Slashdot Mirror
Apple Files Suit Against Psystar
Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussing Psystar from the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.
...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!
But it's Apple, so it's OK.
More surprising would be how long it took Apple to sue.
Apple is and always has been a hardware company. They fear competition on the hardware front, because that's their primary business product: overpriced "luxury" computers. (cue the fanboy bashings)
Had to go look them up:
What they say about the "Open Computer" / clone:
Open Computer: The Smart Alternative to an Apple
Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware. Sometimes reinventing the wheel is a good thing. The Open Computer can work for new Mac users and Mac geniuses, alike.
New to Mac: I Want a Mac
You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get the full OS X Leopard experience. Apple's Mac Mini is completely stripped and still expensive. Why would you want a stripped-down computer, anyway? You asked for a good and inexpensive computer that can run OS X and we answered with the Open Computer which is less expensive than even the cheapest Apple computer out now faster than most Apple computers out now running arguably the best operating system available ready to run out of the box when you purchase it with Leopard included. If you buy Leopard with your Open Computer we'll install it for free.
(notice the "If you buy leopard..." line)
Experts and Geniuses: I Want a Hackintosh
This is a great opportunity for the experienced user. With the Open Computer you can
run a Vanilla kernel for the genuine Leopard experience
get under the hood and really see what makes OS X tick
develop device drivers and applications specific to OSx86
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
apple can't compete? where are all those who howl about how apple is a better company now?
Apple is exactly what Microsoft would be if Bill Gate's father wasn't already a wealthy man. Do you think that Jobs or Gates are very much different?
One interesting note, however, Apple uses the courts as an offensive mechanism more often than Microsoft. Microsoft tends to bombard problems with cash projectiles until resistance is bought off. Apple sues you for even talking about them.
All multi-national corporations suck.
Without the clause in the EULA that you will only run the OS on a genuine MAC, there is nothing here. So I guess we get to see just how far a shrink wrap EULA will go in the court. I'm not entirely certain that this is a good case for it, but it's not one of the worst.
Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit just ruled for Blizzard in their interpretation of a EULA violation negating the validity of license of legally purchased software & CA is in the 9th Circuit.
Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
1. Create a line of Mac clones.
2. Sell them to an unwitting public.
3. Have Apple file suit.
4. Pay bonuses to all the execs.
5. Declare bankruptcy.
6. Shut down all operations.
Guess what... Everyone who bought a Psystar is left totally unsupported (which includes the all-important security hole fixes) and the execs made a bundle... Now, could Apple go after the execs personally for copyright infringement or (the soon-to-be-defunct) Psystar? Ironically, there was no consumer fraud here--businesses go under all the time and anyone who bought a Psystar would have had to know that Apple wouldn't support them...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Digidyne v. Data General Corp, 734 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1984)
wonder when steve jobs will launch a jihad against the iphone clones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ5cTo4jXHI
They're not exactly the same thing but their a decent copy with a few features that the real iphone lacks and the price is very attractive.
Much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they have what is IMNHO by far the best consumer OS on the planet. They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS. As they should: they put up a sizable investment of human and technological resources to build it. Normally, I'm against harsh "intellectual property" laws, but this is Apple's investment in a huge competitive advantage, and they've earned it.
Naturally with their "monopoly" on OS X distribution, they're able to skim off the top and limit distribution and the types of computers (ex cheap minitowers) that can run it. This has all kinds of people frustrated, as I'm sure some in the Slashdot crowd are. Apple tolerates a few hackers jumping through hoops to get it running on commodity PCs, as long as that means they lose maybe 0.1% of their potential customers.
Now some small fry entrepreneur is willing to take the risk of tapping into the rest of the 99.9% of the OS X market by selling PCs with OS X loaded on them. Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs), they figure it's worth the risk. If they argue that they paid for every shrink-wrapped copy of OS X, then they stand a moderately better chance of succeeding.
Still, I imagine there's massive unsatisfied demand for OS X, which seems to be what MacOSX86 and Pystar are all about.
This space left intentionally blank.
I might be wrong with your draconian DMCA laws, but isn't there already case presidence with the case involving the X86 architecture?
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Here is a slightly more informative (less speculative) posting: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328
That's like saying Rolls Royce is no more expensive than the equivalently specced $OTHER_BRAND.
When you include the maple wood trim, leather seats, huge engine, ... it all works out about the same.
Kind of silly, isn't it.
Now, what the point IS is that nowadays you can buy a crappy little CPU, some memory and an old graphics card and have PLENTY of horsepower for what you need to do.
