“In a move that could profoundly alter the face of the personal computer market, upstart Mac cloner Psystar on Thursday filed a countersuit against Silicon Valley heavyweight Apple, claiming that Steve Jobs’ company employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,” Paul McDougall reports for InformationWeek.
“In doing so, Psystar claims, Apple has violated Sherman antitrust rules and other U.S. laws. A Psystar victory in court could pave the way for other PC makers, including big vendors like Dell, HP and Lenovo, to enter the Mac market and offer alternatives to Microsoft Windows PCs,” McDougall reports.
MacDailyNews Take: Gee, if that happened worldwide productivity would surge to historic levels. Most of the IT guys would be out of work, though.
McDougall continues, “Psystar claims in court documents filed in U.S. District Court for San Francisco that Apple ‘has engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior and/or other actions that are in violation of the public policy underlying the federal copyright laws.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ll have some of whatever Psystar and their lawyers are smokin’. It is the last Friday afternoon in August, after all.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Sure, let Apple charge $1000 per computer to license the MAC OS.
Gee. this is like Yves St. Laurent being sued because they illegally restrict the Yves St.Laurent market by actively prosecuting counterfeiters. OL!
this is ludicrous.
what this ultimately means is that all software should run on any hardware etc.
what competition is that?
what innovation does that bring?
lets all become the lowest common denominator…
cos that’s always best.
fkn not.
hope pisstar gets obliterated beyond any recognition.
Just another bold attempt to steal the fruits of Apple’s labors.
“But mommy, big bad Billy Goat did it, why can’t I? They have good toys and I want them and I want to make money off them, they’re mine mine mine!”
“lets all become the lowest common denominator…”
That is the definition of the “competitive” windows market.
Why is PeeStar arguing such a weak argument? Have they paid off the court, or are they really that stupid?
The whole thing sounds ludicrous. I wonder if Apple is going to throw the knockout punch up front by going for a Summary Judgment.
INCREDIBLE.
Anti-Trust suits are expensive. Psystar doesn’t have the funds to pay rent, let alone the costs of a legal action like this. Someone else is paying the legal costs.
@ gregg
this whole thing is so sus.
from the very beginning it was shady.
ballmy puppets i say…
“illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,”
… Mac isn’t a market… the market is “computers” in which the mac is only 8% of.
thats like saying the “Celica market” that toyota has…
maybe it is why apple took so long to step up…
fastidious R&D;.
What I’ve been wondering are how did Psystar get its hands on enough legal copies of of OS X to install one per computer it builds? Shouldn’t that only be available to officially licensed OEMs like in China or Taiwan where they manufacture the official Macs? If a guy walks into an Apple store and buys 100 DVDs wouldn’t that draw a red flag? So how is Psystar going to sustain its business over the course of the court case for a year if it continues to ship 1 legit copy of OS X DVD with each computer?
@feral
windows has the least to gain (in fact, i think it would murder them), if OSX was licensed out. i think this is more mikey dell, that is pushing the buttons.
@ Denny
that is one of the options. the other one is this
http://cultofmac.com/the-solution-to-apples-little-psyster-problem/2629
@freebeer
from apple itself, yes it would cause suspicions. but there are apple resellers. still, its all very shady.
Let’s see, they wrote, what?!? “claiming that Steve Jobs’ company employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market”
Yes, Steve Jobs’ company “employs technology”, is that illegal? “dubious licensing schemes”? What is “dubious” about no licensing allowed for non-Apple hardware? And, how does marketing, high-pitched or not, “illegally destroy competition”?
These lawyers must not have graduated from law school yet.
I agree, it’s Mickey Dell the asshat gettin’ more than a bit nervous about giving the shareholders their money back.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ll have some of whatever Psystar and their lawyers are smokin’. It is the last Friday afternoon in August, after all.
Didn’t Kid Rock make a song about that? I tried to find it on iTunes but didn’t have any luck. I wonder why.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
BTW, let me get this straight. Windows gets sued because they put their OS on every computer. Apple gets sued because they don’t put their OS on every computer.
I think my head exploded. That or I crapped my pants.
I don’t know what the folks at Psystar are smoking, but I’ll take some!
“Apple … employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market”
My eyes started rolling so fast and hard, I got a headache…
Swap Microsoft and Windows market for Apple and Mac market and it’ll sound about right.
PissStar has Apple confused with Microsoft.
Apple certainly does not destroy competition – Pystar has every freedom to create it’s own operating system.
I’m going to sue Apple for using an apple in their logo. I’ve been to many Apple stores and I don’t see apples for sale anywhere. That’s false advertising!
PissStar has Apple confused with Microsoft. —Mr. Reeee
I like “Psychostar” myself.
“… to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,””
Um, hey nimrods, Apple *IS* the Mac market.
Destroys competition in the Mac market?! Apple created the Mac. The Mac is Apple. It’s not like Kellogg’s monopolizing the cereal market, preventing other companies from entering it. It’s like someone suing Porsche for destroying competition in the Porsche market. Here’s hoping Apple’s lawyers bury them.
“I’m going to sue Apple for using an apple in their logo.”
It’s been done.
Then the same can be said of the XBox and PS3 markets. This will be thrown out of court rather quickly.
The case and claims by Psystar are without merit as Apple’s role and place in the PC Market has been fully defined and accepted by the courts from pervious litigation (Microsoft’s Anti-trust cases). Apple’s systems are very competitively priced in the PC market, can you build yourself a cheaper system with off the shelf parts, of course. Is that what Psystar is doing with there Open Computer without a doubt.
Quality, customer support, customs design, and manufacturing cost real money as well as part of the cost of a Macintosh system is the MacOS and it’s R&D;cost, a full retail license for Vista Ultimate is about $300.00. Psystar is buying what amounts to upgrade License of Mac OS X for $129.00 and selling them as a full license. Psystar is also violating the Hackintosh EMF License terms that they use to run the MacOS on the generic PC Hardware.
