Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[pdjudd]

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!

Fact: Psystar is not an authorized reseller of OSX, and you cannot sell it if you intend to violate the SLA. Aple only sells upgrade copies - the court has already asserted Apple's right to sell OSX in any way that it wishes.

[*]Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.

Wrong. Psysar actually asserted that Apple protects its operating system from running on generic hardware. A court already asserted that Apple can do that. Second, Psystar hacks OSX - that is not allowed by law.

[*]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.

Nothing wrong about that. There is no law that says an update requires draconian anti-piracy regulations. Furthermore a Judge has already ruled that the public is well informed that OSX is only for Apple branded systems and has allready asserted that Apple can dictate terms of sales however it wants to.

[*]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.

No it doesn't. Cite please.

[*]Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.

Except that they cannot. Microsoft has different licensing terms than Apple does. Simply because Microsoft has loose regulations on how you can install their OS (so that they can maximize their market presence) does not imply nor suggest or require that Apple must follow the same guidelines simply because they both operating systems. Apple is under no obligation to give away or license its copyrights to people that do not own them. OS is intellectual property and owned by Apple and nobody else and they can dictate its usage however it wishes to. You seem to be under the belief that Apple must assist competitors. Please cite relevant legislation that dictates this.

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.

That has nothing to do with this case whatsoever. Apple's OSX is encoded for specific system builds. The open letter you cite is about music sales and its DRM which in the case of Fairplay, is mostly platform agnostic. We are talking about a different type of DRM here simply due to the type of content we are talking about. Operating systems are in no way comparable to encrypted wrapped music files. Every operating system (even open sourced ones) has limits on what you can and cannot do with them.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Except that they cannot. Microsoft has different licensing terms than Apple does. Simply because Microsoft has loose regulations on how you can install their OS (so that they can maximize their market presence) does not imply nor suggest or require that Apple must follow the same guidelines simply because they both operating systems. Apple is under no obligation to give away or license its copyrights to people that do not own them. OS is intellectual property and owned by Apple and nobody else and they can dictate its usage however it wishes to. You seem to be under the belief that Apple must assist competitors. Please cite relevant legislation that dictates this.

Psystar, and those who back their preposterous arguments, are not just saying that Apple is under an obligation to assist competitors, but in fact they must create competitors. And not just competitors, but competitors who can resell Apple's product, and not just resell Apple's product, but resell it in any manner they see fit. Would anyone with a straight face advance a similar argument for any other product on the entire planet Earth, real or even theoretical? Of course not. So why do they think this idea should be taken even remotely seriously in Apple's case?

I already know the answer -- let's see who else comes up with it.

 

[matticus008]

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!

What is it, exactly, that this tortured statement is meant to say?

Psystar does not copy OS X, it sells legit OS X that Apple sold to them.

Apple did not sell anything to them, nor is Psystar merely reselling boxes (which they would be permitted to do), so what they are doing is plainly illegitimate.

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!

How would you suggest they do this? Perhaps by filing a lawsuit and asking for injunctive relief? It seems they've done so.

Psystar does not circumvent DMCA

You don't "circumvent DMCA". Someone who can't even get basic terminology right should not be making sweeping proclamations, much less ill-informed ones.

Apple enforces its "rights" by EULA only

That is not the case. Apple enforces its rights in the manner it is legally entitled to do so for the right in question. That neither begins nor ends with a licensing agreement, but merely includes it.

The fact that Apple let Psystar go on so long selling OS X for them will stand heavily against Apple

The suit was filed in a matter of months. Laches, if indeed you're actually making a reference to anything of legal relevance, requires years.

Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.

What Psystar wishes is wholly irrelevant. Windows is freely licensed to any platform and any user who wishes to purchase it. The situations are not analogous. Wishing will not make it so.

Steve Job pleading to the recording industry[/URL] to let people run purchased software on the hardware of their choice.