And Apple don't make one of them.
So Apple are expensive. Because they don't do the cheaper end.
No reason why they can't, they just don't.
I heard that in some state that its illegal to put a ford engine in a chevy, or i think that was a redneck joke.
I really hope this goes to trial and a judge rules on it. Partly because I think the judge would rule that Apple can't do what they're trying to do with their EULA, but even if the judge sides with them, it's still a clarification of the law.
I don't like existing in the murky world of armchair people positing what is and isn't legal. Plus, if it goes Psystar's way, I doubt it would be too long before larger manufacturers got on board. Once something becomes legal, corporations want all over it (well, I guess that applies to profitable things).
The 9th Circuit Court is the most over-turned court. So if the 9th decided it, it will probably get overturned. ;)
'Reader The other A.N. Other, among others,'....
Most confusing nickname to put into a sentence.
It seems to me that it is the consumers breaking the OSX license agreement, not the hardware cloner.
I don't see how Apple doesn't get charges brought against them just like Microsoft has. Honestly, Apple seems like more of a Monopoly than Microsoft ever could. As long as they don't try to sell it off as genuine Apple hardware, I don't see how this should be illegal in any way. If so, MS should sue Apple for releasing the Windows boot loader thingie (I don't know what it's called) to run Windows on Intel Macs.
-SaNo
you better order one now before an Apple-filed injunction is approved... not only will you get a cheap & better mac clone, you'll also give them the cash they need for their legal fun. better act fast!
Is the apple architecture protected in some legal manner?
What's special about EFI, TPM, and an intel CPU?
I mean, go after the users of psystar for buying os x without the mac, but what has psystar done exactly?
I fail to see the controversy.
Apple, for business reasons all their own, has chosen not to structure their licenses such that 3rd parties can sell systems that come with OS X pre-installed without Apple's approval. There are plenty of operating systems around with licenses that do permit this. If Apple had a monopoloy on operating systems this would be a different beast. They do not; competition is ripe, and heating up.
Further, this situation seems analogous to one in which some third-party decided to make their own PS3 clones, unapproved of by Sony. The PS3 is Sony's property, to do with as they see fit. Suing this PS3 clone maker into oblivion would be wholly justified. Apple is no different.
So what's the big deal?
More like "Sue Predictably".
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
There's a little more to it now. It sounds more like they're suing because they took the Leopard update, opened it up, modified files in it, and re-released it for themselves. I think they're considering that a copyright infringement.
Apple: I'm not going to sell you this software unless you agree to only run it on Genuine Apple hardware.
Customer: okay, I agree.
Nvidia: I'm not going to let you download this this driver unless you agree you're not going to reverse engineer it.
Customer: okay, I agree.
Apple: Hey, you ran our software on Psystar hardware, you lied.
Customer: fsck you.
Nvidia: Hey, you reverse engineered our driver, you lied.
Customer: fsck you.
Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture?
There are many references to them here on Slashdot alone.
How could you have missed it? Those are just the first three :)
...and I want it for a purely selfish reason.
One of the great pleasures of using OS X is that Apple's linking of hardware to software eliminates the activation crap that Microsoft puts its users through. As far as I'm concerned Windows 2K was the last usable Microsoft OS. XP's activation process is infuriating, because it makes you jump through so many hoops to transfer the license from one machine to another. And Vista? Don't make me laugh.
If companies like Psystar destroy Apple's hardware revenues, and force it to become a pure-play software vendor, Apple will add the same activation garbage to OS 10.6 and beyond. And if that happens, I will curse every crap-box manufacturer like Psystar for causing it.
Well no not the same..
A company can go make it's own PS3 compatible console if it wrote the code to emulate the PS3 system..
If there is no sony code on the box they can't stop them.
That falls in the same area as the Nintendo and PS1 emulators for PC.
They tried to stop them and lost.
Trademark violations are another thing so you have be carefull about your advertising.
The Phystar issue is different.
They are loading apple code on the box mixed with their own code to get it working in violation of the EULA.
Now if they had gone and wrote their own mac compatable OS then they would be in the clear on the copyright issues.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
I know the Slashdot hordes like to bitch and moan about EULAs -- not without cause, mind you -- but the EULA violation in this case might as well be a footnote.
If all Psystar had done was violate the EULA clause that said "hey, you won't do anything to make this run on non-Apple hardware", then this case would be about how enforceable that clause is.