Psystar choose to violate not just Apple’s License but, the Freeware Hackintosh EMF License to make and sell their Cheap Mac clones. They did it without principle or due diligence. Apple as called them to the carpet and the options were flee or fight.
They picked fight and got a law firm that has no real desire to go into court and argue the case. The law firm for Psystar is going to attempt to negotiate an exit for the Brothers that will leave their wallets mostly intact so, they can move on to their next get rich quick scheme, and the law firm can get their pay day too.
Apple Legal team are sharks in the kiddy pool with this case, I’d expect Psystar will be eaten alive. The Brothers will need deep pockets, a rich sugar daddy, a law firm working on contingence or a miracle cash machine to pay for the litigation, If their is no settlement before the court date it will be a long and very, very expensive lesson for the Brothers. If there is a settlement don’t expect to see Psystar selling anything that might even be used to run the Mac OS on it.
In the opinion of two experts I’ve talked with Psystar’s case and arguments have no merit and borders on frivolous.
That being said, everyone hoping that Psystar will win somehow should really be asking yourself if Psystar wins will it really be good for the PC Industry the answer is of course is no, Apple will simply pull the plug on Mac OS for their PC’s and start shipping the systems with Microsoft Windows, because Apple simply can not compete with Microsoft in the OEM OS space, it does not have the resources or the cash.
Apple would eventually migrate it’s customer base from the Macintosh to a new platform most likely running OS XI, and PA Semi designed processors.
Somebody sue Psystar for cornering the market on idiocy.
Screw Psystar, I want what Demon is smoking.
In order for Microsoft to destroy Apple in an open Mac market, Microsoft would first have to make a competitive OS.
Like that’s going to happen in the next 7 years.
What their smoking is probably 10 to 15 percent THC.
And I have my checkbook. How much pretty please
Mr. McMullen’s scenario would not work in the long term because of the inevitable hardware legacy issues that would result.
Can you imagine trying to keep a start-of-the-art OS start-of-the-art and still keep on functional on five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten year old hardware?
I can only assume Mr. McMullen didn’t think of this at the time he wrote it because of his personal situation at the time.
“These lawyers must not have graduated from law school yet.”
You said it brother. These folks are fools!!!!!
TO MDN: please find out how to get a little of what Psystar is smoking for your MDN Readers.
Much appreciated.
Apple avoids “monopoly status” by manufacturing computers. This case could have merit if Apple didn’t exclusively produce their own hardware (viz., their PC line). Because they make Macs, their also make operating systems that allow their operation. And because of that, there is no anticompetitive practice going on. To claim such, would be to claim that Nokia has to create a version of their OS to run on Sony phones. Or that Samsung has to create a version of their OS to run on Toshiba LCD televisions…
Just because Mac OS X can be hacked to run on other platforms (PCs), doesn’t mean it was designed for such purposes. Psystar’s argument only works if you assume such… and that is not the case.
I vote for a law that makes all people (lawyers, juries, and judges) who award money to dumb illogical people pay the amount they award to these dumb people out of their own pocket. That should at least make people think twice about the case.
What’s interesting to me is the question about what exactly makes a Mac a Mac. Psystar (interesting play on words for a name, no?) seems to be arguing that hardware is not relevant. It seems to be largely a psychological thing. They wish to “liberate” the OS as in the M$ model yet fail to realize that this isn’t really the whole story. What makes a Mac a Mac is the whole thingamajigger, as so many of us have been saying for so long. It’s Apple’s personality and all the little details made just for us. It’s the difference between a Hallmark card stamped out for any old mom or dad versus the one your kid makes for you when art class decided to focus on “the ones you care about most.” Try as they might, no one will make a Mac. To make something so good, they’d have to care about what they made more than what profit it may bring them.
Psystar’s shot at becoming a star will fade quickly. They have no real argument, despite their obvious grand sense of who they think they are. That’s the point, though. They’re manipulating. They’re getting attention. They’ve gotten something out of this already because they can’t be that naive. Psychological stars. Yeah, whatever.
But hey, maybe it’s getting somebody laid. Chances are there’s a scraggly Zune user who thinks someone’s a hunk for fighting against mean ol’ Apple. I’d say “more power to ’em,” but if this is the best they can do, even scraggly Zune users walk away at some point.
MDW “light,” as in “the end of the tunnel.”
Demon should be an analyst since he gets his facts from the same place the analyst do, out of his butt.
the judge should jail these buffoons for contempt, and frivolous lawsuits
I’m cheering for Psystar. Macs to the masses. MDN was right, Windows isn’t good enough. What is there to fear of the outcome if Psystar wins?
Hypothetical: Let’s say for a moment they do win and it becomes a precedent for OS X to be sold on any computer. Soon, the HPs, Dells, and Lenovos are suddenly shipping with OS X and not Windows. People start using OS X and love it. Harmony ensues. Within years OS X has nearly phased out Windows in businesses and academia everywhere. Diseases are eradicated, the quality of human society improves globally. Apple continues to make its own computers and continues to improve OS X. A percentage of people still pay for Apple hardware because it’s branded better, but at the same time Apple works with governments and organizations to improve technology everywhere. Years later mankind has colonized Mars and continues expanded interstellar travel with OS X powered spacecraft.
All this, because Psystar was “thinking differently”. Here’s to the crazy ones, because those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world… COULD be the ones that do.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
I fail to see how the Mac zealot mind works. On one hand it desires that sort of communist utopia in worshipping the Mac, but on the other hand it prides itself as part of a tiny guild of separatists, confederates if you will. Attempting to resist the very change it wishes to create.
Sometimes I think you zealots think Apple would turn into Microsoft if that happened, if it’s not happening already.
Do you people pride yourselves in Apple or in using the decent OS that is Mac OS X and empowering the masses to do the same?
“marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market”
What Mac market? Apple invented the Mac market. They have no monopoly in the COMPUTER market. That’s like saying that Dell has a monopoly on computers that are called Dell.
What a bunch of loosers. I hope they loose their shorts.
