thats it, the thread can be closed now! no more else to say.
Oh, if only...
PS Psystar apologists - go back and read (a) some Apple history (b) some law.
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
Oh, if only...
PS Psystar apologists - go back and read (a) some Apple history (b) some law.
Psystar kinda does have a leg to stand on. They aren't suing because you can't install another OS on Apple hardware. They are suing because you can only install OSX on Apple hardware. That kinda makes Apple a monopoly.
Apple doesn't even use BIOS, they use EFI. And the Intel Mac was built by buying Intel chips (not copying them) the same as any other Intel customer. Intel Macs are not "copies" of Windows PCs by any stretch.
And if they were, that still wouldn't make it good for consumers to take OS X and make it more internally complex and slower to evolve.
"Monopoly" is a specific term with a specific meaning, and it's a term for something that isn't even against the law (though it's illegal to USE a monopoly in certain ways). The term gets misused a lot
Apple built the OS, you think it doesn't cost them anything to support all those other billions of hardware configurations?
Exactly. A cost in time AND money, AND the need to increase the number of programmers they use, with all the overhead that entails (see "mythical man month").
And then we users get to pay the cost too: fewer new features, created more slowly, that work less reliably. Snowballing forever as has happened with Windows.
Will the OS X that comes after Snow Leopard be as good a product if Apple has to test for and support non-Apple hardware? Or will it have fewer features completed, take longer to deliver, and have more bugs?
I say, no thanks to that. If you want THAT kind of choice, you have Windows and Linux and others. But don't take away MY choice: hardware and software designed efficiently TOGETHER. The advantages of which we've all seen, even if some don't realize the fact.
No OS is ever perfect, but OS X really, truly IS much better than it would have been if Apple had been developing for a spectrum of non-Apple machines all along.
It will be really interesting to see what happens IF apple does lose this case. I really don't seem them losing, and this case could go on for a while anyway. But what will apple do? It will open up the floodgates for new companies to come and build cheaper computers to run OSX.
I'm not a lawyer. That said, I can't think of any reasonable way of separating out Apple's market from the general laptop or desktop markets in to claim that Apple has a monopoly on anything relevant to OS X Leopard/Tiger/Panther. iPod, maybe; Mac, no way in hell.
Also, something to keep in mind about the difference between IBM in 1981 and Apple in 2008: Microsoft held on to the licensing rights to the operating system. That gave MS the legal right to sell the OS to anyone who wanted to build a clone, and they did with an EULA that did not prohibit the software from being used on anything other than an IBM (so when Compaq did a clean room reverse of the IBM BIOS, the only non-"commercial-off-the-shelf" component of the IBM PC, they could just ask Microsoft nicely for the same licensing deal it had given IBM). Psystar isn't buying the OS from a seller who has given them the rights to bundle it; they're buying the OS from Apple and violating the terms of the EULA.
So the real argument here to my non-professional mind is not "is Apple engaged in monopolistic restraint-of-trade" (my answer is "NO"); it's "is the Apple EULA really binding in its requirement that the OS only be used on Apple hardware." That's what they should be arguing.
Also, something to keep in mind about the difference between IBM in 1981 and Apple in 2008: Microsoft held on to the licensing rights to the operating system. That gave MS the legal right to sell the OS to anyone who wanted to build a clone, and they did with an EULA that did not prohibit the software from being used on anything other than an IBM (so when Compaq did a clean room reverse of the IBM BIOS, the only non-"commercial-off-the-shelf" component of the IBM PC, they could just ask Microsoft nicely for the same licensing deal it had given IBM). Psystar isn't buying the OS from a seller who has given them the rights to bundle it; they're buying the OS from Apple and violating the terms of the EULA.
So the real argument here to my non-professional mind is not "is Apple engaged in monopolistic restraint-of-trade" (my answer is "NO"); it's "is the Apple EULA really binding in its requirement that the OS only be used on Apple hardware." That's what they should be arguing.
One day some Chinese company built something like the iPhone and installed a cracked version of the iPhone "OS" on it. And they could counter sue Apple claiming that Apple has a monopoly on their iPhone OS. lol fun time....
Yes i do think its is fair. Linux people give up a lot. But I am sure someone will open source their own crime fighting character, make the movie at the cost of 100 millions and then not charge a thing. So the linux folk will have that covered soon. ha!
