Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[robbyx]

I think that MacX86 & Psystar is helping Mac to spread and APPLE SHOULD THANK THEM.

Why should Apple thank them? Apple doesn't make squat on MacOS X. The money is in hardware. The only thing Apple gets from companies like Psystar is a big fat headache. Imagine all the Psystar customers going into their local Apple stores wondering why something doesn't work, or why their iPod doesn't sync after applying an update from Psystar, or why they can't get the latest Apple software update because Psystar hasn't hacked it yet, etc.

The only thing Apple gets from Psystar is rising costs and a diluted brand. And the most they stand to gain is the $129 MacOS X sale. Thank them? I think not! As for the x86 "hackintosh" crowd, as others have pointed out, Apple doesn't care so long as one isn't trying to profit from Apple's development efforts.

 

[Sun Baked]

You can't compare a crappy $350 PC to a $1,400 iMac, but you can compare a $1,400 PC to a $1,400 Mac. At that price level you will not find any difference in the components and most are sourced from the same vendors while final assembly takes place in China.

Likely they are probably being made by the same Chinese factories (ASUSTeK, Quanta, Hon Hai, etc.)

So about the only thing different is the design and probably the specs on some of the sub-assemblies.

 

[AtariKee]

I'm "lol'ing" at how upset the fanbois are getting over this<snip>

Only jealous morons use the words "fanboi" and "fanboy".

 

[IJ Reilly]

Kinda agreed, though I'm not sure "brain-dead" can be argued for without hindsight. You've indicated why people at Xerox might want to work for Apple, but what is important is that Apple welcomed people from Xerox, sent SJ to Xerox and built a UI that looked similar to Xerox.

Looked similar, but functioned quite differently. The bottom line is that GUIs are going to display some similar characteristics, if only by virtue of the fact that they are GUIs. No one has at yet come up with one which takes a drastically different approach than the others (excepting possibly Raskin's quirky Canon Cat).

In fact, I think its arguable that Windows 95 was far more similar to the MacOS of 1995 than the MacOS of 1984 was similar to the Xerox ALTO of 1979. The ALTO interface was very primitive, and not just by current standards. And expensive! I read somewhere long ago that they cost $70,000 each -- and this was in mid-'70s dollars.

The ALTO may have proved some concepts, but it was not a finished commercial product by any means. Even if you assume Apple borrowed some concepts from Xerox, I think it's inarguable that the $2,500 consumer computer Apple created was the first to prove a market for such a computer. If you're looking for change creation, Apple did it, not Xerox.

Xerox showed no interest in advancing these concepts to market, except for the neutered and half-hearted STAR. Apple was committed to the Lisa and the Mac GUI computers from 1979 on. So it comes as no surprise that some of the PARC people jumped ship to Apple. Others went to Microsoft.

 

[robbyx]

They have also altered the "Software Update" process so it looks towards Psystars servers, not Apple's servers.

This is so the people can get certified/modified updates from Psystar.

With an unmodified OS, there is no need for this.

Excellent observation. Psystar is flagrantly violating Apple's IP by altering copyright protected code. That's the issue! Bottom line, one cannot install MacOS on any Intel box. All this talk of what chips are inside is meaningless. So the Mac and PC share similar components. Big deal. That doesn't mean Psystar or anyone else has the right to ALTER code they do not own.

I'm rather amazed at how little respect certain people here have for the hard work of others. The entitled attitude on display by some is really appalling.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Likely they are probably being made by the same Chinese factories (ASUSTeK, Quanta, Hon Hai, etc.)

So about the only thing different is the design and probably the specs on some of the sub-assemblies.

Exactly my point. An x86 based computer is an x86 based computer. You pay for three things when you buy a Mac. (1) A great OS (2) A pretty box (3) The brand.

I love Macs, but if I had a choice of a Mac or a Mac clone I would compare them closely before I bought and pick the one that offered the best value for my money. The reason why I won't buy one now is I want something that actually works. I would not trust the Psystar with software updates, etc. Now if there was an actual licensed vendor... like if Apple gave Lenovo a license to sell Thinkpads and Thinkcenters with OSX and I knew there would be good support then of course I would consider one.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Excellent observation. Psystar is flagrantly violating Apple's IP by altering copyright protected code. That's the issue! Bottom line, one cannot install MacOS on any Intel box. All this talk of what chips are inside is meaningless. So the Mac and PC share similar components. Big deal. That doesn't mean Psystar or anyone else has the right to ALTER code they do not own.

