Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple
Daengbo writes "'A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple.
He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.'
Apple is currently suing Psystar over its sale of Mac clones."
This is great news for everyone who believes in fair competition in the marketplace. Kudos to that judge, and I hope the countersuit goes well!
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
I wonder if that means we can install things like HP-UX on non-HP hardware?
I wonder if the requirement by Apple that OSX be installed only on Apple produced hardware is guilty of violating the Sherman act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act.
Wozniak is on Dancing With The Stars and I guess Steve's left Dancing With Psystar.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
If this works... I wonder if it will be possible for other hardware makers to be sued for making Windows only products. One of the big barriers to Linux adoption is chipsets that have no Linux driver and it seems that some companies go out of their way to make hardware that won't work with Linux intentionally.
Blizzard's win against Glider allowed Blizzard to dictate what you can and can't do on your own machine if you use their software.
The same should apply to Apple. You license OS X, and you agree to only run it on Macs.
(Not that I agree with the decision, but that's how I see it)
One of my major issues with Apple is that they force users to spend through the nose for standard hardware so they can run an OS.
I mean, my other problem is that Macs make people with more money than tech sense tell me that I don't know how to do my job, and that they "just work" - A claim I can almost instantly prove wrong by crashing the bloody things.
for Pystar. They simple get another chance. Read past the writers slanted interpretation. Words like "seemed", "might", "could", "if" are signs hes laying out what could by slim chance happen. He is not laying out all the other more likely outcomes. Good luck on pressing for the overstretching of the copywrite....THATS all they have. Oh and Apple still is due to name those involved with Pystar...this should prove interesting yet. /my money is still on Apple
. I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
I think you mean, "others may be free to buy a mac to get the OS X license to put on a cheaper computer, which they won't do as Apple kills off retail sales of OS X"
So if they do win, sure you can migrate your OS across platforms. But you won't see other vendors shipping it.
My biggest concern here is that the courts could have the ability to decide that a business model, in ANY business, is wrong.
This is really what is on trial here. Apple says one thing, Psystar says the opposite, hey that's what courts are for. But the fundamental point here is that this has the potential to lay waste to the basic Mac business model.
Whether you like or hate Mac, this has to be somewhat concerning for any company.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
That's what they sued for- antitrust violations. And that's what got thrown out.
What's happened now is that the judge decided they could come back and
file a new complaint based on copyright law instead.
That doesn't mean their new counterclaims (Apple sued them) necessarily have any merit.
In fact, I don't really see how this is a 'win' at all - if you file a complaint and it gets tossed out,
you wouldn't normally be barred from trying again, if your amended complaint is substantially different.
Disclaimer: My primary home computer is a Mac (which you probably guessed from my sig).
If Pystar wins their lawsuit, it will be terrible for not just Apple, but OS X users too.
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.
One of the reasons Microsoft has so many problems is that Windows needs to support every hardware configuration imaginable. If Windows fails to do so, as it did with Vista, Microsoft bears the brunt of the criticism (not the hardware or driver maker), and essentially has to take the lead in solving the problem.
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.
What's more, Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers. Clone sales undercut Mac sales far more than Apple received licensing fees for Mac OS.
For OS X to continue as a high quality operating system, Pystar must lose.
This space left intentionally blank.
So, the biggest argument I've heard for why Apple doesn't want to sell their OS freely is because they don't want to support non-apple computers (more hardware variety = more trouble to support)... so, if they let Pystar sell their fake Macs but don't have to support hardware related issues, it sounds like Apple is getting that segment of the market essentially for free.
If Psystar want's to compete, let them compete. Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails. The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.
exactly. meddling in the market makes it unfair not more fair. Apple is only a 10% player in the computer market so their bussiness model is not in restraint of trade for computers.
Apple should form a "discount buyers club". To belong to the club you have to buy an apple computer. Then you get 90% discounts on the operating system updates priced at $1000 retail.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Troll more please. Go back to /g/ and stop making Slashdot more worthless.
If Pystar wins, OS X will no longer be sold retail. New versions will only be available via a paid online update.
Apple will then assert that it's impossible to install it on commodity hardware without stealing the source code outright.
This space left intentionally blank.
Back in the days of the Apple clone start-up "Power Computing", Apple discovered that not only did they have the task of supporting their software on non-Apple hardware, that the Apple clone-makers made BETTER Mac's than Apple did. By this, I mean that Power Computing produced memory bus speeds of 66 MHz, when the best that Apple could muster was 33 MHz. So, how did Apple compete against superior engineering?
Yup, Apple allowed Power Computing to only make memory buses half the width of Apple's offerings. At the eng of the day, Apple killed off the clone industry; because Apple realized that they were NOT gaining marketshare, but rather the clones were cannibalizing their hardware sales. Why buy a Mac for $3000, when you can get a faster, more feature laden offering that runs the same software for $2000?
If Pystar ultimately wins, it may not increase the Mac marketshare, but may mean that Apple is now forced to support hardware that is 'compliant' to various specifications instead of 'compatible' with those same specifications. Those two words, compliant and compatible, do not mean the same thing. This means that instead of supporting a thin set of hardware products, Apple will be forced to support a wide range of 3rd party hardware - while maintaining thier OS and software prices static.
Sometimes a step forward means you are stepping on a landmine.