But don't try and change the subject.
You don't like what apple says you can do with THEIR stuff, then it is simple, don't use it.
Nope. There are competing products you can install on the computer instead. Otherwise, wouldn't you be able to use this exact argument to force *all* software companies to create versions of all their products for all platforms?
I'm wondering how long Psystar have had their lawyers briefed and ready to go. It wouldn't surprise me if they actually had them arranged before they started selling their Mac clones - I'd of thought there are plenty of lawyers that would just love to have a go at a case like this even on a no win no fee basis.
Personally I don't really give a damn how it turns out. I've got no interest in running Mac OS X on anything but Apple hardware as there will always be issues which I don't need. So Apple losing won't mean anything to mean. Plus even if they do lose they will find another way of closing the loop hole pretty quickly.
Personally I don't really give a damn how it turns out. I've got no interest in running Mac OS X on anything but Apple hardware as there will always be issues which I don't need. So Apple losing won't mean anything to mean. Plus even if they do lose they will find another way of closing the loop hole pretty quickly.
It is interesting
I am not really on one side or another on this issue. I like my mac HW and my OSX, they work well (most of the time) and really do not cost much when considering the uptime I have gained and lower maintenance.
That being said, this case really brings in some concepts that have not been well represented in legislation so the court is going to have to navigate through them creating precedent. The intellectual property issue will face fair use clauses, since the OS was paid for and is not being distributed how can Apple show damages or harm thus qualifying for relief. The Hardware is not branded as theirs so what rights could they hold about its use. The EULA is very specific, but relies on federal statutes and can be overturned/ made null if in violation. Since the EULA is violated Apple is under no obligation in regards to maintenance, updates, support, so what liability is created? The product clearly states it has no support nor warranty from Apple.
What ever is decided on this case will have an impact on EULA's and intellectual rights in general. Should be interesting.
I am not really on one side or another on this issue. I like my mac HW and my OSX, they work well (most of the time) and really do not cost much when considering the uptime I have gained and lower maintenance.
That being said, this case really brings in some concepts that have not been well represented in legislation so the court is going to have to navigate through them creating precedent. The intellectual property issue will face fair use clauses, since the OS was paid for and is not being distributed how can Apple show damages or harm thus qualifying for relief. The Hardware is not branded as theirs so what rights could they hold about its use. The EULA is very specific, but relies on federal statutes and can be overturned/ made null if in violation. Since the EULA is violated Apple is under no obligation in regards to maintenance, updates, support, so what liability is created? The product clearly states it has no support nor warranty from Apple.
What ever is decided on this case will have an impact on EULA's and intellectual rights in general. Should be interesting.
Go Psystar Go!!!!!!!!!
Apple is acting like control freak when it comes to the Mac. They make the systems so it cant work on any other computer but an Apple made computer. Then if anyone manages to get it working on a non-Apple computer, Apple instantly puts out an update to kill it. I, like most of the readers of this forum, am a devoted Mac fan. However I cant help to notice that Apple is behaving like IBM or Microsoft in doing whatever they can to kill the competition. I am hoping that Psystar wins this.
This would be good and bad for Apple in the long run. Apples market share will grow significantly and fast, possibility becoming a threat to Microsoft as the Market share increases. The upside of this would be that the clone market would be about half the price of an Apple branded computer. This would be better for the Apple fans that are tired of paying threw the nose for a Mac.
The bad part is; as the market share grows, so will issues like viruses and third parties making more and more equipment that works with the Mac. Resulting in some of the same driver issues that have plagued the Windows world since it started. However the Apple branded computer will be free of this problem even after 25 other companies have started making Mac clones. Apple might be forced to sell them copies of the system but as to drivers your S.O.L..
To the end user this would mean the possibility of getting a flawlessly working Apple made Macintosh for $1500 or getting a clone for $500 and suffering some driver issues as a PC. Hell Ill take the clone myself as long as it does not effect what I use the computer for.
If Psystar made a Mac Clone Laptop for $500 Id get one today!!!!
