Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Will Countersue Apple
An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."
/popcorn.
I really hope Psystar wins this one. Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior. If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I wish I had balls that big. I also hope they win. It would be awesome to legally be able to run OS X on the hardware of MY choice, rather than Apple's.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
They do make an interesting point for the courts to wade through. Even though I like Apple for technical excellence, I would very much like this lawsuit to go to completion and see what the courts think. If they rule against Apple -- and if -- big if -- Apple is supposed to not break products intentionally, it would mean a change in the business model for the OS software. The technicalities of the "if" would be complex, as we all know.
-srr
If psystar wins this showdown, it will be a whole new playing field. After all, why by an expensive XServe when you can just emulate OSX Server?
They are able to survive because they are filling a niche market, leading me to believe that they will not be a serious competitor to MS anytime soon.
In the meantime I await the continual improvement of linux to cause a critical mass of marketshare so that vendors will finally start giving it proper support....
This would have interesting ramifications if the countersuit was to succeed, and Apple forced to change the licencing restriction so that anyone could legally run OSX on non-Apple hardware.
I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
The argument by Apple is going to be made that they are an appliance manufacturer and that they sell the OS and support the OS only for the appliances they sell. They offer it for sale as an upgrade to their appliance for those who do not wish to purchase a new appliance and as a convenience to their consumers.
So they are not a monopoly by any means but they cannot argue that a third party cannot support that software as long as it does not imply support or cause any damage to existing company.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Too bad this case will take several years before anything is decided and appealed. Then an another year for any beneficent for consumers if ruled in favor of competition, that is if any competitors are still left in business.
are doomed to repeat it.
Apple has been successfully shutting down clone makers for 25 years. Some immediately, some after several months, but always successfully. Psystar will choke on the stack of precedents.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
In other words, a whole heck of a lot.
This was probably their plan from the beginning, to make money not by selling the systems themselves but by suing the hell out of Apple when they (predictably) tried to put a stop to it. Apple fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Quite frankly I love it.
In other news Don Quixote was recently introduced as the new president of Psystar.
load "$",8,1
Remember how SCO had some major cash infusions from Redmond? How much do you want to bet Paystar has the same "donation"?
Seems the private business haters on /. got queued awful fast.
Apple is not being monopolistic and they have every right to prevent a 3rd party from selling their product.. If I have a restaurant, I have the right to REFUSE TO SERVE you. If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store.
The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products.
However, any restriction on the end user from running OS X should be removed. Apple should just not warrantee the OS on non-Apple hardware. So if you don't have a Mac and you have a problem with your copy of OS X, Apple can just say "Tough Shit".
These events alone will generate $1MM+ (million??) in legal bills. We all know Apple won't stop until psystar is closed and will use it as an example to every american with a similar idea. You know, heads on a stick at the city gates and all that.
So, where's psystar's money coming from?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Will it be because they're right, or becuse they're rich?
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
If this works, then people could make clone Nintendo game units, Sony game units and the like, opening the door for a new level of "fair use" doctrine.
I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).
I don't see how Apple could ever be compelled to provide support on any hardware it doesn't deem acceptable. If they were to lose, maybe the outcome will be that if you sell an OS, you don't have the right to restrict its use to particular hardware.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
are doomed to make overstatements like this.
For a couple of years, Apple _licensed_ the Mac OS to third parties (Power Computing, UMAX/SuperMac and some others). Apple only 'shut down' Power Computing by buying out their Mac clone business for $100 million.
This is going to significantly undermine any 'appliance' argument they make.
The big question here is what kind of product the boxed version of Mac OS X really is.
- Upgrade -
Given that one may officially only install the product on "an Apple-labeled computer", and every Mac comes preinstalled with OS X, a case could be made that the boxed version is really an upgrade. This is however hard to defend as the AppleTV is an Apple-labeled computer and runs a version of OS X, but it would be illegal to run Mac OS X on an AppleTV.
- OEM -
When you buy a boxed Mac OS X, you can only install it on Macs that meet the requirements. Support through Apple is minimal, you're expected to have bought AppleCare for your computer, which then gets you OS support as well. This could pass for some form of OEM deal.
- Retail -
Retail, ie. "buy the product, and do with it as you please" seems like the least plausible option. There is only one Mac OS X Leopard Client, and for most customers it costs $129. This is way less from what Microsoft charges for their full featured 64-bits Vista retail version. Has Apple ever been known for their bargains?
I think Psystar might be mistaking the boxed version for a retail version. In the unlikely case that the win the case however, I can see Apple creating a full retail version and an upgrade version, with the full retail version being > $1000, so that it won't make any sense for Psystar to sell the systems anymore.
If I buy a copy of OS/X upgrade and I abide by the law and do not sell copies of it, who is Apple to tell me how to use it? Yea, sure, the EULA *tries* to create conditions of use, but I as a US citizen have rights under copyright law.
At issue is how much control do the makers of things we buy have over how we use them. IMHO, Apple should loose big. HUGE.
Psystars and Ybruthars just get along?
"Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get" - Jerry Avins
I might have actually purchased a license from them if they would just let me.
Until then: http://www.insanelymac.com/
are doomed to watch it be repeated.
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
I can only hope this is a beginning of a return of regulation to t he markets, and will help foster a truly competitive marketplace. Breaking up all these cartels will be great for the flounder US economy.
Apple may not be allowed that option. Remember they are challenging Apple on Monopoly grounds. If they win Apple can be mandated to do or not do certain things that wouldn't apply to normal companies. Same sort of deal with MS. Normally, the government has no ability to tell a company that they can't bundle certain things with their products, or must provide options to turn them off. However, because of MS's monopoly status, they can and have. If Apple lost a similar suit, they could face similar restrictions. Thus they wouldn't necessarily be able to just say "Ok fine, you can't buy our OS without our special software and DRM." The government might say "No, you have to sell normal install discs without prejudice to how they are used."
