Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement

An anonymous reader writes "Psystar and Apple have agreed to alternative dispute resolution to keep the public eye away from their disagreements, and to reduce legal costs. This will eliminate any rulings that would set a precedent over Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly. This could result in a profit for Psystar's business, but eliminate their line of open-computing Mac-compatible PCs. On the other hand, what's to stop a similar company from doing the same thing?"

Comments

It's nonbinding

[HBI]

Apple can punt on this at any time and haul it back into court if it's not going their way. 'quietly squash' rather than 'publically squash' is the plan. If that doesn't work out, they'll publically squash, because the entire vitality of Apple as a corporation depends on this issue: control of their hardware platforms.

Re:It's nonbinding

[catwh0re]

If the settlement with Apple music is anything to go by, then I doubt Pystar are going to be in a better position after all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer

Re:It's nonbinding

[RincewindTVD]

In what world do you live in where contracts are non-binding? Or do you know something specific about the agreements being worked out between them? -RtVD not a troll, I really want to know why you state that.

What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that they'll sue, and even if you eventually settle, you're probably going out of business?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[91degrees]

If your case is strong enough, you will win. There are a lot of arguments against Apple, especially the anti-trust one. The right to produce a competing product is fairly important in a free market.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[ColdWetDog]

QOTD: Iron Law of Distribution: Them that has, gets.

If your case is strong enough, you will win.

See above. Really, it's not nearly so nice in the real world. Apple has what, USD 20 B (big ones) in cash floating around. Pystar is lucky if they haven't maxed out their VISA card.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Idiomatick]

Most small businesses can't afford 50hrs of lawyers fees a month for 3years. (About $500,000). Or if you try to go cheap and represent yourself they still can't afford to have their business partial stopped, have their stock dropped to nothing. And you boss of the company losing maybe 150 hours a month putting up a decent defense will surely have an effect on the company. In MOST case right or wrong don't matter. A big company can make anyone eat minimum a half million dollar bill. When I was starting up my company my lawyer cited an average $800,000 for ip suits, regardless of who wins. It only gets interesting when both sides can eat a million dollar loss without being too damaged (30million+ net-worth companies)

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[mollymoo]

The anti-trust thing is a red herring, Apple do not have sufficient market share for anti-trust laws to apply. The only real argument I've seen is the first-sale issue. If that turns out to be valid, I expect Apple will simply stop selling boxed copies of OS X and move to on-line OS upgrades which can only be performed from a Mac. With no way to buy OS X if you don't already have a Mac you wouldn't be able to legally get a copy even if it would be legal to run it on non-Apple hardware.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[91degrees]

Pystar has a war chest to deal with this exact issue. If they weren't expecting Apple to sue they're idiots and wouldn't have lasted this long.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[larry bagina]

citation needed.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[erroneus]

The amount of money they have is only partly relevant. If I had $20 billion, I couldn't make it legal for me to murder anyone. There is the extent that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. (That said, there are a lot of shady and even illegal things one could to with $20bn if one were willing to do so... like various rulings I have seen in the past.)

But their having money isn't the sole factor influencing the result. If that were the case, drug, alcohol, tobacco and firearms companies would have won every time they were sued.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[gnasher719]

If your case is strong enough, you will win. There are a lot of arguments against Apple, especially the anti-trust one. The right to produce a competing product is fairly important in a free market.

Who says Psystar doesn't have the right to produce a competing product? Apple doesn't deny Psystar's right to a competing product. They just deny Psystar's right to take MacOS X and install it on their computers in clear breach of the EULA, and they have precedent (Xerox' plain paper photocopiers) that even a clear monopoly is under no obligation at all to help its competitors.

Psystar can compete by installing Windows XP, or Windows Vista, or Linux, or they can buy up the remains of BeOS or AmigaOS. Or write their own operating system from scratch. If they wanted MacOS X, they should have offered more than Apple's $400 million when NeXT was for sale. They can even download Darwin and build a GUI on top of that. It's their business, they should come up with their own ideas to compete.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[kestasjk]

Doesn't the loser have to pay legal fees though? If you're really sure of yourself that's quite a light at the end of the tunnel.

Does anyone know if they have to pay interest on legal fees too? I know /. has a long history of being frequented by talented lawyers.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[larry bagina]

In the US (some other countries are different), the loser does not automatically pay legal fees. Sometimes, a successful plaintiff will receive legal fees as part of the settlement, though.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

The anti-trust thing is a red herring, Apple do not have sufficient market share for anti-trust laws to apply. The only real argument I've seen is the first-sale issue. If that turns out to be valid, I expect Apple will simply stop selling boxed copies of OS X and move to on-line OS upgrades which can only be performed from a Mac. With no way to buy OS X if you don't already have a Mac you wouldn't be able to legally get a copy even if it would be legal to run it on non-Apple hardware.

How would one install OS X on a machine one has wiped it from?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[hax0r_this]

Apple could build in a little read-only chip that will authenticate to Apple servers and reinstall the OS regardless.

Of course it'd be cracked eventually, but if they used unique keys for each computer it probably wouldn't be too hard for them to blacklist keys as they are published.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[ColdWetDog]

Nothing is certain in life this side of death and taxes, but really, if you had 20 B in the bank, your chances of getting away with murder, literally and / or figuratively go way, way up.

If that were the case, drug, alcohol, tobacco and firearms companies would have won every time they were sued.

They're doing pretty good, even tobacco has managed to hang in there. Given the moral issues the big AG lawsuits brought up the tobacco companies should be dead and buried by now and nicotine should be a DEA class II drug (along with alcohol, but I won't get started on that one now.

I'd like my pony now, please.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[m.ducharme]

But there are lots of competing products. The OS market is currently dominated by Microsoft (who has been adjudged to have a monopoly), and in which there are several alternatives, some of them free. The market for hardware is rich and diverse, with multiple providers for just about any hardware component you can think of. How does tying the hardware to the software give Apple any more market share in either market? It' doesn't.

Anti-trust law specifically forbids using a monopoly in one area to increase your market in another. But in which area does Apple have a monopoly? Neither. No monopoly means no anti-trust violations.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[lurch_mojoff]

From the install disk bundled with the computer maybe?

But that doen't even have to be an issue. If push comes to shove, Apple have a surprisingly big number of options how to restrict sales or installs of OS X to only "genuine" hardware owners. An alternative to mollymoo's solution can be something like this: Apple will only sell you a copy of OS X only if you can provide a valid machine serial number. Or they may add product activation. How about a hardware key being required to install or even run the OS (a la "Trusted Computing").

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[wvmarle]

Even if Apple had a say 80% market share - still I don't think anti-trust laws should (could? I don't know this law in detail) apply. They have a business, a successful one, producing hardware and software. What is stopping them selling the software for their hardware only? This is not anti-competitive as anyone can build a computer and write an O/S by themselves.

Anti-trust laws, as applied against Microsoft, are for leveraging ones existing monopoly to gain entry into other markets. It would be a hard sell for a judge to convince Apple is doing that by setting up a business model (sell hardware with software tied together) and then gaining a great success with it. Only if Apple would have this market share and then starts e.g. blocking competing web browsers from their systems, now that would be an issue for anti-trust laws.

The only thing Psystar may have a case with is the first-sale doctrine: that a seller can not restrict what a buyer is doing with a product. Now there is the clash with copyrights, however afaik that means the buyer can re-sell the copy they bought (on CD or what-ever medium), but is not allowed to make copies of it. Installation on a computer is by nature making a copy of it, complicating the matter. I have no idea how copyright law provides for this kind of copy - one way or another it should be legal, or each software package should include a license allowing such copying for installation.

Complicated matter, but it is certainly not anti-trust matter. It's copyright and first-sale doctrine matter.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Feel free to but write your own OS.
The OS is Apples so...

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[wvmarle]

How about re-install from the disk shipped with the Apple computer? No chance for Psystar here to grab it legally as each disk is linked to a single install. So that would mean either the Psystar clone, or the original Apple can have it installed (legally speaking), not both at the same time.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[m.ducharme]

I would just add that it's the first-sale doctrine and probably the EULA test that Apple doesn't want to see happen in court.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Probably way easier to remove the check from code than to break the key.

Since you already have the OS on a real mac in that case what's stoping you from getting rid of the key check during installation?

And Macs already use encrypted binaries against TPM but the key for that is known so that's why regular PCs can install a decrypted version.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Monopoly in the mac sales area omg!

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[DECS]

Antitrust

Yes, Apple's argument is that the "market for Mac OS PCs" does not really exist, just as nobody else has the right to market Pepsi's soft drink, or sell BMWs, or force DuPont to license cellophane to them. The DuPont case went to the supreme Court in 1956:

"In a civil action under  4 of the Sherman Act, the Government charged that appellee had monopolized interstate commerce in cellophane in violation of  2 of the Act. During the relevant period, appellee produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the United States; but cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the United States. The trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of appellee's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials, and that competition from other materials in that market prevented appellee from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. Accordingly, it dismissed the complaint."

Apple's brief notes: "Psystarâ(TM)s effort to define a single-brand relevant market contravenes well-known principles of antitrust law. Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturerâ(TM)s products. As the Supreme Court recognized in the United States v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 76 S.Ct. 994 (1956), the âpower that, let us say, automobile or soft-drink manufacturers have over their trademarked products is not the power that makes an illegal monopoly. Illegal power must be appraised in terms of the competitive market for the product.'"

"Most recently, in Spahr, supra, the court rejected almost identical allegations as those made here. Plaintiff claimed that Leeginâ(TM)s brand of womenâ(TM)s accessories, called the 'Brighton' brand, was a separate market because the products are unique, they are marketed as 'one of a kind,' customers would not consider other accessories as 'suitable substitutes,' and there was an 'inelasticity of demand' for these products. 2008 WL 3914461, at pp. 3, 8. Applying the Supreme Courtâ(TM)s decision in Twombly, the District Court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend because its definition of the relevant market was implausible 'from the face of the complaintâ¦.' Id., at 8."

forced licensing

Another thing to consider: if you think Apple should be forced to license the Mac OS in the way Psystar is claiming, it follows that you also must agree with Pystar's claim that Linux and Windows are so far inferior to the Mac to the point where they can't complete, therefore creating a distinct market. I believe these claims are ridiculous. Anyone who doesn't should go on record admitting that everything else in the industry is a joke compared to the Mac. That is a line of reasoning which I will be happy to use in future arguments where the opposite is claimed. One can't have it both ways.

"The right of a manufacturer to exercise independent discretion with whom he will deal."

"Ultimately," Apple's filing states, "Psystar seeks to force Apple to license its software to competitors, like Psystar, so they can use Mac OS to create Mac 'clones.' Psystar undeniably can sell, and is selling, its Open Computers running Windows or Linux in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. Nevertheless, it also wants to sell computers running Appleâ(TM)s Mac OS in direct competition with Appleâ(TM)s Mac. However, one of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturerâ(TM)s unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act:"

The Sherman Act "does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."

Myth 10: RIMâ(TM)s BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Tarheel Squid]

Gnasher719, completely agree. Who cares if Apple ties their software to their hardware? Why does that give anyone the right to use it illegally? Is anyone being forced to use Apple's product? Apple owns the OS. Pystar is using someone else's product illegally. Simple. They have every right to stop them. I happen to like Apple very much. They have written a good OS and tied it in to their hardware. Everything works well because of this, and it is one reason why they have a good clean end product. For some reason this is not acceptable to a lot of people. Why is a company automatically "evil" if they are large and do well? Come on! If you do not like what a company offers (Apple, Microsoft, etc.), do not buy or use it! People are getting so spoiled that they think they have a right to everything. If Psystar wants an OS for their hardware, they need to pay for which ever OS they choose, use open source, or develop their own.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[91degrees]

I've bought a copy. I have the right to do what I want with it as long as copyright permits me. This includes all my fair use rights.

