Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do we have to keep relearning earlier lessons?!?
In the early years of mainframe computing, IBM tried to force customers to buy their mainframe in order to get their OS, so that they could eliminate competition from the so-called "plug-compatible mainframes". The US Justice Department pursued this case, and had a long-running consent decree against IBM for anti-competitive practices.
Just because the computer's size has changed, doesn't mean it's a different issue. Just because there are other options, doesn't mean it's not anti-competitive, as there were other computing options back then as well.
There should be no reason for the US to keep retesting and relearning these lessons from the past. If someone creates a "plug-compatible macintosh", then the rules that applied to PCMs 40 years ago should apply to PCMs today.
This is one of the many "neutrality issues" that are coming more to the forefront today:
- The FCC desires "net neutrality" to keep your ISP from favoring their own or favorite (read "promotional payment received") sites, over others (potentially even blocking competitive web sites entirely).
- The FCC is also looking at "cellphone neutrality" to, for example, allow an Apple iPhone to be available in areas where AT&T feels it's unprofitable to build out their network.
- Computer OS neutrality: For a while, Microsoft was being heavily scrutinized for their licensing practices, and in fact signed some form of consent decree with the US Justice Dept. The idea was that an end-user should be able to acquire any computing hardware unencumbered by an OS license. Today, that's disappeared. I should be able to buy any system without an OS in order to run Linux (or MacOS or Windows) on it. Maybe I like Mac/HP hardware, but not MacOS/Windows, and want to run only Windows/MacOS on it ... not possible right now.
- Browser neutrality: Well, we've at least made some progress here, but more in Europe than in the US, I think.
In the early years of mainframe computing, IBM tried to force customers to buy their mainframe in order to get their OS, so that they could eliminate competition from the so-called "plug-compatible mainframes". The US Justice Department pursued this case, and had a long-running consent decree against IBM for anti-competitive practices.
Just because the computer's size has changed, doesn't mean it's a different issue. Just because there are other options, doesn't mean it's not anti-competitive, as there were other computing options back then as well.
There should be no reason for the US to keep retesting and relearning these lessons from the past. If someone creates a "plug-compatible macintosh", then the rules that applied to PCMs 40 years ago should apply to PCMs today.
This is one of the many "neutrality issues" that are coming more to the forefront today:
- The FCC desires "net neutrality" to keep your ISP from favoring their own or favorite (read "promotional payment received") sites, over others (potentially even blocking competitive web sites entirely).
- The FCC is also looking at "cellphone neutrality" to, for example, allow an Apple iPhone to be available in areas where AT&T feels it's unprofitable to build out their network.
- Computer OS neutrality: For a while, Microsoft was being heavily scrutinized for their licensing practices, and in fact signed some form of consent decree with the US Justice Dept. The idea was that an end-user should be able to acquire any computing hardware unencumbered by an OS license. Today, that's disappeared. I should be able to buy any system without an OS in order to run Linux (or MacOS or Windows) on it. Maybe I like Mac/HP hardware, but not MacOS/Windows, and want to run only Windows/MacOS on it ... not possible right now.
- Browser neutrality: Well, we've at least made some progress here, but more in Europe than in the US, I think.
Glideslope
macrumors G3
...and anyone that follows this closely knows exactly who they are. Reminds me of the poster from despair.com of the woman being chased by the man with the quote "just give it up, it's over man".
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Do you mean 'loser' or do you think Psystar are a bit slack or not properly attached?
All of his posts are like that.
Elevation Partners.
Apple already acts that way, proof, look at how they acted over the Palm device being able to connect to iTunes, Apple allows no one to connect to their iTunes.
Apple would control everything if they could and they seem to want to. What if Toyota told you that you could only put in a Toyota battery in your car? What if their batter was twice the cost of the battery down the street that did the same thing? What if Toyota told you you can only run Mobil gas and that gas was twice the cost as Chevrons gas yet Chevrons gas did the same thing.
Now stop and think a moment, OSX will run on any intel based system, who really is apple to say that I have to use only an Apple based system to run the OS?
I have three Apple computers right now and two Windows based systems.
Apples actions make your argument void.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
So what? When it comes to their OS, sure. And I'm glad they do. Seems to be working out beautifully for the consumer. Witness how the rest of the industry is doing due to *lack* of control. Apple's control over their OS and other aspects of their products is precisely the reason they are so wildly successful and why they are acknowledged as the Gold Standard in nearly every area in which they compete.
