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.
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)
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.
Not all Mac users "have more money than tech sense" y'know.
I use Macs because they are the best fit for the job I use them for - internet, email, word processing, video editing, photo editing.
There is no possible Windows solution that is better for the tasks I use my computers for.
In terms of usability, the Mac does "just work" - this doesn't mean it never crashes or has problems (that would just be silly). But for the 95% of the rest of the time where it's working fine, Mac OS X works for me.
I have Ubuntu installs too, on the older machines in collection that I still use (you know, Apple hardware ages pretty well, and Ubuntu runs pretty well on it).
You'll counter my argument by telling me that I could just use Ubuntu full time and it would be cheaper and better, but until I can run Photoshop (yes I do have a fully paid for copy of CS), Final Cut Pro and other commercial apps, I'll stick with OS X as my main OS. For all the ancillary stuff that works just as well on Ubuntu as it does on OS X, since my main machine is OS X, I don't really see the need to explicitly use something else - there's no problems with spyware, viruses, malware and other junk to worry about, so it's win-win.
Your arrogance that you automatically assume that you know more than all Mac users is unbecoming. Grow up.
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.
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.
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...
'Monopoly' is a business model. Like it or not, governments already decide whether business models are 'wrong' or not.
The government's job is to protect the people. Everyone disagrees on exactly how this is done, but quite a few think that businesses should not be able to dictate what people do with products that they buy.
Others, think that IP rights are more important and that businesses should be able to tell their consumers what they can do with things they have purchased.
This is actually one of the biggest battles our court system is facing right now: The rights of the buyer vs the rights of the creator. (Or at least, IP-holder.)
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
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.
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 does NOT have a monopoly. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on selling Macs is like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Mustangs. The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
That BeOS, OS/2, and NEXTSTEP enjoyed. The fate of technically superior, generically compatible, for-profit alternative operating systems is pretty well established.
There are three ways to build a successful OS:
- Legacy monopoly position
- Free (libre)
- Make your money on hardware
Selling a "premium" OS for generic hardware is a surefire path to irrellevance.
Apple's business model is hardly failing. They're doing incredibly well in fact. Trying to force them to sell their product to work on every generic PC is what is going to cause them to fail.
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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.
All it does is open the doors of competition and keep apple from putting a chokehold on end users who, through the first sale doctrine, ought to be able to put their bought and paid for copy of OSX on any damned device they see fit.
Apple still has a right to develop its equipment as it sees fit, as well as specializing in synergy between apple hardware and apple software (as long as it doesn't run afoul of the same tying that got MS in trouble with IE), and even voiding warranties if end users don't play by apple's rules.
If I buy a car, it's not illegal for me to do what I want with the parts. I own them, and if I want to cobble together a hot rod out of parts from a Model T, that is my right. Now, mind you, there's an unapplicable aspect about safety regulations that doesn't apply to computers, but as long as I paid for the car, I own it, as well as the parts.
Similiarly, when I buy a computer, I own all of it. The code (just the code, not the IP rights in it), AND the hardware.
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 ]
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.
Name those non-standard connectors, please.
By that argument, Nestle has a monopoly on blue containers with Oreos inside.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
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.