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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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..
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.
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."
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.
Try a second-hand one - Power Mac's are available very cheaply these days. The vertical integration is what gives Mac OS X its stability and quick release cycles.
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.
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple; ford mustang - I can go to an after-markets store to buy their product which was not made in a ford factory. If you want OS-X, where are you legally allowed to get that...yea...
They may not have the market-share of Microsoft, but they have a monopoly. Just like MS doesn't want people's fingers in their OS, Apple doesn't want people's fingers in their hardware. So if you want to bash MS for monopoly, then you better buy an extra hammer for Apple.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple;
Says who? From what I can tell, you can get a lot of parts for Apple's version of the PC - they are now the same as anybody else's.
Says who? From what I can tell, you can get a lot of parts for Apple's version of the PC - they are now the same as anybody else's.
Internal, not external. We are not talking mice, printers, wireless routers.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
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 ;)
Memory and Hard drives are generic. They are not iSATA or iSDRAM. As far main boards and power supplies, Dell and HP often do the same thing - proprietary boards instead of ATX form factors.
Apple different in only one way - they make their own OS. Dell et. al. buy someone else's.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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.
Pretty much everything in a modern Mac (I'm talking anything from the late 90s on up) is interchangeable. A list of some of the generic parts I've bought from 3rd parties and installed in various Macs:
- CPUs (PPC and Intel)
- Memory
- Hard Drives
- CD/DVD Drives
- Video Cards
The list of modifications you cannot make to a Macintosh (at least, not in an economically sensible way):
- Motherboard replacement/swap
- Power supply replacement/swap
- Case replacement/swap
This is much like how you can buy a (WARNING! CAR ANALOGY...) Ford Mustang and swap out the motor, transmission, rear diff, wheels, etc. You can make major alterations but you cannot redo the whole thing (I'm of the understanding that neither Ford nor a 3rd party who caters to Ford owners will sell you a bare Mustang chassis or body).
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.
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.
You are a moron.
Apple has been cheap commodity hardware for a while, now. They use the exact same fucking hardware as everyone else does. It runs a fucking Intel processor, with DDR2 SODIMM RAM, same as my HP, except my HP has double the features and costs HALF the price, and it's quite easily upgradable.
Are you really that ignorant and stupid?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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 sell the RemmeltCar and have exclusive contracts with dealerships. Spare parts can only be had through them or directly from me.
True, but you can't your customers from buying clone parts from someone else.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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?
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
in the words of the sherman anti trust act unlawful tying.
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
But how many of Dell, Acer, HP nowadays use non-standard parts or connectors, with the exception of power supply bricks. Apple introduces new ports as a matter of course rather than using the standards to which everyone else conforms, it's not like they use a different signaling system, they just use non-standard connectors.
Well, that "double the features HP" (sic) doesn't run OS X, so there's a major feature off the list for me.
Your HP might cost half the price, but what cost, in terms of build standard (and no, Apple is not perfect here, but neither is any other PC maker - Apple just tends to get yelled at more due to premium branding), and choice of OS.
On an Apple box, I can run Mac OS X, Linux (and assorted Unix flavours) and Windows if it's really necessary.
On your "double the features" HP box, you can run Windows and Linux (and assorted Unix flavours).
I'm also wondering what these "double the features" actually are. USB ports? Firewire? Audio ports? SPDIF I/O? Hard drives? Optical drives? graphics cards (not upgradable in iMac and laptops, but not upgradable on PC laptops either), PCI slots? RAM?
I find it hard to imagine you can come up with twice as many features on your HP when compared to a similar Mac.
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.
Boxed versions of OSX are all "upgrades" not full installs. Apple do not sell full installs. Every single Mac shipped comes with a factory full install of OSX. From there on for the rest of the life of the Mac you can purchase upgrades to your original full install OSX which you purchased with the Mac.
/. but if you just RTFA you might realize this matter is now based on misuses of copyrights and nothing to do with Anti-Trust violations.
The reason nobody else can preinstall OSX other than Apple is apple currently do not sell OEM or full install licensed copies of their OS like Microsoft does. Clones like Psystar are free loading of the development work that Apple has put into it's OS. Unless the judge in this case throws out the use of EULA's use by everybody in software Psystar have no chance. If for some reason the judge says Apple has to license OSx to third parties then instead only selling an upgrade for $129 they can sell a full install for OEM's for $999 and still only provide support for apple branded computers.