The owner of OS X. Who happens to be protected by IP law. If you still don't get it after about a hundred threads on this subject since 2008, there are plenty of resources scattered across the internet.
Cool. I have some Apple devices, as well as a few electric shavers I don't really use. I've got a Yamaha generator at the cottage. Works well in the cold. Oh, and I have a GE toaster.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Ignorance is bliss. The "core" (it's called a Kernel btw) was created by Carnegie Mellon University in the 80s and was called Mach. It's a micro-kernel architecture, something very different from whatever the FreeBSD foundation started putting out in 1993. OS X was actually born before FreeBSD, in 1987, when NeXT first released their NeXTSTEP OS. Guess who was behind this ? Steve Jobs.
NeXT did a lot of work on their OS and the kernel is just a fraction of the system. They invented a new type of display engine (display postscript) instead of using the then new and state of the art X protocol and created a big GUI paradigm in the creation of the dock.
Apple has been no slouch either, picking up the fledgling KHTML engine and making it a world class rendering engine for browsers in the form of Webkit, buying up CUPS and paying for its developement and making sure to respect and follow every license under which code it used was distributed under.
To compare Apple's work on OS X and Psystar's is truly a remarkable act of bad faith. Apple followed every license to the letter, took and gave back as much. Psystar and PearC just take.
Seriously, I can't wait for PearC to get sued out of existence so that you will stop posting your ignorant drivel in these threads. You have no clue about Unix and Apple's history and have shown so many times. At least get your facts straight before starting to bash.
The problem was IBM had a monopoly over mainframe computers at the time. Thus they were in breach of anti-trust laws.
You also ignore the fact that many Unix vendors today still tie their OS to their hardware platform. HP (HP-UX only runs on Integrity and PA-RISC platforms), Sun (sure you can get Solaris for free, but you need Sun hardware to get support), IBM (AIX for POWER ? IBM only hardware please!) and Apple all share the same model of business, vertical integration. There is nothing illegal about tying together 2 related products (the hardware and the software, one cannot exist without the other).
Again, facts people. Use them.
No, it's not. At least not until you can come up with better examples of why it is.
- Net Neutrality : The Internet is not a model of vertical integration. It's not AOL or MSN or any other closed network (that weren't illegal in any way). It's a collaborative effort by thousands of enterprise and individuals. To block some of these out for lack of funds is the destroy the very idea of the Internet. This has nothing to do with OS X at all.
- Cellphones. The FTC isn't trying to create "cellphone neutrality", it's simply doing its job in managing the airwaves used. The FCC isn't trying to block any carriers from entering into exclusivities either.
- MS. Oh please. Anti-trust rules. There's no such thing as OS neutrality. MS had a monopoly over desktop operating systems. It abused it to gain market share in other markets and to prevent competition in desktop operating systems. This is illegal. They got called on it.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Ignorance is bliss. The "core" (it's called a Kernel btw) was created by Carnegie Mellon University in the 80s and was called Mach. It's a micro-kernel architecture, something very different from whatever the FreeBSD foundation started putting out in 1993. OS X was actually born before FreeBSD, in 1987, when NeXT first released their NeXTSTEP OS. Guess who was behind this ? Steve Jobs.
NeXT did a lot of work on their OS and the kernel is just a fraction of the system. They invented a new type of display engine (display postscript) instead of using the then new and state of the art X protocol and created a big GUI paradigm in the creation of the dock.
Apple has been no slouch either, picking up the fledgling KHTML engine and making it a world class rendering engine for browsers in the form of Webkit, buying up CUPS and paying for its developement and making sure to respect and follow every license under which code it used was distributed under.
To compare Apple's work on OS X and Psystar's is truly a remarkable act of bad faith. Apple followed every license to the letter, took and gave back as much. Psystar and PearC just take.
Seriously, I can't wait for PearC to get sued out of existence so that you will stop posting your ignorant drivel in these threads. You have no clue about Unix and Apple's history and have shown so many times. At least get your facts straight before starting to bash.
Exactly. Apple contributed an enormous amount of code back into FreeBSD. FreeBSD wouldn't be where it is today without Apple.
Apple could put a turd in a hotdog bun and most of you Apple fan boys would say it was the best hotdog ever.
I hope Nokia gets their injunction against Apple and shuts down Apples ability to import their product, that seems to be the only thing that is going to wake Apple up.
