“US-based Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple’s copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday in the US as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anti-competitive business practices,” Erica Ogg reports for CNET News.
“Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple’s tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is ‘an anti-competitive restrain of trade,’ according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell,” Ogg reports.
“Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple’s end user licence void, and is asking for unspecified damages,” Ogg reports.
“Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies,” Ogg reports. “The answer and countersuit will be filed Tuesday afternoon in the US in the US District Court for Northern California.”
“Apple will have 30 days to respond to Pystar’s counter-claim. In the meantime, Pedraza says it will be ‘business as usual’ at company headquarters,” Ogg reports.
More in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: All these years, all we’ve ever heard from these commodity box assemblers, large and small, is that “Windows is good enough; close enough to Mac that it doesn’t matter.” Come to think of it, though, we haven’t heard it much, if at all, in recent years. Anyway, one thing’s for sure, Psystar doesn’t believe the lie. They want the real deal: Mac OS X. So does Michael Dell. Therefore, if it isn’t already, it should soon become crystal clear to everyone that Bill Gates was wrong: it obviously does matter that Apple’s stuff is better.
Bottom line: Psystar is paying Apple a huge compliment.
So, good luck in prolonging the case to all involved, as every headline and article about it will broadcast the message that Mac is worth fighting for because Windows isn’t good enough. (It never was.)
Apple’s advertising agency couldn’t have dreamed up a better marketing campaign.
@ Antitrust
“How can Microsoft be Anti-Competitive packaging the browser and OS together as one product? yet they are if they do that.”
Microsoft did that to leverage their monopoly and deliberately put competitors out of business.
Apple has had their business model of vertical integration probably before the owner of Piss-star was even born.
They have spent billions developing the OS to support their hardware and have developed a reputation of reliability and generally have very satisfied customers.
For a long time very few people wanted Apples computers because their hardware was proprietary, the company was weak and was seen to be going out of business.
Now that Apple is strong again and profitable, this piss-ant from Piss-star wants some of the action.
One of the main reasons for the turnaround has been because of the switch to Intel processors.
This of course means that the only thing that differentiates Apples computers from the rest is the operating system.
Piss-star by selling computers pre-loaded with Mac OS X and selling them dirt cheap are eroding that differentiation and therefore harming Apples business.
They are also harming Apples reputation for reliability and good design. Mac OS X is not tested to run on every piece of junk PC. Piss-star sells butt ugly rubbish made from cheap parts that make more noise than a hurricane. Who gets the blame when these things malfunction, Piss-stars hardware or Apples OS? Where do customers turn to for support?
@ Antitrust “Simply: Apple sells (in boxed form) and OS which can be run on any appropriately configured industry standard PC”
Don’t you mean the OS is made to function adequately through the questionable (if not illegal) practice of hacking a PC to circumvent the measures that Apple put in place to prevent such a thing?
@ Antitrust “Yet they are trying to tie it to the sale to Apple hardware. That’s just wrong and the courts will quickly see that and rule against Apple”
If this is an illegal practise it should have been challenged 30 years ago.
Piss-star in this case are a corporation posing as a single end user when they purchase a boxed copy. They are then breaking the EULA license agreement, then using software written by a 3rd party (Who also didn’t give permission to use their software either) to hack their cheap rubbish to run Mac OS X. They are parasites making a profit from Apples reputation, hard work, billions spent on R & D over 30 years all for the small price of $129 per computer. They have not made any licensing agreements with Apple, like Dell, HP etc have made with Microsoft.
@ Antitrust are you saying that once Piss-star purchase a boxed copy of Mac OS X they are free to do with it what they will and that Apple no longer has any rights to proprietary technology each DVD contains?
If Dell & HP behaved in this way Microsoft would shut them down over night.
Are you saying that all software EULAs aren’t worth the paper they are written on?
I’m sure that Adobe, Microsoft and every other software maker on the planet would have something to say about that.
@ morons (“Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control,”)
@ Antitrust “If your harmony runs unmodified Symbian as the Psystar runs unmodified Mac OS X, sure.”
Logitech would soon get a cease and desist order too from Nokia, because since the dawn of commercial software development it has always been illegal to use others work without their permission.
