Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[paric]

The problem is that they freely sell the OS on their shelves and on the shelves of countless retailers.

If they don't want people installing OSX on computers outside of their own, stop selling it freely in the store and require proof of ownership of a Mac to purchase it.

If Psystar was pulling OSX off of macs and then distributing software that isn't freely available in any retailer, I would agree there's a problem.

But Apple has done everything possible to make it freely available in the store in a nice pretty box. They want a completely closed system, restrict OSX like I stated above.

Apple makes it available, but not 'freely available'. It is available with restrictions spelled out in their EULA.

You are correct that changing their distribution model would be a solution, but why should they have to do that? You're saying that the best remedy for Apple to keep people from misusing their product is to limit distribution of it by some means. In this circumstance, Apple is being harmed as well.

 

[HLdan]

The people who care about the shiny case and the inflated sense of self worth will still buy Apple's computers. That will never change. And that's great for them.

But to argue that it's suddenly siphoning off all their computer sales is ludicrous.

That is BS and you know it! Here's a thought for you, maybe people buy Macs because they like Apple's product build and quality of their service. I also got news for you, this world is built upon shiny looks, cars, sneakers, clothing, homes. You're on something if you remotely think that most people buy on what's sufficient for their needs without looking at aesthetics.

And it would take some of Apple's sales. Kids with no responsibilities want to sit around and tinker with computers and they are just the one's that would install OS X and never consider a Mac.

 

[gnasher729]

So that person should then be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for using a non bakery sanctioned toaster?

You seem to think that a baker telling you what toaster you can use is absurd. It is absurd, but not because it would be somehow illegal, but because it would be economically stupid for the baker to do so. Nobody would buy their bread, so they would go out of business rather quickly.

But now imagine a new bakery opens their shop, and their bread is absolutely fantastic and everyone wants to buy it, no matter what the price. People would indeed buy their toasters in order to get the bread. So why do you think would that be illegal? It is your choice to buy boring old bread from the supermarket and use any toaster you like, or buy the fantastic new bread and use their toaster.

 

[r.j.s]

That shows the OSX software they install and one of the products you buy.

That does not imply endorsement. If I show a picture of a car I'm selling with Firestone tires on it, that doesn't mean Firestone endorses my company.

Actually it does, if you read the trademark law I posted, it says that the association just needs to cause enough confusion to the average person. All of us here are above average in that we know that Apple does not endorse Psystar. However, Joe Schmoe may not know that, and goes to buy an open computer because he used his buddy's Mac, liked what he saw, wants his own, but cannot afford an Apple one.

 

[kntgsp]

Apple makes it available, but not 'freely available'. It is available with restrictions spelled out in their EULA.

You are correct that changing their distribution model would be a solution, but why should they have to do that? You're saying that the best remedy for Apple to keep people from misusing their product is to limit distribution of it by some means. In this circumstance, Apple is being harmed as well.

But it is freely available. I can walk into any Apple store, or Best Buy or MicroCenter, say "I would like to purchase this box of OSX". And they sell it to you no questions asked.

If you want enforceability of EULAs, they should be behind glass and you should be asked if you're purchasing it for use on a Mac computer or sign a written consent form.

This "shrink wrap" licensing is such nonsense. The model needs to be changed. It's partially the same principal behind those radio ads where the disclaimers are read to you at incomprehensible speed. A lot of those dealerships have been forced to discontinue those ads due to it being unconscionable in the eyes of the court.

 

[domain]

/ranton

Blah Blah Blah....

First off, Pystar is only relevant for one reason... Mac OSX. Such a poorly designed machine (horribly acoustically flawed for sure), with such poor components, along with the offered price would be *completely* irrelevant if they weren't riding the Apple name. No OSX... no one would care what-so-ever. Another fly-by-night that would crash and burn before takeoff.

As for the arguments against Apple's pricing? Don't like it, don't buy it... and no don't compare a Mac Pro to the "zomg super cheap components" you priced on Newegg.... Do you even know what fully buffered ECC memory is?

Finally as for the complaints towards OSX licensing etc etc.... ask your self the following questions:

1.) I own a Mac
2.) I bought and payed for a copy of Mac OSX to specifically install on non-Apple Hardware (and no where else)
3.) Mac OSX is good enough that i'd like to run it on non-Apple hardware.