And by the way there is NOTHING illegal about a naturally occurring Monopoly. Anti-Trust claims (which are claims relating to illegal monopolies) where thrown out by the judge.
I know it's
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.
Name those non-standard connectors, please.
Dude, look at the HP Mini 1000. It has two entirely custom ports on it, one for video out (requires extra peripheral not included) and one for the solid state drive. Way Nonstandard EVERYONE uses non-standard connectors of some type. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Apple introduces new ports because their hardware IO is up-to-date, and they're interested in pushing hardware forward. They haven't had a truly custom port since maybe the ADB connector, and that was decades ago. ADC was pretty custom, but it carried a DVI signal, and MiniDisplayPort is being integrated into the spec. Firewire is also an IEEE spec.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Khyber, I agree with you, but calm down a bit. Apple are smart because of that, it is costing them less to produce their computer, but that doesn't mean they won't charge high prices for their computers. "I find it hard to imagine you can come up with twice as many features on your HP when compared to a similar Mac." I always look at PC to have more features than Mac because they are so much more third party hardwares developed for it at a lower cost, and you can buy them from the money saved from not buying a Mac. Personally I don't few much affected from this news since I don't use a Mac. But if these Mac computers becomes available definitely recommend them to family and relative because OSX would serve their purpose and I don't have to fix their computer so often.
Mod parent up. It seems a lot of people don't know that it's illegal for a car manufacturer to stop third party parts from being made and sold, and it severely undercuts the GP's point. Car people know the Magnusson-Moss Act like gun people know the 2nd Amendment (which is to say they know enough to refer to it in appropriate situations, even if they don't completely understand it).
So what about the micro-DVI or the mini-DisplayPort?
Psystar is providing a service of pre-installing the OS on a machine for their users, and then effectively transferring the license agreement over to you.
Hopefully the courts will find Apple's license unconscionable and violating of natural laws.
I can advertise I am selling 1 million copies of MacOSX out of the back of a truck or on eBay and if they are actually shrink-wrapped by Apple they are legitimate copies. So long as Psystar isn't claiming they are an 'authorized reseller' they should be in the clear.
Pre-installing the OS onto a machine for someone to use should be considered fair use. The road you are going down seems to lead towards the letter of the law of DMCA protection circumvention which seems somewhat plausible, but is an unconscionable steaming pile of crap.
Let's say I tell you I am going to sell you some lettuce and some tomatoes but I am going to tell you that you can never make a salad. That's effectively what Apple is saying. Sorry bud, but it impinges on natural law and natural liberties.
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
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple;
I have purchased several Macs. I always buy 3rd party memory beyond the basic installed memory. I've added 3rd party IDE and SATA (even SCSI in the old days) drives. I even added a 3rd party CPU upgrade (G3 to G4, something that Apple never offered and actually tried to prevent).
So, unless you have some information to back up your assertion, I'll have to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about.
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
An unwarranted, baseless assertion with no argument to back it up? Check!
So this is what passes for justification of the preceding assertion. I'm trying to figure out which particular meme this is derived from. WebKit being a fork of KHTML? Apple using OpenBSD / FreeBSD as the basis for OS X? These have all been debated ad nauseum, and have all been debunked. Really, how is Apple a "code thief"?
This strikes me as not even a very good attempt at trolling...
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 ]
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?
You probably did yourself. It is very hard to get brand named spare parts through non-dealers and either way they are very expensive. The "aftermarket" as the auto industry calls it are basically reverse-engineered spare parts for frequently used products. But if your car comes with not-so-frequently-used parts (like a specific Variable Assisted Steering system on certain older Buick Park Avenue cars or fog light bulbs on my wife's Hyundai Elantra) then you are shit out of luck and you can pay big bucks (resp. $300 and $30) for the part. Or something as simple as a busted front light enclosure on an Acura can cost you $400 from the dealer.
Computer parts are greatly interchangeable compared to cars. Even Apple's can be upgraded, augmented and expanded fairly simple using 'aftermarket' parts (like hard drives and memory). However specific laptop circuit boards of iMac and Macbook's won't be (similar to Dell, HP and IBM/Lenovo parts.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
Umm, I can run OSX on my HP notebook as well. I just go buy the EFI USB bootstick and that's that. 40 bucks and I can install OSX.
