Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[NAG]

If you made a cake and someone came in with a judge and demanded you just give them the frosting and throw rest of the cake that took you so long to make out would that be fair? The metaphor is just as ridiculous as a court forcing a company to sell something separately.

 

[websyndicate]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Business market or consumer market? The problem with Mac in the business environment is that they don't have something like Active Directory that is comparable. At a admin level its a lot of work cause sometimes to enable a policy you have to hunt down each mac; some stuff cant be done by the admin remotely. When Windows 2000 was released it changed the game for admins. Super simple to enable policies and change stuff in a mass.

Apple will have to cater a business customer and come out with some business tools which I dont think its being pushed that much.

Now the iPhone has some great tools for admins and it has been done right I think but it will be a longtime if ever that in the business world that Windows will become the underdog. I agree times are changing but I know my network wont be changing anytime soon it would be a nightmare for me (where I work).

As long as people use Windows at work they will most likely buy Windows systems for home. I personally don't use windows at home its a mac only network but its what they know and Apple is a nitch market. Another reason you don't see a $599 notebook I think.

 

[ditzy]

amazing how many people are flaming psystar on this...

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair? Without the open source community, OS X would not be what it is today, yet Apple only used the community for as much as they could without opening the OS.

Legally, Apple has done nothing wrong, yet their business practices are nothing better than those of, say, MS.

Not true M$ went out of their way to stop you from using other companies products. Apple are restricting you to using their OS on their computers. They are not stopping you from using other products.

 

[bitWrangler]

And if I'm reading this case right, this cements the fact that there will be no OEMs as far as any MacOS is concerned..?

BL.

First of all, I fail to understand why this matters in the least?

Second, how can a statement by me "cement" any "fact" about what Apple may or may not do in the future? That being said, here is what I think. Apple tried the clone thing once and realized that their marketshare was too small to support a bevy of clone makers and themselves esp. at a time when the overall Mac market share was shrinking. I think that once/if Mac market share reaches some critical mass that they will be compelled by the feds to support other hardware manufacturers. Now exactly what that number is, I have no idea (though I think it's less than the 90% others have stated).

Until then your insistence on pushing this point is rather meaningless.

 

[krimsen]

Screw "fair." If Psystar really wants to be competitive and actually make a difference, they should get off their lazy asses and develop something worthwhile rather than stealing a slice of a pie that someone else created and earned success from.

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.

 

[bitWrangler]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.

How is it morally wrong again? They've met the licensing conditions of the OSS they use (including contributing all modifications back to the OSS project). How are they on moral shaky ground here? The writers of FOSS know perfectly well that these types of scenarios exist and they choose to still participate.

 

[macbookairapple]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.

But OSX is not open source.

 

[krimsen]

Not true M$ went out of their way to stop you from using other companies products. Apple are restricting you to using their OS on their computers. They are not stopping you from using other products.

but Apple locks in customers the same way MS did: Once you bought a Mac, you'll buy software for OS X. Once you did that, you're not likely to switch back to another platform, even if your needs aren't met hardware-wise or budget-wise. Again, perfectly legal, morally questionable. I'm with Clive At Five on this.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

Quick! Buy an OpenComputer before Psystar shuts down!

Just kidding...

Seriously, Psystar's "claim" is totally inaccurate. I'm not surprised that the Judge dismissed it. I can't wait to see what they will come up with next.

 

[jlubinsh]

It is not Apple's responsibility to make you able to afford their products. That is your responsibility. If you want it, you need to earn it.

If Apple is really as cruel and lazy as you suggest, you really shouldn't support them by purchasing and using their products. Go buy something from Bill Gates, patron saint of business ethics.

I understand what you are talking about!
I can afford Apples products - I have ben able to afford them in last 5 years.

My point is that Apple is not giving BEST they can give for DESKTOP products! realy
You should admit that MAC pro is not the question of affording - only FEW can afford MAC pro for home usage - basically it is for PRO users!
but the thing is that todays technology - intel desktop processors - two or more hard disk option in desktop computer is REALITY that is usual for PC users but NOT for MAC users and not because Apple CANT'T do this - BUT BECAUSE THEY CAN EARN MORE on selling notebook components!

I would Gladly bye something that is from Apple that competes with psystars PC for + 20% or eve 30% premium if it would have the Apple style in it.

So I can have my home computer that is capable of using Apple time machine without external firewire 800 drive or some Apple desktop class (it can be iMac style but fatter and with desktop class internals in it FOR PERFORMANCE not for price! So I can use Apple's OWN SOFTWARE with more fun!!!

I have bought Final cut Studio legaly, but it is actualyu very hard to use with iMac 1 hard disk system and performance iMac offers today.