Is installing a piece of software on a piece of hardware not a right I should implicitly have?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US (some other countries are different), the loser does not automatically pay legal fees.

Which is the main reason why there's so many bullshit lawsuits in the first place.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Idiomatick]

Maybe... sometimes. If you want to try for that though you'll likely be risking another 50% on top of the original fight. But it doesn't matter, the goal is to destroy the company before the case is closed. Say you have a public company worth about 10million and get sued. You decide to save time and hire a lawyer. Being away from the helm of the company for court and such + lawyer fees costs you around 1.2million. Over time since the company is losing money and the future is on shaky ground because of the lawsuit your stock plummets to 20% of what it was, costing you another 5million. You are forced to restructure and downsize. Have to lay off employees and others bail since employee loyalty in a sinking ship is unsurprisingly low. So the suit ends and you pull out a win 3~4years later. You are awarded fees of 500k + 100k reimbursement. Sadly your company is now only worth 1.5million and you owe 2million in debts. So you close the company pay off the debts and give yourself a shiny 10,000$ bonus for your troubles. Oh and if you lose you will be in the hole by 600,000$ and have no job. You can likely avoid paying that but the point still stands.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[quanticle]

On the other hand, it can be a win for the little guy as well. If I sue a big company for something that I believe I have a legitimate case for, and the judgment goes against me, I only have my own legal fees to pay. If I had to pay for the large corporation's legal fees as well, I'd be essentially bankrupted.

In other words, an automatic loser-pays system would make whistle-blower lawsuits almost automatically nonviable, since those suits are hardly ever sure wins.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Bunderfeld]

The problem with your argument is you fail to take in the courts decision against MS tying their OS with Explorer, Search, et al.

It's not a far jump from this courts decision to making Apple live up to the same precedent. With Apple keeping things out of the court systems, it says to me, that Apple realizes they are one step away from providing an OS and making their own Hardware. Once that has been breached, Apple will have a hard time "bundling" all their cutsy items with their OS the way MS use to do.

If Apple wasn't offering Psystar something pretty significant, most likely the ability to make low-priced MAC's exclusively, I doubt Psystar would even be entertaining this "quitely squashed" solution.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[geekboy642]

The US has tried de-legalizing alcohol. If you don't know or remember how well that turned out, go find out. Consider the results of Prohibition before you suggest doing it again. I would lay 5:1 odds that any complete ban of tobacco products would have an identical result.

Here's a hint: It went very poorly for everybody involved, except the people selling alcohol. They got rich.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[allaunjsilverfox2]

I'd be interested in seeing if this has a cross-over effect. Since the iPhone is a locked down hardware device with software tied to it that restricts it use. AND if it does apply, what would the cell phone market look like in its aftermath since this describes a large portion of the cell phone market in the United States. (Not sure what it's like outside of this country.)

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Christophotron]

The US has tried de-legalizing alcohol. If you don't know or remember how well that turned out, go find out. Consider the results of Prohibition before you suggest doing it again. I would lay 5:1 odds that any complete ban of tobacco products would have an identical result. Here's a hint: It went very poorly for everybody involved, except the people selling alcohol. They got rich.

which is exactly what's happening with drug prohibition. why haven't we done anything to fix that mess, yet?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[gblfxt]

well, more like monopoly on hardware that OS X can be installed on.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[riceboy50]

The DEA should be disbanded along with a ton of other ridiculous and unnecessary agencies.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[rea1l1]

Isn't product bundling illegal?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Uteck]

From what I read from other sources, part of Pystar's argument is that they are buying MacOSX, then installing it on the same hardware as Apple itself uses. From their point of view, since the hardware is the same as any other Mac hardware minus the Apple case, it could be considered a Mac. After all, if I gut a Mac and put the parts in a 'PC' case, does it stop being a Mac?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[gittela]

ItÂs worth pointing out that Psystar didnÂt pirate os x, they sold the machine with a genuine license, paid for and all.

In that respect they didnÂt really steal os x. :-)

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Tarheel Squid]

I stand corrected...

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[davolfman]

I'm not entirely sure. Nicotine is pretty socially ingrained in some parts of the country. But it has no-where near the social prevalence of alchohol.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Kooty-Sentinel]

If I remember correctly, with most operating systems, you are not buying the software. You are purchasing a license to use the software, not buying the software itself.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Draek]

The market for hardware is rich and diverse, with multiple providers for just about any hardware component you can think of.

Oh, really? how many providers have you got for computers (legally) capable of running OSX? well, we *used* to have Psystar but...

But in which area does Apple have a monopoly? Neither. No monopoly means no anti-trust violations.

IANAL, but as far as I know, anti-trust law deals not only with monopolies but also with unfair business practices that may lead to one, and tying through purely legal means their software to their hardware products could easily fall under the latter.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sherman Act "does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."

Myth 10: RIMâ(TM)s BlackBerry Will Contain iPhone Expansion

Psystar isn't trying to force Apple to do anything. Apple is trying to force Psystar to NOT do something. It's completely different.
A) Apple can not be force to sell OSX to Psystar.
Agreed.

B) Apple can contractually create (sign paper before cash trades hands) a limit by which MegaCompuShop will not sell OSX boxes to drunks.
Agreed.

C) Apple can sue MegaCompuShop if they do (B), but that does NOT give them the right to harass the drunk who bought the boxed retail copy of OSX. That's the first sale doctrine.
You want to claim they do, I disagree. Most rational people will.

D) Psystar buys a box of something from a reseler called MegaCompuShop. Psystar can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't violate a government law - they have no contract with Apple so Apple can't tell them what to do. If Apple doesn't want Psystar to be able to do that, they should go back to having a Mac Rom chip like they used to.

Apple wants a legal solution to be imposed at my (US taxpayer) cost to what is a technical problem that concerns them and not me. Fuck Apple.

I'd say the same thing about MS if they tried this and the same thing about RIAA/MPAA who do.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Jorophose]

A liveCD-like platform that checks for EFI maybe? Or something else "unique" to Apple hardware?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Isn't product bundling illegal?

Nope.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[m.ducharme]

Oh, really? how many providers have you got for computers (legally) capable of running OSX? well, we *used* to have Psystar but...

So how many game companies, that make their games exclusively for Windows operating systems, are being sued for not making their games for the mac or linux? How are they violating anti-trust statutes? They can even "forbid" you to run the game under Wine by 1) making it incompatible with Wine or 2) simply forbidding it in the EULA. How is this any different? Keep in mind that Apple doesn't make or control the sale of the hardware they use, only the OS. The hardware is off-the-shelf stuff you can buy at Frys or Newegg or wherever.

IANAL, but as far as I know, anti-trust law deals not only with monopolies but also with unfair business practices that may lead to one,

So how are Apple's business practices leading them to a monopoly? I think you could argue that Apple's business practices have been keeping their market share low. You'll notice that the iPod, which is not tied to OS X or to Apple hardware, is very popular, while OS X is sitting around %10 or so of marketshare. I personally think they'd sell a ton of boxes of OS X if they opened up the licensing.

and tying through purely legal means their software to their hardware products could easily fall under the latter.

Or not. See Above.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Risen888]

If I had $20 billion, I couldn't make it legal for me to murder anyone.

Dude, you really don't pay that much attention to politics, do you?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Or not, since OS X can be installed on it, not just legally.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Feel free to sue Apple, don't settle in advance, claim your point in court and see if they agree or not.

Personally I have no problems with EULAs being valid if they are, the developers wrote the product and it should be up to them to decide who gets the right to use it and for what.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the developers wrote the product and it should be up to them to decide who gets the right to use it and for what.

Completely disagree.

I think the developers have a right to decide to whom they will sell the product. What it gets used for, frankly, is none of their business.

If you have bought a legal copy of the software, I believe you have a right to use it on whatever hardware you like.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Well, what they are trying to do is to just sell it to people with macs, so ..

If that fits you better.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Cruciform]

Because it would interfere with the operations of the CIA?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT the same hardware, not even slightly. Ever look INSIDE a Mac? the Psystar is a bundled together cheap rattling mess of generic PC components.

  Fit? No. Finish? No, quality? No. Same form factor? No. and the interior ergonomics? Don't make me laugh. The "Macs have off the shelf hardware" argument fails with anyone who has actually worked inside a Mac.

  Some of us Mac users "Mostly recent converts" actually open the pretty box and play inside.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is NOT the same hardware, not even slightly.

True - Apple makes great cases.

> Fit?

That's the case.

> Finish?

Case.

> quality?

Same vendors, same parts, same quality.

> Same form factor?

Case.

> and the interior ergonomics?

Case.

> Don't make me laugh.

Okay, as long as you return the favor!

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Abreu]

How would one install OS X on a machine one has wiped it from?

Easy.

You tell the customer to take the computer to the Apple Store for "servicing"

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[nawcom]

And Macs already use encrypted binaries against TPM but the key for that is known so that's why regular PCs can install a decrypted version.

You are officially not informed and possibly stupid. Apple does not use TPM in their intel systems. It's done through dsmos.
Read up before making claims.

As for removing the check from the code, that won't help much when it comes to updates and changes. This is why it's taken care of via a kernel extension. The same thing with cpuids when it comes to software and AMD systems. Currently it is manually checked and modified, but there is a new kernel extension almost ready to release that will alter installed files so that the cpuids in its opcodes will work for amd. There's also a kernel extension that makes sure that certain kernel extensions that are installed by default in updates (for intel macs) are immediately removed (since after rebooting it will make the OS unbootable).

There's a lot more going on than most people think. The amount of people working on running OS X on the PC has shot up since 2005/2006.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[FLEB]

They can even "forbid" you to run the game under Wine by 1) making it incompatible with Wine or 2) simply forbidding it in the EULA. How is this any different?

In the first case, it's up to your ingenuity (or that of others) to find out how to get around the problem. In the second case, the task may be equally possible, but it carries legal consequences. Given that first sale rights generally leave use of a paid-for product up to the buyer, license agreements that unilaterally restrict this natural order in the course of a seemingly ordinary transaction can be seen to be unduly inflating the power of the seller, and trampling on the otherwise assumed rights of the buyer. The question raised is whether, when, and what first sale rights (rights to use what you paid for) should be assumed, even in the face of contradictory "agreement" language.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[m.ducharme]

Yes, you're right. In another post, I note this. Apple's problem is with first-sale rights and having their EULA tested, not with Anti-trust issues, for exactly the reasons you outline.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[inode_buddha]

It's OK to tell us. We all have dark secrets. Here, have a coffee?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Data General also did not have a monopoly on minicomputers. And they lost their case in Appeals Court that they could prohibit others from installing their operating system (also available separately) on clone hardware.

Vernor vs Autodesk established that the doctrine of first sale applies to software at least sometimes. In other words, just because the vendor says it's licensed, not sold doesn't necessarily make it so. Furthermore, Apple's own EULA specifically allows you to buy Leopard, and then transfer (sell) it to another party, provided all the copies, docs, and so on go with the sale.

All in all, Apple's case is not as air-tight as it first appears. Now If Psystar really did modify Apple's software updater, and then redistribute that to their customers, then that would be a no-no. Interestingly enough, that is precisely when Apple sued them.

I predict a quiet buy-out. Psystar goes away, and OS X starts using a trusted computing module to make sure it only works on Steve's hardware. Or we end up with Window's style Activation.

By the way, does anyone know a Linux equivalent to MPEGStreamclip? Video-editing and conversion is about the only thing keeping me on a Mac.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[uncqual]

I've wondered about the viability of an alternative blended version of "loser pays". Under such a scheme, the losing party would reimburse the winning party for their actual expenses but only up to the amount that the losing party spent. This may require fairly continuous disclosure of expenses by both parties to reduce "gaming the system".

A scheme like this would allow either side to limit their exposure to legal expenses associated with the case -- it would never be more than twice what they themselves had spent. This could tend to equalize spending by both sides (since every dollar you spend more than the other guy will be unreimbursed and will, at worst, cost you two dollars if you end up losing).

Administration of this by the courts could be complex but manageable. Without safeguards and monitoring, it would be in the interests of the losing party to claim they spent nothing on their case so a way to curb this tendency would be needed. Possibly, each party would be required to file a record of itemized expenses each week with the court. The court would retain this information and tell all parties what the total for each party was (but not the itemized information). The itemized information would be available after the case is decided and any party can petition the court about violations of the rules. For example, if the loser could convince the court that the winner had delayed recording some expenses, those expenses would not be reimbursable. Conversely, if the losing party hadn't recorded all their expenses once they became less confident in winning, the court could add those to the loser's expenses (as well as maybe give the loser a weekend in jail for contempt).

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[arminw]

....How would one install OS X on a machine one has wiped it from....

Almost every Mac ever made since serial number and registered it with Apple. Anyone who wanted to buy a boxed copy, could go into an Apple store, where they could check when that person already owns an Apple Computer. If so, he could buy a copy of OSX, otherwise not. Online sales would also work since Apple already has a database connecting every serial number with the name of the owner.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[arminw]

...and OS X starts using a trusted computing module...

That would be a totally unnecessary expense for Apple and a quite annoying feature for all users. Every computer or other device that Apple sells has a serial number. Almost all of these serial numbers together with their customers are registered with Apple already. Instead of selling their software on the open market to all comers, each buyer could be required to supply a valid serial number. That would put an end to this whole thing in any future attempts by others to cash in on Apple's hard work.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Lars T.]

Of course that would mean a party who knows they can't win because what they did was illegal from the start, will just spend the minimum amount they can get away with.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Lars T.]

From what I read from other sources, part of Pystar's argument is that they are buying MacOSX, then installing it on the same hardware as Apple itself uses. From their point of view, since the hardware is the same as any other Mac hardware minus the Apple case, it could be considered a Mac. After all, if I gut a Mac and put the parts in a 'PC' case, does it stop being a Mac?

"The same" with several things different - else they wouldn't have to jump through hoops to get things running. Hello? Why else would they need to rip off the osx86 guys?

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Lars T.]

So your argument is that it would be legal to buy a game, modify it so it can run with Wine, then resell it as the Linux version of the game.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[gnasher719]

I've wondered about the viability of an alternative blended version of "loser pays". Under such a scheme, the losing party would reimburse the winning party for their actual expenses but only up to the amount that the losing party spent. This may require fairly continuous disclosure of expenses by both parties to reduce "gaming the system".

That is how it is set up in Germany. First thing in court, you tell the judge how much money you want (or at how much money the case should be valued). Judge takes that number and looks up in a table how much plaintiff and defense can pay for their lawyers, and how much the court takes to handle the case. That will end up being the cost. At the end of the case, the judge checks how many percent of what the plaintiff wanted he was actually awarded, and cost are split up accordingly.

This avoids being sued for ridiculous amounts of money. If you sue me for $5bn and the judge decides I should pay $10,000, you will pay 99.999% of enormous cost for lawyers. If you sue me for $10,000 and the judge decides I should pay $10,000, I pay the complete cost for lawyers according to the judges tables - it won't be very expensive.

And the judge will stop the plaintiff if they try to drag a case on and on to the point where the court loses money. If you sue for $10,000, and the judge checked that court cost will be say $1215, that's where he will stop the plaintiff.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[aliquis]

Seems to have been rather common "knowledge"/belifs earlier:
http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=65786

I appologise that I was incorrect.
I thought they had stored the key there.

Where are the keys store / how are they decrypted? I'm to lazy to read all that stuff.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure he's actually advocating prohibiting it, just pointing out that U.S.' current policies would prohibit it, since we prohibit many plants whose use is less harmful than tobacco.

As long as we have weird laws that prohibit some drugs, people are going to continue semi-righteously mocking the legality of tobacco and perhaps even alcohol.

You just can't have legal tobacco, illegal marijuana, and law that is worthy of any respect. Pick two.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[uncqual]

That's pretty neat.

Do the allowable legal costs scale with case complexity or just the "value" of the claim(s)? For example, consider two wrongful death cases where everyone agrees in both cases that the "value" of the death is $1M...

In the first case, the death arose from a automobile collision in an intersection and there are two eye witnesses -- one says the plaintiff clearly entered the intersection long after their light was red, the other says the defendant clearly entered the intersection long after their light was red. There are no cameras, there are no skid marks (neither party hit the brakes at all), etc. This case hinges almost entirely on how credible the judge/jury finds each witness (of course there is some technical work required regarding things like lighting/angle of view of each witness etc.).

In the second case, a building collapsed on the defendant. The fault may lie with one or more of many parties (including the architect, the structural engineer, the contractor, multiple subcontractors, the building inspector, the manufacturers and/or suppliers of one or more of the building materials, and the building management and maintenance staff) and each party tries to shift blame to other party(ies). Proving one's case (or defending oneself) requires extensive witness depositions, expert analysis, and expert witnesses.

Since the second case is so much more complex, although of no more "value" than the first, are higher legal fees awarded in the second case? If not, it would seem that the lawyers in the first case would get overpaid or the lawyers in the second case would get underpaid -- making it difficult to ever find lawyers pursue a complex case.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[FLEB]

It should be, as long as you don't mis-represent the source and don't sell more than you have.

Re:What's to stop Apple?

[squiggleslash]

Sure, like all those users of Kazaa who were expecting the music industry to sue them...

Not that I think the cases are in the same ball-park. Psystar has legitimately bought copies of Mac OS X and their "crime" appears to be violating the EULA, not breaking copyright law. But...

That's a shame

[sakdoctor]

It would have been interesting to see the outcome in court, but like the rhetorical question at the end states, I doubt they'll be the last to try.

Re:That's a shame

[MathFox]

I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X. Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA". The nice think of a settlement is that it does not bind Apple to make the same deal with another white box maker.

I do think that the legal question "How much anti-competition is allowed in an EULA" is an interesting one, but that it is better fought between two well funded parties. It might end up in a Supreme Court appeal.

Re:That's a shame

[gnasher719]

I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X. Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA". The nice think of a settlement is that it does not bind Apple to make the same deal with another white box maker.

There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X. They have been pissing on Apple's shoes; so there will be no business between them. Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".

This arbitration is something that the court can force on the companies; it cannot force them to agree on anything in arbitration.

Re:That's a shame

[mollymoo]

Apple would be happy to litigate the monopoly argument because they do not have a monopoly in the operating system market. Apple having a monopoly in the market for their own branded products is a dumb argument, every company has that monopoly. Nike have a monopoly on Nike shoes, but not shoes in general. BMW have a monopoly on BMWs, but not cars in general. Apple have a monopoly on Mac OS X, but not on operating systems in general, so anti-trust laws do not apply.

Re:That's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

The articles suppose the same thing, Apple doesn't want to risk loosing or the market would be wide open. If there is an anti-trust issue, by allowing Pystar to sell their Open Computing Mac-compatible PCs there wouldn't be. However, companies colluding to keep prices high could be the start of another legal issue. What to do?

Re:That's a shame

[hedwards]

That's apples to oranges. Antitrust != monopoly, antitrust involves a number of anticompetitive or market manipulating strategies, and really only a couple of them are monopolies.

Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd, otherwise Apple would be litigating.

The actual installation of software has never been governed by copyright laws ever. It gets a bit fuzzy when one is installing the same copy on multiple computers, but as long as all those computers are owned by the same person it isn't a distribution problem. And any EULA out there always includes language to the effect that the EULA does not override any laws and that in those cases the laws would be in effect rather than the EULA provision.

Re:That's a shame

[gnasher719]

Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd, otherwise Apple would be litigating.

Psystar could make that argument, but it would quite clearly be wrong. And Psystar might get authorisation to install MacOS X, but they better get that authorisation in written form. And somehow I doubt that a customer would be happy to be told "we can install MacOS X for you, but it is against Apple's EULA, so we have to get written authorisation from you, so if Apple tries to sue, it's you who is on the hook and not us".

Re:That's a shame

[pete-classic]

I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X.

You and I have very different understandings of Apple's business model. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see how this would benefit Apple.

Apple has a strong reputation for their products "just working". They would have to either trust Psystar to do all of the necessary testing to ensure that they don't damage this reputation, or they'd have to trust the public to "know the difference".

Or they'd have to do the testing themselves. This would be a significant expense, and would probably not be offset by any licensing revenue. (Bear in mind that OS X retails for $130.)

Furthermore, there is a strong probability that this would cut into Apple's hardware sales (and accompanying AppleCare and accessories). This almost certainly wouldn't be offset by this proposed licensing revenue.

Such a deal would certainly benefit Psystar, and would arguably benefit consumers of OS X, but I completely fail to see how this would benefit Apple. Even if we assume that increased OS X sales would several times the lost hardware sales, which I'm not sure we can.

-Peter

Re:That's a shame

[TeacherOfHeroes]

Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".

What about computers that are able to run Mac OS X applications? Clearly, there is more than just the one of them, and Apple hardware is the only EULA compliant way to use any applications which are not open source or cross-platform.

Can Apple have a meaningful monopoly in the market of "Mac OS X Application compatible computers"?

Re:That's a shame

[Yvan256]

The same arguments could be used against the consoles manufacturers.

Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.

Re:That's a shame

[Khyber]

"Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine."

Good luck suing to force Apple to write OSX for the Cell architecture or for the now gone DEC Alphas.

Off-topic. Anyone else getting major slowdowns under FF3 when doing other surfing in tabs while waiting for the chance to post your slashdot comment? This is happening under both XP and Vista. Timer will skip a couple numbers, make your whole system hang for a couple of seconds, then everything works again.

Re:That's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".

If there is no market for "MacOS X compatible computers" how did I manage to purchase a Dell E1720 which happens to run OS X perfectly?

Re:That's a shame

[devman]

Apple's EULA isn't the law.

Re:That's a shame

[TeacherOfHeroes]

Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.

But that isn't an analogous case. An analogous case to Psystar's actions would be if someone started making an "XBox 360 Compatible" console (ie roughly same hardware specs), and preloaded it with a copy of the XBox360 OS that you can buy separately in a retail store. The end result being that you can run XBox360 games on this clone-a-console machine.

My above example (which IMHO is more representative of the situation than yours was) sounds more like what Compaq did to IBM, resulting in the open IBM-Compatible PC market than like people suing software makers for not porting their products to completely different hardware platforms and OS APIs.

The question then becomes: Given that there is no reason why these games couldn't run on the XBox360 Clone with no extra effort from anyone, is Microsoft (as the XBox360 OS creator) allowed to tell the clone maker that they cannot do certain things with a copy of the XBox360 OS that they bought, including bundling and reselling it? Knowing that the XBox360 OS is the only way to run XBox 360 games, is there any legitimate reason that XBox360 games should only be allowed to run on XBox360 hardware, if running them on a clone is just as easy?

In this case, it isn't much of an issue since, AFAIK, Microsoft doesn't sell the OS independently of the hardware. But Apple does. That's how Psystar got legitimate copies of it.

Re:That's a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a challenging concept for a lot of slashdotters, but wanting something doesn't automatically result in your being entitled to it. The "market" in this case refers to the choices in active sellers, not all the people who wish they could afford a Mac. Apple has been gracious enough to not squash the OSX86 people, and to refrain from going after individuals using OS X on non-Apple hardware. These asshats Psystar may well bring about the end of that.

Re:That's a shame

[SEE]

Clearly be wrong? Here's the actual US law on the issue:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided . . . that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner[.]"

There accordingly seems to be no violation of copyright law if I buy a copy of OS X and authorize Psystar to adapt it as necessary to run on a Psystar-built machine . . . which ordering a Psystar machine with OS X pre-installed pretty clearly does.