I will construct and sell a “Ferrarim” super car and charge Ferrari if they try to forbid me to do that! ;(
Psystar to win. After all, all they are doing is seeking the right to build and sell modern universal PC hardware… exactly as Apple build and sell, and in competition with Apple and the modern universal PC hardware line it calls ‘Macintosh’.
Judge to throw Apple’s case out of court in a day.
@ws
You have to remember it is no longer Apple Computer Company, it is Apple Inc. When the “mac” was a IBM ppc exclusive domain it was Apple Computer. Now we have Intel based chipsets which opens up a whole new architecture in the build. Same as all the other computers that are out there. Just another pc in the eyes of technology. One of quality but never the less another personel computer like the rest of the masses. I often wondered why Microsoft stopped supplying the discs that used to be included in the purchase of those windows machines. Just maybe it could be that once you sell them, they are no longer yours. Maybe there is exclusion? Look at the deal with AT&T;and tell me that is the only phone service available in the United States. It is just a phone no matter how many bells and whistles you attach for crying out loud.
I wonder if Steve has learned from his capital mistake in 1984. Imagine what would happen with Mac OS if you get the clones back on stage. It would mean the end of windows and a predominance for the next 20 years! Let the competition start.
“Apple ‘has engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior”
Yea right, that’s why Psystar illegally re-selling OSX, and OSX Server, illegally reverse engineering the code to produce updates, NOT asking Apple for permission to use any of its intellectual property before going into business for itself and claiming it is an Apple compatible system. Just the word Apple in the name is a copyright violation. There’s a big difference with anticompetitive and down right STEALING! I don’t see anyone making Playstation 3 clones, Xbox clones, or Wii clones? Is that because Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are being Anticompetitive? NOT!!
Apple like these other companies has the right to license or NOT license there products to others. They R&D;, design, build, market, ship, and support all of there products themselves. They outsource some factories to build there products but all under Apples supervision and guidance. Perfectly Legal and not anticompetitive. Your case is stupid and will fail miserably.
“Sure, let Apple charge $1000 per computer to license the MAC OS.”
They’ve already made their decision on that. They license Mac OS in a box. All that’s being argued is whether that license can be allowed to force the bundling of a Mac sale.
“Gee. this is like Yves St. Laurent being sued because they illegally restrict the Yves St.Laurent market by actively prosecuting counterfeiters. OL!”
No, it’ like Yves Saint Laurent saying if you buy an Yves Saint Laurent perfume you’re only allowed to wear it with Yves Saint Laurent clothing, even though there is nothing about the former that requires you use the latter.
“Quality, customer support, customs design, and manufacturing cost real money as well as part of the cost of a Macintosh system is the MacOS and it’s R&D;cost”
Fine, increase the price of a standalone Mac OS X license to reflect that. Don’t subsidize Mac OS X standalone licenses sales from Apple hardware revenues. That actually IS illegal so not an argument Apple is likely to make.
“Psystar is buying what amounts to upgrade License of Mac OS X for $129.00 and selling them as a full license. “
If it “Amounts to that”, Apple should have put those words somewhere in the marketing materials, on the box or in the license agreement, but they didn’t. So it’s a full version.
“To claim such, would be to claim that Nokia has to create a version of their OS to run on Sony phones. “
Different again, since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design of. No-one’s asking Apple to create a special anything, or even support the OS on the clone hardware. All they’re saying is it’s illegal for Apple, who produces industry standard hardware designed to an industry standard spec using an different but again completely open BIOS spec to stop other people doing the same and running legally purchased Mac OS X boxed product purchased at retail on it.
“The law firm for Psystar is going to attempt to negotiate an exit for the Brothers that will leave their wallets mostly intact”
You’re right, but the law firm will be negotiating a solution which is roughly equal to the percentage chance of Apple losing (even if small) times the cost of Apple losing (very large if there is legal precedent allowing mac clones, as Apple’s overpriced hardware business will be decimated) leaving the Psytar brothers rich and Apple’s Mac business intact.
@ Denny
Apple should charge $1000 to lisence OS to each computer, because if you think about it, most desktop PC’s are about $700-$900 and even with the os you are still getting a cheaper computer than the mac pro, it could be the mid range desktop we have been waiting for!
“… since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design of.”
Wrong, and this is where your argument fails.
The Mac uses “industry standard” components in it’s (Apple’s) design of the Mac. The uses of “industry standard” components” is not the same as some sort of basic “fundamental design” of a computer. Apple and every other major PC maker has patents covering their computer engineering.
To use a car analogy, there is a basic “fundamental design” to the automobile, but that doesn’t mean anyone else is allowed to build and sell a Ford (Dodge, Altima, Chevy or what ever).
“from each according to their ability (Apple) to each according to their need (Psystar)” –
a definition of the essence of communism, quoted from a book well worth reading, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I wish all these Apple fanbois would get real. Technology has brought us the UPC (Universal Personal Computer). Apple – or no one else – is gonna be allowed to hold back technology just so they can protect its monopoly position. Apple is building, advertising and selling UPCs and is readily using the names of Windows, Linux and OS X as a major selling point of the UPC. All Psystar is doing is asking for the same rights as Apple has to make and sell UPCs.
If you want to use automobile analogies in this modern age – think of every car being perfectly able to run in three gears… but Ford attempt to stop ALL cars other than its own using the third gear… because it engineered the technology for the third gear – and refuse to even licence it… so that Ford cars have an unfair advantage.
Psystar to win… FREE the OS!
@MacIrish: Nice pull!
Jim R: Cheer for whomever you wish. But your rationale for a Psystar win is woefully inadequate. Psystar is only “thinking differently” if you buy into the rationale that thieves think differently. Hell, Jeffrey Dalmer thought differently too. How about acting appropriately. Their antitrust argument is nothing but a deflection of the real issues and if you don’t know that then you should be doing your homework instead of posting on forums.
And as far as how the Mac zealot mind works… Well, let’s put it this way. While I don’t speak for anyone here I, personally, would rather see Apple stay at their current market share than to have filet mignon turned into McDonald’s dog food burgers just so I can get them on every street corner. The Mac ceases to be the Mac if it becomes homogenized, watered down or ubiquitous. ‘Nuff said.