“There are too many barrack-roombama lawyers around here.”
If you insert “N LA” between the “B” and “I” in BIDEN, you get:
OBAMA BIN LADEN
I think your idea of customer service is the freedom to experience “Vista-capable”, which is exactly what Jobs always worked to avoid. You are not doing the public any service, neither is the Pshysters.
MSFT is anti-competitive because it bundled a FREE software (browser) into its OS with the sole purpose of crushing a rival software from Netscape, whose ONLY real income is selling its browser. The same can be said for many other software demise on Windows, which MSFT can easily undercut by various ways, because you are limited to play in their sandbox if you want to reach a majority of the PC market. Since Windows dominate 90%+ of all PCs, there isn’t another equivalent ‘market place’ for these software makers to compete with MSFT equally.
When you cannot distinguish the difference between a brand (Apple, Mac, MSFT, Windows) and a market and economic segment (personal computers, MP3 players, smartphones), you really have no business using the word ‘monopoly’.
Monopoly is when you supply 90% of all sausage meat in the world because it’s cheap (in every sense of the word), not what kind or brand of sausage. Just because you can squeeze a different specialty sausage meat (M) into your generic casings and packaging and sell it cheaper, it does not mean the specialty sausage maker (A) is obligated to sell the meat to you to repackage and resell wholesale – even if A sells the meat separately to individual customers – or that you are doing it correctly to meet the true expectations of customers who expect the same quality from A. In fact the sale of your entire product line relies on the reputation A has built on M for decades, without A and M and its brand and reputation you have nothing but empty, cheap, tasteless pig intestines.
People have been sucking on the MSFT twinkie fillings for so long they actually think buying any separate fluffy cake and cream and then jamming them together makes the same thing.
and so they’re psyst?
who luvs ya baby. i do that’s who!
Whatever…
Apple ported OS X to the x86 platform to begin with. Then Apple threatened Psystar with legal action, probably not expecting them to fight back, but they did. I don’t believe they realize what kind of Pandora’s Box they may have opened if David does win against Goliath.
I think the message is people do want the Mac OS X experience, but they want it with affordable hardware, and better options of upgrading components (like video cards) inside the box, looking at you Apple. Honestly, doesn’t it all come from the same place these days anyway?
And really, how well does anyone think OS X would work in a world without the explicit oversight of running it only on Apple’s hardware where all the drivers are bundled for it? Mediocre as it may be, Windows has one thing amazing going for it. And that is how it continues to hold up with the sheer volume of driver support for all legacy and new types of different hardware out there.
@JimR
“Mediocre as it may be, Windows has one thing amazing going for it. And that is how it continues to hold up with the sheer volume of driver support for all legacy and new types of different hardware out there.”
Have you read about what experts have been predicting about what you pointed out? It’s simply a matter of time and when that last straw gets put on the camels back, somethings gonna give.
I don’t envy MSFT. If they DO break backwards compatibility, they risk potentially huge OS defections. If they DON’T, they risk the code base collapsing under it’s own sheer size.
Get back to me after the release of Windows 7 and lets see what happened.
Don’t know if it’s with Balmer’s private founds or with M$’s… But these few guys at Psystar must get quite few bucks for fighting on!
Is this thing on?!? You dolts who think a software developer such as MS is behind this don’t understand that they stand to lose as much as Apple if Psystar wins. If you break Apple’s EULA you will most likely break everybody’s. And since Dell makes his money on piggybacking MS it really doesn’t make much sense that he really stands to profit much from this either. Stupid as they all may seem I refuse to believe they are collectively that stupid AND suicidal.
Apple is not ABUSING their monopoly; MS was and is. That is the difference. It’s kind of funny that no one remembers that Apple was not sued (at least successfully) when they yanked their OS licensing from UMax, Motorola, Power Computing and everyone else upon Jobs return to Apple in ’97. Those deep pockets could have afforded to stick it to Apple at that time if they wanted to to keep the gravy train rolling. But they didn’t. Apple was as close as to circling the drain as it ever was when Steve re-entered Cupertino after his exile and would have probably been fairly easy pickings.
