Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[ChrisA]

From day one I've been saying that Psystar's entire purpose for being was to be sued by Apple. They are really not a clone company so much as a gambling company. If they loose they have no assets and little to loose but if they win they get a court approved legal license way to sell clones. That license could be used or more likely sold. I'd bet a legal clone maker could take a couple percent of Apple's billions per year.

These guys are in the law suit lotto business. It's like Lotto too in that there is little to loose but there is a odd chance you get rich.

Decades ago I took "government" in high school. I still remember from the class that there are several ways to get a law changed. One can write to their representative the hope or you can violate the law and hope to get the law overturned in court. The second way caries some risk. Looks like these guys are going that way.

 

[macsmurf]

Because they would go out of business I expect... They make their profit on the hardware but use their OS as the bait.

It Just Works

So the only reason people buy macs is because of OS X? Sounds like Apple need to improve their hardware instead of using cheap tricks.

 

[KENESS]

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

Except that they aren't really 'making a Mac clone'... They're just bodging some parts together, that OTHERS have found to be essentially compatible, and then hacking someone else's property (Apple's OS) to work on it.

They haven't contributed anything to the equation, except making it easy to get a Hackintosh. And if what they did was to bundle all he parts together for easy purchasing (even an unopened copy of Leopard), and then point the customer to the Hackintosh instructions to do it themselves, I wouldn't consider them so slimy. But they crossed the line.

Does anyone seriously think Apple couldn't product a lower quality, and cheaper, machine if they wanted to? With Apple's buying power they could make an even cheaper computer than Psystar, easily. But that's not a segment Apple is interested in, for the obvious quality reasons.

If they wrote an OS X compatible operating system, then I would consider it a valid 'create a clone' effort.

But they can't be considered a clone manufacturer... They've not DONE anything other than try to profit on others hard work. (Apple's and Hackintosh's)

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

Man, as a lawyer, I'm eager to see all the points they will made to sustain their claim that they could sell apple clones.

Nevertheless, I highly doubt that they will succeed. First of all, because to use the Mac OSX they should at least set a deal with Apple, licensing the OSX for commercial use.

And this is something that Apple will do if it wants to do it. Apple is not obligated by any means to license it's operational system because Psystar want it to happen.

They are forcing the door with a crowbar to open it because they enjoy that room without asking the home owner if he would let them in...

Hope that Apple's attorneys crush Psystar.

 

[plumbingandtech]

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.

Yes. It is. Because if they don't they will run out of money and go out of business.

How many macs can apple ship and what version of OSX can apple ship if they are out of business?


Defending you IP does not make you a faceless corporate prostitute.

Good gracious some of the postings today.

 

[macsmurf]

From day one I've been saying that Psystar's entire purpose for being was to be sued by Apple. They are really not a clone company so much as a gambling company. If they loose they have no assets and little to loose but if they win they get a court approved legal license way to sell clones. That license could be used or more likely sold. I'd bet a legal clone maker could take a couple percent of Apple's billions per year.

If Psystar wins then everyone will do it. They won't need a license from Apple or Psystar for that matter.

 

[corinhorn]

... but now they're about money money money.

And what's wrong with making money?

 

[Greydog]

This is not a matter of what is good for Apple or Psystar as far as their sales figures. It is a basic principle of ownership. Apple is not jsut a software company - if that were the case they would have been dead a long, long time ago. Their success is hinged on making the software AND hardware work hand-in-hand, and though not perfect (not that any engineered system is), the experience in operating and troubleshooting is far superior.

So how can it not be in their right to protect their own work? Why is it monopolistic to invent, design, refine, manufacture and sell something successfully and simply not want to let other competitors take your ideas for their own?

There is plenty of room for other firms to mimic the OS and engineer their own design. But woe is us if we believe it right to allow someone's hard work to be pilfered and redistributed so that everyone can get in on the profits. Sounds a little too "commrade" to me

 

[MacGeek7]

Why don't Apple just sell their OS at a profit (if they aren't already)? Problem solved.

People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
Alan Kay

That being said, if Apple started selling it's OS to other computer manufacturers then I think you would see OS X take a dive in performance much like M$

 

[gnasher729]

What would happen if Psystar wins? would there be 1000 new companies that sprout up doing the same thing? i dont think this would be good for apple

You should ask yourself: What if it were possible to legally sell PCs with MacOS X against Apple's wishes without being sued and losing the case? If that was possible at all, then Dell would have been doing it for at least the last year. I think Psystar's strategy is: Sell some PCs, make some profit, and run away with the money. That is a strategy that Dell cannot use, because they would have to pay up.

 

[LordJohnWhorfin]

At this point, they might as well hire Johnny Cochran and get him to use the Chewbacca defense... That's the only way they'll get out of it.

 

[Ludde]

They can claim whatever they want, it's still not going to fly.
Apple is doing business in the computer market, not in the Apple-market, and thus all babbling about anti-trust and anti-competitive practices is ********.

And to those who say that "competition is always good"...no, it isn't. A sensible amount of competition is good yes, but not competition for the bloody sake of it. Just look at all generic crap that's sold. Look at the 511 kinds of toilet paper or wash powder or soap, that has all in common but the names...is that good, healthy, fair competition? That kind of competition is just all about money and murdering advertising. It has nothing at all to do with pushing your competitors to do something good, or doing anything reasonably good yourself either, but it's all about who can lower the costs and the quality of the ingredients/components the most, and up the profits the most without people bothering to complain.

I, for one, does not want Apple to enter that sort of competition.

 

[plumbingandtech]

Up next,

Sony , Nokia, RIM sue apple for the unrestricted use of the iPhone OS.

