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?
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....
Citation?
Some hardware manufacturers don't employ devs who code for Linux. It's a shame, but hey, that's an extra cost. Linux doesn't yet have the market share to warrant employing dedicated devs to write drivers for Linux (please bare in mind the many, many distros, dependencies, package types, kernel revisions which drivers would need to be developed for. Source code is great, but I don't want the hassle of compiling it thanks).
It's an infinite regression paradox. Devs need to code for existing hardware to increase uptake, which then need support from vendors with newer versions. More uptake is needed to increase the viability of dev time... The trouble is nobody wants to go first.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
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.
Wrong. Section two is all about monopolies. Section one is all about contracts agreements, and conspiracies, with intent to restrict free trade. And a BIG rule is that you cannot have lease agreements or sales contracts which specify that the product in question may only be used with a certain other product. For example, Ford cannot form an agreement with Shell, whereby all Ford lease agreements stipulate that until you are paid off and actual own your car, you can only fill it with Shell Premium. You may note that other people sell gas other than Shell, and other people sell cars other than Ford. Similarly, Lexmark or HP cannot have the nice people at BestBuy make you sign a contract when you buy a printer, swearing you will only refill it with their brand of ink/toner. Yes, even though more than one company makes printers.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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...
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.
Totally agree. This is the reasoning that Codeweavers uses when you buy Crossover Linux from them. I am glad that the judge agreed to look at this again. Its an important legal point. For all of our rants against Microsoft, we forget that in terms of behavior, it is a relatively chastened version of what it used to be. Apple has not yet undergone that learning experience and which is why they feel free to overprice commodity hardware by such large margins.
Please don't ever go into law or business because it is clear that your understanding of either is unbelievably flawed. Monopolies aren't illegal. A monopoly is perfectly legal so long as it came to be through legal competition. The only real question here is whether or not a company can enforce a EULA. There is no monopoly nonsense here. The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it. I hope they get their asses handed ot them for it. I have yet to hear any stories about Apple giving a rats ass about people installing on x86 themselves, only about them getting pissed that these assholes are taking what is an upgrade and installing it as a full OS. The pricing of the OS X isntalls are based on the fact that you are required to install it on a Mac that you purchased...a Mac that has part of the OS costs rolled into it.
At the end of the day if the judge rules that Psystar can do this because Apple sells OS X in stores and voids their ability to say that it can only be installed on Apple hardware I suspect Apple will pull OS X off the shelves pretty fast and modify the way their users can get access to the upgraded software. Or worse, they will put in some godforsaken activation shit like Windows. I frequently get to experience the joy of trying to recover an OEM system using non OEM hardware and Windows demands reactivation and then fails, and then MS says "fuck off, that is an OEM product key." Selling OEM licenses on PCs you built if you don't have an OEM deal has been repeatedly held up as illegal.
End of day, this is a bunch of greedy little assholes trying to take someone else's work and profit from it and a bunch of people expressing a disgusting sense of entitlement in defending their nonsense. Look, if you don't like Apple's terms, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT! That is how this is supposed to work, this is how the market is supposed to regulate itself. Instead, a bunch of moron consumers buy shit they KNOW has bad terms and then pays lawyers piles of cash to try and get their way. But hey, for all the bitching that goes on around here about how evil lawyers are, the prevailing mentality is to support the lawyers rather than not buying products with shitty terms and letting the market sort itself out.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it.
And what exactly is wrong with that? That's what we call capitalism. If you sell Item A, and I sell Item B that works with Item A, then I'm trying to profit off of your work. Or rather, I'm exploiting a market opportunity created by your work. Psystar selling hardware that interacts with data sold by Apple is no different than Apple selling hardware that interacts with data sold by RIAA members.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it.
The value of your gratuitous advice for me not to go into business or law has to be measured against this gem. I believe the system you are ranting against is called capitalism. Products create markets, which can lead to other products that you did not intend. If your sensibilities are so offended, one wonders if the following equally offend your taste (staying close to this subject) :
1. Apple's profiting off BSD kernel (what is your favorite pejorative for Steve Jobs, given your love of Psystar above ?).
2. The entire aftermarket slew of non-Apple products that exist for iPod ?
Or is it that your sensibilities are affected only if rules of capitalism work against Apple instead of for it ?
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.
The BSD license which applies to said BSD kernel permits profiting explicitly.
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
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 ;)
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.
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'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.