Unfortunately, Psystar did much more egregious things than violate a silly EULA term. They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less. Even under the traditional terms of copyright (as opposed to the mutilated corporate-serving terms we have now), that's just not cricket.
On top of that copyright infringement, they also noodle-headedly used at least one Apple trademark (the "Leopard" name and mark) to promote the sale of hardware and software.
I will be absolutely stunned if Apple doesn't prevail on the Copyright and Trademark parts of their case, though I do hope that the judge will find that a license to run software on a particular kind of hardware is not binding.
(Not a lawyer, this isn't advice -- I do know a thing or two about the law)
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
I can only see antitrust counter suit. I was wondering for a long time if such EULA that prohibiting their OS from running on other "unauthorized" computer is valid.
Apple: I'm not going to sell you this software unless you agree to only run it on Genuine Apple hardware.
Customer: okay, I agree.
I think you got that out of order.
Salesperson: Here you go!
Customer: Thanks! (opens shrink wrap, starts install, reads EULA)
Customer: I want to return this opened product because I do not agree to the terms of the EULA.
Salesperson: fsck you.
whether or not you like Apple products, you're fooling yourself (or a fool) if you think the differences between OS X and Windows exist only in the mind of Steve Jobs. Apple does work hard to cultivate a cool image, but it's geeks like you with no empathy for the plight of the common user suffering with Windows quirks who give us all a bad name.
As far as I can tell, "their own code" is an EFI string to identify the box as Apple hardware: the whole point of the move to x86 for Apple was to get Mac OS running on commodity (therefore cheap) hardware. The best analogy I can think of now is identifying Firefox as MSIE to use a website that demands you use IE for nontechnical reasons- the *only* reason OSX doesn't run on "normal" x86 is because of an artifical restriction, not a technical one.
(There's not really a good car analogy: something to do with ECUs, maybe.Incompatibilities on cars tends to have some kind of physical reason behind them)
For once I'd like to see a mature rebuttal against the current successful state of Macintosh that doesn't have to revert to the term "fanboi". If you can do that, I'd give your arguments credit. Until then, your insistence on using "fanboi" shows that you have no real credibility behind your otherwise immature claims.
What's funny is how no one mentions that Apple hasn't made a single legal move against the OSX86 project.
They haven't made a peep, not a disapproving statement nor threats of legal action. The ONLY reason Apple cares is because Psystar is riding their name and software in an attempt to make a cheap buck, and would likely push the support issues off to Apple who will take a black mark for refusing to support hardware they had no hand in.
Apple doesn't give a damn about you running OS X on your hackintosh, because you're part of a small audience and are probably aware that you get exactly nothing in terms of support. Apple does give a damn about companies like Psystar, even if their copies are legitimately purchased they'd have -nothing- if not for Apple.
And Apple was fully within their rights to kill off the clone market. They simply refused to continue licensing MacOS out to 3rd parties because, as Jobs duly noted, they were gutting Apple's bottom line. All the profit of the hardware sales but none of the software development expense. Continuing to do so would have been a critical error that would likely have killed Apple and MacOS entirely. It was a smart, if vicious, move.
This is going to turn out rather interesting. If Psystar hires even the most mediocre of lawyers, they simply need to argue that Apple is illegally typing their software to their hardware, which they are. Prior to Leopard, you couldn't by Mac OS X for intel without a computer so there was no issue. However, with Leopard this has changed. The fact that it runs in the first place on Psystar's hardware proves the illegal tying argument. The end result is Apple is going to be forced to deal with clones again, but it will be the best thing that ever happened to Apple but the worst for Jobs since he likes keeping things closed. Personally, I've been anticipating and awaiting this lawsuit since Apple went Intel.
Beware of some apples. If ya take a bite of it, the worm might sue you.
If I recall this correctly, all you need to get OSX running on other machines is patching the kernel which, I think, is licensed under BSD style( which is where apple/next got it from ).
If this is true, FSF might step in make things more interesting
Psystar is a company, not some geek in mom's basement selling bought copies of Mac OS X and bundling it with old computer equipment for some cash.
Psystar is making money "Hacking" a computer to redistribute the Mac OS software and updates provided by Apple...That should be illegally for a company of any kind, regardless of the current laws...If they have permission then fine...But we all know they don't.
They should have sold the shit for free and sold support instead!!
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
Well I think Apples big problem isn't so much the EULA violation.
It's more about the damage to their image these things are doing..
Reading the Article I get the impression the machines are junk hardware and users are calling apple for support. Also they have done more then load up a new EFI boot loader.. They have stripped apps out of the OS.