Yah, that would be ever so wonderful wouldn't it?

On topic:

This IMO us part of the reason why apple bought PA Semi. Grand Central + OS 10.6 + custom and proprietary motherboard parts = best (and FAST) computer that no one can clone. (and the same goes for the iphone which will do the same only with a slimmer OS X)

 

[KENESS]

So the only reason people buy macs is because of OS X? Sounds like Apple need to improve their hardware instead of using cheap tricks.

Doesn't seem like a cheap trick to me.

The end result is good software running on good hardware at a good price.

Perfect for everyone? Of course not.

But where has this inflated sense of entitlement come from the past few years? "I demand companies do what I want them to do for me!"

And if they don't? They're out of touch, or evil, or doomed to fail...

I don't go into Baskin-Robbins and demand a pizza. If I want a pizza, I pick a good pizza place!

 

[gcmexico]

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.

*
Apple has changed...they have the right to sue...but it's all about money, now at the company...but want can a company do, it's always about the bottom line

 

[ucfgrad93]

Anti-trust against a company that is in single digits in terms of platform market share? Really? Can Sony be sued for anti-trust violations because they don't allow any companies to make PlayStation clones?


Lethal

Agreed. I don't think that Pystar has a leg to stand on.

 

[crees!]

What would happen if Psystar wins? would there be 1000 new companies that sprout up doing the same thing? i dont think this would be good for apple

Any company selling off-brand Macs I would think have to purchase a license for each copy of OS X installed. If I were Apple I'd sell those licenses for $10K a pop.

 

[macsmurf]

This is not a matter of what is good for Apple or Psystar as far as their sales figures. It is a basic principle of ownership. Apple is not jsut a software company - if that were the case they would have been dead a long, long time ago. Their success is hinged on making the software AND hardware work hand-in-hand, and though not perfect (not that any engineered system is), the experience in operating and troubleshooting is far superior.

In that case it would be great for Apple to have people selling hackintoshes. As long as the quality is inferior then people will always turn to Apple in the end.

Of course, if a hackintosh were on par with or superior to Apple's hardware then it would be very important to shut them down.

 

[mpuck972]

I'm "lol'ing" at how upset the fanbois are getting over this. Apple is going to get called on their restrictive policies, and they may be forced to change. See what happens when a company gets big and popular? Now the spotlight will be on the fact that Apple severely restricts users choice in which hardware their software runs on.

The iPhone has been a huge example of Apple saying what customers should have, and then the market showing Apple it was completely wrong. They thought they could sell a phone for $600 and everyone would buy them, wrong. They had to offer a subsidy to get the numbers they were originally hoping for. The jailbreaking they tried numerous times to stop, led to the app store that is a huge success, they should have paid attention from the beginning.

Apple should have done itself a favor and remained in the shadows, with a geeky target audience. Welcome to the big leagues finally.

 

[MidiMonk]

Another Psystar hopeful here, Apple has become the new Microsoft in a few short years.Arrogant, bullheaded, and making others bow to its way of life.Apple is no longer a company that I choose to support at the rate their going.

 

[plumbingandtech]

Apple is going to get called on their restrictive policies,

So you are saying that a company has NO right to defend its intellectual property, its trademarks and its copyrights.

Because that is EXACTLY what apple is doing here.

Thanks for playing.


LOL!

 

[macsmurf]

Doesn't seem like a cheap trick to me.

The end result is good software running on good hardware at a good price.

In that case Apple have nothing to worry about. However, nobody seemto be buying Apple to run Windows on, so I'm guessing there's better hardware out there.

Perfect for everyone? Of course not.

But where has this inflated sense of entitlement come from the past few years? "I demand companies do what I want them to do for me!"

I couldn't care less what Apple does. On the other hand, I don't think they have the right to tell me that I can't run a software product I bought from them on whatever hardware I choose.

 

[WoFat]

What's that smell? Oh... lawyer's here.

Lawyer will argue anything paid enough money. Case confidence parallels if he'll take it on contingency.

 

[Music_Producer]

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.

Uh, it's called shareholders maybe? They *still* are about everything you mention, plus money. You don't want to buy a nice creative, professional, sleek macbook pro and have the company run out of business within a few months, do you?

 

[nagromme]

I like CHOICE.

I like that there's one OS choice where the hardware and software are designed together. And where, as a result, the OS develpers can innovate RAPIDLY (in contrast to Microsoft) without having to test for a chaos of other hardware configs. (And Apple would HAVE to test and support every little OS X feature or change against all those non-Apple harware configs, or else users of those non-Apple computers would end up with big problems... and guess who they'd blame.)

Apple's integreated ("closed" if you like) system has actual ADVANTAGES to the consumer. I'm fine with people who prefer the advantages of a system like Windows that will run on anything. But MY choice is the integrated approach.

I hope to continue to have that choice.

Psystar--and consumers--have the choice of Windows and Linux and many others.

Meanwhile, the lawyers can make the best-sounding noise possible to obtain money for themselves.

I couldn't care less what Apple does. On the other hand, I don't think they have the right to tell me that I can't run a software product I bought from them on whatever hardware I choose.

They tell you that BEFORE you buy the software. You don't have to buy it.

Do you have the right to tell Apple they have to test every feature on YOUR chosen non-Apple hardware, and support you when issues come up, with the result of slowing OS X development down massively, increasing complexity/bloat/instability, and preventing Apple from going in new, better, non-standard directions with their hardware and chip designs?

This isn't about asking Apple to "let" something simple happen (and swallow the lost money). It's about asking Apple to actively DO something incredibly complex and damaging, forever.