The best argument Apple has to counter is that I cannot buy a copy of OS X, I can only license it, and the action violates the EULA contract. This argument may be invalid on a combination of factors. First is the argument that OS X is actually sold, not licensed, given the mode by which it's purchased, lack of "consideration" for agreeing to the license, etc. Second is that it's a public policy violation, as copyright law was intended to allow such adaptations, a EULA provision that exists for no reason except to prevent such adaptations is improper. Third is that the EULA is an antitrust violation.

The cumulative effect is that no, Psystar is not clearly wrong.

Re:That's a shame

[arminw]

...There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X...

How can you be so sure of that? Right now, the Apple desktop lineup has a huge hole between their expensive MacPro and the underpowered, un-expendable mini. It probably would not hurt Apple's bottom line very much to make a deal with these guys that lets them build a computer that fills that gap and sell it under the Pystar brand name. To prevent any others from getting the idea of doing a similar thing, Apple could stop selling OSX on the open market and only sell it to their registered customers.

Re:That's a shame

[arminw]

...Or they'd have to do the testing themselves. This would be a significant expense...

It would not have to be all that expensive for Apple to test a representative model machine or two. If that representative machine worked correctly, Apple could approve it and even help Pystar. With the proper agreements, Apple could ensure that these machines would meet a need that Apple currently does not address. One such need is a really low cost, upgradable box positioned between the high end Mac Pro and the low end mini. Since the OSX system requirements are considerably less than VISTA, Apple could also allow this company to make a rock-bottom priced box branded with the Pystar name.

Apple could also withdraw their operating system from the open market and sell only to their customers and to Pystar. This would be a win-win situation for Apple and the consumers who wanted a really low cost way of running Apple software. Once people who bought these low-cost computers learned the vast superiority of OSX over VISTA, some might eventually be overcome with techno-lust and buy a fancier, better genuine Mac.

Re:That's a shame

[Daengbo]

You need to be marked troll. Nobody asked Apple to write anything for any architecture. They just asked to be able to install the OS they purchased anywhere they can get it to work.

Welcome to strawman world, everyone.

Re:That's a shame

[pete-classic]

Testing a new machine is a significant expense. Adding a couple of machines that need to be tested every time there is a point release or a security patch is non-trivial. I mean, you're just wrong in your estimation.

That said, this is all so that they can support another company that, best case for Apple, won't cannibalize their hardware market.

Seriously, if this was your pitch to Apple, do you really think they wouldn't have laughed you out of the room by this point?

I don't get your point about "withdraw their operating system from the open market and sell only to their customers and to Pystar". What does that even mean? Don't they sell only to their customers by definition? Do you mean only to their hardware customers? What does that buy them? Selling to the odd hackintosh user doesn't hurt them any. It would be asinine for them to insist that people prove they own a Mac (or Pystar) to buy OS X. Is that what you're proposing?

-Peter

Re:That's a shame

[Khyber]

You need to go back to 9th grade reading comprehension. To quote the relevant part that made my comment CORRECT:

"without regards to who built and sold the machine."

Without ANY FURTHER SPECIFICS FROM THE POSTER one can SAFELY assume the poster means ANY HARDWARE ARCHITECTURE.

Re:That's a shame

[Daengbo]

No, the relevant part is the whole sentence. Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine.

He certainly means any architecture, but the right for a customer to install is not the same as an obligation for the software manufacturer to supply. The poster means that he has the right to run his legal copy of the PS2 version of Soul Calibur II on his Wii if he can figure out how to do it.

Oh. The reading comprehension level is probably closer to seventh grade.

Re:That's a shame

[arminw]

...It would be asinine for them to insist that people prove they own a Mac (or Pystar) to buy OS X...

Why would that be? Is that not how it was when Apple first came out with the Intel processor in their computers? There were no versions of OSX for sale for the new Intel powered Macs. If they sell their operating system to any and all comers, what is there to prevent dozens of Pystars from coming out of the woodwork? Apple has every right to choose and must choose, to whom they will sell their operating system.

(...Testing a new machine is a significant expense..)

That may well be true. Therefore Apple could make it part of the agreement that Pystar would pay for that in exchange of being able to buy as many retail copies of OSX as they wanted. The point of my whole suggestion was, that since Apple is not interested in selling a rock-bottom cost computer under their brand name, they might do so under the Pystar brand. As for the add hackintosh user, many of them likely pirate OSX anyway.

Re:That's a shame

[pete-classic]

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? There are zero controls on purchasing OS X. Look.

They didn't sell Intel Tiger at retail because every compatible machine came with it. What possible reason would they have for selling it at retail?

-Peter

It would be a monopoly...

[Concerned Onlooker]

...if Apple was the only company to make OSes and computers. As many around here are fond of pointing out, Apple doesn't even come close to having a majority in the market.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[fishthegeek]

Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile.... I'm just sayin.

If Apple felt that there was no merit to Pystars claims then why obscure things? Does having a gentle legal dept. sound like Apple? It's far more likely that Apple is going to solve this problem with a check-book than with a lawsuit.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[Idiomatick]

By that logic Linux should be able to rob banks until they get 20% market share. Sorry, it doesn't fly.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[larry bagina]

This is more like Honda selling an S2000 with a Corvette engine and advertising it as a Corvette.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[h4rr4r]

They don't advertise it as an apple. They advertise it as being able of running OSX.

This would be like honda putting the vette motor in then saying "Buy our new S2000, now with a corvette motor."

While the monopoly stuff probably does not have legs the illegal tying claims may.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Lawsuits do cost a lot of money to deal with in court. It's in both company's interests to negotiate before it hits the court's docket.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[erroneus]

"Corvette COMPATIBLE" not Corvette. But I think you already knew that and appreciate the difference.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[lurch_mojoff]

I think you are reading too much in this. I may be mistaken for I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a federal law mandating district courts to require the parties in civil lawsuits to try alternative dispute resolution before going to court. So this whole thing probably is nothing more than Psystar (and maybe Apple) buying themselves some time. Also, given Apple's motion for dismissal of Psystar's counterclaims, it seems Apple's attorneys are pretty confident Psystar doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't think Apple are really interested in paying out Psystar. Unless the resolution send a clear message that Apple does not tolerate Mac clones and will pursue their manufacturers/sellers to the bitter and expensive end, nothing will prevent a "StarPsy" form popping up again in a few months, hoping to either make a mint selling "open computers", or at worst to get a cool few millions form the mothership.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[nomadic]

Whether or not parties have to go to mediation is based on the respective court's local rules. I believe there is a law mandating that for every case there must be at least an attempt to get the parties into ADR.

Motions to dismiss are very common, and parties frequently file them even if they don't have a strong argument or even think they're likely to win, so I don't know if it really means anything.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[tftp]

Apple can afford the trial, but Psystar probably can't. So if Apple went with the settlement then Apple wanted to avoid trial - likely because Psystar promised to expose inconvenient facts and be generally a pain to deal with in front of the judge. A settlement will keep all that quiet, and if it fails the trial is still an option. If I were to guess, Apple may buy Psystar - for cheap from Apple's POV, but for a fortune from the POV of the Psystar owner. The trial would cost a $1M to Apple, easily, so why not to buy something useful with this money, instead of words of lawyers?

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[gnasher719]

Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile.... I'm just sayin.

On what basis would that be illegal for Ford to do? They don't insist on these terms because they don't care much what you do with their engine, but if they did care, what would make it illegal? As a concrete example, Ferrari sells Formula I racing engine to the Scuderia Toro Rosso team. Now McLaren might be willing to pay a generous amount of money to lay their hands on a Ferrari engine, and Ferrari would be quite unhappy about it. If the contract between Ferrari and Toro Rosso says that the engines cannot be sold on, do you seriously suggest that would be illegal?

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[wvmarle]

Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile....

It is not illegal for Ford to simply not sell their engines other than in the form of a complete Ford branded automobile or as replacement part for owners of Ford branded automobiles. Just like Apple can choose to not sell their OS to other computer makers, and sell it only as a package with Apple branded computers.

It is theirs, and it is theirs to sell it to who they want.

What happens after sales though is another matter: it is not illegal for someone to take apart his Ford, and sell all the parts to who-ever wants to buy them.

Just like it is legal for me to wipe the hard disk of my iBook and install e.g. YellowDog Linux, and then sell it and the original copy of OS/X that Apple supplied with it (iirc I have an installation CD somewhere) separately.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[alexhs]

Can you point me to a car brand powered by Ford engines without an agreement between Ford and that brand ?

You can't ? Maybe there's a reason. Just sayin'.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[NormalVisual]

So if Apple went with the settlement then Apple wanted to avoid trial - likely because Psystar promised to expose inconvenient facts and be generally a pain to deal with in front of the judge.

I suspect it's more because Apple doesn't want to take the very real risk of having its EULA invalidated for Florida and possibly the whole Eleventh Circuit.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[i.r.id10t]

Nope, but Ferrari could lease the engines to STR, or sell them, but inform them that if the engine is not returned or proven destroyed at the end of its useful life then they'll not get any more engines from them.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[75th Trombone]

But what would Apple WANT with Psystar? Psystar isn't doing anything interesting, it doesn't have any people doing anything spectacular. They assemble standard PC boxes with commodity hardware and figure out the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them.

The only place for Psystar people at Apple would be in, like, their retail stores.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[tftp]

But what would Apple WANT with Psystar?

"the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense. So Apple would stop Psystar's works, and at the same time get access to hacks to make sure they are no longer possible.

But I agree, this is pure speculation - exactly why /. exists, now that we don't get much news here :-)

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[Jorophose]

No, but it's (arguably) illegal for Hyundai to take Toyota engines and put them in its cars.

It's also not anti-trust if they're not crushing the enemies. You're free to make an all-in-one with a Mac-like OS; you just can't rebrand Apple products and sell them as your own.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[ColdWetDog]

But I agree, this is pure speculation - exactly why /. exists, now that we don't get much news here :-)

Just precisely where the hell are you? Even here on "it's not really news" Slashdot, the "Hackintosh" has been pretty widely discussed. It's even got it's own tag.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[initialE]

"Macs are not PCs" is no longer a valid argument, ever since Apple started advertising Macs are PCs. This was when they launched Boot Camp, remember?

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[onefriedrice]

Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs.

Apple has a monopoly on its own products. What a revelation.

Seriously, we probably could do without the third-grade analysis. I shouldn't have to explain that regardless of what kind of distinction Apple marketing wants to make between its product on those under the label of "PC" (other-branded computers running Windows), a Mac is obviously a personal computer competing in the personal computer market.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs.

You do know the difference between marketing, right? They are in the same industry as Dell, HP, Sony, and everyone else who makes personal computers. Whether they are a monopoly or not is really quite subjective.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[arminw]

....But what would Apple WANT with Psystar? ...

Apple has never been and still isn't interested in building and selling a rock-bottom priced Dell computer competitor. They could either buy Pystar outright or make an agreement with them and help them market to a low-cost box under that brand name. This would prevent the dilution of Apple's highly respected brand name, but would allow many people to taste OSX for a low entry fee. Some of these buyers might later want a laptop for themselves or for their kids. The only way to get one of those is to buy one from Apple.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[Lars T.]

Several issues with your theory. First, if Apple buys Psystar to avoid a trial, along would come 3 others to do the same. Second, you are assuming that "Apple went with the settlement" - lets quote TFA:

Which party asked for this cannot be known at this point, or even if they did. Sometimes a judge will strongly urge the parties to enter into voluntary ADR.

Re:It would be a monopoly...

[Lars T.]

But what would Apple WANT with Psystar?

"the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense.

Errm, no, Psystar is simply using the work of others, namely OSx86. If Apple wanted to avoid a trial, they'd buy them, not Psystar.

Apple can do no evil

[shellster_dude]

It amazes me. Every time Google breaths funny, there are instantly tons of comments on how evil Google is. The tags on the articles say things like "DoNoEvil", "Evil Inc" ect. When Microsoft makes a stupid move we all groan and say that it is "Just like them." Yet, when Apple articles come in, you don't see the derogatory tags. The comments don't reflect the "evil" practices that Apple engages in on a daily basis. Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?

Re:Apple can do no evil

[The Second Horseman]

Because they've convinced many their customers - through marketing and cost - that somehow they're "better" or "superior" as people by buying an Apple product. Because, you know, we all should build our self-image around the consumption of mass-market products. Anyway, if you're self-image is tied up in identifying with an image, and a particular line of products are part of that, you tend to defend it, or at least not criticize it. It's actually kind of pathetic - "hey, I'm a better person because I bought something", but it's hardly unique to Apple consumers. Remember, the party in any relationship who has the least emotional commitment tends to have the most power. Many of their customers have a substantial emotional investment in Apple, and Apple has little in return. It's an ideal situation for them. They can reverse direction, shaft customers, raise prices, and everyone continues to believe.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[digitalcowboy]

Don't hate me because I'm beau^H^H^H^H^H^H^H can afford a Mac.

If you work hard, someday - soon - you'll be able to afford one, too.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[shellster_dude]

To prove my point, I get modded down as flamebait. This is halarious.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. People always think they hold some kind of oppressed viewpoint around here, when it is often just selective memory.

Everyone bitches about almost *everything* on Slashdot because angry people are far more likely to hit that Submit button. (This very post is a great example of this fact.)

Re:Apple can do no evil

[lurch_mojoff]

The comments don't reflect the "evil" practices that Apple engages in on a daily basis. Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?

What's so "evil" about Apple's business model, which is what is being disputed in the lawsuit between Apple and Psystar?

Re:Apple can do no evil

[The Second Horseman]

Trust me, affording it isn't a problem. I just find Apple products uninteresting and many of the fanboyish customers irritating. Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it. As if that establishes some common ground or the basis for a conversation. The fact that two people buy the same crap does not actually make them part of a "community" that has any value. Perhaps if people didn't actually build their sense of self-worth by buying crap, the economy wouldn't actually be in the toilet at this point.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Alrescha]

"Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?"

I'd like you to point out an instance of their business practices that deserves "righteous wrath", as I can't think of one.

They don't get the same amount of crap that Microsoft does because on the evil scale Apple is '-1, A cursed ring that you cannot remove', whereas Microsoft is '-1000, Obliterates all life on the planet which it occupies'.

A.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it. As if that establishes some common ground or the basis for a conversation.

Judging from your attitude, you could probably by a casino and a yacht and still nobody would strike up a conversation with you.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[The Second Horseman]

Sorry, no. Just find the idea of a "community" or some sort of common ground based on buying the same crap obnoxious and sad. It's a sign that you're a tool, that you've bought into the marketing message. Actually having something in common (interests, activities, line of work, beliefs, local "real" community, family, ideology, etc) actually matters more, and there are plenty of people to socialize with based on that. And I'm sorry, "I use a Macbook" isn't actually any more of an activity than "I buy coca-cola instead of pepsi".

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

"The fact that two people buy the same crap does not actually make them part of a "community" that has any value."

I see, so does the same thing apply to Linux? I would say that the community is worth a multiple of the work the company puts into it. That multiple is the work that non-company people put into it. Apple seems fairly active on their own forums (afaict), and the fact that their fanboys reciprocate that work may make them annoying, but it doesn't diminish the worth of the community.

To bring in a Linux example, Canonical has given us a great, user-friendly Linux distribution, and has blessed a number of community projects (Ubuntuforums.org, UbuntuStudio, Ubuntu CE/ME/SE). Their communities are vibrant: IRC help is very useful, and UbuntuForums.org has a bunch of very smart people working on helping others.

Running a non-Windows OS is a common basis for a conversation, as it happens to me with Linux a few times a week. The fact that Apple fanboys do it doesn't mean that Apple's products are any worse (for that reason alone - they may still be worse) than Canonical's.

People don't build their sense of self-worth by buying crap, they build their self-worth on being different somehow. If they are more shiny than their neighbor, they feel good about themselves. You see this everyday with Mac, Linux, BSD, Christians, Muslims, Americans, Europeans, etc. Sometimes these things cost money, but as everybody on Slashdot knows, the best things in life are free, eg: Linux and love.

Don't get me wrong, I could see how you would get annoyed at Apple fanboys (I don't), but just because some/most of their fanboys are annoying, it doesn't detract from the worth of their product or their community.

Disclaimer: I own an Apple iPod 60 GB Video from back in the day, and I want (but can't afford) an iPhone. I have rarely been in conversations based on the fact that I use an iPod or an Apple product alone.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

To prove my point, I get modded down as flamebait. This is halarious.

To disprove your point: Skip the tags and read the comments in the "Android Kill Switch" thread. Then head on over to any iPhone related thread and read the Apple bitching there.

Apple gets beat up all the time, here. Settle down.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Almahtar]

1. The world isn't fair.
2. Tech nerds have been given far less headaches by Apple's products than Microsoft's. We're bitter.
3. Evil or not, many people are wishing Apple luck - the moment Microsoft doesn't have such huge market share it won't have as much power to abuse and will have to be a better "citizen". This includes better quality control and actual innovation. If Apple gets a significant portion of the market from MS we all win(except MS). Two competing evils are a lot less scary than one tyrannical evil.
4. Ok, fine, I admit it's kind of a cult :). A cult of awesome.

Disclaimer: I appreciate Apple's stuff but it's not for me: I'm a Linux/BSD guy.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

bull fucking shit. apple puts a killswitch in their phone and it's a sign of the apocalypse, google does the same and it's a necessary part of their overall security plan. you're looking through some odd coloured glasses if you really believe what you've said

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

wow man, you're so cool and emo! let's go cut ourselves!

Re:Apple can do no evil

[GrahamCox]

Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it.

Don't flatter yourself. Even if I am a Mac user seeing another one in the street doesn't automatically mean I expect to have anything else in common. This whole "Mac fanboy" stereotype is a myth, I'm pretty sure. And it's getting very, very old to boot.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the original AC who called you out and your position is pretty reasonable. I pretty much agree. I just think automatically ruling out affinity based on product-based activity (essentially ownership) is somewhat limiting.

For example, the other day I was in a coffee shop and some random guy asked me about my (Apple) laptop, being himself an aficionado. We probably don't have a dozen things in common, but it was pleasant to have a 3-minute conversation about what Apple was going to announce last Tuesday.

I do a lot of computing--developing digital workflows, running server software, writing random scripts, etc.--and to be honest I *wish* I had someone to talk to about it. It's why I visit Slashdot.

I don't have anything to share with any thousands of Mac users, but an occasional, "Hey, how do you like your machine?" is almost always an unintrusive way to find out more.

Re:Apple can do no evil

[ColdWetDog]

They don't get the same amount of crap that Microsoft does because on the evil scale Apple is '-1, A cursed ring that you cannot remove', whereas Microsoft is '-1000, Obliterates all life on the planet which it occupies'.

Finally! A use for that old worn out laptop with XP.

I'll just stick it in the back yard. No more weeding!

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Anonymous Coward]

but you couldn't resist defending your lot, could you?

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Pastis]

Perhaps if people didnâ(TM)t actually build their sense of self-worth by buying crap, the economy wouldnâ(TM)t actually be in the toilet at this point.

Perhaps if the economy hadn't built people's self-worth by buying crap, ...

Cf Century of the Self: http://www.google.com/search?q=century+of+the+self

Re:Apple can do no evil

[Lars T.]

"Oh, I see you use Linux too." - "Eff Off you tool."

Yeah, you are right, works great.

Psytar's Strategy

[RudyHartmann]

Look. You make Apple look bad by selling a PC for fraction of a Mac's price that run's OSX. You aren't making diddly on each PC you ship. Then Apple sues you for $50,000,000.00. Fine you say, make it $50,000,000,000.00, because we don't have it and you keep selling them. Finally Apple says they'll give you $100,000,000.00 if you quietly stop making them. VOILA! You're rich!

Re:Psytar's Strategy

[paimin]

Where's the "???"

Re:Psytar's Strategy

[NormalVisual]

It's the phrase, "Finally Apple says they'll give you $100,000,000.00 if you quietly stop making them". Parent was polite enough to expound on it this time. :-)

Re:Psytar's Strategy

[paimin]

Isn't that the "Profit!"?

Re:Psytar's Strategy

[NormalVisual]

The $100,000,000.00 is, but the "if you quietly stop making them" that's the key part there. :-D

Who marked this "Insightful"

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Ford doesn't sell naked engines to car builders, pro or hobbyist. Apple doesn't sell their naked OS to computer builders, pro or hobbyist.

B) Neither Apple nor Ford are legally compelled to sell their "parts" separate from the whole.

C) Both Apple and Ford sell "upgrade parts" for existing owners of their products

D) While they done ENCOURAGE IT - they also don't stop people from using those parts for "off script" use, except...

They will stop ANYONE from using their company name or product names to sell a product made from their parts.

Developers (and Slashdotters) love to frame it as if Apple is stopping EVERYONE from using their OS however they want, conveniently ignoring the fact that that Apple only goes after builders who try to sell their computs as "Macs", "Mac clones", or as "running OS X".

Trademark Clue: If you don't protect it every single time, you can lose your right to the mark. Examples include: aspirin, linoleum, leotard, and Lasik.

Examples of hard-fought trademarks: Kleenex, Xerox, and Rollerblades.

A Mac is a specific model of computer from a single maker with an operating system written specifically for it (as opposed to a generic machine with an outsourced OS).

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[h4rr4r]

A. you can buy ford crate engines, you can buy boxed copies of OSX
B. No, but preventing you from using the parts in something else is illegal.
C. They both sell parts that can be used for any purpose. First sale prevents them from limiting the uses of the item.
D. They can't stop you.

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[Anonymous Coward]

All true, but Apple could simply make it more difficult to purchase OS X. They could always charge $300 for those who can't prove they own a Mac that meets the system requirements. Hell, I don't know why they don't do this already. They would make a lot more money.

Just let Psystar build the hackintoshes and charge $300-400 for each license. Apple gets some easy money and doesn't have to support the hackintoshes either.

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[sssssss27]

I think you are misunderstanding how trademarks work. I can use your trademark all I want, I just can't pretend to be you. Going back to the Ford analogy what PsyStar is doing is no different than companies who sell modified vehicles.

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[harlows_monkeys]

C. They both sell parts that can be used for any purpose. First sale prevents them from limiting the uses of the item.

Nope. First sale prevents them from asserting a copyright claim for subsequent transfer of the unmodified items. That's all first sale prevents.

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[Anonymous Coward]

a. What you can buy isn't the point. What Ford SELLS is the point. Ford sells whole cars, Apple sells whole computers and boxed upgrade licenses with an included installation disk.

Software dealers sell licenses. Licenses to the information coded on plastic discs, and licenses to download - but just licenses.

They often include the plastic disc. The disc is yours. The bits on the disc are just licensed to you. Contrary to common Slashdot belief, if the license is proved to be not-applicable then you have NO right to the code (not "every right" to the code as the uninformed masses think).

b. Apple isn't preventing the USE of anything, just the sale.

Developers (and Slashdotters) love to frame it as if Apple is stopping hobbyists from using their OS however they want, conveniently ignoring the fact that that Apple only goes after builders who try to SELL those computers by advertising them as "Macs", "Mac clones", or as "running OS X". The OSX86 project thrives unabated.

A Mac is a specific model of computer from a single maker with an operating system written specifically for it (as opposed to a generic machine with an outsourced OS).

If Pystar was smart, they would advertise as being "Windows and Linux Free" and just not mention what OS they are running.

c1. You just restated the second half MY point (and chose to ignore the first)
c2. You misunderstand "First Sale"

d. They CAN stop you. (From SELLING clones... which was the point of the five paragraphs that fell under the heading "D")

Apparently, the people at Pystar aren't the only ones with reading comprehension issues.

