If Apple had 95% of the personal computer market, Psystar might have a chance. In this case, it will be an uphill battle for them and they will likely lose.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with that.
The problem is that just because there is a law for/against something, doesn't make it right.
Anyway, I largely care little one way or the other. I like Apple products and will continue to buy some of them.
I'm out, cheers.
True, but getting DC to
Seriously though, IP law has very far reaching consequences that mean a lot to a lot of people. (To put it simply) Disregarding IP would change the world as we know it, and probably not in a good way.
Apple uses EFI supported versions of Video cards if you can find one for 1/3 the price then buy it elsewhere and slotted it in to your Mac Pro (or MXM card in a 24" iMac).
The Problem here is not Apple but the Video Card makers who charge 3 times as much for EFI version over the Indentical BIOS version
Why? because they can and get away with it.
Oddly these cards are all physically identical and the card makers are some of the biggest supports of EFI as replacement to BIOS, yet their own Business Practice says otherwise. If they want EFI to take off, if they want EFI to be supported by Windows, then use the advantages of EFI to deliver a better card at the same price and watch Windows jump in line.
It's illegal and anti-competitive for Apple to sell Mac hardware with Mac OS?
Personally, I never even thought that Microsoft was doing anything wrong by bundling their OS with IE, and I can't see anything wrong with Apple bundling computers with OS X, or anything else like Safari, iLife suite, etc. Bundle if you want. THey're not stopping anybody from shopping with a competitor, and having a monopoly isn't illegal, particularly not if this monopoly is on a product that you make and other people like.
Personally, I never even thought that Microsoft was doing anything wrong by bundling their OS with IE, and I can't see anything wrong with Apple bundling computers with OS X, or anything else like Safari, iLife suite, etc. Bundle if you want. THey're not stopping anybody from shopping with a competitor, and having a monopoly isn't illegal, particularly not if this monopoly is on a product that you make and other people like.
Slightly off topic, but the really expensive Farrari's don't have power windows, heat or aircondition. No also to sound system. What they do have is a really big motor in a very light frame and just enough other material to make road worthy
Part of EULA invalid
Copied from a post on slashdot:
Insisting that Apple's separately sold software has to be run on Apple's hardware is an unenforceable and illegal tying arrangement under US antitrust law.
This exact issue has come up before in 734 F.2d 1336 DIGIDYNE CORP. v. DATA GENERAL. [precydent.com]. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "The issue presented for review is whether Data General's refusal to license its NOVA operating system software except to purchasers of its NOVA central processing units (CPUs) is an unlawful tying arrangement under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1976) and section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14 (1976). We conclude that it is."
me again;
Apple sells their OS as a retail box. Nowhere on the package does it say "Upgrade". They will lose this point if it gets to court. Apple will try very hard to keep their EULA out of the proceedings. Where Psystar will have trouble is if they modified Apple's software updater updater and redistributed it to their customers. There are legal ways to get the customer's computers updated without breaking Apple's copyright, but I suspect Psystar messed up the details, and that is why Apple pounced.
Copied from a post on slashdot:
Insisting that Apple's separately sold software has to be run on Apple's hardware is an unenforceable and illegal tying arrangement under US antitrust law.
This exact issue has come up before in 734 F.2d 1336 DIGIDYNE CORP. v. DATA GENERAL. [precydent.com]. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "The issue presented for review is whether Data General's refusal to license its NOVA operating system software except to purchasers of its NOVA central processing units (CPUs) is an unlawful tying arrangement under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1976) and section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14 (1976). We conclude that it is."
me again;
Apple sells their OS as a retail box. Nowhere on the package does it say "Upgrade". They will lose this point if it gets to court. Apple will try very hard to keep their EULA out of the proceedings. Where Psystar will have trouble is if they modified Apple's software updater updater and redistributed it to their customers. There are legal ways to get the customer's computers updated without breaking Apple's copyright, but I suspect Psystar messed up the details, and that is why Apple pounced.
2 thing will happen from this.
1. This is going to do is make the lawyers richer.
2. If Apple wins then we are in the same place we are now, Happy little Apple users. If Psystar wins we can save a few $100 dollars on our next computer.
1. This is going to do is make the lawyers richer.
2. If Apple wins then we are in the same place we are now, Happy little Apple users. If Psystar wins we can save a few $100 dollars on our next computer.
