The simple solution to this is for Apple to make Mac Os so that it can not run on generic hardware so that they do not need laws to do this for them.
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
Robinson-Patman Act violation?
I am no lawyer, but I was working for IBM soon after the long (12 yrs AIR) anti-trust suit against IBM ended. All IBM employees were educated about the case and given instruction how to answer/deflect questions about the suit.
AIR, one of the issues was the fact that IBM only leased their machines and required their customers to only use IBM brand punched cards for input/output media,
The latter was said to be a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act because it [illegally] tied-in the use of one product with another [to stifle competition].
If this law still stands then Apple could be vulnerable because to use OS X you must run it on [tie it in to] an Apple Computer.
If vulnerable, Apple could take several approaches:
1) Open OS X sales to other hardware with possible higher price, no support, or separate charges for support.
2) Provide OS X, still Apple-hardware exclusive, at no charge.
3) Have OS X exploit unique (patented) Apple hardware features (MultiTouch) that would have to be licensed by other manufacturers.
4) Provide OS X, non-Apple exclusive at low or no charge & sell updates & support
5) Open Source the whole thing
The latter 2 may be the most radical, but, in the long run, most beneficial to Apple...
...think of the shock-waves that would ripple through the industry!
One of the things that Apple lawyers could/should do is educate the judge as to what [unintended] effects the various options would have on Apple, Psystar et al, consumers and the IT industry.
The law is the law, but there is a practical solution that could be implemented with a consent decree that would neither stifle Apple nor competitors.
I am no lawyer, but I was working for IBM soon after the long (12 yrs AIR) anti-trust suit against IBM ended. All IBM employees were educated about the case and given instruction how to answer/deflect questions about the suit.
AIR, one of the issues was the fact that IBM only leased their machines and required their customers to only use IBM brand punched cards for input/output media,
The latter was said to be a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act because it [illegally] tied-in the use of one product with another [to stifle competition].
If this law still stands then Apple could be vulnerable because to use OS X you must run it on [tie it in to] an Apple Computer.
If vulnerable, Apple could take several approaches:
1) Open OS X sales to other hardware with possible higher price, no support, or separate charges for support.
2) Provide OS X, still Apple-hardware exclusive, at no charge.
3) Have OS X exploit unique (patented) Apple hardware features (MultiTouch) that would have to be licensed by other manufacturers.
4) Provide OS X, non-Apple exclusive at low or no charge & sell updates & support
5) Open Source the whole thing
The latter 2 may be the most radical, but, in the long run, most beneficial to Apple...
...think of the shock-waves that would ripple through the industry!
One of the things that Apple lawyers could/should do is educate the judge as to what [unintended] effects the various options would have on Apple, Psystar et al, consumers and the IT industry.
The law is the law, but there is a practical solution that could be implemented with a consent decree that would neither stifle Apple nor competitors.
The quality of crack some of you guys seem to smoke is so amazing that you all seem to live in an alternative universe where "s*** happens" and things should be as you see.
Some of you guys don't understand the OSX86 process, or how it works.
Guess what. Standard mac hardware (recent) is intel based.
HOWEVER, this does not make it like any intel based machine due to the EFI checks that are performed-and circumvented- during the osx86 development process.
It is simply mind blowing to hear some of you guys in this and the other thread state that you do "professional" work, and that you can only utilize the apple platform, but you are unwilling to shell out the $$$ for the professional offerings from Apple.
If apple wishes not to make a midrange tower , and thus support a mass of n00bs in the apple store complaining that their nvidia 9600xtwhatever doesn't work with their aftermarket PsySATA controller and CPU they bought off of newegg, they won't do it.
Apple is not in YOUR market. Deal with it.
No one is entitled to use OS X, plain and simple.
I don't see how some of you don't really understand the downfall of the Windows OS. Don't get me wrong, I administer Win 2k3/2k8 boxes for a living , and I have seen some AWESOME stability (same to that on a mac) because the server offerings from HP/Dell/Whoever are often "closed" in the sense that the box I receive from these guys has components that they have tested rigorously and through the OS to ensure there are no hangups, because in a corporate environment, downtime = -$$$ .