Double the features? How about the fact I can take my video card out of my laptop and upgrade it? I have DUAL hard drive bays in my laptop. Firewire is STANDARD on my laptop whereas you'd pay a premium for it on a Mac. My laptop also has S-Vid/Component/D-SUB VGA/HDMI output. I also get a remote control for my laptop, intelligent input/output jacks for audio (optical/SPDIF/Analog/Digital) I also get a card reader built-in and an extra expansion port should I wish to use eSATA or other high-speed data devices.
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, whereas I paid just under a grand for mine. I can expand and upgrade to a far greater degree. Add a $40 EFI/TPM chip that plugs into USB and there goes your "Can't install OSX on it" argument.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
I hate myself for doing this, but to carry your car analogy one step further, there would be NOTHING stopping me from setting up a company, buying your RemmeltCar engines, even if it is from one of your overpriced dealers, and selling kits to install those engines in another type of car - or even, to sell a kit-car with your RemmeltCar engines. I have never heard of a car dealership that would validate the expected end-use for a part before they would sell it to you.
That's what Apple are trying to do here. They're trying to restrict the way that you use a component that you have purchased even though there are no technical barriers to your goals, and even though you wouldn't be doing anybody any harm or breaking any other laws by doing so.
Well, you can't run the cisco os on juniper routers now can you? Maybe we can have a suit against cisco.
Also, you can't run photoshop on linux. Maybe we should sue those guys.
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 ]
Actually, they do have a monopoly. If you buy an Mac you have to buy parts from Apple; ford mustang - I can go to an after-markets store to buy their product which was not made in a ford factory. If you want OS-X, where are you legally allowed to get that...yea...
Let's see. I have bought RAM for several Macs I owned, and it was never from Apple. I bought hard drives for most Macs I owned, and they were never from Apple. I bought a replacement battery and charger for my MacBook; I didn't buy them from Apple (strangely enough, they both have "Apple" printed on them...). I bought a USB card, two new fans, a monitor, and they were all not from Apple. I could install alternative operating systems, and they wouldn't be from Apple but probably from Redhat or Novell or Microsoft.
So where do you see Apple having a monopoly again?
I didn't see the post where anyone said that Apple has a monopoly on computers?
...exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
I think that the point people are trying to make is:
When one wants to run Windows or Linux, one can use Dell, Compaq, Acer, Asus, etc. (to use your hardware vendor list), but when one wants to run OSX, one has to use Apple hardware.
According to Wikipedia:
In economics, a monopoly
There are those that would argue that Windows and Linux are not viable substitute goods for OSX. You may not agree.
- phrend
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
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.
The problem with your "definition" is that "computers with OS X preinstalled" is not a market.
Determining what is or is not a market can be a bit difficult, but the following can help: There are many things I would like to buy. Typically, if I buy something in one market, I still want the things from other markets, but I have less desire to buy things in the same market. I might be looking at LCD TVs and Plasma TVs. If I buy one of them, I suddenly don't have any desire for the other anymore; I conclude that LCD TVs and Plasma TVs are in the same market. But TVs and DVD players are in different markets; after buying the TV, I still want the DVD player.
Now lets at the "computers with OS X preinstalled": Someone might go to two computer shops, looking at a computer with OS X preinstalled and a computer with Windows preinstalled. After buying one of these computers, that person is suddenly much much less interested in the other computer. Conclusion: Same market. Therefore: No monopoly.
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.
Psystar is providing a service of pre-installing the OS on a machine for their users, and then effectively transferring the license agreement over to you.
Hopefully the courts will find Apple's license unconscionable and violating of natural laws.
Installing MacOS X without permission by the license is copyright infringement. So Psystar is not providing a service, they are committing copyright infringement. By doing so, the license is automatically voided, similar to the GPL license. That box they used to install MacOS X is now worthless, because it doesn't have a license anymore. There is no license left that Psystar could transfer.
And the same court that made the current decision has already stated very, very clearly that Apple is absolutely in its right as the copyright holder to license MacOS X in exactly the way it wants and no other way.
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.
The argument is irrelevant, because monopolies aren't illegal. What is illegal is using a position of monopoly to unfairly stifle competition.
