - by definition - means wrong.

Illegal by definition does mean wrong. A legal wrong. It could not be illegal if it was not in some sense wrong. Right and wrong are easily defined, as long as you make the scope clear.

Why you're dredging this up again, who knows. What's individually morally right or wrong is totally irrelevant, and no one is talking about it.

 

[albusseverus]

What might really hurt Apple's case is that - I didn't see Apple refusing to supply Psystar with the OS X to sell with these machines.

Do we have any evidence that Apple has punished any downstream resellers for supplying Psystar?

So Apple supplied Psystar with legitimate copies of OS X to include with their PCs, then waited until the brand was established and now tries to sue them for selling Apple's product, that Apple supplied to them!!

 

[czachorski]

The almighty dollar is the motivating factor to tie, my friend.

While this statement is undoubtedly true, it also ignores the benefits to the customer of the tie. The two go hand in hand. I buy the product knowing there is a tie, because I am also intelligent enough to know that the tie itself is what enables many of the things that make Macs better for me. That is the basis of a transaction - two willing parties who find mutual benefit in what the other has.

 

[pdjudd]

What might really hurt Apple's case is that - I didn't see Apple refusing to supply Psystar with the OS X to sell with these machines.

Psystar never requested a legitimate license to use OSX so its irrelevant if was was refused or not. It actually hurts pystar more since they never made an effort to legally use Apple's copies to the extent of flagrant disregard.

Do we have any evidence that Apple has punished any downstream resellers for supplying Psystar?

What does that have to do with this case?

So Apple supplied Psystar with legitimate copies of OS X to include with their PCs, then waited until the brand was established and now tries to sue them for selling Apple's product, that Apple supplied to them!!

No they did not. Psystar used illegitimate licenses to hack OSX on hardware and tried to resell it - something they are not permitted by law to do. I can guarantee Apple was well aware of them on Day one and are under no obligation to strike on that first day. They could have waited as long as they wanted to since this is a civil suit.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Somebody is bound to complain about the absence of any given feature. I've heard something like an uproar over the lack of Blu-ray support, though in reality nobody can really say why they need it in the first place. The problem here is that if a comparison is made between Apple and every Windows OEM, including the screwdriver shops and home-builders, then Apple is obviously going to come up short in the variety department. The same would be true if any given Windows OEM is compared to the rest of the market. Does everyone give you the choice between matte and glossy displays? So it seems to me that some are saying that if Apple can't provide as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market, combined (hardly a realistic expectation), that they feel justified in violating Apple's terms of use for OSX. This sounds to me like another convenient rationalization.

Well, some of the major PC-makers like HP & Dell do provide a choice of matte displays & in a highly competitive, cut-throat market as the PC one is, that alone strongly implies that there's enough demand for this option to justify continued production of those lines.

It's not really about Apple providing "as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market". Apple already provided this option previously. In terminating that option, Apple have made a fairly ruthless business decision, pure & simple. Except it's not of course that simple for those affected by that decision. For those itinerant professionals reliant on using OS X with a non-reflective display to earn their living, that decision may feel like a betrayal. Thus, in the greater scheme of things, I think it's not so much a case of "another convenient rationalization" for running OS X on matte-screen, PC laptops, but more so an understandable rationalization.

 

[dejo]

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers.

All their computers? You forget the 17" MacBook Pro still provides you the option of glossy or matte display.

 

[Beric]

All their computers? You forget the 17" MacBook Pro still provides you the option of glossy or matte display.

Until the presumed January update.

 

[nookster]

Presumably you've never participated in similar discussions on Macworld.UK, then?

Oh yes, I'm a member, been there, bought the mug, but I generally restrain myself

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, some of the major PC-makers like HP & Dell do provide a choice of matte displays & in a highly competitive, cut-throat market as the PC one is, that alone strongly implies that there's enough demand for this option to justify continued production of those lines.