My Thinkpad system works pretty well. Again, integrated components, for the most part. No room for expandability really, so i'm stuck with what I asked for, but once again these components work in tandem with each other, thanks to rigerous testing.
Unfortunately, on many of my desktop boxes, things just don't work that way.
Manufactures seem to refuse to communicate with each other, so one will overwrite the file of another, consume resources that were slated for another device, or screw with one another all together.
Couple that with the hundreds of thousands of devices that each manufacturer has in the market, and half the times windows can't even identify what the device is. You can either wade through tons and tons of drop down menus to find your particular revision, or download a driver pack with hundreds of useless files the manufacturer "assumes" that you might want.
I can't even believe some are suggesting that apple sell an OEM version and not support it.
These are the same individuals who would come back and complain, very loudly, that Apple douped them into purchasing a broken product.
Apple will not sell an OEM product because of its unpredictable nature. Ladies, if you purchase Final Cut Studio, you expect to run Final Cut studio, no?
Now, if BugetOSXEM decides to cheap out on their end of the deal and give you intels intergrated hardware, you will be unable to utilize Color , Motion, and god knows whatever else you WON"T be able to run.
Then you will come back and say that Apple won't support their product.
But I can look at Apple's website, see that 3 Products, Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, and iMac can run this program, there are no iffs, and's , or buts about it. No annoying x1802 video card or higher, 512mb or higher etc etc requirements. Apple knows what is needed to run, and apple knows if I have it or not. The OEM's will probably not build around this specification.
Some of you guys don't understand the OSX86 process, or how it works.
Guess what. Standard mac hardware (recent) is intel based.
HOWEVER, this does not make it like any intel based machine due to the EFI checks that are performed-and circumvented- during the osx86 development process.
It is simply mind blowing to hear some of you guys in this and the other thread state that you do "professional" work, and that you can only utilize the apple platform, but you are unwilling to shell out the $$$ for the professional offerings from Apple.
If apple wishes not to make a midrange tower , and thus support a mass of n00bs in the apple store complaining that their nvidia 9600xtwhatever doesn't work with their aftermarket PsySATA controller and CPU they bought off of newegg, they won't do it.
Apple is not in YOUR market. Deal with it.
No one is entitled to use OS X, plain and simple.
I don't see how some of you don't really understand the downfall of the Windows OS. Don't get me wrong, I administer Win 2k3/2k8 boxes for a living , and I have seen some AWESOME stability (same to that on a mac) because the server offerings from HP/Dell/Whoever are often "closed" in the sense that the box I receive from these guys has components that they have tested rigorously and through the OS to ensure there are no hangups, because in a corporate environment, downtime = -$$$ .
My Thinkpad system works pretty well. Again, integrated components, for the most part. No room for expandability really, so i'm stuck with what I asked for, but once again these components work in tandem with each other, thanks to rigerous testing.
Unfortunately, on many of my desktop boxes, things just don't work that way.
Manufactures seem to refuse to communicate with each other, so one will overwrite the file of another, consume resources that were slated for another device, or screw with one another all together.
Couple that with the hundreds of thousands of devices that each manufacturer has in the market, and half the times windows can't even identify what the device is. You can either wade through tons and tons of drop down menus to find your particular revision, or download a driver pack with hundreds of useless files the manufacturer "assumes" that you might want.
I can't even believe some are suggesting that apple sell an OEM version and not support it.
These are the same individuals who would come back and complain, very loudly, that Apple douped them into purchasing a broken product.
Apple will not sell an OEM product because of its unpredictable nature. Ladies, if you purchase Final Cut Studio, you expect to run Final Cut studio, no?
Now, if BugetOSXEM decides to cheap out on their end of the deal and give you intels intergrated hardware, you will be unable to utilize Color , Motion, and god knows whatever else you WON"T be able to run.
Then you will come back and say that Apple won't support their product.
But I can look at Apple's website, see that 3 Products, Macbook Pro, Mac Pro, and iMac can run this program, there are no iffs, and's , or buts about it. No annoying x1802 video card or higher, 512mb or higher etc etc requirements. Apple knows what is needed to run, and apple knows if I have it or not. The OEM's will probably not build around this specification.
