Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[MagnusVonMagnum]

apart from the Operating System, of course

That reply is in deference to the HARDWARE only. The whole point of my post is about Hackintoshes and Psystar "clones". Of course they would be running OS X. That is implied. But I'm sure you aren't paying attention to the thread, just a single reply to someone else.

Magnus, As in all the other threads on this - you still aren't getting it.

This is NOT about the SLA between an individual user and Apple. Yes, that may be shaky legal ground in what they can actually limit the user to. You are correct there.

This is about one business possibly violating copyright, and infringing on the trademarks of another.

Oh? Is that what it's about? I want to see hardware choices for the consumer from people like Dell that run OS X without me having to hack it. Psystar may very well be guilty of modifying OS X along the way, but that's a separate issue (i.e. Apple's case against Psystar versus Psystar's case against Apple which plays along the lines I've been talking about). So, in fact, it's about both depending on which case interests you. I don't care what happens to Psystar itself. I simply want to see Apple lose in court about the EULA aspect where they pretend they can tell you what computer hardware you have to buy to keep using your Mac software library. Yes, I can hack my own personal PC to run OS X. But as a consumer rights advocate, my arguments are about principle not what I can do to skirt the situation personally.

Copyright law is the basis of capitalism in an information society. To take away an authors right to control the copying of their content would be communism. It's saying that any software that you create belongs to society.

Copyright law is NOT the "basis" of Capitalism for goodness sake. What economics classes have you gone to, pray tell? Competition is the basis of Capitalism. Look it up. Copyright law is a very specific set of laws designed originally to deal with BOOKS. It was NEVER DESIGNED to deal with computer software, movies, etc. Those have been shoe-horned into the laws long after they were written. They don't fit very well. The shelf life of a computer game is tiny compared to a book. Even so, books are meant to lose their copyrights a set period of time after the author dies and go into the public domain. Companies like Disney want to stop that foundation for copyrights. That is what is not right, not some fantasy about "Communism" if we don't let Apple do anything it wants to do.

Without a license agreement for software, there is nothing to prevent you from reselling OS X without compensating Apple at all. That is wrong and provides no incentive for the creation of OS X in the first place.

So now you've taken ONE ASPECT (a sentence) of a license agreement that is quite possibly ILLEGAL and invalidated the ENTIRE EULA as a result. Who said ANYTHING about fighting license agreements in general? If a EULA says you must kill someone to use the software, do you think that would be legal and defensible? Of coures not. Does that mean all license agreements are invalidated because one is found to contain something that is not legal? Get real.

The point that you seem to ignore over and over again is that anti-trust laws only apply to trusts. Apple is not a trust and does not have sufficient market power to fall under these regulations.

Who says it's not a trust? You? Let's see what the definition of a "trust" is shall we?

Trust -- A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.

Given that software and hardware are two separate markets, one could easily point out that Apple is comprised of two differing internal structures. Furthermore, they have merged/purchased other companies along the way (a certain semi-conductor company comes to mind recently, in fact), so they are in fact a combination of firms or corporations. Their actions are indeed to reduce competition and control prices (e.g. all the evidence I've given about overpriced, underpowered machines with no alternatives to buy from Dell that can run OS X prove that). It sounds like it fits the definition of a "trust" to me.

But in fact, anti-trust laws are designed to PREVENT trusts from being formed or to stop existing such firms from preventing competition. That is the BASIS of those laws and their intended purpose. Thus, everything I've said is indeed perfectly valid here. I haven't ignored anything. You simply seem to have no idea what anti-trust laws are and what they're supposed to do in a Capitalist society. They are to stop corporations that are actively trying to stop competition and thus promote Capitalism. They are in fact, the very OPPOSITE of what Communism wants to do, which is combine everything into a giant state-run system (although Obama seems to be going there pretty swiftly these days).

Without quoting yet more uninformed individuals, I'll just make not that buying OS X and including it with a computer is not "stealing intellectual property" in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. How the heck do some of you think PAYING FOR OS X is "stealing" it? Psystar is buying OS X. They are SELLING *Hardware* not OS X. They are RESELLING OS X and that is perfectly LEGAL. The only possible avenue of guilt for Psystar is modifying the OS to make it run. Early on, they may have in fact done just that. Clearly, later on they no longer needed to modify anything to install OS X. Whether they are using someone Else's work to accomplish that is not Apple's claim. In fact, you can now buy a USB dongle/device to accomplish in hardware what Psystar's software does. It's just an EFI simulator for BIOS chips since OS X needs EFI, not Bios to boot/install. No intellectual property need be modified, stolen or reverse engineered to accomplish this task. Thus, another company could easily start making clones and do it quite legally, IMO. I'm sure Apple would claim otherwise and sue them (it's what they do best instead of actually competing with reasonably priced attractive hardware choice).