Look at the facts again:
SCO claimed IBM owed it money for performing work on Linux that SCO claimed should somehow enrich SCO, despite SCO having not done anything to deserve it.
Paystar claimed Apple owed it money for performing work on Mac OS X that Paystar claimed should somehow enrich Paystar, despite Paystar having not done anything to deserve it.
Now ask yourself, why are you rooting for Paystar?
What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0
Apple is really pushing it once they moved to the Intel platform, now that Apple PC's are identical to IBM Clone PC's (minus some smbios work + openfirmware) they no longer have the "Power Architecture excuse" Their hardware is WAY over priced for what it is ($599 for a base macmini which compares to a $200 pc these days.) and Apple rides it's hardware sales on it's great OS. OS X is wonderful compared to Microsoft, and Apple could easily beat out Microsoft on the home desktop environment. Alternatively, Pystar will never win. Opening up the OS X license to all systems would be a MASSIVE cut to Apple's revenue stream... and Apple will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. Pystar is tiny compared to Apple.. big money always wins.
Mac os x is too big to be download only.
Also the same disk is used in the 1 system and 5 system box.
by not providing reasonably priced mid-range computers ie. $1000 core 2 duo or core 2 quad machines. Makes me sad to think of all the families that forked out $1000 extra because they thought they had to have a mac to get email or use wikipedia. Also what is green about building a pc into a monitor only for it to be redundant the next year ? Pc towers are easy to repair and upgrade, taking advantage of easy to find cheap components (or high end if you like). They seem to act like a monopoly in all their business practices eg. iTunes ipod exclusivity, their purchase of Final Cut and Logic Audio and subsequent closure of windows versions - which resulted in nearly all post production houses being full of these machines. As you can tell I'm a pc evangelist. I am the only person I know who uses one. My shit runs a lot faster than theirs.
Apple will never allow there OS to be run on any hardware but their own for one single reason. Quality Control. Apple's success is largely because of the fact that you CAN'T put their software on any hardware you choose. It allows them to test the OS and make sure it runs nigh-flawlessly on that single configuration of hardware and prevents them from having to test multiple sets of hardware. Look at windows, installing it on different computers CAN produce different results. They've done a decent job making it compatible but as a result, it doesn't run great on any one hardware configuration.
Well...who am i kidding. Windows doesn't run great period. Regardless, all you little PC users need to stop complaining and just go buy a Mac. Apple has every right to do what they want with their hardware and software. I don't see anybody suing Microsoft for not allowing halo to run on a Wii. If this lawsuit was won, that's exactly what they would be implying, that it's ok to crack software to run on hardware it wasn't designed to run on.
The only and best thing about this whole story is that:
"every headline will broadcast the message that Macintosh is worth fighting for because Windows isn't good enough." --MacDailyNews
-Retik
Vista OEM FULL is $100 to $200 and 32 bit and 64 bit are the same price.
Vista Full boxed is $200 to $319 and 32 bit and 64 bit are the same price.
Vista upgrade boxed is $100 to $219 and 32 bit and 64 bit are the same price.
Apple will just kill off the retail channel for upgrades of OS X.
Actually if psystar wins here, and Apple closes off the retail channel, then chances are a return lawsuit will follow and Apple will have more than it's wrist slapped... aka - they will be forced to offer OS/X to anyone that wants it...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
For EULA to be valid, the company has to provide me a copy of EULA to review before I purchase the software, otherwise it is invalid... and even if court found me guilty for breaking EULA there's no punishment for me as law says nothing about it
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
"They aren't trying to sell Apple's OS as they're own, they're trying to stand up to Apple's bullying that immorally (and hopefully illegally, but we'll see) says you can't run their OS except on their hardware."
Why not? There's certainly precedent in the mainframe and workstation market. Even in the embedded systems market. Why should the personal computer market be the exception?
You can install Windows on a Mac. And that's fine. But install OSX on a PC and Apple throws a hissy fit... Am I missing something here?
The game.
The Cable BOX case is based on some of same things as this case.
Like Being forced to use there Box.
Making other 3rd party stuff not work as well as there box.
Forcing you to rent there cable card to use a 3th party box.
There have been other cases that are also based on stuff like this like Printer makes trying to use the DMCA to kill off 3rd party ink.
Ha ha !
who the heck would pay to eat your already digested food?
Paystar claimed Apple owed it money for performing work on Mac OS X that Paystar claimed should somehow enrich Paystar, despite Paystar having not done anything to deserve it.
That analogy fell apart and collapsed onto the floor into a million pieces. Psystar is claiming Apple is breaking the law and interfering with a legitimate business practice, not that Apple owes them anything for actual work done on OSX. This isn't anything like SCO.
Ok. Let me get this straight. Apple makes an operating system and the license agreement that comes with it states that you have to run it on Apple branded hardware. When you get an Apple labeled computer and run the Apple labeled operating system on it, it works like a mortal luser would expect it to. For damn nearly the entire population of Apple computer users, it does what they need it to do and they run around spouting, "Macs rock! PCs suck!"
Ok, now imagine what would happen if every computer company out there decided to provide Mac OS X with their computers instead of Windoze Vista or whatever they're installing on garbage prebuilt computers nowadays. Suddenly OS X won't be quite as great anymore because it will have all kinds of subtle failures and stuff. First, the hardware can induce failures that are no fault of the software. Further, if the hardware is fine but operates somehow differently from Apple hardware, bugs in OS X which don't manifest themselves on a Mac will crop up. Some would argue that this is good as it helps to find and fix those bugs. But do you honestly think Apple will achieve what it does if its engineers suddenly spend their time making OS X work around the characteristics of hardware they have no control over? Do you think Apple has the time to go testing OS X on every five dollar garbage motherboard that some cheapskate company decided to put in a computer?