There go my mod points, but you raise an interesting point. The Glider case decided that
a) launching the software in an unapproved manner makes the copying from HD to memory an unauthorized copy in violation of the EULA and
b) selling a product that requires the end user to break the EULA of another product to work is tortious interference Apple may actually have a case here, simply because of some WoW bot writer's inept legal defense...
Not at all. If Pystar win, then all it means is that Apple can't force them to stop selling machines with OS X. It doesn't mean that Apple has to provide any support for OS X on third party hardware. I don't know where you get this idea, "If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable" from. It doesn't.
but someone else WILL, surely they MUST be allowed to move.
Apple can't use their monopoly to make people take the hobsons's choice. That is NOT what Intellectual Property (tm)(c)(Pat Pending) was for.
PS I wonder if PJ is going to follow this after screaming about how Apple was winning and Pystar were eeeviiiil for abusing the court process...
When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.
If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.
The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.
Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.
If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.
For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.
How exactly is that a troll?
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Mod the parent up. In the gush of "Psystar wins a round!" exclamations, the GP and TFS seem to have forgotten that their initial counter-suit based on anti-trust claims was thrown out. This is just the judge saying, "well okay, you can try plan B if you like." At best, this is a neutral result for Psystar, not a victory. The real test of whether what they are doing is illegal or not is the outcome of Apple's original suit, not Psystar's counter-suit.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources.
Most people would hardly describe a company with market capitalization larger than Dell, HP, Sun, Sony, and Intel and 32,000 full-time employees as 'small'.
Poor Apple. They're such a lonely little company.
Apple doesn't have to support Psystar or anybody else. Obviously it would be up to third parties to provide drivers and hardware support for computers that Apple doesn't make.
My blog
If they come with a restriction that they only get used on Apple hardware? First sale says "Fuck you" to that. And copyright in the US doesn't enter into it. For use of the software, any copy that is necessarily required IS NOT controlled by the copyright laws.
So you don't need to agree to the EULA to USE the software in the US. In germany, the EULA is not a legal contract. Similar issues elesewhere.
So "You have no license if you don't install according to the EULA" is irrelevant: NO LICENSE NEEDED.
The right of first sale should trump Apple's right to profit from an obsolete business model.
If it kills Apple.
If it kills Apple then Psystar is also dead.
So it begs the question: Who or what is behind Psystar?
Apple doesn't have to support Psystar or anybody else. Obviously it would be up to third parties to provide drivers and hardware support for computers that Apple doesn't make.
And Apple would shoulder the blame if a crappy $10 sound card doesn't work with OS X, just as Microsoft does now. All the disclaimers from Apple would fall on deaf ears.
I would love to see OS X reach wide adoption. Once people aren't overlooking the obvious flaws to justify the purchase of their expensive pretty computer, the piece of crap that is OS X will be exposed.
Similes are like metaphors
It seems like Apple is subsidizing OS X development from hardware. The obvious thing would be to lower hardware price to competitive, increase the cost of OS X to compensate, separate OS X into upgrade and new machine, bundle the new machine version with their hardware, and hack the software to make sure you can't install an upgrade on an unlicensed machine. The results would be a lot less friendly for users.
And Apple would shoulder the blame if a crappy $10 sound card doesn't work with OS X, just as Microsoft does now.
Nobody with any sense is going to blame Microsoft if a crappy $10 sound card doesn't work with Vista or XP. OTOH, people will blame Microsoft -- and rightly so -- if a large number of sound cards (or other hardware) that used to work XP don't work on Vista.
But Apple isn't Microsoft. Apple develops OS X for their own computers, not everyone elses -- after all, Microsoft doesn't sell computers. People will rightly realize that Apple tests their OS only with their own hardware or that of Apple's close partners.
My blog
I doubt HP really has any interest in expanding their H-pux market.
I think they are counting the days until their longest-term support contract is satisfied.
Apple is looking at what they've been through to get through the hurdles of Intel > PPC > Intel, and the changes in hardware along the way.
Looking at Dell's experiment with Ubuntu, and what they had to do to provide support, I have to wonder how much easier something like Apple's Driver Kit (is that what it's called these days?) would make the Linux desktop effort, and that Apple hasn't really pushed Darwin as a way to work on creating and supporting the hardware layer.
If Apple opened up a hardware SDK with a few vendors (Toshiba? HP?) to handle select devices, and there was support "Per Platform" provided by the vendor and the community in a joint effort. Apple could back away, keep up the API, and continually sell OS licenses.
If Apple could sell their Server product on a wider variety of platforms, they might actually make use of all their R&D in that area. (Sun? Bull?)
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.
Another reason that the megacorporation in Cupertino made it so quickly is that the BSD folks graciously provided them with the OS to build upon, so Apple could concentrate on the nice things that make OS X pleasant to use.
Also, what world to you live in where Intel+NVidia is a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market? Once you move past the motherboard and attendant components (which are pretty well standardized), you get into odd USB peripherals that wouldn't be any easier to support if they were plugged into an official Apple Mac.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.
Nobody, anywhere, is even thinking about possibly starting to consider the idea that Apple should have to support hardware it doesnt want to. If Psystar wins this, Apple can just keep doing what its doing. It can write the best OS it can, without giving a seconds thought to supporting any hardware it doesn't want to.
