Yes, of course it is, just as it is for all successful corporations. If you can't accept that simple truth, then it really is pointless to continue this discussion.
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
Yes, of course it is, just as it is for all successful corporations. If you can't accept that simple truth, then it really is pointless to continue this discussion.
Those aren't exactly up to date examples, though.
The Cube was around 2000/2001, right? And lasted little over a year?
And the iLamp (iMac G4, I believe) was discontinued in 2004 in favour to the iMac G5 whose design carried on to the Intel transition and was still the rough basis of the current incarnation.
Yes, Apple have been known to take risks in the past, but they certainly seem somewhat more conservative these days. At least, they're still innovating but mainly by looking at what's already out big there and trying to do something better. (Granted, not always succeeding)
I can see them eventually doing a NetBook (AirMini?), as they seem to be highly popular and I can imagine Apple managing to put an iSpin on one and making a killing.
I can't , however, see them coming up with a standard desktop variant that's both different form the competition and not a competitor to their own line. This doesn't mean it'll never happen, but there are things which (going form recent track record) can be prodicted to be somewhat mroe likely.
A new mini-desktop (or Mac Mini successor), however, is probably very likely. Only, it'll probably come at Apple's own schedule, not that of those of us needing something along those lines at the moment.
That's not truth, that is your biased assumption with no data to back it up.
Many people try to model three different outcomes before they make a decision: Worst case, best case, and expected case. Something is a "risk" if the worst case is negative. If the "expected" case is negative, it is not a risk, it is just plain stupid to do it. Your claim is that the "worst" case is not or very slightly negative. Maybe Apple has actually modelled the outcome and came to a result where the "expected" case is not very good. And, as I said before, Apple wouldn't look at the cost and revenue of such a model in isolation, it would consider all effects, like the effect of cheapening the Apple brand, risk of cannibalising its own sales in other models, lost opportunity cost (those developers creating a mid range tower can't work on improving the MacMini), and so on.
Compared to this, the Cube had the positive effect of improving Apple's image, even though it was a commercial failure. There are many people who would have loved to own one, but who believed that it was too expensive to them, especially since it was released just at the start at a recession that was worse than the current one. The positive thing is the "would have loved to own one". Apple sold lots of Macs _because of_ the Cube.
PS and more on topic: MacObserver reports that Apple added claims under the DMCA act against Psystar, which means we might be going from a civil case to criminal charges. A quote from theregister: If the Apple/Psystar brawl were a prizefight, however, the referee would now step in and stop the mayhem before Psystar suffers terminal brain damage.
Lexmark try to pull the same DMCA BS over 3rd party ink and they lost the case so this is far from a KO.
Yes, but making third-party inks has little to do with circumventing copyright protections.
Actually, I think I know where this DMCA claim comes from suddenly, and I have some idea that Psystar's lawyers managed an incredible own goal.
Most people are not aware that there are any effective measures to prevent copyright infringement in MacOS X. However, when Psystar tried its cunning plan to accuse Apple of being an evil monopoly, one of the many claims they made was that evil Apple had on purpose added code to Leopard that would make it crash when running on a non-Apple computer. That was to show how evil Apple was, but it would obviously be an effective means to prevent unauthorised copying. Exactly what the DMCA act doesn't allow you to circumvent.
Now comes the funny bit: Apple doesn't actually need any copy prevention in Leopard to accuse Psystar of DMCA violation. Psystar made that claim itself! The rules in a civil court case are that if one side makes a claim, and the other side agrees, then the court will assume it is true. So if Psystar accuses Apple of preventing the use of MacOS X on non-Apple computers, all Apple has to do is to agree and bingo! instant DMCA violation.
This is similar to the situation where Apple didn't even have to show that it has competitors when accused of being a monopoly, because Psystar's lawyers were nice enough to mention that Apple has competitors about a dozen time in their counterclaims. So Apple could turn this around and say "see, we are not a monopoly, we have competitors, _because Psystar itself says so_.
