Slashdot Mirror
Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
This was probably inevitable, but it's a shame to see Psystar brought down. Without any competition in the computers-that-run-OS-X market, Apple just keeps getting more obnoxious.
(If this kind of thing bothers you and you want to take a swipe back at Apple, I recommend passing up that shiny new iPhone 3G and looking at the equally shiny LG Dare instead. The screen is smaller but it's actually easier to type on.)
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
kiss innovation and creativity goodby kiddies... /. has been so wrapped up in it's M$ hatewagon ride, it overlooked the real assholes out there.
I for one will NEVER by a MAC or any other APPLE product just over this alone.
...the clone war.
What are the odds of people actually returning their much-less-costly Mac clone?
Bearded Dragon
If this were a story about Microsoft trying to stop vendors from building machines that can run their OS, there would be a million typical comments about them being an evil monopoly, etc. Since it's Apple, I'm sure it's somehow ok, in a shiny, trendy, hip way.
See this other comment. The precedent they likely want to use is the WoW / Glider case that we discussed yesterday, if you don't follow the EULA then the copy-to-ram that's part of running the software is apparently a copyright violation.
VERY interesting. So this is a win-win lawsuit for Apple. If they win, they keep their control of hardware for OSX. If they lose, they potentially weaken Micro$oft EULAs. :-)
No, this is not just about the EULA.
If you look up Psystar and the open computer, you'll find that they also modify and redistribute Apple security updates.
They can't rely on software updates directly from Apple always working on the computers, so they distribute updates themselves.
Since they are very, very unlikely to have permission for this, it is a straightforward case of copyright infringement.
Also, what do you expect? You all know that Apple does not allow "clone makers", so when one happens, do you just accept them to leave them alone, because they are "small time"?
Wouldn't you then be even more outraged if they waited until Psystar was big before they sued?
Psystar must have known this would happen, and I suspect they just used the OS X machines as publicity for their other machines.
In so much as WoW/Glider is a district court opinion, it has a nonbinding, advisory effect. If it was an appellate opinion, it's only limit to that circuit (a few states.)
Shrinkwrap licenses are not a slam dunk. They're better than browse-wrap or even click-wrap, but the circuits are split on them if I recall correctly. They may also be held invalid for being substantively and procedural unconscionable. (I would think especially so in this particular case.)
In particular, shrinkwrap licenses that purport to limit fair use are not a slam dunk. The first amendment is the fount of fair use (Sony v. Betamax) and thus of constitutional dimension. While the first amendment is only binding on government actors, the court itself is a government actor, adn therefore by enforcing a fair-use limiting contract (the EULA) the court is essential depriving fair use 1st amendment rights. That's the argument at least. I think its' the right one. We wouldn't want the court to eforce contracts to permit slavery (13th amendment), and I think limiting free speech is particularly dicey. But hey, it happens ALL THE TIME with contracts (nondisclosure for example.) I just don't think it's right for the courts to enforce it.
The biggest problem here for Apple is monopoly issues and tying, which I see Psystar counsel has wisely raised. (You can be a monopoly of a more restricted relevant market than just OSs in general..)
Just my opinion, as a non-lawyer.
Psystar could probably win this on antitrust grounds. Apple's EULA is probably an "illegal tying arrangement" and unenforceable. But Psystar may not be able to afford the litigation. Historically, IBM lost on this antitrust issue in the 1970s, which is why there were and are IBM mainframe clones and, indeed, IBM PC clones. In fact, IBM was forced to sell their mainframe OS and applications to users with mainframe clones from Amdahl and NCR.
The difference between this era of Mac clones and the last one was that the earlier generations (pre x86) of Apple machines had parts of the OS in ROM, which gave Apple more legal leverage. The current Apple machines are essentially Intel-based PC clones, with little or no essential Apple intellectual property inside.
Psystar does not seem to be redistributing Apple updates. They distribute an installer which, on the client machine, downloads an update from Apple and patches it.
Also, Psystar's web site is not down. It's just slow.
It's true that you can get laptops for under $1k, but it's quite a bit harder to find a 13.3" one like the MacBook for much less
Funny you should mention that. I've been saying for a while that when my current laptop finally dies, I plan to get a Macbook. Not for the looks, the spec or the OS, but simply because I wanted a 13.3 inch form factor. I carry my laptop around a lot, so a 17'' monster is out of the question, but I also use it as my primary machine, so an ultra portable is no use either. 13.3'' is, for me, the sweet spot between portability and usability. But no one seemed to make them except apple, so it looked like the macbook was the best option.
