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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[inode_buddha]

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

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?

[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.

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

[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"?

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...

[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...

[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...

[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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.