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
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.
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
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
That was before they were really running on commodity hardware. When an Mac was a physically different piece of hardware from an abstract perspective (different processor, running a different instruction set) they could more easily make the case, since they've flipped to the 86 platform, I don't think their case will be as strong.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
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.
This isn't Apple refusing a customer in your restaurant, this is Apple saying that once you've bought the food from the restaurant you can't then go outside and sell it to someone you meet on the street. It's completely different, and the first sale doctrine gives Psystar the ability to do this.
"If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store."
No, sorry, you do not. You have the right to refuse to sell the product to me - which to an extent prevents me from selling it. However, you have no legal or moral right to force me to not sell your product after I have legally purchased it from you, or someone you have authorized to sell it.
Once you put an item on the market, your control of it is gone. If you do not like that, do not sell it.
"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."
The right of first sale arguably trumps Apple's EULA. Quite a few states do not even allow EULAs to remove certain rights of the user/middle man.
Great Intellect...
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.
Except that the product that is supposed to be a "monopoly" is an operating system, and Psystar has at least two other choices of operating systems: The one from the market leader, Microsoft, with 90 percent or more market share, and the other one Linux, which they can even distribute without license fees.
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.
Part of what makes OS X a great OS is that Apple controls the hardware side. "Everything just works" is a broad overstatement, but it mostly applies to Apple hardware and OS X. Being able to buy a boxed copy of OS X for any generic x86 PC would lead to a lot of Linux-type scenarios: *most everything* just works, but a patch here, or a trip to apt-get there, and a little bit of geeky knowledge is needed to get things working.
Most of us here at Slashdot, myself included, would be fine with that. But OS X would not be the roaring success it is if people said things like "you may need to download fwcutter to get your WiFi card working" or "you need that SSE2 emulation BIOS patch to get it to boot." It is a success because Apple--for better or worse--has tightly intertwined the hardware and software experience so that the geeky *nix parts are only there if you want to play with it, not because you have to.
The only way Apple could reasonably sell OS X for generic x86 or x86_64 hardware is to have a huge list of requirements similar to the "Vista Capable" debacle. And it would cost a lot more than the $129 it costs now. Prices would be similar to what you pay for the latest boxed version of Windows, because currently OS X is subsidized by the premium you paid on Apple's hardware to run it in the first place.
I love Macs, I love OS X, and I love Linux. I think all this effort to get OS X running on generic hardware would be better spent on getting Ubuntu (or some other distro) up to the same level of reliability and usability of OS X on Apple hardware.
:q!
You've got the right idea, but you're applying it backwards.
Because it is now an open and popular platform, the existence of substantially similar and functionally equivalent alternatives actually makes a stronger case for Apple.
Consider Data General. The linchpin of the decision was that the CPU was useless without the OS--that without the tied product, the tying product had no utility. Without that detail, the decision does not work. It's very different from the case of a bundle of an x86 computer system and an x86 OS. There are dozens of compatible operating systems and dozens of compatible hardware manufacturers. You don't have a paperweight when you buy any kind of computer, because you don't need a specialized OS to run it. Apple and Psystar are missing the critical element of Data General and Digidyne.
Attempts to reverse it, such that the tying product is the OS are amateur at best. The OS does not come with a computer attached. It is sold as an accessory and upgrade by a company to existing users of that same company's products. There's no requirement of a purchase when you buy the OS--it's not being tied. The sale is premised on the existing possession of a Mac, but this is nothing new. Upgrades are always sold in this manner; it's not unique to software, either.
It's promotional availability: buy one, get one free. You can't say that you can't get the tied product (the free item) unless you buy the non-free one. Promotional tying is also quite common in bundle packages, e.g., toothpaste with a toothbrush for $5, while the toothpaste alone is $4 and the toothbrush alone is not available for sale. You can't demand the toothbrush for $1. There are thousands of examples of favorable pricing or special product availability based on a prior purchase.
That Apple chooses to sell OS X at a particular price, for its existing customers only, simply does not require that that price be made available to anyone else. The same can be said of Microsoft and its OEM and upgrade pricing policies, and the same can be said for companies who condition the sale of accessories, add-ons, upgrades, etc. on the prior purchase of the underlying product.
It is not immoral or illegal to set the terms under which you will or will not sell something. It further is not incumbent on that party to devise a foolproof system--the argument that an individual can buy one off the shelf and finagle an installation out of the disc is not convincing. It's an argument that seems to be begging for invasive sales procedures and DRM. Apple offers owners of its computers a good product at a low price and trusts consumers to honor that.
Showing up to say that Apple is getting what it "deserves" by having a desirable product at a below-cost price, sold over the counter without restriction or complication, and that Apple's business model is not their concern is exactly why corporations hate consumers, especially the kind that often populate this forum.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
I agree they will try, but they will lose that lawsuit. You can't really force a company to sell a product. It is honestly a double edged sword for Apple though. Because eliminating your retail sales of OS X upgrades is a hit in revenues.
Really? You believe that a company be forced to support its product on hardware it was never intended to run on?
It might be some nerd's wet dream, but it's legal nonsense. Remember, you're calling for a legal judgement here, and I reckon that the law sees an "Apple branded computer" as different from a PC. That's the first hurdle to overcome, and then comes the biggie - forcing a company to modify its product to install on competing hardware.
Any company is perfectly within its rights to write a product that only functions on some machines and not others. Just like any customer has the right to *not* buy or use that product.
I will accept that I may be wrong on this, provided you can show a precedent. I would be frankly amazed to see it.
Please show exactly where in my post I wrote the word "support."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What monopolistic practices? They're a monopoly because they only make Apple products? I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company - they sell the complete system, which apparently is a difficult concept for a lot of ./ readers to understand.
Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
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.