And what I mean by "it hurts" is that TODAY technology alows to offer MUCH BETTER DESKTOP CLASS (not PRO) system for the SAME PRICE as iMac cost!
Yes Apple should the scarifies thickness of the product but thickness for iMac i myth! Because your iMac actually end's where it's leg ends! (try to put it directly to wall and you will get huge space that SREAMS IN YOUR FACE -
WHEN APPLE WAS STATING - THIS IS THE THICKEST iMAC - IT IS MARKETING ********!

Because thickness is important for notebooks but for desktop iMac is still 15 cm thick - that is HUGE!!!

You DO NOT GET ANYTHING except payed EXTRA PRICE for notebook components when you payed for iMAC!!!
So as I see today Apple have BEST notebooks, Best PRO desktop Class systems BUT!!! No Consumer class desktop system!

iMac is almost the same as macbok air - mac book air is pefrect for those who need to move they notebook a lot and who do not use cd drive or usb ports a lot!

The iMac is for those who do not need much power, but who need's just style (this is the keyword for iMac) and are ready to change the style instead of performance!!! ( desktop for secretary who uses word - this is just example)

I am sure that there are VERY MUCH of people around that could easily sacrifice iMacs super thickness and style and would pay the same price for much fatter computer that can fit two or more hard drives, one quad core processor, 4 or 8 gigs of ram, NORMAL UPDATED GPU carD!!!

The same all in one computer with the BEST operating system in the world, but with the up to day desktop class performance!!! that is what I need and I am willing to pay!




Again sorry for bad english :-(

 

[bradl]

But OSX is not open source.

Are any of the other components (compiler, libraries, etc.) created by anything that is GPL/LGPL? if so, there could be conflict there. Also, What is the core of the OS? I doubt it's Mach.

but Apple locks in customers the same way MS did: Once you bought a Mac, you'll buy software for OS X. Once you did that, you're not likely to switch back to another platform, even if your needs aren't met hardware-wise or budget-wise. Again, perfectly legal, morally questionable. I'm with Clive At Five on this.

this is exactly it. In fact, even with the pricing.. better yet, let's say that Psystar was able to bundle OS X with their hardware. If they did so, would not Apple be in violation of Section 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act?

BL.

 

[krimsen]

How is it morally wrong again? They've met the licensing conditions of the OSS they use (including contributing all modifications back to the OSS project). How are they on moral shaky ground here? The writers of FOSS know perfectly well that these types of scenarios exist and they choose to still participate.

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Apart from a few projects like WebKit, there's not much that Apple contributes to OSS. Apple takes the updates the community produces and mainly develops the proprietary parts of OS X. While this scenario is covered by most licenses, it does not match with my perception of fairness.

 

[albusseverus]

Somebody check, this thread is being spammed by Apple PR

"Psystar failed to provide sufficient legal support for its assertion that the Mac OS itself constitutes a market."

That will never stand.

Wasn't there that MICROSOFT thing a couple of years ago? Where all the governments and all the judges ganged up on Microsoft? There is a preponderance of material to support that particular assertion. Didn't see Microsoft trotting Apple out to show they didn't have a monopoly.

Apple must have found the only judge in America who wasn't against Microsoft.

As for the other nonsense about advertising, maybe this judge has never heard of Coca Cola either.

There's a saying in legal circles - if you want justice, don't go to court.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I love Apple, but they need a shake-up. How could they make iPhone without copy & paste? This is a company desperately in need of competition. It's happened before & they sacked Steve. I don't want Steve to go, but he needs a reality check.

Apple makes a big deal about running Windows on their hardware, but nobody can run OS X on someone else's hardware. Seriously?

There's nothing wrong with other manufacturers selling OS X for them. Apple is under no obligation to support crappy hardware, so it might even improve the PC market if they want to make machines that are Mac OS compatible.

People who want a nice quiet, all in one machine will still buy Apple and people who don't mind a leaf-blower on their desk, will still buy whatever they buy... Why shouldn't a clear thinking Apple want in on that market?

 

[Atomike]

So, Psystar can't sue Apple. Big deal. Apple will still lose its case against Pystar.
Only a an blind fanboy can't see how outrageously monopolistic Apple is.
I'd say likely it is the MOST monopolistic company in existence right now. It's too bad - especially for their public relations - just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all). Lately, among a growing number of folks, Apple has quite the reputation. And I must say, it's well deserved.

 

[macbookairapple]

So, Psystar can't sue Apple. Big deal. Apple will still lose its case against Pystar.
Only a an blind fanboy can't see how outrageously monopolistic Apple is.
I'd say likely it is the MOST monopolistic company in existence right now. It's too bad - especially for their public relations - just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all). Lately, among a growing number of folks, Apple has quite the reputation. And I must say, it's well deserved.