Lately though, I've noticed more and more 13.3'' laptops showing up in stores. A quick search on dabs turns up these results. As you can see, they have twelve 13.3'' laptops that are cheaper than a macbook. The Toshiba U400 for example, compares very favourably with the cheapest macbook in terms of specs. The macbook had a faster processor, but the toshiba has a DVD writer and is lighter, so it's pretty much a toss up. On price though, the Toshiba trounces the apple. £498 against £699. A £200 pound difference. Looks like I won't be buying a mac after all.
I won't get into the the relative merits and value of vista compared to OSX. I'd be formatting it and installing Linux anyway.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
well, since the construction of that firmware is a proprietary technology, patented by a group of companies (Intel, Apple, and a couple of others), you would require permission from them to licence that chip technology in order to do that. Not going to happen....
It's not Apple's firmware you're circumventing, but a core component of the Intel Board, for which Apple is currently the only OS that has native (and approved) support for, aside from a small open source linux distro or two that also garnered permission.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
This "lock-down" mentality of Apple is my main reason for never owning any of their equipment. One manufacturer, one source, one single point of failure. So no Apple][, no Lisa, no Mac of any generation, no iMac, iPod, iPhone or i-anything. Ever. Period.
Bah, you knucklehead, BIOS and EFI are *SOFTWARE*!!!
Just because they live in the firmware hub, they are inherently SOFTWARE and executed by the processor.
"Firmware" != "Hardware", it is "SOFTWARE!"
They can recall all they want I don't think the ones who bought the machine are obligate to return the unit. Correct me if I am wrong, but once a consumer buys a product it is theirs and the maker of that product doesn't really have any authority as to say what the consumer wants can and cannot do with it, not even ask them to return it (if it's not a safety issue) as the consumer paid for the product. At least that is the way I see it.
With a lack of fundamental UI features like copy/paste? Well, I guess that's differentiating...
Agreed, that was crap. But I think the new iPhone (released a few days ago) has fixed that.
And I don't run Linux, btw. I'm just curious that the Iphone's advantages are always argued in terms of assertions ("It works better! It just does.") and not evidence or examples.
I'm sure the evidence exists -- Apple takes HCI very seriously indeed -- but I doubt it's publicly available. And your average user doesn't really have the vocabulary to describe that stuff. If you want it quantified, look at the HCI fanatic sites.
It was the original MacOS which was known for its UI, btw. Macs today are running a different operating system.
The original Mac OS was known for its UI. The current Mac OS is known for its UI. The iPhone is known for its UI. Notice a pattern emerging?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I don't think anyone with a /. UID thought that this Mac clone company would last very long. I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did. Think this is unfair? Hey, Mac OS X is Apple's product; it's a great piece of software despite its shortcomings; and, yes, to run it, you need a Mac, made by Apple. They do this to guarantee that it runs the way they tested it in the lab. On other hardware, OS X might rock equally well or it might be the suxx0rz, Apple has no way to know or to control that outcome, so they prevent it from running that way. You can take it or use the alternative, which is a computer made by anyone of your choice, running your choice of Linux, the *BSDs, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, or Server 2008 modified to function as a workstation per the instructions given in another /. story earlier today. Vote with your dollars!
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Dell and Lenovo make profit from small margins but high volume. Apple does the opposite.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
How do you make cuntwaffles ? Sounds strangely tasty.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
I am not asking for in-depth technical details on how Apple writes its software or designs its hardware!
I think you are. You might be able to explain some of their design principles in terms of well-known laws such as Hick's or Fitts's. But they also do a large amount of user testing, at financial cost to themselves, so they keep it to themselves.
I just want the details - e.g., "It tastes better"
I don't really see the difference between "It tastes better" and "It just works".
I know that "It's easier to use" means "I find it easier to use" - that's the same sentence written slightly differently. I still expect them to explain why.
Would you expect someone who prefers Coke to Pepsi to explain (in technical terms) why you should too?
And no, Mac users who state that "It's easier to use", "It Just Works" are not implying that other phones are just as good for other people, they're making a claim that the Iphone actually is better than all other phones.
No. They're making the claim that the ease-of-use of the iPhone is more important to them than cut and paste, or whatever other features Blackberry users keep complaining that the iPhone doesn't have.
I don't understand? I'm not the one making an assertion.
Sure you are. You disagree with my statement that "The iPhone is known for its UI". You are making the assertion that "The iPhone is not known for its UI".
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato