This had to be their intention from day one.

ShaneO83

Let's here it one time for the 305... Miami vs Cupertino. I got my money on Miami. You don't mess with a Cuban and his money.

Boots_Mcoy

Can someone explain to me how an antitrust argument makes any sense? I just don't see it.

rockstarjoe

MSFT lost, AAPL will lose.

Joseph

@EE: No, cause they would lose hardware sales... plus support issues.

Not gonna happen.

Eric

Eric Aitala

Anti-trust... riiiiight.

So when can we expect to see lawsuits forcing Ford to put Ferrari engines in their cars?

Dr E

Eric Aitala

@KRingg: I love Apple's operating system, but can't justify paying the premium on the hardware. I'm a dedicated desktop builder who likes to tinker and swap out components on a regular basis. This lawsuit now has the potential of giving individuals like me an alternative to Windows & Linux.

Agree completely, and in the long run, wouldn't this mean more profit for Apple anywho?

EE

I emailed PsyStar when the story first came out they would produce generic computers capable of running Leopard OS X. I told them to build a computer that was capable of having OS X install, but not to do it themselves, or they would be committing both Trademark and Copyright Infringement. The case will turn on those facts alone. If they didnt sell the computers preinstalled with Leopard, they could claim the Fair Use defense in copyright and trademark infringement defenses. And then turn the tables on Apple with "antitrust" accusations when they filed for an injunction preventing PsyStar from selling their computers "capable" of running OS X.

Samifumi

@Gann: I guess I might be overly optimistic, but I'm really hoping that the antitrust aspect of this will open up OSX to generic computing.

I love Apple's operating system, but can't justify paying the premium on the hardware. I'm a dedicated desktop builder who likes to tinker and swap out components on a regular basis. This lawsuit now has the potential of giving individuals like me an alternative to Windows & Linux.

KRingg

@KRingg: "the consumer certainly has a huge chance of benefiting."

Very few lawsuits end in the consumers best interest.

Gann

Things don't usually end up so great for the little guy...

protocol6v

I'm really excited to see what happens in this case... and I'm super glad Psystar actually got a good legal team.

It may not end well for Apple, but the consumer certainly has a huge chance of benefiting.

KRingg

@FuzzysFriedChicken: Beat me to it.

The Real 31

@KRingg: Buy a copy of leopard, throw an apple sticker on your computer and you're golden. The EULA states it can only be used on Apple Branded computers, so brand yours. :)

Also, it's not piracy if you buy the OS.

The Real 31

@newgalactic: @snitch29: Not quite. I'd agree with you if Psystar was required to provide ALL support for OSX on their product. So to go back to the Ford/Ferrari argument, you or Ford could install a Ferrari engine....but there should be no expectation that Ferrari should support your new Ford.

I can understand why Apple would be so hostile to allowing OSX on other peoples platforms. They want to avoid the problems that Microsoft has incurred. To split OSX away from their platforms they would open themselves up to suits on all their included applications ala Internet Explorer/Netscape. Apple does not want to be perceived as an OS provider. They want to be a systems/solutions provider.

Rand

For some reason, despite me not liking Apple at all, I look forward to seeing Psystar getting crushed.

Duckspwn

@KRingg: Not if you buy OSX. Then it is not piracy. It is only violating an EULA. EULA's have proven to not hold up in court.

FuzzysFriedChicken

@KRingg:
The consumers who don't work for Apple, maybe.

The_Gas_Man

@snitch29: Choosing not to design for a platform is very different from building a platform than can not be designed for.

Microsoft has the right to design their software (IE in your example) for any OS it wants. That's just a matter of profitability.

The debate is if Apple has the right to build a platform that is inextricably tied to their custom hardware. I'm not sure where the law sits, but I hope it breaks this tie.

System != Application (in this case)

KRingg

@Eric Aitala:
You have it a little backwards. Its more like Ferrari suing you for trying to put a Ferrari engine in a ford vehicle

Shifty203

@newgalactic: that's exactly what i say

snitch29

@Hvedhrungr: what's stopping you from building a hackintosh yourself?

Because it's software piracy and is technically illegal... period.

KRingg

@EE: I understand why Apple doesn't do it. In a closed ecosystem like it is now, it's easier to manage and guarantee a unified computing experience... which is part of the reason that OSX is as good as it is.

@Eric Aitala: You're quite right, Apple makes their money on the hardware, not the OS. A good solution would be charging more (~= Windows) for the OS on generic hardware while still offering the $129 price for Apple hardware users.

