Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[Lord Blackadder]

I challenge you to find a HW/SW combo where the manufacturer sells the SW individually but forces you to buy their hardware from them even though it's nearly identical to the hardware found in the store. If you do, then we'll talk.

Apple isn't guilty until proven innocent here - it's the other way around. Until you can provide evidence that Apple is actually breaking the law your emotional appeals aren't going to convince anyone. You are the one that needs to provide a precedent that we can use to show that Apple is doing something illegal.

I own a copy of OS X which I purchased legally from an Apple store. For hardware, I want Abit's motherboard, Intel's Q6600, and OCZ's RAM. If I were to abide by Apple's EULA, the companies whose hardware I want would not get the sales they deserve. Instead, I would be forced to buy Apple's hardware, an unrelated product that I don't want and doesn't deserve my purchase of it.

So what? This may be a personal tragedy for you, but you are not putting forth any argument that Apple is breaking the law here. You are essentially insisting that Apple allow you to create the system you want, or else they are breaking the law...

...oddly enough, all this bile has been generated by Apple's attempt to make the Mac more open in the first place. People like you were nowhere to be found during the PPC years, a period I'd guess you'd describe as Apple's irrelevant years anyway. But now that they've gone Intel, matured OS X, and released BootCamp, switchers are unwilling to let go of the hardware choices they had in the PC world. Fair enough, I sympathize on that point, but you go too far in characterizing it as a wrong committed against you, the consumer, by Apple.

 

[CWallace]

(Apple's hardware is) an artificial, unneeded prerequisite to using OS X.

Only because it now runs on the Intel x86 instruction set and that instruction set is used by the majority of the world's computers.

When it ran only on PowerPC or the Motorola 68000-series, Apple hardware was not am "artificial, unneeded prerequisite" to use OS X / System X any less then an IBM AS/400 is an "artificial, unneeded prerequisite" to use OS/400. You can't run Panther on an Intel PC, much less System 7.

 

[El Magnificante]

Of course you do. There may be many more choices, but you still have to choose hardware that's compatible. You can't just slap together a box of random computer parts and expect it's going to boot up and run XP problem free.



Give me something thoughtful to respond to, and I will.

You mean I can't buy two rotors from Wankel, three pistons from Cummins and one from Mahle, and make a V6 to run on Ethanol??? WTF

 

[Clive At Five]

That quip by Steve was in response to the 8 different versions of Vista that MS is selling (4 separate "editions" and each edition comes in "full" or "upgrade").

Quip or not, it was implied that the OS X Apple sells the whole shebang in every box.

What is the difference between using software to run console games on hardware the games weren't designed to run on and using software to run OS X on hardware it wasn't designed to run on?

OS X Leopard WAS designed to run on x86 hardware!

If Apple was still using Moto/IBM PPC chips would you still think they were being anti-competitive?

No.

Only because it now runs on the Intel x86 instruction set and that instruction set is used by the majority of the world's computers.

When it ran only on PowerPC or the Motorola 68000-series, Apple hardware was not am "artificial, unneeded prerequisite" to use OS X / System X any less then an IBM AS/400 is an "artificial, unneeded prerequisite" to use OS/400. You can't run Panther on an Intel PC, much less System 7.

Correct.

Apple isn't guilty until proven innocent here - it's the other way around. Until you can provide evidence that Apple is actually breaking the law your emotional appeals aren't going to convince anyone. You are the one that needs to provide a precedent that we can use to show that Apple is doing something illegal.

I've already stated my argument many times. I'm of course not a judge or jury but every court case starts with a conviction. That conviction has been made and the case will be going to court. We'll find out what happens.

...oddly enough, all this bile has been generated by Apple's attempt to make the Mac more open in the first place. People like you were nowhere to be found during the PPC years, a period I'd guess you'd describe as Apple's irrelevant years anyway. But now that they've gone Intel, matured OS X, and released BootCamp, switchers are unwilling to let go of the hardware choices they had in the PC world. Fair enough, I sympathize on that point, but you go too far in characterizing it as a wrong committed against you, the consumer, by Apple.

Hmm, a "newcomer" like me? Before my Hackintosh, I had a G4 iMac. Before my G4 iMac, I had a G3 iMac DV SE. Before my G3 iMac DV SE, I used a Performa 630 CD. Before the Performa 630 CD, I used an Apple // gs. Before that, I was not old enough to use computers. During the dark days of the 90s, I was laughed at by my friends for defending Apple. (Now who's laughing?)

As someone who DOES know Apple, and DOES know computers, and DOES know what hardware he needs, I feel abandoned by Apple. That sentiment, of course, is of no relevance in court, but you should at least know the truth of where I stand and why I stand there, especially before making accusations of me coming to spoil Apple's party.