What will happen to Apple's brand if that happened? Oh! Suddenly people will go around saying how much OS X is the suxx0rz because it crashes and it deletes data and it locks up and all this shit, EVEN IF IT'S NO FAULT OF THE SOFTWARE! Because the lusers don't know what comes from software and what comes from hardware. Hey, it locked up, OS X is the suxx0rz. And Apple's brand is down the tubes.
It is Apple's right and responsibility as a business to protect its brand by making sure its products are high quality and by making sure that others, for any reason, don't tarnish that brand.
Psystar wants to make a Mac clone? Fine! Download Darwin. Download Afterstep. Download every graphics toolkit out there. Start modifying. Apple worked hard and invested tremendous amounts to make their software.
You want a computer that works? Either get a Mac or build a *BSD or Linux box yourself.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Methinks this was their plan to begin with (counter sue). I can't imagine they just "happened" to come up with this defense and lawfirm all of a sudden.
Seriously, I know it's not identical, but I don't remember enough about the circumstances to know if it may apply here. The same intent appears to be true - you can't run our software on a generic machine. In this case, of course, Apple actually sells the software; in the old one, I think Phoenix reverse-engineered the software. Seems like this would be even less difficult to find in favor of the clone-maker.
I'm sure there are several /.ers who will disagree. Please read below for their reasoned responses :-)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Really, people say this, but don't appear to understand what that means, with respect to the legal ramifications.
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in its market. In terms of computer sales in Q2 08, they're 3-4 times smaller than HP or Dell. In terms of OS sales they're way behind Microsoft. In terms of monopolistic behavior, there's no evidence of predatory pricing, limiting supply, or price gouging. They are tying their OS to the hardware, but that's not illegal nor can it be called monopolistic unless the company actually has a monopoly.
Apple licenses OS X for use on Apple hardware. That's the condition you accept in using it, and they're well within their rights to enforce that. You might not like that, but given how the law is written now, it's perfectly legal.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Apple is not as bad as Microsoft but Apple needs to allow their OS to be installed other systems without hardware support. But since Apple only has about 7% of the OS market I think this is hard sell for Psystar to say the Apple has any monopoly per se in the entire market. However Psystar can assert that Apple ties it OS to its hardware which I think violates the Clayton Anti-Trust Act primarily and some parts of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Any civil lawyers here can help me with this?
OS X is subsidized by hardware sales.
Presuming this is true: The court remedy might require unbundling the hardware and software sales.
Apple could set the cost of each wherever it wants. But it will need to keep the sum affordable to keep selling the "out of the box experience".
- If it sets the SW price so high that the HW is underpriced you'll see people buying bare Apple machines and loading other OSes on them. This also leads to people being used to running other OSes on Apple hardware.
- If it sets the HW price so high that the SW is underpriced you get people like Psystar, selling Apple-like hardware running Apple's OS.
- If it sets them both proportionally to their actual costs, but at a premium, you get both at once. B-)
It gets even more interesting if the court requires them to split into two business units.
(And of course Apple could win. Or Apple could lose but the court prescribe other remedies.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Wow, that's the most reasoned and best argued posting I've read on this site in years.
OK well this "monopolistic actions" have created a great product for the past 10 years at least. Psystar should lose this case. Apple is more than far away from a monopoly. They are at like 11% of pc market. Maybe my stats are wrong but psystar should lose and I hope they do. Unfortunately these practices have helped created a superior product.
Is Apple a monopoly? How is this in any way anti-competitive?
If Psystar wants to "compete" they should be writing their own OS, not telling Apple what they should do with theirs.
No sig today...
They're going to use their box over there.
Get it right next time.
Obviously you miss your daily dosage of Apple koolaid.
The last time they sold an OS that wasn't subsized by hardware sales, it was OpenStep
Previous unrelated example has no relation to what is happening now.
Well, Mac OS X is basically nothing more than NextStep with a prettier interface.
Apple bought back Next - and Steve Jobs with it - and simply replaced the Postscript-based interface with the newer PDF-based Quartz.
So yes, indeed, the last thing that the current team behind Mac OS X was NextStep. And the parent is right by saying that this was the last OS that the team sold in a shrink wraped box without any hardware attached.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Buy a Ford engine. Put in in your Bluebird. No lawsuit from Nissan. No lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Sell your Nissan/Ford unholy monster for profit. Still no lawsuit from Nissan, no lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic's psychiatrist may sue you for reckless endangerment.)
Sell dozens, hundreds and eventually thousands of Fluebirds. Not only will Nissan and Ford stubbornly persist in their selfish refusal to sue you, they might even offer to make you a retailer or give you wholesale purchase prices. (The mechanics' labor union may come round to visit with torches and pitchforks.)
If you try to sell Bluebirds with Ford engines, representing yourself as a retailer for Nissan, then you will taste the awful wrath of a swarm of lawyers. Only then do you have an accurate analogy of the issue at hand. Apple can claim that Psystar is selling a product as an Apple product, thus infringing on their right to protect their goo*cough*
that is to say slandering their guugh*choke*
their good *spasm* *sputter* *wheeze* name.
Of course, Psystar can retort that they are in fact selling Psystar computers designed to be capable of running OSX and are even installing OSX, legally purchased, on their computers for a reasonable fee. Apple may then point out that "you can't buy our software to do that" in which case Psystar can retort that "already did" and they can then commence with the slap fest. A cool headed judge could gently dissuade the two from arguing with a fire hose and explain that that forbidding people to use a product they legally purchase in such a way as to prevent competition might be considered "anticompetitive practices" and point out an interesting statute or two to the dripping Apple lawyer swarm. I'm sure the Apple lawyer swarm will accept this with the same good grace you'd expect from a bull rhino with a terrible case of hemorrhoids who was just dumped by his rhino girlfriend for a larger meaner bull rhino who has decided to make it a threesome. (This is known as the no bloody way triple analogy.)
