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.
...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.
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.