@Antitrust: again… you (and every MS fanboy like you) just don’t have a clue. Apple sells HARDWARE. Any software they sell is created simply to sell more HARDWARE. Not the other way around. The software enables the hardware and makes it much more useful and user friendly. You are not forced to by any software that is made by Apple or made for an Apple operating system (with the sole exception of the Mac OS that is included in the price when you buy a Mac). You are free to buy any Apple Macintosh computer and install the operating system of your choice on it and any other software that you wish. If you buy a Porsche and then use it daily for hauling horse manure (like that which emanates continuously from the minds and mouths of MS/PC apologists) in the trunk and back seat that is your choice. But don’t complain that Porsche doesn’t manufacture and sell a cheaper version of your crap wagon.
“…since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design…” The Mac is NOT industry standard hardware. There are many ways to discern this fact but we’ll stick with the most egregious of your Dvorak-speak. The term industry standard hardware means nothing in this instance. If you are referring to industry standards such as USB, Firewire, SATA, and other component standards then yes, Macs do use mostly non-proprietary designs. What makes their designs non-standard is that they don’t use the same components purchased from the same suppliers and manufactured to the same tolerances and specifications as the cheapie PC box assemblers in the PC/Windows industry. Most of their components are designed and manufactured with much higher tolerances than the crap you find in most sub-$1K PCs.
The evidence is clear on this. Macs work better with less hassle and setup (and usually many years longer) even when using completely proprietary solutions such as Avid and ProTools which require very specific hardware on which to run. Just because a hard drive says it is XX {enter industry standard bus component here} doesn’t mean it will work or work well. Most standards have ranges of performance i.e. compression, speed, size, etc. under which they are allowed to operated and still be considered “standard compliant”.
Your overly simplistic view of the computer industry, engineering, and manufacturing (not to mention the law and ethical business practices) are what Microsoft has come to rely upon and expect from their user base. Since most of their user base don’t know anything about these things and know nothing about alternatives to Windows and the business model it uses (not the same one Apple uses – got it finally?) they can get away with the “Macs are overpriced” spin that they constantly spew.
Bottom line. You want the Mac OS then get a Mac. If you want Windows, Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that runs on the x86 (or x86-64) chipset then you can buy any machine you want. And there is nothing wrong with either option. It’s just that people like you are either:
1. too blind to realize there’s a difference,
2. too hard headed to understand the facts,
3. too caught up in (as in biased) the MS Windows/box assemblers business model to realize that there are different ways of doing business (including the business of computers)
4. just too cheap and/or poor to buy a higher quality computer with the operating system they truly desire.
5. or all of the above.
While I am busy getting work done because I spent a little extra money up front to buy a tool that doesn’t break every time I turn it on you are busy rationalizing your Yugo purchase when you needed a Mack truck in which to haul around your manure and hoping, just praying that someday somewhere someone will make it possible for you to own the object of your affection. A Mac. Good luck with that. As William Congreve once wrote (and people have been misquoting ever since), “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”
“Different again, since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design of.”
You’re wrong and borderline illiterate.
Look who is talking there artard (Frank Tantrini) Get a life
The question is not about whether Psystar is building a better Mac than Apple or supporting it better. I doubt that they’re doing either. The question is whether what Psystar is doing is legal.
“Apple and every other major PC maker has patents covering their computer engineering.”
Apple builds generic clone laptops in Chinese factories. There’s very little patentable about any Apple laptop design. And Psystar is not copying Apple’s designs. They are taking industry standard components and software, assembling them into a system and running Mac OS X on it. It’s telling that in Apple’s complaint the one thing they HAVE NOT alleged is any patent infringement. Had that actually happened it would be an easy argument to win.
“that doesn’t mean anyone else is allowed to build and sell a Ford”
Bad analogy. By law anyone is allowed to make direct drop in replacement parts for Fords, and Ford cannot stop that and even must honor the warranty provided it’s not due to that replacement part failing. Apple is using a standard engine and drive train purchased from Intel, seats, wheels and tires from other vendors and dropping them into a vehicle with Apple bodywork. And Psystar is not copying that bodywork. Apple might have more of a case if they did.
“you (and every MS fanboy like you) just don’t have a clue”
I must have missed the point in the post where I referred to Microsoft. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, it’s all about Apple’s reactions to a reasonable use of thier products.
“you buy a Porsche and then use it daily for hauling horse manure “
If you buy a crate engine from Porsche, you expect to be able to install it in any vehicle you want. Likewise if you buy a Porsche and then decide to drop a chevy engine into it (why I don’t know but some did it with the 928) you don’t expect a visit from Porsche’s lawyers telling you what you can do with your Porsche. If you figure your Ford would work best with Porsche brakes and calipers and the wheels from a Dodge, Porsche is going to gladly sell you the parts and Ford is not going to help you modify your Ford, but they’re not going to stop you either. If you want to put a silly looking but ineffective spoiler on your Toyota, or an exhaust tip the size of a coffee can, you don’t expect a visit from lawyers.
In all these cases you don’t expect dealer warranty either, but no body’s asking for that with Psystar. If you buy a standalone boxed OS from Apple you expect the same freedom.
“Mac is NOT industry standard hardware.”
Absolutely it is. It is a standard PC design. If you believe anything else you don’t know much about PC design and therefore have been fooled by clever marketing.
“What makes their designs non-standard is that they don’t use the same components purchased from the same suppliers”
But they do. open your Mac up one day. Aside from case design, every major component in there is standard, the same that’s available to anyone else. Motherboard design uses the same chipsets and is fundamentally the same as a standard PC. Everyone builds pretty much off vendor’s reference designs with a few tweaks. Apple is no different. That’s evidenced by the fact that Mac OS X works on hardware which was designed to industry standard specifications with no thought ever that it would be used to run Mac OS X.
That’s the two edged sword for Apple, they get to leverage all the design and performance advances in the standard PC platform, at the expense that they’re architecturally just a standard PC running a different OS to most other standard PCs.