 

[awmazz]

Basically its up to an copyrighting organization to etermine what is and what is not copywritten. Its very hard to describe what copyright is because it is only one component of intellectual property overall.

If that's the case, then the US and Australia must differ because Copyright here is very specific and clear - it's for artistic or literary work, from Wikipedia:

In terms of the types of material, Australian law confers rights in works, also known as "Part III Works" (after the Part of the Act dealing with this): namely, literary works, musical works, artistic works, and dramatic works. It also confers rights in "other subject matter" (Part IV Subject Matter), which cover the kinds of material protected in some countries by 'neighbouring rights': sound recordings, films, broadcasts, and published editions. To be protected, material must fall into one of these exclusive categories.

The only way software can be seen as Copyrightable is if it is a literary, musical, dramatic or artistic work in and of itself. Which it isn't.

I'm sure the guy who puts in a lot of blood sweat and tears to write software views his finished application as a literary masterpiece or even a work of art (only a genius could have done this!) but that's purely subjective, which most certainly doesn't make it so.

Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets.

Sure, there are other ways to protect other intellectual property, and as per my observation, software as a tool within a pipeline to create a copyrightable work makes it the second in that list, a Trademark, like Technicolor™ or Dolby™ is used in the pipeline to make a copyrightable cinematic movie.

To copyright the software code itself would give it the same artistic or literary merit as the screenplay or novel the movie is based on. That's just not logical. Machine language makes machines run, it is not a literary or artistic work in and of itself in any sense of the term and nor can it be viewed as such by any user or observer of the software.

To copyright an application would also give it artistic or literary merit which is also not logical. Is Adobe Photoshop a work of art? Nup. It's a tool to create art. Which makes it a Patent. Is World of Warcraft a work of art? The graphics in the game certainly are, and therefore copyrightable, as is the logo and all associated images and design, but the application itself? Nup. It's a game. If it was physically solid instead of software, it would be sold in a toy or hobby shop like Monopoly®. Is Monopoly® a copyrightable game? Nup, it's a Registered Trademark:

MONOPOLY®, THE DISTINCTIVE DESIGN OF THE GAME BOARD, THE FOUR CORNER SQUARES, AS WELL AS EACH OF THE DISTINCTIVE ELEMENTS OF THE BOARD AND THE PLAYING PIECES ARE TRADEMARKS OF HASBRO, INC. FOR ITS REAL ESTATE TRADING GAME AND GAME EQUIPMENT. ©1935, 1936, 1947, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1961, 1973, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 HASBRO, INC.

What IS Copyright is the logo and all associated images (as you can see Copyrighted each year something was re-designed) which they *can* licence to other companies like McDonalds for use in promotions or merchandising or appear in a movie etc. They do NOT licence the game itself to the buyers of the game as software manufacturers do, because they they never could, and still can't. Just imagine: "By opening this box, you agree to the licencing terms that a maximum of only four (4) players may play at any one time within one household, the game can only be played within the residence of the purchaser so you cannot lend this game to a friend or relative...". . Pure nonsense. Yet why do we accept this so readily from software companies?

None of what I'm seeing in regards to software itself even comes close to falling under the copyright banner so I'm sensing a lot of free licence (pun intended) is being applied to the definition of copyright in regards to software - by the software creators and companies in their own interest to acquire licensing and royalty rights they are not actually due for their products, most especially the 'reproduction' rights:

The former is covered by copyright laws, which protect creative works, such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs, and software, and give the copyright holder exclusive right to control reproduction or adaptation of such works for a certain period of time.

The 'and software' looks incongruous there to me, almost like someone who wants software to be included has taken the liberty of Wikipedia's format to just sneak it in there where it doesn't actually belong like a politician sneaking pork into an appropriations bill and hopes nobody notices.

 

[Sun Baked]

Hmmm...

Springer Colby has notified the judge to stay the case and halt proceedings due to the Bankrupty filing.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/69/

Wonder if Apple will nudge them into liquidation to get rid of them.