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
but I would give a lot to know (as opposed to infer) where PyStar is getting the money for all this.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
How many more times must this be drilled into you: EULAs DON'T MEAN SHIT!!!!!
OK no one (except weird Mac Fanboys)likes Apple Software before OS X. Roughly around the same time Microsoft release XP and every one liked it. Microsoft release Vista. Almost immediately every one wanted to run OS X on their PC. ***now the tin hat part! Microsoft want to own as much of the OS market as possible but Apple stand in their way. Best way to destroy Apple is make their Business model illegal. So they create a terrible OS to force people with non-Apple branded PC's to install Apple's OS x or linux. Apple then take them to court and eventually looses. Thereby rendering the Apple company's business model invalid and running the company out of the hardware PC market an solely in to the MP3 and OS market.People then start to use OS X on their Machines and eventually find it's no better than Microsoft's XP but better than Vista. By which time Microsoft have released "Windows 7" with a flash add campaign that drags in all WinXP and Mac OS x users into a frenzy for this new OS........
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
What's wrong with a CableCARD? Are you pissed that GSM/UMTS requires a SIM CARD that you have to BUY from the PROVIDER?!
I don't remember enough about the circumstances to know if it may apply here.
No.
IBM was the dominant player in the computer business. Apple has 7.5% of the US home market, less outside the US, and a negligible amount of the business market.
Much as I would love to run OS X on a Thinkpad, nobody sane is going to say that Apple is a monopoly.
The cable company is a local monopoly. If they weren't, they wouldn't be forced to do anything.
Apple has at most 7.5% of PART of the market.
It's not any kind of monopoly.
Next?
Let them go suing... if PsyStar made a decent product I might get on their side. But they IMHO falsely advertised and shipped me crap that never did work. AND I AM IN FAVOR OF A MAC CLONE!!! Simply, they bait and switched. "Here buy this." I wanted a true clone and load my own legal OS X. Ther customer service said, "Oh... they shouldn't be selling that... that's way too hard for anyone to do on their own..." PsyStar KNEW I was reviewing the unit I paid for... and now it's a battle between American Express and PsyStar: PsyStar sold me crap that they can't make work but they still have refused my return shipment. On this one, if someone is going to take on Apple, at least let it be a reputable company. PsyStar is a poor technical neophyte who should be wiped out of the business. Of course, all of this is my personal opinion based upon the crap PsyStar dished out. www.WinnSchwartau.Com for more of my thoughts on stuff.
Winn Schwartau
I'm a Mac user, I've had my share of "Road Apples" over the years, and I say the conventional wisdom that Apple makes "great" hardware is pure and unadulterated horse exhaust.
Its about time someone counter-sued Apple for this monopolistic behavior. When Microsoft does it, everyone jumps up their seat, but when Apple does it, they just turn a blind eye.
Go Pystar!!
slashdot rocks
Right to distribute copies != right to transfer a copy.
paintball
That the clone Mac were competitive is really more an indicator of Apple's mid 90s lack on innovation.
Not exactly. But you aren't totally out in left field either. The clones were supposedly free-riding on Apple's R&D for mother board designs etc. Apple later figured out they weren't recouping the costs from licensing and the clone makers sold cheaper/faster hardware than Apple because they didn't have to reinvent the wheel. (Remember, this was when Apple was the holy grail of "Not Invented Here")
Read up some more on "Mac clones nearly killed Apple" at wikipedia.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
NO SDV is the BIG one.
The part your missing is that, for copyright purposes, the installed software *IS* an exact copy, in the same way copying a song from a record to a CD is an exact copy. The installed software is not an adaptation (unless Psystar somehow modifies the function of said software). Another way to look at it is you own the copyright of a photo, which you sell on 18x27" poster paper, and I take a picture of it and sell framed copies made on a color photo copier. That's an exact copy. If I put a big red circle on the image and sell copies of the original image with a big red circle, that's an adaptation.
Other examples:
A novel printed in hard cover is an exact copy of a novel with the exact same series of words printed in paperback.
A novel printed in paperback which identical in every way to another novel printed in paperback with the exception of the series of words is an adaptation.
A work of art sold printed on posters is an exact copy of the original work of art painted on canvas.
A work of art with the colors in negative sold printed on posters is an adaptation of the original work of art sold on posters.
A 12" tall sculpture of the same scale form is an exact copy of the 12' tall original.
A 12' tall sculpture with an arm bent in a different direction is an adaptation of a 12' original sculpture otherwise identical in every way.
paintball
Of course Psystar has a legit argument.What if Microsoft says that windows should be installed only on IBM laptops.Does that mean that Sony,Toshiba,Dell and all other companies should shut down?
It's funny how everyone screams foul when Microsoft is involved but remain silent when apple does the same thing
If Apple can claim copyright over their entire platform, then why can't IBM turn around and do the same thing with the PC platform? This is the sam thing that Microsoft was sued for: Locking customers in to only your own 'licensed' products, and not letting them choose otherwise.
Clearly, Apple controls almost the entire market of non-PC platform computers, with RedHat/Linux taking up only a few percent. Since Apple makes using any non-apple licensed software/hardware a violation of their EULA, users are forced to buy from them, and only them, definitely making this a monopoly.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Where is NewYorkCountryLawyer when you need him?
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
EULA has no play here as Psystar is not an End User (End User Licensing Agreement).
By pre-installing the software they break Apple's copyright plain and simple (yes you have the right to make a copy on your hard drive when you install a program but you cannot then sell that copy...only the original disk can be legally sold)
what Psystar is doing is integrating Apple's IP into a new product. To do that they must license the IP from Apple
A PC hardware maker allows you to install any OS you want, XP, Vista, Linux (Dell offers all three). This increases their hardware sales since it broadens their market.