The only thing that would change if Psystar won, is that Apple couldn't stop anyone from installing a copy of OS X that they already own on other hardware. Apple would not have to provide a bit of support, change any code, or anything else.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So what you're saying is that the only reason OS X is stable is because Apple controls the hardware? What if Microsoft decided to pull an Apple and disallow anyone but the Dells and HPs of the world to sell their OS with hardware? Microsoft could then claim any instability on non-approved hardware was not their fault.
That BeOS, OS/2, and NEXTSTEP enjoyed. The fate of technically superior, generically compatible, for-profit alternative operating systems is pretty well established.
There are three ways to build a successful OS:
- Legacy monopoly position
- Free (libre)
- Make your money on hardware
Selling a "premium" OS for generic hardware is a surefire path to irrellevance.
Fight Back for the Mac!
Power Computing was a rabid supporter and promoter of the Mac OS. : http://ifaq.wap.org/posters/fightback.gif
They were so passionate, they sought to out-do Apple. This is probably what Apple fears - If someone is willing to use their nifty OS without a laser-engraved Power Button with which to start up the brushed aluminum, unibody device with the too-shiny screen, Apple loses.
Brown plastic and a lack of industrial 'design' is something Apple is against as much as anything.
To them, cheaper != better, unless it's made exquisitely elegant.
Apple needs a real desktop mid tower to compete not court.
Like a $700 - $1500 desktop. The mini is very very over priced at $600 - $800 for the hardware that is has now and putting a atom in at $600 will be going to far.
Maybe have a $400 to $500 atom based mini and maybe even a $600 - $800 better mini with a $700+ real desktop.
apple can go amd and use 780g or 790gx with side port ram to have a nice low end system with good on board video that does not use system ram and gives apple a good low end system at $600 - $1000.
The imac is held back by weak video and high cost laptop cpus in a time when $700+ desktop have high end dual cores or quads with core i7 systems at $950+ and up then even putting in a laptop quad core will not cut it as they cost a lot and make apple look bad with a $1200+ AIO with a weak cpu + lower mid range video when there are core i7 systems with better video 4gb or more ram at $1000+ and even high end video / SLI or cross fire with 6gb of ram at $1500+.
The mac pro is nice but has a high cost and weak video for it's price and the dual cpu board and sever ram push costs up more. At lest have a $1200 - $1500+ tower like in the g4 / g5 days.
Apple can have a dual core i7 system at $2400+ but if they do that make it all dual cpu with a 1 cpu core i7 system with desktop ram at $1200+ no 1 cpu on a high cost dual cpu board.
Or just kill windows 7 by having mac os x 10.6 for all systems at $150 - $200.
You have to realize that most computer users don't understand *why* something doesn't work. They just blame whoever it is it's most convenient to blame.
If somebody writes a bad OS X hardware driver that destabilizes that particular OS X system (remember the AMD bug that forces Microsoft to delay XP SP3?), they will blame Apple for it.
This space left intentionally blank.
The only thing that would change if Psystar won, is that Apple couldn't stop anyone from installing a copy of OS X that they already own on other hardware. Apple would not have to provide a bit of support, change any code, or anything else.
Apple would be blamed if OS X didn't work with said hardware, or, even worse, was destabilized because of it.
This space left intentionally blank.
They are creating an assembled computer system they claim can run software X. How is that any different from selling computers that run Windows?
Why can't a computer manufacture label their products "OS X Certified".
I don't care if Apple is only 10% of the WHOLE OF THE PC MARKETPLACE, they are the only source of hardware that is allowed to run their OPERATING SYSTEM. Yeah I am using capitalization to make a point. What they are doing is just as bad, if not worse, than what Microsoft did. Look at the story about bundling, at least with Explorer embedded in the OS I could still choose. I don't have any choice with Apple, if I want to use OS X I can only use it on their hardware.
Just because they used to be, emphasis in used to, the little guy doesn't give them rights to trample mine.
FWIW, I own an iMac (white ones) and two iPods. I like their products but I am loathe to buy another system where I am forced to pay a premium of over 30% just so I can run an operating system I want.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Lenovo is neither a hardware nor a software company. They are a total solutions company. They focus on providing vertically integrated products that meet the customer's needs from the hardware all the way up to the software. That's why Thinkpad laptops have incredible hardware features like built-in digitizing tablets, incredible software features like multi-touch tablet support, AND incredible features like Rescue and Recovery: Just press the blue ThinkVantage button to get back lost data when you have operating system failure, that requires support from both software and hardware, as well as discrete GPU solutions, so you can upgrade your notebook's graphics capabilities.
NeXT was a hardware company that provided their own software.
NeXT began porting their hardware to other platforms, because it was more cost-effective to do so. Apple has basically done the same, however, they are making their own clones with their own mutations.
What Apple does *NOT* want to do, is get in the position NeXT was in in 1993, where the only move left was to start selling the software separate from the hardware, at a mch lower cost. The 'value-add' of providing hardware in addition to software as a way to pad the bottom line is a move that Steve likes. A whole lot.
"Apple is still a small company", is a bit of a stretch for a company with a market cap of about $90 billion (mind you, this is down quite a bit in recent months) and $25 billion in cash at its disposal. For comparison, Google has a market cap of about $120 billion (was lower than Apple's for a while) and $15 billion in cash. Is Google a "small company"? I don't know where I stand on this issue, but Apple most certainly is not a "small company".
and I guess your paycheck comes from poor people?
yes, now you can download that new hardware upgrade you've always wanted..
Here's an interesting compromise: Apple begins marketing a Mac-for-everyone-else version of OSX that competes with Windows and Linux on x86 boxes, but isn't necessarily as smooth and nice as OSX for mac, or it lacks some feature that you can only get on an OSX for Mac. Just a thought, because I would totally use OSX, I just can't afford a Mac....
Apple's business model is hardly failing. They're doing incredibly well in fact. Trying to force them to sell their product to work on every generic PC is what is going to cause them to fail.
I don't think most folks grasp the big picture here. This is one of the most dangerous lawsuits in history. This attacks any company's right to develop products as they see fit.
If Psystar were to win, the gates would be open for the destruction of the entire embedded device market. No company would be able to differentiate any of their products ever again. This is not a world I care to see.
Hopefully this will drive Apple out of the OS market. Apple takes a lot of Open Source software and never gives back to the community. I'll dance on their grave.
Then it should be
Now that Apple aren't allowed to tell you what hardware you're installing on, Blizzard shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you do on your machine when you use their software.
Or is it really that you don't mind Apple abusing the copyright interpretation (note: NO LICENSE NEEDED to install and run software purchased in the US) to get their way, so you'll put up with Bizzard doing so too as long as you can use it to justify Apple doing it too.
It's been 40 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Dreary me. How selfish...
If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable
Why would they? There's no forcing them to and I don't see why they would. They could just put a huge red warning somewhere in the software that says outright, "This hardware is not officially supported and may not operate correctly, use it at your own risk." Maybe every startup if they're feeling anvilicious.
Apple are great at marketing and I'm confident they could spin it to their advantage. Apple hardware is special, OSX can't run on such shitty hardware, or some other crap. People will swallow it. It's not beyond imigination that they could say what you did. "We're doing this because it's good for you, the Apple user."
Apple fears people will find out that they been paying twice or more for their hardware... oops!
Thus, why they try to keep Mac OSX from being installed on custom made PCs.
At least you recognize that. I'm not quite as into Apple's entire line of Kool-aid as everyone else is (I hate the iPhone and iPods), but their laptops have no equivalent in the market.
:P
I love Windows, but in the end, there is no more seamless product or truly mobile computing experience than the one provided by an Apple laptop running OS X... It hurts my pride a little to say "it just works."
On the bright side, I finally had a reason to get used to a bash console
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Apple should switch to building only one kind of hardware, the perfect multitouch tablet PC the thickness of an iphone but 10-17 inches.
Apple should love the idea of companies making simple towers, they could rule the numbers game. If they switch to becoming more than a pc maker they'll sell hardware like hotcakes.
Apple loses if they stick to trying to build simple PC's. Yes they're nice but I have positions in a company to fill and it's a start up and this kid that's starting is just a co-op student, he doesn't need porche mac he needs a cheap box. Apple loses a customer every time in this scenario.
If apple sold "super tablets" that became the new star trekkian future computer that had these options:
- Wireless N
- Full Leopard (not a wireless iphone flavor)
- Cell Phonery
- G3
- Touchscreen keyboard
- FM Radio
- Cam on front and back
- Can record HD video
If apple did that, would they really care about the desktop market as much? Wouldn't they be selling so many of these the desktop market that all runs apple osx would just boost their sales more?
Companies that try to sue their business model in law are likely to fail.
It was announced today that a German company called PearC is starting to sell their own Mac clones. They claim that, according to German law, the conditions of a EULA that users can't see before purchase cannot be enforced.
article at Ars Technica here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/german-company-pearc-begins-selling-line-of-mac-clones-1.ars
It was announced today that a German company called PearC is starting to sell their own Mac clones. They claim that, according to German law, the conditions of a EULA that users can't see before purchase cannot be enforced. Since the EULA is inside the box and users can't see it, the argument will be that the parts about not installing OS X on non-Apple hardware are void. Article at Ars Technica.
I am patiently waiting for psystar to start selling laptops. I am hoping the mobile Open Computer (yes that is what they call it) will have a windows keyboard (complete with backspace key, insert, delete, home, pgup,pgdown, prt screen.) Psystar if you read this please bring you laptop to market!
Why would OSX have to support all hardware out there? Why would Apple have to change ANYTHING? Hell, I'd suggest Apple not provide any support for any Psystar machines, even if the specs are identical to an authentic Mac.
That said, Psystar should be able to buy license of OSX and install them and support them themselves. Apple's selling the OS, they should not be able to limit how people use them. As a poster said earlier... if you buy a Sony Blu-Ray disc, do you think you should be limited by the license to only playing it on a Sony player with a Sony TV?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
When I bought my Macbook, it came with an Apple logo sticker. When I upgraded to 10.5, a similar decal came with the software. Perhaps a legal mind could explain to me in what way sticking one of these labels to a Hackintosh would make it anything other than an 'Apple-labeled computer...?
So fucking what?! Are customers suddenly no longer allowed to modify their own property nowadays?!
If I buy a T-shirt, the manufacturer cannot prevent me from tie-dyeing it. If I buy a Mustang, Ford cannot prevent me from turbocharging it. If I buy a book, the author cannot prevent me from crossing out parts of the story and rewriting it.