Apple is acting far worse then IBM ever did and is that not what Steve Jobs claimed he was against?
Jobs is disingenuous at best. I came over to Apple with an open mind, but Apples core groupies really turn a lot of people off to Apple.
I hope Nokia gets their injunction against Apple and shuts down Apples ability to import their product, that seems to be the only thing that is going to wake Apple up.
Apple is acting far worse then IBM ever did and is that not what Steve Jobs claimed he was against?
Jobs is disingenuous at best. I came over to Apple with an open mind, but Apples core groupies really turn a lot of people off to Apple.
Talk about calling the kettle black, is what Apple doing anything different? In fact what Apple is doing is even worse then what Microsoft did, at least Microsoft's OS ran on any computer.
Apple is a true monopoly with their desktop operating system. If not for Microsoft there would be no Apple today, it was Microsoft's money that saved Apple.
If you want to run Windows you have many options, but if you want to run OSX you have only one option.
Now tell me again who is acting like a monopoly.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
LOL, who gives a sweet damn that you can run Windows on any hardware? Certainly not consumers - that is, the consumers that continue to hand Apple record Mac sales, quarter after quarter. Expect another record-breaker for this quarter as well.
Your arguments don't reflect reality.
You mean that settlement deal where Apple had MS over a legal barrel for stealing Quicktime code and MS thought it best to quit before they were going to lose their cases with Apple over other patent claims? You mean that?
Apple played MS like a violin. It was beautiful. Only Apple can make legitimized extortion look so good.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Yes, it is.
Only for a very strange definition of worse.
You need to read up on what a monopoly is. You can't have a monopoly on your own product. McDonald's doesn't have a monopoly over Bigmacs.
Monopolies are on markets and market segments. Operating systems is a segment. OS X, Windows, Ubuntu are products.
When you have a monopoly, you play by different rules. Apple is a niche player with low market share, thus they can proceed to do things that Microsoft can't being in a monopoly position.
It's especially ironic that you would say this because Apple at the time was dying because it was being open with MacOS and letting clone makers make Apple clones. So basically, you fault Apple for not allowing clones, but then you remind everyone that doing so almost killed them.
Wow. Seriously. You did this on purpose right ?
That one is easy, Microsoft.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Disingenuous?? What?
You want to talk about lies, predatory practices, and downright contempt for the legal process? Look no further than Micro$oft. Yes, the dollar sign was deliberate. IBM was never as bad as M$.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
The trial started on May 18, 1998 with the U.S. Justice Department and the Attorneys General of twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. Later, in October the US Justice Department also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software. During the antitrust case it was revealed that Microsoft had threatened PC manufacturers with revoking their license to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the initial desktop, something that Netscape had requested of its licensees.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]
A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]
The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is compliments.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Ironic example. Effectively, you can only watch Sony Blu-ray discs on players with a Sony logo. Regardless, of who manufactures the player, they all pay royalties to Sony.
No, a Mac is a PC manufactured by Apple. EFI has nothing to do with it.
Wow. That's a fairly huge jump in logic.
Germany must have an RDF to rival that of Steve Jobs. All of these software companies selling billions of dollars of software in Germany, and almost none of them realize that the license agreements are not binding in that country.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
Actually, royalties are paid to the Blu-Ray consortium. Blu-ray is a design by committee, with Sony occupying a large part of said committee. Like DVD before it, which was not a Sony exclusive either.
Formats are not products though, so the analogy is flawed.
BaldiMac
macrumors G3
Also, it was proven in a court of law that an unmodified copy of OS X cannot run on commodity PC hardware. Replacing Apple's bootloader and kernel extensions were ruled to be modifications of OS X that result in a derivative work.
Master Chief
macrumors 6502a
Right. A stupid analogy. Just like your: "HACKERS = CRIMINALS = THIEVES" which is just as flaky (at best) [and that is why I used it].
We Open Source developers call our selfs "Hackers" too, which makes us what? Thieves? Thank you very much.
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
He's using Hackers to describe what open source and old Unix types refer to as crackers. Of course, it's over, we lost. Hacker doesn't mean what it used to mean, and it has now replaced cracker.