 

[MacsomJRR]

Psystar deserves a better fate.

 

[macUser2007]

That reply is in deference to the HARDWARE only. The whole point of my post is about Hackintoshes and Psystar "clones". Of course they would be running OS X. That is implied. .....

Good post.

 

[-hh]

Copyright law is NOT the "basis" of Capitalism for goodness sake. What economics classes have you gone to, pray tell? Competition is the basis of Capitalism. Look it up.

It would appear that you only read half of BaldiMac's statement. The rest of the story was that he had the context of: "...in an information society."

In an Information Society, there is the principle that legal provisions are necessary to protect the IP works from simply being copied and reproduced by non-IP owners without compensation, so as to provide an environment that fosters the continued development/advancement of said Information Society, since information is not a classical physical good with inherent elements of classical Supply/Demand, etc.

Copyright law is a very specific set of laws designed originally to deal with BOOKS. It was NEVER DESIGNED to deal with computer software, movies, etc. Those have been shoe-horned into the laws long after they were written. They don't fit very well.

True, but they've still been shoe-horned in, and thus are legally protected forms of IP.

And there's still been issues even with Books. For example, in the 1960s, Donald A. Wollheim, publisher of Ace Books, tried to rip of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings in this fashion. In some ways, it is very similar to Psystar in that Wollheim was simply trying to claim that a loophole existed that allowed him to be an exploiter of another's IP.

The shelf life of a computer game is tiny compared to a book. Even so, books are meant to lose their copyrights a set period of time after the author dies and go into the public domain. Companies like Disney want to stop that foundation for copyrights. That is what is not right...

I wholeheartedly agree that it is a huge injustice that some forms of IP are protected for only 14 years and yet others (ones that Disney wants) are protected for ~120 years (or "Life of Author + 70").

However, software such as OS X is less than 14 years old, so this problem of disproportionality is not germane to the basic question of if merits any level of protection at all.

(Apple's) actions are indeed to reduce competition and control prices (e.g. all the evidence I've given about overpriced, underpowered machines with no alternatives to buy from Dell that can run OS X prove that).

YMMV, and my business analysis concludes differently.

Consider that Apple has more than a full order of magnitude of a disadvantage in units sold with which for them to amortize their software development costs across. Simplistically, this means that if a Vista upgrade is worth $129, then OS X's should be expected to have a similar cost basis of ten times that, or roughly $1,290. Since it obviously doesn't, then business "conservation of money" principles must mean that an adjustment took place somewhere else...ie, robbing Peter to pay Paul. A decrement taken on the hardware is an obvious candidate.

However, in the big picture, no one has put a gun to your head to buy Apple products. It is their business to decide how to package & sell their products, and as the consumer, the only LEGAL choice you effectively have in the matter is to vote with your wallet. Thus, since Apple only wants to sell bundled, that's what you're morally obligated to use in your buy/don't buy decision.

I haven't ignored anything. You simply seem to have no idea what anti-trust laws are and what they're supposed to do in a Capitalist society. They are to stop corporations that are actively trying to stop competition and thus promote Capitalism...

What you've missed is that when we think about it, all of the IP protection laws in all of Western Capitalistic Society are essentially nothing more than a temporary legalization of a Monopoly - - and as we all know, a Monopoly is a means of blocking competition.

The bottom line is that this is never as black-&-white simple as we would like it all to be. If we want innovation to be rewarded in the Capitalistic marketplace, we need to create an environment where it is adequately rewarded so as to encourage it to flourish - - this means to protect it from predatory practices. That's the underlying principle currently in place today. The question of how that's done...Copyright / EULAs / Contracts / etc ... are merely details of implementation. And yes, there's problems in implementation.


-hh

 

[pdjudd]

If that's the case, then the US and Australia must differ because Copyright here is very specific and clear - it's for artistic or literary work, from Wikipedia:

There was a reason I did not attempt to define copyright because its different depending on where you go. Copyright is only one aspect of this case that is dealing with Apple's intellectual property as a whole. Copyright is only one segment of intellectual property. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets and others are examples of types. Apple is not arguing on copyright alone here. OSX for example is trademarked and possesses a copyright in the US where it was created and where software can be copyright.

You cannot just limit this case to one specific aspect like this because it is not that simple. It deals with intellectual property as a whole.

 

[theheadguy]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10251943-37.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

 

[pdjudd]

"They probably will (sue us)," De Silva said.

Yes, and Apple will probably win. In case De Silvia missed it, the courts (Via Judge Allsup) already concluded that Apple can dictate terms of sale of its products.

 

[Mal]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10251943-37.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0

"They probably will (sue us)," De Silva said. "There are others doing this, but we have a different attitude. There are thousands of people in the 'Hackintosh' market, but many of them are creating bad products. I don't think anyone wins in that environment."

I don't get this attitude. "We know we're gonna get sued and that we'll lose, but we don't care because we have good customer support." WTF?

And "thousands of people in the 'Hackintosh' market"? Perhaps thousands of people making them for themselves, but I can only think of three or four business that tried the hackintosh market, and only two currently in operation that I know of (Psystar and these guys, although I'm not sure if they're operating yet).

jW

 

[pdjudd]

I don't get this attitude. "We know we're gonna get sued and that we'll lose, but we don't care because we have good customer support." WTF?

Persecution complex. They want to be sued so that Apple would look bad for "attacking customers" Which is how they will spin this. They outright know they will get sued and hope that teh public will respond negativity to Apple and then back off.

Thats what they hope. I don't think that it will work. All it will do is probably result in a lot of free publicity.

 

[macUser2007]

Yes, and Apple will probably win. In case De Silvia missed it, the courts (Via Judge Allsup) already concluded that Apple can dictate terms of sale of its products.

You are a little confused as to how the court system works.

Unless I missed something, Allsup is a District Court judge, and hardly the final word on the law.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

In an Information Society, there is the principle that legal provisions are necessary to protect the IP works from simply being copied and reproduced by non-IP owners without compensation, so as to provide an environment that fosters the continued development/advancement of said Information Society, since information is not a classical physical good with inherent elements of classical Supply/Demand, etc.

The problem with your arguments here is that Psystar and whatever new clone maker I just read about on MacWorld that's about to start up their own operation are not "copying or reproducing" (in a piracy sense; installing software is not legally the same action) OS X. They are BUYING it and RESELLING it, which as I said earlier is perfectly legal. They are "selling" HARDWARE. Psystar, however, MAY (I'm not privy to their legal evidence) have modified the installer early-on to make their machine work. Later machines did not use this method. So Apple may have a case there, but it does not address their counter-suit which SHOULD (IMO) go to court to straighten this issue once and for all, regardless of your or my position on the matter. It's clearly a legal grey matter in some regards and should get legal clarification. My only concern is that a judge who is not computer-savvy may not fully understand the case from a technical perspective and could rule faulty in either direction based on feeling or some other case that is not directly related. However, the precedent set in regards to tying in the Xerox (I think it was Xerox) case clearly stands to benefit whomever is challenging Apple. There was a case where the consumer wanted to use someone else's service and it was ruled that Xerox cannot force someone to use THEIR service since buying the hardware and buying a service or software install are two different markets and you cannot TIE those two markets together arbitrarily.

Here, I see the same situation. Apple is saying if you buy OS X, then you must buy their hardware. It's that IF/THEN loop that will get them into trouble. If their hardware is propriety (e.g. the iPhone might qualify there), then there is no case because they are dependent on each other. But if OS X is sold separately (e.g. it is and it's not even labeled "upgrade" like MS Windows is) and it works on standardized hardware (it will with an EFI emulator installed in either software or hardware form that does not violate Apple's EFI code) then there simply is nothing "propriety" going on there and Apple's EULA violates the same tying rule. They are leveraging one market against another to thwart competition and the law is quite clear in that regard in anti-trust law as a result of that Xerox case. Maybe a judge would see it differently, but those suggesting there is no case to be made against Apple don't have much to stand on considering the judge allowed the last filing to go through to a trial (although now that Psystar has filed bankruptcy, this may be up in the air for some time). The new startup "Quo Computer" is now poised to start selling Mac Clones as well and they have stated they expect Apple to sue, but they are prepared to deal with them as well. Clearly, they've been watching and are ready to take it to court as well. I say good. Those that oppose them should also say good if they believe they are right since only a court can decide this once and for all.

True, but they've still been shoe-horned in, and thus are legally protected forms of IP.

My point here is that the tying issue is not one of copyright law. It's anti-trust law. There is no copying here (installing doesn't count under law as a "copy" since it is required to function and will not run normally off the CD/DVD). There's also a copy in memory. Is that copying too? It's all part of the single process of running the software.