If I buy a copy of OS X, Apple CANNOT prevent me from modifying the fucking kernel!
YES, you CAN modify the kernel (although maybe not under some stupid corner cases in the USA, thanks to DMCA. But pretty much everywhere else in the world) ...BUT...
you CAN'T re-distribute THE MODIFIED kernel to 3RD PARTIES, without obtaining a specific license to do so.
Psystar CAN obtain Mac OS X. Can modify the kernel (let's say in Europe, for the sake of avoiding DMCA). But CAN'T sell it on computers to customers, as they are selling a derivative of Apple's work, without Apple's license.
Bullshit. Apple voluntarily made those copies of OS X available for sale, and Psystar legally bought and paid for them. There was no violation of copyright law. Full stop. Period.
Up to that point : No, there's no violation of copyright law. The problem arises after that :
They sell the modified OS X together with the Psystar computer.
And Apple tries to prove in court that this is a derivative work sold without proper license.
What Psystar SHOULD have tried, is to sell users unmodified copies of Mac OS X, and bare naked clones, WITHOUT an OS on them, only an installer (either a boot disk to insert first before installing OS X or a special installer on a hidden partition / modified BIOS image) which is able to patch and install OS X from the original media.
This way they wouldn't have sold anything they lack a license for (the OS X they sell is Apple. Apple got paid for the copy and no derivative work is involved).
The end user did the patching and as no distribution occured, there's no way to use the derivative work argument either.
(Well except maybe that the installer/patched could fall under some problems with the DMCA in the USA. But in theory the above approach should be valid).
The way the GPL differs from all this, and the reason it is valid, is that it grants rights that the user didn't already have. Namely, it grants the right to redistribute the software. Because it grants rights, it can also impose conditions and still be equitable. Because it only comes into effect when you try to distribute the software, an act which you do not otherwise have the right to do, it is not a contract of adhesion. And because you'd have to have distributed the software in order to violate the GPL's terms, and violation revokes your right to distribute, violation of the GPL implies violation of copyright.
And the problem is that only a few license grants right to redistribute modified copies of a software.
Parts of Mac OS X don't follow that such license. And as such you can resell your copy *OR* you can modify your copy.
But you can't make more copy to hand to other people and - in Psystar's case - you CAN'T make a modification and resell that modification.
It's stupid, because Apple got paid for the original copy any-way. But it's currently the law and Apple is trying to see if they can manage to apply it to that situation.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I've been considering a Shuttle, or some other inexpensive computer to run Linux on. I was disappointed to find that the mythical $200 machine is just a kit; doesn't include a processor or anything. A working machine is $400, and one with an optical drive and wireless networking is almost $600, very much the same as a mini.
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar isn't reselling Mac OS X as-is. (as it should be with a first sale).
The problem comes from the fact that Psystar buys a stock copy of OS X, modifies it and sells the modified version as a business.
Apple is trying to prove in court that this constitute a derivative work, something that isn't authorised by copyright law - you need a license to do that (like BSD you give you this right, or GPL which gives it too, as long as you publish your modifications too).
Not every part in Mac OS X is licensed under BSD.
Psystar should have instead re-sold stock OS X copies, together with a special boot disk to install/patch OS X on the computer.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
If I write a book that doesn't give anybody the right to tweak it a bit and then sell it under a new binding -- so why should Psystar have the right to do this with Apple's OS?
Every other company gets to defend their Intellectual Property, why would you expect Apple to give it away?
By loading commercially purchased copies of Mac OS X onto non-Apple hardware, Psystar is violating the licensing agreement that comes with those copies of Mac OS X. Yes, the end consumer could do the same thing, but the end consumer would ALSO be in violation of the licensing agreement. Apple generally doesn't go after individual users for licensing violations because it is more effort than it is worth. But Psystar is trying to generate a huge class of users with invalid licenses, so it is worth Apple's while to stop them.
Psystar is also advertising computers running Mac OS X, which they do not have rights to use in their advertising. That's a theft of trademark. They don't have a valid license, and they aren't authorized resellers. Psystar's entire business model is built on the theft of Apple's Intellectual Property.
So why is it bad for Apple to try to defend their property from being stolen or misused? If someone was making motorcycles out of third party parts, but dropping in Harley-Davidson engines, they can't go calling themselves a Harley-Davidson dealer. They can't sell the bikes as Harley-Davidsons. And if someone tried, H-D would be well within their rights to stop them.
I'm hardly an expert in this area, but the laws of a number of countries make some explicit exceptions for derivative works that, while they would normally be illegal to distribute, are modified for the narrow purpose of interoperability.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Take NeXT off that list. OS X *IS* NeXT.
Yes, the irony of the whole history of the Jobs-Apple split and formation of NeXT is that NeXT basically consumed Apple alive when Jobs was brought back.
But the brand doesn't say NeXT. It says Apple. And to the public, perception is reality.
Same thing happend with Lockheed. When Martin Marietta bought them out, they used Martin's corporate leadership, Martin's corporate headquarters, and Martin's lobbyists. Martin, like NeXT, basically ate the other company alive. But they were smart enough to use the Lockheed name first, because it had more power and history.
Branding matters. Without that Apple logo, NeXT/OS X would be a hacker's curiosity, like BeOS. Nothing more. The parent posters point stands. Apple tried licensing their OS on clone hardware. They lost even more money and market share in the process. It's far, far too late to do something like that now. If the courts rule that Apple can't keep their hardware monopoly, then that's the end of Apple computers, and Apple will be a consumer electronics company only. You might as well rename them iPod-iPhone Inc.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
OMG
1. If Pystar one it would not mean apple all of a sudden had to support every hardware configuration
2. If Pystar one apple would not even have to support the software on non apple branded machines.
I use a mac and I use pcs. I use Slackware and Windows and even put a osx on one of my intel boxes. People who buy these boxes like what pystar sells, know what they are getting into the end.
n/t
Meh.
If the court decides that Psystar has the right to install OSX on any old hardware, I think Apple will just jack up the price of their retail copies to $600 (the current price of a new C2D mac mini -150 dollars) and offer a big (say $400) discount to people with a bonafide intel Mac that wants upgrading. That would make everybody happy, right? I'm sure everyone trying to sell their mac, on the used market would love it.
Because I have to wonder. They allowed the Mac Pro to languish, the iMac needs an update already, and the Mac Mini is just a disgrace.
Apple's problem is that they make very little effort to keep their computers up to date. Since the switch to Intel if it were not for OS X all we would have is Alienware, overpriced hardware in cool cases. Changing to Intel makes cost comparisons all the more likely and they are fair to make. While I do enjoy using OS X I just cannot stand the premium they want for hardware that at times is more than a generation behind or lacking some major area. Where is my HD DVD option (like Blu-Ray). Now I have to take it to the Windows machine to do it. Lovely, I guess they WANT me to have a Microsoft computer too.
Trying to sell friends on a Mac is a joke when they can buy a $349 laptop that provides nearly the same services. (go look at the Toshiba in Best Buy's ad this week - SHEESH)
Sometimes I think Apple wants the desktop market to go away. They seem damn happy with their laptops and they come across as trying to make real strives with them.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They aren't.
They are selling Mac OS X in toto with non-Apple hardware. They are additionally including a pre-boot environment that allows it to boot.
So, by your analogy, they'd be selling your book plus a spiffy bookmark and a nice bookshelf to put it on.
Okay, but before we hooked up, my wife used to blame her computer manufacturer, not Microsoft. To her, the reason she had "viruses" was that eMachines makes garbage. I mean, yeah, eMachines makes garbage, but the problem with the malware and the zombification of her system really had nothing to do with eMachines.
To her it couldn't have been Microsoft's fault because everyone has Microsoft. There's no other option.
Note: Her current machines are a custom-built AMD Athlon 64 x2 desktop and a Dell Vostro loaded with Ubuntu 8.10. But she no longer blames computer manufacturers. ;)
My blog
Contrary to popular belief, Macs do not have that much higher profit margins than any other PC, only to a point where Apple can afford to develop for its niche market. Macs are a premium package with complete integration of software and hardware. If those two get divided then it is no longer a Mac. Apple goes to great lengths to satisfy a more demanding market, so if it loses control of any major aspect of that process it loses its ability to satisfy that market.
In other words, losing the right to control the hardware would probably be fatal to Apple's PC side, and they might as well change their name to The iPhone Company.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Any copyright holder must make an effort to protect and defend their copyright.
If they turn their head completely, and allow anyone/everyone to do what they like, they lose the copyright.
Apple exists in the 'widget model' world. Everything is a potential monetizable entity, which, without copyright/patent protection, would just be another irrelevant concept.
Ah but you can sell a vanilla OS and a method to install it on whatever hardware you choose. I don't know if this is the case or not but I can see that as a way of getting round the copyright issue.
Yes, that's what Psystar should have done in the first place !!!
(Although perhaps, they might have needed to circumvent some DRM to do it, and that could be against the DMCA in the USA. But everywhere else, it should be legal, I think).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Hardware vendors don't care about OS or software quality. The only reason for this fight is GREED. They see Apple fans are loyal customers and they want a piece of the pie. They don't like the fact that MSFT through its 90% desktop OS MONOPOLY has them by the balls. If you love Mac OS so much Hackintosh it. If Psystar/Dell or whoever wants to prove a point they can put up all their resource to promote and sell a Linux OS Desktop FRONT AND CENTER - but they won't, will they? And for those who say Apple doesn't give back to open source - WebKit will rule the Mobile, and who put in the most effort to make it the most standard compliant browser? - also keeping shit like Flash or Silverlight from making common web standards obsolete. Not to mention contributions to other fundamental development like OpenCL and LLVM that will benefit computing overall. When Chrome finally becomes practically the browser OS, people will give credit to Google but not Apple. If open source authors don't want to port their code to Mac OS they don't have to. Why do they do it for Windows but never ask MSFT for *contribution back*? Contribution goes both ways - Has Psystar posted all their engineering techniques openly on the web for everyone to openly try to install OS X? Would Google post their source code for their search engine? Why is Apple always the only one mentioned as taking from open source and not give enough back? I wouldn't trade my MacBook Pro for savings on cheaper HP or Dell crap even if they come with OS X. Pay enough price for shitware workmanship already. Race to the bottom only means everybody gets shit. Apple is not Google and is not Linux. You cannot apply the same business model.
I thought I read elsewhere here (from other commenters) that Psystar was modifying the code, including the Apple Updates. Perhaps I misunderstood, or maybe those posters were misinformed.