PS I think you are confusing the Lexmark case quite a bit. Lexmark claimed that the printer was using a "program" stored in the ink cartridge, and that its would-be competitor had illegally copied that program to use it in its own ink cartridges. In reality, the "program" was 16 byte in length, the printer performed a checksum operation on it, and the "programming language" was so limited that it was basically impossible to write this program in any other way. In that case, you can't have copyright on the program: Copyright is for the artistic expression, and if there is no freedom to write the code, then there is no artistic expression and no copyright. So Lexmark did lose its case quite rightfully. Like Apple would lose if they tried to prevent third parties from producing RAM or hard drives that can be used in a Mac. A completely different situation.
It is. But in that case, that copyright was not infringed, because the third party cartridge manufacturers did not reproduce the chips or the circuit diagrams.
They lost for effectively (though not technically) the reason that gnasher729 described. Their "program" copyright, not the chip itself, was not eligible for copyright protection in the same way that a sentence is not independently copyrightable.
There is no question that OS X is eligible for copyright protection.
As someone said previously, many people are so convinced by their need for a standard tower (and the "clamour" for such on these types of forums) that they then look for reasons why it would obviously work well for Apple. They don't seem to think that the reasons you listed would be valid.
Maybe it's just because I'm a cynic, and somebody who is used to being outside of the mainstream, but I geniuinely believe that Apple have looked into and dismissed things like the headless upgradeable Mac and a regularly updated Mini. They interest me. Apple would obviously cash in on such a market if they thought they could. So obviously what I want isn't good (or good enough) for Apple.
I'm no Apple apologist. I just think that if they thought they could seriously profit from Mini-waiters and xMac-hopers then they would have done by now. They're in it for profit, and if they thought they could get an Apple spin on something and make it ultra-profitable then they probably would.
That and many people who have an interest in Apple going a certain way aren't going to look at the arguments against such products as they personally don't see it as being a concern. So they'll pull out reasons why it's in Apple's best interest and ignore the reasons why it may not be.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Mini is overdue a refresh and that some sort of headless upgradable desktop/tower would be a great addition to the Apple lineup. I just accept that I see this from the perspective of a potential customer who may well be in the minority. Anything else would just be wishful thinking on my part.
True, but the iPhone, Apple TV and Macbook Air are new and all had a very high up front expense to develop and high risk factor.
See above response.
Who knows?
I don't ever expect Apple to offer a flexible, expandable mid to upper end consumer desktop in any incarnation or form factor, it doesn't not meet Apple's philosophy for what they define as a consumer desktop.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt&characters=Steve%20Jobs&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium&showcomments=1
No, I have common sense. But you seem to believe introducing the Cube, iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, etc. don't have any more financial risk than a mid to upper end consumer desktop tower, is that what your saying? Balderdash. The iPhone, iPod and AppleTV were ground up development into different markets. The Cube used motherboards which required complete redesign to fit into the enclosure which in and of itself required extensive design and manufacturing development.
If any of this happens, they can simply discontinue it. Just like they did in the past.
No they didn't, their market share was minisucle at the time. The Cube was introduced in July 2000 and discontinued a year later.
Apple sales by quarter
Quarter......Sales.............Market share
q1 00.......1043.478........3.44
q2 00.......1021.739........3.38
q3 00.......1130.435........3.35
q4 00.......652.174..........1.79
q1 01.......760.87............2.15
q2 01.......826.087..........2.78
q3 01.......847.829..........2.92
q4 01.......739.130..........2.18
After the introduction of the Cube both sales and market share declined.
Which is one of the reasons why your argument cancels itself out. The Cube was a marketing failure, and consequently a huge public relations failure as well. Apple has been extremely careful about not repeating this experience, investing only in products with a high probability of success. Revenues and market share have increased at a remarkable pace ever since.
I think most people's idea of an expandable system (that apple doesn't have) is being able to change the gfx card - and I think it's a false economy for an upgrade. Games in windows is pretty much the only use, and with the way the (two...) manufacturers release products you pay a massive premium for small increases.
Apple releasing an expandable 'tower' should just allow them to use cheap off the shelf parts, offer everything that the 1000s of pc manufacturers offer, literally mac pro performance for 99% of uses, and the retail price of a dell. I don't really see any disadvantages, too much choice for the average clueless mac buyer? Let the retail staff do their job and sell them whatever machine they need - Talking about confusing choices, how do they justify the differences between 3 different cpus in a model anyway? I could understand a ulv, c2d and quad option in every model, but that's hardly the current situation.