And with respect to the comments on better quality somehow making a Mac non standard, if I have “Standard” design for a bolt that specifies the mechanics and strength but not the material and somebody makes it out of steel and someone else makes it out of titanium, the bolt (or PC) is still standard. You may buy the titanium one because you value light weight or corrosion resistance over low cost. Someone else may buy the steel one, because in their application the extra properties of titanium don’t justify the high cost premium. But they are both “Standard” bolts.
@Antitrust
“Apple builds generic clone laptops in Chinese factories. There’s very little patentable about any Apple laptop design. And Psystar is not copying Apple’s designs. They are taking industry standard components and software, assembling them into a system and running Mac OS X on it. It’s telling that in Apple’s complaint the one thing they HAVE NOT alleged is any patent infringement. Had that actually happened it would be an easy argument to win.”
And violating the law doing so. The EULA clearly states:
“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.”
No matter how you try to twist this, Psystar doesn’t have a RIGHT to take OSX and run it on hardware configurations that Apple hasn’t approved. OSX is NOT Psystar’s property. They can’t just take the software and modify it and do whatever the hell they want to.
Afib: You’re a well-known lowlife and loser on these threads. You have no room to criticize.
Get a life? Take your own advice, fat man.
“Apple builds generic clone laptops in Chinese factories. “
Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about industrial design or mechanical and electrical engineering. Your posts get dumber every time. Stop while you’re behind. You are embarrassing yourself.
“decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.””
Firstly the EULA is just that, it is not a PC Manufacturer license agreement, it is targeted at the END USER to whom the system is delivered.
“They can’t just take the software and modify it and do whatever the hell they want to.”
Nor did they, the OS they ship is unmodified.
“Psystar doesn’t have a RIGHT to take OSX and run it on hardware configurations that Apple hasn’t approved. “
Says Who? Apple? The Law? Fanboys like you? Lets see what a court has to say.
When you add a 3rd party graphics card or memory to your Mac or another hard drive, you’ve presumably created a “Configuration Apple has not Approved” Are you saying that’s illegal too? Is your dividing line between “legal” and “illegal” based on you using 3rd party parts where Apple sells one which does the same job? Psystar has just take it to the extreme and replaced every Apple part with it’s 3rd party equivalent.
Obviously nobody’s suggesting you can’t add 3rd party parts to your Mac, so where do you draw the line? 10% non Apple parts? 50%, 90% or 100% Non Apple parts? An old PPC Mac case with new internals (keeping the Genuine Apple Branded piece of the hardware)? Once you accept that using Mac OS X and 3rd party hardware is OK, there’s no reason any of those numbers should be favored over any other as a dividing line.
“You obviously know nothing about industrial design or mechanical and electrical engineering. “
I obviously know more than you about all those fields. There was a time Apple’s hardware designs were quite different from the rest of the PC industry. That all ended when Apple’s Intel era began. Now they churn out Intel reference designs in attractive Apple packaging.
Is that a criticism of Apple? no, it’s a smart strategy on their part. They were obviously falling further and further behind going thier own way. But it is what it is.
Now any claims that Apple is somehow different in it’s hardware designs and components used, or that they use better contract manufacturers are just wishful fanboy thinking.
Requiring an EFI emulator, or modifying the kernel to boot the OS on hardware it isn’t sanctioned on still violates Apple’s “right” to say what hardware OSX can run on. Like it or not, it isn’t pystar’s decision what hardware OSX can run on. Apple wrote the software and perfectly within its legal rights to limit its usage to their own hardware. Last I checked, Pystar doesn’t write its own OS. They have zero credibility. I look forward to the justice department putting them out of business.
“I obviously know more than you about all those fields.”
Obviously? Nope. Just arrogant.
“Apple builds generic clone laptops in Chinese factories.”
Like the MBA? Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Your smug delusions are a serious disservice to hundreds of real engineers at Apple Inc.
Which Mac team are you on? Never mind. Your fantasies are beyond boring.
Dear Mr. Pig
I agree with you 100%, I’ve used macs since 1990 and the neighborhood has gained a lot of pin heads in the past several years. Microsoft makes its money selling its ah-hum OS, Apple makes its money selling computers of which the OS is a critical part of making their computers Macs. A PC by any other name still smells like crap.
@Able Archer
“if you buy into the rationale that thieves think differently.”
Hey Apple stole the GUI idea from Xerox, and then attempted unsuccessfully to sue Microsoft when they introduced Windows.
A certain CEO quoted Picasso saying “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”
“Their antitrust argument is nothing but a deflection of the real issues and if you don’t know that then you should be doing your homework instead of posting on forums.”
I’m aware of the issues, but my personal and humble opinion of what I believe the outcome ought to be is my right to say. Apple says Psystar infringes their Apple-only branded computer policy. Psystar says Apple’s EULA is anti-competitive. I say, let the courts decide. Psystar isn’t really stealing anything though when they indicate that every copy of OS X they bundle is retail and legally purchased. Apple just doesn’t benefit from the sale of hardware.
“I, personally, would rather see Apple stay at their current market share than to have filet mignon turned into McDonald’s dog food burgers just so I can get them on every street corner. The Mac ceases to be the Mac if it becomes homogenized, watered down or ubiquitous. ‘Nuff said.”
Which still goes back to the question of what makes a Mac “a Mac” today. If people like you want to see things go on like business as usual, then sites like this should quit hammering on Microsoft for doing what it does. If Apple wanted to stay small, then you probably wouldn’t be seeing the evident growing pains (iPhone 3G launch customer experience, iPhone 2.0 software bugs, iPhone 3G networks issues, and obviously mobileMe) they appear to be showing by attempting to become a dominant player in new markets.
Whether you like it or not, Apple wants the same marketshare Microsoft wants, as does any company in markets X, Y, and Z. But when your audience grows beyond a niche and learning to play well with others becomes necessary (as in making new partnerships with other companies) Apple is finding itself learning the rules to a new ball game.
Also wanted to add….