So Apple does not have to support it. What about the price? Is Apple still free to sell a license of OS X for any price they want too?
The point is that it won't work on non-mac computers. Just because people have found ways to do it doesn't mean it is an "option".
It isn't anti-competitive because OS X is a competitor with Windows and *nix. Where does it say that Apple is obliged to open its OS up to clones?
It's like you like your girlfriend's vagina, but you hate her face.
Solution, you cut out the vagina and paste it on a plastic doll?
They already do. Pystar is using a hack to make OSX run on their hardware.
Products can be tied legally. It it wasn't, no car maker could sell you a car with tires or a radio. IBM's massive market share was at issue here.
I agree, but I do think that the room and benefit is there, for Apple to expand what it is that they support. I for one don't want to see OS X begin to support all of the junk that Windows has to, because as you said, it will quickly become just like Windows, and likely worse (Apple, for all of its recent financial glory, has no where near the resources that Microsoft does, to try and provide anywhere near the support). But, I do think Apple could "open up" their hardware support some. It wouldn't even require a large increase on Apple's part in terms of staffing, testing, etc..
For example, they could sell the main components of a desktop system, say, mainboard, CPU, GPU, etc., but restrict who has access to purchase it: say, certain levels of the Developer Network, who currently get discounts already on hardware and software, could be allowed to purchased a specific quantity (or simply just one) of these parts, and form their own system.
Or, as mentioned previously, the headless mid-range Mac. With a greater emphasis on future upgrade/expansion opportunities, more companies would be willing to produce Mac-compatible products. Does that mean Apple has to allow all of them to do so? Not at all, but Apple would have a greater pool from which to pick and choose, and thus consumers would have more options in the long run.
Thus, Apple would need a larger testing/QA group, but I don't think the benefits would translate into greater earnings for Apple, even if they have to have a few more salaries on the books.
I think part of the problem though, honestly, is that Apple often tries to have too much control over a product. A perfect example is the Java Virtual Machine, which Sun was more than willing to produce and allow Apple to test/tweak/integrate into OS X. Apple refused Sun's offer, basically asserting that they themselves would handle the development of a JVM for OS X. The result? Leopard's haphazard Java support, which caused quite the outcry in the Java community.
Rather than saying anything that wouldn't be listened to anyway, I figured I'd provide a simple guide to posting in this thread (and any others that may get you frothing at the mouth). All components may be positioned as desired. Logic not required.
- Emotional rant. Use of ALL CAPS and several exclamation points to demonstrate passion, confusing that for useful interpretation.
- Righteously indignant.
- Demonstrated lack of understanding of the following terms: monopoly, intellectual property, license. (The user may include any other terms that have specific meaning that they don't understand).
- Unsupportable analogy.
- Misinformed claim of an otherwise undiscovered "right."
- Socially correct comment about the evils of profit or incorporation.
- Ludicrous comparison of the current to the "old" Apple, when the poster wasn't even born yet, in most cases.
- Hollow threat to abandon Apple.
- Random use of "fanboy" (or "-boi").
There is just one tiny, tiny difference here. IBM was by far the domineering company in IT. If you tried to sell punched cards and they couldn't be used on IBM machines, that was 90 percent of the market gone. On the other hand, if Psystar cannot sell computers with MacOS X, they are free to sell computers with Windows, Linux, they could probably buy BeOS or AmigaOS. If one manufacturer with a tiny market share (some people will tell you it is less than two percent) doesn't want them to use their OS, that has nothing to do with antitrust.
Brilliant
These rationalizations are so weak I don't know why people are in here typing out responses. There are just so many things wrong with what Psystar is doing.
I think you make some pretty good arguments why Apple _shouldn't_ license MacOS X to Psystar, or to any Dick, Tom and Harry who wants to sell computers with MacOS X.
However, the most important point is that the whole matter is Apple's decision alone. Whether allowing MacOS X on non-Apple computers is a good idea or not, the decision is Apple's alone.
I would have some other questions: Who believes that Psystar actually asked Apple for a license to distribute MacOS X on their computers? All this nonsense about antitrust will probably be blown right out of the window if it turns out that Apple never actually turned them down because Psystar never asked for permission.
