Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[krimsen]

There is Darwin, a small part of the OS.

I know
How many changes Apple contributes are included in other BSD systems? How many people use Darwin without Aqua?
I'd guess (as in: I do not know for a fact) that Apple's contribution to OSS is minimal in terms of code that is actually used somewhere else.

 

[markm49uk]

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

It's unbelievable isn't it ?

I mean they cannot grasp that Apple has every right to say that their OS can only be used on their hardware - this does not consitute a monopoly or breach antitrust legislation.

Jeez - it's as bad as the idiots who say Apple should just licence the OS to the wider market - they just do not get it.

Sigh.

 

[bitWrangler]

"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?

The first half of this makes no sense? Microsoft thing? Coca Cola?

Being able to run Windows on Mac hardware is a non issue. Windows has no hardware license restrictions.

Why is there is myth that Apple could just throw OSX out there for every clone maker to use and not have this substantially negatively impact Apple? Have any of these folks bothered to look at Apple's 10Q/K's to see where they make the majority of their money?

 

[macbookairapple]

Nothing in this world is overpriced, you sell at the price you can make the most money and people way pay to buy your product. If Apple's products were "overpriced", no one would be buying them and they would be out of business.

 

[mccldwll]

Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on. I can run Linux on an XBox. I can run Linux on a PS2, and PS3. I can run Linux on a Symbian type device. As you said, I can run Linux on a Mac. I can bloody well run Linux on my Apple II. I can run another OS on another machine if I choose to - and legally. Can you run OS X on something else outside of a Mac?

I'm still waiting for an answer.


t

Keep waiting. It's irrelevant. If you understood the issue, you would understand that.

 

[bradl]

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.

It may be the same old rant, but it doesn't make it any less important to people than it already is, especially with cases like this.

Granted, this case won't mean a damn thing to the dumbed down general public, emo kids, and fanbois, but what they're doing may be legal, but morally is turning out to be less than par. I don't think this is the road Apple wants to go down.

Keep waiting. It's irrelevant. If you understood the issue, you would understand that.

It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that. heh.. keyword fail.

BL.

 

[bitWrangler]

I know
How many changes Apple contributes are included in other BSD systems? How many people use Darwin without Aqua?
I'd guess (as in: I do not know for a fact) that Apple's contribution to OSS is minimal in terms of code that is actually used somewhere else.

That others choose not to utilize Darwin is not Apple's issue. It's there. If you wanted to take it and produce and sell a product that is based on it, you are free to do so. If Dell wanted to come up with their own tweaked version and stick it free on every PC they sell they can. How much more open would you like them to be on this? I guess other little used FOSS should be morally subjugated due to their lack of use?

 

[jlubinsh]

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?

This is exactly what I was saying - Apple is focusing ONLY on money making!
As I see it they should be more like Google!!!
I am not saying that Apple do not need to make revenu no not at all!!!
I am glad that they do, but last two years show that what is revenue for Apple is not always best for consumer (even if he is paying PREMIUM)
Apple have BEST OS, but have NO DESKTOP computers for it!

And actually if Apple will continue like this then they will turn in to the same GREY POWER that their best ad was against of!!! (in 80's)
Because if Apple will continue this way and will get for example 50% of market share then all of the 50% mac users will use the same computers in the same black an white colors, with the exact same features!

I Just want Mac OS in DESKTOP class computer so I can better use Apples SUPER soft for VIDEO editing for my little daughter home movies (imovie is way too limited for me, and i have bought final cut and I know how to use it)

I really do not believe that there is little market for desktop class computers that can run Apple Mac OS X legally - with support! I am sure there are MANY MANY people that can give away of their some 10 cm of their iMacs thickness so they get DESKTOP class components for the same Apple premium price!

 

[bradl]

That others choose not to utilize Darwin is not Apple's issue. It's there. If you wanted to take it and produce and sell a product that is based on it, you are free to do so. If Dell wanted to come up with their own tweaked version and stick it free on every PC they sell they can. How much more open would you like them to be on this? I guess other little used FOSS should be morally subjugated due to their lack of use?

Well here is another question.. Can you buy a piece of Mac hardware barebones?

Keep in mind, the last Apple hardware I had before the iPhone was a IIe back in '81. It was about as bare as it could be: no disk in the drive, no running computer.

BL.

