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
That's only if they had an illegal monopoly on the PC market as a whole. If Apple were the only maker of personal computers than you could have a case here.
If Pystar can win on OSX, the same argument could, in principle, be made for other operating systems. I suspect, though, that the impact would be pretty minimal. HP-UX only runs on PA-RISC or Itanium, so the wild world of x86 whiteboxes isn't going to happen unless HP wants it to. Further, HP-UX is the sort of thing that(with the limited exceptions of a few hobbyists, and people looking for HP-UX experience on the cheap) would only be run by outfits that care about Big Serious Enterprise Features(tm) and support contracts and stuff. All HP has to do is say that HP-UX, and anything you run on it, is only supported on HP hardware and most of the value dries up. OSX, by contrast, is frequently run in the desktop area, where support is a fairly minimal consideration.
Citation?
Some hardware manufacturers don't employ devs who code for Linux. It's a shame, but hey, that's an extra cost. Linux doesn't yet have the market share to warrant employing dedicated devs to write drivers for Linux (please bare in mind the many, many distros, dependencies, package types, kernel revisions which drivers would need to be developed for. Source code is great, but I don't want the hassle of compiling it thanks).
It's an infinite regression paradox. Devs need to code for existing hardware to increase uptake, which then need support from vendors with newer versions. More uptake is needed to increase the viability of dev time... The trouble is nobody wants to go first.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Not all Mac users "have more money than tech sense" y'know.
I use Macs because they are the best fit for the job I use them for - internet, email, word processing, video editing, photo editing.
There is no possible Windows solution that is better for the tasks I use my computers for.
In terms of usability, the Mac does "just work" - this doesn't mean it never crashes or has problems (that would just be silly). But for the 95% of the rest of the time where it's working fine, Mac OS X works for me.
I have Ubuntu installs too, on the older machines in collection that I still use (you know, Apple hardware ages pretty well, and Ubuntu runs pretty well on it).
You'll counter my argument by telling me that I could just use Ubuntu full time and it would be cheaper and better, but until I can run Photoshop (yes I do have a fully paid for copy of CS), Final Cut Pro and other commercial apps, I'll stick with OS X as my main OS. For all the ancillary stuff that works just as well on Ubuntu as it does on OS X, since my main machine is OS X, I don't really see the need to explicitly use something else - there's no problems with spyware, viruses, malware and other junk to worry about, so it's win-win.
Your arrogance that you automatically assume that you know more than all Mac users is unbecoming. Grow up.
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.
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.
You are confused. Apple is trying to get the government to meddle in the market by getting the government to stop Psystar from reselling their OS. If the government were to keep it's fingers out of the 'free market'. Psystar would get to continue as it is doing now.
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.
This is not the same thing, at least from a moral point of view. When playing WoW, not only are you using Blizzard's software, you are also accessing Blizzard servers constantly. Also, the actions a bot takes potentially affect other players in a negative fashion.
Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware generally just affects you and your own system. Even if Psystar wins, Apple is not obligated to support this configuration.
From a legal standpoint, well, IANAL. Who knows?
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.
The Sherman Act is meant "to limit cartels and monopolies". Now, Apple sells PC-compatible computers, a position in which they do not hold a monopoly, and sell an operating system as a tie-in product. Unless you define the applicable market as Apple's own computers, there's no case whatsoever that they hold a monopoly in the operating system market either.
Oh God why would you want to? The abomination which is HP-UX must be expunged from the Earth. Kill it with fire!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
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?
Apple does NOT have a monopoly. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on selling Macs is like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Mustangs. The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
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.
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.
they absolutely monopolize every aspect of the mac, software And hardware.
quit drinking the steve jobs jizz-aide.
Mustangs don't typically require buying a specific brand of gasoline that won't work with the Chevy Malibu. Using a Mac requires buying different software. The scope of the investment is not directly comparable to any other device except possibly the iPod and iTunes Store music compatibility.
The purpose for antitrust laws is protecting consumers, not protecting businesses. The same problems occur whether someone is locked in because no competitors exist or because they merely can't buy a competitor's product for compatibility reasons. That's why certain types of tying are violation of antitrust laws in spite of competition existing.
Is tying Mac OS X to Mac hardware a clear antitrust violation? No. Is it clearly not an antitrust violation? Also no. There are plenty of case law precedents on either side of this issue, and the way a court rules is likely to depend more on how the argument is worded and which judge hears the case than on its fundamental merits. It's a very grey area.
I'll turn your argument around: let's say I am a car manufacturer, new to the market. I sell the RemmeltCar and have exclusive contracts with dealerships. Spare parts can only be had through them or directly from me.
Would you buy my car based on this information?
Judging buy your post, you probably wouldn't. If you still would want to drive a car, would there be anywhere else you could go for buying one?
My point: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers. They have a monopoly (if you want to call it that) on their parts, but so do Dell, Compaq, Acer, Asus, etc. If you want to buy a computer, there are lots of places you can go.
If your argument is that you want to buy a computer with OSX on it, well, I'd have to let a judge decide that one. Which is how we come back to the topic at hand ;)
Psystar is not reselling the OS. If they were simply reselling the packaged Mac OS, then there would not be (much?) of an issue. Where Apple has them is because they are modifying the OS and kernel to run on non-Apple hardware, and *then* selling it.
The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
I'm sorry, but in this instance, it very much is personal computers that run OS X. The whole point of all this is because Apple want to be the only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. Let me run that by you one more time. The only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. If that isn't the definition of a monopoly, please do tell me what is.
Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service
In this case, Apple have neither control of a commodity (the actual PC hardware, virtually interchangeable with other PC parts) nor a service (running software).
Apple developed their software to work exclusively with their hardware, which is their right. They could develop software for toasters, and they would have the right to copyright that software as well. But you can't then turn around and say that their software should have to run on your toaster. That's the whole point of being in the business of innovation: having something that you can sell that no one else has. In this case, that's the ability to run OS X.
I'm not making the case one way or the other whether this is right or wrong, but that is well within their rights (under current laws) to operate as they have been. The parent's argument does not negate this.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Name those non-standard connectors, please.
By that argument, Nestle has a monopoly on blue containers with Oreos inside.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199