KRingg

@rockstarjoe: It would have made sense if PsyStar didnt sell computers with Leopard preinstalled. Letting the consumers choose which operating system they wanted to power their computer components would be something defended using the Fair Use defense that has been carved out of Copyright infringement. Right now, the Leopard OS is (arguably) the best OS available on the market. If a consumer purchased a PsyStar and chose themselves to purchase Leopard and install, that would be their choice and allowable under copyright law, but probably in violation of the EULA (but good luck to Apple trying to prove that in a court of law against individuals that pursued this course of action).

Psystar screwed itself selling the computers preinstalled. It gave Apple an easy target to go after, and a target from which they can prove damages quite easily.

Samifumi

All i got to say to psystar is good luck guys your going to need it. Ya know that all those copyright charges are all going to stick anyway you put it, hey am pretty sure i can't go and buy a copy of Vista and modified to my needs and then resell it, and expect to get away with it, am pretty sure it's illegal, but hey you guys probibily know something the rest of the world doesn't know, hey you never know, am also pretty sure this is not the first time apple got hit with a antitrust law sue on something similar. Hey i can't run internet explorer on my mac cause it's not compatible so do i hit Msft with a antitrust law sue cause i can't run it on my machine???? if that works i know a lot of things that aren't compatible with mac which i can then sue also, but am pretty sure things don't work that way

snitch29

@KRingg, @EE: First off, if you're a "dedicated desktop builder", what's stopping you from building a hackintosh yourself? Mine works like a charm, has done so for months, and clocked in below the price of the weakest Mac Mini. I love my MacBook as well, but the hackintosh is a real workhorse, which can be upgraded anytime.

Now, why wouldn't Apple open up OSX for every possible hardware out there? That's exactly the point. Time and time again, people bring up this argument, when the answer is pretty plainly obvious: Apple would need to support the million and one possible hardware combos Windows has to. There's a reason Windows sucks.
Linux is a wholly different matter, and the Linux mentality is the reason the OSX86 project exists at all. People writing code for other people and not charging money for it.
Not really an approach Apple would considerably take, wouldn't you say?
Making OSX compatible to ordinary PCs would cost Apple a shitload of money, as well as infringe on their hardware sales. Why you would think this would benefit Apple in the long run is really beyond me.

Hvedhrungr

@Eric Aitala: Forcing Ford to install Ferrari engines != Forcing Apple to allow their OS to be installed in VERY comparable gear. It seems that forcing Apple to allow OSX on generic PC's is similar to forcing Lexmark to allow 3rd party ink-toner cartridges.

newgalactic

@EE:

Apple actually allowed Macintosh clones from early 1995 until Steve Jobs return mid-1997.
There is a reason that they don't allow clones anymore, it's not good business.

Andune

@Shifty203: Actually, it's like Ferrari suing you for putting a Ferrari engine in a Ford and selling it to consumers as (open)Ferarri.

bobojuice

I'm glad the wheels of change are coming. Hypocrisy never fared well in this economy. Down with the monopolistic practices.

SinAmos

@Techguy1138: Software is slightly different from a physical part like a Ferrari engine. Ford has to buy all of those Ferrari engines to install them. BUT, if Ford were to buy one engine, and replicate the design exactly, save for a tweak in the power train here and there to fit into Ford's chassis designs, they may run into a problem. Psystar was selling both legal copies of OS X, but one reproduced copy that was modified for the system. All they had to do was take one hacked copy, replicate it and distribute it.

Kaiser-Machead's BSDM Shenanigans

I would hope that Psystar's crack team of legal eagles know that 'Anti-Trust' is not a valid affirmative defense...

More to the point however, I am interested in their arguments regarding the THIRD largest manufacturer and SECOND largest operating system somehow having a monopoly over its larger, more successful competitors.

If this works for Psystar, I am gonna make Chevrolet my bitch.

Hiphopopotamus

@Rand: If Apple were to provide its OS and all of the included applications to generic hardware, there's no way they could be charged with anything regarding those applications, since they can all be deleted. Internet Explorer was written as an irremovable part of the OS, unlike Safari, which can just be dragged into the trash bin and forgotten forever.

Kaiser-Machead's BSDM Shenanigans

@The_Gas_Man: Apple's a big boy now, they can deal with. Pystar's lawyers have successfully sued both Apple and Microsoft in the past. For better or worse, lawsuits are just part of being a major corporate player in America these days.