It's not really about Apple providing "as much hardware variety as the other 95% of the PC market". Apple already provided this option previously. In terminating that option, Apple have made a fairly ruthless business decision, pure & simple. Except it's not of course that simple for those affected by that decision. For those itinerant professionals reliant on using OS X with a non-reflective display to earn their living, that decision may feel like a betrayal. Thus, in the greater scheme of things, I think it's not so much a case of "another convenient rationalization" for running OS X on matte-screen, PC laptops, but more so an understandable rationalization.

A ruthless business decision? As in, lacking in pity? Betrayal, as in treacherous? Disloyal?

It's interesting the adjectives chosen to describe the corporation known as Apple. Earlier we had the horrifying charge that Apple was only interested in the "almighty dollar." What will we have next, penguins who eat fish? I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

 

[TiggsPanther]

A ruthless I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

This is one of the problems, really. When faced with two sub-optimal choices, we all want a third option. In many things, I know I often do.

Doesn't mean there's always a third option available.
Yes, in some cases there should be one. And in some cases there's even an obvious candidate (or two) that the option should be. (full self-install OSX discs, Clones, xMac, choose your poison according to your opinions....)

But, again, the reality of the situation is that it's not always there.

Yes, it would be nice if Apple provided a non-workstation, non-laptop-parts non-glossy option. But they are not obliged or provide it. Nor, as far as I know, are they obliged to allow others to do so.

The Mac platform (as a package) is the option. There are alternatives to it. The alternatives may not be ideal, but they are there. But some people, for whastever reason, refuse to accept that as a valid option.

Actually, I want Apple to release something headless and at least partly user-upgradeable. I want them to release the option that so many are clamouring for. (Or maybe even allow cheaper but licensed clones)
Because I'm sure that for every person who only goes Hackintosh in the lack of a viable alternative, there are probably several people who would still probably go Hackintosh because it's either cheaper or that it still doesn't scratch their particular itch.

The "problem" is that Apple/Mac/OSX can never be all things to all people. That's one of the problems that plagues Windows. Too many permutations. I still genuinely think that the narrow subset of hardware combinations is a major part of what gives the Mac its stability, and is a big part of why I like the platform.

If I want "installs on anything", I'll use Windows.
If I want "allowed to tweak to my heart's content", I'll use Linux.
When I want a better overall user experience, I'll use a Mac.

I have used, and do use, all three platforms. Each has its purpose, its pros, and its cons. And it does sometimes feel like all the current voices are shouting for Apple to give up what, to me, is what makes it one of the three major option.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The "problem" is that Apple/Mac/OSX can never be all things to all people. That's one of the problems that plagues Windows. Too many permutations. I still genuinely think that the narrow subset of hardware combinations is a major part of what gives the Mac its stability, and is a big part of why I like the platform.

Exactly, and I think this also summarizes Apple's marketing approach. They recognize that if they try to be all things to all people, that they end up being not much of anything to anyone. Consumers already have that choice -- it's called Windows.

 

[TiggsPanther]

Exactly, and I think this also summarizes Apple's marketing approach. They recognize that if they try to be all things to all people, that they end up being not much of anything to anyone. Consumers already have that choice -- it's called Windows.

Conversely, it would be nice if they provided one option in the 'Headless Desktop' Class.Leave it with an spare, empty drive bay and a PCI (or current equivalent) slot or two. Just enough to give an option for people who want the own screen / matte screen / external monitor / etc, without needing a full Mac Pro.

If nothing else, Apple may need to start weighing it up as even if they worry something like that would canibalise sales of the Mac Pro (or even iMac, for people who need more than a Mini) it's getting to the point where people defecting to Hackintoshes will eat into the same sales.
And at least a sale lost to another of their own products isn't a sale lost to other H/W manufacturers.

Whether you agree with Hackintosh/Psystar/etc or not(*), I think Apple have to realise that they are having to compete with them. And their options are either compete themselves or tread very heavily on infringements even to the point of chasing individuals. And I can see only one of these options actually going down well with the userbase...

(*) I personally don't, but I still think that Apple would benefit from the Carrot rather than the Stick approach.