Apple, Microsoft and every other software maker out their has something to lose in this case. Copyright laws were designed to protect the PUBLIC by
1. providing the copyright holder with adequate protection from theft and
2. by setting a definite limit on the amount of time which an author has a right to EXCLUSIVELY use and control his work. Works enter the public domain after either a certain period of time has passed or other criteria has been met.
These checks and balances assure the public ownership and its’ rights are not indefinite and thereby encourage future works.
Copyright is in and of itself, by design, a legal, limited monopoly. End of story.
“Because they were giving the browser away for free which forced Netscape out of business “
And how much was Netscape charging for their browser? Netscape started that “price war”.
re: Wordsmith
If you insert cheap booze and marijuana into a 40 year old living with mom and calling himself Wordsmith, you have a pathetic loser with more spare time than actual purpose in life.
“They have spent billions developing the OS to support their hardware and have developed a reputation of reliability and generally have very satisfied customers.”
None of which is a reason why they should be allowed to sell a separate boxed OS yet force the bundled purchase of a Mac to use it. That’s one thing antitrust laws are designed to stop.
“I think your idea of customer service is the freedom to experience “Vista-capable”, which is exactly what Jobs always worked to avoid.”
Stupid rabid fanboy.
What I was pointing out is that companies don’t have full rights do do whatever they want despite the law giving Microsoft as an example. Where in the post did it support what Microsoft was doing? Microsoft there was given as a prime example of what companies can’t do.
“whose ONLY real income is selling its browser.”
I seem to recall Netscape was out to crush Microsoft by establishing the browser as a platform, and giving it away was part of the strategy to get it everywhere. But do you know anyone who ever licensed netscape and paid money for it? Giving it away for free to everyone then hoping some would pay for commercial licenses was the flaw in Netscape’s model. The second problem was falling behind Microsoft in development and not competing well on features with Microsoft’s later browser versions. But Netscape not Microsoft set the expected market price ($0) of a browser to a customer.
“Antitrust are you saying that once Piss-star purchase a boxed copy of Mac OS X they are free to do with it what they will and that Apple no longer has any rights to proprietary technology each DVD contains?”
Yes, there are protections in Antitrust law which, once you have purchased a product stop you forcing the purchase of another product to use it. Where does this primarily come up? For example your car manufacturer cannot require that you purchase their OEM oil filters or other parts to maintain warranty. Agree, disagree if you like, but it’s the law.
“And really, how well does anyone think OS X would work in a world without the explicit oversight of running it only on Apple’s hardware where all the drivers are bundled for it?”
And really, how well do you think the OS would work if the only peripherals you could buy and use with Macs came from Apple. Rabid fanboys seem happy with the idea that vendors should be creating memory, processor upgrades, video cards, scanners, printers, keyboards, webcams and so on it all compatible with Mac OS X, even when Aplle sells similar products. They get quite pissed off when PC compatible products don’t include a Mac driver. But create a whole Mac OS X compatible computer rather then just parts, then the idiots come out and start howling that the moon.
“1. providing the copyright holder with adequate protection from theft”
No-one’s stolen anything. the OS Psystar is selling is brought and paid for. Apple has their money. No-one’s modifying anything, the OS runs unmodified on the hardware. Psystar is not trampling on any rights of the copyright holder.
The only question is whether Apple can force you to run an OS capable of running on generic hardware on Apple hardware. In any other similar case the OS vendor has lost that argument.
This could become the most valuable advertising campaign for Apple ever!
Hoot!
@Antitrust
You’re getting a bit too technical for this site. Apple can get away with it because Apples fans will love them not matter what they do to screw them over.
@Antitrust –
Keep posting mate, you are hilarious …
A typical embrace, extend and extinguish run-of-the-mill Microsoft zombie ie. WANKER.
… But hilarious none the less.
However, your limited grasp of the Microsoft antitrust case beggars belief, maybe Psystar should hire you as their personal “court” jester.
Unusually weak response from MDN on this one. I wonder if that’s because if Psystar win this and OS X is freed into the hubbub of the PC mainstream, MDN’s own ‘Mac Fundamentalist’ niche will be become pretty-much pointless?