@FuzzysFriedChicken: Violating an EULA is still illegal unless it is shut down in court. Since I have no intention of taking them to court myself, I'm just going to keep my own nose clean.

KRingg

@Eric Aitala: Good analogy.

Ferrari can't sue Ford for legally purchasing a Ferrari and installing the engine in a F150 as a special edition.

So why can Apple sue Psystar for the computing comparison?

Techguy1138

this is so absurd. it is their software and you cant force apple to open it to anyone. so you had to force anyone to open their software for other devices,...
"hey i want that sonyerricson software on my nokia phone..."
doesnt really make sense. often software is the only thing, which makes the differences between devices, so you had to give your ace to a competitor..

ddink

I think it comes down to a distinction between computers and other electronics (and that distinction is blurring too). When you buy a dvd player or camcorder you expect it to be ready to go out of the box, the software is the hardware, and what it does is all it ever will do. When you buy a computer there is an expectation that you can do whatever you want, add things, change things, and software is separate from hardware. In this perspective apple is more of an electronics company than a computer company.

BanMeAgainBrianLam

@Gann: Unless the customer is directly represented, nope. It's all about companies screwing other companies.

Basically if PsyStar believes it's going to get shut-out then it will delay judgement/injunction as long as possible to make money, then exit the business.

Xavoc

juuuust wait, apple is gonna bust out the ninjas soon.

Rodime

@Hiphopopotamus: Right, there are two issues here.

1. Does Psystar have a legal leg to stand on - Most likely "No"

2. Should anti-trust charges be brought up against Apple for software locking their OS out of VERY comparable hardware? - well that's a more complicated question.

Personally, I would love to see charges like these brought up against Apple. I like their OS, but I'm a home-brew kind of guy. I'm seriously looking to make a hackintosh, but software updates that are purposely built to break non-Apple hardware, and have no intrinsic value on their own, really bum's me out. Last time I checked, Lexmark was prevented from software locking out 3rd party cartridges, and they didn't have any sort of monopoly at the time either. Also, warranties can be broken all the time for making modifications that are not recommended by the manufacturer/developer. There's no law guaranteeing performance if it is not advertised. However, there's a difference between writing an OS that doesn't run on everything well, and writing an OS that looks for specific software "keys" in hardware prior to operating.

newgalactic

@Canadian Impostor: As long as I'm getting something more for the $800 version, like increased driver support, then that's a good thing. If it's still a vanilla version of OSX, with only the hardware locks removed, then there's a problem.

newgalactic

@ddink: I'm sorry, I disagree. It's not that OSX isn't already "open", it is for the most part. It's that OSX looks for certain hardware. It's one thing to force a company to "open up" their product. That's illegal. It's another thing to tell that company, "you can't prevent your software from running on compatible hardware from brand X". That's been enforced in the courts before.

newgalactic

@Hiphopopotamus:

My guess is Psystar's claim isn't a true "antitrust" claim (which is a valid legal claim), but rather a tying argument, which is an unlawful anticompetative practice of tying the sale of an IP protected article to an uncovered article.

Mpls_Mikey

If somehow Psystar wins (and they won't) the end result won't be cheap Macs for everyone, the result will be that Apple sells new copies of OS X for $800 that you can put on your crummy homebuilt computer with no support.

Canadian Impostor

who would have thought that after all our kicking psystar around we'd find ourselves rooting for them.
reason number 6 why we should keep watching for reasons to change our minds.

Titus_Andronicus

I would rather see an antitrust case with the iPhone. It's a closed system phone, access to the development network requires contracts of adhesion, and sales/distribution are required to be processed through the iTunes store with a set-in-stone royalty to Apple. At least with the Mac a developer isn't so locked into the Apple system from all ends, creation to distribution.

jonny6pak

Can you imagine Sony coming out with a gaming system that can play Wii games or Xbox games --- AND having those games preinstalled???

That's what is going on here.

Apple is going to kill these guys. When Apple gets awarded their attorneys' fees, we will see the end of Pystar.

SportBilly

The issue at hand is the violation of the OSX license agreement that it wouldn't be used on non-Apple branded products. That's the legal leg that will topple Pystar, if the agreement stands up in court.

