“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.]
@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”