Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[jbernie]

That's incorrect. In fact, they must provide the original system if available. It would be illegal to keep the original system disc without the system with which it shipped.

So if i lose/misplace/lost in fire/flood/hurricane my OSX cd(s) and then decide to sell my Apple computer without going to reaplace the originals I am breaking the law?

Anyway, the purchaser of the system can trot on down to any store that sells OSX and buy a the latest version if they want, clean the harddrive and have a fresh install.

Apple would look awfully stupid in such a court case.

 

[BaldiMac]

Secondly, wouldn't you want Apple to compete on hardware specs and price?

No. There is no way to compete ONLY on hardware specs and price other than cutting corners and appealing to the lease common denominator. That is Dell's business model. Cut out the middle man. Minimize support costs. There is no where else to go but to shrink the profit margins. That does not leave much room for research and development.

 

[Wondercow]

Here, Apple has a 100% of the Mac market and they're using that leverage to snuff out entrants like Psystar. That's monopolistic.

1) There is absolutely, unequivocally nothing wrong nor illegal with being a monopoly

2) Ford owns 100% of the Ford market, McD's owns 100% of the McD's market, NBC owns 100% of the NBC market, Ikea owns 100% of the Ikea market....

 

[macsmurf]

No. There is no way to compete ONLY on hardware specs and price other than cutting corners and appealing to the lease common denominator. That is Dell's business model. Cut out the middle man. Minimize support costs. There is no where else to go but to shrink the profit margins. That does not leave much room for research and development.

And yet Lenovo is in the same market as Dell, make great laptops, and do well. In addition, a lot of manufacturers make expensive high-end products and are able to sell them too. Dell competes on price on most of their products, and create OK products, but that's not the only way to do it.

 

[Definity]

Neither one of you will accept that the other side or your own view is wrong. It's like beating your heads on a brick wall.

Everyone is going round and round in circles and you're not going to getting anywhere.


Quite frankly, let the courts decide what's legal and not and let it be. This thread needs closing.

 

[Wondercow]

So if i lose/misplace/lost in fire/flood/hurricane my OSX cd(s) and then decide to sell my Apple computer without going to reaplace the originals I am breaking the law?

When did I say anything about having original CDs? How would custom ROMs enter into this? How would this have any effect on a coupon?

Anyway, the purchaser of the system can trot on down to any store that sells OSX and buy a the latest version if they want, clean the harddrive and have a fresh install.

I must be missing your point; that has no bearing on the solution I postulated.

Apple would look awfully stupid in such a court case.

What court case?!

 

[pdjudd]

Since by buying an upgrade version you are declaring that you already own a legitimate copy of Windows XP. The locks are only a manner of enforcing that contract since MS isn't gonna send an agent to check your house for a copy.

Ahh! However, Apples terms in the EULA preclude non apple computers - which would have a valid licence for the Mac OSX. ou are arguing that the retail version of OSX is a OEM copy. It is not nor is it marketed or advertised as such. Just because I see something in a store without a price sticker on it and not locked up, doesn't mean that I can take it as my own.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the enforceability of EULAs on the whole. Provisions like MS's are just fine; 99% of things EULAs (including Apple's) commit the purchaser to do are fine. However, the clause that Apple has in their Mac OSX EULA stating that I can only use it on Apple machines is what's illegal, as can be demonstrated through that AT&T Carterphone affair.

What are you talking about. Remember the telecomunications industry is very different from the computer industy as well

 

[GRB]

1) There is absolutely, unequivocally nothing wrong nor illegal with being a monopoly

2) Ford owns 100% of the Ford market, McD's owns 100% of the McD's market, NBC owns 100% of the NBC market, Ikea owns 100% of the Ikea market....

1. If you use it to bully other companies, yes there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust#Dominance_and_monopoly

Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.

2. They do, but Ford doesn't stop me from buying a third party product to use with a Ford. They don't make it a violation of EULA to use a GM something-or-other with a Ford. On the flip side, Apple stops me from using their Mac OSX with generic hardware.

 

[pdjudd]

1. If you use it to bully other companies, yes there is.

How is Apple preventing other operating systems or other computers to be sold again? What part of "Apple owns OSX and they can decide how they want to sell/distribute it" are people not getting?

2. They do, but Ford doesn't stop me from buying a third party product to use with a Ford. They don't make it a violation of EULA to use a GM something-or-other with a Ford. On the flip side, Apple stops me from using their Mac OSX with generic hardware.

Usage of intellectual property remains with the copyright holder - not you.

 

[Wondercow]

1. If you use it to bully other companies, yes there is.

And that is called "abuse of monopoly power" not "being a monopoly". Please do tell how Apple is bullying other companies.

2. They do, but Ford doesn't stop me from buying a third party product to use with a Ford. They don't make it a violation of EULA to use a GM something-or-other with a Ford. On the flip side, Apple stops me from using their Mac OSX with generic hardware.

I was not aware that Apple was "stopping you from buying a third party product to use with a . . ." Mac. Please do tell! I'm sure we'd all be interested in knowing how Apple is doing that.