A software company allows you to run their software on any platform (Windows and Linux can run on just about any platform). This increases their software sales (or popularity) much like the hardware example above.
Apple on the other hand creates both the hardware and software so the two descriptions above don't work well for their business model. Some people like the Mac OS but dislike the hardware. If Apple allowed you to run their OS on any hardware it would impact their hardware sales. There are also those who like the hardware but would prefer another OS. That's not a problem for Apple because the license fees for the OS are already bundled with their hardware. They won't however sell you an Apple computer without an OS. Either way, if you want the Apple hardware or software you pay for both and that's their business model.
Lastly, for Mac OS to run on white box machines, Apple would have to release a lot of the OS APIs and work with tons of hardware and software companies to achieve reliable compatibility. I'm sure this is extra work that they don't want.
Some should try call apple ask them to sell a system like that just like how people have done the same thing with systems with windows preloaded.
Damn. I can't believe all the inane garbage being spewed in here. I would comment since I am actually a practicing attorney, but I would get modded down for calling the lot of you fuckin' morons.
...that the courts will see cracking Apple's DRM as "functional changes to get the software properly running." In fact, I think there's a fairly recent addition to copyright laws that explicitly prevents that.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
...and we'll see how well that turns out for them. I wonder if their lawyer is Jack Thompson.
This sounds like the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt rose from the grave because he didn't like the way the USA was headed especially in the technology area.
For those who don't know Teddy Roosevelt was one of the last few true Conservative Republicans before the fake Conservatives the Neocons took over. True Conservative Republicans conserve nature and resources, and protect liberty and freedoms and stop companies from becoming monopolies and abusing their power and trying to ruin smaller companies. Sort of the opposite of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Teddy Roosevelt was upset over the DOJ's verdict with Microsoft, the DMCA allowing the MPAA and RIAA to bully consumers and sue them until they are broke by removing the "fair use" clause of the copyright act, and now that Apple is bullying Psystar, Teddy Roosevelt the trustbuster is back as a ghost and he is majorly upset at what has become of the USA, its foreign policy, and how companies like Microsoft and Apple have screwed over smaller companies. So he speaks softly, but carries a big stick and helped Lawyer up Psystar by citing some of the laws he worked with as well as some that others had passed as well.
I have one word for him, "Bully!" good job Mr. Roosevelt, we need more politicians to be more like you were when you were alive.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
There are many of us that want something more than a mini but don't want to blow >$2500 on a MacPro. We have nice screens. We don't want another screen. I'm not going to replace my dell 24" with 5 inputs and height, tilt and rotation, and a built in card reader for an iMac
The truth is that Apple doesn't give a shit about Psystar. They know most people who want a mac will just by a mac, but because of the laws governing IP they are obliged to shut them down so that next week dell doesn't start selling macs.
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
You can't get away with not supporting a bunch of hardware without lock-in with something as big as an OS, in that even if you don't offer tech support to them, the generic PC customers will call anyway. When you consider how many people they'd have to turn away, that's a lot of money wasted on telling people "we only provide support for licensed hardware." It would also, frankly, piss more people off than it pleases. Keep in mind, the average customer is no techie. They expect everything to Just Work regardless of whether their machine is officially supported or not.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
> The only reason the terms of the GPL are binding to distribution via pre-installation is because you need a license, and the GPL
> is the license that allows for this.
Actually, you are wrong. If you bought 100 copies of Ubuntu and preloaded them onto machines you could legally sell them... so long as you included one set of official Ubuntu media with each one. The end user would either have the source on the media (DVD) or have the right to obtain source (CD) from Ubuntu... the right you had when you bought the media and then transferred along with 'all rights' when you sold the copy. Same as when you used to buy a CD from Walnut Creek, they didn't have to supply source but they had to allow you to obtain it for a reasonable charge. The GPL only needs to be considered when you engage in acts not otherwise permitted by copyright law. Reselling, preloads, etc. are all legal activities in the absence of the GPL. I sold a crapload of Dos6.x/WfW3.11 machines preloaded back when I worked for a hole in the wall screwdriver shop and we never had any sort of permission. But each machine went out the door with OEM copies of DOS/Windows. I never asked about the authenticity though... some of those DOS manuals were a bit blurry.... :) Downloading one master disc, loading a hundred machines from it and selling them is illegal in the absence of a license to reproduce a copyrighted work, thus one would need to agree to the GPL or have some other legal arrangement (Site License, etc) before making copies, whether modified or not.
I think where you are losing it is in thinking preinstallation is making an illegal copy. Think of it instead as selling a machine, a set of OS media and the SERVICE of installing the OS. Just like the law allows YOU to install legally owned software on your own computer, it is equally legal for you to pay ME to install it for you, like when you are buying a new computer and software.
Democrat delenda est
Surly you would not look at a General Motors store! So why would you expect a Mac System at Dell then?
And if you wanted a VW Beagle with a Porsche Engine then neither a VW nor a Porsche dealer would be helpful - you would have to go to one of the small "pimp my car" shops which would custom build what you desire.
And still neither Ford, nor GM, nor VW nor Porsche are considered a monopole.
Apple truly could have avoided having to deal with this type of issue had they done the following: in all "apple" approved hardware, have a rom chip with instructions that only an approved "mac os" would be able to read in order to install. Simple. Then Psystar wouldn't have been able to make a "Hackintosh" for to be able to do so, would mean pirating the rom chip, thus giving Apple the edge required to sue them.
Now, is Apple being anti-competitive? I don't think so.
Why? Simple, Windows is also supported on the Psystar hardware.
So, the Apple OS is made for Apple approved hardware. Big Deal! After all, Apple has to support this OS, and thus, by dictating which hardware they support, they ensure a better service for their customers. Being able to dictate the hardware, means a controlled environment for upgrades and updates and bug fixes, etc...
It makes sense to me.