Yes, Apple has created a monopoly in the PC business through their Anti-Competitive Practices -- but it ain't the Mac and Mac OS, it was Windows.
JUSTICE TO BREAK UP APPLE
FOR TURNING MICROSOFT INTO MONOPOLY
JUSTICE TO BREAK UP APPLE
FOR TURNING MICROSOFT INTO MONOPOLY
Well, I've got some advice for you, little buddy. Before you point your finger you should know that (imperfect) analogies only obscure the core issues of a debate. A crappy analogy appeals to flawed intuition to support flawed arguments, which is what most of the analogies in this thread have done.
crackpip
Oh, it has probably already all been said by now. But at the end of the day, if I could spec out and build beige-box systems and install a fully supported version of OS X on them at our nonprofit, I sure as heck would. Don't care about iLife, don't care about iWork, just plain OS X would suit our purposes fine even if Apple stripped out some of the bells and whistles you get on one of their systems.
If Apple loses this case (which, they probably won't) they could easily pull a Microsoft regarding 3rd party drivers and wash their hands pretty well of being responsible if you can't get that $800 video card to generate the proper signal and stop consuming 80% CPU time on your beige box OS X machine because the driver was sloppily written by the card's manufacturer.
What the implications would be for Apple's revenue stream would be if they lost this case (which, they probably won't), now that's a more interesting question. Maybe they'd be forced into greater innovation in their hardware to make the extra cost of buying an Apple running OS X worth it, or maybe they'd have to completely re-structure their product offerings, who's to say?
If Apple loses this case (which, they probably won't) they could easily pull a Microsoft regarding 3rd party drivers and wash their hands pretty well of being responsible if you can't get that $800 video card to generate the proper signal and stop consuming 80% CPU time on your beige box OS X machine because the driver was sloppily written by the card's manufacturer.
What the implications would be for Apple's revenue stream would be if they lost this case (which, they probably won't), now that's a more interesting question. Maybe they'd be forced into greater innovation in their hardware to make the extra cost of buying an Apple running OS X worth it, or maybe they'd have to completely re-structure their product offerings, who's to say?
im kinda wishing that psystar would win, i must sound horrible, but if psystar wins, osx will be availible for ALL hardware, and i wouldnt mind buying a cheaper mac from dell, the only reason i dont buy dell is mac osx, if it was freely availible, i might get one.
now i also support apple, i reckon if anybody could use it consumer satifaction would go down seeing as you'd wouldnt get an apple quality computer.
so im torn, but i guess im leaning toward apple, but again apple would hardly lose money over this
EDIT: Who ever said that apple dosen want to be as big as stupid microsoft, is an idiot. you basically said that apple dosent want to be sucessfull, then why the get a mac campaigne
now i also support apple, i reckon if anybody could use it consumer satifaction would go down seeing as you'd wouldnt get an apple quality computer.
so im torn, but i guess im leaning toward apple, but again apple would hardly lose money over this
EDIT: Who ever said that apple dosen want to be as big as stupid microsoft, is an idiot. you basically said that apple dosent want to be sucessfull, then why the get a mac campaigne
Actually, I think OS X for the masses might be extremely good for Apple.
1st - Most die hard Apple fans would stick with Apple hardware and Apple warrantees.
2nd- It would expose more people to OS X due to the lower price point of Dell market type PCs.
3rd- Once exposed to OS X many people would at least attempt to go for the full Apple experience by later upgrading to Apple hardware.
All in all it doesn't hurt Apple in the least, as they get more exposure and more sales of OS X. It doesn't hurt Apple fans because they can still buy full Apple hardware if they so desire. It doesn't hurt the average consumer because now he can buy OS X on a Dell machine or on a Lenova at Bestbuy.
It seems to me that Apple could appease at least some potential Psystar customers by just updating the Mini...
I personally think Psystar is just doing this to make a point-to make people aware of what they believe is Apple's anti competitive and according to them, anti trust violations. Whether or not they win I don't think they really care-I think they just want to see if they can get enough people's attention that maybe Apple will change some of its policies when it comes to things like drivers or 3rd party support.
Sorry, but nobody is forcing you to do anything. Vote with your pocketbook. If ~other~ people see the utility in a machine that works better with less fiddling (Mac with OS X) vs. the competition (Dell, etc. with Vista), and Apple can sell enough to make their desired profit, it doesn't have to fit your sense of utility.