Besides, Apple Legal is nobody’s friend, they’ve demonstrated numerous times that they can be notoriously bad and sometimes downright idiotic filing suits against the most inconceivable and mundane things. New York City’s logo for example.
“Like the MBA? Riiiiiiiiiiight.”
Bigger and heavier than most subnotebooks, with fewer features. That’s innovation at work. If you’re going to go with a hefty 3 pound monster “subnotebook” these days at least you’d expect the DVD drive to be built in for all that extra weight.
@ Jim R
“Hey Apple stole the GUI idea from Xerox, and then attempted unsuccessfully to sue Microsoft when they introduced Windows.
A certain CEO quoted Picasso saying “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” “
actually. Xerox gave them the rights in exchange investing rights. Xerox had no vision for the future with UI (as well many other things. i work for Xerox, so i know..)
I’m aware of the issues, but my personal and humble opinion of what I believe the outcome ought to be is my right to say. Apple says Psystar infringes their Apple-only branded computer policy. Psystar says Apple’s EULA is anti-competitive. I say, let the courts decide. Psystar isn’t really stealing anything though when they indicate that every copy of OS X they bundle is retail and legally purchased. Apple just doesn’t benefit from the sale of hardware.
Apple is a hardware company. if it doesn’t benefit from the sale of the hardware, then it might as well declare bankruptcy now. Apple develops its own OS to sell that hardware, otherwise it would be at the whim of OS software companies like MS, and probably suffering the same windows vistas woes that Dell and co. In that way, i believe the creation of these clones is damaging apple’s brand and business. i think that is what apple sued for originally as well as many other things. OSX was created for the sole purpose to promote apple hardware.
“Which still goes back to the question of what makes a Mac “a Mac” today. If people like you want to see things go on like business as usual, then sites like this should quit hammering on Microsoft for doing what it does. If Apple wanted to stay small, then you probably wouldn’t be seeing the evident growing pains (iPhone 3G launch customer experience, iPhone 2.0 software bugs, iPhone 3G networks issues, and obviously mobileMe) they appear to be showing by attempting to become a dominant player in new markets.
Whether you like it or not, Apple wants the same marketshare Microsoft wants, as does any company in markets X, Y, and Z. But when your audience grows beyond a niche and learning to play well with others becomes necessary (as in making new partnerships with other companies) Apple is finding itself learning the rules to a new ball game.”
not necessarily true. growing marketshare is, ofcourse good, but not necessarily the ‘goal’ of Apple. Apple’s goal is to make the best consumer devices, stuff that they themselves would use. great sales, increased marketshare, awards etc, is all a bi product of that. ofcourse to investers, and the accountants at apple, marketshare is an important thing, BUT it is not what drives them to spend 20hrs a day, 7 days a week slaving for stevie.
“Apple’s market share is bigger than BMW’s or Mercedes’s or Porsche’s in the automotive market. What’s wrong with being BMW or Mercedes? ” – steve jobs
your points are pretty good, but they are not strong enough to hold up in court. there is always a rebuttal.
and yet no one has made a rebuttal in pystar’s favour for my comment on “mac market”, which doesn’t exist.
“dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,”
this statement alone proves that pystar is clinging on to anything they can get.
in the COMPUTER MARKET, MAC is only 8%. saying there is a (Apple) MAC market is saying that there is a (Honda) Civic market. and honda is in the wrong for not licensing their hybrid engines to other automobile companies.
“in the COMPUTER MARKET, MAC is only 8%. saying there is a (Apple) MAC market is saying that there is a (Honda) Civic market. and honda is in the wrong for not licensing their hybrid engines to other automobile companies.”
But Apple WILL license you Mac OS X, in the same way Honda WILL sell you a new Civic engine. They do it willingly, you can but it at any Apple store. The only question is whether thier “Apple branded machine only” term in that license will hold up in court.
This case is just plain pathetic.
Apple can do what they want – they create the OS and can do whatever they want with it.
If they want to licence the OS then they will, if they dont then there is NOTHING that any court case can do about it.
Apple are happy with the small market share they have, and are not interested in a 95% share and all the problems associated with that (just look at windows!)
Apple are a niche player that appeals to mass markets.
Apple are not anti-competitive. Phystar illegally made unlicenced Apple hardware without Apple’s consent. Apple had no say in this at all. They had no say in the design of the hardware or never signed a licence deal with Phystar for using thr Apple OS in their hardware.
This case is a total joke and the only reason for phystar to do this is to get money out of Apple.
Even if Phystar made macs I would NEVER buy one as I dont want the trouble associated with crap hardware. You have a technical problem with a Phystar mac and good luck trying to sort that out! Apple wont support the hardware or how it behaves with Apples OS.
That monthly cheque that Microsoft sends Phystar to pay for their legal costs must come in handy!
@ Twenty Benson.
How’s your crack habit coming along?
You certainly are smoking something stronger than cigarettes.
A basic lesson for Phystar on how to do business with Apple:
1. Approach Apple with a a business proposal to make Apple licenced hardware
2. Negotiate a deal for bulk licensing of Apple’s designed and patented OS.
3. If Apple agrees to the deal, then final legal contracts are drawn up.
4. Pay Apple $ millions for the rights to make the Officially authorised Apple hardware and OS.
How NOT to do business with Apple:
1. Dont approach Apple to make Apple based OS running hardware
2. Goto your Local Apple Store and buy every retail copy of OS X so you can install it on your frankenstein ‘macs’
3. Create a website selling your dodgey and illegally made hardware
4. Apple employee/user sees website and notifys Apples legal teams.
5. You get sued by Apple for breaking patent laws and every other rule/agreement associated with Apple’s hardware and software
6. You lose the legal case, have to pay Apple $100s millions and are financially ruined and bankrupt.
7. You refuse to pay the fees and spend the next 30years in prison as you cant comply with the courts descision to pay Apple.
Case closed.
Stop fantasizing about how the world works and understand how it does.
Apple goes out hard against Psystar to put the fear in them of losing the case.
from the beginning Apple understands that at best Psystar declares bankruptcy, and Apple never sees a dime. No-one risks going to jail because there is no criminal activity involved, just a potential breach of contract issue
Psystar points out to Apple the possibility that Apple may just lose.