I'm not an Apple fan, but even that is obvious to me. Of course, let's face it, Apple makes a killing on everything they sell, both hardware and software. The last thing they want is to have other companies profit on them. Remember the Apple ][ incident about 25 yrs ago? :)
Anyways, I think that Psystar has very little chance of winning against Apple, because 1) their systems can run Windows, so, in essence, having Apple OS run on their hardware, isn't really necessary, and 2) they are selling MAC OS and are not legally able to do so, for they are not an approved Apple retailer.
But, maybe, just MAYBE, this will be a sign for Apple to have a more "open" approach to hardware support from other third party vendors. Microsoft had it right all along, it's not the hardware that makes the money, it's the software, or in their case, the OS. That's why IBM lost many years ago.
But understanding the history of Apple in business, I doubt they will want to have 3rd party hardware vendors building "MAC OS" capable computers, for Apple is too greedy for that, to say the least.
So, for those who have a Psystar "Hackintosh", well, I hope you don't expect to have much customer support when Apple wins against Psystar and forces them out of business!
If Apple had any common sense, after kicking Psystar out of business, Apple should offer a "for fee" customer care service for those who have Psystar with MAC OS, this would, at the very least, show loyalty to those who use their OS.
Apple's business model is that they sell hardware, not operating systems. Their OS is, for a most part, a way for Apple to differentiate their hardware product from other computers in the market.
Microsoft sells software. They are happy to sell you as many copies of Windows as you want. Microsoft would be thrilled if everyone bought a copy of Windows to install on their Mac. It would increase their profits.
The same can't be said about Apple if people bought OS X to install on their beige box. Theoretically they would have reduced profits due to not selling as much of their high margin hardware.
The question is does Apple have the legal right to prevent companies from selling their software in a ways other than Apple wants. I think Apple does have a legal right to restrict access to their own software, that's what a license is about.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So by your rationale because since Porsche Engines are only sold in Porsche Cars then Porsche has monopolistic behaviour and should be punished?
Ok, in real live Porsche also sells OEM engines for other manufactures but let's ignore that now for the sake of argument.
So what is wrong with selling your own OS only with your own Computer?
You try buying a bread loaf from any number of people, not a problem. Even using the same ingredients in the same proportion.
Now do that with anything under copyright.
Oops.
Apple knows that the moment their OS becomes avaliable on general x86 hardware Microsoft will be all over them. Rather than to take the fight they pick up the crumbs left over by Microsoft. They are just youre average cowards at Apple.
I think they have a huge windows of opportunity here because of the Windows Vista mess that they wilfully let slip by.
HTTP/1.1 400
if the case against Apple is proved then it could be applied to any OS or Platform specific software. MS was banning the use of OEM Windoze on Apple Macs, so we could see that broken too. An interesting world....
I hope that whatever the outcome, Apple see that there is a demand for a mid-range headless box - which is essentially what Psystar are offering.
I don't want to pay £588.99 for a 2GB Mac Mini with only a 160GB hard-drive and a rubbish graphics card. At the same time, I don't want to pay £1,429 for a 2GB Mac Pro.
There is an £840 gap in the market which is filled by one machine which replaces a perfectly good monitor I already have.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I think that Jobs is going to well and truly bury psystar for this and quite rightly so. If I made an operating system specifically to run on a machine I built and no other who are you to tell me that I have to offer it to you as well? No offence to the OSx86 guys as I have enormous respect for their ingenuity (and I used a hackintosh to make up my mind whether to buy a mac) but IMHO If you want the Apple OS, you have to buy the Apple computer! You can't complain to Ferrari that your pinto is crap and expect them to modify their engines to fit your car - same applies here I think. On another note, what is with the little companies taking on the big ones? Especially when they don't have a leg to stand on! Come on guys, It didn't work for SCO, it's not going to work for you!
I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going blame you for it!
Psystar have no right to represent that their machines "definately will" or even "can" run OSX. They have no right to the source code or even to copy and reverse engineer Apple's operating system in the form it is provided to Apple's customer. Period.
Therefore they can't fix it if Apple make a change (even an innocent one, which can happen in software) that breaks this support for Psystar's customers.
Psystar's customer's right of "fitness for a particular purpose" applies here.
If it does break, and Psystar can't fix it, which is certainly possible, then their customers have no recourse to Apple to demand support, because they themselves are in default of the EULA.
So? Psystar can certainly sell the same machines, and can even legally sell retail copies of OSX.
The issue as i see it is that Psystar is selling on a fraudulent claim, which may generate negative respect for Apple's brand.
Apple rightly wants to discourage this, not least because it is quite harmful to their own sales, but also because a bad experience with OSX on a Psystar machine could reasonably lead to a negative association with Apple's brand.
Plus and minus don't cancel out in marketing, if one customer is happy, he might tell 7 friends on average that he's happy with what he got. This isn't interesting news, so then it doesn't go any further... But one unhappy customer telling 7 friends of his horrible experiance.... That is news, and those 7 friends will tell another 7, on average. Bad news travels further. It may not matter that originally the customer was at fault, he is unlikely to see it that way, and so neither his first 7... That makes negatives roughly 50 times worse than positives.
I therefore expect the judge will rule in favour of Apple, and tell Psystar to remove all claims of "supporting Mac OS X" from their marketing material.
I also expect that psystar will be directed not to install OSX on their machines, as this requires breaking copyright.
There's no reason Psystar couldn't just write their own OS, but given that the solution is already in the public domain as linux, would their be any value to them doing so?
So what are you left with? Psystar being just another PC oem, which is all they ever really were in the first place.
They may even still be allowed to trade in unopened unmodified copys of OSX, but may be barred from making the claim that their hardware is special in supporting it, by dint of the fact that they cannot in good faith ensure this support to their customers.
Personally i think Apple should continue to turn a blind eye to efforts to make generic pc hardware run macosx... but they should also be seen to discourage exactly this sort of practice among businesses.