-Clive

 

[Maui]

I'm of course not a judge or jury but every court case starts with a conviction. That conviction has been made and the case will be going to court. We'll find out what happens.

Incorrect. A civil case begins with a document called (in the US) a Complaint. Convictions have nothing to do with this case -- which is a civil matter, not criminal.

 

[aristotle]

Wrong. Apple sells Macintosh computers, but ALSO OS X is a stand-alone product at every physical Apple store. It has its own listing in the online store aand is even resold individually by countless retailers around the globe. It can feasibly be purchased without ever having purchased a Mac.

The Macintosh = Products A + B... but OS X is just Product B. Apple sells both.

-Clive

Wrong. Apple sell upgrades to OS X in physical boxes in Apple stores. Trying to install OS X on a non-Apple box is like buying the upgrade version of Photoshop and hacking it to install without the previous version installed. Just because it does not check for a previous install, it does not mean that it is not an upgrade. You can tell that it is an upgrade because it does not come iLife or other applications while the restore CD that comes with you mac does.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Quip or not, it was implied that the OS X Apple sells the whole shebang in every box.

Easy there tiger. You were hazy on your recollection so I was just recounting what jobs said and why.

OS X Leopard WAS designed to run on x86 hardware!

Designed to run on Apple's hardware which, for the time being, is x86 in nature. Xbox 1 games are designed to run on x86 hardware as well but for some reason when I pop Halo 2 into my Mac Pro nothing happens.

I've already stated my argument many times. I'm of course not a judge or jury but every court case starts with a conviction.

Er, not really.
Conviction: The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.

As someone who DOES know Apple, and DOES know computers, and DOES know what hardware he needs, I feel abandoned by Apple. That sentiment, of course, is of no relevance in court, but you should at least know the truth of where I stand and why I stand there, especially before making accusations of me coming to spoil Apple's party.

As someone who knows Apple so well, how can you feel abandoned by them when Apple supplying the OS and the hardware is their basic business model and has been for decades?


Lethal

 

[cromwell64]

I've already stated my argument many times. I'm of course not a judge or jury but every court case starts with a conviction. That conviction has been made and the case will be going to court. We'll find out what happens.

Conviction? A conviction is a verdict that comes at the end of a criminal trial if the prosecution was successful. It definitely does not come at the beginning of a civil lawsuit.

 

[trickytrav]

About That...

You can't run Panther on an Intel PC, much less System 7.

Actually Panther (As well as every other version of OS X I might add) can run on Intel Processors has been from the start, the so-called "Marklar" Project, Jobs admitted it himself at WWDC 06 (though he didn't say it was called Marklar) he called it a "just-in case" scenario, they've all been written and compiled since the beginning WITHOUT requiring apple hardware (hence the "just in-case")

Let's be honest here the ONLY reason Apple has not released OS X for use on any PC is Steve Jobs' own OCD or idealism, or whatever you want to call it, its the same reason Apple mice dont have real right mouse buttons or the fact that Steve Jobs is always talking negatively about buttons or stylis' on the iPhone, now don't get me wrong I can't stand stylis' or too many buttons myself, but Jobs gets crazy with it.

Another example of what I'm talking about is this: Go onto Apple.com right now, and watch the guided tour videos, notice anything about their dress? Yeah they are ALL dressed like his Steveness. One of my friends, who, after my showing him how great OS X is (on a "real" Mac btw, wants to by a Mac, but admits that some of Steve Jobs' weirdness turns him of from Apple.

My point is, while some of Jobs' OCD about font sizes, and attention to detail is good for Apple and their products, when it goes too far it can hurt Apple, and its perception by some.

Small Note: I've been a Apple fan for over 4 years, and have owned just about every intel Mac (barring a Mac Pro) and a couple of PowerPC Macs, + countless iPods and both generations of iPhone, so I'm not an Apple-hater, or troll, I just think it's time we, as Apple fans start looking at this from a cool, realistic head, and not just believe every word Apple and Steve Jobs say to us, and follow it blindly on a whim.

/rant over

 

[gnasher729]

I've already stated my argument many times. I'm of course not a judge or jury but every court case starts with a conviction. That conviction has been made and the case will be going to court. We'll find out what happens.

That about shows the quality of your arguments. No court case starts with a conviction, at least not in any civilised country. Civil court cases end with a judgement, which is not a conviction. Criminal court cases _end_ (not start) either with a conviction, or an acquittal.

This particular court case has started with 30 pages of claims by Apple how Psystar is damaging them; Psystar has now some time to answer to all these claims.