Say there's a company with a monopoly on steel. Say I want to start a car company. The company's monopoly is perfectly legal as long as I can buy steel at the same price as everyone else. But if there's no way I can start a car company because the steel monopoly will only sell to existing big companies, the steel company is using their position of monopoly to unfairly stifle competition.
Apple is definitely trying to stifle competition. Whether they're doing it unfairly or not is all that is material.
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.
Memory and Hard drives are generic. They are not iSATA or iSDRAM.
:P
Apple does have iSCSI.
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?
But by this logic you could make the comparison to the Tesla: Its a Lotus. So what Apple is currently doing would be the same idea as Lotus suing Tesla for using their platform. Except that Lotus actively encourages this as far as I am aware, they make a sale, and they get their platform out there in the market more than they would have otherwise. Or if you don't like the analogy then consider this: Anyone can purchase any model of car from any manufacturer, modify it in any way that meets legal standards and sell it on. Furthermore anyone can purchase any engine from any manufacturer and drop it into any frame they like and sell it on. In all senses the car analogy favours Pystar in this case, as it would for any other industry. Software just has this weird pile of rules applied to it that apply to no other industry because those rules would make no sense to consumers in any other industry.
I honestly believe that Apple are more concerned about people realising Apple hardware is no better than cheap generic hardware than they are of losing control of their platform. That and Jobs has this obsessive idea that Apple must control the user experience from end to end for reasons that completely evade me.
You are making a terrible metaphor. Ford does have a monopoly on producing mustangs. That is why people aren't producing mustangs. Trust me if someone reverse engineers and sells a mustang. They will get their asses sued and will lose. What Psystar is arguing and this is specific to Florida is that a contract tying to devices together where tying is only caused by that contract can be considered a Monopoly because you are forcing the consumer to buy a certain product. This is exactly what Apple has been performing and I hope this is an excellent wake up call to them. Source: http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/fl/law/antitrust.html If you want to learn more before using caps.
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?
Good luck finding an upgrade for that daughter board from anyone other than HP.
Firewire is standard on all Macs *except* the latest Macbooks. All Macs have a DVI output port, that can be used as an S video/composite/15 pin D-sub VGS, HDMI port with the correct adapter (some have full size DVI ports, some have smaller ports, newer models have the mini port). No remote as standard with Mac laptops, but only with the desktops, analog/digital (spdif) connectors on all Macs (including the new Macbook), expansion port on Macbook pro for eSATA. No dual HD bay on the laptops though - I guess that's the price you pay for it being all bundled up in a 1" thick package.
So, your "double the features" consist of the dual HD bays and the ability to upgrade your graphics card with a new card supplied only by HP. Oh, and I guess the remote control, although you can get one of those for the Apple if you want - its just not standard on the laptops.
All that, on the base Macbook Pro, is exactly $1999, not $2500. If you paid under $1000 for your premium HP laptop then fair play to you, but I am a little sceptical, unless it's made of duct tape (all the ones I have seen on the web which say they're light look a bit plasticy and bulky to me, but I am aware not everyone wants an all-metal sleek box). Whether it's worth the extra thousand bucks (if that is the true price difference) is down to the people who buy them, and in my case, even if the price is shown to be $1000 different, I am going for the Apple every time. Personal choice though :)
And sure, you can boot OS X with an extra bootstick, but at the moment, not legitimately, as far as Apple is concerned, and even if you don't care about that (legality of EULAs aside), it adds $40 to the price of your laptop.
There is no question that Apple is the copyright holder, but your claim of infringement is wrong.
From Wikipedia:
"Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."
"The first sale doctrine is a defense to infringement of the distribution right. It permits a lawful purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of it."
Psystar is a lawful purchaser of MacOSX, and reselling the machine it is being sold on under the guidelines of fair use, but let's assume that you don't believe that.
The link for the Leopard hardware and software product agreements is here:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
If you read the section 3. on "Transfer" in the Leopard license, the one-time transfer of the license appears to cover Psystar safely. One could argue that there appears to a flimsy contradiction
between the 2. "Single Use" on a non-Apple-labeled computer and the Transfer right.
That withstanding, it does not appear Psystar has done anything that would terminate the license so long as they are a lawful purchaser of the operating system. The license is still in force and full effect.