The reason for this is that even the piracy and use of OSX on machines it wasn't meant for is actually extremely cost effective advertisement.
If you hack it and like it, then odds are good that you are more likely to consider buying apple hardware in the first place next time you upgrade your machine, to save yourself the trouble of being unsupported.
If you are hacking it onto hardware that is unlike any hardware apple even offers, then you weren't removing the potential for a sale from Apple in the first place.
And since you are breaking the EULA anyway, there's no way it would be reasonable to expect any kind of support from Apple - hence you are not costing Apple anything, whilst potentially helping Apple increase otherwise unrealized market share.
If the copy of OSX is genuine, the better it is for Apple.
Of course the same naturally applies to all other forms of "piracy" of all other forms of "infinite good" whose apparent market worth* is contingent on it's relative popularity....
And the lack of understanding of this principle is the fundamental flaw of the {MP,RI}AA's strategy current revenue strategy.
(* What the price tag is, rather than what its real market value is. Remember, the price tag is allowed to be whatever the man
A little company that can afford high priced lawyers and is actually countersuing. Does anyone think Microsoft is backing them? They did it to Linux with SCO. You know M$ has got to be sore about the mac n PC commercials.
I'm not the smartest when it comes to this whole IP / copyright / patent stuff...
But how is this different from taking an existing production, modifying it and then reselling as your own?
ie: I take an, I dunno, invention of some kind ... add a clock to it and then redistribute. Isn't that ok?
This example is always seems to be used, so why wouldn't the same be true in this case?
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Wanting to be able to continue selling OS upgrades at reasonable prices isn't "horrid".
Possibly, abusing another company's business model to screw them over in a parasitic fashion could be construed as "horrid" (by a terribly sensible person).
If I buy a game, apply a nodvd patch, then resell that game with the nodvd patch as a selling point. Think I would get sued by the game company?
Apple's business model is...
When the RIAA member companies have a business model based on selling plastic discs with a restrictive license to play the music encoded on that disc, we say, your business model isn't my problem. I want to shift my music to other formats, so I can play it without the plastic disc. Or I don't want all the music on the disc, I just want a few songs and I want to pay a fraction of the full price.
It's nice a company has a business model, but a business model is not a law any other entity need respect or follow. For any company other than Apple, what is the response when lawyers are brought in to enforce a business model? Scorn, ridicule, contempt.
If you don't like the way the market is responsing to your business model, bring in the MBAs and change that model. Don't bring in the JDs and sue your customers.
What does Toyota do with Lexus & Honda with Acura/
I don't understand you analogy. Is Psystar asked Apple to modify OSX to fit their boxes?
I think the right analogy is buying a Ferrari Engine & retrofitting it on a Pinto & selling
it. Can Ferrari sue Pinto for this?
The trouble is that Psystar isn't exactly installing or copying. They are building a "Mac Clone" which can be argued is compatible but not exact spec of official Apple/Mac hardware. They then have to make "tweaks" to OSX to support the differences in hardware.
Apple may have a case/point with this. It isn't so much they are building clones or bundling OSX but they are tinkering with OSX to make it work the clone hardware. I see Apple has two strong stances:
1. You can't tinker with OSX.
2. Whatever they do they can't call it "OSX".
I don't see "angels" on either side. Apple wants to retain draconian control. Psystar is using a thinly veiled argument of competition to mooch. At this point I'm inclined to believe both are bad.
That's rubbish. I can buy a box of nails from the market. Nail it into my existing product & sell it.
I don't have to license the nails for doing that.
Can I use the following argument in refuting EULA over interoperability?
I did not agree with EULA but I pressed the button labelled "Accept" just because the software required it to pressed in order to carry out its normal functions. Therefore I cannot be legally bound by the EULA even though I pressed the button "Accept".
I just have to say that's a fascinating point and I hope you get Interesting-modded into the stratosphere.
I thought Pystar was going to beat the rap with respect to the EULA issues, but I also thought they would get nailed on the copyright issue (distributing a derived work of Apple's). But if they're running a service, it all makes sense.
Alas, the same strategy might defeat the GPL, too. Let's say I build boxes (e.g. Tivos) which happen to use some GPL software (e.g. Linux). I acquire a copy of Linux on behalf of my customer, and patch my customer's copy of Linux to work with my box. Then I ship the box to the customer. Since I am just an agent working on behalf of the user, I'm not distributing derived works of Linux, therefore I am working exclusively within copyright law and don't need to take advantage of (or become bound by) the terms of the GPL. The box I ship, can just contain the patch-modified Linux binary, without me ever having to make the source maintainable.
BTW, this case is starting to remind me of some movie-related service that was in the news a few years ago. Someone (in Utah, I think?) was censoring movies so that prudes could get movies with sex/profanity edited out. I wish I remembered how that case was resolved.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Just wondering because most mac users must live in the san fransico area anyway. Maybe if they issued their own fatwa most of the fanbois soiling their thongs here would have something to say other than "that's hot."
What about Apple's rights? They choose to integrate software and hardware in a perfect manner since their beginning. There were no 68000 Machines running Apple II OS either. They tried clones and while they were made by hugely respected companies who has Mac experience for decades, they decided it won't work and cancelled it.
If you look for conspiracy on old Clone age, look no further than Motorola. Are you telling me that company who didn't give shit to PowerPC and dared to ship 133Mhz FSB (G4) chips in 2004-2006 would be a perfect clone maker so it would become Compaq for Apple?
Dear slashdot, don't fall to Pystars lame scheme. I really don't give a shit to some darkly funded company WANTING to get sued by Apple.
It could be Apple funding Pystar too, to validate their stance against Clone makers. That junk with Realtek stuff is a perfect proof of what shouldn't get OS X installed.