Music isn't software, and songs are commodities meant to be moved and traded and enjoyed in a wide variety of formats, unlike software and specifically unlike machine operating systems. Only by isolating one tangentially related element can you make such an unbalanced comparison. You will note, however, that despite Apple's wishes it--gasp--respects the terms of others and uses the proper channels to effect change. Psystar could easily have done the same.

 

[gnasher729]

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 you call my post an "incoherent ramble"? I start to suspect that you are one of the lawyers working for Psystar, judging by the quality of your arguments.

 

[Sun Baked]

Rambling...

18 ... To appreciate this, the Court need only note that in Section 106 of the Copyright Act, Congress set forth the six exclusive rights that a copyright owner enjoys:
(1) reproduction;
(2) creation of derivative works;
(3) distribution;
(4) public performance;
(5) public display; and
(6) digital public performance.
17 U.S.C. § 106 . As a result, by attempting to secure rights in hardware (Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems), which are outside the scope of copyright, Apple’s EULA unquestionably “seek to control areas outside of their grant of monopoly” under the Copyright Act.

Wait, isn't the restricting of the OS to Apple labeled systems part of (3) and attempting to maintain control of their copyrighted products distribution?

Psystar claims it has no copyright now because Apple is abusing their monopoly rights now because they are limiting distribution, not because they simply have an open source-OS and simply don't hold copyrights because of that.

 

[Vulpinemac]

I can't leave this incoherent ramble among the issues unanswered in case someone tries to quote it.

• 1) 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!
• 2) 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!
• 3) Psystar does not circumvent DMCA, it runs OS X on PC clones, similar to the PC clones Apple manufactures.
• 4) 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.
• 5) 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.
• 6) Psystar merely wishes to take advantage of the same 'competitive advantage' Apple uses with Windows.

1) I read the document and it reads as foolish as the whole countersuit process has from the beginning. I believe they're still hoping Apple will simply buy them out to shut them up. The problem with that outcome is that would lay Apple and anyone else open to con artists playing the same game ad infinitum.

2) Actually, they do. The copy of OS X you receive with your PC is an unopened box, which clearly means that the version on the hard drive is an illegally-copied-and-modified one that even Psystar admits is modified to run on their hardware--requiring any updating to be done through Psystar's servers because Apple's Software Update could easily 'brick' your machine.

3) Again, they do. By building their machines and installing OS X on those machines for resale, they eliminate themselves as the 'End User' and, as in 2) above, clearly breach copyright law.

4) No. The EULA is the license by which the End User is permitted to use the software--of which Psystar is neither an End User nor a Licensed Reseller and as such breaking copyright law as well as the EULA. In essence, the Psystar computers are equivalent to the street-corner Rolex vendor selling counterfeits to anyone who will buy. The only thing keeping them from being true counterfeits is the fact that they look nothing like a genuine Apple computer.

5) Not really. First, Apple had to be able to prove that Psystar was operating counter to existant laws and secondly that they intended to continue despite the controversy surrounding the initial announcements. Had Psystar folded due to costs and poor management, Apple would have needed do nothing beyond monitoring the situation. As it was, bringing out their lawsuit in only four months was very fast action in our current legal system.

6) "Competitive Advantage?" Psystar was clearly trying to build their business off of Apple's good reputation and name, regardless of what effect their relatively poor product would have on that same name and reputation. This is not competitive, but rather parasitic; leeching Apple's relatively slim market while hopefully growing fat on Apple's name and the OS's ease of use. As for their 'generic hardware,' it's been proven that even Windows doesn't run natively on their hardware any better than OS X does. This hardly make a claim for being 'generic.'

 

[mcnallym]

I doubt very much that Apple is selling to Psystar. I would imagine they are getting from an Apple Reseller, who hopefully for them doesn't know that it is Psystar buying it.

Apple can't be abusing there monoply as even Psystar themselves have said that it competes with Linux and Windows, which is why they are offered as alternatives to OSX on there machines.

If Apple competing with Linux and Windows, how can Apple have a monopoly.