If you can't answer yes to at least 2 of the 3 above questions, what you have to say is IMHO irrelevant. I'm not sure at what point we turned into an "entitlement" society... but all the complaining is getting old. Either pay the man, make something better, or go away.

/rantoff

 

[kntgsp]

Actually it does, if you read the trademark law I posted, it says that the association just needs to cause enough confusion to the average person. All of us here are above average in that we know that Apple does not endorse Psystar. However, Joe Schmoe may not know that, and goes to buy an open computer because he used his buddy's Mac, liked what he saw, wants his own, but cannot afford an Apple one.

You know how easy that is to circumvent? Put a little disclaimer on any Psystar ad:

"Not endorsed by Apple Inc."

 

[r.j.s]

You know how easy that is to circumvent? Put a little disclaimer on any Psystar ad:

"Not endorsed by Apple Inc."

But they didn't even bother to do that ... hence the trademark infringement suit.

 

[ThirteenXIII]

so can i sue my wireless company over the choices of phones i can use with their service or vice versa?

i mean this is kind of ridiculous to me...it seems that any company could be sued by someone because their software doesnt work with "x" OS, or doesnt run on computers slower than a certain speed. etc etc.


In retrospect, itd be nice to have Mac OS be able to be installed on a custom built PC, but then there are ALOT of negatives to having that as well.


to me its a fine all around end product that clearly states its purpose and agreements...and Pystar are just acting like (excuse my language) bastards.

 

[zombitronic]

My point was there is no way to enforce it completely. There's no way for Apple to come after every single person who builds their own hackintosh. They'd have thousands of court cases that would stretch for years.

I agree with you, there.

I think Apple feels confident enough with their product line that they're not threatened by the few computer geeks that will build a Hackintosh, themselves. That said, a cheaper, "ready to use" system with OS X preinstalled is a threat to Apple's current product line.

If Psystar just sold "OS X capable computers" without OS X preinstalled and did not advertise how to install it, they might be alright, as far as not violating any EULA or SLA. The end user would have to be knowledgeable enough to get this info from another source. However, the moment they installed OS X on non-Apple labeled hardware, they violated the SLA and brought the wrath of Apple Legal upon themselves.

 

[paric]

But it is freely available. I can walk into any Apple store, or Best Buy or MicroCenter, say "I would like to purchase this box of OSX". And they sell it to you no questions asked.

If you want enforceability of EULAs, they should be behind glass and you should be asked if you're purchasing it for use on a Mac computer or sign a written consent form.

This "shrink wrap" licensing is such nonsense. The model needs to be changed.

Yes, sorry, it is freely available to purchase, but not to use. They could change their distribution method, but why would they when all they have to do is go to court to enforce the EULA, trademark laws, etc.?

Either way, the EULA is enforced, and Psystar is out of business, so I'm not understanding your point. If it is a choice between complicating the purchase of Mac OS X, or taking Psystar to court, of course they will take that route.

 

[kntgsp]

But they didn't even bother to do that ... hence the trademark infringement suit.

Ah, well in that case, they're up sh*t creek.

People seem to confuse my arguments with "down with Apple, Apple bad, blah blah".

I like Apple products. I like OSX.

But I'm not above criticizing or playing devil's advocate. People who blindly follow anything their shepherd says are eventually led to the slaughter.

 

[kntgsp]

Yes, sorry, it is freely available to purchase, but not to use. They could change their distribution method, but why would they when all they have to do is go to court to enforce the EULA, trademark laws, etc.?

Either way, the EULA is enforced, and Psystar is out of business, so I'm not understanding your point. If it is a choice between complicating the purchase of Mac OS X, or taking Psystar to court, of course they will take that route.

I realize that.

It's part of trademark law. Even if Apple doesn't give a rat's about Psystar, they are forced to take them to court to defend their trademarks.

It's the nature of trademark law. Either bring legal action in every case, or potentially lose your trademark. That's not Apple's fault, it's the way the legal system is set up regarding trademark.

 

[kntgsp]

I agree with you, there.

I think Apple feels confident enough with their product line that they're not threatened by the few computer geeks that will build a Hackintosh, themselves. That said, a cheaper, "ready to use" system with OS X preinstalled is a threat to Apple's current product line.