And there's still been issues even with Books. For example, in the 1960s, Donald A. Wollheim, publisher of Ace Books, tried to rip of JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings in this fashion. In some ways, it is very similar to Psystar in that Wollheim was simply trying to claim that a loophole existed that allowed him to be an exploiter of another's IP.

What do you think about libraries versus file sharing for books or video? Technically, it's illegal for me to download and watch a DVD-Rip off a torrent site on my computer and then erase it, but it IS legal to go to my local library and borrow a DVD copy of a movie and watch and then return it. Either way I get the exact same result. I watch the DVD free of charge. One method is legal and one is not. Both are the SAME BITS. It's ridiculous, IMO and a good example of how copyright law does not really hold up well in the digital age.

Criminalizing the same fundamental action (watching a movie) in one case, but not another is just absurd. Surely, there is a better way to do business in the digital age. Look at music and the record companies' early stands. We're slowly progressing to what's reasonable (no DRM and a fair price for digital versions of good quality). Some piracy estimates are over 80% of the population having done it at some time or the other with some form of digital media. Is everyone immoral or are the laws simply unreasonable? If 80% of the people are for something illegal, doesn't that constitute an almost super-majority for changing the law? Well, understand this; you can't change the laws if you depend on Congress members who take money from big business that are dead set against changing those laws. Democracy fails and the real rulers are the criminals because they violate the fundamental principles of this country's Constitution to represent the PEOPLE's WILL not the small number of corporations that stand to make money opposing their will. Most people will buy movies and music if they feel there's a fair price and a fair product (e.g. no DRM so they can view/listen whenever/wherever they want). Laws will never change if people don't challenge those laws. Some simply disagree about the methods of challenging bad laws. How can this business with Apple and clones be challenged without someone challenging their position and people letting their feelings known? I think it's time this country listen to its population instead of the ultra-rich that seem to think everything should benefit the corporation and not the consumer. I'm not suggesting things be free, only FAIR.

 

[-hh]

The problem with your arguments here is that Psystar and whatever new clone maker I just read about on MacWorld that's about to start up their own operation are not "copying or reproducing" (in a piracy sense; installing software is not legally the same action) OS X.

Pawn shops don't steal, yet they can be an accessory to such crimes.

I don't want to say that this is a debate on semantics, but I do want to point out that there's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in those instances where the letter fails to perfectly allign with the spirit: I'm interested in the spirit, because that is what will ultimately be upheld (I hope) after the inevitable mistakes are corrected.

They are BUYING it and RESELLING it, which as I said earlier is perfectly legal.

Semantically that may be true...but when they are facilitating individuals to violate the spirt (if not necessarily the letter) of the EULA, then it becomes clear that this isn't necessarily a clean and wholesome situation, even if a technically correct sematic path has been found that functionally circumvents or perverts the law's intent.

It's clearly a legal grey matter in some regards and should get legal clarification.

Agreed, although the bigger picture problem is that the whole system is a sphaghetti monster tangled mess - there really needs to be a clean slate rewrite that clearly states the value principles that are to be followed, and which are then internally and externally consistant.

For an example on consistancy issues, why is it that different functional forms of IP gain different protection durations? For example, why is it that a song has a protection period that's roughly 10x longer than a design patent? (Yes, I know: its because of which businesses lobby Congress, that's why).

My only concern is that a judge who is not computer-savvy may not fully understand the case from a technical perspective and could rule faulty in either direction based on feeling or some other case that is not directly related...(I think it was Xerox) case...where the consumer wanted to use someone else's service and it was ruled that Xerox cannot force someone to use THEIR service since buying the hardware and buying a service or software install are two different markets and you cannot TIE those two markets together arbitrarily.

Here, I see the same situation. Apple is saying if you buy OS X, then you must buy their hardware. It's that IF/THEN loop that will get them into trouble. If their hardware is propriety (e.g. the iPhone might qualify there), then there is no case because they are dependent on each other. But if OS X is sold separately (e.g. it is and it's not even labeled "upgrade" like MS Windows is) and it works on standardized hardware (it will with an EFI emulator installed in either software or hardware form that does not violate Apple's EFI code) then there simply is nothing "propriety" going on there and Apple's EULA violates the same tying rule.

Its ultimately up to the Courts to decide.