Online commentators have reported that Psystar's computer is "missing stuff like iLife, Bluetooth. an IR receiver, DVD burning and the ability to update your computer," is "LOUD, Crazy Loud," it "breaks the OS' automatic updates," and that "video was DOA right out of the box. No signal going to monitor Boot up is moot point as there is nothing to see." Of Psystar itself reviewers have written "they have no quality control," "lousy tech support," and "All I want to do is return the computer and get a refund." Likewise, it has been reported that Psystar has repeatedly changed location, this its office could not be found and that its first on-line payment processor terminated Psystar's account
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Synergy is one of those terms used in business that I usually hate, but with Apple, it really makes sense.
Invariably, these stories always bring out the responses that Apple would do much better letting everyone build closes. But really they wouldn't. Ditching HW sales won't turn Apple into a Windows competitor on the open market, they will just lose HW sales.
IMO:
Apple hardware helped OSX get it's market position.
OSX helped Apple Hardware get it's market position.
It is is the slick combination of OS and hardware together that has Apple still producing their computers and OS's.
Numerous OS contenders (BeOS, OS/2, Linux, Solaris) have blipped on the radar, often they were much better than the various versions of MacOS at the time. But none made the headway that MacOS in various incarnations had, because they lacked a HW vendor that stuck with it through thick and thin.
A Mac is not just OSX, and a Mac is not just a stylish PC.
It is the synergy of matched hardware and software, that creates a somewhat unique consistent experience.
I say the above as PC owner who choses every single component in all my PCs. I considered a Mac last time, but they lacked a decent Midtower for a decent price, so I don't think they have everything right, but they have a unique product and I think it should stay that way or risk disappearing.
So sue they should to maintain the only model that can work in the current market.
But I hope they lose this one. It would be nice to see some reasonable legal limits on these damn click-wrap licenses.
But at the same time, I'm not sure I would by a clone. I don't see anything that would legally obligate Apple to keep clones in mind when they upgrade MacOs. But I do see incentives to break compatibility.
So I wouldn't count on being able to get OS updates for a Psystar in the future.
All the same, if you paid for a copy of MacOs, you should be able to do as you damn well please with it.
it's worth noting that Internet Explorer's User Agent string still presents itself as "Mozilla (Compatible" to this day...
Pystar is also redistributing modified OS X updates. The case was filed the day after Pystar started distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 update. EULA aside, this is clearly a copyright violation. Pystar will lose.
-matt
So, hardware-wise, they only sell high end stuff
You may want to re-read the list again. What they do not sell specifically is a "moderate price expandable tower".
They sell high end stuff to be sure - but they also sell the Mac mini and iMac and Macbook computers, which are not "high end" nor are they priced that way.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse.
A year or so? That was an ergonomic problem to be sure.
Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons.
They SHIPPED with a one button mouse for a while. But all along, they have supported multiple buttons on mice. Even now the user has to turn on the second button, so it's not like they changed as much as you think they have.
Apple simply tries to ship with what they consider to be the best configuration for the user buying that system. There's no arrogance in that, as long as the user is easily able to make other choices that are better for them. Even the first OS X allowed you to hook up a Logitech USB mouse with any number of buttons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...nice to see the religious wars between Chevy and BMW continue. Yes, I know those are cars. Same stupid premise at work in these arguments. A computer is a computer, is a COMPUTER. They were designed and built to do one thing...MATH. Now, there are some really cool applications of mathematics that allow for other utility; a veritable myriad of utility, actually.
BUT! the bottom line is the fervent arguments over what platform is "better" than the other are utterly ridiculous. Sure, there was a time when I was very much against the Windows platform. To a large extent I still am, but right tool, right job. If you have general computing tasks to do, like most consumers do, they can choose any platform to do that. It really doesn't matter one gnat turd what they buy!
Geeks, nerds, IT personnel, whatever label you want to put on technology professionals (and hobbyists), I have observed that, they commonly have a skewed perspective as a majority. They immediately jump to the conclusion that what works for them works for everyone, whether they are a Linux, Windows or Mac "fanboy". That's utterly ridiculous. If you're going to be a heavy gamer, then a Windows platform is "better" (relatively). If you're going to do graphic design, digital video, or other media development, then there are some that argue that the Mac platform is "better". There's nothing stopping one platform or another from overtaking the other in any of these areas. The real difference is where the applications are for what you want to do at the time you want to do them. If you don't recognize that these things shift, then you are a poor IT professional.