But whether Apple should open up it's OS or not is a moot point in all this, except for the fact that they have a problem when someone finds a way to port the software to non-Apple hardware. That would be like if Sony had a license agreement in the DVDs they produce/sell saying you have to use a Sony DVD player to watch the movie...and then sue you for using a generic brand DVD player (generic hardware) to watch Spiderman (proprietary software) just because you implicitly agree to the license when you bought the software.

And it's anti-competitive if anything...for those that bring up MS and IE being anti-competitive, just because IE came with windows didn't mean that people couldn't use other browsers, just the fact that it came with the system upset people. But the case is much worse of Apple, people can buy OSX, but they have NO CHOICE to use other hardware (that works with it) because of what the license agreement states. The MS case involved influencing people's choice by bundling/integrating an option with the OS, while the Apple issue REMOVED ALL CHOICE by locking down the software to work only with specific hardware, as well as forcing people to accept a license agreement that prevents them from using it with any other hardware.

Apple is worse than MS ever was when it comes to anti-trust issues. If people want to use OSX, they HAVE to buy an Apple product...not because of natural reasons such as technology limitation that prevents non Apple hardware to operate with OSX, but because Apple ARTIFICIALLY prevents this by the license agreement and takes ACTIVE steps to prevent competitors from entering its market.

mrdeeno

@aec007: I wonder how much they'd even charge, since an OS X disc in its original form can't be installed on Psystars. :P

Kaiser-Machead's BSDM Shenanigans

Here is a thought... hypothetical of course.

If Psystar "charged" you for installing OSX, (don't know), besides the cost of the OS... they are totally OFF the hook.

They just only provided you with a service, at your cost. So you do not have to do it yourself.
Most Windows PC manufacturers do not "charge" you for installing the OS, just for the OS.

Making a PC capable of running OSX is not prohibited.

aec007

@mrdeeno well said, apt analogy.

@Hvedhrungr Last I checked "linux" (I bet you meant to say BSD, but even so...) works on quite a few hardware configurations. This is an artificial limitation imposed so they can mark up their hardware.. gee, sounds just like iTunes + iPod...

This is a very interesting and welcome turn of events. I could care less about PyStar, but it's about time *somebody* started questioning these illegal business practices.

up2l8

Was this PsyStars plan in the beginning? Cause if it was I have to clear some space on my mantle...

Duc

@jvt: You don't have to be a monopoly to behave like one, and apple behaves like one with closed ecosystems, proprietary hardware requirements, and price fixing.

BanMeAgainBrianLam

I love lamp.

mikeness

Exactly how has Apple abused its monopoly power? Through its single digit percent share of the market?

jvt

@Kaiser-Machead's BSDM Shenanigans: I believe that would be one of Apple's major points in case.

Hvedhrungr

@up2l8: Huh? I never said linux (any flavour, for that matter) didn't run on certain hardware. All I said was that, in large part thanks to a certain mindset enjoyed by many members of the linux community, there are ways to run OSX on non-Apple machines.
I've been running linux machines for nearly a decade, and I've come to appreciate the community a lot. These days, I don't have time for playing around with code as much, and OSX does most of what I need, and nicely.

Hvedhrungr

@BanMeAgainBrianLam: ]
The consumer isnt forced to buy apple products, if they don't like the closed ecosystem, proprietary h/w and the price, they can get a PC..

xoticlad

Why do people forget that Mac OS 10.5 Leopard sold through apple is Just the Upgrade edition(from Previous versions of OS 10 only) and not a standalone copy on it's own. So Psystar has broken some laws, by modifying the upgrade edition and selling it on New Generic Hardware. New macs sold presently don't need the $129 Disks, only those running older versions of OS 10 do..
its like buying the vista ultimate upgrade and hacking it to run on a generic pc..

xoticlad

I'm glad that Psystar is standing up to Apple.

anothernord

@Rodime: Then Psystar will bust out their MechNinjas which are actually old Apple Ninjas, but in mech suits.

fallenturtle

@xoticlad: Well, the court system didn't take that point of view when it prosecuted MS, Lexmark, Ford, etc...

There is such a thing as consumers rights and fair business practices, and saying "they just don't have to buy my OS/printer/car" isn't a valid defense.

newgalactic

Personally, I'm willing to pay a hardware premium so that my Mac works like a Mac. I am all in favor of consumer protection, but I love the fact that Apple's ecosystem is closed---that is what makes the OS so valuable to me, and in turn makes it worthwhile to purchase the hardware.