Does everyone buy a Mercedes? NO. Does everyone buy a new car? NO. some people just buy a bicycle because that's what they need.
YOU missed the point in all 3 areas.
1. mid-level tower A lot of business use them, and a lot of people at home have them. Also people like to be able to get a bigger / better screen with out needing to buy a full pc with it.
Also the older mac towers went for $1200 - $1900 not starting at $2300 and when you add that imac screen are not good for pro photo work that is not good apple should have some choice here.
Also screen size is tied to cpu power / video card power you can't get a good video / fast cpu with a smaller screen on a imac or a smaller screen and good cpu.
The lack of good gameing system is also bad for apple as well as they need better hardware to get more games made for mac.
2. Vista Ultimate oem is $180 osx is $130 and home users only need vista home premium oem and it is $100
The mini is very bad buy next just all other systems at $600 and $800.
The mac book pro is ok buy but weak in the video and screen size next to other laptops at it's price.
The mac black at $1500 is bad next to other systems as it's small 13" screen and on board intel video is bad next many other laptops that go for $1200-$1700+ with 15" or bigger screens and real video cards.
The mac pro is good next to other cpu 2 systems / 2 systems with only 1 cpu installed but you can get 1 cpu workstation systems with 1 cpu boards for $1200 - $2000+ a just as good 755 xeon cpu and much better video card then the weak low end one in the $2300 mac pro.
Also the imacs use slower and high cost laptop cpus, gpus, ram and hd's vs desktop hardware.
3.
as for sub-par products most systems now days use a amd / ati , nvidia or intel chipset with a intel, nvidia or amd / ati video card. What are there like 2-4 sound chipsets makes other there.
2-3 network ones? that dose not seem that hard to make drivers for as lot of them are based on the same base chipset like ati and nvidia cards use the same video chips.
I laugh when I read this. I hope Psystar wins.
What if Microsoft put on their EULA that the MS OS cannot be installed on Apple brand PCS? Can MS can than sue Apple for the bootcamp and VMware and Paralles? Sounds like a monopoly to me! So just flip it around, Apple is say you can't install the OS on Joe Blows box. So they sue.
I think this case will set a mark on what the law will be on PC Operating systems. If the judge sets that PC Oses can't be tied to 1brand than it will end Apple as we know it. However, I doubt Apple will want to let it get that far. Trust me, there is to much at stake.
What if Microsoft put on their EULA that the MS OS cannot be installed on Apple brand PCS? Can MS can than sue Apple for the bootcamp and VMware and Paralles? Sounds like a monopoly to me! So just flip it around, Apple is say you can't install the OS on Joe Blows box. So they sue.
I think this case will set a mark on what the law will be on PC Operating systems. If the judge sets that PC Oses can't be tied to 1brand than it will end Apple as we know it. However, I doubt Apple will want to let it get that far. Trust me, there is to much at stake.
If MS did that, then I'm sure they would be vulnerable to some kind of lawsuit - intentionally choosing to single out Apple like that. Now, if they chose to only allow MS brand PCs, then that would be iffy (since they control most of the market, that might be anticompetitive, even though Linux is an option.)
Joe, for gods sake, do just a little research before posting. Your comparisons are so inaccurate.
You are making a big assumption about the results of a Psystar victory. First of all, there is very little chance that Apple will allow a ruling in Psystars's favor. There would be a settlement before that would happen. And not one that would allow the licensing of OS X on third party hardware.
In the extremely unlikely event that Apple is forced to license OS X, there is little chance that they would license it at a price that would allow other companies to undercut Apple's price on the same hardware.
You have an extremely small chance that you will get a wider variety of hardware to choose from, but the chance of cheaper hardware is practically nil.
actually, i believe microsoft has limited virtualization to only high end vista installations. this does not lmit boot camp, but does limit fusion and parallels. of course there are other uses for virtualization, but i doubt most people are in it for the shared virtual server space.
I had to register just for this.
That is exactly what MS did! They backed down after a few months after realizing that they were losing potential customers and just how much extra money they could get.
For what it's worth there is no law that makes a monopoly illegal. Monopolies are just as legal as a non-monopolistic entity. What is illegal is the abuse of monopoly power.