Now, I'm done ranting on that and want to get back to the topic of the post! Apple probably waited to sue because they needed to get evidence of wrong doing and build a case. They had to get their hands on one of the Psystar machines and then analyze what they did to hack around the OS restrictions and see if they violated copyright, or anything else for that matter. That takes time. Psystar didn't start shipping machines until recently. I'm sure someone has the exact date, but then it took time for Apple to build their case. I seriously doubt this was some divisive maneuver. It is simply a case of legal due diligence in building their case against the infringement of intellectual property.
Geesh! Everyone thinks there's a conspiracy behind things they don't understand. [shakes head]
Mac mini supports full USB power, I charge devices from it every day. Just another Apple Hater on a mission to spread FUD.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Uh, you mean the "cool facade" of choosing Unix as the core operating system for their whole product line, instead of using the same, tired Microsoft code that all the other PC vendors dump on their systems' hard drives?
Or did you mean the "cool facade" of offering complete solutions for home users and creative professionals? (Microsoft will sell you an OS, but they don't even make their own computers to run it on. In hind-sight, that's probably wise - since they'd actually have to make the thing run well enough not to embarrass their hardware division.)
Oh... maybe you meant the "cool facade" of offering the #1 best selling portable music player, that has more 3rd. party accessories available for it than any other?
The "Mac vs. PC" commercials, obviously are exaggerated... but that's what advertising does. Or do you also believe all those Microsoft "studies" they put in ads, promising Windows Server had better return on investment for companies than Linux?
How the Hell can Apple stop Clones while there are PC clones ?
What is it they did that PC manufacturers didn't?
Kind of like the EULA that says I have to play my Sony music CD on a Sony CD player, or watch MSNBC on a Microsoft video appliance. They'll get real far with that.
Hmm, you mean, creating a derivative work? Wonder where anyone would get the idea that that's copyright infringement... Oh, yeah, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html17 USC 106! :)
geek. lawyer.
I agree with you, that a strength of OS X is that they've limited it in scope to running on their own selection of hardware, and specific peripherals subject to Apple's review. (EG. They only provide video driver support for cards they've decided are appropriate for their systems.)
I also find this whole argument of people claiming "Apple's a HARDWARE company", vs. "Apple's a SOFTWARE company!" amusing. The whole POINT to Apple is that they're the last vendor selling computers the "old fashioned" way. They're marketing a full computer SOLUTION to people. They bundle the hardware AND operating system, AND they sell a line of application software, AND they have full-service retail stores where you can get training or assistance after the sale. They even offer a line of "related" peripherals like the AppleTV box or the iPod, or the iPhone. They're not strictly "computers" - but they benefit from a network connection to one, and again, would be supported under the same roof as your system, if you went with all Apple products.
When did the customer say that? You can go buy a copy of Mac OS X right now, and Apple will make no such demand and there is no two-way communication like what you described. If they actually did that, their case would have a lot more merit. No customer (aside from, perhaps, large site-licensees) has ever told Apple that they agree to only run it on Genuine Apple hardware. Apple forgot to make it a condition of the sale.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think the problem will come down to what is Apple hardware. Is an Airport Extreme an Apple branded device, or is it a Broadcom 43xx card or Atheros 5424 card with an Apple sticker on it? Is the sound card a "High Definition Apple Sound Card" that's built into the "MacBook Logic Board" or is it just an HD Realtek card (CX1988, etc) on an Intel motherboard with a pick Apple sticker on it? I know for a fact that on Macbooks, they use an Intel processor and motherboard with EFI instead of good ol BIOS, a Realtek Card, a Broadcom wireless card (Essentially the same thing as a Dell Truemobile 1390 or an Atheros 5424 card), A Yukon Gigabit Ethernet card (88E8053), with standard devices hooked to it (hard drive, etc) via ICH7. This is all built inside of a Quanta laptop casing.
This is what Apple hardware is. Some may still see it as different, but I sure don't since my dell laptop has almost identical specs. And since Apple uses such an open source friendly license (http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/) I have easily ported linux and freebsd drivers to work on OS X. I have purchased a retail copy of leopard. I guess I am breaking the law, right? No, just the EULA. Why am I doing this? Simply to bring a good, friendly, stable, unix OS to my own computer. None of this requires pirating software
FYI, we've already completed a way to install OS X on a PC without altering the original Leopard retail Disc. So people can essentially go out, buy a copy of Leopard, and install it on a PC after booting off of a USB device that loads up the kernel extensions for their own PC hardware. All open source, all following APSL.