Apple understands that the consequences of it losing are much greater for it than the consequences of Psystar losing for Psystar (they just fold the company, start another and get on with life doing something other than making Mac clones).
Apple calculates the amount they may lose times the probability they may lose and settles with Psystar for roughly that amount, in the process obtaining an agreement from the Psystar owners that they’ll stop building Mac clones.
Look at the payoffs, If Apple might lose and the cost to them is say, a billion dollars (probably a low estimate over time), and the chance they lose is only 1% (which is probably also a ridiculously low estimate of Psystar’s chances), On those numbers it’s worth 10 million to them to make this go away. So for Apple, they suffer a massive loss if they lose, or a small amount of cash gone if they settle. Psystar on the other hand, closes a small company at low cost and pays thier contingent fee lawyers nothing. For them it costs little to lose and they potentially get millions if they settle.
So look for Apple and Psystar to announce an agreement in the near future.
Earlier Post asked… “Anti-Trust suits are expensive. Psystar doesn’t have the funds to pay rent, let alone the costs of a legal action like this. Someone else is paying the legal costs”
The only ones I could than of would be either Dell which is on cash too or maybe M$$$$… which would love to kick Apples ass but doesn’t have the balls to try and do it front and center!
Your guess is as good as mind and your do rise a good question!
i wish there was a real journalist out there that can answer that question. where is pystar getting the money to fund this suit?
“quoted from a book well worth reading, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand”
anyone stupid enough to think that the dribble that Rand foamed at the mouth and onto paper is worth anything at all deserves an /ignore. when will we get that function please?
There is no such thing as the “Mac market.” Apple competes in the PC market by selling Macs.
The MDN headline SHOULD read
“Apple destroys illegal competition”
“Apple competes in the PC market by selling Macs.”
The also compete in the OS market by selling boxed versions of OS X.
And Psystar competes in the PC market by selling Mac Compatibles with that OS on them.
Only the computer hobbyists was able to put Mac OS X on PCs. Now PeeStar comes along to try to make a profit out of it while standing on the hobbyists backs. I don’t know what your smoking PeeStar but you gotta be on something for throwing a counter-suit at Apple. Hope Apple smashes you “people” so bad that all they need is one Bounty to clean you up.
@antitrust
they don’t compete in the OS market. because they only sell to mac owners.
“they don’t compete in the OS market. because they only sell to mac owners.”
Not so. They SELL the OS to anyone. To prove that for yourself get a non Mac owning friend to walk into an Apple store and ask to buy a copy of Mac OS X. Come back and post here if they ask him to prove Mac ownership before doing so.
By the terms of the license they try to say you can only install it on “Apple Labelled hardware”, whatever that means. Although you can write whatever you like in a contract, it doesn’t mean a court will enforce it if it finds the terms to be unreasonable. In fact the court can reform the contract and strike that term if they see fit.
So the argument on Apple’s side is that even though the OS is sold as a standalone product and does run unmodified on other hardware, it is in fact only intended to be sold as a companion product to a Mac.
Psystar’s argument is that’s at worst illegal, at best unreasonable.
There’s a genuine issue here to be decided. A court could go either way. But it’s a high stakes game for Apple to be playing. If they lose, the OS is open. if they win the next cloner just gets smarter and sells a “Universal OS PC” and lets the customer go buy and install thier own Mac OS X. It’s already a slim argument that the EULA binds Psystar rather then the customer to whom the system is delivered. But by not reselling the OS, there is no possible argument that the EULA is in any way binding on the clone vendor because they are not a party to the contract. And it’s never going to be illegal to sell a standard Intel architecture PC with an EFI BIOS.
It’s not a great position for Apple. Even if they win this one,the next vendor can look at the decision and easily work around it. Long term their only real solution is going to be to bring frivolous lawsuits to harass clone vendors and Mac OS X purchasers in the hopes of deterring them.
You’re buying a license.
Apple Computer, Inc.
Software License Agreement for Mac OS X
Single Use License
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (”LICENSE”) CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE “AGREE/ACCEPT” BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE AND (IF APPLICABLE) RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND OR, IF THE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK “DISAGREE/DECLINE”.
“You’re buying a license.”
Good luck for Apple getting this treated as a pure license rather than a contract, just saying something’s a license doesn’t make it so. And in any case, that would generally restrict thier ability to apply any additional terms to the transaction.
Under a license, having sold the product and been paid the agreed upon price they lose the ability to control resale of that item. In that situation you can tell someone not to create additional copies, but you can’t tell them how or how not to use with the one they brought from you past the limits present in copyright law.
Apple can’t just invent new rights it thinks it has. The Apple Hardware Only term would certainly be thrown out if they took the pure license line.
And in any case, don’t rely on a court agreeing that Apple has the right to put any terms it likes in a contract, especially one which it has not negotiated with the customer. The court can easily decide that term is illegal or unconscionable and strike it. And don’t forget, the EULA is an agreement between Apple and the end customer not Apple and Psystar. The court could easily decide that Apple’s suing the wrong guys.
The computer being sold is just a standard PC built out of off the shelf components, containing no proprietary Apple IP. No court is going to rule that that infringes any rights of Apple’s.
Likewise the term restricting the use of the OS to Apple labelled hardware seems on the face of it unreasonable as it’s only purpose is to force you to buy a Mac to go along with the OS you just brought.
So on the issues that really matter Apple is going to be 0 for 2.
Good luck to Apple on this one, they’ll need it.
@licensee:
If Apple’s hardware is just off-the-shelf, then you should be able to get a retail copy of Mac OS X and install it on an off-the-shelf home-made computer without any modifications (put the disk in the drive and boot).
Can you do that?
“If Apple’s hardware is just off-the-shelf, then you should be able to get a retail copy of Mac OS X and install it on an off-the-shelf home-made computer without any modifications”
Yes, that’s what Psystar does.