A headless system with reasonable parts and most importantly a sensible price is what apple need to unleesh my buying power. The mini is fine for what I want (and would recommend to people), and I quite like the form factor. I can see companies like intel selling tiny motherboards the same size with more current hardware, so my frustrations and suspicions of incompetence/strange motives continue.
Apple releasing an expandable 'tower' should just allow them to use cheap off the shelf parts, offer everything that the 1000s of pc manufacturers offer, literally mac pro performance for 99% of uses, and the retail price of a dell. I don't really see any disadvantages, too much choice for the average clueless mac buyer? Let the retail staff do their job and sell them whatever machine they need - Talking about confusing choices, how do they justify the differences between 3 different cpus in a model anyway? I could understand a ulv, c2d and quad option in every model, but that's hardly the current situation.
A headless system with reasonable parts and most importantly a sensible price is what apple need to unleesh my buying power. The mini is fine for what I want (and would recommend to people), and I quite like the form factor. I can see companies like intel selling tiny motherboards the same size with more current hardware, so my frustrations and suspicions of incompetence/strange motives continue.
And that's exactly what we don't want to happen. Cheap off the shelf parts generally means poor quality, and Apple users demand high quality (to an absurd level sometimes). It also wouldn't be Mac Pro performance for almost anything, and you'll never see a Mac starting at the same retail price of a Dell (which is a misnomer anyways, do a proper price comparison and it almost always works out in Apple's favor or a very small difference).
jW
Who's we and why does cheap off the shelf parts mean poor quality?
I can't think of many apps or uses that can efficiently use multiple cores, and you're not space/heat limited to using slower laptop parts like in the rest of apples line up.
I agree, I'm not sure we'll ever see an equivalent specced pc from apple that retails at a dell price.
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'proper' price comparison, but I think your last comment is completely and utterly insane
I can't think of many apps or uses that can efficiently use multiple cores, and you're not space/heat limited to using slower laptop parts like in the rest of apples line up.
I agree, I'm not sure we'll ever see an equivalent specced pc from apple that retails at a dell price.
I'm not sure what you mean by a 'proper' price comparison, but I think your last comment is completely and utterly insane
No it doesn't.
It proves the point that Apple is more than willing to take financial and marketing risks, and the Cube is only one example, there are more recent examples as previously pointed out.
How did Dell get into this discussion?
Apple wouldn't have to support third party cards, they didn't for me. Yet I kept up with technology for a couple of years anyway. What did in my 7500 eventually was Motorola's abysmal front side bus
which the Sonnet card couldn't correct.I bought a 7500 and added in order, a G4 Sonnet upgrade card, a used ATI Rage Pro card(not for games, but for being able to use Apple's OS without bog slow speeds), and a Firewire/USB card(for iPods and hard drives) I did this because I had a perfectly good monitor and didn't want an AIO computer and couldn't afford Apple's tower prices.
And yes the Intel Core processors, which are indeed used in Towers for Professionals, will keep up with the Intel Xeon processors for many uses.
Horse hockey, Apple could not know they would pay off and you know it. They are/were(re: iPhone, iPod, AppleTV, MacBookAir) exponentially higher risk both financially and marketing. The jury is still out on AppleTV and MacBookAir.
Amended counterclaims
The story goes on... Psystar has just amended its counterclaims. A story with link to the amended counterclaims at
http://news.worldofapple.com/archiv...low-filing-of-its-first-amended-counterclaim/
I had a quick look, and it looks even more desperate than before. Instead of claiming that Apple is an evil monopoly and therefore shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (which was thrown out by the court) they now just claim that Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (with no particular reason really).
And because Apple can restrict copying of MacOS X as the copyright holder, and Psystar decided they can't, obviously Apple must be misusing its copyright and therefore lose it. Even more so because Apple added DMCA violations to its case, which is even more evil, and illegal because Apple should lose its copyright because Psystar says so.
Now Psystar needs to seek permission to file these counterclaims, which will be granted with no doubt, but Apple is at least allowed to argue against that. I would suggest to Apple's lawyers that they should argue these amended counterclaims should not be allowed because they are insulting everyone's intelligence.
