And as Psystar has demonstrated, if you ask for it, you're going to get it!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And as Psystar has demonstrated, if you ask for it, you're going to get it!
I hope Psystar was happy with their US DISTRICT COURT WELCOME PACKAGE.
Welcome! We are sooo pleased to see you here in court!
Yeah what he said
So let me get this straight. (Group A) is suing (Group P) for violating copyright law. (Guys they had to make changes to the code to get it installed and to get the updater to work on their modded version).
BUT
Now we have (Group P) accusing that (Group A) is breaking the Anti-Trust law because they want to continue selling OpenComputers with Mac OS X on it.
But what Anti-Trust law is apple breaking? The fact that to get Mac OS X is either own Mac and go buy they upgrade and install that on your Mac. Apple made the software they should have the right do what they want. There are choices to choose from for you computing needs. There are Linux boxes, Windows XP boxes, Windows Visa boxes to choose from. Apple is just another choice
There are ones that believe Mac OS X shouldn't be tied down to only Apple Mac computer. Run it only any computer they wish, they just won't give any support.
There are others that state this will not happen because apple the right to limit their OS to their machines. After all Apple made the software and hardware.
I know there is some holes and pricing right now, but thats still no reason why Apple would be force to open up Mac OS X.
So from my point of view there pluses and minuses of each side. Which side of the coin I am on? Well I am on Apple's side, if Apple is forced to open Mac OS X (not going to happen by the way) then we have all kind of problems.
Apple playing games with the pricing, for non-Apple hardware, giving no support and, no doing any development for drivers for Non Mac computers. I can see a world of hurt by this and people thinking that Mac OS X worthless because it will show Mac OS X not 'just working' any more. Wait until Snow comes out how much will break on non Apple computers. One of the draw reasons for Mac OS X is it 'just works'.
I just don't think you guys are looking at as whole. Just a few want this to happen. (Yes I know about lists of people in another webpage discussion board want MacMini Tower) Apple hardware sells the software. It's just plain as that.
Hugh
So let me get this straight. (Group A) is suing (Group P) for violating copyright law. (Guys they had to make changes to the code to get it installed and to get the updater to work on their modded version).
BUT
Now we have (Group P) accusing that (Group A) is breaking the Anti-Trust law because they want to continue selling OpenComputers with Mac OS X on it.
But what Anti-Trust law is apple breaking? The fact that to get Mac OS X is either own Mac and go buy they upgrade and install that on your Mac. Apple made the software they should have the right do what they want. There are choices to choose from for you computing needs. There are Linux boxes, Windows XP boxes, Windows Visa boxes to choose from. Apple is just another choice
There are ones that believe Mac OS X shouldn't be tied down to only Apple Mac computer. Run it only any computer they wish, they just won't give any support.
There are others that state this will not happen because apple the right to limit their OS to their machines. After all Apple made the software and hardware.
I know there is some holes and pricing right now, but thats still no reason why Apple would be force to open up Mac OS X.
So from my point of view there pluses and minuses of each side. Which side of the coin I am on? Well I am on Apple's side, if Apple is forced to open Mac OS X (not going to happen by the way) then we have all kind of problems.
Apple playing games with the pricing, for non-Apple hardware, giving no support and, no doing any development for drivers for Non Mac computers. I can see a world of hurt by this and people thinking that Mac OS X worthless because it will show Mac OS X not 'just working' any more. Wait until Snow comes out how much will break on non Apple computers. One of the draw reasons for Mac OS X is it 'just works'.
I just don't think you guys are looking at as whole. Just a few want this to happen. (Yes I know about lists of people in another webpage discussion board want MacMini Tower) Apple hardware sells the software. It's just plain as that.
Hugh
No. Psystar is not counter-suing Apple, they are using the Anti-Trust claim as a defense to Apple's lawsuit.
No they can't. But they don't have to support it on non Apple hardware. I don't think any lawyer could ever come up with an argument that says that Apple should program OS X to account for every configuration of PC like Windows does.
Apple makes OS X for its own hardware, not because of the want to restrict competition (restrict competition with who?!), but because unlike Windows they want to make sure that it runs as smoothly as possible on their systems. This is almost impossible to do with an OS like Windows where there are several billion combinations of hardware.
If Apple did lose this case they could just say "Well okay, you can run our OS if you like. But we will not cover you under any warranties or guarantees, we won't account for non Apple hardware in our programming, and if something goes wrong or doesn't work then you'll have to deal with Psystar, not us. Buy at your own risk."
I think the more likely thing if they lose is that a full OSX license will cost so much that no company could compete with Apple using OSX and Mac owners will be able to get an upgrade version. This case won't force Apple to allow other companies to bundle OSX and undercut Apple. They could also add propietary hardware to Macs that is needed to run OSX.