If Psystar just sold "OS X capable computers" without OS X preinstalled and did not advertise how to install it, they might be alright, as far as not violating any EULA or SLA. The end user would have to be knowledgeable enough to get this info from another source. However, the moment they installed OS X on non-Apple labeled hardware, they violated the SLA and brought the wrath of Apple Legal upon themselves.

I'm going to skip over some other comments because you address some of my rebuttals in your post, coincidentally.

That is the main issue. Psystar is simply doing what these people would have done themselves. If they wanted to avoid legal trouble, they should have sold computers and advertised them as "identical in components to Apple computer".

And leave it to the individuals to violate the EULAs. But then of course Apple would issue updates that brick the computers because the board members are greedy killjoys. But Psystar took the more "grey" route and they'll likely lose. Which is a shame.

I don't think Apple realizes how much and how quickly they could expand their market share by adopting a bit of laissez-faire. Or absorbing Psystar and using them as a low-end Apple reseller.

Imagine all those people adopting OSX, without having to grapple with the stigma of "elitism" or whatever the media plays up surrounding Apple. All those low-income consumers putting OSX in their homes.

All those people using iTunes, and then buying iPods to use with iTunes, etc. The revenue stream would be exponential.

That's my main criticism. I think they could make more money by embracing this than by squashing it. But the nature of trademark law is either defend it or lose it, which sucks.

 

[paric]

I realize that.

It's part of trademark law. Even if Apple doesn't give a rat's about Psystar, they are forced to take them to court to defend their trademarks.

It's the nature of trademark law. Either bring legal action in every case, or potentially lose your trademark. That's not Apple's fault, it's the way the legal system is set up regarding trademark.

Rock on.

I'm outahere.

 

[gnasher729]

It comes down to this: Apple hardware + Apple software = One product. If you like the software, pony up the money and buy the hardware. You can get the job done with other hardware and software combinations if that's too much to ask.

Actually, that's not what it comes down to. What it comes down to is: Apple is the copyright holder of MacOS X and can sell it any way they see fit and no other way. Arguments can be made what is the best for consumers, or the best for Apple, but the only real argument is that Apple owns MacOS X and therefore Apple makes the rules.

Psystar claims that Apple is acting in an anti-competitive way. People sometimes confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Apple competes with Dell, HP, and every other PC maker including Psystar, and they do this among other things by taking advantage of the unique value that MacOS X represents. That is the essence of being competitive, to create a unique value to convince customers to buy your products and not the competitors'. Apple has every right to protect their unique value.

Does Apple prevent Psystar from competing? Not at all. Psystar is free to produce hardware that is cheaper or better than Apple's hardware, make it work well with an OS like Windows Vista or Linux, add some additional software to it, design attractive cases, do some clever advertising, give three years warranty, anything they want to do to beat Apple (and Dell or HP) in the market. What they cannot do is to commit copyright infringement to take advantage of Apple's unique value.

 

[corinhorn]

All the analogies in this thread are flawed and pointless. Hamburgers, gum, cars, furniture, toilets, etc are not computers or software. I realize that analogies are used to simplify confusing scenarios, but they are also used to be one-sided to lead and slant to a specific point without taking in regards to other factors. Most analogies can be picked apart with very little difficulty rendering them mute.

From reading the majority of the posts on this thread, there are 3 things that the Pro-PissStar people are rooting for.

1. A mid-level tower - I can honestly see both sides of the mid-level tower argument. The problem is that mid-level towers by nature are marketed to consumers, not professionals. The iMac is Apple’s main consumer desktop and I believe they want to keep it that way. Apple believes in a simple over-all experience for their consumer machines and a mid-level tower could conflict with that philosophy—like it or not, that is the way Apple is. Also, the #1 goal of Apple Inc. is to make money. If they felt that there was a market for a mid-level tower (or a stripped down Mac Pro) they would fill that market. The number of posts at sites like MR that are calling for a mid-level tower is not evidence of market demand. Sites like MR by their nature are going to have spirited and vocal users .

2. Competitively priced machines - If you compare most of Apple’s machines to competitors spec for spec, they are priced equally. You can’t simply match processor speed and RAM capacity—you must compare bus speed, cache, HD speed, HD capacity, OS (Vista Ultimate is the closest Leopard equivalent), RAM speed, screen size and resolution, viewing angle of the screen, battery life, everything. The exceptions are the MacMini and the MacBook Pro. There are some other differences here and there, but I think the “Apple premium pricing” mind-set is not as you think.