You trying to insinuate hackers aren't what he says they are only shows that you are out of touch with the modern use of the word (who knew a word could change meaning in only 30 or so years...).
cmaier
Suspended
I blame War Games.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
Ahh, those were the days. They don't make 'em like that anymore.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/trivia
WarGames trivia:
Graphics on the large NORAD war room screens were rendered in advance by an HP 9845C desktop computer running BASIC. In 1982 the 9845C was comprised of a base with built-in keyboard and a 14" color monitor that mounted on top. Cost of a 9845C was about $90,000 (inflation-adjusted) and the entire "desktop" computer weighed about 100 pounds. The computer's resolution was not good enough to project on a large screen or to be filmed from directly, so a high-resolution monochromatic display was connected. The images were filmed from the display, one frame at a time, one color at a time, using filters for red, green, and blue. The process took about 1 minute per frame of film.
http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=149
HP 9845:
Name: 9845
Product Number: 9845
Introduced: 1977
Division: Calculator Products
Price: $11500
Catalogue Reference: 1978, page 583
The 9845 was HP's high-end technical desktop computer of the 1970s until the introduction of the 200 Series in 1981. The 9845 was the first HP computer to incorporate a twelve-inch CRT screen. Previous computers had only one or three line screens. The large monitor of the 9845 made program debugging and program listing much more convenient. It also provided (optional) graphics display for the first time, with a resolution of 560 x 455 dots. The 9845A came standard with a built-in mini-cartridge tape drive (217K capacity). A second tape drive was optional as was a built-in thermal printer (80 characters wide, 480 lines per minute and graphics capable).
The 9845A shipped with 13K RAM standard, expandable to 62K. The computer came standard with four I/O slots and used the same interfaces as the 9825. The 9845S came standard with the additional tape drive, printer and graphics package. The 9845B replaced the 9845A in 1979. It came standard with 56K RAM, expandable to 449K. The 9845T also arrived in 1979. It came standard with 186K RAM and included the optional printer, both tape drives and the graphics package. The 9845C was introduced in 1980. It was the first computer from HP with a color screen. The 13-inch screen could display 4,913 colors. It also included both tape drives, the internal printer and a light pen. The monitor for both the 9845C and 9845T had eight programmable function keys. Click here to see this original green screen drawing the SINX/X function (file size 1.5 Mb):
http://www.hpmuseum.net/upload_htmlFile/Web9845SinX.mpg
The 9845 was HP's number one revenue producing product in fiscal year 1980.In the previous two years since its introduction, the 9845 had also been one of the company's top five products.
Introduction of the 200 Series computers in 1981 affected sales of the 9845. The 9845C was discontinued in April of 1984. The remaining 9845 models were obsoleted in May of 1985.
In short: it won't run Crysis.
localoid
macrumors 68020
Umm, no... he's "not out of touch." At least not according to Merrian-Websters which places the hacker=cracker interruption in 4th place:
Main Entry: hack·er
Pronunciation: \ˈha-kər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system
*LTD*
macrumors G4
I'd even turn to Wikipedia way before I'd turn to a copy of the Merriam-Webster. The REAL English language is in the OED, anyway. If you want to learn about how the term "hacker" is used in popular culture, turning to a dictionary is not your best course of action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)#cite_note-crackdown-0
In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls.[1]
1. ^ a b Sterling, Bruce. "Part 2(d)". The Hacker Crackdown. McLean, Virginia: IndyPublish.com. p. 61. ISBN 1-4043-0641-2.
The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground. Proponents claim to be motivated by artistic and political ends, and are often unconcerned about the use of illegal means to achieve them.[2]
2. ^ Blomquist, Brian (May 29, 1999). "FBI's Web Site Socked as Hackers Target Feds". New York Post. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.
Other uses of the word hacker exist that are not related to computer security (computer programmer and home computer hobbyists), but these are rarely used by the mainstream media. Some would argue that the people that are now considered hackers are not hackers, as before the media described the person who breaks into computers as a hacker there was a hacker community. This community was a community of people who had a large interest in computer programming, often creating open source software. These people now refer to the cyber-criminal hackers as "crackers".
Better yet, all you have to do is glance at the news:
localoid
macrumors 68020
The language of "popular culture" often spells "no one" as "noone"...
So thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with a credible authority, such as Merriam-Webster, vs. your "street wise" opinion on the subject based purely on your (limited) personal experience.
In regards to your Wikipedia reference:
It helps if you read the entire article rather than simply cherry-picking small sections that support your opinion. Quoting a section of the article you missed (or chose to ignore):