A basic counter to the "tying" issue is that hardware without an OS is not a useful product, so it is pragmatically impossible for them to not be tied to some degree. Similarly, if only specially-modified PCs are OSX compatible, and the only reason why they're being modified is to make them OSX compatible ... then that's arguably a strengthening of the argument that there are indeed non-arbitrarily tied together.

...only a court can decide this once and for all.

Agreed, but this too will invariably be only a narrow interpretation, since the Legal System is generally adverse to providing clarity through broad value statements...issues are won/lost on semantic hair-splitting.

What do you think about libraries versus file sharing for books or video?

Merely another example where the laws have failed to keep pace with technology and practices, so we have a mess.

It's ridiculous, IMO and a good example of how copyright law does not really hold up well in the digital age...Criminalizing the same fundamental action (watching a movie) in one case, but not another is just absurd. Surely, there is a better way to do business in the digital age.

100% Agreed. The problem is the greedy Corporate miser who doesn't want to let anything escape his net into Public Domain -- not even a 70 year old movie that hasn't made him a dime in the last two decades.

Look at music and the record companies' early stands. We're slowly progressing to what's reasonable (no DRM and a fair price for digital versions of good quality).

Only for the moment, unfortunately.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 is now 11 years old, so it is pretty much guarenteed that the lobbiests are going to get their Congressional lapdogs to propose legislation to add yet another extension within the next 9 years. You can bet the Ranch that this is coming.

Some piracy estimates are over 80% of the population having done it at some time or the other with some form of digital media. Is everyone immoral or are the laws simply unreasonable?

In short, the problem's the law. More specficially, the law is an enabler of bad business practices - their short-sightedly profit-motive base actually created the piracy problem by being unreasonably expensive by refusing to commensurately lower prices as technologies made the barriers to successful distribution ("risks") lower than any other time in history, all while the period of "monopolistic" protection has simultaneously also became the longest in history. In short, the music monopolies had no incentive to innovate or deliver consumer value. This violates the basic tenants as to why IP is given marketplace protections.

(big snip)

...I'm not suggesting things be free, only FAIR.

Agree with essentially all that you wrote. The fairness question relevant to Apple distills down to a simple question: to what degree should they (or anyone else, for that matter) be permitted to differentiate their products from their competitors?


-hh

 

[BaldiMac]

So now you've taken ONE ASPECT (a sentence) of a license agreement that is quite possibly ILLEGAL and invalidated the ENTIRE EULA as a result. Who said ANYTHING about fighting license agreements in general? If a EULA says you must kill someone to use the software, do you think that would be legal and defensible? Of coures not. Does that mean all license agreements are invalidated because one is found to contain something that is not legal? Get real.

You claimed that Apple has no right to tell you what to do with OS X after purchase. That would be the whole point of a license agreement.

Who says it's not a trust? You? Let's see what the definition of a "trust" is shall we?

Instead of the dictionary definition that you found, how about we look to the FTC.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/monopolization_defined.shtm

This page describes single firm conduct that would be covered by antitrust laws. Please notice the part where it says that courts typically require a minimum of %50 market share and have required much higher.

Judge Alsup already rejected the notion that Apple would be subject to antitrust laws. While he may not be the final say, his ruling is consistent with the information provided by the FTC.

Tying is only illegal when it is done by a monopolist with no benefits for the consumer.

 

[imagineer2000]

This is all such fun!

I found this whole episode to be quite funny, an amusing side story in these horrible economic times. Apple was never threatened.

 

[BaldiMac]

If their hardware is propriety (e.g. the iPhone might qualify there), then there is no case because they are dependent on each other.

Apple's hardware is proprietary (I assume that is the word you meant). The fact that it was made from parts produced by other companies is irrelevant. Every electronic product is based on parts obtained from another company. Unless they are in to mining, I suppose.

But if OS X is sold separately (e.g. it is and it's not even labeled "upgrade" like MS Windows is)

The word "Upgrade" on the box does not have more legal standing the the SLA. If you are looking for something on the outside of the box that you can see prior to purchase, you have two statements.

1. "Requirements Mac computer..."
2. "Important Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package."

and it works on standardized hardware (it will with an EFI emulator installed in either software or hardware form that does not violate Apple's EFI code)

The fact that something "works" does not give you the right to do it.

then there simply is nothing "propriety" going on there and Apple's EULA violates the same tying rule. They are leveraging one market against another to thwart competition and the law is quite clear in that regard in anti-trust law as a result of that Xerox case.