 

[IJ Reilly]

At the risk of restarting the interminable "midrange tower/headless Mac" debate, I have to say I am confident that Apple will move their product line in whichever direction they expect to produce a return on investment. If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer. So as I've always said in these discussions: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

 

[TiggsPanther]

If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer.

This is precisely why, personally, I'm anti-Hackintosh.

Much as I'd hope that Apple would take the former approach, I fear they'd be more likely to take the latter.

I really hope they would go the route that would foster more public goodwill, but I also see them feeling forced to take steps to really stop Hackintosh attempts. And I do worry that this is the more likely direction they'd take.
Currently, the purchase and installation of newer versions of OSX works on the honor system. But if they find that customers, although paying, are not honoring their requests then they may well decide to just lock down the OS Windows-style. Which I really hope they don't.

I guess it all boils down to whether they think they'd be risking their return on investment if they opened another product line, and whether that risk would outweigh what's basically just the backlash of a bunch of us geek-types from various message boards.

I'd like to believe they'd produce an xMac.
I'd like, in principle, to defend the rights of the Hackintosher over the irritating EULAs of software.
I just think that there's a very real risk of Apple just getting fed up of the whole thing and locking down a system that benefits from not currently having to jump through all the activation hoops that plague Windows.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I guess it all boils down to whether they think they'd be risking their return on investment if they opened another product line, and whether that risk would outweigh what's basically just the backlash of a bunch of us geek-types from various message boards.

Exactly. If Apple saw the demand for such a product going much beyond the geek crowd, then I have no doubt that they'd be making that product. Maybe some day they will -- but not because they're in the good will business, at least not if that good will doesn't translate into a profit in the end.

 

[Clive At Five]

I challenge the idea that Apple would lock OS X for activation. The folks they are attempting to lock out - the individuals behind the OSx86 project - are the same geniuses who will be the first to break the lock. The end result will be a failed attempt to thwart hackers and added annoyance to everyone else.

This is precisely what we have with Windows, and I don't think Apple will take that route.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Any why do you think Microsoft does it, knowing full well that they can never make their copy protection 100% effective?

Rationalization and denial -- they seem to go together.

 

[corinhorn]

Exactly. If Apple saw the demand for such a product going much beyond the geek crowd, then I have no doubt that they'd be making that product. Maybe some day they will -- but not because they're in the good will business, at least not if that good will doesn't translate into a profit in the end.

I agree. Apple is in business to make money, not to placate every demand that geeks make. If it will be profitable and not conflict with Apple's core culture and business model, they will produce it.

 

[rickag]

At the risk of restarting the interminable "midrange tower/headless Mac" debate, I have to say I am confident that Apple will move their product line in whichever direction they expect to produce a return on investment. If they find themselves competing seriously with the hacked Mac market, they could respond in any number of ways. One way would be to release new Mac products. Another would be to serialize OSX and require registration and activation. We should be aware that Apple may not chose the response we'd prefer. So as I've always said in these discussions: be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

This sounds good, but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

I challenge the idea that Apple would lock OS X for activation. The folks they are attempting to lock out - the individuals behind the OSx86 project - are the same geniuses who will be the first to break the lock. The end result will be a failed attempt to thwart hackers and added annoyance to everyone else.

This is precisely what we have with Windows, and I don't think Apple will take that route.

While I agree with your assesment concerning how the locks will be broken and annoyance to everyone else, I get the feeling Apple is moving closer to a position of protection of their intellectual property and may very well begin require activation of their OS. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[corinhorn]

While I agree with your assesment concerning how the locks will be broken and annoyance to everyone else, I get the feeling Apple is moving closer to a position of protection of their intellectual property and may very well begin require activation of their OS. Hope I'm wrong.

I would hope you are wrong and that Apple is smarter than Microsoft. As it has been discussed many times, activation requirements do little to deter pirates and will annoy consumers who actually pay for the software. There would be no point in Apple taking this foolish step.

 

[gregorsamsa]

A ruthless business decision? As in, lacking in pity? Betrayal, as in treacherous? Disloyal?

