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 to Change Tactics and Sell Mac OS X-Ready Computers?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was discussed a few months back in another thread - Same arrogance:
From Engadget.
They won't survive very long - Apple has precedent to go after these guys.
Instead of raking in millions on the expensive crap PC's they sell to their loyal fools.
MS makes different versions of their OS.
You cannot compare crippled Windows OS with full version of OSX.
You are not even comparing similar hardware. That's not the same price, not at all.
Looks like a scam. Here is a quote from their page:
"QUO wants children to learn the internet and use computer technology to create."
Looks like it's made by real professionals who knows how to "learn the internet."
Tortious interference with contractual relations
Inducement to commit copyright infringement
Contributory copyright infringement
You keep using that word... I don't think you know what it means.
<princess bride pic></princess bride pic>
Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. That's all fine and dandy unless they use that monopoly to force competitors out. That is what Microsoft did. They told PC manufacturers that if they wanted to use Windows, they had to not include browsers other than Microsoft's. Abuse of monopoly position.
What monopoly does Apple have? Portable media players, almost...
Now, if Apple were to tell Amazon, Best Buy etc. that they could not sell iPods unless they stopped selling competitor's products, that would be an abuse of monopoly power (if 70%ish of a market constitutes a monopoly...).
Apple most certainly DOES NOT have a monopoly on Operating Systems (remember, the market is Operating Systems, not MAC OS).
What lawsuit? From wikipedia:pearc.de for instance. And Apple didn't do so well in that law suit.
That certainly doesn't mean that they will not be sued later on. Especially due to this statement:
Which is their own statement, and is outright false - Apple's own website offers all of their SLA's at the user's convenience (this is stated on the SL box) at any time - you do not have to open the box at all.
pearc.de for instance. And Apple didn't do so well in that law suit.
That's completely untrue.
Apple have not LOST anything against this company, because there hasn't been any lawsuits between the companies yet.
This company basically makes claims similar to Psystar's FAILED claims.
Thousands and thousands of Hackintoshers violate Apple's EULA. Are they in jail? Have they ever been sued? No. Why? Because Apple knows it can't hold up it's own EULA on an individual in a court of law. EULA don't have a leg to stand on in a court for a private individual. Psystar is a totally different story.
False. You are making a blanket assumption with no proof. The fact that APple has not elected to sue individuals is irrelevant - Apple chooses not to go after individuals - they are not forced to. The reason is that it's a waste of time with no reward and only serves to bring negative PR ala the RIAA cases. It has no bearing on the legitimacy of Apple's claims.
False on at least two examples. First they have been upheld many times before (I believe in the 9th circuit court - if you want to argue contrary points note where they took place). Second, Judge Allsup already said that Apple's license is perfectly valid in the summary judgment.
Edit: Also, you cannot go to jail for a civil case.
I get what you are saying, and I also agree with you. I play devils advocate a lot. Now what you say makes sense, but could it also go both ways. You can't have OSX unless you buy an Apple computer? You can't use Final Cut unless you have OSX... which means you HAVE to buy an Apple computer...
Again more just questions than my beliefs.
Please provide links to your claims. Show me where Apple has taken an "individual" to court for breaking their EULA. Apple will not sue individuals because they know they won't win. The RIAA cases have to do with copyright infringement not breaking a EULA two very different things.
This was the problem with Apple's suit against Psystar - actual damages for lost profits on 800 machines is the equivalent of less than a week of attorney time. And tbh, Apple doesn't care about the $$$ it could make off punitive damages, it just wants to protect its IP.
A settlement was always in the cards - Apple kills Psystar and the owners of Psystar don't end up owing millions. Good result for both.
Nor can you have an Audi Quattro transmission unless you buy an Audi.
You can't have a 4Matic transmission unless you buy a Mercedes-Benz.
It really doesn't go both ways, from this perspective.
Apple neither has a monopoly on operating systems, nor does it abuse one.
You need to take your own advice and back that up with links, as pdjudd points out all we know is that so far they have chosen not to, not why. I suspect that it has more to do with the potential PR nightmare than their odds of "winning" in court.
Also, the judge in this case essentially said that installing the software without complying with the license was copyright violation.
B
No, you provide a claim proving that Apple's EULA won't stand in court. I have already proven you wrong. I never made a claim that Apple has sued an idividual. I merely stated that the fact they never did doesn't mean anything.
From the darned summary judgment:
And:
I highlighted the relevant section. That's the main point of the EULA/SLA. Prove me wrong - the impetus is on you since you made the initial claim. I have evidence, do you?
Here's some introductory law for ya, with a little introductory business thrown in.
1) you can't go to jail for violating a EULA. There is a difference between laws that have civil penalties and those that have criminal penalties.
2) lawsuits cost money. Why would Apple sue individuals (RIAA-style) when they can go after the central points of infringement (Napster-style?) Further, it would be bad business to sue one's own potential customers (are you listening, RIAA?)
3) The EULA certainly "holds up." There is tons of case law that says this sort of EULA is valid (in the U.S., at least). There is no difference between a "private individual" and a corporation as far as copyright infringement, DMCA violation, and breach of contract is concerned.
Now, if you are willing to tell me in what jurisdiction you are admitted as an IP lawyer, and tell me what case law supports your point, I'll happily admit I'm wrong.
Psystar was careful to point out that you should download the Rebel EFI trial to make sure it worked on your computer before you paid and they also have a wiki that lists compatible hardware. So if someone bought it and it doesn't work for them they are a moron for not trying it out first.
They are actually right and wrong at the same time. The customer _must_ be able to read the SLA before the purchase. But there is this note on the Snow Leopard package: "Sale is subject to acceptance of the license". So the order in which things happen is:
1. Hand over cash.
2. Get a box with Snow Leopard.
3. Read the license and agree to it.
4. Software is now purchased.
The legal purchase happens later than some people think; as a result, the license is available _after_ you pay, but _before_ the purchase.
You could also theoretically do step 3 first and then go into the store and do the rest - it's the same net affect. My point was that the presence of the SLA from another source without pay (you can even read it in the Apple store!) debunks the claim that:
It's wrong because in fact the license is available before the sale is completed. The claim is fundamentally invalid since its predicated on the SLA being unavailable before purchase. Since it is available, the statement is no longer true.
Anyway, the supposed filing has yet to show up in Groklaw or anywhere else - I am really skeptical of the whole story about a settlement.
I think the big difference between Psystar and the individual user who installs OS X on a PC is that the individual user isn't profiting by selling the Mac clone. Psystar is.