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[Apple Acolyte]

That's a good idea in general, but Apple probably doesn't want to expose its hardware divisions to that level of competition. Apple knows the market would reward a company that provided midrange tower hardware but Apple chooses not to compete in that space, so there's a danger that those midrange clones could become very popular if Apple were to officially support them to any extent..

Re:Who marked this "Insightful"

[Lars T.]

A. you can buy ford crate engines, you can buy boxed copies of OSX

Sure, but what does a Ford crate engine cost compared to the Ford car?

IBM vs. Phoenix

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I am misunderstanding. But, couldn't PsyStar cite that as an example in favor of their arguments? If IBM could not defeat them over a reverse engineered BIOS, how is Apple's case any different? Seems like PsyStar at the very worst, reverse engineered Apple hardware, and used off the shelf components to create a compatible platform.

I do realize the IBM v. Pheonix case was about hardware, but couldn't that same argument be used to win this case?

Re:IBM vs. Phoenix

[Anonymous Coward]

Same AC as above here, one more point I forgot to include:

If the case is about software (Mac OS X), and more specifically the software patent/copyright holders right to restrict the physical hardware their software runs on, could Apple's case be thrown out on the merit that several large software corporations have made emulators to run their software on other hardware? Including Apple themselves?

I personally do not think that the software copyright holders have the right to limit the hardware it runs on. Especially when the hardware is most likely patented, and licensed to the software designers.

Apples arguments if I understand them, are akin to a person writing a book, and then trying to copyright it in a way that it could not be translated into specific foreign languages. And then when it is, suing the person that translated it and saying they have the right to dictate the language (platform) the book (software) can be ported to.

I call shenanigans!

Re:IBM vs. Phoenix

[Khyber]

"I personally do not think that the software copyright holders have the right to limit the hardware it runs on."

So, what, you're going to SUE APPLE and force them to write OSX for your PS3 or your Dreamcast, or that system you built entirely from GPGPUs??

Give me a break. What gives you the right to dictate what hardware architecture they should write their software for? Unless you own the company that owns the software, you have NO LEGAL RIGHT.

Re:IBM vs. Phoenix

[yamiyasha]

Here's the thing. Apple doesn't control all the hardware, I could build you a Mac Pro except with out one chip. There's the issue. When apple translated to X86 they opened themselves up for clones. All apple has to do is take out the code for the special chip and it would run on the same hardware anyone could buy

Re:IBM vs. Phoenix

[Khyber]

When Apple moved to EFI-based x86 they did not open themselves up to clones, as Apple is the only consumer computer maker using EFI in it's hardware.

Had Apple moved to a regular BIOS-based x86 platform, then yes, they would have opened themselves up for clone competition, BIGTIME.

Of course, you could just go BUY a USB-EFI chip and boot OSX like that. Apple can't stop someone from making a product that turns a regular BIOS X86 machine into an EFI-enabled machine, as that would be anti-competitive and since Apple is AFAIK the only EFI-based computer retailer, it'd be a monopoly suit as well.

I thought Apple sucks

[fermion]

If Psystar had a case, they would go to court. They may be a way to win, if there was a way to get around the Apple license that says that the software can be run only on apple branded machines. At this point, MS would no longer be able to limit OEM copies to the machines they shipped on, DVD could no longer use their copy protection to limit legitimate copies, and the shrink wrap license would in general be history.

The ridiculous thing is that building a mac clone would be about half as hard as building the IBM clone. No one needs to work under clean room condition to make sure that the multiple phalanxes of IBM lawyers do not win the first born child of the cloners. No one needs to write a OS from scratch. All that is needed is an appropriate *nix subsystem, with a virtual machine that can run either windows and a Mac OS UI clone simultaneously. The technology is out there, all we need is some innovative company to do it.

Instead what we get is some kids hacking and selling POS hardware hoping they can get a little more than the razor thin margins currently awarded to the PC OEM. The reason we have not seen an innovative PC in 10 years is that there is no money in it. MS virtually destroyed the system builder, and now they are the only ones making money. The only hope for an innovative PC, besides Apple, is the market of competing virtual machine on top of commodity hardware. Whatever OS can run on top of it. This will break the cycle of single vendor malaise that lead to the crap Vista.

I am all for Apple to lose it's 'monopoly' of Mac OS X on Apple hardware. I am all for MS to be forced to stop 'illegally' tying an OS to a certain machine. But this is not going happen by putting out crappy machines running the same old crappy software. It will happen by a system builder designing a new kind of GPC. of course, the problem is will the market want it. Such a machine would require a significant amount of engineering, which would have to be recouped by a higher margin, which means a PC that costs more than $500, without a high level OS.

Re:I thought Apple sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

If Psystar had a case, they would go to court.

Wrong. IANAL, but I think the ADR is non-binding and they can go back to court at anytime, unless a settlement is agreed upon that precludes this.

Profit How?

[Nom du Keyboard]

This could result in a profit for Psystar's business

How exactly? Reading the article links doesn't make that apparent.

This, btw, is exactly the reason Apple won't displace Microsoft and remain the niche player they are now. A lot more people might run OS-X if they could run it on the hardware of their choice. It hardly requires Apple hardware to run OS-X any more than it requires a given brand of PC to run Linux. If Apple is happy with their second tier status and falling behind as developers put more advanced products out for Windows (e.g. Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit) more power to them. It's their choice on how they want to run their company.

BUT...

Apple doesn't have all the answers. They never did. Nothing could improve their product line more in the eyes of consumers who are tired of being told from Apple we have wonderful stuff but you take it or leave it when it comes to your choice of configurations (e.g. no Firewire on the new MacBook) than some thinking outside the Apple box. Outside ideas always improve a product as Psystar has proven. (If Psystar didn't have a compelling product in some regard the wouldn't have any sales for it.) As long as NIH reins supreme at Apple they won't be all that they could be. Competition strengthens the strong and weeds out the weak.

ALSO...

If buyers could get OS-X on other platforms (e.g. Pystar, Dell, HP, Acer...) it might be the nail in the coffin of the Windows Tax. The Windows Tax right now survives in most part due to no other alternative that enough buyers demand. Thanks for that too, Apple.

Re:Profit How?

[Anonymous Coward]

This could result in a profit for Psystar's business

How exactly? Reading the article links doesn't make that apparent.

An opinion or foresight doesn't always have to be based on what other people think, say, or write.

Apple could buy Psystar, Apple could come to an agreement that would persuade Psystar from not selling their line of Open Computing mac-compatible PCs, or on the other hand allow them to continue to selling them.

Re:Profit How?

[lurch_mojoff]

If Apple is happy with their second tier status and falling behind as developers put more advanced products out for Windows (e.g. Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit) more power to them.

We can argue whether Apple are "second tier" and "falling behind", but I'd rather point out that your example with the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 is really not a good one. This is not Adobe laying their wrath upon Apple or ditching the Mac for the more prospective Windows platform. It's a combination of Adobe's lack of foresight and Apple pulling a fast one with the 64-bit Carbon. If anything Adobe are bringing their audio/video software back to the Mac after abandoning it for Windows half a decade ago. I guess that says something about how much is the Mac falling behind, doesn't it?

Re:Profit How?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how few people are affected by no firewire on the new macbooks ?? *VERY* few people. Crap, most things are USB 2.0 today. You have to go out of your way to purchase a device that uses firewire.

Firewire is cool and all, but USB 2.0 does the same job on way more devices.

Re:Profit How?

[westlake]

This, btw, is exactly the reason Apple won't displace Microsoft and remain the niche player they are now. A lot more people might run OS-X if they could run it on the hardware of their choice.
.

You buy a Mac because you are trying to simplify your life.

There aren't 1,000 configuration options in hardware or software.

That is a geek thing - something that appeals to the technical hobbyist or the pro - and one of the fundamental reasons why Linux on the desktop has less than a 1% share.

Re:Profit How?

[arminw]

...or on the other hand allow them to continue to selling them....

That might actually be a likely outcome of this whole thing. Apple could allow them to build a little cost machine which Apple has no interest in doing. The system requirements of OSX a much more modest than the current VISTA. Many users could be exposed to OSX this way, which would ultimately be Apple's benefit.

I think everyone doesnt get it.

[Dr.D.IS.GREAT]

First off - I do not endorse Psystar for selling hackintoshen, I do not support apple for their franken boxen nor am I a free software zealot.

Lets get a few things straight about OSX:

1. Its built from the Mach Kernel - its scalable and portable just like any other Unix-like box. Not to mention NeXT was portable to run on non NeXT hardware after sometime.

2. The core utils are Free Software and not as in beer god damn it.

3. OSX is quite hackable, its a really great portable and pretty unix box.

Lets get some facts straight about what Psystar:

1. They are selling a pretty Unix-like box that has the OS hacked a bit.

2. It is not illegal to sell a hackintosh - its just a god damn pretty Unix-like.

3. They have over sized testicles and delulusional dreams of wealth and grandeur.

Lets get some things straight about Apple:

1. They make an OS that they sell in a box - not a cardboard one.

2. Hardware from these folks is really marked up, almost not worth buying from fear of ramen noodles and poverty.

3. Their OS is actually decent and with the right marketing and white box builds could bring *nix to the masses and crush the real evil - Microsoft...

With all of this in mind we can safely deduct this:

Apple cannot take legal action against any entity based on the principle design of Mac OS X. OS X has way too much FSF cancer floating around it in and is just way to easy to hack to make it exclusive to Apple's hardware. Not to mention OS X is is fundementally NeXT Step. Apple should have figured this out during the transition. Infact if Apple made a special version of their OS for regular white boxen, their user base could grow ten fold. But Steve has a problem, its his ego; he forgets that hes not the only one making a good computer, Woz isnt by his side anymore to manufacture and declare the Mac a completely unique system. If Apple really wants to reclaim their OS the only option is to jump to an unknown architechture and be non-compatible to x86 and drop all the nix stuff from it.

Like wise,

The OSX86 Comunity sees the potential for OS X, and reclaims ones desktop, mini-itx, toaster oven and hackinboxen at time from the furious tierney of Windows. /.-ers forget that Microsoft is the enememy and we need to support any comunity bringing Unix-likes to the masses. OSX86 does not endorse Psystar because our goals are to make the technical know how available to those whom crave the perversion of hack craft. Also OSX86 aims to make OSX not just exclusive to hackers, because everyone and anyone deserves a chance to run a great stable Unix-like. ANYONE!

Dr. D

This is entirely standard

[Anonymous Coward]

The case is in the Northern District of California, which requires parties to choose an ADR option. It does not mean the case is settling, or that the ADR process is going to happen anytime soon. Perhaps someone with inside knowledge could say something more specific, but from the bare fact that the parties have chosen an ADR option, you can infer nothing -- exactly this same story could have been posted about any of the thousands if civil lawsuits filed in the northern district this year. Thus, a non-story.

Pystar is not the only one.

[ocularb0b]

There is at least one other company selling NonMac hardware with OSX. This machine is nothing like what Pystar sells and prolly has a price tag much higher than a MacPro. Personally I wants one.

Both side benefit from an out-of-court settlement

[qazwart]

Apple has strong controls over their OS because they remember what happened the last time they allowed clones. The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.

Psystar doesn't have a right to modify Mac OS X and put it on their machines. Apple has full rights to stop them. Psystar could make a machine that could take a modified version of Mac OS X. They just wouldn't be allowed to put this modified version on their machine.

My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them. Apple really doesn't care too much about the small market share they might lose to Psystar. Most likely, the people buying these clones wouldn't have bought a Mac anyway. If these people then want to spend $125 and get Mac OS X to work on Psystar, that's their prerogative and Apple won't stop them.

What Apple wants to avoid is the average user saying "Why should I spend $1200 on a iMac when I can by a Psystar for only $500?". Even worse, Apple doesn't want these same users saying, "Man, I bought this Psystar system, and Mac OX sucks! It keep crashing, and it is slow. I don't know why people think Apple is so hot. Their stuff stinks!".

Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light. Apple chose the premium market because they rather make $200 on each sale rather than sell five times as many machines, but only make $40 on each one.

Apple doesn't want some clone coming along and ruining their reputation. As far as Apple is concerned, Psystar can live as long as they don't mess with Apple's reputation.

With the mac book backlash & lack of mini upda

[Joe The Dragon]

With the mac book backlash. The lack of mini updates and other stuff is there stuff going on at apple that we don't know about. Pystar laptop plans blow apple away? Mac OS 10.6 for all? A real desktop system? with a super high end mac pro in the works mac pro now at $2500 and up? and apple wants to get pystar out of the way so they can have a real desktop?

Also if apple buy Pystar and lets them make clones apple will forced to Support them? or at least that there os update will not mess the systems up.

Does Pystar have a case and apple wants to not have it go to court I hope they don't just take the money and run. Leveing us with a $700+ mini that has weak video gefore 8400m with out it's own ram + no firewire and a 2.5 hd will not work there. And a mac pro that starts at $2500+ with ddr3 ecc 1600.

a GeForce 9300 based desktop Looks like a nice desktop chip that apple can use a in the mini tower
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-nforce-730i,2044.html

With on board video and 1 x16 with 2 x1 pci-e slots useing the other 2 pci-e lanes for wifi and firewire.

So you can have a desktop staring at $600+ with on board video with add in video cards on top of that.

But, But...

[Khyber]

How will Apple make their money off of selling incremental updates to their OS if they make it download-only?

"In order to update your OS to the latest version with the latest security enhancements, you must pay us or buy a new computer."

That's damn-near extortion, right there.

Re:But, But...

[Xanius]

Hardly, osx costs 1/5 of what windows costs for the versions that don't suck. You get 10.5 up to the last point increment until it goes to 10.6 Then you pay. That's a couple years of updates before you spend the money. Most windows versions are updated for what 7 years at the most? So you end up paying the same amount for the same amount of support in the end, the only difference is with OSX the cost is spread out instead of all at once.

Re:But, But...

[tmalone]

I have 10.3.9, and after 10.5 came out I was still getting security updates. Yeah, I did't get to have dashboard or spotlight for free, but I wasn't left without critical updates.

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[lurch_mojoff]

The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.

I don't think Apple's biggest problem with the Mac clones of the mid '90s was the tarnished reputation of Mac OS. A much, much bigger problem was something that you also point out in your comment - most people chose cheaper, not better. The prices of the clones did severely undercut the prices of "genuine" Macs and as result Apple's sales practically disappeared. And you are correct - the same would happen today, too.

Support the Opentosh Project

[Anonymous Coward]

Pystar's entire argument is that there is no suitable substitute for OS X and therefore uses the OSX86 project to "get" the OS they "need".

If, OTOH, there was an OS X work-alike, this would all be moot.

http://opentosh.lefora.com/

Re:Support the Opentosh Project

[mfnickster]

Opentosh is not going to be much of a Mac OS X work-alike. From the FAQ:

  * No PowerPC build
  * No Classic emulation
  * No HFS, HFS+ or ext3 support
  * Limited Carbon support

This is without even considering the standard Apple applications, which will most likely not be cloned. I doubt the OS will run Apple's versions, because the frameworks would have to be cloned to support them, and you'd have to buy a Mac OS X install to get them legally.

Seriously, why bother? If you don't get the benefits of running Mac OS X, you might as well just use Linux or FreeBSD.

Re:Support the Opentosh Project

[Chaos Incarnate]

* PowerPC build is irrelevant to anybody trying to build a Hackintosh like Psystar * Classic emulation is gone in 10.5 anyways

Re:Support the Opentosh Project

[mfnickster]

> PowerPC build is irrelevant to anybody trying to build a Hackintosh like Psystar

And Rosetta? How will they manage to clone that little piece of proprietary functionality? ...oh, that's right; they can't

Unfortunately there is still a lot of useful software out there which has not been updated to Universal or Intel binaries.

> Classic emulation is gone in 10.5 anyways

Which is one reason I started looking for a Mac OS alternative in the first place...

Re:Support the Opentosh Project

[Anonymous Coward]

If, OTOH, there was an OS X work-alike, this would all be moot.

http://opentosh.lefora.com/

If there is going to be a project which creates an open source OS X work-alike, that isn't it. That's just one nut who wants a work-alike to exist (he is literally the only registered forum account), trying to drum up support. Perhaps by posting links to Slashdot to get more people interested, hmm?

Regardless, said nut knows nothing about the magnitude of the task, and probably doesn't even know how to program himself. He thinks a team of 3-7 coders is going to be able to do it, supported only by bounties. Good luck with that, buddy. Good luck with that.

Couple of reasons:

[itsdapead]

1. Because Google set themselves up for criticism by having a much-publicised motto of Don't be evil.

2. Because the idea that even Mac-fans regard Apple as saints is a total straw man. Mac fans love the products (provided they have Firewire and matte screens) - but only the most deluded would deny Apple's well-established record of playing hardball and looking after number one (go ask Apple corp, Microsoft, the firms which licensed Mac OS 9, would-be producers of Apple II clones etc.) Heck, nobody can progress beyond Junior Acolyte in the Church of Jobs unless their blog has been anointed by a DMCA takedown from the Holy One. Go look on a Mac fan site like macrumors.com sometime (they even have a convenient front-page tally of how many negative comments have been made about each posting, so you won't have to read endless speculation about what colour the jack plug on the next iPod is going to be).

3. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly - if Steve Jobs screws your pooch, you are free to walk out of the Apple store and buy a Windows or Linux machine. If he screws too many pooches, Apple will go bust. OTOH, lots of people find themselves forced to use or upgrade Microsoft products because of their market dominance, and Microsoft can sell products like Vista and Office 07 that nobody actually wants.

4. Finally, just some of the recent articles from /. that seem to have escaped your notice:
Users Rage Over Missing FireWire On New MacBooks
iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld
iPhone Tethering App Released, Killed In 2 Hours
Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order
iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
Apple Laptop Upgrades Costing 200% More Than Dells

Now, is it just me, but could some of those be regarded as just a teeny bit crictical of Apple?

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[NormalVisual]

Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware

High-quality? It's been my experience that Apple's hardware is of no higher quality than any other builder's. I can give you a laundry list of busted Macs that I have personal experience with, while my Frankenbox built from off-the-shelf parts that has evolved over the past several years has had exactly zero hardware problems.

A very good reason...

[insllvn]

There is a reason. Ask your mechanic about the quality of Ford engines, or rather ask yourself if MS Windows was only available on MS made computer, who would hack it to run on third party hardware? Here is a company that takes Ford cars and installs Porsche engines (as well as a few other enhancements).

Re:A very good reason...

[alexhs]

Would you care to backup your claim with some source ?

I can only find mentions of (modified) Ford motors in Saleen cars.

And they indeed have an agreement with Ford, it's on their "About Saleen" page.

That Steve Saleen owned a Porsche and was member of the Porsche Owner's Club is unrelated to the engines in their vehicles.

Re:A very good reason...

[insllvn]

It appears I was mistaken. I knew of the company only in passing. I read about them awhile ago and it seems I misremembered some details. I thought the engines were replaced with Porsche engines, but it seems they are either just modified Ford engines or are custom built by Saleen.

Curious

[Khyber]

Could a third party sue to force the case to be brought into a court of law, claiming public interest in the matter?

Re:Curious

[Apple Acolyte]

Could a third party sue to force the case to be brought into a court of law, claiming public interest in the matter?

U.S. courts require that those bringing lawsuits have "standing" to bring them. A third party can't bring a lawsuit on behalf of another because that third party would have no standing in court to do so.

Re:Curious

[Khyber]

I mean a third party as in perhaps another company who wishes to do THE EXACT THING Psystar's doing? not just any regular old Joe.

lexmak tried to use the dmca / EULA to lock out...

[Joe The Dragon]

lexmak tried to use the dmca / EULA to lock out 3rd party ink and they lost in court apple is trying to do the same type of thing. Garage door makes try to use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party so apples dmca / eula clams may not hold up court and they are staying out of it.

Your thinking is upside down

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple didn't write an OS and then tie it to their hardware... they designed a machine and then wrote an OS specifically for that machine.

They are under no legal obligation to make it available to other builders.

I wish Dell would make an Inspiron Operating System for their Inspirons, but they don't. I wish Lenovo would make a Thinkpad Operating system for their Thinkpads, but they don't.

As it stands, Apple is the only one brave enough to tell Microsoft "No thanks, we don't need to outsource our OS. We can write one ourselves."

No wonder Michael Dell isn't as powerful as Steve Jobs.

As long as you use standards-based file formats, physical media, connectors, and communications protocols the OS is irrelivant to the user. So why NOT custom-build one for each machine?

DVD Players, Microwaves, and dishwahers all have operating systems. No one complains that you can't take the one designed for the dishwasher and put it in the microwave.

Re:Your thinking is upside down

[Anonymous Coward]

> Apple didn't write an OS and then tie it to their hardware... they designed a machine and then wrote an OS specifically for that machine.

Not quite. You may remember this little company called NeXT, which Apple bought largely for its existing OS?

Granted, NeXTSTEP didn't run on any Apple hardware at the time, and the current version (Leopard) won't run on hardware from that period... but the truth is, Apple developed the OS and machines together. Neither the chicken nor the egg came first.

Re:Your thinking is upside down

[arminw]

...Apple developed the OS and machines together. Neither the chicken nor the egg came first...

Does that also mean that the chicken and egg were developed together by their designer?

Re:Your thinking is upside down

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does that also mean that the chicken and egg were developed together by their designer?

No, it means that chickens and eggs evolved in sync, if you want to take the metaphor literally.

But you creationist trolls have a lot of difficulty distinguishing the literal from the metaphorical, don't you?

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[corychristison]

High-quality? It's been my experience that Apple's hardware is of no higher quality than any other builder's. I can give you a laundry list of busted Macs that I have personal experience with, while my Frankenbox built from off-the-shelf parts that has evolved over the past several years has had exactly zero hardware problems.

Same boat here. My current PC was ~$700 at time of purchase.
Antec Sonata III Chassis
ASUS M2N-E
AMD X2 5200+
4GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 RAM
Seagate 500GB HDD
nVidia 8600 GTS
Gentoo Linux

I've had zero problems with it.

I bought a Mac mini about a year and a half ago to give OSX a shot. I didn't like it at all... I don't understand what the hype is all about. After about a month of mucking with it I installed Gentoo and gave it to the girlfriend. :-)

This is a good thing

[ral8158]

You guys realize, if Apple loses, they'll lock down their OS much more than it is already, and use the DMCA to shut down hobbyists who try to circumvent it?

Here's hoping Psystar loses so we don't have to deal with shitty macs out in the wild and so that we don't have to get into fisticuffs with Apple over DRM.

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[mikael_j]

Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light.

No, Apple sells complete systems, not hardware. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Just like the old UNIX workstation manufacturers they're not selling part of the solution, they're constructing the entire solution to ensure that the parts work together in a satisfactory fashion.

/Mikael

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[Attila Dimedici]

My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them.

That is like saying, Generic Car company will allow Tesla Motors to live as long as they stop selling electric cars. Psystar is a company that sells computers with Mac OS X. If they no longer sell computers with Mac OS X on them, they will not survive.

Dell Unix

[Enter the Shoggoth]

Dell tried that but strangely enough, not tying it to Dell hardware spelt its' doom.

Apple didn't write an OS and then tie it to their hardware... they designed a machine and then wrote an OS specifically for that machine.

They are under no legal obligation to make it available to other builders.

I wish Dell would make an Inspiron Operating System for their Inspirons, but they don't. I wish Lenovo would make a Thinkpad Operating system for their Thinkpads, but they don't.

As it stands, Apple is the only one brave enough to tell Microsoft "No thanks, we don't need to outsource our OS. We can write one ourselves."

No wonder Michael Dell isn't as powerful as Steve Jobs.

