Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[r.j.s]

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.

They did, but changed their minds. Link

 

[lazyboy922]

its funny, what seems to be only 2 or 3 years ago, nobody could give a crap about apple or their products. Now that there is such a buzz with the iPhone , iPod , as well as their beautiful designs, everyone wants one , for cheap! I have been a diehard Mac fan, ever since my 512k, and always paid the premium. I am just used to paying it. I feel like its the new users that get all pissed off about how expensive they are. I am a designer, and Macs have always been the industry standard for me. Hell, I remember just a few years back, it was impossible to even find a decent game for it, and I couldn't see why an average user would even want one lol. Now it seems like everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, and they only have complaints that it can't do this or that, or its too expensive. Get over it. Ive been a diehard Mac user for years, and will always back apples decisions.

 

[econoline06]

Well I think Pystar has a case. I mean microsoft got sued for making IE only work with windows. Its also not exactly fair that they sell OSX on the shelf but don't let you install it on pcs. No other operating system tells you what hardware you must install it on. Its interesting to say the least.

Um, no. Apple's EULA (and please spare me the crap about how EULA's are negotiable, they are NOT) states only Apple hardware. Psystar hijacked Apple's software!

 

[econoline06]

its funny, what seems to be only 2 or 3 years ago, nobody could give a crap about apple or their products. Now that there is such a buzz with the iPhone , iPod , as well as their beautiful designs, everyone wants one , for cheap! I have been a diehard Mac fan, ever since my 512k, and always paid the premium. I am just used to paying it. I feel like its the new users that get all pissed off about how expensive they are. I am a designer, and Macs have always been the industry standard for me. Hell, I remember just a few years back, it was impossible to even find a decent game for it, and I couldn't see why an average user would even want one lol. Now it seems like everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, and they only have complaints that it can't do this or that, or its too expensive. Get over it. Ive been a diehard Mac user for years, and will always back apples decisions.

...where have you been man? Maybe you didnt' give a crap about their stuff but plenty of us did.

 

[thechidz]

so has anyone seen or heard of someone buying the open pro? curious about that one....

 

[econoline06]

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.

What is this? Another business student? Maybe???? No sarcasm. This may come as a SHOCK to many of you but having a monopoly is NOT ILLEGAL AT ALL!!!!! Look it up.

 

[r.j.s]

so has anyone seen or heard of someone buying the open pro? curious about that one....

According to the CEO, their sales have been in the thousands ...

 

[econoline06]

So you willing to pay $500 for OS X? As that is what it will cost to buy OS X if Apple is forced to remove the lock so they can regain the profits they would lose from the hardware sales and people not buying OS X anymore due to incompatibility with the dozens of configurations there are.

Apparently you work for Apple or you pulled those numbers out of your......

 

[lazyboy922]

...where have you been man? Maybe you didnt' give a crap about their stuff but plenty of us did.

well I certainly did too, I speaking more in terms about the mild to average computer user. Nobody I have known before the days of the iPod knew anything about Macs. It wasn't until recently that apple has really been making headlines and truly competing in the market. My point is that 5 years ago, I never heard people comain that Macs were "too expensive" .

 

[econoline06]

all retail copies of mac os x ARE upgrades. you are upgrading from an earlier version of mac os - the one that shipped with your computer.

There is no such thing as a stand alone version since there are no macs that sold without an os.

Incorrect, buddy. When I purchased Mac OS 10.5 for my G5 which shipped with 10.3, it was a full stand alone version. It has the ENTIRE operating system included, meaning I can wipe the disk and start over completely. You need to spend some quality time with a dictionary. When you purchase a Mac from ebay, say, legally they cannot include an OS. Therefore your logic is faulty. Macs can be sold without an OS.

 

[econoline06]

well I certainly did too, I speaking more in terms about the mild to average computer user. Nobody I have known before the days of the iPod knew anything about Macs. It wasn't until recently that apple has really been making headlines and truly competing in the market. My point is that 5 years ago, I never heard people comain that Macs were "too expensive" .

That maybe have been your experience, but "everyone I knew" said the opposite. It just depends on who you know. There is no definition of "mild" or "average" computer user. Just saying.

 

[r.j.s]

Incorrect, buddy. When I purchased Mac OS 10.5 for my G5 which shipped with 10.3, it was a full stand alone version. It has the ENTIRE operating system included, meaning I can wipe the disk and start over completely. You need to spend some quality time with a dictionary. When you purchase a Mac from ebay, say, legally they cannot include an OS. Therefore your logic is faulty. Macs can be sold without an OS.