 

[bitWrangler]

This is exactly what I was saying - Apple is focusing ONLY on money making!
As I see it they should be more like Google!!!

Now that is the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread. You honestly believe that Google believes in anything other than pimping more ads? I guess you've bought into their "do no evil" mantra? I could blabber endlessly about google but suffice it to say, you really need to find another role model, google does not fit the bill here.

 

[macbookairapple]

It may be the same old rant, but it doesn't make it any less important to people than it already is, especially with cases like this.

Granted, this case won't mean a damn thing to the dumbed down general public, emo kids, and fanbois, but what they're doing may be legal, but morally is turning out to be less than par. I don't think this is the road Apple wants to go down.

The problem with many of you is feel that if a company doesn't do what you want them to it makes what they are doing illegal or not right and therefore you want to find anyway to force them to do what you want them to do.

There is nothing morally wrong with what Apple is doing. They are going after people who are using their product and name to sell their computers. What if you were in Apple's shoes and someone was doing that to you, how would you feel, I have a feeling you wouldn't be son friendly, and you want to talk about morals, please.

 

[macbookairapple]

Now that is the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread. You honestly believe that Google believes in anything other than pimping more ads? I guess you've bought into their "do no evil" mantra? I could blabber endlessly about google but suffice it to say, you really need to find another role model, google does not fit the bill here.

Like Google doesn't care about money.

 

[jlubinsh]

Nothing in this world is overpriced, you sell at the price you can make the most money and people way pay to buy your product. If Apple's products were "overpriced", no one would be buying them and they would be out of business.

Yes!!! I am not talking about pricing lower, but about changing one feature (thickness of desktop computer) to another (desktop class components - GPU, CPU, HDD count, RAM)

Who of you of iMac owners would not be willing to give away some 10 cm of your iMac thickness for exchange of DESKTOP class video card radeon 4850 for example, and abilities to get 2 or 4 hard drives in your Mac?
The reason I am SCREAMING is that the price for the "thickest iMac we ever shipped is the SAME as for above mentioned features (Faster CPU, NORMAL GPU, Two or more HDD's)

 

[bitWrangler]

Well here is another question.. Can you buy a piece of Mac hardware barebones?

Keep in mind, the last Apple hardware I had before the iPhone was a IIe back in '81. It was about as bare as it could be: no disk in the drive, no running computer.

BL.

Uh again, how is this relevant? An IBM PC of that era would boot BASIC with no disk (as would a Commodore or any number of other computers), so what? How is this germane?

 

[mccldwll]

It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that.

BL.

Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.

 

[bradl]

The problem with many of you is feel that if a company doesn't do what you want them to it makes what they are doing illegal or not right and therefore you want to find anyway to force them to do what you want them to do.

There is nothing morally wrong with what Apple is doing. They are going after people who are using their product and name to sell their computers. What if you were in Apple's shoes and someone was doing that to you, how would you feel, I have a feeling you wouldn't be son friendly, and you want to talk about morals, please.

Like I already said, if Psystar is wanting OS X with intention to sell it at a cheaper price, that is a problem. However, I can see where they are coming from and what they could have done instead of what they did. I was just simply pointing that out to everyone, and in return fanbois came out of the woordwork. Like I said, I don't care either way on what happens in this case, but did have ideas on what Apple could do to make a win-win situation with companies that want to make Mac Clones.

But apparently some people in these forums can't be objective enough stomach that thought.

Not attacking you, but just trying to say.. I'll exit this thread now, since with those same people, it would would be easier to clap with one hand than to talk/argue/debate with them.

Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.

Thank you for proving my point.

BL.

 

[mccldwll]

Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.

Make that Alsup. I was thinking about Papermaster.

 

[bitWrangler]

Yes!!! I am not talking about pricing lower, but about changing one feature (thickness of desktop computer) to another (desktop class components - GPU, CPU, HDD count, RAM)

Who of you of iMac owners would not be willing to give away some 10 cm of your iMac thickness for exchange of DESKTOP class video card radeon 4850 for example, and abilities to get 2 or 4 hard drives in your Mac?
The reason I am SCREAMING is that the price for the "thickest iMac we ever shipped is the SAME as for above mentioned features (Faster CPU, NORMAL GPU, Two or more HDD's)

You're missing the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are a fair number of folks out there who would love to have something in between an imac/mini and a macpro. Apple certainly knows this. They've decided that there isn't enough of a market to warrant creating a product for this segment (at least up to now). Apple is a company, not a computer charity. They go after markets that they feel are worth going after. No one is served if Apple tries to make everybody happy and fails as a company doing it (as they nearly did several years ago).