As long as you use standards-based file formats, physical media, connectors, and communications protocols the OS is irrelivant to the user. So why NOT custom-build one for each machine?

DVD Players, Microwaves, and dishwahers all have operating systems. No one complains that you can't take the one designed for the dishwasher and put it in the microwave.

Re:With the mac book backlash & lack of mini u

[Kooty-Sentinel]

Friends don't let friends post drunk....

IT'S STILL IN COURT FOR CRISSAKES!

[unassimilatible]

I am amazed how ill-informed this entire thread is. This case is STILL IN COURT. It never left court. This is a non-binding process to help move the case along. This is not some secret maneuver by Apple to pull the wool over all of your eyes. It is not settlement. Non-binding arbitration merely gives parties an idea about the merits of their cases by a neutral arbitrator. His opinion is advisory. They will report the findings to the trial judge in court. Then the case moves forward, unless there is settlement, but settlement can happen in any case.

It's amazing how colossally wrong an entire news story, submission, and long list of threads can be on an issue. Remember this when you criticize some judge for not knowing Linux or the Internet as well as you guys do, because said judge would look at this thread and say, WTF are you all talking about?

You have it backwards

[ThrowAwaySociety]

"Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA"."

Totally backwards.

Legally speaking, EULAs are pretty dicey. They're contracts, and contracts can be thrown out in all sorts of situations where they conflict with signatories' (and I use that term extremely loosely here) statutory rights. So this is a weak position for Apple; hence all of the copyright and trademark claims that Apple also included.

On the contrary, Pystar's claim that Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple products is even more unfounded. How long have we been hearing that Apple has a (pick your number less than 10)% market share? Does anyone seriously contend that Apple is able to bully its competitors because of its ownership of MacOSX?

You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd partys

[Joe The Dragon]

You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's as Lexmark, Garage door opener makers and other have learned much less to define a court ruling.

Re:You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd partys

[jimicus]

You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party's as Lexmark, Garage door opener makers and other have learned much less to define a court ruling.

No, but you can use TPM and you can pull some random stunt which identifies the computer as being a Mac and then patent that stunt so nobody else can clone it.

Re:You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd partys

[Joe The Dragon]

IF the court say that apple must let people who buy os x to be able to run it on there systems. Apple can't just trun around add more lock out stuff then make a DMCA clam over it.

Re:You can't use the DMCA to lock out 3rd partys

[jimicus]

IANAL but I don't see why Apple can't turn around and say "Fine, you can run OS X on whatever you choose but don't expect us to make it easy" - and then make it difficult.

Re:With the mac book backlash & lack of mini u

[westlake]

With the mac book backlash.
.

There is no Mac Book backlash. Not in the Mac Book's target market. The external drive, the HD Camcorder, that drives after-market sales at that price point is USB not Firewire.

Psystar's last straw

[Lars T.]

Reminds me a lot of SCO's PR trying to find investors by twisting how the trial was going. "Hush, we got them into ADR - but don't tell anyone we told you."

Re:Psystar's last straw

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Except.... Psystar are trying to legally resell a product. SCO were trying to assert ownership over someone else's property.

Re:Profit How? NOT TRUE AT ALL

[Nom du Keyboard]

You buy a Mac because you are trying to simplify your life.

Not true at all. Different people buy Macs for different reasons, simplicity and lack of choice only being one of them. The problem is that this is the only sales model that Apple supports, meaning they they lose out on other potential OS-X users that don't like Apple h/w for anything from the one-button mouse mania to the layout of the keyboard. Apple can do what they want with their company but they aren't taking the best steps to expand their marketshare. I'm lead to believe they actually don't care about beating out Microsoft at all and are motivated by other goals instead.

War Chest My Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is a multibillion dollar corporation. Psystar is.. a mom-and-pop podunk company nobody ever heard of until they decided to poke Apple with a sharp stick.

OTOH, this seems like an absolutely brilliant legal scheme:
1) Build $PRODUCT based on $SOMEONE_ELSE's software.
2) Sue $SOMEONE_ELSE when they try to shut you down.
3) Settle out-of-court for millions.

Worst case, you lose and can't sell $PRODUCT anymore. Best case, you win and you enjoy ripping off $SOMEONE_ELSE's hard work for your gain. Plenty of people to go up against too; Tivo, almost any phone manufacturer, etc.

Re:War Chest My Ass

[Theoboley]

Welcome to the crooked business ethics of american culture.

Re:War Chest My Ass

[iphayd]

Have you ever heard of Compaq?

Re:War Chest My Ass

[Mike Buddha]

They're paying for the OS. Does Apple not make money selling their OS? If they're not charging enough that's a separate issue. Psystar isn't stealing anything from anyone. They pay all their suppliers, AFAIK. No one's hauled them up for fraud or theft. Apple gets paid the same way as their case and mobo manufacturers get paid.

Claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly"

Is this a joke? Its called minimum system requirements. I don't see Microsoft getting sued because Vista won't run on my 486.

As far as I know (and I don't pretend to know everything) Apple needs only to support systems covered by the minimum system requirements and doesn't need to help its operating system run on anything else if they don't want to. As long as they don't use DRM to do so.

Re:Claim?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly"

Is this a joke? Its called minimum system requirements. I don't see Microsoft getting sued because Vista won't run on my 486.

No, the joke is claiming that "Apple sold it to you" is a minimum system requirement!

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[raisin]

Apple has strong controls over their OS because they remember what happened the last time they allowed clones. The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.

Why is this modded up? I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap. Just because Jobs and his acolytes say things like that doesn't make it true.

I had a fantastic Power Computing machine that was faster, totally stable, and far cheaper than the garbage that Apple was selling at the time. The week they quit selling clones I promptly put my machine up for sale and gave up on Apple hardware for about seven years. I had been a Mac user since the very first 128K Mac.

If Apple doesn't want clones, that's their prerogative. But gimme a break, it had nothing to do with the poor quality of the clones (the market was settling that) outside of Apple (Steve) wanting complete control. And the clones certainly didn't hurt their reputation--System 7.5.x was already doing that for them.

Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[aristotle-dude]

Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites! The fact that Apple is a company rather than an independent developer should not make a bloody difference. Copyright and license agreement violations are serious issues regardless of the parties involved.

When you purchase or download software you are bound by the license agreement regardless of whether that license is GPL or some other license. The ELUA for OS X is readily available outside of the packaging online for anyone to read prior to purchasing an OS X "upgrade" box. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous install is irrelevant.

If the GPL is to be considered a defendable in court, then so must the ELUA of OS X or windows. Nobody is forcing you to use a particular OS and nobody is entitled to software on their own terms.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that nearly all EULAs I only have access to after I buy the product and I have no recourse if I refuse it.
Try it, buy some software and try to get a refund because you reject the EULA.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[aristotle-dude]

Except that nearly all EULAs I only have access to after I buy the product and I have no recourse if I refuse it. Try it, buy some software and try to get a refund because you reject the EULA.

Oh really?
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

You were saying?

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Anonymous Coward]

So they only way other than buying the product to see the license is if you have an internet connection? Wow, that's just fantastic if you live in an area without one.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites! The fact that Apple is a company rather than an independent developer should not make a bloody difference. Copyright and license agreement violations are serious issues regardless of the parties involved.

When you purchase or download software you are bound by the license agreement regardless of whether that license is GPL or some other license. The ELUA for OS X is readily available outside of the packaging online for anyone to read prior to purchasing an OS X "upgrade" box. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous install is irrelevant.

If the GPL is to be considered a defendable in court, then so must the ELUA of OS X or windows. Nobody is forcing you to use a particular OS and nobody is entitled to software on their own terms.

Stick it up your butt mac-queer

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright and license agreements are totally different, and an EULA for an OS which runs on basic hardware not allowing one to install it on other hardware is BS. Just like I can install Windows XP on a P1 and a P4.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Kattspya]

GNU is not an EULA. It's a license that gives you permission to copy/modify the code and has absolutely nothing to do with usage.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[Lars T.]

Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites!

Not only that So, this is violation of my authorship rights on pc efi v8. pc_efi v8 now had been reloaded, and includes very basic license which denies any commercial using. also updated with actual smbios.

Re:Enough with the hypocrisy already.

[aristotle-dude]

So they only way other than buying the product to see the license is if you have an internet connection? Wow, that's just fantastic if you live in an area without one.

You did not specify that you wanted an off-line version. I'm sure any store would be more than happy to provide you with a printed copy to alleviate your concerns if you asked nicely.

Have you seen their prices? Buy a real Apple

[Udigs]

And PS, Psystar's computers aren't cheap. Sure, they offer a stripped down C-ron processor for 299, with 1GB of memory---is that a deal? I think not. The only machines they offer that are even comparable to an even an iMac are about the price of an iMac---and that's without a monitor.

Just a matter of time

[deanston]

1) Dragging this out, even behind doors, does not help Psystar. I doubt their profit is keeping up with their legal fees unless they have lawyers doing pro bono. And the longer Apple is mounting legal fees the greater the potential final damages Psysters may have to pay. And if you can't make enough money to fend off Apple, it doesn't inspire others to invest in the same business.

2) It's only a matter of time when technology matures to the point where the only way to purchase a Mac OS media is by mail or download through a registered Apple computer purchaser account. How is any 3rd party hope to "legally" redistribute a Mac OS media?

Apple is pretty savy in locking down software through various means and proprietary hardware tricks too. Anything less than a clear court ruling against Apple, I can see Apple's position just gets stronger the longer this goes on.

what a damn joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Another story about..hmm about..but where the hell are all those score 5 funny comments? Can't imagine /.ers are reading anything else.

MOD PARENT UP.

[SETIGuy]

And mod the grandparent "-1 Fanboy".

Re:MOD PARENT UP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.

-AC

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[badkarmadayaccount]

Was it with a *BSD(M) kernel? *ducks*

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that the "last time Apple allowed the clones were poorly made" is crap. I worked at an Apple authorized dealer and still bought a Power Computing Mac clone because they were as good as the mac hardware and were half the price. Never had one problem with that system.

Re:Both side benefit from an out-of-court settleme

[Ant P.]

Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware.

Where "high quality" is defined as excessive thermal paste causing overheating, laptop chips that routinely ran at 70C+, castration of standard features in the name of "product differentiation", proprietary video card interfaces masquerading as PCI-E, ...

But hey, prove me wrong. I'm sure there's SOME good reason why the Apple 30" LCD is 70% more expensive than the Dell one, despite them being exactly the same hardware?

Not full price licenses

[SkimTony]

Not to be an Apple apologists, but technically, they're not paying for the OS. All of the Apple OS retail box copies are technically upgrade licenses, since all Macintosh computers originally came with MacOS X. An upgrade license for Windows costs about half as much as a regular install copy; Pystar would logically need to be paying $260 per copy of OS X in order to install it and have paid for the OS.

Re:Not full price licenses

[Mike Buddha]

And the license is what's being challenged here. Does Apple have the right to sell an OS, and then state that it can only be used if you already have another version of the OS installed? Personally, I don't see how a company can sell me something then tell me I can only use it in these certain circumstances. If they want to offer rebates to people who already own a prior version of the OS, that's fine, but don't sell me something then say I can't use it myself, or I can't sell it to someone else. The licenses need to be blow out of the water by someone challenging them, and that's what Psystar is doing.

Challenge to licensing

[SkimTony]

Does Microsoft have the right to charge more money to consumers who buy a copy of Windows, rather than OEM's? What about the price differential between "Upgrade" licenses and "Retail" licenses? Microsoft presently offers both Upgrade and retail licenses - Apple only offers upgrade licenses. Licenses can dictate whatever terms they want, as long as those terms don't violate the law. Is Psystar's lawsuit going to mean we can finally buy software, rather than licensing it? I doubt it.

Someone already is challenging Apple's (And Microsoft's, and Sun's, and Adobe's, etc.) licenses.
It's called the
GPL.