The unconscionable bit that Apple is trying to enforce is how the consumer is restricted to what the consumer believes is a paid-for product.
Aside: I suspect in the future as a result of this litigation, Apple will be reviewing its license agreements and come up with ones even more Draconian than they are now.
But onto your other point that shows a complete lack in understanding of how contracts work: "By doing so the license is automatically voided, similar to the GPL License."
Again, incorrect had you actually read the GPL you'd see this bit:
"If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances."
Both GPL and the Apple license parts are still in force unless explicitly terminated by one of the agreeing parties and in a court of law, all of the remaining terms still apply.
While your last statement "And the same court that made the current decision has already stated very, very clearly that Apple is absolutely in its right as the copyright holder to license MacOS X in exactly the way it wants and no other way."
may be true. It appears the actual letter terms of the software license isn't written the way Apple intends.
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?
Saleen is a manufacturer. The car you buy from them ( even tho it LOOKS like a mustang ) is technically not a ford anymore , it is a saleen.
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?
If that isn't the definition of a monopoly, please do tell me what is.
A company that has market dominance in a certain industry? Apple doesn't fit that bill, as they don't have majority market share. The problem here seems to be that you think all computers must always have a completely separate OS and hardware. Once you take away that silly premise, Apple are just another product competing in the market.
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.
....This is a case about whether a software house has the right to restrict what hardware you can use the software on...
No true! Apple is a hardware company which includes OSX as part of their hardware. There is no law that forces them or any company to furnish parts to competitor companies. However, since Apple sells unencumbered copies of OSX to anyone with money, a customer who buys a part, in this case OSX, has the right to do whatever they want with that part legally bought from Apple.
Apple could kill this whole thing by simply no longer selling their parts, in this case OSX, to anybody with money. OSX only gets sold to customers who can prove they have a genuine Mac. Requiring a valid Mac serial number before a sale of any Mac part, including OSX should prevent Pystar from doing their OSX rip-off business. Once the owner of a Mac with a given serial number has gotten their copy from Apple, they cannot buy another one. Apple doesn't have to resort to WGA crap or install codes, but just not sell OSX to anyone but Mac owners. Anyone who wants a legal copy of OSX must buy or already own a Mac. Any non Mac owner can buy a copy for the price of a Mac mini.
All theory is gray
You have clearly no idea how much code the past 2 decades NeXT and Apple have donated to the lovely people of BSD.
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.
You and I completely agree. There is no law which requires them to sell boxed sets, yet they do, and they have to live with the repercussions of that choice. If they don't want the repercussions, they can stop selling the boxes or clearly label them as upgrades (which I recommended that they do when Psystar first appeared). Apple does neither, nor do they implement the system you recommend, which would also work.
Instead, they seek to restrict the hardware the boxed, full version will run on through an EULA. This case is testing that clause and nothing more. Therefore, "this is a case about whether a software house has the right to restrict what hardware you can use the software on."
Put identity in the browser.
I don't think car analogies are needed here. :-)
Does Microsoft have a monopoly on X-box? What about Sony and Playstations? Nintendo?
Shouldn't they also be sued to open up the platform? They (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Apple) let others dev for the platform but they don't let anyone else build the hardware. Once you buy games for that platform you are locked in to that platform. If you move over you have to buy all your games again.
Now if someone could figure out how to build the consoles cheaper... Assuming Pystar wins.
Personally I wish Apple would just sell us a motherboard with a copy of OS X and an HCL. Maybe even say minimal Tech Support... Who wouldn't buy a $300 MB from them to put in a case?
There are multiple models of "PC laptops" that have upgradable graphics hardware. My brother has a Gateway model (I don't recall it's model number and he's in Iraq right now), and I've seen many an article on Dell's with upgrade options. I believe Alienware also has/had at least one model.
Contrast this with exactly zero models of Apple laptop hardware that have ever had upgradable graphics.
graphics cards (not upgradable in iMac and laptops, but not upgradable on PC laptops either
bork bork bork!
Really? You'd better tell Nappa/AutoZone/etc that their Mopar parts for my Dodge are more expensive than the dealer.
Here's a hint -- The oil filter was under $10 while at the dealer it was just over twice that. Other parts I've acquired had similar price differences. Often there is an aftermarket part that is somewhat cheaper than the Mopar, and sometimes I use them. All are cheaper than going through the dealer.
