Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[r.j.s]

Unfortunately, Real were peeved, they went to the EU Commission, and they found that bundling software was anti-competitive and very illegal.

This case matters in the US, using US laws. (right now)

Microsoft thought that and it made Bill Gates cry.

Microsoft tried some shady things to become very dominant in the PC world. It wasn't that they tried to say who could sell Windows, they tried to stop PC makers from selling anything else, along with other things.

They're just using open source software to run it properly.

They don't modify Leopard as far as I've understood.

It is preinstalled, works fine, and even updates fine. All software does work, as you will be able to see on the Psystar forums.

I've read the Psystar site, and the part about how after the 10.5.3 update you get from them, the Apple Software Update now looks to Psystar's servers, and you should not try to install the updates from Apple is kinda fishy. I have no proof, since I'm not going to decompile everything (not even sure how) and check, but it seems like they have made some changes to Apple's software. They also say that only the Leopard restore disc will work, not the retail one. Again, sounds like something is different.

Again, whether they actually modified Apple's code or not will be proven in court.

They didn't need to ask because apple's EULA violates a lot of laws.

Except Psystar is not an end user, they are an unauthorized reseller. BTW, which laws? Since this is two US companies going at it in the US, over US laws, only US laws can apply.

A EULA is not a law, it's a usage restriction. If a EULA is held as illegal, you can choose to ignore it. That's what Psystar have done.

Anyhow, they can overcome that EULA by just sticking an apple sticker on their boxes saying "Not a product of apple" next to it. It'd technically be an apple labeled machine then. Technically.

Actually, it's been held that EULAs are legally binding.

Links:

ProCD v. Zeidenberg

EDIT: Removed second link because the wikipedia link to the actual decision was broken.

 

[The Tall One]

It is a stretch

Apple created MacOsX, its their intellectual property and they have a right to license its use.

 

[Sedulous]

They're just using open source software to run it properly.

They don't modify Leopard as far as I've understood.

It is preinstalled, works fine, and even updates fine. All software does work, as you will be able to see on the Psystar forums.

They didn't need to ask because apple's EULA violates a lot of laws.

Actually, they did modify the OS to get it to run, and then again to redirect the software update to connect to a Psystar server. There is no way to get OS X to run on a generic PC without modifying the software in some regard.

And like many before me, I do not see this going far because there are plenty of OS alternatives and Apple does not lock you into running OS X on a Mac. Psystar has no chance because they are reselling Mac OS commercially without permission. It is the same as selling cheap CD-R copies of music CDs.

 

[r.j.s]

First, copyright does not give Apple all rights over how you *use* the software. If I buy a copy of OSX, I'm free to sell that same copy on Ebay. What I can't do is buy 1 copy of OSX and make copies of it and sell each new copy on Ebay per copyright law. Pystar is buying each copy of OSX that they sell with their machines.

You are correct, however, that is not what this is about. This isn't really about the EULA either. This is about how Psystar is possibly modifying OS X to run on their hardware, or at the very least, the are circumventing the protections put in place by Apple.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CONSUMER. This is about someone modeling a business off of someone's else's intellectual property. Although they bought individual licenses, that doesn't give you the right to modify said property and resell it. See Derivative works under copyright law.

It is the same as selling cheap CD-R copies of music CDs.

Not exactly. This is more like buying each CD, ripping it, adding your own song to the end and then reselling the CD-R copies.

 

[TiggsPanther]

I understand that people want choices, but sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to choose your hardware that bad, you can choose XP or Vista or Linux. You still have a choice, but you can't always get everything that you want.

I happen to agree with this. I guess it's the difference between the ideal and the practical.

Ideally, customer choice should be the factor that trumps everything. It's why, back when I used Windows desktops at home, I'd go for built-to-order machines and subsequently upgrade them as and when I felt like it.
It's also why I moved away from Windows to Linux. Choice of OS. Choice of software. Freedom to tinker with the code, should the skills and interest ever strike me. (They didn't, but I appreciated having the option)

From a practical standpoint, I love my now-aging iBook G4. Like any computer, it has crapped out on me on occasion. But it's given me less random crashes (OS and even some software) than Windows, and less "Hunt the Driver or Option" than Linux ever did. And I do attribute that directly to the much more limited hardware options (and resultant coding and testing) that OSX required. I've not (yet) had a problem with Apple where some of the factory components refuse flat-out to work properly with the supplied OS. Whereas I have had issues with Windows not working well with certain USB chipsets.
And that's what I like about Apple. I use a Mac, and hope to continue to do so, to avoid all the headaches I have with the other systems. (I enjoy the headaches. I have Linux for just that reason. But I use Macs to escape that...)