I would be difficult to find a place for a website evangelising the Mac, when most of its readers will be happily running OS X on optimised, custom-configured, highly-upgradable and inexpensive PC boxes.
I think, this is what the margins warning refered to. Apple will build cheap computers to outsell these guys in the marketplace. Remember, if you buy a machine like that from Psystar, you can never be sure it is still working if the os is updated.
Insert McCain after President and you get:
Continuing Bad economy, more tax cuts for the rich, more people with no health insurance, higher gas prices, no infrastructure investment, more borrowing from other countries like China, Russia, no investment in fuel alternatives, more unemployment, lower wages, more corporate control of the government, more anti-Bill of Rights and civil rights judges, a repeal of women’s right to chose.
Pretty much you get a continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda. Less freedom for you, more freedom for Big Brother to spy on you and control your life – to protect you.
@Antitrust
I think you are wrong. Netscape was selling it’s browser when Microsoft introduced Explorer. Then Microsoft started bundling Explorer for FREE with Windows and that was something that Netscape couldn’t compete with. Netscape finally started giving away it’s browser but too little too later. Microsoft funding was also something that Netscape couldn’t compete with either, given that the revenue of selling the browser had gone away.
Besides Explorer was another example of “Good Enough” Microsoft spooge being offered to the public.
Let’s not forget. Explorer is REQUIRED in order to download updates from Microsoft (still) – it’s a little hard to delete it when it’s really tied to part of the “operation system”.
Wonder where does Psystar get the money to sue Apple (hint : may be the secret Microsoft funds now available since the linux case is closed )
From the article: “But other legal experts say Psystar faces a tough legal challenge in proving Apple has engaged in antitrust behaviour by loading its software on its own hardware and thereby allegedly harming consumers and competitors.”
I don’t know about consumers (well I do and the lawsuit is a farce) but who are the competitors? What other company makes consumer desktop computers with their own software for example? Not Microsoft and not Dell. The only one that actually comes to mind is IBM and the OSWarp. You don’t think that Apple wiped them out do you?
“Wonder where does Psystar get the money to sue Apple”
Ballmer sacrificed three days of his Hostess Twinkies budget. He wasn’t particularly happy about it either.
The Psystar Antitrust claim against Apple is an attorney grasping at straws, desperately looking and hoping for a bargaining position. Currently Psystar has no position to bargain from, with a counter claim (no matter how out of reality it is,) they setup a position from which to bargain. Without the counter claim Apple would just roll over them. Apple may still just steam roller over them anyway, because an expert has told me the claims may by Psystar that invoke the Clayton and Sherman Acts would only apply to Apple if it’s Hardware and Operating System defined a market and market share all there own without any alternatives, and even then it would be an uphill war for Psystar to win just because of legal presidents and the ways the laws have been enforced over the years, a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself. The judge on Apple’s motion and reply to the charges can toss all of Psystar’s claims as without merit and relevance to the law. Which is what Apple’s Legal team will ask the Judge to do.
@Antitrust:
When you purchase an engine, you can do whatever you want with it. When you purchace a boxed Mac OS X, what you are purchasing is: The box, the printed matter and the media (the phisical DVD). Whith the price you get permisson to USE the software based on some RULES (called the EULA). IF you disagree with these RULES then DO NOT USE the software and get your money back. That’s it.
By the way: You can do whatever you want with the box, the printed matter or the media. You can even eat them, ’cause you OWN them. But you don’t OWN the software.
This isn’t a case of taking a boxed copy that anyone can buy at the store and just run on any old hardware. It requires unauthorized modification to OSX to have it function. Just because the software CAN work on any average PC, doesn’t mean Pystar has the “right” to take it, modify it, and use it in ways that Apple (the creator) doesn’t want it used in. The EULA is very clear about the fact they are licensing a copy and only own the media, not the software…
“The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the
terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property
rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or irecorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. “
The license is also very clear about not running it on any non-apple labeled hardware, or enabling anyone to do so…
“Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. “
The license is also very clear about not modifying the software…
“F. Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy,
decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.”