You probably did yourself. It is very hard to get brand named spare parts through non-dealers and either way they are very expensive. The "aftermarket" as the auto industry calls it are basically reverse-engineered spare parts for frequently used products.
bork bork bork!
Its not, really. Its more like saying that you can't take the wheels off of the Malibu, and put them on a Mustang, which you can't. I can take many peripherals from my PC, and slap them onto a mac, like printers, keyboards, etc, even some of the parts (RAM, HDD) and they bothe run on the same 110 current, just like your Mustang and Malibu both run on the same gasoline.
You're still wrong. RAM, HDD and CPU are all the same, as is the graphics card. The power supplies are different; many other manufacturers make proprietary PSUs or MOBOs as well. What would you upgrade that you can't?
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.
Pystar are pirates. They are not a legitimate business.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Pystar is providing unlicensed upgrades onto machines that do not have a previous install of the OS. They are also hacking the OS before installing it.
Pystar are pirates. They are not a legitimate business.
You are wrong on all counts except for the part about the machine not having a previously installed OS.
1) Anyone can buy a shrink wrapped copy of Mac OS X. They have and they are installing it.
2) They are running a pre-boot software, but they aren't "hacking the OS" unless the definition of hacking has become so broadly vague that that is the same as installing it.
3) They have been a Florida corporation since 2007. (Granted, the standard for becoming a business is really a matter of just paying a state some money and filing incorporation papers).
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.
I must be missing something or you are very good a stating the obvious.
Apple is ... the only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled.
Ford is the only company that supplies a Ford car with a Ford engine preinstalled
So are you saying anyone that sells something only they make is the definition of a monoppoly?
http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
It's hard to blame HP's machine for not being compatible with Apple's DRM. It'll run OSX just as well once it's been cracked.
You know, I'd be pissed if they spent more time making sure my OS wouldn't work if I did anything nonstandard than they spent making sure it'd work. At Apple it's pretty obvious that the EULA is job one.
It's just insane to use Apple products. With Debian on x86 I could reinstall on most any computer and be running again quickly. With Windows I could install on about as many machines - less breadth of selection, more support for newer hardware.
But with MacOS I could only install on ~5% of the machines out there. Not that the rest aren't capable, but that Steve Jobs feels his profits are more important than my ability to use a product I own.
I may not be MacGyver, but I refuse the buy things that will purposefully shut down if I try to operate them outside of the marketing department's expected patterns.
Twice the features? Even leaving out "DRM renders product useless with 3rd-party replacement hardware", the HP comes (at any price point) with far more ram and drive space, a faster CPU, and potentially better cooling. Competition, it's good for buyers.
If I had to buy an HP part I could - you could not. Haha. You spent more, got less, and got brainwashed into thinking it's more. It's not a religious open-source thing, it's an avoiding monopolies thing. Buying parts you can second-source is just good business. Buying into monopolistic lock-in just isn't good business.
"the ability to upgrade your graphics card with a new card supplied only by HP"
Umm, you apparently have no clue what MXM is all about - I don't have to buy a new video card from HP. As long as it's MXM Type-III I can take cards from other notebooks and install them in my laptop.
My double features still stands - you have to have the adapter for your video out, I have an actual HDMI, D-SUBVGA, S-Video and Component out jacks separately built onto my board.
Also, the DV series is ANYTHING BUT LIGHT. As a former repair tech, let me tell you what I've seen the DV8000 and DV 9000 series go through:
8000 series: Run over by a 10-ton bulldozer - only the LCD and optical drive broke. Another 8000 series came in with a bullet hole in the screen and the bullet lodged firmly in the keyboard. Everything else worked perfectly fine.
9000 series: I've dropped mine off my balcony, and it fell 17 feet to a hard concrete parking lot while still on - only scratched the bottom of the casing, nothing went out of whack, the DVD that was playing didn't even skip. One time I had my hands on a DV9000NR that was due to be Tier-X (beyond economical repair) only because the thing got pissed on - the entire laptop still worked fine (it belonged to a porn studio.)
I'd like to see your Apple hardware handle that.