Even if they altered nothing, they'd still be trading on Apple's copyrights and trademarks.

 

[robbyx]

Exactly my point. An x86 based computer is an x86 based computer. You pay for three things when you buy a Mac. (1) A great OS (2) A pretty box (3) The brand.

I love Macs, but if I had a choice of a Mac or a Mac clone I would compare them closely before I bought and pick the one that offered the best value for my money. The reason why I won't buy one now is I want something that actually works. I would not trust the Psystar with software updates, etc. Now if there was an actual licensed vendor... like if Apple gave Lenovo a license to sell Thinkpads and Thinkcenters with OSX and I knew there would be good support then of course I would consider one.

Just because Macs and PCs share similar components doesn't mean the EULA is void, nor does it allow Psystar to hack away at the MacOS. I think this focus on the shared hardware attributes is a red herring.

That said, I'm with you on your clone sentiments. If Apple licensed the OS and I could buy a LEGAL clone, I'd consider it. But we all know that hell will freeze over first...

 

[r.j.s]

Excellent observation. Psystar is flagrantly violating Apple's IP by altering copyright protected code. That's the issue! Bottom line, one cannot install MacOS on any Intel box. All this talk of what chips are inside is meaningless. So the Mac and PC share similar components. Big deal. That doesn't mean Psystar or anyone else has the right to ALTER code they do not own.

I'm rather amazed at how little respect certain people here have for the hard work of others. The entitled attitude on display by some is really appalling.

Agreed.

For those of you who feel like reading this entire argument again, albeit in a different thread, head over to:

THis thread and check out all 42 pages of the same arguments.

It boils down to this, IF Psystar modified Apple's code, then they violated Apple's copyright. End of story.

If they did not, then it becomes much more complex.

What this is not, however, is a anti-trust issue. Apple does not use anti-competitive practices to make you use a Mac, they are not tying anything illegally, because they are a hardware company that makes the software to use their hardware. There is obviously something different in a Mac, otherwise you would be able to install OS X out of the box onto ANY intel-based hardware - without modification.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

What exactly is the Macintosh Platform? Today's Mac is as much of a PC as a PC is. The only difference is one has Windows installed and the other has Mac OSX installed. Macs may look better on the outside, however on the inside the same components are used from the same suppliers. Remember you have to compare hardware quality at the same price level. You can't compare a crappy $350 PC to a $1,400 iMac, but you can compare a $1,400 PC to a $1,400 Mac. At that price level you will not find any difference in the components and most are sourced from the same vendors while final assembly takes place in China.

I don't see why everyone is so scared that someday, somehow there might be a Mac clone again. You don't have to buy it, but many people will if they find it to be a better value. I run an iMac for the OS not for the pretty design, but others value design more then me.

Come on, you own an iMac and your asking me what the experience is?

Maybe i've expected too much from you all. I'm used to speaking in an academic setting where I can safely assume that my particular audience has an ability to use some logic and reasoning. (I kid)

But seriously. The platform that I speak of is the whole of Apple's offerings.
True enough, the hardware that is intergrated into the machine is no different than your standard windows boxes, however I would define the platform as what Apple has laid out.

In a nut shell, alot of the users clammoring for a midrange tower, one that psystar..eh.."offers", are complaining because its simply not the market Apple is in. Apple's offerings are pretty good, in my opinion. Could use a blu-ray drive in my Macbook Pro, but thats besides the point.

Users are looking for something that does not exist (and shouldn't for various reasons). It does not matter what everyone wants, because that is not what the manufacturer is offering. As long as you are in your legal right, if your vehicle does not have an intergrated GPS system, then the platform that the manufacturer has defined will not work for you. Plain and Simple. You can either fudge that requirement, modify the vehicle to your specs, or move along like a good peon.

However, when strictly forbidden by the owner of the work, you may not modify to your hearts content. Software has been restricted in this way because of its relatively easy nature to rip off, and provisions have been put in place to protect IP in the industry, an industry that was once a wild wild west of ideas being stolen , even when one went through the proper precautions to protect their work.