If only looking at the OSX market then it is the same as saying that Coca-Cola has a monopoly on Coke and must allow other people to sell Coke as well. The fact that Coke competes with Pepsi and various other carbonated drinks means that Coca-Cola do not have a monopoly in there market area.

Apple competes in the PC area which also covers Linux/Unix and Windows, also Solaris etc. Therefore no monopoly exists.

 

[gnasher729]

2) Actually, they do. The copy of OS X you receive with your PC is an unopened box, which clearly means that the version on the hard drive is an illegally-copied-and-modified one that even Psystar admits is modified to run on their hardware--requiring any updating to be done through Psystar's servers because Apple's Software Update could easily 'brick' your machine.

Is that true? If Psystar sells a computer with MacOS X installed _plus_ an unopened, original MacOS X retail box, and they haven't paid for two boxes, then what they are doing is clear copyright infringement.

Both Apple's EULA and copyright law allow you to install the software from _one_ box in _one_ place (the EULA is a bit more specific about which place). Copyright law doesn't allow you to install the same software in _two_ places unless you have specific permission from the copyright holder (like when you buy a MacOS X family pack). If you do that then all discussions about validity of EULAs are pointless because you are committing copyright infringement, whether the EULA is valid or not.

In the end, Psystar's new counterclaims are just a laugh. Since Apple accused them of DMCA violation, they have to be very, very careful not to make any claims that Apple has any "effective copy protection" in MacOS X. So they argue how evil Apple prevents MacOS X from running on processors that Apple doesn't use (lying through their teeth that there is no good reason to do so), and that this prevents them from copying MacOS X, but at the same time it is no copy protection!

(Why did I say "lying through their teeth"? It is common sense that Apple doesn't test MacOS X on machines that it isn't supposed to run on. And it is common sense that you don't allow an OS to run on a machine that it is not tested on, because there could be all kinds of obscure bugs and possible product liability).

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Is that true? If Psystar sells a computer with MacOS X installed _plus_ an unopened, original MacOS X retail box, and they haven't paid for two boxes, then what they are doing is clear copyright infringement.

It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

 

[pdjudd]

It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

Again, you cannot compare how Dell resells OSX because they have an explicit OEM agreement with Microsoft that allows that. Apple does not license it's operating system to anybody as an install option on any system.

They two situations are completely different.

 

[matticus008]

3) Again, they do. By building their machines and installing OS X on those machines for resale, they eliminate themselves as the 'End User'

It does not matter. Apple's license is not an end user license, nor does "end user" have any specific meaning other than that given to it by a particular license agreement. It is an utterly pointless thing to quibble over.

Violation of a license agreement is copyright infringement in every case where access to the copyrighted work is granted solely by license, because termination of a license right means that you are no longer authorized to exercise it, unless you have an independent source of authority. This includes all rights to use, other than sensory, any copyrighted work fixed in a copy.

People seem to struggle with the idea of a copy being distinct from the copyrighted work. Nothing about the purchase of a disc gives you any right to reproduce its contents onto your hard drive. 17 USC 202 is fairly straightforward as the Copyright Act goes. An SLA is not merely a contract; the license grant and restrictions portion does not curtail any preexisting right--you have no right by purchase alone to make unauthorized use of the copyrighted work embodied in that purchase. You must both be authorized to have possession and be authorized to reproduce the software onto your hard drive.

The only way to obtain those rights is by license or, more commonly, license agreement, either open source or proprietary.

4) No. The EULA is the license by which the End User is permitted to use the software--of which Psystar is neither an End User nor a Licensed Reseller

Apple's license refers to users. Any and all users. There is no EULA.

It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

Well, no, it's not the same at all, because the images used by OEMs are licensed. A company using unlicensed and/or modified software without permission is engaging in copyright infringement, regardless of whether or not they also paid for a set of retail packaged discs and tossed them into the box.