 

[jlubinsh]

Like Google doesn't care about money.

Yes Google DOES Care about making money, but the model of that is the most honest to USERS!!!

Google first INVEST IN PRODUCT so THAT USERS LIKE IT and ONLY THEN they are searching for BEST revenue model!

Apple in other hand are FIRST SEARCHING FOR REVENUE model and then they are thinking what features can we give to get THAT revenue.

Again, I AM APPLE PRODUCT'S FAN, and today I am using only Apple computer products (last time I used windows was 5 years ago) And I look at Mac OS as on only serious OS around (I hope that windows 7 will give Apple a shake, because I know that competition is GOOD FOR ENDUSER and that LACK of competition is BAD FOR ENDUSER and that TODAY APPLE is in situation where every ENDUSER who is EDUCATED enough so he know the features of both OS MAC and WIN Will chose MAC so as I (Apple fun-boy) see it Apple today have complete monopoly on BEST OS around, and are limiting this BEST OS to only Notebooks and PRO users - NO DESKTOP USERS!

 

[mccldwll]

I can see where they are coming from and what they could have done instead of what they did.
BL.

No. They couldn't have done that either. You don't understand the legal issues.

 

[bradl]

Uh again, how is this relevant? An IBM PC of that era would boot BASIC with no disk (as would a Commodore or any number of other computers), so what? How is this germane?

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

 

[bitWrangler]

... Like I said, I don't care either way on what happens in this case, but did have ideas on what Apple could do to make a win-win situation with companies that want to make Mac Clones.

But apparently some people in these forums can't be objective enough stomach that thought.

Not attacking you, but just trying to say.. I'll exit this thread now, since with those same people, it would would be easier to clap with one hand than to talk/argue/debate with them.

Again you're ignoring history and current market realities. Apple already tried to play the clone game and it didn't work out. The good thing is that they learned some serious lessons. You believe that there can be a scenario where Apple can benefit from clones, some of us here (and Apple themselves) do not happen to agree (that and I don't think I've seen where you've actually stated what your idea is).

And who is not being objective? I think for all the arguments you've made others have come up with logical counter arguments. It's seems like it's you who can't stomach the thought that some folks simply believe that your argument does not have validity.

 

[Sun Baked]

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

But as people would point out in this situation, if the Mac with OS are vastly more expensive than the competition ... removing the OS from the machine would make little difference in the price of the machine (aka, $50-80 for OEM), and do nothing to improve competition for a competing OS -- since alternatives are available for both the OS and the HW.

 

[bitWrangler]

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

No, I understand that. My question is why does this matter? What is the relevancy of this particular point? Most folks agree that you pay a premium for Apple hardware, who would want to purchase Apple hardware to run say Linux on when you can purchase the equiv. hardware for less?

 

[jlubinsh]

You're missing the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are a fair number of folks out there who would love to have something in between an imac/mini and a macpro. Apple certainly knows this. They've decided that there isn't enough of a market to warrant creating a product for this segment (at least up to now). Apple is a company, not a computer charity. They go after markets that they feel are worth going after. No one is served if Apple tries to make everybody happy and fails as a company doing it (as they nearly did several years ago).

But they CAN BE MORE FLEXIBLE!
They do not need to be "computer charity"!
They Can EARN MONEY by selling their OS for computers that are made by LICENSED & APPLE APPROVED 3'rd party producers of desktop class (or any other class (like tablet) computers.

I understand that all of this is actually the ******** because Apple is share holder company, and they do not care HOW MUCH MONEY they make in revenue, but how much PROFIT they make on every $!!! THIS IS THE MANE MOTIVATION FOR APPLE!!!

We all know that Apple today have huge cash reserves.
And all that share holders wand is not the revenue, but the percentage of revenue.
It is better for them that some cash is just sitting in bank account and doing nothing, but some is making 30% or even more revenue.

If the invested cash is making less they do not care how much ACTUAL MONEY THEY MAKE!!!
But the problem is that company CAN NOT ALWAYS GROW with 2 digit figures!

Someday they will need to focus no on revenue %, but on actual money they make!

The problem is that till then, loyal Apple customers will not get best they can get!