And with the kind of jokers that seem to run Psystar, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they never bothered asking Apple for a license to distribute MacOS X. Which would get rid of any "anti-trust defence" because of lack of standing. And if they asked for a license now, I think any judge would be very, very understanding if Apple pointed out that they have no intention at all to enter any business relationship whatsoever with a company that is right now being sued by Apple for illegally distributing Apple's software and damaging Apple's good name, and that any business relationship would have to wait until the court case is finished and damages paid in full.

 

[kroko]

I wish Psystar luck. And it's not about them, I don't respect how they used x86 project to make business. The outcome I want to see- it's legit to install Mac OS X on machines without on the box.

 

[Clive At Five]

RE: "Conviction"

Good grief people! So I chose a single poor word. RELAX. You know what I meant.

How about getting back to the actual argument instead of picking away at my vocabulary?

As someone who knows Apple so well, how can you feel abandoned by them when Apple supplying the OS and the hardware is their basic business model and has been for decades?

Apple had ALWAYS treated its pro and prosumer users best. Now they act like we (prosumers) don't even exist! They killed the low-end PowerMac and whored themselves out to the mass market. I know they're a business whose purpose is to make money, but it feels like Apple, who was once a close friend with me and all nerds, abandoned us to go hang out with the popular crowd... and not only does Apple ignore us in the hall, they've taken to shoving us into lockers.

The story of my life...

H4ck1nt0shes = Revenge of the nerds, bwahaha.

-Clive

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Hmm, a "newcomer" like me? Before my Hackintosh, I had a G4 iMac. Before my G4 iMac, I had a G3 iMac DV SE. Before my G3 iMac DV SE, I used a Performa 630 CD. Before the Performa 630 CD, I used an Apple // gs. Before that, I was not old enough to use computers. During the dark days of the 90s, I was laughed at by my friends for defending Apple. (Now who's laughing?)

As someone who DOES know Apple, and DOES know computers, and DOES know what hardware he needs, I feel abandoned by Apple. That sentiment, of course, is of no relevance in court, but you should at least know the truth of where I stand and why I stand there, especially before making accusations of me coming to spoil Apple's party.

-Clive

Fair enough. I've been using Apple products as well as PCs since the 80s, and I don't feel abandoned by Apple one bit. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are conflating an emotional response with a legal argument. I've been saying, and you are also now saying, that it will be decided in court. True - but don't get your hopes up. Your peoples' champion in the form of Psystar is not long for this world, and I might suggest that you consider abandoning the Mac if you can't deal with the current licensing situation; it isn't going to change.

You shouldn't see this as a personal thing - NOT ONE OF THESE COMPANIES CARES ABOUT YOU OR ME. It's 100% about making money.

 

[Clive At Five]

You shouldn't see this as a personal thing - NOT ONE OF THESE COMPANIES CARES ABOUT YOU OR ME. It's 100% about making money.

Of this sad truth I am aware. I wish more companies actually cared about their customers... you know... past the minimum point of where they ensure they can make their buck.

-Clive

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Of this sad truth I am aware. I wish more companies actually cared about their customers... you know... past the minimum point of where they ensure they can make their buck.

-Clive

Welcome to the capitalist world...companies don't prosper by caring about their customers. Make no mistake, Psystar doesn't care about you any more than Apple does. Newegg, the perceived champion of the DIY computer geek, couldn't care less either. It's all about convincing you to buy their products - they'll keep their finger on the consumer's pulse and produce what the consumer wants (statistically speaking), but they don't care, in personal terms, about you.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not saying it obligates anything. I'm just saying that when someone buys Leopard from the Apple store they get the completely OS, not an incomplete OS that is dependent on a previously installed version of the OS in order to work. It's not like say, FCP or After Effects where there are distinctly different 'upgrade' and 'full' versions to choose from. One can 'upgrade' from Tiger to Leopard but the copy of Leopard is a full blown version of the software, not an 'upgrade' version.

I know, to which I am adding that it doesn't matter. It's a distinction without a difference. I suspect we agree on this substance of this point, but raising this as a possibly important distinction seems to be supporting the assertion that it must be a "separate product," which Apple must allow the buyer to use in any way they see fit.

 

[Gasu E.]

Unfortunately, forcing Apple to allow OSX to run on non-Apple hardware will only end up inconveniencing everyone without truly opening up anything. Apple's business model is that some of the OS development cost is absorbed by the hardware. If Psystar wins, Apple will have to change this. The cost of shelf copies of OSX will undoubtedly go up significantly, and this will be perfectly legal. Apple will also undoubtedly "bundle" a discount on future upgrades with each system sale-- also perfectly legal. The net result will be that Psystar customers will end up paying a premium on OSX that may wipe of the hardware price advantage.