 

[gnasher729]

It not 2 copy's the box just is the install disk. Dell and others drop images on there systems they don't install windows by hand and some times need to add drivers / updates to install disk for to even install. It's same as some useing a custom XP disk with SP3 + the driver pack and keep the OEM / boxed disk unopened. You are still useing 1 copy on that system not 2 and anyway it has been payed for as you have the box.

Now which one is it? One poster claimed that Psystar customers receive a computer with MacOS X installed and an unopened Leopard retail box, you claim that Psystar customers receive a computer with MacOS X installed, plus an install DVD, presumably taken from a Leopard retail box.

I hope you can see the difference: If a customer receives an unopened retail box, then the copy on the computer is _not_ coming from that unopened box, so it comes from somewhere else, so to have any chance of being legal, Psystar would have to pay for two copies.

Now if you had say 10 Macs at your company, and you buy 10 retail boxes with Leopard to upgrade them, and instead of opening each box and installing each DVD on one Mac someone opens one box and installs the same DVD on ten Macs and puts one opened and nine unopened boxes on the shelf then no harm is done (however, it is technically illegal and companies have been forced to pay lots of money for fines because their computers had software with identical serial numbers, even though they had unopened boxes). But in this case, every Psystar customer who received an unopened retail box could then easily go and sell it on eBay to reduce their total cost (which is after all the point in buying a Psystar computer).

It does not matter. Apple's license is not an end user license, nor does "end user" have any specific meaning other than that given to it by a particular license agreement. It is an utterly pointless thing to quibble over.

I would compare it to being stopped by the police for driving too fast, and then you say "You see, officer, I don't have a driving license, so the speed limit doesn't apply to me. It only applies to people with driving licenses". If Psystar were to claim that Apple's license, whatever it is called, doesn't apply to them, then they would have no permission to make any copies of the software at all.

 

[stanton]

Comparison to earlier incident: DR-DOS and MS-DOS

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS

This case never actually went to court, so you can't really argue that it will help them out any, but Microsoft did settle out of court so MS could have thought they had a point.

Basically, it's relevant in that Apple uses EFI developed by Intel to copyprotect OSX from third party hardware. Psystar uses EFIv8 to bypass this protection method, which is actually developed from Apple's own OpenSource website. Apple's EFI was once listed as OpenSource code on their own website and licensed as such. So in the same way, Caldera used DR-DOS to replace the MS-DOS in Windows 95, Psystar uses OpenSource EFIv8 to replace Apple's newest implementation of EFI on the OSX system. I wouldn't call this a DMCA violation, but it still does break the EULA.

 

[gnasher729]

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS

This case never actually went to court, so you can't really argue that it will help them out any, but Microsoft did settle out of court so MS could have thought they had a point.

Basically, it's relevant in that Apple uses EFI developed by Intel to copyprotect OSX from third party hardware. Psystar uses EFIv8 to bypass this protection method, which is actually developed from Apple's own OpenSource website. Apple's EFI was once listed as OpenSource code on their own website and licensed as such. So in the same way, Caldera used DR-DOS to replace the MS-DOS in Windows 95, Psystar uses OpenSource EFIv8 to replace Apple's newest implementation of EFI on the OSX system. I wouldn't call this a DMCA violation, but it still does break the EULA.

You are mistaken. Apple doesn't use EFI as a copy protection mechanism. There is one chip in every Macintosh that contains a 64 bit number that is needed to decode important parts of the operating system at runtime. Not too hard to crack, very unlikely to cause any trouble for customers, but effective in the sense of the DMCA.

 

[stanton]

Apple doesn't use EFI as a copy protection mechanism.

Strange something most have changed then, since a Vanilla installation of OSX means using an unmodified kernel and Apple's disk. Here's the Wiki link
They do say in the article that parts are non-OpenSource, but the Darwin EFI was OpenSource at one time, so perhaps they are suggesting reverse engineering the newer versions of Apple's EFI is the sticky point since it isn't OpenSource any longer.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The Caldera case really doesn't apply here. DR DOS was competing on the IBM-PC hardware platform with MS-DOS. In this lawsuit, Caldera was complaining that Microsoft designed Windows (3.1 and then 95) in such a way as to artificially squeeze DR DOS out of competition. The relevant market was PC hardware. Microsoft was creating barriers to competition on the PC platform by making it appear (at first, with Windows 3.1) as though a person could not run Windows on top of DR DOS, then with Windows 95, combining MS-DOS with Windows so that the market for DR DOS would be eliminated.

