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."
So what business practice of Apple's is 'Evil'?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think it has to do with Apple hardware being really overpriced. A lot of us want to get use OS X, but no one wants to pay that much for their hardware (which is usually sub top-of-the-line). Apple isn't an option for sensible consumers. I mean, kudos to them for marketing their products well enough to make a profit.. but it's clear why computer enthusiasts don't like them.
"Apple says "yes" because they try to be nice to customers . . . "
I beg to disagree. I own a MacBook Pro and Apple has deliberately and maliciously worked hard to make the Windows experience on the Mac undesirable. They have crippled the MacBook Pro touch pad (I'm not talking about multi-touch or any other Apple proprietary stuff, I'm talking about not being able to tap on the touch pad for a simple fucking left mouse click).
They refuse to even acknowledge that this is a problem (it has been a problem since the introduction of Bootcamp).
So Apple isn't trying to be "nice" to their customers, they are basically saying "fuck you if you're trying to use Windows, we don't give a shit"
Good Point... At least Apple is open about giving you a piece of shit.
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
Yes Apple's lawyers do represent the company. I'm saying personifying Apple as an entity and using every instance of behavior from every individual that has ever worked at Apple in order to carry out your interpreted dance of persecution is ridiculous. Hence, the ridicule.
And yes, I spelled the company's name wrong, because I don't really give a shit. So you win there, because you were able to spell it correctly. Good job, hope you didn't spend too much time on researching for that pat on the back.
The point is, however, that Paystar's (see, I really can't give a shit) lawsuit is frivolous bullshit because the company has no right to Apple's software, goodwill, etc. Apple is defending its brand, copyright, etc. That's why I think I'm right based on facts and you are being emotionally entangled with your own inner greed.
Our other difference in perspective is based on the fact that I see Apple, Paystar and the RIAA as entities all trying to cover their ass and/or seek legal advantages in their own interest. So I look at every lawsuit that occurs as a question of law. Sometimes Apple is correct, and sometimes the company is ridiculous. Sometimes the RIAA acts appropriately in defending its rights, but much of the time it appears to be out of touch with reality. The same goes for Microsoft and the OSDL and the FSF and the EFF and every other entity.
Based on your comment, it appears you have an emotional attachment to certain entities that prejudices your view, so that Apple and the RIAA are evil, and anyone violating copyright is presumably righteous. This makes it difficult to take your position seriously. Perhaps if I were 16 I'd agree with you for fear of not being cool otherwise, but I don't even give a shit about spelling Paystar right, remember?
Apple's secret "Back to My Mac" push behind IPv6
Sorry dumbass, but I was using macs in the mid-90's and I have to tell you that the clones were buggy pieces of shit. Now the fact that these machines sucked didn't impact apples profit margin directly, only their image. But think about it for a second. It's one thing to fight for your dinner and another to let someone eat off your plate. The clone manufacturers were parasites. I'm glad they're gone.
Remember, Pystar didn't go after Apple until Apple went after them.
Duh, because Pystar was infringing Apple's copyright. Why would it use Apple first? Pystar is throwing up a frivolous nonsense lawsuit attempting to cloud the issue and see if any dirt can stick to the wall.
There was no need for doing that until it became obvious that Apple wasn't going to let them continue without legal action.
Pystar ends up being just another value add computer integrator
Except that "value added" refers to creating additional value to a commodity product. Leopard isn't a commodity product. PC hardware is a commodity. Pystar is using Apple's software to value add. The value is going to Pystar, from Apple. This is why Apple is suing, obviously.
Apple is only losing value, as the software it subsidizes to add value to its own hardware is being used by Pystar, without permission an in a way contrary to the license Apple is selling it under.
Violating the GPL to use Linux to add value to your device would result in similar legal action from the FSF, as Linksys and Tivo discovered. Except that Pystar supporters in this thread didn't cry about that action because they have emotional attachments to the GPL they lack for Apple.
I'm only stating facts.
As for your argument that copyright only applies to duplication: you're wrong. You can't remix and resell music you buy. Apple has no legal obligation to license its technology to competitors just because they want it. If Apple owned distribution of all PC OS technology, then Pystar might have a case, but Apple doesn't, so Pystar doesn't.
Your comments reveal you do not understand what's involved. "Fair use" is a concept that applies to artistic or educational uses of a work. It does not cover profiteering on copyright infringement.