Or we could see a dual ruling that says, effectively, that Apple cannot deny individuals the right to install OS X on non-Apple-branded computers, but that Psystar violated Apple's copyrights in modifying code to allow Psystar computers to receive Apple software updates (assuming Psystar is doing this).
Such a ruling would likely kill the company (and any other small-time cloner) because without being able to use Apple's code to fix bugs, Psystar would have to hire a team of programmers to reverse-engineer Apple's fixes and then write clean code to update them which would take time and money. And a Psystar computer that is unpatchable (or takes weeks or months to patch) would not appeal to any customer concerned with secure computing.
Such a ruling would also allow the Hackintosh community to have legal sanction to install OS X on their own hand-built PCs, while precluding those people from forming a company around doing it, which protects Apple's position in the marketplace.
Dream on. None of this is going to happen. It would be positively ludicrous for any court to determine that Apple did not have the right to be the only company to manufacture and sell Macintosh computers. In the final analysis, this is issue. A Macintosh computer is Mac hardware plus OSX. They aren't separated just because someone wishes they were.
I switched to the Mac and OS X last year because I was tired of Windows. It was too complex and too fractured. It worked, but it did not work elegantly.
To me, the Mac and OS X are an elegant solution. The OS is elegant. Installing and uninstalling applications is elegant. The hardware is elegant. The entire experience is elegant. The cliché "It just works" is not a cliche for me - it really does just work.
People who build Hackintoshes do so with the knowledge that it's not going to be as easy as just buying a Mac. They understand that and they accept that - and if they don't, well complaining about it on a forum is going to just earn them derision. And I absolutely do not begrudge those who enjoy the challenge of building an OS X system that Apple does not offer. That Apple has not actively hindered the Hackintosh community seems to imply that they don't view it as a threat to their image. And that is what Psystar is - a possible threat to their image.
There will be people - many people - who will buy these machines expecting it to work like a "real Mac" and when it doesn't, assuming that the problem is that OS X is a bad operating system. They won't understand what a Hackintosh entails because they've likely never heard of the term. All they know is they "bought a Mac" and it didn't work well. And they'll go back to Windows and tell their friends that the Mac is not good.
Sure, it's a simplistic complaint, but it's a legitimate one. Much of what makes a Mac - or an iPhone or iPod, for that matter - a pleasure to use is because it is a tightly-controlled environment. People can rightly and legitimately complain that Apple doesn't offer them what they want so they should be able to get it somewhere else, but Apple can rightly and legitimately counter-claim that they wish to maintain an environment that makes Apple products and services so compelling.
And I think we see that with the calls for Apple to release a Mini Tower or a workstation-class notebook or a full-featured sub-notebook. They want the Apple experience from Apple. They don't want to buy a Lenovo W700 and then fight to get it to run OS X. They want Apple to make a MacBook Workstation. They don't want to buy a Dell XPS 630 and work to make it work with OS X. They want Apple to make a Mac Mini Tower that supports quad-core CPUs and SLI graphics options.
And if Apple won't do it, they want someone else to do it for them, be it Psystar, OpenTech or even Dell and Lenovo themselves. And I can understand that, in a way. I went to Apple because I don't want to build PCs anymore. I don't want to have to fight with my OS to get it to recognize hardware. I want it to just work from the moment I turn it on. And Apple Mac's do that. Hackintoshes don't - at least not at first.
But like the song says, you can't always get what you want. If you really want a machine that Apple does not offer, you may just have to roll-up your sleeves, crack a PC hardware book, open up a few Google searches, and build it yourself and maintain it yourself.
Whether the Mac is a pleasure or a horror to use, the principle at stake is the same: It's Apple's product, and they have the exclusive right to determine how it is manufactured, marketed and sold. The only way they can have this right restricted is if a court decides that "Apple Macintosh computers" are a separate and distinct market. This is a plainly ridiculous concept, because if this is true, then every other product sold is a separate market which constitutes an illegal monopoly.
Why doesn't Apple remember its small company roots? Why has it become the faceless corporate prostitute it is today? They used to be about creativity, art, change, liberal politics, education, sophistication... but now they're about money money money.
Apple's first advertisement had a local phone number for Palo Alto California on it that would reach a person directly. In fact, if you really wanted, you could have probably talked to Jobs on the phone if you asked nicely.
I don't believe Apple is faceless. Yes, they are about money, but what corporation isn't? The difference is their willingness to put more of that money into research and development, not settling for less because it's cheaper, and being the first to utilise various new technologies. In a sense, they're forcing technology forward and preventing it from stagnating.
If Apple goes against osx86, I'd be against it. That is a community. Psystar is an organisation trying to make profit, and consequently should follow the same rules as anyone else.