 

[gnasher729]

Strange something most have changed then, since a Vanilla installation of OSX means using an unmodified kernel and Apple's disk. Here's the Wiki link
They do say in the article that parts are non-OpenSource, but the Darwin EFI was OpenSource at one time, so perhaps they are suggesting reverse engineering the newer versions of Apple's EFI is the sticky point since it isn't OpenSource any longer.

I don't understand a word of what you are saying. Please explain to us how Apple uses EFI as a copy protection mechanism, if that is what you think they are doing.

Or you can have a look at this article http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/ which explains in very simple terms exactly what DRM mechanism Apple is actually using.

 

[stanton]

The Caldera case really doesn't apply here. DR DOS was competing on the IBM-PC hardware platform with MS-DOS. In this lawsuit, Caldera was complaining that Microsoft designed Windows (3.1 and then 95) in such a way as to artificially squeeze DR DOS out of competition. The relevant market was PC hardware. Microsoft was creating barriers to competition on the PC platform by making it appear (at first, with Windows 3.1) as though a person could not run Windows on top of DR DOS, then with Windows 95, combining MS-DOS with Windows so that the market for DR DOS would be eliminated.

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.

 

[Sun Baked]

I was reading through ZDNet, and someone actually posted a relevant arguement for Psystar. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject: DR-DOS

Psystar actually used the DR-DOS defense in their monopoly claim and answer to Apple's complaint, being that Apple was inserting error messages on machines fully capable of running their OS.

Psystar just neglected to say that the error messages were simply due to the lack of drivers for those machines, so Apple is inserting those error messages due to their neglect to fully spend millions writing drivers for EULA violators.

 

[gnasher729]

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.

The DMCA argument has an excellent basis, because you are just following a red herring. No, EFI is not a copyright protection mechanism. Apple's DRM has been well documented by Amit Singh (author of "MacOS X Internals: A System Approach"). And it has nothing to do with EFI whatsoever. It also has nothing to do with the mythical TMP chip that Macs are supposed to have. It is a 64 bit key in the SCM chip that is used to decode essential parts of MacOS X.

 

[stanton]

The DMCA argument has an excellent basis, because you are just following a red herring. No, EFI is not a copyright protection mechanism. Apple's DRM has been well documented by Amit Singh (author of "MacOS X Internals: A System Approach"). And it has nothing to do with EFI whatsoever.

I PM'd you to not embarrass you. From the article you cited:

Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM.​

After all, Apple was somehow tying Mac OS X to their own hardware; and the early x86 Macs did have onboard TPMs. Some people concluded—incorrectly so—that the TPM must be involved.​

If you actually read how to install OSx86 on non Apple hardware, you would realize the (Darwin Bootloader) Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection. Like I said in the PM most people don't do this manually, though being an engineer interested in the differences between OSX and FreeBSD, I did follow a step by step tutorial on how this was done back in the Tiger days when I upgraded an older Mac G5, and purchased a legit copy of OSX for it. Please read the articles that you forward to the list before posting.
_______________________________________________________________
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple is forcing people to use Apple's EFI instead of the open source EFI Netkas developed thus squeezing people out of the market of running OSX on Apple branded computers only, because of the EULA. (Not arguing that point actually.) My point was the DMCA argument that Apple is pursuing now might not have a basis. The thing is that the Caldera case never went to trial, so there still isn't a precedent that they could use in court.

Not sure if you're joking here but the fact that the Caldera case was settled out of court doesn't really have much of a bearing on this. Caldera brought a pretty straight-forward complaint to court on the basis of antitrust laws which Microsoft had quite obviously violated.