And even of the clone market does not take off, we will still benefit from them in other ways besides forcing Apple to drop prices. For the Mac fans that have been involved in Macs since the last set of Mac clones, I remember my Motorola Starmax quite fondly; the clone market of ten years ago basically put an end to Apples use of internal SCSI drives across the whole line. They realized that not a single clone used a SCSI drive and switched to the IDE drive. Even when Apple killed that clone market, Apple switched to the cheaper IDE drive themselves. In the end the short lived clone market of ten years ago had long lasting and positive effects, although minor.
Apple is acting like control freak when it comes to the Mac. They make the systems so it cant work on any other computer but an Apple made computer. Then if anyone manages to get it working on a non-Apple computer, Apple instantly puts out an update to kill it. I, like most of the readers of this forum, am a devoted Mac fan. However I cant help to notice that Apple is behaving like IBM or Microsoft in doing whatever they can to kill the competition. I am hoping that Psystar wins this.
This would be good and bad for Apple in the long run. Apples market share will grow significantly and fast, possibility becoming a threat to Microsoft as the Market share increases. The upside of this would be that the clone market would be about half the price of an Apple branded computer. This would be better for the Apple fans that are tired of paying threw the nose for a Mac.
The bad part is; as the market share grows, so will issues like viruses and third parties making more and more equipment that works with the Mac. Resulting in some of the same driver issues that have plagued the Windows world since it started. However the Apple branded computer will be free of this problem even after 25 other companies have started making Mac clones. Apple might be forced to sell them copies of the system but as to drivers your S.O.L..
To the end user this would mean the possibility of getting a flawlessly working Apple made Macintosh for $1500 or getting a clone for $500 and suffering some driver issues as a PC. Hell Ill take the clone myself as long as it does not effect what I use the computer for.
If Psystar made a Mac Clone Laptop for $500 Id get one today!!!!
And even of the clone market does not take off, we will still benefit from them in other ways besides forcing Apple to drop prices. For the Mac fans that have been involved in Macs since the last set of Mac clones, I remember my Motorola Starmax quite fondly; the clone market of ten years ago basically put an end to Apples use of internal SCSI drives across the whole line. They realized that not a single clone used a SCSI drive and switched to the IDE drive. Even when Apple killed that clone market, Apple switched to the cheaper IDE drive themselves. In the end the short lived clone market of ten years ago had long lasting and positive effects, although minor.
But it would: it would mean fewer new OS X features and more bugs than ever.
Supporting non-Apple hardware would be a major undertaking for Apple's OS X team, with major consequences. Psystar might like those consequences, but users like us would not.
That said, I see virtually no chance of Psystar winning anyway, and if they did, I see virtually no chance of the decision holding up.
Apple already dropped prices, long ago. A Mac is in the same price range (often cheaper, not always) as any other NAME brand PC. Look at ALL the specs, including software bundle, instead of cherry-picking certain specs and saying that others don't "count." Do that and you'll see that Macs are priced about the same as other name brand PCs. What Apple doesn't have is low-end configs (only mid-range and high-end, which are priced similarly to other companies' mid- and high-end).
Now, CHEAP PCs (and home-made of course) are cheaper than name-brands. Acer/Gateway/eMachines (all one company now) are cheaper than HP and Dell. That's not an Apple-specific issue. And those machines are cheap for a reason (I've been burned twice be their cheap components).
So if you're being honest, you can't say Apple overcharges. You can say that ALL name-brand computers overcharge, including Dell, Apple and HP. If you believe that to be the case.
If set up as a corporation they could have already paid out the profits in dividends and bankrupt the company in case of judgment. They will make there money either way. Apple is very unlikely to actually recieve any meaningful recompense, but very likely to end operations.
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.
Do you really believe that they were ever in it for some grand social-philosophical ideal? No, they have been in it to make money, since Jobs and Woz decided to try and sell the first Apple. Don't kid yourself, they are a business, a damn good one too.
No you miss the point. Apple would be selling them OEM copies of Mac OS. This would mean that they dont need to support anything but the OS and if you need any support you go to Psystar not Apple.
Apple would not be obligated to support them in any case. No liability is created under this scenario because Apple has already fulfilled its duty to warn under the EULA. So, it could not stop them but it also does not have to raise a finger to support them.
Not yet, anyway. Courts have set some pretty awful precedents: (Plessy v Ferguson, Washington DC v Heller come to mind).