Also note that this is all homebrew stuff, none is earning any money off of it, and most of it is open source. This is why Psystar isn't really supported at all when it comes to the people who are putting their heart into this project.
Doesn't Rolls just use the BMW V12 now? With that factored in, your car analogy becomes even more mind-bending to the point where one cannot comfortably conceive of what it could mean.
Anyone basing their decision of what computing system to use on commercials (and ones that try to be witty and amusing at all cost) deserves what they get.
I, for one, bought MacPro because I wanted a UNIX system that can run Photoshop and Nikon Capture NX, and Final Cut Pro. I get the beauty of a UNIX system (I spend 90% of my time in terminal) and when I need to edit an image or video I can.
By the way, most Mac users don't find the commercials amusing or truthful (but then again we are not the target audience really).
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Shrink Wrap Licenses are a weird issue, most of them if tried are found to be not legally binding...
I don't know. When I bought Mac Pro (8 core base model) it was really competitively priced. And even if you are not interested in running OS X, it would be a competitively priced Windows machine as well.
I upgraded it later to nVIDIA Ge8800 GT card, 8 GB of RAM and 2 TB spread over 4 internal hard drives. All for less than $1200 (it would have cost me over $5000 to buy a system like that from Apple).
But everyone knows not to buy upgrades from Apple.
Now MacBook Pro is a little on the pricey side. It costs exactly the same as Mac Pro, but Mac Pro is at least 4 times the computer.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
I'd say that's definitely a derivative work, and that if they're calling it Leopard or an Apple product with modified code in it that they're violating the trademarks, too. IANAL, though. That's why someone else is in the courts and we're here jabbering about it like the football fans are talking about Favre's retirement.
They're beautiful. People who buy them usually speak highly of them (cognitive dissonance, maybe?) But when you buy one yourself, you find that there's a cup of grape Kool-Aid that comes with your purchase, and you're expected to drink it.
My one Apple purchase, a Wallstreet Powerbook, crashed more often than the Wright Bros did. After putting up with this crap for months and getting no help from Apple, I went back to Windows 98 for its stability! Between the Powerbook, all new Office software and a new Apple printer, I had about $2800 invested in that P.O.S. It Just Didn't Work.
Nope, I threw the Kool-Aid away. Apple's products are pretty. But the best? My Chinese MP4 player will sync with a toaster, for crying out loud. Not your ipod, though. My 8 year old Thinkpad doesn't give me one fourth of the problems that my Powerbook gave me. My cheap Motorola phone doesn't have the cool factor as your iphone, but it's three times as durable, cost me almost nothing, and works like a champ.
No, Apple products are not worth the hype or the money. There, I said it.
Without the clause in the EULA that you will only run the OS on a genuine MAC, there is nothing here
This firm is promoting and selling computers with a (possibly modified) copy of Leopard pre-installed on the hard drive. That's rather different from John Doe buying a copy of Leopard and installing it on his own PC or wanting to sell on his license. I doubt whether the rights of end users will come into it.
I'm surprised that Apple don't just badge retail Leopard discs as "upgrade - for computers with Mac OS only" (which is effectively what you're getting) - if the enforceability of that got overturned then it would be interesting times indeed...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Some details here. According to Apple, this is about quality. Here's a killer excerpt from the filing:
"Online commentators have reported that Psystar's computer is "missing stuff like iLife, Bluetooth. an IR receiver, DVD burning and the ability to update your computer," is "LOUD, Crazy Loud," it "breaks the OS' automatic updates," and that "video was DOA right out of the box. No signal going to monitor Boot up is moot point as there is nothing to see." Of Psystar itself reviewers have written "they have no quality control," "lousy tech support," and "All I want to do is return the computer and get a refund." Likewise, it has been reported that Psystar has repeatedly changed location, this its office could not be found and that its first on-line payment processor terminated Psystar's account."
Several of the updates to Leopard that Apple issues have to be hacked for people running the Psystar machines. Some people are saying that PsyStar is doing that hacking and redistributing the altered code to its customers. If they are indeed doing that, it's a fair deal more important than saying "I'm an Apple" in the firmware.
I think the trademark issues and damage to Apple's reputation are bigger winners for Apple, though.
Slashdot is usually more insightful than this, surprised to see a few shockers disrespecting consumers to get at Apple and discredit their success, limited as it is. There is reason to have issue with their business model but these presumptions are unforgivably naive.