You misunderstand "derivative work." If I buy a book, rip out a number of pages and replace them with my own, I have created a derivative and I may sell it as I wish.
Unless it's your business. Then you're a re-seller and need proper authorisation to resell modified copies.
This is what psystar is doing. They are buying originals, modifying them, and selling them. This should be perfectly legal.
Yes, they *should*. But real life isn't logical.
First-sale doctrine requires one single identical copy to be transfered from the first buyer to the second-hand buyer.
In Psystar, a different, non-authorised copy of the software was generated and that thing got sold to the end user.
Apple is exactly trying to challenge that logic (or lack of) in the copyright law.
Apple is being compensated. What's the problem?
For the court, the problem is that the version re-sold by Psystar are modified.
Apple will go for whatever crack they can find in the copyright law which will help them prevent Psystar from selling hackintoshes.
In reality Apple sees Psystar as a danger :
- They will deprive them from the opportunity to sell expensive hardware at a huge margin to people who want the OS X experience. And we pretty much all know that the hardware is where Apple makes most money.
- Apple want to sell a perfect-looking "Apple Experience", where everything is perfectly tuned from the hardware all the way to the software running on the machine. It's their brand appearance. With a company like Psystar, there's a risk that OS X will end up being yet another OS running on lots of uncontrolled hardware, crashing a lot on the more obscure configuration. In short, OS X will be the next Windows. It will ruin the current image of perfectly polished experience. Some user might start to think that OS X sucks just because their experience of it on some obscure Chinese clones is awful.
And Apple are really deeply afraid of that, because the whole polished experience is the reason why lot of the users are ready to put up with Apple's outrageous hardware prices.
But they won't admit it in court. /.ers say on a regular basis (specially when the **AA start to whine about piracy) there's no law anywhere that states that your business model is guaranteed by the State to stay profitable even after it has been made obsolete.
As
Thus, instead, to save their business model, Apple will go after whatever loophole they manage to find.
Psystar made the error of selling the OS X pre-patched, instead of selling stock OS X together with a boot-disk with an installer-patcher on it.
Apple will try to kill them for that.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Unless it's your business. Then you're a re-seller and need proper authorisation to resell modified copies.
Show me the statute that defines this restriction, because there isn't one.
First-sale doctrine requires one single identical copy to be transfered from the first buyer to the second-hand buyer.
Where are the words "identical copy" in copyright law, its not there.
In Psystar, a different, non-authorised copy of the software was generated and that thing got sold to the end user.
Wrong, Psystar buys a copy for each user. They modify the user's copy for them, that's their value.
For the court, the problem is that the version re-sold by Psystar are modified.
Are you saying I can't paint my car? That I can't draw on my copy of Moby Dick? I can modify that which I own, and I can sell it when I please.
Apple will go for whatever crack they can find in the copyright law which will help them prevent Psystar from selling hackintoshes.
And I hope the judges are smart enough to fully understand "fair use" and "right of first sale."
Psystar made the error of selling the OS X pre-patched, instead of selling stock OS X together with a boot-disk with an installer-patcher on it.
Apple will try to kill them for that.
I don't think Apple has an air tight case. A good lawyer should be able to kill Apple on this. Apple is being paid for their product. After it leaves their hands, there is little that they can do about it by law.
I thought I read elsewhere here (from other commenters) that Psystar was modifying the code, including the Apple Updates. Perhaps I misunderstood, or maybe those posters were misinformed.
If let's say Dell had some engineers have a quick look at a Mac Pro, make a list of parts they can identify, and build a nice, good quality box using all the same parts, then an unmodified copy of MacOS X would be guaranteed not to work, no matter how good a job these engineers do. The reason is that one of the chips on Apple's motherboards contains a 64 bit code which is used to decrypt several important parts of the operating system. This is not particularly well hidden, and not particularly hard to circumvent.
There are three ways to get around this problem: One is to modify the OS. Instead of reading this 64 bit code from the chip (it is the same on every Macintosh), you could put the same number hardcoded into the decryption software. The other way is to add a chip with this code inside, or to change the EFI (roughly similar to BIOS) to _pretend_ that such a chip is there. If you use the second or third method, you don't need to modify the OS anymore. On the other side, that kind of thing is exactly what the DMCA act makes illegal.
Would you fucking dildos shut the fuck up about the goddamned BSD kernel already? Jesus Christ, there's a fuck of a lot more to MacOS than the fucking BSD kernel. Don't believe me? Go download and build Darwin and then come back and tell us all how much it is like MacOS without the Cocoa and Carbon programming APIs and Quartz. Let me guess, you're one of the cretins who constantly harps about how Linux was really based upon Minix and blah, blah, blah Linus Torvalds stole everything from Andy Tenenbaum, blah, blah, blah.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Thanks for the clarification. So then it is illegal. I guess if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is, after all, a duck.
Aren't you forgetting that OSX is based on BSD code? ;)
Apple doesn't have to support these clones. They can continue business as usual and make the clones support OSX or get a bad rep and fail.
I'm typing this on a Mac, genius. Find someone else to get your righteous indignation on with.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
As a MacOSX/PPC user (G5) I don't see how any of this applies to me.
>> Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you
>> buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple
I call FUD. I just upgraded my old iMac and didn't buy any parts from Apple. The memory came from Crucial, and the HD was a sale item at Fry's.
Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple.
Apple already tried Mac clones. Apple lost more in hardware sells than it made in selling the Mac OS. And that totally disregards Microsoft. If Apple were to start selling OS X to any OEM, Original Equipment Manufacturer it would be entering MS's space And like it not even Mac users rely on MS Office, MS had already threatened to discontinue Office for Macs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales
Once upon a tyme Apple did authorize Mac Clones, and Apple lost money because of them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple;
No they don't, I don't have to buy parts from Apple. The HDD in the Mac I'm using now is a Seagate I bought from Micro Center. I can buy more RAM from them, Best Buy, or whoever and install it myself.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
How about the fact I can take my video card out of my laptop and upgrade it?
I could not upgrade the graphics on either of my Windows laptops.
I also get a remote control for my laptop
MacBooks come with a remote control also.
and an extra expansion port should I wish to use eSATA or other high-speed data devices.
MacBook Pros have an Expresscard/34 you can get an eSata card for.
Sorry, for the price of what I paid for, you won't find my full hardware suite on a Mac laptop without paying at LEAST 2-1/2 thousand dollars
Before I got the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on I compared it's price to the prices of various Windows OEM laptops with similar configurations and it was competitive to their prices. An HP was $50 less and Dell was $200 more.
Fslcon
Should there be a Law?
Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources.
Bullshit. Apple is worth more than Dell, HP, IBM and even Google.
Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers.
But back then they didn't have the iPod, iPhone or iTunes. That makes a huge difference.
The claim that psystar being allowed to make clones hurts os/x users is silly. Even if psystar wins, apple is not required to support psystar hardware. The reason why psystar was getting sued is that it was very easy to create apple compatible hardware now that apple uses commodity intel parts.
Apple nearly went bankrupt not because of clones(which never took more than 10% of the mac market) but because the macs of the mid 90s were crap even by mac fan standards.
I did.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Indeed, to begin with -- it doesn't even have a BSD kernel.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Apple is like the lotteries, a tax on the stupid.
You have clearly no idea how much code the past 2 decades NeXT and Apple have donated to the lovely people of BSD.
why can't apple do what they want to OS X. they're the one who made it. it's like hp making their own ink cartridge for their printers, epson, canon and others do that too.
According to Wikipedia, Apple has 35,000 employees. For comparative purposes, that's 75% more than Google, and almost 40% of Microsoft's headcount. Apple is by no means a small company.
Regardless, your argument about delaying OS X and reduced stability is an absolute straw man. Apple is under no obligation, and I doubt that any court will rule that Apple does have the obligation, to support hardware other than their own.
The only valid argument from my point of view is brand dilution i.e. people first exposed to OS X on non Apple hardware may experience issues they wouldn't encounter on Apple produced hardware. But the non-Apple OS X machines are very much a niche item anyway, so that number is going to be very low.
I doubt you'll ever see Dell, HP or one of the other major OEMs preinstalling OS X without Apple's blessing. Between the lack of support from Apple, having to hack together drivers, lack of system updates and the high cost of retail OS X (which Apple could increase at any time) it isn't a very attractive proposition.
And your point? Dell and Microsoft get blamed for the other's mistakes all the time. Big deal. But what if the Psystar machines turn out to be better than the Apple machines? That's what Apple is really worried about. They fear competition.
You can't tell the difference between an oreo and a belgian chocolate bisuit assortment with the dark chocolate biscuit and the white sugary centre.
However, if you try and install Photoshop for Mac OS X on Windows Vista, you will soon find the difference.
The difference is, everything has changed since then.
Apple is infinitely stronger since then. Part of the reason Apple went bankrupt after licensing System was that they were failing already. The Apple clone market was a half-hearted attempt to improve the bottom line. Also, smaller and smaller percentage of Apple's profits comes from computer sales. If apple want's to grow, I think they would be better off by spinning off the PC compatible manufacturing so that they could concentrate on fine tuning and selling OS X licenses, ITMS, iPods, iPhones, and other software.
Way to ruin everything for us you bloody cheapskates. Get real fricken jobs for crying out loud and move out of your mother's basement.
You see, what you burger flippers don't seem to get is that software development is expensive and difficult and that Apple was subsidizing their OS development with hardware sales. Apple tried and failed with the clone model and it failed because not only did the clones undercut their prices significantly but Apple was stuck with the development and support costs for all of those machines that they did not sell in the first place. This left no source of revenue to offset the costs incurred from all of that extra support and dev work.
Some of us on slashdot chose the mac platform because we work with or develop software on windows in our day jobs and wanted a machine at home that ran an OS that "just works" and hardware that "just works" out of the box.
It seems today that people do not appreciate the value of hard work and expect to get everything handed to them.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Have you forgotten that Apple licensed the OS to clone makers before and that the company almost tanked because of it (and a whole lot of other missteps)? Have you forgotten that Apple tech service was bombarded with calls from buyers of the clones who wanted to know why their computers were having driver and hardware incompatibility problems (the clone makers didn't always do their own driver offerings correctly)? Have you forgotten that the el cheapo clones sometimes functioned perfectly, but often crapped out without explanation? Have you forgotten that the cheap parts in the clones failed significantly earlier than Apple's more expensive parts did?
Dude, I haven't forgotten, and won't. Licensing the OS is a recipe for disaster.