It's interesting the adjectives chosen to describe the corporation known as Apple. Earlier we had the horrifying charge that Apple was only interested in the "almighty dollar." What will we have next, penguins who eat fish? I am sorry for the sarcastic response, but truly, it seems some lose track of the simple proposition presented to us as consumers of products: either we like them, and buy, or don't like them, and consequently do not buy. The third choice, taking without paying, really is not a legitimate one. Not that rationalization isn't a great attraction; I know it is. In fact, it's the power behind virtually every illegitimate thing human beings do.

No need to apologize for the sarcasm, as such pat reductionism is always amusing. It's also expected, as these kinds of discussions are often polarized between those who mostly defend the corporate line (in this case Apple's) to the hilt, & those who feel that consumers are taken for granted far too often, thus them breaking a few rules now & again really isn't that big a deal. I can make no apology for being in the latter camp.

"A ruthless business decision?" I think that's a fair description. Also, in this sense most similar accusations chucked at Microsoft by Apple fans (btw, I'm not saying you're a fanboy) are now equally applicable to Apple. The only reason to drop some of these options is more cost-cutting, motivated by pure greed. I mean, don't get me started on the cheap TN panels Apple use in their glossy 20" iMacs & how the 20" iMac's matte-screens they replaced were actually of better quality. But as Apple's corporate greed is fine, according to some thinking here, then you also shouldn't be surprised, or too annoyed, if we see consequences like an increase in the so-called hackintosh community.

As only Apple supply OS X, Apple know well enough the impact upon some people of denying Mac users certain hardware options, the same options that remain available throughout the PC industry. If Apple were struggling financially, people might respect such cost-cutting decisions from a business angle (even though many say they'd happily pay extra for more options), but Apple are billions in profit. If Apple offered, for eg., options of a consumer-priced, mid-tower, or matte -screen laptop, people like me might regard hackintosh users with far less approval. But as things stand, anyone who has the confidence & know-how to find a better personal solution using a hackintosh, has my respect.

Illegitimate it certainly is, but ultimately Apple have only themselves to blame if even more people start resorting to such illegitimate methods. FWIW, if you Google for it, you'll also find that OS X running on inexpensive netbooks seems to be growing all the time. Here again, Apple must take some responsibility, however indirectly. Steve Jobs recently stated that Apple do "no market research". Well, if Apple want to stem further growth in the hackintosh community, perhaps it's time that they did some market research.

 

[piot]

This sounds good, but I fear Apple's decision to forgo the mid to upper end tower is a philosophical decision and not an economic one.

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.

 

[Clive At Five]

What's the philosophy? Do you really think that Apple wouldn't release such a product .... if it made them more money?

It's ironic that many people on this forum (and others!) accuse Apple of being greedy... yet simultaneously accuse them of turning down the cash because of some alleged control freakery mission.

Apple, Steve Jobs and the bean counters watched on as sales of the original iMac overtook their other desktop systems. The G4 iMac easily outsold the G4 towers (that people here, including Clive@5 longingly hark back to). Then, the Apple team can't have failed to notice that notebooks increasingly became the flavour of the month. Now, many of the major PC companies are selling AOIs and Dell is even selling bamboo coated mini-desktops.

Yes. Some people want a mid range, mid priced, upgradable tower. However that slice of the pie is getting smaller as we speak. You don't need to be a philosopher to see that.

To a certain extent, I do think Apple's refusal to offer a mid-tower is a bit of both. We all know the margins on consumer towers are very thin. We all know Apple likes fat profits... who doesn't?

At the same time, their philosophy has always been "anti-beige," if you will. Mid-towers are very beige.

The same thing happens whenever Apple launches a new product line:

Step 1: Apple says, "we'll never do "X" because we've seen the market and we don't like it."
Step 2: Apple tinkers with "X" until it fits their "anti-beige" formula.
Step 3: Apple launches their own "X"

Well, my friends, the iMac IS Apple's answer to the mid-tower market. I don't foresee them ever launching anything similar to a mid-tower. I could fathom another mockery of the tower (G4 Cube) or something else that totally fails to address the actual demands of those begging for something else (MacMini) but I could never see Apple launching an xMac tower.