Again the tying rule that you continue to refer to only applies to monopolies. Apple is not a monopoly in the OS market. Apple is not a monopoly in the personal computer industry.

 

[pdjudd]

Again the tying rule that you continue to refer to only applies to monopolies. Apple is not a monopoly in the OS market. Apple is not a monopoly in the personal computer industry.

Which was another thing that Allsup concluded when he rejected Psystar's suit regarding any claims of Apple being guilty of anti-trust at the very beginning of this mess.

 

[gnasher729]

You are a little confused as to how the court system works.

Unless I missed something, Allsup is a District Court judge, and hardly the final word on the law.

What would make you think that the next district court judge would decide in any other way? And in the end, it didn't matter whether Apple or Psystar was right, because Psystar ran out of money. And the next little shop will run out of money as well, and so on. I somehow doubt that Apple will ever manage to win one of these court cases quick enough before the opponent goes bankrupt.

 

[r.j.s]

What would make you think that the next district court judge would decide in any other way? And in the end, it didn't matter whether Apple or Psystar was right, because Psystar ran out of money. And the next little shop will run out of money as well, and so on. I somehow doubt that Apple will ever manage to win one of these court cases quick enough before the opponent goes bankrupt.

The funny part is that it was Psystar stalling the court case, not Apple.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

I wish Psystar was still around, they had some pretty decent Macs for under $1000, something Apple does not have (Mac Mini is a joke beyond jokes).

 

[gnasher729]

The funny part is that it was Psystar stalling the court case, not Apple.

To be fair, you can view Psystar's ridiculous counter claims either as an attempt to stall the court case, or as their only possible defense; the SLA says very clearly that Psystar wouldn't be allowed to install MacOS X on their computers, so the only defense is to come up with something that might be a reason why Apple might not be allowed to put these terms into its license. Without these counterclaims, Psystar was dead. Well, they were dead anyway.

I wish Psystar was still around, they had some pretty decent Macs for under $1000, something Apple does not have (Mac Mini is a joke beyond jokes).

If you missed it, Psystar ended up with $250,000 debt and not very many computers sold, so their computers were only cheap because the guys were bad at maths and sold at a price that didn't come close to their cost. That $1000 computer (and no, they didn't sell Macs), turned out to come with no warranty, no service, and the threat that you might get a friendly letter from Apple's lawyers.

If you want a Hackintosh, that's your business, and I won't tell you what to do. Read up on it on the internet, then buy a compatible PC from a reputable company and do it yourself. These guys started a business under the premise that it is Ok to rip Apple off. Now common sense should tell you that if they are willing to rip off Apple, then they are willing to rip of _you_ as well. They even ripped off their lawyers, who are owed about $88,000! That is not the company you should buy from.

 

[r.j.s]

To be fair, you can view Psystar's ridiculous counter claims either as an attempt to stall the court case, or as their only possible defense; the SLA says very clearly that Psystar wouldn't be allowed to install MacOS X on their computers, so the only defense is to come up with something that might be a reason why Apple might not be allowed to put these terms into its license. Without these counterclaims, Psystar was dead. Well, they were dead anyway.

I wasn't even referring to that, but to this:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210101747

 

[IWantItThatWay]

If you missed it, Psystar ended up with $250,000 debt and not very many computers sold, so their computers were only cheap because the guys were bad at maths and sold at a price that didn't come close to their cost.

True.

That $1000 computer (and no, they didn't sell Macs),

And yes, they did sell Macs.

turned out to come with no warranty, no service, and the threat that you might get a friendly letter from Apple's lawyers.

Which is why they couldn't pose a real threat to Apple, not only that, but they also didn't get software updates AFAIK.

If you want a Hackintosh, that's your business, and I won't tell you what to do. Read up on it on the internet, then buy a compatible PC from a reputable company and do it yourself. These guys started a business under the premise that it is Ok to rip Apple off.

Who cares if Apple gets ripped off? Apple rips off its customers all the time.

Now common sense should tell you that if they are willing to rip off Apple, then they are willing to rip of _you_ as well. They even ripped off their lawyers, who are owed about $88,000! That is not the company you should buy from.

A company that sells at Apple's prices is a company I wouldn't want to buy from though.

 

[r.j.s]

And yes, they did sell Macs.

Really, because selling computers not made by Apple and calling them Macs is trademark infringement.