However, the most important point is that the whole matter is Apple's decision alone. Whether allowing MacOS X on non-Apple computers is a good idea or not, the decision is Apple's alone.
I would have some other questions: Who believes that Psystar actually asked Apple for a license to distribute MacOS X on their computers? All this nonsense about antitrust will probably be blown right out of the window if it turns out that Apple never actually turned them down because Psystar never asked for permission.
I like the idea of some limited middle ground. Apple selling parts (to be used in predictable ways) in an interesting idea.
Another thing I've long seen as possible (but unlikely) would be a new form of the old cloning: Apple would license strictly-delineated designs to chosen partners (even Dell etc.), who would make machines that were therefore 100% predictable to the OS--maybe even clones of specific Mac models, or at least clones within whatever limits Apple needed to keep their OS development clean and efficient.
Shapes and casings could vary, and even internals, as long as the result fit into the specs Apple gave out. Apple could even have just ONE design scheme, made specifically for external manufacturers, which allowed for certain things (like a mid-range headless) not found in Apple's current lineup. All the "clones" as a a group might then be like ONE new model for Apple to support. (With a new version once or twice a year maybe.) That one design wouldn't compete directly with Apple's own models, and Apple's own wouldn't compete directly with the clones. They could fill a gap maybe.
(The old Mac clones were NOT identical to Macs--resulting in aggravation for me as an Apple-hater who bought one to keep myself employable in my field! The CD-ROM drive, GPU and modem were all different from "real" Macs IIRC.)
I'm guessing such a move would not currently be profitable for Apple (or clone makers for that matter), and I could see it being a big mistake--but situations change, and I could also see it working out OK in the end. Apple could choose partners who they wanted to work with, users would have more choices, more OS X machines would be sold, and Apple would retain the control needed to keep OS X on track.
Now, I doubt Apple would ever choose to partner in such a way with Psystar
I like the idea of some limited middle ground. Apple selling parts (to be used in predictable ways) in an interesting idea.
Another thing I've long seen as possible (but unlikely) would be a new form of the old cloning: Apple would license strictly-delineated designs to chosen partners (even Dell etc.), who would make machines that were therefore 100% clones of other Mac models, or clones within whatever limits Apple needed to keep their OS development clean and efficient. Shapes and casings could vary, and even internals, as long as the result fit into the specs Apple gave out. Apple could even have just ONE design scheme, made specifically for external manufacturers, which allowed for certain things (like a mid-range headless) not found in Apple's current lineup. All the "clones" as a a group might then be like ONE new model for Apple to support. (With a new version once or twice a year maybe.)
(The old Mac clones were NOT identical to Macs--resulting in aggravation for me as an Apple-hater who bought one to keep myself employable in my field! The CD-ROM drive, GPU and modem were all different from "real" Macs IIRC.)
I'm guessing such a move would not currently be profitable for Apple, and I could see it being a big mistake--but situations change, and I could also see it working out OK in the end. Apple could choose partners who they wanted to work with, users would have more choices, more OS X machines would be sold, and Apple would retain the control needed to keep OS X on track.
Now, I doubt Apple would ever choose to partner in such a way with Psystar
Exactly. I'm not sure I'd want to see them return in any way, shape, or form to the "clone" idea. It's interesting the way you described it, and yeah I agree, I'm not sure it'd be profitable at all, but they could potentially license out to some of the more premier PC makers (the smaller integrators who make the higher-priced hardware), or even as you said, a Dell or someone (just to use Dell as an example, I bet if Apple licensed out to Dell, you would see Dell make a lineup of OS X systems that would have a similar image as Dell's XPS systems, and as an actual XPS owner, I can tell you that they are very nice, well-manufactured systems. It's Dell's entry-level, bargain basement systems that helped earn them the bad name they often have now).
Given I doubt that Apple will ever bring back the clone strategy, or at least any time in the foreseeable future, I really just wish Apple would just bite the bullet and release a headless Mac that is similar in spec to the iMac (for some of the designs), and essentially located market-wise between the entry-level iMac and the Mac Pros. It's a large market that they're ignoring.