Bottom line, I will gladly pay for premium hardware (Mac), provided that my premium software (OS X) is designed specifically for it.

bourgeoisie

How about Apple take a middle ground. Instead of opening up hardware to the infinite combinations possible for PCs and instead of only having Apple built hardware. How about Apple sets some system requirements like must have DVD drive, intel chips, certain graphics cards, etc. And then publish this list for manufacturers who pay license fees and have to be approved by apple so they can make computers that run OSX or any future Mac OSs. This would mean:

1. Apple wouldn't have to spend too much time on driver and hardware support

2. Apple would increase it's OS market share as:

a) a greater supply of OSX capable computers would drive the price down

b) more accesible to the consumer

3. Apple's increased market share would mean that more 3rd party software would be available to the OS allowing more businesses to use it as an alternative to Windows

4. Despite the loss of revenue through hardware they'd recieve licensing fees. However, as an incentive to keep people buying Apple OSX computers they could provide incentive like unlimited (or 5 years) free support for people who buy Apple hardware through the phone and Genius Bars.

5. Although not direct benefit to Apple, the consumer would get a larger range so more computers that are specialised for specific tasks.

Of course this could lead to monopolies in chip manufacture but maybe Apple could also fees to chip manufacturers to get their products compatible with OSX.

I dunno just an idea. But it could work!

Yeebles

@SportBilly: Exactly! I was looking for someone to make that point.
People just scroll up to SportBilly FTW

kahri

I understand that EULAs have not been recognised as binding to this point, but I hope this sets a precedent. I may not like some of the rules of the EULA, but I recognise that by agreeing to it, I've a responsibility to respect the rights of the creators. I don't get this me-first thinking. OS X and Apple hardware aren't two seperate things-- you want OS X but in a PC? Sorry, it's not designed to work like that. But Apple were being cool about it, and letting the Hackintosh community proceed unmolested. The same way Apple were taking a somewhat hands-off approach to people jailbreaking the iPhone-- Apple weren't looking out to make sure official updates worked with the modded softwares, but they weren't agressively fighting those communities, either. PsyStar decided to rip off the open source Hackintosh community, and Apple are just protecting their investment. I hope Apple wins, because making sure future, open iterations of the Mac OS work with all forms of PC hardware is going to be a disaster, and Apple's just not the sort of company for that kind of monolithic task-- look at how fucked the simultaneous launches of the iPhone 3G and MobileMe were.

wild homes isn't anything!

The way I see it is this: Apple has a right to use their creation (OSX in this case) however they want. If they only want it running on their own hardware, that's their decision.

Just like some people make OSX only, Linux only or Windows only applications. I fail to see how Psystar can possibly win this.

falandil

@mrdeeno: "Apple is worse than MS ever was when it comes to anti-trust issues. If people want to use OSX, they HAVE to buy an Apple product..."
If you want to use XBox Live, you HAVE to buy an xbox.
" takes ACTIVE steps to prevent competitors from entering its market."
There are other OS' and hardware out there you know. So any company with proprietary software should be forced to open it? So you could install Palm OS on a Blackberry, call it "PalmBerry" and open a new company to sell them?

kahri

Antitrust? Yeah, Apple is monopolizing Leopard and all Apple-like products.

diesel828

So when is psystar going to start selling chinese iphone clones, and hacking the iphone firmware onto them?

beekerstudios

@KRingg:" Violating an EULA is still illegal unless it is shut down in court."

False.

This is NOT illegal. It MAY be breach of contract but you can't go to jail over that.

If the user purchased the OS DVD and has a legal license this is no different than ripping a CD to make it playable on an ipod.

Techguy1138

I love seeing the consumer win, but in this case I don't think it's that much of a win. Apple's closed approach has made OS X a great product, and their markup prices for their hardware is well justified. An example is I don't have to worry about every virus or spyware that comes from pop ups, emails, or sites targeted by malicious hackers; sure OSX isn't impervious to all these types of attacks but it sure does come pretty damn close.

To further explore this point, another commenter, xoticlad, specifically reiterated that the copies Psystar's buys or any of us do are just upgrades not the full license. As kaiser pointed out the discs are in fact modified in order for them to work, and that makes them look even more shady on their business practices in court. Really Apple isn't ready to take on the numbers that microsoft does everyday in support, as others have pointed out.

On that note we would like to see the little guy win, but how do we support this guy (psystar) when he is stepping on and stealing from the other little guys(86X community) that made the hackint0sh a viable substitute? I dont see Psystar making the effort to give credit to them or so much as a donation. In closing, Apple has a closed ecosystem that may have them in the wrong, but Psystar approach to opening them up is in no way the correct path in doing so. Guaranteed there will be more headaches for the consumer if Psystar wins this.

