Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple

Posted by CmdrTaco on

Daengbo writes "'A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple. He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.' Apple is currently suing Psystar over its sale of Mac clones."

9 of 660 comments (clear)

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

    This is great news for everyone who believes in fair competition in the marketplace. Kudos to that judge, and I hope the countersuit goes well!

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    1. Re:Hell yes! by pmontra · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Apple is neither a hardware nor a software company. They are a total solutions company. They focus on providing vertically integrated products that meet the customer's needs from the hardware all the way up to the software. That's why Mac laptops have incredible hardware features like magnetic clasps, incredible software features like appfolders, AND incredible features like instant sleep on close/hibernate on low power that require support from both software and hardware.

    4. Re:Hell yes! by Nursie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?"

      Who's forcing a price on them?

      They can charge what they like, surely?

      It's the restraint of what is done with it after a sale that is at issue here. If that means that the current $130 is subsidised by hardware sales, then maybe they'll have to look at charging less for hardware and more for new OS versions? Business models have to adjust from time to time, you know. Especially when they are based on artifices like restraint of post-purchase usage which may not be legally enforceable.

    5. Re:Hell yes! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They already want to sell their OS: if they didn't, it wouldn't be in stores. The fact that they think they can dictate what gets done with it is pure, unmitigated bullshit, and hopefully it gets knocked down in court soon.

      Here's the difference. You can buy OS X and install it on any machine you want. Apple won't stop you; however, don't expect Apple to support it as it runs on non-Apple hardware. Now the moment you create a business to start selling it, you become a re-seller. As a re-seller, Apple can dictate what you can and cannot do.

      The crux of Apple's argument: Psystar is a re-seller. As a re-seller, their contract would forbid them to do what they are doing. If they've never agreed to a re-seller license (which I doubt they did), then they're not allowed to re-sell OS X as they are doing. Also Apple alleges to install OS X on generic hardware, Psystar would have had to modify OS X. Apple did not give permission to Psystar to modify their code and re-sell it. If Psytar were just to sell OS X unopened in the box with instructions on how to install on generic hardware, they technically would be fine, but Psystar is actually installing OS X which is not okay. The second part of Apple's argument is that these machines do not receive updates from Apple as they fail some sort of verification. Psystar has been distributing updates by taking the Apple updates and modifying them. Again, Psystar does not have permission to modify and re-distribute Apple's code.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Blizzard and Glider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

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

    When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.

    If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.

    The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.

    Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.

    If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.

    For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.

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

    That BeOS, OS/2, and NEXTSTEP enjoyed. The fate of technically superior, generically compatible, for-profit alternative operating systems is pretty well established.

    There are three ways to build a successful OS:
    - Legacy monopoly position
    - Free (libre)
    - Make your money on hardware

    Selling a "premium" OS for generic hardware is a surefire path to irrellevance.