I still remember a few years ago, when industry buzz was that Apple was preparing a mid-range headless Mac to satisfy demand, and ultimately it was revealed to be the Mac Mini. Talk about an enthusiasm-busting announcement
Brilliant
These rationalizations are so weak I don't know why people are in here typing out responses. There are just so many things wrong with what Psystar is doing.
The guy is incredibly rude, and you support him?
Seriously, how old are you guys?
Well, I'm off. I'll leave you with these famous words: "Debating on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - Even if you win, you're still retarded."
Since you didn't put in the effort to justify your argument, I'll make the assumption that you're probably thinking of something like this apology, the evidence in which contradicts the conclusion. To paraphrase: "it totally didn't copy Xerox because we had 1 mouse button and they had 3, we had a menu bar while they had pop-up menus, and we invented resource forks and stuff." In the context of the revolution that was the mouse-driven GUI, such differences are very minor. If A invented a car, then B having seen A's car is still inspired by A even if his car happens to have only 3 wheels.
The whole topic of my post was how Apple has advanced by building on the ideas and technology of others (a good thing), adding its own flavo(u)r to the mix, and sometimes without due thanks and/or payment to those it was inspired by (not so cool). Now Psystar's doing the same thing, buying a copy of OS X and fully complying with all terms provided to it at the time of sale (i.e. none), and people are whining.IJ Reilly said:
If you feel like selling something under restrictive terms, please feel free to request that every purchaser sign a contract before exchange of consideration. Good luck with that. Apple chose to believe that additional terms can be added arbitrarily after a sale, like my term that by reading this message this far you agree to send me $0.20 in Australian cents. I believe we are morally equally entitled to compliance.
Says the guy who posted all these.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972848#post5972848
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972383#post5972383
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972138#post5972138
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972102#post5972102
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972040#post5972040
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5972021#post5972021
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5971956#post5971956
Because they like to sell hardware and also control the end user experience end to end. They also make more money in the Macs than on OSX and OSX does not use a key, selling the OS and letting it run on anything will mean 1000 copies for every OSX sold.
A Mac is the combination of hardware and software, besides Apple does not want to support 7 million hardware combinations, test them and assist the users with all those combinations.
The basis is that you install it on the box with minimal choices and it just works, nothing to tweak, no need to be a tech head to install and use, unlike windows.
Probably not, since it sounded like he was thinking that Apple paid for the rights to examine SmallTalk, which is a substantially different conceptual and legal argument.
Follow The Money!
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Psystar does not have deep pockets.
How will Psystar legal team make money?
Contingency fee, nope.
Pro Bono, nope.
Even in the far fetched event Psystar prevails; costs recovered from Apple, nope.
Whose deep pockets are paying those substantial hourly rates?
Michael Dell once said he'd sell Mac OS X if he could.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Psystar does not have deep pockets.
How will Psystar legal team make money?
Contingency fee, nope.
Pro Bono, nope.
Even in the far fetched event Psystar prevails; costs recovered from Apple, nope.
Whose deep pockets are paying those substantial hourly rates?
Michael Dell once said he'd sell Mac OS X if he could.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
They probably hope for a settlement at best, and publicity at worst. Apple does often settle even when they're in the right: it's the quickest/cheapest path sometimes.
In this case, it seems likely that Apple will not want to settle--they'd rather deal with the issue so it doesn't come up again from other companies.
I enjoy a good conspiracy as much as anyone, and it's possible third parties are secretly helping to pay Psystar legal bills, but I think a simpler explanation is probably true: the lawyers think they have a shot at a settlement. Psystar would then get some money (but be unable to continue business) and the lawyers would get some money too.
Still, if you really MUST have a conspiracy theory, I have a better one. An anonymous benefactor has paid Psystar a big chunk of money to do this. The anonymous benefactor is Apple, who WANTS Psystar to be able to afford the whole court process. Apple wants a decision now instead of waiting for a similar case to come up from someone more dangerous like Dell
(No, I don't believe this for a second.)Easily the best post in this thread. I encourage more of you to take an econ course or two and maybe also do some background reading on competition and antitrust.