Alex2643

Antitrust? Maybe for the iPod, but then the Mac can't be said to be antitrust, since they only put OS X on their own computers, and they only cover about 6% market share. Come on. That's pathetic.

michaelleung

Man.. if this causes Apple to open up OSX, it'll kill their hardware sales.

KLanD

@xoticlad:
"The consumer isnt forced to buy apple products, if they don't like the closed ecosystem, proprietary h/w and the price, they can get a PC.."

WRONG! People want to use OSX software but don't want the hardware, so they are buying a PC that happens to be capable of running OSX. Apple doesn't like this, so yes, they ARE trying to force people to buy apple products to run OSX.

mrdeeno

@kahri:
"If you want to use XBox Live, you HAVE to buy an xbox. "

You missed the point...if you want to use Xbox Live, you have to buy an xbox, UNLESS someone figures out a way to do this otherwise. Same with with OSX. If you want to use OSX, then you HAVE to buy an Apple...unless someone has figured out a way otherwise. Someone figured out a way otherwise and this does not sit well with Apple.

mrdeeno

I think the point of the EULA should be this...it protects apple in cases where someone hacks OSX to install on non-proprietary hardware and customer suffers and decides to sue. Apple clearly is protected because they do not support or condone installing OSX on non-proprietary hardware.

But instead, Apple is using the EULA to snuff any competition. No one is forcing Apple to open up its OS, and it can use whatever technological means necessary to keep it from being opened up (software updates, etc.). But if someone is able to figure out how to port the OS onto non-proprietary hardware by getting around the technical obstacles that Apple created, then all the power to them.

And yes, this is MONOPOLISTIC. Even at a small market share, it still has 99.9%

mrdeeno

my post got cut off...

Even at a small market share, it still has 99.9% of the OSX market, and it wants complete 100%, which is why it wants to snuff out Pystar.

How is this not monopolistic? Apple IS forcing customers who want to use OSX to buy Apple proprietary equipment, even though non-Apple equipment CAN be used. And by snuffing out the OSX-capable competition, it has pricing control over its hardware and therefore can command a premium because it is then the ONLY HARDWARE PROVIDER CAPABLE OF RUNNING OSX.

If you want to compare how bad this is to Microsoft, did Microsoft FORCE people into using IE if they want to use Windows? No, they did not force anyone to use IE since people can download and use any other browser they wanted, but just bundling it with the OS was "anti-competitive". Now look at Apple...does Apple FORCE people into using its hardware if they want to use OSX, even though technologically you don't have to? Yup.

For the example someone brought up about hacking Palm software into a BB to create a Palmberry...that's not the right analogy. The right analogy is someone hacking Palm software into a BB to create a Palmberry, and then Palm sues you because now they have competition for people who want to buy the Palm OS but not the hardware.

If they want to make it technologically difficult to do, then that's within their rights. If they want to keep the system closed to maintain quality, that's within their rights. They're already protected from issues when people don't use their software as intended (ie on non-proprietary equipment), so that's not really their problem (no matter how much they "claim"). The issue is that if one company can put together an OSX capable machine, that company would be a competitor to Apple. And if one competitor is allowed to survive, others will come. And once others come, Apple will no longer be able to maintain its price premium. So yes, this move STINKS of snuffing out competition in order to maintain its own price premium = anti-competitive.

mrdeeno

@rockstarjoe: see above.

Zlevee

I love how all the commenters who never studied or practiced Intellectual Property law or Anti Trust law think they have this figured out. The Sherman Act Anti-Trust angle is the only way to win.

@Samifumi: Since I'd rather not re-explain it, read one of the prior posts [gizmodo.com] and comments on this. Among the previous comments here, is the text below which i pasted in since i was also too lazy to explain it then when CNET had covered it already [news.cnet.com] -- but the whole Giz thing is a good read:

One argument that Psystar could try to advance is that when you purchase software, the company is actually selling it to you, not leasing it with certain rights granted the way things exist now, Ridder said. This would allow Psystar to invoke the "first-sale doctrine" that allows owners of copyright works to sell or redistribute that product without running afoul of copyright restrictions.

...Psystar's best shot--albeit a long one--at keeping its doors open for business would be to argue that Apple is illegally tying the purchase of its operating system to the purchase of its hardware because it has a monopoly on the sale of Mac OS X-based computers...