The story goes on... Psystar has just amended its counterclaims. A story with link to the amended counterclaims at
http://news.worldofapple.com/archiv...low-filing-of-its-first-amended-counterclaim/
I had a quick look, and it looks even more desperate than before. Instead of claiming that Apple is an evil monopoly and therefore shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (which was thrown out by the court) they now just claim that Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the use of MacOS X to Apple-labeled computers (with no particular reason really).
And because Apple can restrict copying of MacOS X as the copyright holder, and Psystar decided they can't, obviously Apple must be misusing its copyright and therefore lose it. Even more so because Apple added DMCA violations to its case, which is even more evil, and illegal because Apple should lose its copyright because Psystar says so.
Now Psystar needs to seek permission to file these counterclaims, which will be granted with no doubt, but Apple is at least allowed to argue against that. I would suggest to Apple's lawyers that they should argue these amended counterclaims should not be allowed because they are insulting everyone's intelligence.
gnasher, what would happen if Apple is found a monopoly on their software?? Would this mean they would have to pass the code of Mac OS X to any body who asked for it?
I don't think will happen, I just don't see why it woud. Apple has the right to make the software for their machines. :/
Hugh
It won't happen. A judge has already ruled that Apple was not a monopoly. Even it it were, it does not necessarily mean that Apple would have to sell OSX to anybody. Don't forget, monopolies are not necessarily illegal - anti competitive ones are
Again, monopolies are not illegal, so this term is not a useful one. In fact everyone who owns a patent or a copyright owns a monopoly in that product -- a government sanctioned and government protected monopoly. In order for Apple to be found in violation of antitrust laws, they'd have to be found to have market power in a properly defined market, and found to be abusing that power to restrain trade. What Psystar attempted to claim in their filings is that Apple's product, as defined by its trademarks, copyrights and patents on the Mac and OSX, constitute a market. This was an absurd claim. So in what market could Apple be said to have market power (let alone, abused it)? Surely not in the market for personal computers, where their share of the market is in single digits.
EDIT: I've been reading over Psystar's counterclaim. It seems to continue to rely entirely on the ludicrous concept that the Mac is market, which leads to mind-bending logic, such as:
EDIT: I've been reading over Psystar's counterclaim. It seems to continue to rely entirely on the ludicrous concept that the Mac is market, which leads to mind-bending logic, such as:
In legal matters, which often defy logic to 'those of us not in the club', it is important to look at legal opinion. There's a brief excerpt below so you can see how it shapes up.
The worldofapple article references a UCLA Law Review document, which clearly explains why Psystar has gone the 'misuse' route - in short, since Apple recently introduced the DMCA, Psystar asserts Apple's EULA is 'against the spirit of the law' and misuse of DMCA. (emphasis added by me)
Desperate? No. Just following the law.
The worldofapple article references a UCLA Law Review document, which clearly explains why Psystar has gone the 'misuse' route - in short, since Apple recently introduced the DMCA, Psystar asserts Apple's EULA is 'against the spirit of the law' and misuse of DMCA. (emphasis added by me)
UCLA Law Review
June, 2003
*1095 ANTICIRCUMVENTION MISUSE
The anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
penalize both the circumvention of technical protection measures, and supplying
the means for such circumvention. These prohibitions are entirely separate
from the exclusive rights under copyright, causing some commentators to dub the
anticircumvention right as paracopyright. Such paracopyright effectively
grants copyright holders sweeping new ability to impose terms of access on
content users: Consumers who access content without accepting the content
owner's terms would violate the owner's paracopyright even if the material
accessed is not itself copyrighted or copyrightable.
Additionally, where a particular use would be permissible under copyright
law, content owners may be able to exclude the use as a condition of access. For
example, the content owner might require that users contractually agree not to
engage in reverse engineering or fair uses as a condition for access to the
material. Content owners may use paracopyright to require purchase or use of
related products; for example, DVD access controls require that the disc be played
on approved hardware, effectively dictating the consumer's purchase of playback
equipment.