Also, directly from your Apple Store at http://store.apple.com/us the lowest priced macbook laptop is 999 - same price I paid for my DV9825NX. Let's see the features compared to my laptop:
2.0GHz Core 2 Duo - just 0.17GHz faster than my laptop.
2GB of RAM - Oops, I've got 4.
13 inch screen - 17" here.
120GB HDD - 320GB HDD here with that second HDD bay.
8x superdrive - I have a 16x +/- DVDRW with Lightscribe.
Non-upgradeable 9400M GeForce card - I have an upgradeable 512MB 8600.
So what were you saying? For the same price I got double the features and hardware - look, you don't even get video out adapters, you have to pay EXTRA for it, same with the remote for your laptop! It comes STANDARD ON MINE!
Sorry, I've been an Apple repair tech, and an HP repair tech, so I'm in the perfect position to say without ANY DOUBT that Apple hardware is overpriced beyond a reasonable margin.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The now-defunct ADC is a good example, used for older apple displays. Then they went to using mini-vga and mini-dvi ports which i think may not necessarily have been proprietary, but definitely were not very common. Last year they introduced the display port which is another new proprietary display connection requiring slightly more expensive adapter than the previous generation, and even with some HDCP restrictions.
Other than display ports, however, Apple uses mostly standard connections - 1/8" headphone/mic/optical jacks, usb, firewire (kinda), RJ45 ethernet, internal SATA and mini-PCIe, even the battery uses a standard internal connector. I'm not positive but i believe the internal optical drives are still IDE. The iSight camera is actually USB as well.
Also, the nonstandard power connector only applies to laptops as well. The desktops use a standard IEC power cable.
For lack of a better signature...
you really have done absolutely no research on this. Apple uses standard DDR2 memory just like everyone else, they also use standard SATA hard drives and IDE optical drives. The airport extreme card even uses mini-PCIe. Anyone with a screwdriver can replace the hardware in their apple machine, in fact the manual specifically explains procedure for replacing memory, and the new 15" macbooks actually moved the hard drive into the battery bay to make it EASIER to replace!
For lack of a better signature...
Pystar is providing unlicensed upgrades onto machines that do not have a previous install of the OS. They are also hacking the OS before installing it.
Pystar are pirates. They are not a legitimate business.
You are wrong on all counts except for the part about the machine not having a previously installed OS.
1) Anyone can buy a shrink wrapped copy of Mac OS X. They have and they are installing it.
Anyone can buy a shrink wrapped OS X upgrade copy. The EULA, which is available online on the Apple.com website, specifies that those copies are to be installed on an Apple branded computer that had previously had a legal copy of OS X installed by Apple. Do you feel that you should be allowed to install the upgrade version of Vista without having owned a copy of XP?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Wrong.
The Leopard license available at:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
Doesn't treat it as an 'upgrade version', albeit there is a provision stating:
"The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple
that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied"
The retail box being sold isn't an upgrade.
I believe that the licenses available at
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
represent the full set of Apple licenses, and the only Upgrade license on there is for the iPod Touch.
Unlike the Vista Upgrade you are referring to, Apple's software is providing a full clean install.
I googled MXM and found that it's not the universal connector/adapter that it was designed to be, hence my initial "good luck" since while I'm sure there are options, you're going to be limited.
The other thing I want in a laptop is portability. If the HP we're talking about that matches the MBP (not talking about the MB here) and is $1000 less, how much more does it weigh? If it can be run over by a car, then I assume it's a brick. Although I've seen the photos of Powerboks that were baked in an oven, and while the keys and screen were fucked, it booted up just fine.
I'm not doubting that PC laptops are cheaper (they're a pile of junk in most cases, with some notable exceptions) but the claim that double the features were present was patently false, hence the thread.
you sure as hell didn't buy just any generic / third party video card. There are almost none on the market, and they specifically have Apple's hand in the pot - For years and years (been using macs since 84) graphics cards have been a very very sore spot.
Manufacturers have indicated an interest, but been largely unable to tie together the whole package:
You NEVER see XFX, BFG, Saphire, etc. making ATI or NVIDIA cards...there are very very few designs available from very few retailers, and have ONLY been manufactured directly by ATI or Nvidia... why? Apple would rather you buy another machine than have you upgrade...
There was a very active community dedicated to flashing PC cards with Apple ROMs, and most of the core of this crowd are in the OSX86 project.