 

[stanton]

Not sure if you're joking here but the fact that the Caldera case was settled out of court doesn't really have much of a bearing on this. Caldera brought a pretty straight-forward complaint to court on the basis of antitrust laws which Microsoft had quite obviously violated.

So tying two programs together now is strictly anti-trust. Microsoft developed MS-DOS and Microsoft developed Windows, but by putting in a code that the Windows GUI would only run on MS-DOS is now anti-trust. DR-DOS could have developed their own GUI to overlap the OS that they created, much like Apple did with the Classic OS? I guess Microsoft wanted to control the environment (MS-DOS) that Windows ran on thus improving system performance, as you guys have stated that Apple is doing with their Hardware. You guys are contradicting yourselves if tying in your own market isn't anti-trust. I'm not however saying that violating the EULA isn't against the rights of Apple to get people to voluntarily use the OSX strictly on Apple's hardware.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So tying two programs together now is strictly anti-trust. Microsoft developed MS-DOS and Microsoft developed Windows, but by putting in a code that the Windows GUI would only run on MS-DOS is now anti-trust. DR-DOS could have developed their own GUI to overlap the OS that they created, much like Apple did with the Classic OS? I guess Microsoft wanted to control the environment (MS-DOS) that Windows ran on thus improving system performance, as you guys have stated that Apple is doing with their Hardware. You guys are contradicting yourselves if tying in your own market isn't anti-trust. I'm not however saying that violating the EULA isn't against the rights of Apple to get people to voluntarily use the OSX strictly on Apple's hardware.

No, not in the least. Making findings of antitrust law violations requires properly defining the market, finding that one player exerts market power in that market, and finally a demonstration that they are abusing that market power to restrain trade. The defined market in Microsoft's case was for PC hardware, not DOS, not Windows. This is the market over which Microsoft exerted market power, and abused that power. Using tying and leverage under those predefined circumstances can be a violation of antitrust laws, but not otherwise.

In Caldera's case it was fairly easy to show that Microsoft was using its dominant market share in the PC market to prevent competitors from gaining or maintaining a foothold in that market. Bill Gates even said in e-mails (which were part the public court record) that they needed to eliminate DR DOS as a competitor so they could charge more for MS-DOS. They set about doing just that by a variety of means which would have been unavailable to a company lacking market power. It was a classic case of abuse of market power, of the type which the laws were written to prevent -- which is why Microsoft settled out of court.

 

[gnasher729]

I PM'd you to not embarrass you. From the article you cited:

Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM.​

After all, Apple was somehow tying Mac OS X to their own hardware; and the early x86 Macs did have onboard TPMs. Some people concluded—incorrectly so—that the TPM must be involved.​

If you actually read how to install OSx86 on non Apple hardware, you would realize the (Darwin Bootloader) Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection. Like I said in the PM most people don't do this manually, though being an engineer interested in the differences between OSX and FreeBSD, I did follow a step by step tutorial on how this was done back in the Tiger days when I upgraded an older Mac G5, and purchased a legit copy of OSX for it. Please read the articles that you forward to the list before posting.

You don't make much sense, as usual. You quoted the part of Amit Singh's article where he says what Apple does _not_ use for copy protection, then you leave out the part where he says _what_ Apple uses (the SCM module containing a key to decode several encrypted libraries).

But, if you are right, and to quote you "Apple's EFI code is responsible for copyright protection", then replacing that EFI with one that doesn't include the copyright protection would be a way to circumvent an effective copy protection and therefore a DMCA violation.

In its amended counterclaims, Psystar claims that Apple prevents MacOS X from working on non-Apple computers, as if that was something evil. They have to be very, very careful not to make this sound like an effective copy protection method because of Apple's DMCA accusations. That makes a very difficult argument. If there is an innocent incompatibility, that is Psystar's problem. If it is intentional and prevents copying, how can they argue it is not an effective copy protection method?