Agree completely.. though, to be honest, I think people should stop fearing the iMac. Computers aren't that upgradeable these days, and the benefits of a sleek, sexy all-in-one far outweigh the setbacks. You can upgrade the RAM, and (while not the easiest of tasks) the hard drive and graphics card too. For that difficulty you have _no_ brick tower, a much better screen than you'll find elsewhere, inbuilt everything that just works and a price that, while a few hundred more expensive than a PC, is well worthwhile when it doesn't break after 6 months
And unless you're editing movies (in which case, get a Mac Pro) or downloading a whole lot of illegal crap (in which case, shame on you
), it's not that easy to use several hundred GB.Back when I was a PC user, every time I'd go to buy a new part (other than RAM or a hard drive), I'd end up coming home with enough parts for a new computer
I went through the phase of hating Apple for not offering a mid-range tower, but I eventually went with the iMac and couldn't be happier with it.
The only thing Apple needs to do, in my opinion, is offer more up-to-date graphics cards with the iMacs and a Mini that has dedicated video. And maybe make them a little easier to open, but only if it doesn't compromise the looks and noiselessness
The imacs also needs more screen choice.Agree completely.. though, to be honest, I think people should stop fearing the iMac. Computers aren't that upgradeable these days, and the benefits of a sleek, sexy all-in-one far outweigh the setbacks. You can upgrade the RAM, and (while not the easiest of tasks) the hard drive and graphics card too. For that difficulty you have _no_ brick tower, a much better screen than you'll find elsewhere, inbuilt everything that just works and a price that, while a few hundred more expensive than a PC, is well worthwhile when it doesn't break after 6 months
And unless you're editing movies (in which case, get a Mac Pro) or downloading a whole lot of illegal crap (in which case, shame on you
Back when I was a PC user, every time I'd go to buy a new part (other than RAM or a hard drive), I'd end up coming home with enough parts for a new computer
I went through the phase of hating Apple for not offering a mid-range tower, but I eventually went with the iMac and couldn't be happier with it.
The only thing Apple needs to do, in my opinion, is offer more up-to-date graphics cards with the iMacs and a Mini that has dedicated video. And maybe make them a little easier to open, but only if it doesn't compromise the looks and noiselessness
A couple members of the "Typo Eradication Advancement League" were arrested this month.
Seems good grammar is a crime.
I'd agree with this. The RAM and the HDD are the only things you really need to be able to upgrade with a computer unless you are a user who needs lots of additional hardware for professional tasks. In which case a Mac Pro is the answer.
I've been through the 'upgrade' thing with PC's more times than I care to remember. And each time I might as well have bought a brand new computer.
Seriously you immature guys, why do u all seem to say that Apple makes its own parts? its intel and nvidia and etc.....
ANd they set up osx to allow installs of xp and vista, so why do they think they have the right to have privileges they dont give others? Answers on a postcard....
ANd they set up osx to allow installs of xp and vista, so why do they think they have the right to have privileges they dont give others? Answers on a postcard....
Unlike Apple, Microsoft places little or no restrictions on what machines you can install Windows on. As long as you pay them for the license, they're happy.
Microsoft has a completely different business model. They have never sold computers. They have always sold only licenses to OEMs and consumers to install their operating systems on computers manufactured by others. Except for the limited cloning experiment during the '90s, Apple has never licensed their OS this way. They have otherwise always sold personal computers, which is the hardware and the operating system together.
Lenovo builds the MacBook Pros on behalf of Apple.
So No, Apple would cut their contact faster than you can say "that was dumb"
or Maybe, if Apple did licence Mac OS X to others then those Making Mac's for Apple would be the first as they would could build compatible hardware that is not going to show the Product in a bad light.
Although a very very slim maybe.
Apple learned from the original clone experiment the costs of not protecting the entire brand - hardware and software. When they licensed System 7, the software no longer set Apple apart. And Apple was not able to adjust as quickly as other OEMs at adopting the latest technology. And it didn't help that two of those OEMs - IBM and Motorola - were designing the hardware Apple was using.
So when only the hardware mattered - and Apple didn't have the best hardware - they suffered for it.
And, frankly, so did the Mac user base. Apple didn't have the sales to generate the cash to improve the hardware (Macs) or the software (updating System 7 and launching System 8) as quickly.
The even more important reality is that creating competitors for one's own products is an unconventional and dangerous strategy. I can't think of a single place where it has worked to the benefit of the owners of the product, and a number where it has failed. The virtual impossibility is preventing the competitors you've created from cannibalizing your market share, which is precisely what happened in Apple's case. Even with the control Apple exerted over the clone licensees, they couldn't prevent them from (for example) advertising exclusively in Mac magazines. It seems obvious now, but I guess it wasn't then, that it was much easier for the cloners to go after existing Mac owners than to try to find new Mac buyers. So that's what they did, and that's the principal reason why the clone experiment failed. It was doomed from the start.