At some point, such leveraging of access control seems certain to overstep
the bounds militated by sound policy or intended by Congress. In the past, abuse
of intellectual property rights has been curtailed under the doctrine of
misuse. This Article argues that because DMCA paracopyright is ripe for abuse,
limits on overreaching may be imposed by applying the misuse doctrine in this new
area. Just as improper leveraging of patent and copyright may be curtailed by
application of the misuse doctrine, so improper leveraging of paracopyright should
be curtailed by application of misuse.
June, 2003
*1095 ANTICIRCUMVENTION MISUSE
The anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
penalize both the circumvention of technical protection measures, and supplying
the means for such circumvention. These prohibitions are entirely separate
from the exclusive rights under copyright, causing some commentators to dub the
anticircumvention right as paracopyright. Such paracopyright effectively
grants copyright holders sweeping new ability to impose terms of access on
content users: Consumers who access content without accepting the content
owner's terms would violate the owner's paracopyright even if the material
accessed is not itself copyrighted or copyrightable.
Additionally, where a particular use would be permissible under copyright
law, content owners may be able to exclude the use as a condition of access. For
example, the content owner might require that users contractually agree not to
engage in reverse engineering or fair uses as a condition for access to the
material. Content owners may use paracopyright to require purchase or use of
related products; for example, DVD access controls require that the disc be played
on approved hardware, effectively dictating the consumer's purchase of playback
equipment.
At some point, such leveraging of access control seems certain to overstep
the bounds militated by sound policy or intended by Congress. In the past, abuse
of intellectual property rights has been curtailed under the doctrine of
misuse. This Article argues that because DMCA paracopyright is ripe for abuse,
limits on overreaching may be imposed by applying the misuse doctrine in this new
area. Just as improper leveraging of patent and copyright may be curtailed by
application of the misuse doctrine, so improper leveraging of paracopyright should
be curtailed by application of misuse.
Desperate? No. Just following the law.
The article you quote is not "legal opinion" in any legal meaning, it is just some blokes opinion. But applied to the case at hand it is utterly unconvincing anyway.
"DMCA abuse" as the article puts it, would happen if the DMCA takes copyright-related rights away from you. For example, you bought a DVD and "fair use" would allow you to quote a short scene. But to do that you would have to circumvent the DRM, which DMCA makes illegal, so you can't make use of your rights.
That is not the case here. Psystar has no right to copy MacOS X at all, so the DMCA act doesn't take any of their rights away. No "DMCA abuse" at all.
In reality, Psystar's arguments are entirely ludicrous, even more so than in their original counterclaims. They still claim that "MacOS X" and "MacOS X compatible computers" are separate markets, a theory which the court has already rejected (that is why Apple can't have monopolies in these markets, because they are not markets). That alone makes their arguments nonsensical. Then they just confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Since Apple has no monopolies, they have the right to use anything to their competitive advantage. The fact that this is not in the best interest of their competitors lies in the nature of competition.
And in between they trot out all the old argument, like "why does Apple allow Windows to run on a Macintosh"? Answer: To get a competitive advantage.
One of the cases quoted by Apple was exactly about that: Xerox had for a long time an absolute monopoly in the market of plain paper photocopiers, thanks to their patents on the process. They were sued by a competitor, and a court ruled that even though Xerox had a monopoly, they were under no obligation at all to license their patents to others, which would have helped competitors. So it is legal to acquire and to hold a monopoly, as long as you don't use that monopoly to destroy competition in another market.
I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.
- That is not how the document applies DMCA abuse to patent rights masquerading as copy-rights when applied to technology, at all! Read the document!
- Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them. Did Apple cut off sales of OS X to Psystar when they announced they would sell their own hardware with OS X? Not at all!
- Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
- Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only, this DMCA nonsense is a late addition and a desperation move by Apple to muddy the waters, knowing it can't win the EULA case.
- The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple in any test of the legality of the EULA and any other asserted rights.
- Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.
And if anyone wants a real laugh, read Steve Job pleading to the recording industry to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.
"Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat."
I do agree that is it hypocritical of Apple to want to only have OS X run on their machines, yet have DRM free music from the record industries. However, Apple is the owner of OS X. They made it, so they should be allowed to dictate what can be done with their OS, especially when it comes to resale.