So basically you can't tell people what hardware they can use a piece of software on. You can tell them they can't copy it, and you can tell them they can't call the machine what your top-to-bottom manufacturing company calls the complete machine. But you can't tell them when you seperately sell them software that it can only be installed on hardware you've sold them.

Zlevee

@mrdeeno: yeah sorry bout that PalmBerry analogy. heheh

kahri

@mrdeeno: Ok I see your points. But to your comment :"..if you want to use Xbox Live, you have to buy an xbox, UNLESS someone figures out a way to do this otherwise" I must disagree.

Ok, say I 'figured out' a way to run the Xbox OS on a modded homemade box. That's not the problem. Now if I started a company selling these boxes that does everything an XBOX 360 does but via a hacked xbox OS, it doesn't matter how 'capable' my modded box is at running xbox 360 games. BTW, EVERY PC with windows installed was licensed to do so. Besides, are you not forgetting the developers which are coding software to run on that specific machine? Must they now provide support for you trying to sell THEIR software for YOUR profit?

kahri

If IBM had not been stopped from bundling hardware and software by antitrust rulings, Microsoft would probably not be big enough for anyone to have heard of them. Why should Apple be allowed to do it?

SwapnaWachter

Apple is very unlikely to ever sell its software for use on just any system. The most likely outcome to this (should Apple lose) is to quit selling OSX. Apple and OSX are not in a different market from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. They are not direct competitors to Microsoft. We are more likely to get cheaper Mac hardware shipping with Windows or Linux than we are to get an "open" OSX, and if we do get an "open" OSX it will be priced to make it an unappealing option (see iphone). OSX is not the product, never has been and is unlikely it ever will be. It is an incentive to add value to their pricey hardware. Full stop.

DeadlineX

@kahri: "Ok, say I 'figured out' a way to run the Xbox OS on a modded homemade box. That's not the problem. Now if I started a company selling these boxes that does everything an XBOX 360 does but via a hacked xbox OS, it doesn't matter how 'capable' my modded box is at running xbox 360 games. BTW, EVERY PC with windows installed was licensed to do so. Besides, are you not forgetting the developers which are coding software to run on that specific machine? Must they now provide support for you trying to sell THEIR software for YOUR profit?"

I think your analogy took mine out of context...first, MS does not make the 360 OS available for sale by itself, so if you make a Hackbox 360, you're COPYING proprietary software and selling it for profit. But theoretically, if the 360 OS was available to be bought, and you bought it and figured out how to install it on a Hackbox 360, you should be able to sell it to whoever you want and charge for the work/parts you put in. The only thing you violate is the EULA, which isn't "law", but just a contract that you entered into when you accepted use of the software.

As for technical support, no, i never said Apple was required to provide support for the OS if it was not installed in a machine it was designed for. But that's where the EULA comes in...someone with a hackintosh sues, Apple just presents the EULA from the software and says that their hands are clean because the software was not used/installed as designed. And that's where I think the intention of the EULA should stand, to protect the company from liability if the license agreement was violated, not to snuff out competition.

mrdeeno

I think Pystar could have had a way out if they just rigged up software to install OSX for the end-user once received by the end-user. The end-user would purchase the computer (with the install software), but OSX would be separate. The end user would run the installation software which would instruct them to place the OSX disc in and it would automatically configure and set up OSX on their machine.

They can claim now that the box was shipped without OSX installed, therefore bypassing the EULA. Apple would then have to go after the end user for violating the EULA since they were the ones that installed OSX.

It's like gun dealers...they sell the guns and the bullets, and the end-user is liable if he decides to kill his wife with it. The only thing Apple can do is not sell the SKU software to Pystar (ie not sell bullets with the gun), but then what's to stop Pystar from heading down to the local Apple store and picking up a copy for the end-user?

mrdeeno

What people are forgetting is that Mac OSX has the potential to sell millions more if it is released for all platforms, but that it won't perform the same as it used to. OSX only runs so well because it works on only Apple machines. They know all the components, all the hardware, everything, because they make it. When that gets opened up to everything, including computers that people made themselves, well, even the Apple fan in me sees that brings some problems. They sometimes have lots of bugs on their own hardware, imagine that opening to HP, Dell, etc.