Apple's platform has been defined for us. As it stands, if you want a Mac, or OSX, or logic, or Final Cut Pro, you can have Logic, with a Mac and OSX, or Final Cut Pro, with a Mac and OSX. Heck, you can even get a Mac...with OSX. Apple doesn't even care if you run Windows or not, and aid the user in doing so. You are not at liberty to change whatever you wish in an opportunistic fashion , as these individuals have done.

If you don't like anything about the system(platform) that Apple has laid out, it is your moral and legal right as a citizen with a brain to choose another option. Done.

 

[robbyx]

It boils down to this, IF Psystar modified Apple's code, then they violated Apple's copyright. End of story.

Clearly they have modified Apple's code or MacOS X wouldn't run on their boxes. It's not an IF...

 

[DakotaGuy]

Come on, you own an iMac and your asking me what the experience is?

Maybe i've expected too much from you all. I'm used to speaking in an academic setting where I can safely assume that my particular audience has an ability to use some logic and reasoning. (I kid)

But seriously. The platform that I speak of is the whole of Apple's offerings.
True enough, the hardware that is intergrated into the machine is no different than your standard windows boxes, however I would define the platform as what Apple has laid out.

In a nut shell, alot of the users clammoring for a midrange tower, one that psystar..eh.."offers", are complaining because its simply not the market Apple is in. Apple's offerings are pretty good, in my opinion. Could use a blu-ray drive in my Macbook Pro, but thats besides the point.

Users are looking for something that does not exist (and shouldn't for various reasons). It does not matter what everyone wants, because that is not what the manufacturer is offering. As long as you are in your legal right, if your vehicle does not have an intergrated GPS system, then the platform that the manufacturer has defined will not work for you. Plain and Simple. You can either fudge that requirement, modify the vehicle to your specs, or move along like a good peon.

However, when strictly forbidden by the owner of the work, you may not modify to your hearts content. Software has been restricted in this way because of its relatively easy nature to rip off, and provisions have been put in place to protect IP in the industry, an industry that was once a wild wild west of ideas being stolen , even when one went through the proper precautions to protect their work.

Apple's platform has been defined for us. As it stands, if you want a Mac, or OSX, or logic, or Final Cut Pro, you can have Logic, with a Mac and OSX, or Final Cut Pro, with a Mac and OSX. Heck, you can even get a Mac...with OSX. Apple doesn't even care if you run Windows or not, and aid the user in doing so. You are not at liberty to change whatever you wish in an opportunistic fashion , as these individuals have done.

If you don't like anything about the system(platform) that Apple has laid out, it is your moral and legal right as a citizen with a brain to choose another option. Done.

I run an iMac because I like OSX...is that a good enough reason?

Oh no here comes another clone maker...

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/open-tech-launc.html

 

[IJ Reilly]

Just because Macs and PCs share similar components doesn't mean the EULA is void, nor does it allow Psystar to hack away at the MacOS. I think this focus on the shared hardware attributes is a red herring.

It is, but so is the modification issue. Even if it was trivially easy to install OSX on unauthorized hardware, this would be no less an infringement on Apple's property rights.

 

[robbyx]

It is, but so is the modification issue. Even if it was trivially easy to install OSX on unauthorized hardware, this would be no less an infringement on Apple's property rights.

I agree, but I think it's harder to make the argument that Apple can prevent installation of MacOS X on any old PC if nothing is required other than buying the boxed copy, going home, and installing it. Of course, Apple will NEVER make it that easy, hence the need to modify the code.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oh no here comes another clone maker...

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/open-tech-launc.html

Note that on their web site, they make no mention of the Mac or OSX. They simply say that their computers "run most popular operating systems." The web site at least provides no instructions for installing OSX.

Yet another screwdriver shop without a plan.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I agree, but I think it's harder to make the argument that Apple can prevent installation of MacOS X on any old PC if nothing is required other than buying the boxed copy, going home, and installing it. Of course, Apple will NEVER make it that easy, hence the need to modify the code.

If they want to stop it for good then they need to modify the Apple hardware enough that it becomes a proprietary design that does not allow the software to run on anything but Mac hardware. They need to do something with the x86 hardware that will make it locked down like the PPC hardware was. That is the only way they can stop all of this.