3. Ability to install Mac OS X on any POS - Apple has been spreading itself thin of late and a ruling to force Apple to produce MAc OS X to function on all POS hardware would spread Apple’s resources even more—thinner resources = sub-par products. I feel that those who think they have the right to do what ever the hell they want to with Mac OS X have been mislead. Everyone who buys a Mac and Mac OS X agree to terms that come attached to the products. That’s the way it is with Apple. If you don’t like it, don’t buy Apple—as a consumer, you have choices and if you don’t like the terms that come with the choices, hard cheese.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

*sigh* All the same bickering about the same topic, just three different threads.

Please, Psystar, if you won't stop doing stupid things for your own sake, please do it to end these threads.

*tear*

 

[macenforcer]

Everyone who buys a Mac and Mac OS X agree to terms that come attached to the products. That’s the way it is with Apple. If you don’t like it, don’t buy Apple

Well there in is the problem. Its illegal for apple to do this. Just because some company says something does not make it fair or legal hence the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Does anyone really think its fair for apple to intensionally make you buy THEIR version of a video card when the card is exactly the same as the pc version but twice the price? These are the things apple does. I love apple but I have spent way too much money on their computers when in reality I could have spent 1/3rd that cost and its all because of OS X being tied to it.

 

[kabunaru]

Mac OS X on a Sony would be fine. Mac OS X on a Dell would be a disgrace.
If anything, Apple should just license OS X to one or two PC Manufacturers. Not release OS X for all PCs.

 

[bemayo]

This thread is really unbelievable and I should just let it go, but I can't help myself.

I am stunned by the number of times that posters (or at least one poster saying it over and over) have stated that there would be no harm to Apple if people could install Mac OS on any PC. I guess you guys haven't been around that long, but I cannot be the only person that remembers when Apple actually did license Mac OS. I think that it was Michael Spindler that did it, right before Gil Amelio came on. It was a complete disaster for Apple. The licensees simply cannibalized Apple's sales, and Apple very nearly went out of business as a result of it. Luckily, Steve came back and froze the licensees out of Mac OS 9 (by saying that had licensed Mac OS 8 only (I could have the versions wrong)). They even had to buy out Power Computing to keep them from suing.

Things have changed somewhat since then, but the fact is that Apple does not have a business model that allows them to function as a software company. They are a hardware company, and without those hardware margins, they are in trouble. As I said earlier, Apple subsidizes the cost of the OS development with hardware sales. The fact that Apple charges $129 for OS upgrades (and that is what they all are), does not mean that the cost of the computer is the price you pay minus $129. I'm sure they have some dollar amount they use for accounting purchase per computer sold, but I am sure that it is not an accurate representation of the actual development costs.

Apple can sell (relatively) expensive computers because they have a great OS. Apple can't live off their OS sales any more than they could live off selling their computers to Windows users (sans OS X).

 

[Sedulous]

I bought a new CD/album of a new popular group. Anyone want a CR-R copy? No, it doesn't have cover art or anything but I can sell copies on the cheap. Seems fair to me. Although I don't have permission to sell copies it should be ok, because I think the original album cost too much anyways and there is nothing special about the CD such that I cannot make cheap copies.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

Mac OS X on a Sony would be fine. Mac OS X on a Dell would be a disgrace.
If anything, Apple should just license OS X to one or two PC Manufacturers. Not release OS X for all PCs.

Ugh, Apple better not license their OS on Sony products. It's like everything Sony touches becomes instantly terrible *shudders*

 

[r.j.s]

Ah, well in that case, they're up sh*t creek.

People seem to confuse my arguments with "down with Apple, Apple bad, blah blah".

I like Apple products. I like OSX.

But I'm not above criticizing or playing devil's advocate. People who blindly follow anything their shepherd says are eventually led to the slaughter.

I'm not above criticizing Apple either, but their has to be a reason for it. Unfortunately, feelings have little to do with facts in legal cases. Just because people feel one way about something, doesn't make it legal, that's all I'm trying to get across.

 

[spectravp]

I so why is Apple allowed to get away with telling me that I have to spend almost 2 thousand pounds for a basic feature?

And a Ferrari should cost as much as a Volkswagon. I mean, they both have power windows. They both have heat and air conditioning. Why should I pay $200,000 more for a few seconds off the quarter mile time. After all, forward momentum is a basic and essential feature, no?