Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Files Suit Against Psystar

Posted by kdawson on from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.

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.

18 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. It's mildly shocking... by adder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!

    1. Re:It's mildly shocking... by east+coast · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.

      Or had to.

      Had this clone company flopped Apple could have walked away without ever lifting a finger. Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.

      After all, Apple likes to play it off like the cool slacker who has everything just work out in the end. It's going to look bad if they need to kick some ass to keep their coveted spot in the home computing world. It's going to make for a great Mac Vs. PC commercial, I'm sure.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:It's mildly shocking... by cbreaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple has done worse in their day. They're more ruthless than most corporations when it comes to things like this.

      Somehow, it seems to go unnoticed..

      I guess people forgot how they squashed the Mac clone market a decade ago by deciding to no longer license the ROM needed to run MacOS and thus putting many OEM companies out of business in one fell swoop.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    3. Re:It's mildly shocking... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unless you try to Dual-Boot with BeOS... for free.. then their OEM EULA prohibits them from putting non-windows OSes in the boot screen or even SHOWING the user an icon to set up dual booting. That's what Fujitsu and Toshiba found out when BeOS wanted to be put on systems for free... and why no major player will sell dual-boot systems with the Linux pre-installed.

      "You're welcome to sell any computer you want that has Windows on it, as long as you hand over the Windows license with the computer."

      Correction If you sell Windows, you're ONLY allowed to sell Windows or even advertise Windows on those machines. (see above) You can sell machines with other OSes, but Microsoft want's (wanted) license fees for EVERY computer you sold (until it was declared illegal). So Microsoft is much WORSE... After all, only Apple sells Macs, they are not compelling any other company to do their bidding.

    4. Re:It's mildly shocking... by Schlage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Althought the previous post didn't put it in the most objective manner, I hardly think that the post should be modded "Flamebait." A bit direct, perhaps, and obviously writing from a very decided point of view, but I've seen much less objective and more objectionably phrased comments rated "Insightful" or "Informative." The bottom line is that whoever rated this "Flamebait" disagreed and wants the comment discredited. Too bad I don't have mod points right now.

      To avoid just commenting on someone else's rating, I have to say that I agree that much of what Apple sells with its Macintosh is the Apple 'mystique.' Jobs is a great marketer and a great packager of product, whether that packagin comes in the form of industrial design (iPod), eye-candy (much of the OS X interface), or the intangible psuedo-elitism of owning an Apple Macintosh.

      I don't have an axe to grind against Apple, I've used their products far longer than I have any of the IBM/Microsoft related lines (starting with the Apple II), but the parent is dead on when he labels Jobs as one of the great showmen of our times. And don't tell me that the Mac vs. PC ads are designed as fair, objective comparisons, because they're not, they're ads and they're meant to persuade people to buy Macs and regard the Apple brand well, pure and simple.

    5. Re:It's mildly shocking... by Draek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because people don't feel as bad when they feel they've wasted $10 than when they feel they've wasted $1000, so of course Apple consumers won't admit to their dissatisfaction as easily as, say, Dell customers. Yes, even to themselves.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    6. Re:It's mildly shocking... by XorNand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      $4M might be a tax dodge. I might even be willing to consider $40M to be a tax dodge. But when you start talking tens of *billions*, I somehow doubt that taxes are even on Bill's mental radar. Oh, I'm sure he's aware of his tax liability in the abstract and has a team of accountants handling the details. But when you have enough money to literally change the world, your ambitions extend beyond trying to hide a few bucks from the government.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    7. Re:It's mildly shocking... by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?

      Here's an interesting factoid from the 1990s for you. Of all the auto brands in the General Motors family, Pontiac had the highest standards of production quality, while Cadillac had the lowest. And yet Pontiac had the lowest satisfaction ratings, while Cadillac had the highest.

      My point is that "highest satisfaction" may have nothing to do with actual production quality, but with consumer perception of the product. And I say this as someone who prefers Macs to other systems (the same way I prefer New Balance sneakers to other shoes: because it fits me better).

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    8. Re:It's mildly shocking... by Sandbags · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).

      The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.

      I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).

      Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...

      besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)

      I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  2. Not a bad business model... by BUL2294 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. So excited for a legal judgment by saterdaies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

  4. Re:No surprise by drspliff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It takes a lot of preparation for them to reach this point and file proceedings, consider:

      * exec hears about it, if it were Microsoft chairs would be thrown
      * passed to the legal team to see if Apple have a case
      * legal sign off
      * paralegals do the groundwork, scrutinizing the EULA etc.
      * ...
      * ...
      * case is filed in court?

    In the past I've tried bringing legal action for trademark infringement, and the whole process just to get things started can take months and months especially if you're in a large organization with N-layers of forms & approvals required for anything like this.

  5. Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir by timster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.

    So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).

    Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.

    Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.

    This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  6. Re:Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go. by frission · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir by revscat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And finally, how successful would OS/X be if Apple sold it as software for any platform, Microsoft-style? It would be earth-shakingly successful, probably garnering 50% marketshare within one year. And probably making 10x more money than they do now.

    They tried that before. It didn't work out too well. Also, you're wrong.

    One of the strengths of OS X is that it runs on a limited, well-understood suite of hardware. Bugs are easier to fix, components are easier to tweak, and new features are more easily added. I do not, and never have, believed that Apple would be well served by opening up OS X. It's a tightly run ship (for the most part), and opening it up to all hardware would serve neither Apple nor end users.

  8. Re:a boy can dream by jtroutman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
  9. Re:Competition Killer by onecheapgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Digidyne v. Data General. No requiring hardware to legally use software. It even involved a company which sold clones of Data General's. Precedent is on Psystar's side. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=908&friend=nytimes

  10. Re:Competition Killer by onecheapgeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is correct, but the Appeals Court's decision falls on Psystar's side. While this is by no means definitive in the case in question, it is a legal precedent at the federal level, and it relates directly to the matter at hand.