 

[nanofrog]

Note that on their web site, they make no mention of the Mac or OSX. They simply say that their computers "run most popular operating systems." The web site at least provides no instructions for installing OSX.

Yet another screwdriver shop without a plan.

According to the article, the instructions come with the computer.

They aren't installing OS X on the system, and leave it up to the purchaser to do so. This may keep them out of trouble.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

If they want to stop it for good then they need to modify the Apple hardware enough that it becomes a proprietary design that does not allow the software to run on anything but Mac hardware. They need to do something with the x86 hardware that will make it locked down like the PPC hardware was. That is the only way they can stop all of this.

Well, if they win this court case it will probably quash any serious attempts at another Psystar-like clone maker for a while.

Making the hardware physically incompatible with the rest of the Windows world is a bad move. It would be better if interlopers like Psystar just stopped doing what they are doing.

 

[Clive At Five]

You are repeating yourself, but you keep completely missing the point of all these laws. Competition laws try to prevent anti-competitive practices. Any practice is anti-competitive if it prevents competition. "Tying" is illegal if it prevents competition. If it doesn't prevent competition, it is perfectly legal. Now tell us how selling MacOS X + Apple computers together prevents Psystar in any way from selling computers. It doesn't. That is the crucial question: Does Apple prevent Psystar from competing?

You have a very weird idea of what competition means. Apple has plenty of competition. Dell, Toshiba, Lenova, etc. Apple doesn't prevent any of them from selling computers. I don't even understand how you arrive at the anticompetitive conclusion when, quite clearly, Apple isn't doing anything to stop their competition from selling machines. They're just trying to stop some lame opportunist from cashing in on their hard work and untold billions invested in R&D. As they should!

Apple is stifling sales of ALL OTHER HARDWARE RETAILERS by forcing would-be OS X users to buy EXCLUSIVELY Apple hardware.

Um, unrelated? What are you smoking? MacOS and Mac hardware have been intimately related since day one. Just because Apple uses Intel chips today doesn't mean that suddenly they must license to everyone. I don't get why people always want to tear down success. Psystar has done nothing innovative, yet they are supposed to benefit from all of Apple's hard work, marketing efforts, retail effort, etc. All because Apple sells a boxed upgrade copy of OS X for THEIR HARDWARE. There's no logic to your argument, just whining.

"Intimately related..." That's what Apple wants you to think. It was certainly true when Macs ran on the PowerPC platform but since the Intel switch, OS X has been built for the x86 platform. Subsequently, it can't be claimed that OS X necessitates Apple's hardware... especially since it has been shown to run so easily on generic hardware.

Who is stopping anyone from doing this? If you really want to build your own box, buy OS X, and figure out how to get it working, good for you. Apple certainly isn't going to care. But that's not the issue. The issue is some third part opportunist trying to cash in on Apple's hard work.

Apple's EULA is preventing me from doing it. Not physically, of course, since I have OS X running on my hack right now, but by some interpretations, I could be held accountable by law for breach of contract. Whether Apple would/will pursue this or not remains to be seen.

-Clive

 

[DakotaGuy]

Well, if they win this court case it will probably quash any serious attempts at another Psystar-like clone maker for a while.

Making the hardware physically incompatible with the rest of the Windows world is a bad move. It would be better if interlopers like Psystar just stopped doing what they are doing.

Well it's kind of like how chickens can kill a rattlesnake.

If enough of these little clone builders keep popping up Apple is going to spend a lot of time and money defending itself. It might be easier to come up with a "locked" design and be done with trying to stop it in the courts.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Apple is stifling sales of ALL OTHER HARDWARE RETAILERS by forcing would-be OS X users to buy EXCLUSIVELY Apple hardware.

I think this is a little over the top...so it's Apple's fault that Dell, HP et. al. aren't selling more computers because people like you want to run OS X on non-Apple hardware? That would only be the case if you didn't buy a computer. But you did - and it wasn't a Mac. So I don't see any "stifling" going on there.

Apple's EULA is preventing me from doing it. Not physically, of course, since I have OS X running on my hack right now, but by some interpretations, I could be held accountable by law for breach of contract. Whether Apple would/will pursue this or not remains to be seen.

