Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[plumbingandtech]

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.

And I don't think it is right that Warner Brothers says I can't sell my pirated copies of Dark Night on the corner of 57ths and Holland blvd.



If you do not like what apple allows or not allows you to do with THEIR intellectual property as explained in the EULA then don't use it.

Period.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

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.

In other words: Apple invest millions of dollars in research, development, programming, market research, everything, compile all the code, spend a lot with test and with testers, market their product and note how well software and hardware are integrated in Apple's machines, and do this for years and years.

When Apple hit the jackpot, with iPhone, iPod and the Mac selling like hot cakes, enters PSYSTAR to hack the Mac OSX and start selling it in crappy machines to just to make some money that legally belongs to Apple.

And you really think it is ok, fine, and the wrong in this history is Apple, because it is defending its interests and all this years of efforts?

What a strange point of view.

 

[JoeDRC]

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.

Because thats not how large multi-national corporations work. You expand and become more professional.
The Apple you want has changed, grown up just like all the other corporations. It still stands for fun, creativity etc. you just have to watch an iPod ad to know that.


Apple is quite lucky as it has Steve Jobs, hes the face of Apple, he introduces the new products at keynotes etc.

 

[plinkoman]

the anti-trust argument is baseless. A closed system is not a monopoly.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

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.

It is Apple software, and I think it is fair enough for them to decide where they think it is ok to use it. They develop the software to sell more hardware, to make some money out of this.

I don't get why it is wrong.

 

[KENESS]

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.

I don't think its a case of 'better hardware' or anything like that, just that these things come as packages, both Windows machines and Macs...

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.

As an individual, I agree. I'm all about the tinkering. But I consider it an 'at my own risk' kind of thing.

Psystar, though, crossed the legality line (to be determined, though I don't think they have any chance) when then decided to profit, as a company, from it.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I would like to see Microsoft want to make their own Macs by shipping Microsoft Computers pre-loaded with Leopard.

I hope they win their case so better choices are available to meet everyone's needs.

 

[GoodWatch]

I read this as such:
"We'd like to see OS X running on our hardware, which is of low quality. This will help OS X look inferior to Windows in many ways as people have problems with it while thinking they got a good deal on a 'Mac.'"

Who says the hardware is of low quality? That's not the issue here. In fact, many of the components in my iMac are standard PC hardware.

 

[englishman]

Go Psystar!

Not stealing - they pay for each and every license fair and square, increasing Apple's profits each sale.

Better for everyone - more choice.

As Apple takes up an increasing proportion of the market as figures show, it would be correct to treat this as an Anti-trust issue.

Funnily enough - it will even be better for the negative camp - as they will benefit from Apple having to have increased choice - and maybe changing their unarguable extortionate pricing in eg extra RAM.

It would be a win for all - even those against it.

 

[FaasNat]

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.

I seem to recall Apple struggling with this. When the Mac clones were outselling Apple's Macs, instead of innovating and excelling, they bought out and killed off the clones.

 

[Jeff_R]

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

I think there's a pretty solid difference here, however. Sony and M$ don't sell their OS software for XB360 or PS3 by itself. You must purchase an XBox or PlayStation to get the software. Any updates are send, at no cost, to the box.

With OSX, I go to the Apple Store, or Amazon.com, or whoever, and purchase a copy for myself. I take it home, and install it. It's my disk, I purchased the software install rights.

I think what it's really going to come down to in an antitrust case is "Can Apple tell me what type of hardware I must install this software on after I purchase it?

I don't want to see Mac clones out there, as what others have mentioned is likely, and I don't want to see cheap reproductions or knock offs, but the full Apple experience.

 

[KENESS]

Who says the hardware is of low quality? That's not the issue here. In fact, many of the components in my iMac are standard PC hardware.

"Standard" doesn't have anything to do with quality. Some components are easy... HDs or memory for example. You've got a Western Digital ABC101 hard drive in your PC and a Western Digital ABC101 in your Mac? They're just as good.

But there's a lot more there. Power supply, the circuit and logic boards, wiring etc etc. And lets not forget casing. Love them or hate them for their accessibility (depending on your model!), Apple's cases are high quality.

And I'm not saying Apple never has quality control issues, of course... But their #1 goal isn't 'make it as cheap as possible' which is often the case with the no-name stuff, which often ends up in other PCs...

 

[Fabiano]

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.



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.

thats it, the thread can be closed now! no more else to say.

 

[gonnabuyamac]

I'll be the first to admit that I actually am not that crazy about Apple hardware. I'm on my third MBP because of so many defects. And, I would love a mid-range tower. I'm a graphic designer, so I like a good powerful computer, but I really can't justify the $ for a Mac Pro.

However, I do not want Apple to have to deal with the issues MS deals with - having to design software that has to run on any random hardware configuration, dealing with drivers, headaches, etc.

 

[GripperDon]

As usual, Steve Arrogant is at it again

This way they can keep overcharging for both software and hardware. Of course it is a monopoly. Who really cares what lawyers say they have approval rating even lower than Pelosi Maybe Apple is saving the planet like she is.

 

[macsmurf]

And I don't think it is right that Warner Brothers says I can't sell my pirated copies of Dark Night on the corner of 57ths and Holland blvd.



If you do not like what apple allows or not allows you to do with THEIR intellectual property as explained in the EULA then don't use it.

Period.