Actually, according to Apple, they are upgrades. The fact that the whole OS is on the disc not relevant, MS does it too with their upgrades. Makes the process easier for everyone, and it gives the user the ability to do a fresh install.

 

[Wondercow]

Incorrect, buddy. When I purchased Mac OS 10.5 for my G5 which shipped with 10.3, it was a full stand alone version. It has the ENTIRE operating system included, meaning I can wipe the disk and start over completely.

And that means it's not an upgrade how, exactly? There are many, many apps that follow the same path. In fact, all iPhone/iPod Touch apps are upgraded by installing a full version. I believe that even Windows upgrades have the full OS on the disc.

You need to spend some quality time with a dictionary

noun
an act of upgrading something.
• an improved or more modern version of something, esp. a piece of computing equipment.

Please point out where it states that an upgrade is conditional on getting a partial version.

When you purchase a Mac from ebay, say, legally they cannot include an OS. Therefore your logic is faulty. Macs can be sold without an OS.

That's incorrect. In fact, they must provide the original system if available. It would be illegal to keep the original system disc without the system with which it shipped.

 

[digitalbiker]

Um, no. Apple's EULA (and please spare me the crap about how EULA's are negotiable, they are NOT) states only Apple hardware. Psystar hijacked Apple's software!

EULAs are not negotiable but neither are they valid if they place undo restrictions on the property. That is the point of this lawsuit.

It will test whether Apple can legally bind the purchaser of OS X to Apple hardware.

Many people, whose opinion I trust, seem to think that Psystar has a valid chance to beat the EULA in court. It will all depend on how clean Psystar was in getting OS X to run on the PC. If they have modified or circumvented any Apple code the lawsuit will fail before the EULA is even tested

Personally, I think it would be good for Apple to open up OS X. They can restrict the warrantee so that they are not obligated to support OS X on anything but Apple hardware. That way it costs them nothing. Apple gets more sales of OS X to the low end PC customer. OS X gets more exposure. Apple most likely wouldn't lose any hardware sales and would probably increase sales for people wanting the full Apple experience OS X on Apple hardware.

 

[wizical]

psystar needs to go away

the bottom line of this is that psystar wins this case. You are going to see the market flooded with crappy apple knockoffs that will make Mac OS X look like crap cause it is running on bad hardware. Apple Software is designed to work on apple hardware, nothing else.

if people are putting apple software on PC hardware, and it doesnt work right. All of a sudden, people are going to start complaining that it doesnt work on their PC and start stating that apple makes crappy software

This is why I rather pay the extra money for the apple cause I know the hardware is incredible and works really well.

 

[digitalbiker]

the bottom line of this is that psystar wins this case. You are going to see the market flooded with crappy apple knockoffs that will make Mac OS X look like crap cause it is running on bad hardware. Apple Software is designed to work on apple hardware, nothing else.

if people are putting apple software on PC hardware, and it doesnt work right. All of a sudden, people are going to start complaining that it doesnt work on their PC and start stating that apple makes crappy software

This is why I rather pay the extra money for the apple cause I know the hardware is incredible and works really well.

This is just FUD. Apple doesn't have to warrant OS X for all PCs, they just can't restrict the license to Apple hardware only. Therefore if someone buys OS X for non-Apple hardware they will be assuming the risk of it not working. Apple has no obligation to make it work on all hardware.

If Sony or Dell sold the hardware with OS X pre-installed then it would be up to Sony or Dell to provide the warrantee, not Apple.

Most Apple users will buy Apple hardware, so Apple most likely will lose very few sales. This will be especially true if Apple continues to innovate and produce outstanding hardware designs.

 

[opeter]

If Sony or Dell sold the hardware with OS X pre-installed then it would be up to Sony or Dell to provide the warrantee, not Apple.

Thats not true. The warranty must be provided by the software-maker, in this case: Apple.

 

[itickings]

This is just FUD. Apple doesn't have to warrant OS X for all PCs, they just can't restrict the license to Apple hardware only. Therefore if someone buys OS X for non-Apple hardware they will be assuming the risk of it not working. Apple has no obligation to make it work on all hardware.

If Sony or Dell sold the hardware with OS X pre-installed then it would be up to Sony or Dell to provide the warrantee, not Apple.

Nice thought, and absolutely correct in theory. But it won't work out in the real world...

Customers will blame Apple anyway. It doesn't matter if OS X is sold with a big fat sign all over the box clearly stating that only Apple's computers are supported, it will be a PR disaster.

 

[Beric]

I like OS X, but not so much Apple hardware. The prices, and obsession with thinness and light weight at the cost of a well-cooled system, as well as bad graphics cards and no midrange products available come to mind. If I could install OS X on PC's legally (and perhaps even supported), I would never buy another Apple computer.