I suppose opening up OSX may allow a quality manufacturer to offer a premium product that compete with Apple on options, quality or features; that would surely be a good thing for consumers. Possibly one of the better PC manufacturers would have some OSX offerings. But I do not expect a Psystar victory to open up any competition on the low end. Apple can easily control that through changing the hardware/software pricing balance.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So what? This may be a personal tragedy for you, but you are not putting forth any argument that Apple is breaking the law here. You are essentially insisting that Apple allow you to create the system you want, or else they are breaking the law...

You've put your finger on the foundation of so many arguments, which is in essence, "if it's not good for me, then it must be wrong."

 

[Lord Blackadder]

You've put your finger on the foundation of so many arguments, which is in essence, "if it's not good for me, then it must be wrong."

The scary part about this (and something I doubt some people here have considered) is that this attitude creates an environment where Apple will feel compelled to sell us locked, incomplete or otherwise restricted access software in order to defeat people's attempts to exercise their perceived "right" to install OS X on whatever they can hack it to.

I don't think anyone wants that to happen, do we?

 

[IJ Reilly]

The scary part about this (and something I doubt some people here have considered) is that this attitude creates an environment where Apple will feel compelled to sell us locked, incomplete or otherwise restricted access software in order to defeat people's attempts to exercise their perceived "right" to install OS X on whatever they can hack it to.

I don't think anyone wants that to happen, do we?

Yup. Even if Apple had a change of heart on licensing OSX for use on non-Apple hardware, to thwart rampant piracy they'd be forced to implement a serial number hardware locking system similar to the one Microsoft uses for Windows. That would be fun. Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Clive At Five]

Yup. Even if Apple had a change of heart on licensing OSX for use on non-Apple hardware, to thwart rampant piracy they'd be forced to implement a serial number hardware locking system similar to the one Microsoft uses for Windows. That would be fun. Be careful what you wish for...

Aside from being a one-time annoyance, the serial number system is not that big of a deal. The only people it truly aggravates are pirates.

-Clive

 

[iLunar]

OS X Leopard WAS designed to run on x86 hardware!

No, OSX was designed to run on Apple_x86 hardware. Just because someone can hack it to run on any_x86 doesn't mean anything.

 

[CWallace]

Aside from being a one-time annoyance, the serial number system is not that big of a deal. The only people it truly aggravates are pirates.

Not if Apple goes the next step and requires "active activation" (ala Windows, Office, Adobe, and others) which would almost be assured since otherwise it's as toothless as just leaving it wide open.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Aside from being a one-time annoyance, the serial number system is not that big of a deal. The only people it truly aggravates are pirates.

-Clive

Apple could initiate checks on hardware that would break every hackintosh connected to the internet. Windows does it, and Psystar could push Apple into doing it. It could still be hacked, but most of the people annoyed with it would be legitimate users.

 

[gnasher729]

Unfortunately, forcing Apple to allow OSX to run on non-Apple hardware will only end up inconveniencing everyone without truly opening up anything. Apple's business model is that some of the OS development cost is absorbed by the hardware. If Psystar wins, Apple will have to change this. The cost of shelf copies of OSX will undoubtedly go up significantly, and this will be perfectly legal. Apple will also undoubtedly "bundle" a discount on future upgrades with each system sale-- also perfectly legal. The net result will be that Psystar customers will end up paying a premium on OSX that may wipe of the hardware price advantage.

Don't worry about that. Look, if selling MacOS X for Apple computers only were in any way illegal, then Dell would have sued Apple years ago (or would have used the argument to "convince" Apple to license MacOS X to them). We know that Dell _wants_ MacOS X, and I bet Dell could easily sell a million computers running MacOS X every year. The difference here is that Dell is a proper business, employing proper lawyers. These lawyers have probably been asked at some point "anything we can do to force Apple to give us a license?" and have answered "nope". Psystar, on the other hand, is a bunch of clueless amateurs, who somehow thought they could piss on Apple's shoes without any consequences.

What the whiners here don't understand is what "anti-competitive" means: It is anything that prevents competition. Being better than your competition (by selling a better operating system exclusively) is competitive, not anti-competitive. Anyone (Dell, HP etc.) can compete by advising Microsoft how to improve Windows, or by investing some money to improve Linux. Forcing companies to make things they developed at high cost to gain a commercial advantage available to others would destroy the incentive for innovation and would discourage competition - exactly the opposite of what anti-competition laws are supposed to achieve.