 

[macsmurf]

How is Apple preventing other operating systems or other computers to be sold again? What part of "Apple owns OSX and they can decide how they want to sell/distribute it" are people not getting?

Well, I'm not getting it because I don't think it's true. Apple has to adhere to a number of laws when it comes to selling their products. A stupid example would be that Apple can't legally sell products exclusively to white people. A less stupid argument would be to refer to tying.

 

[BaldiMac]

And yet Lenovo is in the same market as Dell, make great laptops, and do well. In addition, a lot of manufacturers make expensive high-end products and are able to sell them too. Dell competes on price on most of their products, and create OK products, but that's not the only way to do it.

You're right. You can also compete on the quality of the hardware. But you are still going to have to deal with extremely small margins. Where does the innovation come from? There is not much room for R&D on the scale of what Apple does in a company like Lenovo or Dell. That is why I do not want Apple to be forced to compete simply on "specs and price."

 

[GRB]

Ahh! However, Apples terms in the EULA preclude non apple computers - which would have a valid licence for the Mac OSX. ou are arguing that the retail version of OSX is a OEM copy. It is not nor is it marketed or advertised as such. Just because I see something in a store without a price sticker on it and not locked up, doesn't mean that I can take it as my own.

The EULA nor Apple Store page state that a valid license of OSX is needed to purchase Leopard, nor does it categorize Leopard as an upgrade.

What are you talking about. Remember the telecomunications industry is very different from the computer industy as well

If you had been actually reading my posts you would be well aware of the example I have been citing. If not, Google is your friend.

And that is called "abuse of monopoly power" not "being a monopoly". Please do tell how Apple is bullying other companies.

They sued Psystar for trying to get a foothold in the Mac hardware business, a business Apple currently owns 100% of.

I was not aware that Apple was "stopping you from buying a third party product to use with a . . ." Mac. Please do tell! I'm sure we'd all be interested in knowing how Apple is doing that.

Apple is stopping me from using a third party product with Mac OSX Leopard by stating in the EULA that I cannot use non-Apple hardware.

Are you even aware of what this whole thread was about...

 

[macsmurf]

You're right. You can also compete on the quality of the hardware. But you are still going to have to deal with extremely small margins. Where does the innovation come from? There is not much room for R&D on the scale of what Apple does in a company like Lenovo or Dell. That is why I do not want Apple to be forced to compete simply on "specs and price."

Lenovo laptops have features that Apple laptops do not have as a result of R&D by Lenovo. One example would be spill-resistant keyboards.

When it comes to R&D on the software side there is nothing to prevent Apple from selling OS X at a higher price point and simply give a healthy discount to people who also buy hardware.

 

[r.j.s]

But they have a monopoly on the Mac market. Take the following example: consider a world where PCs only have 40% of the market, but where Dell sells 90% of those PCs. Dell would have a monopoly which they could be taken to court for, despite the fact that Dell only has 90% of 40% of the entire consumer computer business. Here, Apple has a 100% of the Mac market and they're using that leverage to snuff out entrants like Psystar. That's monopolistic.

There is no such thing as a Mac market. That's like saying there is an iPod market, or a Zune market. Can anyone else legally make an iPod? Zune? Mac?

 

[Manos Lijeros]

Well...

Yes but those are phones. Its a little different. Those phone companies don't SELL their phone os in the store.

Actually, you aren't buying OS/X (or Windows) either. You are buying a license to use the software according to the terms of the license...

Lenovo laptops have features that Apple laptops do not have as a result of R&D by Lenovo. One example would be spill-resistant keyboards.

When it comes to R&D on the software side there is nothing to prevent Apple from selling OS X at a higher price point and simply give a healthy discount to people who also buy hardware.

Well, I have to admit that Lenovo's "R&D" can't really claim the prize for the spill resistant keyboard... A simple piece of water-"proof" material between the keys and the board would suffice... If that IS the example of their R&D, I'll take just about anything else 🙂

1) There is absolutely, unequivocally nothing wrong nor illegal with being a monopoly

I think the only allowed monopoly is MLB...http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/baseball.html

 

[Wondercow]

They sued Psystar for trying to get a foothold in the Mac hardware business, a business Apple currently owns 100% of

No, they sued Psystar for illegally modifying Apple software and reselling it. There shouldn't even be a question as to the illegality of that.

Apple is stopping me from using a third party product with Mac OSX Leopard by stating in the EULA that I cannot use non-Apple hardware.

No, they're preventing you form using OS X with other hardware, not hardware with OS X. OS X is Apple's creation and they can dictate terms of use.

Are you even aware of what this whole thread was about...

You don't even know why Apple sued Psystar and you question my knowledge of the thread? Legal experts have come out saying that Psystar is likely to lose its anti-trust claim but you know better, right? No one has ever worried about Apple's supposed monopoly and abuse thereof until Apple became hot again--and it's not even Dell, HP, or any of the other giants who really would have the legal resources to fight this--but you think that I don't know what's going on?

 

[GRB]

There is no such thing as a Mac market. That's like saying there is an iPod market, or a Zune market. Can anyone else legally make an iPod? Zune? Mac?