If I go to the store and buy a new copy of OSX, will it install on my PC? I am behind the times on this because I am running 10.3 on an old Mac at home, but can I just insert the 10.5 disk into a PC box and have it install? I seem to recall something when the Intel-based Macs came out that OSX had to be hacked to install onto non-Apple Intel-based PCs. If I have to hack the software to get it to install or run, wouldn't I be modifying the code without Apple's consent?
Make love, not reality television.
Not only does apple not use the TPM chip (it's completely absent on all recent Intel Macs), but they use EFI instead of a traditional BIOS. So yes, they are "ditching legacy crap," to paraphrase you. In fact, they also lack other legacy connectors typically found on most PCs (e.g., PS/2 keyboard and mouse connections, parallel printer ports, and so on).
In fact, the presence of EFI created problems for people wanting to install alternate operating systems prior to the advent of BootCamp.
From TFA:
Erm, what licensing agreement does Psystar have with Apple? My understanding was that they had none -- they were reselling shrink-wrapped copies of Apple's OS, and providing software tools to allow installation on their clone hardware.
Or am I totally misinterpreting what the author is stating here?
Antitrust law prohibited IBM from bundling their OS with their hardware in the 80's - with a side effect of giving Microsoft a business when the PC was developed. Why should Apple be permitted to bundle an OS now or commit restraint of trade by prohibiting resale of the OS installed on someone else's hardware? Has the Sherman Act been repealed?
Well, given that Psytar's existence hinges on the continued sale, demand, and success of Apple's product, then they have quite a stake in Apple's business model. If their suit causes Apple's business model to change, then it's likely they will countersue themselves right out of business.
They're playing what amounts to a very dangerous game.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
Alas, the same strategy might defeat the GPL, too. Let's say I build boxes (e.g. Tivos) which happen to use some GPL software (e.g. Linux). I acquire a copy of Linux on behalf of my customer, and patch my customer's copy of Linux to work with my box. Then I ship the box to the customer. Since I am just an agent working on behalf of the user, I'm not distributing derived works of Linux, therefore I am working exclusively within copyright law and don't need to take advantage of (or become bound by) the terms of the GPL.
That's a good point, and it'll be interesting to see if anyone starts to do that if Psystar succeeds. The trick is, you have to sell the software before patching it, so you need to handle customer orders directly. This scheme wouldn't be compatible with a retail distribution model like TiVo's, but I think it'd work for some guy selling MythTV boxes out of his garage.
BTW, this case is starting to remind me of some movie-related service that was in the news a few years ago. Someone (in Utah, I think?) was censoring movies so that prudes could get movies with sex/profanity edited out. I wish I remembered how that case was resolved.
IIRC, they lost. But there's a key difference between that case and this one: those were movies, and 17 USC 117 specifically applies to computer software.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Legal definition of 'exact copy' != technical definition of 'exact copy'.
paintball
"They're playing what amounts to a very dangerous game." BA BUM BAAAAAA very dramatic
Mobile phones...TV's...smart cars...fridges pretty much any other home electronic appliance with an OS. If it's OK for LG/TiVo/Motorola/anyone else to limit the hardware you can use their OS on why isn't it ok for Apple? Yes I understand that it's easier to copy OS X than it is to copy the OS from your Razr but what's the legal difference? I really want to know. Apple can claim that they are selling appliances and that OS X discs are simply upgrades to their appliances. Someone with some legal expertise please enlighten me.
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
This is why Apple should go back to giving away its system software. They used to do this before System 7.6.
Unfortunately, Apple is trying to sell its software and demanding what people do with it, which is trumped by the right-of-first-sale. 1-party contracts have been found to be unenforceable in at least some jurisdictions.
If Apple gave away OSX they'd have a great selling point and could simply nail PyStar for copyright infringement. They want everything, and can't have it.
I think Apple's already lost the ability to compete on the low-end, so just raise the price of a Mac by $200 and give lifetime upgrades to OSX, and they'll be able to maintain their position.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It is possible to load OSX without a hackintosh CD. I don't know if they are doing it in the hardware this way, but it is possible.
Open Source Sushi
There is no such thing as "setting retail prices high enough to guarantee profit." You see, if you set the price too high, you'll have very few buyers (i.e., your market share will be very small) and you won't be able to recoup your development costs.
If it was possible to "guarantee profit" by setting a sufficiently high price, I could dig up a worthless rock in my yard, sell it for an astronomically high price, and retire. Wouldn't that be nice.
A big part of the art of business is trying to ascertain the "sweet spot" that maximizes profit.
* If your price is higher than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, and your market share will be lower.
* If your price is lower than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, but your market share will be higher.
Therefore it makes sense to err on the side of higher market share. In my opinion, Apple perhaps doesn't understand that principle.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
If Apple succeeds in winning then that means it is legal for a software EULA to be restricted to certain hardware. This could easily be added to the code of most software though basic hardware detection.
How long will it be before hardware vendors come to software vendors, paying them money to lock software to specific hardware? Imagine... World of Warcraft will only work with an Nvidia card, for example. Or Photoshop, only with an Intel processor. The scenarios are endless.
How long would it be before Microsoft changes the licensing of Windows to only run on Microsoft supplied hardware? They could then charge whatever they want for hardware and put every computer manufacturer out of business in the process. They would be stupid not to make that move as it would generate billions in revenue for Microsoft.
Psystar needs to win. The restrictive clause in the OSX EULA needs to be found to be anti-competitive, overly-restrictive, and therefore void. Unfortunately, this could mean the end for Apple as we all know it since a large part of their revenue comes from their high priced uniquely designed hardware.
We all hate to see computings golden child fall (speaking of both Apple and Jobs) but in the end, it will be better for the world if Psystar wins.
Discuss this on irc.dal.net #apple-vs-psystar
So, what Psystar are saying is, "If you develop integrated hardware and software, and protect your copyright, that's an anti-competitive practice." Good. Copyright really is broken and fucked up then.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1