Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
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?
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.
load "$",8,1
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
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.
citation needed.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
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?
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
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.
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.