-Clive

Technically, you're in breach of contract and liable for damages. In reality it's unenforceable, so you and all other hackintosh builders are pretty safe from being sued. If you started building and selling hackintoshes as a business, on the other hand, Apple legal would be knocking on your door.

 

[monkeyrun]

The Apple EULA is just like the GNU GPL license. Just because you physically could do it doesn't mean you could.

You could physically distribute a GPL licensed software without the source code doesn't mean you won't eventually get into trouble.

End of story.

 

[137489]

On another note..... My 2 yr old Dell just bit the dust.... A $1300 laptop down the drain.

1. DVD drive never did burn DVD's correctly and Dell could not help me.
2. Hard Drive acting flakey
3. LCD screen appears to have developed an internal crack tonight and the pixels are all messed up with black streaks.
4. Unit is running really hot.

Did some googling

Dell LCD's are prone to failure after one year (lovely).
Dell LCD's have same verticle line issues as reported in MBP, yet Dell says there is nothing that can be done and some blogs indicate that Dell will not replace the screens without charging - even if under warrenty.

While I was waiting for updates/revisions - I had gone ahead and bought a macbook in April and just replaced my wife's dying HP with a mini.

I AM DONE WITH CHEAP CLONES... (WELL, NIETHER THE HP NOR DELL WERE CHEAP - BUT THE HP YOU NO LONGER GET YOUR ORIGINAL DISKS AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE YOUR OWN BACKUPS OF THE OS. DELL ATLEAST GAVE A RECOVERY DISK, BUT GOOD LUCK IF IT INSTALLS CORRECTLY

Thank God for small miracles like Apple where I can get a decent Applecare warrenty, original disks, and have a local place to take it to - should I need it looked at.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

Analogy FAIL. Tying your tracks to the internet doesn't result in your profiting from the sale of computers to access said content.



I'm not saying Psystar is right to resell modified copies of OS X, but I am in favor of allowing an individual user to modify his/her copy without legal consequence... and of course at the price of losing official support from Apple on said copy.

-Clive

The next time you use the jackass statement "ANALOGY FAIL" in this thread (what is this, the tenth time now?) I'm going to scream. My analogy is actually quite rugged, and was actually satirical, not necessarily an anlogy. But just to play along:

I made my music, Apple made OS X. They are both intellectual property.

I decided I didn't want my music on CD, Apple decided they didn't want OS X on Dell or other non-Apple hardwares.

I decided I only wanted to make it available online, Apple decided they only wanted OS X on Apple-branded hardware.

People who like my music, but don't have a computer, want to listen to my music. People who like OS X, but don't want to buy Apple's computers, decide they want it anyways.

Record companies decide they like my music enough to expand its reach to CDs, and other mediums, rather than just the internet. The courts rule that I am attempting to restrict the free market by making my music available only on the internet -- an obvious attempt to prevent people who own CD players but not computers from being able to enjoy [my] music. The courts tell me I have to open up my music to other mediums, or stop making it.

Courts could decide that Apple is attempting to restrict free trade by not making OS X available on other computers, thereby preventing people who own a Dell, but not an Apple computer, from using OS X.

It's not an argument, but it is a very rugged analogy, one that isn't discounted just because you say "ANALOGY FAIL." And the fact that I don't have anything to do with the sale of the computer has nothing to do with my supposed restriction on the free market, in the same way that someone's lack of desire to buy Apple's hardware has nothing to do with their ability to choose other hardware/OSes.

Other than that, we agree. I could give a **** less if you make a hackintosh. While I'm strongly in support of intellectual property rights and the right to do what you want with that, I'm also pretty strong against government/big-business intervention in private affairs, such as your computer hacking (unless it hurts others), or your sex lives. Corporate should be separate from private, which is the distinction I'm making in your Hackintosh vs. Psystar's

 

[aristotle]

Many of you are obviously too young to remember what happened to NeXT when they tried to go up against MSFT in the OEM game. You also forget that OS X is actually subsidized by hardware sales and that NeXTStep on Intel cost around 500 dollars per license.

Apple has the right to sell their hardware with their own OS and they have a right to refuse sale to anyone just like any other business.

You don't see Starbucks selling McDonald's food do you? Do you see Starbucks coffee sold at McDonald's?

Is anyone demanding Xbox 360 game compatibility on the PS3? Is anyone demanding PS3 game compatibility on the Xbox 360?