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

 

[bitWrangler]

I understand what you are talking about!
I can afford Apples products - I have ben able to afford them in last 5 years.

My point is that Apple is not giving BEST they can give for DESKTOP products! realy
You should admit that MAC pro is not the question of affording - only FEW can afford MAC pro for home usage - basically it is for PRO users!
but the thing is that todays technology - intel desktop processors - two or more hard disk option in desktop computer is REALITY that is usual for PC users but NOT for MAC users and not because Apple CANT'T do this - BUT BECAUSE THEY CAN EARN MORE on selling notebook components!

Apple not doing the "best" they can on the desktop has nothing to do with this. Apple has decided on a particular course of action for their desktop products, bifurcated Pro/Consumer, one basic product for each market. They've decided that for the consumer market, simplicity is a major design goal. The consumer market will decide if their particular direction is correct (and right now it's certainly looking that way). Apple has to make these kinds of decisions all the time about any number of markets (look at Jobs' comments about netbooks). Generally Apple is very conservative, focusing on markets (or market segments) that they know that can effectively compete in and they decided long ago that competing in the "beige box" space is not where they wanted to be. The bottom line is, how much more could Apple grow their desktop market share by introducing a MacPro light that is expandable? You'll likely find the majority of users have no problems with hanging a usb/FW drive for their time machine backups (and this is actually a better idea anyway) and again the majority will only likely want to upgrade their RAM and not much (if anything else). Sure there are gamers out there who would love to upgrade their video cards, but Apple has deemed that group too small to warrant an entire new product. So if a new product is not going to significantly grow their share, how is it worthwhile regardless of what they are technically capable of producing?

 

[krimsen]

just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all)

I don't think you would find too many companies that value anything but $$$. btw, there were news a while ago that Apple does have more cash than Microsoft. I don't know if that still applies, but either way Apple is anything but poor, which is an important factor in this discussion, I think.

 

[chris200x9]

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

.....linux is free.....must be terrible

 

[krimsen]

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

If you want to contribute, please include arguments in your posts and do not insult people.

 

[bitWrangler]

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Apart from a few projects like WebKit, there's not much that Apple contributes to OSS. Apple takes the updates the community produces and mainly develops the proprietary parts of OS X. While this scenario is covered by most licenses, it does not match with my perception of fairness.

There is Darwin, a small part of the OS.

 

[bitWrangler]

.....linux is free.....must be terrible

Linux is only free if you don't value your time

 

[macbookairapple]

If you want to contribute, please include arguments in your posts and do not insult people.

It's not an insult, he doesn't know what a monoply is and is just overstating this same old tireless rant, Apple is the new Microsoft, like who cares.

 

[chris200x9]

Linux is only free if you don't value your time

care to explain

 

[domain]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

While I admire the enthusiasm, if you really support this whole "open" model then why haven't you written it yet? To put it another way... if it were that simple, someone would have already done it... how long have some of us waited for a replacement to that crufty X server (decades?).

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.

Apple uses "open source" under the guidelines set forth by the original creators... so long as they follow those guidelines they are free to continue (legally)... the "moral" aspect is some sort of GNU/fabrication...

And really, most of these arguments come from the whole GNU/freewilly camp... what people have to realize is... it took individuals with enough foresight to recognize the value that the "underpinnings" of Mac OSX had, and it took talented individuals to make those ideals a reality. Those type of things generally fall into APPLE/notfree camp.

But again... all the naysayers are welcome to fire up vim, start writing code to change the situation, and do so on their own dime. Until then I will let my wallet speak for me...

 

[nuthinlikerubbi]

No way is apple hardware overpriced

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

You are mistaken, Apple hardware is expensive, but not overpriced. You may think it’s the same thing but they are not.
An example of an overpriced product would be a ferrari – why? Because I can get similar levels of performance from a Porsche for much less money. In that case, a ferrari is overpriced.

But you cannot call apple hardware overpriced. If Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. were to make computers using high grade aluminum, scratch resistant glass and fantastic details and finish and offer it at the price they currently offer their pc’s, then I would agree with you that Apple hardware is overpriced. But the fact remains that no other computer maker can make computers with level of quality that Apple does; so you cannot call them overpriced. Apple hardware is expensive though which is fair enough.

And I totally support Apple in this lawsuit. Not because I am a fanboi but because I think the US legal system is stupid. If I create a product using my ingenuity and hardwork, I should be in a position to decide how it should be and in what form factor. If I do not want to see my product being used in a way that does not fit the corporate image, I should have every right to restrict that. Apple should have complete rights to decide how their own product is being used and distributed.
I say this not as an Apple fanboi though; I completely supported MS during their trial of Internet explorer and Windows media player as well. I felt they should have been allowed to decide how they want to package their software as long they did not restrict other browsers or players from being installed on the pc.