I can't resist
Apologies in advance...
...so, would the lead lawyer representing the defendent be called the Psystar Shyster Meister
Apologies in advance...
...so, would the lead lawyer representing the defendent be called the Psystar Shyster Meister
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Anti-trust =/= Monopoly.
The question is whether or not Apple practices anti-competitive behavior for artificially locking their OS to their hardware. There isn't a good technical reason that it has to -- the Hackintosh community has shown us that. Many of them have 100% working Macintosh clones running legally-purchased copies of OS X.
The console OS argument is a different story. Their specialized OS is literally tied to their specialty hardware. They could license the OS but it would be irrelevant since no other manufacturer would be able to acquire the hardware to run it.
Apple, however, uses 95% of the exact same technology that one could find inside an Office Max bargain PC. The bond between OS X and Apple's hardware is nothing more than Apple basically holding you at gunpoint to make sure they don't lose the hardware sale.
Seriously, this whole issue would be resolved if they just broke down and sold a $500 unsupported system-builder's version. That would deter cloners yet acknowledge the people who want to remain faithful to Apple even though they don't offer hardware solutions that work for them... i.e.: the xMac.
-Clive
Anti-trust =/= Monopoly.
The question is whether or not Apple practices anti-competitive behavior for artificially locking their OS to their hardware. There isn't a good technical reason that it has to -- the Hackintosh community has shown us that. Many of them have 100% working Macintosh clones running legally-purchased copies of OS X.
The console OS argument is a different story. Their specialized OS is literally tied to their specialty hardware. They could license the OS but it would be irrelevant since no other manufacturer would be able to acquire the hardware to run it.
Apple, however, uses 95% of the exact same technology that one could find inside an Office Max bargain PC. The bond between OS X and Apple's hardware is nothing more than Apple basically holding you at gunpoint to make sure they don't lose the hardware sale.
Seriously, this whole issue would be resolved if they just broke down and sold a $500 unsupported system-builder's version. That would deter cloners yet acknowledge the people who want to remain faithful to Apple even though they don't offer hardware solutions that work for them... i.e.: the xMac.
-Clive
hmm ... let me guess, any idea how much Apple could sue them for damaging Apple's goodwill if there's some massive problem with "Mac OS on psystar"?
That's an outcome I'd accept as reasonable on some level: buy OS X (or by a Pystar with OS X) and maybe it will run, maybe not. Maybe the next software update will kill something important, maybe not.
But I don't think Psystar or consumers would care for that
And who would Psystar go to? ONLY Apple could fix problems with OS X on other hardware. Unless Psystar were to develop a whole new model and send it to you for free exchange every time something in OS X broke on non-Apple machines.
The only MEANINGFUL way to achieve the dubious goal of OS X on non-Apple hardware is if Apple supports it.
"Support" doesn't mean "this is the first phone number you call." Support means:
* Apple fixes a bug in OS X. Works great. But it breaks on a certain Psystar model! Gotta fix that. More testing, more programming, more delay, more complexity, more risk of a domino effect of even MORE bugs
* Apple adds a feature to OS X. Works great. But it breaks on a certain Psystar model! Gotta fix that. See above.
* Apple makes a whole new OS version with thousands of little fixes and new features. But some of them break on a certain Psystar model. Gotta fix that. See above.
* Apple answers the phone for OS X support, and has to deal with a flood of Psystar-specific issues on hardware Apple didn't even design. (A hassle that Microsoft knows all about I'm sure.)
Etc.
And third-party OS X software developers would have to deal with many of the same issues too! Just like they do with Windows now. A HUGE burden at both the development AND post-sales support phases.
If OS X is sold for non-Apple hardware, there is only one way problems will be fixed: on Apple's end or not at all. (Unless of course the courts force Apple to give Psystar their source code to current and future OS's. Then we have software developers dealing not only with a chaos of unpredictable hardware configs, but multiple slightly-different OS versions too! Not gonna work.)
All of which carries a huge cost to Apple in time and money, and a huge cost to Mac users in terms of how fast we get Apple software and how good it is when it arrives.
Good point but that would be over brand not intellectual rights. Thinking more on this it would create quite a bit of havoc if they are upheld in court. Music and movie companies would face a lot of challenges over this and regional coding.