The system they have uses EFI emulation, EFI is an open spec and if Intel and the Unified EFI Forum had thier way, all PCs would use it instead of the current BIOS. No problem there.
The hardware they use is standard hardware, chosen to closely match the industry standard hardware Apple uses in it’s systems. No problem there either as Apple don’t own those specs or designs.
The Mac OS X they use is unmodified, as sold by Apple and is a genuine copy. No problem there either.
You can perform the same feat yourself, creating a hackintosh. Psystar just puts it all in one box for you.
The only question then left is it OK for Apple to place the term “Apple branded Hardware” in it’s license agreement to force sale of a Mac even though generic replacements exist.
Generally anyone who makes that kind of argument loses. To win there would have to be something unique about Apple’s designs, owned and protected by Apple that OS X required to run. Then a cloner would be in breach of copyright or Apple patents by cloning it. Today Macs are generic PCs with a different but standardized BIOS, so with respect to the hardware, Apple can’t point to a single thing that Psystar is infringing on by sourcing and selling technically equivalent hardware.
There’s a simple solution for Apple.
Free OS upgrades to Apple Mac owners. Otherwise OSX costs, oh, maybe a thousand dollars? I don’t think the court can dictate prices. The market is supposed to do that. You certainly couldn’t argue Apple is being monopolistic there. They’re offering their OS in a free market they have a small share of for what they think it’s worth.
Mind you, it’d give Microsoft a lever against Apple. “Most expensive OS” and all that.
IANAL but here’s what it looks like:
Psystar’s copyright and trademark violations are clear. Psystar loses.
Convincing the legal system that a software licensing agreement is a non-enforceable concept. Extremely difficult. Many other software companies including the largest have a stake in that one.
Proving that Apple is harming consumers and competition by only allowing its software to be installed in its hardware is next to impossible. Psystar loses.
My guess is Apple will settle and shut them up and down.
Wait and see.
@licensee:
Excuse me, but that’s not what Psystar is doing. They have even acknowledged that one cannot use the provided unmodified Mac OS X copy for re-installation.
I have read the recipes for all the Hackintoshes, Os86s and whatever, and none is simply getting hardware and putting in the install disk. The only one that does not involve modifying Mac OS X requires an up and running Mac OS X, i.e. a Mac.
“Psystar’s copyright “
Exactly what aspect of apple’s copyright has been violated? A legal copy has been purchased. There is no copyright violation here.
“trademark violations”
A better argument. But that won’t change the legality of Mac clones, only the legality of how Psystar may have advertised them.
“Convincing the legal system that a software licensing agreement is a non-enforceable concept.”
No one doubts that such agreements are enforceable, but it is extremely common for courts to refuse to enforce specific terms of them.
“Proving that Apple is harming consumers and competition by only allowing its software to be installed in its hardware is next to impossible”
Actually it’s an easy argument. Psystar sells cheaper compatible systems. The fact that anyone buys a Psystar system shows that there is demand for such systems. Consumers are benefitted to the degree that the system is cheaper. By shutting down Psystar, any customer who would have purchased such a system his harmed. So the only discussion left is the degree of the harm.
Taking a wider view, This board is rife with comments about the superiority of Mac OS X. You can’t go a day without someone stating how much better off individuals and companies would be to switch to Mac OS X and the TCO advantages of doing so. Apple touts that daily. As a Mac is just a standard Windows PC now (albeit an upmarket one), that benefit must flow from the OS. Therefore one could argue that consumers are significantly harmed by allowing Apple to keep the OS proprietary rather then it being usable by other vendors as a viable alternative to Microsoft’s products. You can bet in their labs every major PC vendor has at least investigated how to produce their own hackintosh. Heck, if it’s as great an advance as people say, the current harm to consumers is incalculable. Apple runs the risk that a court could order them to spilt the hardware and OS businesses.
How could this be different?
If Psystar were not paying for the licenses there would be an open and shut case for copyright violation.
If there was something unique about the basic Mac design (And I’m talking the internals, not the industrial design or less tangible things like quality, support etc) that meant that Psystar were infringing on some Apple owned IP, then it would be a much simpler case. But there is not.
So it all comes down to that question, is it reasonable for a vendor of an operating system which will run unchanged on generic PCs to try to force consumers to run it on only their branded hardware?
Who owns Mac OS X and the rights to its use?
“Who owns Mac OS X and the rights to its use?”
With respect to the rights to it’s use. You do, once Apple sells you a license.
“You do, once Apple sells you a license.”
Obviously, that’s subject to interpretation.
So, now we’re back to it’s a matter for the courts to decide.
Wasn’t the Playstation emulator for the Mac shut down because of trademark and licensing infringement?
Your turn.
“Obviously, that’s subject to interpretation.”
No it’s not subject to any interpretation. A license to use something which didn’t give you the right to use it would be a nonsense.
What is subject to debate is what other terms Apple can reasonably include in that license.
Apple sold Psystar valid licenses for Mac OS X and Psystar on-sold them to customers. What Psystar is asking a court to decide is whether one term in that license is reasonable and legal and therefore enforceable. Not surprisingly Psystar says that term is unreasonable and anti-competitive and shouldn’t be enforced. Unsurprisingly Apple says the opposite.
Courts strike unreasonable terms from EULAs and other contracts all the time, so what Psystar is asking for is certainly not something new.
Any other arguments Apple are making with respect to trademarks infringement and so on refer only to the way Psystar operated, not the ultimate legality of using Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware. Potentially Apple could win on some of those claims but still have lost on the one that really matters.
There are good arguments for both sides which means that this case isn’t a slam dunk for either Psystar or Apple.
“Wasn’t the Playstation emulator for the Mac shut down because of trademark and licensing infringement?”
Probably the biggest difference here is that Apple sells Mac OS X licenses in a separate box to anyone with $129 in their pocket.
I’m not aware of Sony selling any licenses to use Playstation code as a separate item.
That’s a huge difference.
“No it’s not subject to any interpretation.”
Now you’re just being an ass. If it wasn’t up to interpretation it wouldn’t be going to court.
Asshat.