1. Apple do not make a good os, do not make good hardware hardware or do not innovate? Thus the only explanation for their success has to be marketing! That is shocking in its ignorance of how the real world operates. Are there no logical reason for consumers to choose Apple apart from marketing or fanboyism? Is this really Slashdot?
2. Apple is successful due to marketing? Is that logical? And other companies do not market or push their products? So perhaps modify that to Apple is 'good' at marketing but then that disrespects the consumers because if a consumer can fall for Apple marketing without merit ergo they can fall for any other company's marketing. Really if marketing is solely reasonable for success life in the corporate world would be so much easier, the quickest way to fail is to market a bad product, the more consumers see and use it the more bad press you get and fail. Really how many people here are exposed to business and have taken products and services to market, the most important thing for success is the product or service, if that is crap no amount of marketing, branding and PR will help you, this is basic stuff.
3. Could it be possible that Apple does some things right. This is important because some of us will or are already in position where these things matter in a very real way, how to build a business and appeal to customers. Are there lessons to be learn from Apple and Steve Jobs.
What percent of TOTAL cases in the circuits were overturned eventually? Not what percent HEARD BY THE SUPREME COURT were overturned.
That's a very different criteria.
I love Apple oriented /. posts!. It's like a fiesta where someone brings out the Apple pinata and takes a couple blindfolded whacks at it. Most are completely off target, but some are dead on. Lots o /. laughs and fun for the whole family.
My point is that if you have never owned or much less used an Apple computer, then you don't know what you are talking about--you have what is known as an uniformed opinion. I owned a Wintel PC for years all the way back to DOS. I switched to a Mac almost 2 years ago and couldn't be happier. I have to use a Windows XP PC at work and have to resist chucking out the window nearly everyday. BTW, I'm a Web Application UI designer/developer, so yeah, I guess you could say I'm a power user.
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
Here's an idea.
1) Take years of hard work and implementation by righteous volunteers and steal it into new proprietary OS (keep the good parts and replace the rest with hot cocoa) that still only runs on proprietary hardware (they'll never guess what we paid for it!!).
2) Profit
3) Sue anyone that tries to undermine our clever scheme by selling hardware for what it's worth with our sweet (somewhat stolen) OSeX by including obligatory EULA.
I thought true "shrink wrap" licenses were settled as invalid. I'm speaking of the kind where you can't read the license until after you "agree" to the license by opening the shrink wrap box. Is the Apple license really "shrink wrap" or is just just "click through" or some other insanity?
Open source and Openness saved her in the fire swamp, and she treated it like garbage. And that's what she is, the queen of refuse and cheap junk. So bow down to her if you want, bow to her. Bow to the queen of slime, the queen of filth, the queen of rotting apple core putrescence. Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime! Muck! Boo! Boo! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Do you honestly believe that Psystar has a single leg to stand on here?
you're not doing it right.
you have to stretch your imagination a little to let "BestCompuMaxCity" rhyme with "expandable tower."
How can that be? What's next? Are you going to tell me that the political ads are biased?
Of course the ads are designed to make Apple look great and the competition look bad. That is the point of an ad. That is what's expected of an ad.
On the other hand, bogus think-tank studies, and astro-turfing, are another matter. Wouldn't you agree?
There is no appeal from the circuit courts except to the supreme court. Thus, only cases accepted by the supreme court can be overturned.
...to see this get 5+ insightful mod?? Let's count the inaccuracies in just one sentence.
They also clearly violated their deal with Apple records, and then went on the legal offensive like they were victims.
"They also clearly violated their deal..."
On 8 May 2006 a (British) court ruled in favor of Apple Computer, with Justice Mann holding that âoeno breach of the trademark agreement [had] been demonstratedâ.
"...with Apple records..." Apple Corps.
"...then went on the legal offensive like they were victims..." Court records show that in September 2003, Apple Corps sued Apple Computers.
Mods, educate yourselves before modding.
And even with the best case assumptions of sales of Paystar systems so far, their revenues would be 3, even 4 orders of magnitude smaller than Apple's revenue stream. Any damages from Paystar wouldn't even make a blip on Apple's bottom line.
The idea that Apple was waiting just so that they could enrich their coffers by a pay-out from Paystar is so idiotic, it isn't even wrong.
BSD does not appear anywhere in the default page comments. Whats up with your mods slashdot. How in the hell can you have a conversation about apple, licensing and code without mentioning BSD?
