Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple

Posted by CmdrTaco on

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."

13 of 660 comments (clear)

  1. Hell yes! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hell yes! by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple. By making the OS more accessible, more people will use it, and there will be less inhibition for people to not get a Mac.

      Using the old logic - the per-unit profit on the OS is quite a bit, so they get a lot of money from the clones that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I seriously doubt the clones will significantly (negatively) impact Apple's sales of hardware - more likely it'll draw on the PC crown mostly, and probably have some positive PC->Apple market change as well.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Hell yes! by pmontra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I believe that it will damage Apple in the short and mid term. Apple will lose revenues for selling the hardware and the option of raising the price of the OS won't be welcomed by customers. I think that Apple doesn't care to have OSX on 20% of the pcs if that means gaining less money than they do now with a 9-10% share.

      If a market of clones will bring OSX on 80% of pcs then Apple will gain more than now, but that will change what Apple is. Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware, much like HP and Sun. They're very different from software companies like Microsoft which occasionally develop hardware (XBOX, Zune, etc) to sell the software (Windows, which in turn sells Office).

      Anyway, hell yes! As a consumer I'll be happy to see lower priced macs.

    3. Re:Hell yes! by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing is, most Mac users I've seen are rabidly loyal to Apple. I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales (and might gain some from the people who won't switch now due to some perceived inconvenience, but will also not switch to a clone due to the potential of an inferior product).

      Which is right? Only time and seeing the alternative will tell.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. Re:Hell yes! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is Psystar buying copies of OSX that Apple is (voluntarily) selling "forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable"?

      The only thing at issue in this case is how much control a manufacturer should be able to exert over buyers through shrinkwrap "contracts".

    5. Re:Hell yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple 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 Mac laptops have incredible hardware features like magnetic clasps, incredible software features like appfolders, AND incredible features like instant sleep on close/hibernate on low power that require support from both software and hardware.

    6. Re:Hell yes! by dwarg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The kind of company they are is based on where they make their money. Apple makes some money selling high-end video software, but that's about it. iLife comes free with new macs. iWork doesn't have any copy protection on it. Steve Jobs has openly stated he doesn't care if you pirate OS X (he was assuming it would be used on Apple hardware at the time). iTunes barely breaks even, but it helps them sell iPods.

      And that's the point, Apple uses their software to get you to buy their absurdly overpriced hardware.

      The software IS the "Apple tax" and I think it's worth it when I use an Apple product and I think it isn't when it comes time to buy one. But the only way they offset the development costs is when you buy one of their machines because they just don't sell a lot of software.

    7. Re:Hell yes! by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The parent's point is that if Apple wants to sell their OS without the hardware, they should not be allowed to put in the license for that software that you can only use it on Apple hardware. Their remedy, if they don't want their OS being used on non-Apple hardware, is to not sell OS X separately from the hardware.

      When you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray from Sony, do you have to agree to a license that says you can only play it back on a Sony player on a Sony television? Why should it be any different with Apple?

    8. Re:Hell yes! by Arkham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is a hardware company. If they cease to make money on hardware, the will exit the market. Legalizing clones would cause the Mac to disappear, and Mac OS X with it. The OS is not profitable by itself and never will be. The market is just too small.

      They tried it once before, for those who do not know. Clones nearly killed Apple.

      The notion that a judge would rule that Apple doesn't have the right to restrict what computers can run the software that they create is ridiculous. If this succeeds, the next step will be Apple having to add ROMs back into their machines to prevent this sort of crap.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    9. Re:Hell yes! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is forcing Apple to do anything. If they don't want to sell it for $130, they don't have to. They just can't control what I do with it once they sell it to me.

      Apple has no right to a return on their investment. If their business model depends on selling me an item, and then controlling what I can do with it after they sold it to me, they should have picked a better business model.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Re:If this works... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  3. It should be legal by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. OSX will enjoy the same success... by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.