 

[kiang]

OS X is software that is engineered to be used with specific hardware. Before you start screaming for blood, remember that this is not the only instance of software that can be purchased separately from the hardware, yet designed to work solely with particular hardware.

For years, video games have been engineered to work on specific hardware consoles. Many games have been created to work on different consoles, but these have been separate versions created at the discretion of the publisher. When clone consoles surfaced, you can bet that the original console manufacturers quickly used the copyright infringement card.

Apple makes the hardware and the software. The way I see it, they have every legal right to snuff clones.

OK, everyone: STOP BEING AN *SS, and don't use any more idiotic arguments for Apple's protectionist OSX-policies: video games are designed for different hardware platform, running different OSs. There is however no law or EULA-term stating you can't stick your gamedisc in a different console (which would work offc...), or better: nothing stops you from building your own machine and OS to run the game.
OSX however is designed for an x86 platform with EFI-provided hardware, which is not Apple-exclusive. We can without much effort build a machine that is compatible with OSX, and it's called a PC...

There is no reason why OSX shouldn't run on PC-hardware, because it's the exact same hardware as in macs! Yes, there are less OSX-drivers available, but that will change as soon as Apple would open up OSX to all hardware.

The reason Apple limits OSX to their own hardware is (go figure) because it makes them more money, end of story.
I'm not saying Apple makes their hardware too expensive, but they just limit your choice for no technical reason.
Cause what would stop me from now building a PC with a normal Core 2 Duo and a GF 8800GT, and installing OSX on it? right: only the EULA of Apple: the hardware and software would work with a few minor tweaks (important: tweaks, not hacks or any illegal things).

Anyone stating Apple has a good reason for closing their OS for reasons other then profit, is a liar or a dumbass.

The driver 'problem' i easily solved: Apple jsut provides hardware manufacturers with a decent driver model, and hands out licenses for the 'works with osx' brand to products after reviewing the drivers. This way we know what hardware won't give any problems and which ones might.

This btw opens up a hole for Apple to start a mid-end tower line themselves.

I love Apple, but it's not like I married them: I want to have choice. This would even make it easier to upgrade your MacPro, making that product more attractive.

 

[kiang]

...You are going to see the market flooded with crappy apple knockoffs that will make Mac OS X look like crap cause it is running on bad hardware...

...So what do you call the mac mini? sure it looks great, but face it: the hardware is real crap. A 300$ Dell delivers better specs.

 

[itickings]

...So what do you call the mac mini? sure it looks great, but face it: the hardware is real crap. A 300$ Dell delivers better specs.

You're confusing bad hardware as in "crash-inducing/unstable" with "low performance/not cost effective". The only thing positive about today's Mini is its form factor. The hardware IS dated, no arguing there.

Anyone stating Apple has a good reason for closing their OS for reasons other then profit, is a liar or a dumbass.

The driver 'problem' i easily solved: Apple jsut provides hardware manufacturers with a decent driver model, and hands out licenses for the 'works with osx' brand to products after reviewing the drivers. This way we know what hardware won't give any problems and which ones might.

Spot on. Apple is a company. A company is all about profit, short term profit as well as long term profit. Apple obviously has made the decision that their current strategy will maximize profits. That's their prerogative, as long as they don't violate any laws.

As much as I'd like a mid-range tower, it isn't Apple's responsibility to sell me one. Apple's responsibility is to the shareholders, to maximize profits in the long run.

As to the driver 'problem', keep in mind that "easy solutions" aren't always practical or realistic solutions. That easy solution would require resources, and Apple to go "All in" officially targeting all PCs.

Thats not true. The warranty must be provided by the software-maker, in this case: Apple.

You're taking warranty too literal. With Dell selling computers with OS X preinstalled, it is their responsibility to make it work.

If you buy a Dell with OEM Windows, Dell is responsible for all support etc, not Microsoft. If you buy a Dell with OS X preinstalled and it doesn't work, you sue/complain to Dell, not Apple.

 

[MattInOz]

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."

Someone searched a Law database for a couple of keys words selected part of the overview that best served there argument Ignoring the actual reason for the judgement. Which as a non-lawyer, doesn't seem related to the Apple situation at all. The suit was being brought be people with a legal relationship with OS and CPU provider in that case that made their business reliant on the the OS, while a compatible CPU was available the sale of the OS was tied to the CPU. By CPU they mean the processor, and just a processor. The people bring about the suit had to build a complete system around that Processor.