I'm not complaining about what they make, I'm pointing out that compared to functionally comparable PCs they cost more. I'm not even complaining *that* they cost more: I'm getting a premium OS for the premium cost. But Apple *does* have a 40% profit margin in a business where 5% is more typical - that's how they pay for the R&D that produces the software that makes it WORTH 40% more - and they don't get that profit margin out of thin air: they get it by charging more for their hardware.
This isn't magic, it's business.
They could always just start selling the computers with the OSX installation disc included, but not unpackaged or used, no? They can't be in violation of any bullshit EULA clause if they've never done anything to presumptively agree to it. It's not like OSX is hard to install--they can just include a printed step by step guide anyway.
as for the copyright infringement charge (creating and selling derived works of Mac OS), I wonder if a Judge could be persuaded to see it as fair use. Remember the four factors:
They are just adapting the software to their hardware. If they don't do that, the software doesn't work. It's a very reasonable and inoffensive purpose and character, and doesn't conflict at all with the purpose of copyright law.
Well, it's software, with some minor defects (relatively low number of drivers, and even some code intended to make it not work correctly under certain circumstances). Going back to the first point, Pystar is addressing these defects.
Pystar is totally busted. They're redistributing most or all of it.
That's the best part for Pystar. Since they're reselling (presumably) legally-purchased individual copies of Mac OS, they're at worst having no effect on Apple's Mac OS sales revenue, and probably slightly increasing it. This test goes 100% pro-Pystar.
They come out smelling pretty good on 3 out of the 4 tests, and stinking on one.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...the GPL gives you more rights than what's normally allowed by copyright law. Which means that if the GPL is invalid, you have to ask each and every person who submitted code for their permission to redistribute said code. And the GPL is straight and up front, as opposed to EULA's, which you only see once you've paid for the software and opened the box...at which point most stores wont accept it back as a return.
Your points consist of bitching about the mouse...and whining about the mouse. Newsflash: they built the GUI so you don't need a two button mouse, but gave you right click functions anyway with the control key or a third party mouse. Stop drinking the Hatorade.
In regards to this whole thing. Lets say someone created a clone, (hardware) of a Motorola/Nokia/whatever phone and then installed Motorola's (or other) software on it and tied to sell it. Of course they have a case, Motorola (or other) didn't create or intend that software to be on other hardware. In the computer world we are used to MS which licenses it's software to whoever can put together computer components and has enough cash to buy licenses for them. Good for them. Obviously a good business model. Made Gates and other MS employees very rich and works for many businesses and consumers. However that doesn't make it the only way to do business. Apple/Jobs adopted a different approach which even a few MS zealots admit is desirable; control/limit the hardware and you can ensure better stability. This is Apple's model, and it works as anyone in tech would expect it to. If MS produced there one hardware I'm sure they could HOPEFULLY provide similar stability. They choose not to because the current model is very profitable for them.
Apple's model is also profitable and also works very well and they shouldn't be criticized over it. Their whole marketing scheme is over the "experience" of Apple so of course they want to control it tightly and make it work as best it can. If you want open harware, go MS or if you want really open, go Linux. Apple goes after simplicity. It isn't perfect, but it works well and provides a good experience. You can't fault them because there business strategy doesn't fit to what you want. Besides, if you're that technical you can figure out how to make OSX x86 work on your hardware anyway. We're talking about the vast majority of users who aren't that tech savy.
I'm a tech manager who manages enterprise systems running on windows so MS pays my bills, but i choose to use mac at home. People ask me advise all the time since I'm a "computer geek". I turn plenty of people to mac and no one has ever been unhappy. Generally they love it. At the same time, for those that are happy with windows, I tell them to stay with it. Not everyone wants the same thing. Apple doesn't need to be open; they can and should be allowed to run there business the way they want.
Yes Apple has "crushed" companies that try to interfere with there model because they want to be able to stand behind the consumer experience; its part of their business model. That does not however compare to the bs MS has done to crush competitors who interfere with there "open" model. Apple is a "closed shop", they advertise it as such so you can't blast them about it or complain when they protect it. If consumers don't like it, they can choose windows or linux.
In regards to iTunes/iPods/iPhones...again, buy another product. Apple isn't the leader because they bullied everyone else out of the market ala Microsoft. They are the leader because they provided the best experience for the user. Apple is abusive, fine, go buy a creative. iTunes is prohibitive, use Rhapsody. Apple didn't buy the competition in this realm or give away the product to dominate. They did the same thing as with the Mac, control the hardware and software to provide a consitent experience to the consumer. If that doesn't appeal to you, go somewhere else, it doesn't make it a bad model.