Well, you can't legally watch your store-bought DVD on Linux. I guess you think that's completely fair. You apparently think it's similar to software piracy. It's not, though.

 

[KENESS]

This way they can keep overcharging for both software and hardware. Of course it is a monopoly. Who really cares what lawyers say they have approval rating even lower than Pelosi Maybe Apple is saving the planet like she is.

Do they? Is it? Really, that low? I knew I wasn't supposed to like her...

I've been so enlightened.

*sigh*

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

 

[nagromme]

Go Psystar!

Not stealing - they pay for each and every license fair and square, increasing Apple's profits each sale.

Better for everyone - more choice.

As Apple takes up an increasing proportion of the market as figures show, it would be correct to treat this as an Anti-trust issue.

Funnily enough - it will even be better for the negative camp - as they will benefit from Apple having to have increased choice - and maybe changing their unarguable extortionate pricing in eg extra RAM.

It would be a win for all - even those against it.

Apple competes against Microsoft and provides a BETTER product because the hardware is a known quantity, designed TOGETHER with the software.

Remove that unique approach, make Apple into a mini-Microsoft selling OS software to "anyone," and see if Apple can beat Microsoft at their own game. Maybe they can, but so far Apple's success has been by taking a DIFFERENT approach from Microsoft.

Meanwhile, this "choice" you like would hurt consumers by reducing the quality of OS X. The additional testing time and additional development complexity would mean more bugs and slower innovation. OS X would gain new features slower as a result of what you're asking for.

Imagine if Apple had been making OS X for "any old random PC" from the start. Would we have gotten to where Leopard/Snow Leopard is as efficiently? No--and Microsoft is a living example. They HAVE to deal with and endless array of unpredictable hardware. Their products suffer as a result. (No, that's not their only problem I realize--but it's one they can't control or fix.)

Be careful what you ask for. Anyone who says that opening OS X to other manufacturers is ALL good for consumers is not thinking it through. It's good in some obvious ways, and it is ALSO bad in some important ways. You have to acknowledge both.

So what those critics really want is to take away some of OS X's advantages, and replace them with OTHER advantages. That's fine if that's what they want. I don't blame them for pushing for it if so. But what they want is something different from the Mac platform then. Maybe some other company can build a new platform like that--THAT would be real choice: don't transform OS X into something new and partly worse, but add new OS options. (Easier said than done.)

As for me, I don't want to lose those OS X advantages that would be lost by making OS X more like Windows in this way.

(Also--lots of companies charge high RAM prices. But not even Apple forces you to pay that. Get your Mac RAM anywhere you like. That's always been an option. And the option to buy other brands of computers remains as well.)

Just don't expect Apple to spend time and money HELPING you to buy non-Apple computers. Because supporting those non-Apple users would be a LOT of time and money Apple would have to spend.

 

[Flowbee]

I think what it's really going to come down to in an antitrust case is "Can Apple tell me what type of hardware I must install this software on after I purchase it?

But that's not what this case is about. Apple is not suing an end user who has installed a copy of os x on a non-apple PC. Apple is suing a company for hacking and installing os x on non-apple hardware, and then reselling it. There's a bit of a difference.

 

[El Magnificante]

F Apple. Let's see Apple OS run on any hardware. Who would still buy their gear from Apple at 2 or 3x the cost? Baaaaa ... that's who.

A computer is a tool. I use OS X cos there's no spyware/virus issue ... yet. And that is the only reason I use it. I would prefer to build my own system, choosing my own parts, and run OS X.

Perhaps others would prefer to build their own too or at least have a choice of hardware vendor while running the Mac OS. Bring it on and Apple can focus on their iPhone.

 

[monkeyrun]

I love how some people continently ignore that Psystar stole code from the Open Source community to resell. lol

 

[KENESS]

But that's not what this case is about. Apple is not suing an end user who has installed a copy of os x on a non-apple PC. Apple is suing a company for hacking and installing os x on non-apple hardware, and then reselling it. There's a bit of a difference.

A HUGE difference, and everyone seems to be missing that point!

 

[Flowbee]

A computer is a tool. I use OS X cos there's no spyware/virus issue ... yet. And that is the only reason I use it. I would prefer to build my own system, choosing my own parts, and run OS X.

You can already do that.

 

[Veri]

onward!

Apple copied and built on Xerox PARC's GUI work, and so the Macintosh UI was built.

Apple copied and built on the PC-compatible that in turn was the result of Compaq copying the IBM PC and reverse-engineering the BIOS, and so the Intel Mac was built.

Apple copied and built on the Mach kernel and the FreeBSD userspace, and so the foundation of OS X was built. While this was entirely with the permission of the latest authors, the Unix open source culture was built around illicit copies of Lions' commentary on Unix, as AT&T closed its source to classroom use in 1979.

Last week I sold a book I'd annotated while studying. I know the new owner will be grateful for the learning opportunity, as the book was hard to find, and I didn't exactly make more than a few $ on it. Nevertheless, I'd made money from modifying someone else's work and selling it on without their permission; may the FSM have mercy on my soul .

 

[monkeyrun]

Perhaps others would prefer to build their own too or at least have a choice of hardware vendor while running the Mac OS. Bring it on and Apple can focus on their iPhone.

lol I love that you use the word "focus".

Apple built the OS, you think it doesn't cost them anything to support all those other billions of hardware configurations?