Apple has a very different base relationship to customer, so the relevance will be the first question. It would be hard for Apples direct customers to show that the bundling of OS and Complete Hardware solution was a tying that would cause hardship if they switched to a non-tied option.

That person must be real lawyer, don't let context get in the way.

 

[Definity]

This has been quoted from another site going on about this.

If you buy Mac OS X, then how you use it is up to you.

Sure it's illegal to copy it but you can run it on any hardware you choose. The hardware conditions of the Apple EULA is not enforceable in the EU, apparently - as this commentator suggests:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/14/openmac_advertised_for_39999.html#comment-1048710

Quoted here for convenience

"Oh dear no, not this again!

1) The reason Apple cannot stop anyone installing a retail copy of OSX on anything they want is the same reason Microsoft cannot stop anyone running a retail copy of Office on anything they want. It is also the reason Black and Decker cannot stop you using DIY drills in the way of trade, and the reason why Vauxhall cannot stop you installing after market parts in your old Cavalier, and the reason why Faber and Faber cannot stop you reading the Collected Poems of TS Eliot in the bathroom by making it a condition of sale that you agree not to.

It is because post-sales restrictions on use are not enforceable in the EU. Not by EULA, not by signed document at time of sale, not if you have to dance it to a jig and sing your agreement in Mandarin before leaving the store. You cannot relinquish your statutory rights as a condition of buying a product, and one of them is freedom from post sales restrictions on use. Read those guarantee forms vendors invite you to send in sometime. See that part about your statutory rights not being affected? Think that's there out of the goodness of their hearts? Its not, its there because its the law.

2) And no, you did not just license it, you bought a copy. As when you bought your copy of the Collected Poems. Or you bought that copy of the Rasumovsky Quartet. Or you bought that drill. Calling something a license not a sale does not make it so. If it walks and quacks like a sale, that is what it will be held to be.

3) And come out of your dream world about "OSX is written for the hardware, and consequently it is far more reliable. OSX is basically a hand tailored suit made in Hong Kong whilst windows is a mix clothes from Marks , Oxfam and things left on a bus. Nothing quite fits...."

OSX relates to its perfectly standard though mostly mid range hardware in exactly the same way any other OS does. It uses drivers. You may not be familiar with these things, they are bits of software written mostly by vendors which permit an OS to address the hardware in question. Driver quality is important. But there is no material difference in how any modern OS relates to hardware and drivers. Thinking that OSX has somehow a more intimate relationship to an nVidia graphics card than Windows or Linux is idiotic. And by the way - its not that the OS was written for the peripheral hardware. Its that the drivers were written for the OS.

Or maybe you are thinking of the processors? Cannot be. Surely you do not think that OSX was written for the Core 2 in some different way than Windows or Linux was?

Please wake up there!

In conclusion. The Apple hardware is no better than anyone elses. It is however a more expensive solution to most computing problems, a more unbalanced set of components, and often is crammed into monstrous industrially designed cases. Perforated aluminum must be one of the worse materials ever for floor standing cases. Well, concrete might be a bit worse. The overheating problems with the laptops are legendary. You will mostly find low end or even obsolete graphics cards coupled with the most expensive processors around, mediocre memory, and too little of it, and very middle range disk drives. Power supplies are at best adequate. You'll find, as with the Mini, hardware features, like the ability to carry it around in your coatpocket, that hardly anyone needs, but which cripple performance though they improve appearance in some circles. It is no more and no less a hodgepodge than any other middle range Intel based machines, just rather more expensive, and less well balanced. Maybe its more of a hodgepodge in fact.

Prediction: this will never come to court. Just as MS will never sue someone for running retail copies of Office under Wine, even though the EULA says it has to be run only on Windows. Why? Because they know they would lose. As would Apple. Now whether this particular company can be bullied out of what it is trying? We'll see. Maybe. This stable door was opened in law however when the first retail copy of OSX was put on sale. Too late to close it now."

 

[AlexisV]

Psystar have no chance.

As its stands, it's possible to buy OS X, modify it slightly, install it on a PC and then spend ages trying to get everything to work as it should.

If Apple were to lose, would they be forced to modify their software, provide support, drivers etc. etc.? If so, it would cost them millions.

Even if Apple did lose, I suspect they'd just put a sticker on the box saying it's possible, but not recommended to install on non-Mac hardware. Sure, they'd alter it so it just about managed to install on a PC, but there would be no drivers, no after sales product support and all OS X updates could be Mac only. It would an 'at your own risk' purchase.

Do you think MS would have lost a court case 5 years ago if someone had sued because Windows didn't work on PowerPC Macs?