Yep, if I already own a Zune then Microsoft can't stop me from making my own 'Zune' and putting Zune firmware on it. That's because I already own a license to the Zune firmware by owning a Zune. What Apple is trying to is to stop this practice by adding in a line against it in their EULA, but my hope is that they won't get away with it.

 

[macsmurf]

Well, I have to admit that Lenovo's "R&D" can't really claim the prize for the spill resistant keyboard... A simple piece of water-"proof" material between the keys and the board would suffice... If that IS the example of their R&D, I'll take just about anything else 🙂

If it's so simple then how come Apple don't include that? Lenovo make some of the most reliable laptops on the market (albeit not the prettiest). If that's not a result of R&D, what is?

 

[r.j.s]

Yep, if I already own a Zune then Microsoft can't stop me from making my own 'Zune' and putting Zune firmware on it. That's because I already own a license to the Zune firmware by owning a Zune. What Apple is trying to is to stop this practice by adding in a line against it in their EULA, but my hope is that they won't get away with it.

Again, you doing this is not what the lawsuit is about. Try selling YOUR Zune, as an alternative to MS', as a business model. Not just one, but "thousands."

 

[Manos Lijeros]

If it's so simple then how come Apple don't include that? Lenovo make some of the most reliable laptops on the market (albeit not the prettiest). If that's not a result of R&D, what is?

You only mentioned, and I only commented on, the "spill-proof" keyboard... I think Panasonic has one too...

As to why I don't care to have it...

Well, I have never spilled anything ON my laptop, so I don't know whether I want to pay for it to be on there...

Of course, I don't use the "cup holder" on my desktop much either 😀

 

[GRB]

No, they sued Psystar for illegally modifying Apple software and reselling it. There shouldn't even be a question as to the illegality of that.

Oh I totally agree, but this countersuit is saying that Apple is illegally blocking out Psystar by putting in those software locks anyway. As well, Apple mentioned in its original suit that it was also suing Psystar for violating its EULA, specifically the no-Apple hardware section, so there's more to their original suit than that.

No, they're preventing you form using OS X with other hardware, not hardware with OS X. OS X is Apple's creation and they can dictate terms of use.

Lol what? I'm not even gonna guess what you're saying with the first sentence. Your second seems almost childish in its naivete. No, they do not have a blanket right to dictate terms of use; Ford doesn't have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my Ford car.

You don't even know why Apple sued Psystar and you question my knowledge of the thread? Legal experts have come out saying that Psystar is likely to lose its anti-trust claim but you know better, right? No one has ever worried about Apple's supposed monopoly and abuse thereof until Apple became hot again--and it's not even Dell, HP, or any of the other giants who really would have the legal resources to fight this--but you think that I don't know what's going on?

The only reason why this suit is up is not because Apple is 'hot' but because OSX now works with Intel processors and so there's now a vastly larger market who would be interested in using OSX. Besides Apple, there was no one else in the PowerPC market. As for the 'legal experts' I have only seen passing references to a couple unnamed people in a few articles. Most articles, actually, are stating that this will be a helluva fight, which I definitely agree with.

 

[Wondercow]

Yep, if I already own a Zune then Microsoft can't stop me from making my own 'Zune' and putting Zune firmware on it. That's because I already own a license to the Zune firmware by owning a Zune.

Yeah, they probably could. I couldn't find the license online but it probably has a part that states "the software may not be copied" (or words to that effect). That's pretty standard. In the end though, that's what this court case is about: if Apple loses on the EULA then you can copy the Zune software; if Apple wins on EULA then you cannot copy Zune's software.

What Apple is trying to is to stop this practice by adding in a line against it in their EULA, but my hope is that they won't get away with it.

Not just Apple but every (for all intents and purposes) device producer.

 

[pdjudd]

Yep, if I already own a Zune then Microsoft can't stop me from making my own 'Zune' and putting Zune firmware on it. That's because I already own a license to the Zune firmware by owning a Zune. What Apple is trying to is to stop this practice by adding in a line against it in their EULA, but my hope is that they won't get away with it.

No. They do this to prevent companies from making a business strategy out of their intellectual property. Psystar is a business. THey have to meet higher expectations than consumers are required.

Apple could care less about the end user doing it personally. They may not like the activity and they don't make it easier (just like Microsoft protects WGA to prevent unauthorized installs). They will go after a business that does not respect licensing agreements - something businesses are expected to do. THis is why Dell doesn't buy update copies of Vista, but rater a licences OEM version from Microsoft. They follow licencing agreements set forth by Microsoft.

Apple does not sell an OEM version of their OS the way that Microsoft does. Its a concious business decision that they make. He fact that you cannot get OSX as an OEM in the store, doesn't give you any right to make one anyway or run a business off that model.

 

[GRB]

Again, you doing this is not what the lawsuit is about. Try selling YOUR Zune, as an alternative to MS', as a business model. Not just one, but "thousands."

I am legally allowed to sell MY Zune to anyone who already owns a Zune, because they therefore already have the license to own the Zune firmware I have on my custom Zune. Just like with Psystar, I still have to buy a legal OSX license before I can run Leopard on my Open Computer.

The thing most people are forgetting is that Apple does sell their OS licenses separately, while most of these other handheld gadgets don't.