All of a sudden Macs will get lots of viruses written for them because they're much more used, they'll be slow because the user may not have enough RAM. It'll get pirated and they'll need serial keys. Does anybody else see where this going? This is the single reason why Apple is so unique in the computer market. This was Steve Job's original intention. Why he turned it down from the get go to mass market Apple's operating software. He wants a closed platform.

kylo4

Right on Psystar! Hit 'em where it hurts!

cafenitro

@Samifumi: Actually this would be ok...

Because then apple would have to sue end users..and even the Steve is not that much a control freak.

As for those thinking Psystar is doing something good they are not. They are not innovators, inventors or anything else other than slime. Scamming customers with systems that ultimately will be useless as MACs and also trying to steal Apples hard earned business.

Wowwzers2

@Hiphopopotamus: Good Post.

But why...my understanding is GM is pretty much on the ropes!

:)

Wowwzers2

@xoticlad: Um...actually its a complete OS. Wanna know how i know...I just had a HD crap out after 3 years. Slapped a brand new one in...held down option on boot and loaded the macbook pro from scratch.

You cant do that with just and upgrade disk...you need a whole OS to do that.

Thanks for show how little you know!

Wowwzers2

@mrdeeno: But you completely miss the point that they are protecting the brand and the user experience which US LAW allows them to do.

If you so dang sure of this then why does not Sony make a XBOX emulator for PS3. You know why...the law will not back them and they would get owned by MS.

Your logic is almost sound..but then you drift off into fantasy land.

The other big problem you miss is that OSX is (C) and you cannot modify anothers (C) work without their permission.

But hey, you just keep bringing up what you want to believe and lets just not worry about what the facts are here!

Wowwzers2

Also realize Apple can claim brand damage because of what Psystar is doing.

Just like i can tell any distributor or resellar of my branded product where and how much they must charge to sell it...(check the supreme court they decided this about 2 years ago) A brand can dictate minimum advertised price and where goods are sold as a matter of protecting their branded Value.

Boo hoo...dont like it ... run a PC...wait you want to run OSX because its the best OS around..but you dont want to pay the price...

I will laugh so hard at the idjits here who have posted up how apple will lose when the law slams Psystar. A lot of you have a lot to learn about how the REAL WORLD WORKS.

Wowwzers2

@newgalactic: Except they modified a copyrighted program (OSX)...see if they just resold it then it is right of first sale.

But you cannot go in and modify anothers work without their express permission.

You suck as a lawyer.

Wowwzers2

@SportBilly: You sir are 100% correct...but it wont even take attorneys fees. The injunction will close up Psystar...expect it in round one of actual court hearings!

People as much as you may want to have it your way...this is not Burger King...the law is clear and Psystar is in DEEP DODO.

Wowwzers2

Im gonna go ahead an put $10,000 on apple...who wants that bet....come on...one of you suckers has got to think Psystar has a shot?

Wow their legal team of what a couple of lawyers is making a grand standing statement. Rule #1 you dont make grand stand statements if you have the law on your side. (taken from the playbook of IBM and its Killer Ninja Lawyers!)

They will loose as there is little antitrust case here if any.

So there is my offer $10,000 USD vs anybody who has the funds to bet against me (apple).

The courts cannot/will not make a legal copyright holder open up their software. There is no legal precedent for this and no good reason. Remember the OS is Apples and no matter how much you may want to do something with it...if they say NO copyright law favors them.

Wowwzers2

I'm all for "open" platforms. I think everyone is. But that's not what Apple is, so if that's what you're looking for, go somewhere else.

It's really as simple as that. I don't shop at Walmart because I don't like what they stand for. I don't expect them to change their business model to suit my personal beliefs, so I just don't go there.

Apple has built their (30 year old) business model around a tightly integrated -- and thereby more manageable -- hardware/software system. And it works marvelously. Apple is the envy of both the technical world and the business world because they got something right on both accounts.

And that's what they are. And that's what they do.

But that doesn't mean it's right for you.

If you like OSX, port it yourself, design your own OS that emulates it, or build your own multi-billion dollar software empire that employes thousands and create a whole new platform that works the way you want it to work and finally has mass-appeal on it's 25th birthday. Stop whining about how unfair it is that Apple won't open it's system to be (inevitably) whittled into a patchwork mess of code they can't control (a la Windows) and love it for what it is. Because we all know it wouldn't be what it is if everyone with elementary coding/engineering skilz had a crack at it.

And honestly, what did Pystar expect. When you first read about them, didn't you grin just a little and say to yourself: "Good luck. Like that's gonna fly!".

winstonsteele