Yes, I'm all about choice. But, to me anyway, Apple's end-to-end philisophy is a choice. And weighing up which one suits you best.

• Windows - Majority of hardware and software is written with it in mind. Hardware/software stability may be higher in some instances. (Far from all. I've also used some really sweet Windows machines)
• Linux - Freedom to tinker. Much lower price, as long as you're a bit more willing to tinker. Don't expect all your software to have Linux ports.
• Apple - Limited hardware platform, albeit with more of a guarantee of the hardware combinations working. More commercial packages avialable than for Linux, but less than Windows. But tends to be more stable and doesn't seem to crash as often.

That is a choice for me. And accepting that choice sometimes means one thing or the other.

I also worry that if Apple lose their ability to lock the OS down to their limited hardware selection, the antipiracy measures they will have to put into place will be akin to Windows Activation.

Maybe my fears are unfounded, but I do worry that this has the potential to significantly alter how Apple runs as a business. And I can't tell whether it would be good or bad for them or us in the long term.

 

[7on]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE CONSUMER. This is about someone modeling a business off of someone's else's intellectual property. Although they bought individual licenses, that doesn't give you the right to modify said property and resell it. See Derivative works under copyright law.

Exactly. I don't know why people want Psystar to win. This is not a win for consumers. If Psystar won, Apple would easier stop selling boxed OSX copies and just charge $50 a year for system upgrades. Then Psystar couldn't resell boxed copies of OSX.

Notice how Apple's not going after the osx86 creators themselves? Apple's not too concerned about hobbists doing this for non-profit work. They're definitely not putting any dents in Apple's profits, and might be getting an equal amount of people trying out OSX and then buying a Mac afterall.

But as soon as a company started up selling their product effectively in half is when they flipped the lawyer switch. Same reason you can't go out, buy a bunch of Benonce albums, and then sell them yourself as a company.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

You are correct, however, that is not what this is about. This isn't really about the EULA either. This is about how Psystar is possibly modifying OS X to run on their hardware, or at the very least, the are circumventing the protections put in place by Apple.

I guess it depends on what constitutes modifying. Is adding a driver (what this is really akin to) modifying OSX? Does that mean when I buy a printer and install the driver I'm breaking the law? Okay, so I'm the end user. What if I sell my used Mac on Ebay and it still contains the driver I installed?

Additionally, Pystar isn't claiming any ownership over OSX. It's not required, but usually when someone makes a derivative of an existing work they then claim it is as their own. Pystar hasn't done that.

I've said from the very start I though this would be an interesting case. Pystar will claim to be in the clear on copyright since they are purchasing every OSX copy they use. They can say that making it work on their hardware is akin to installing a driver. This is something that a judge will be able to easily relate to since anytime you add hardware to a computer you usually install some driver. The case will then fall to the EULA clauses and specifically the one that ties OSX to Apple labeled hardware (whatever that means).

You are right though. Apple will do it's best to make it a copyright/DMCA case. They definitely don't want to have to defend individual EULA clauses in court.

Notice how Apple's not going after the osx86 creators themselves? Apple's not too concerned about hobbists doing this for non-profit work. They're definitely not putting any dents in Apple's profits, and might be getting an equal amount of people trying out OSX and then buying a Mac afterall.

I don't know. I think apple would stop osx86 if they could. The problem with projects like that is that they are impossible to stop. Who exactly would apple go after? A person, a group? Pull it off the torrent sites? Good luck with that. I'm fairly sure if they knew how to stop osx86 they would.

 

[r.j.s]

You are right though. Apple will do it's best to make it a copyright/DMCA case. They definitely don't want to have to defend individual EULA clauses in court.

That is my whole point. All these posts about EULA are irrelevant, since there are bigger legal issues at stake first. Once that is decided, it may come to the EULA, but I'm guessing it won't get that far.

 

[hayesk]

Notice how Apple's not going after the osx86 creators themselves? Apple's not too concerned about hobbists doing this for non-profit work. They're definitely not putting any dents in Apple's profits, and might be getting an equal amount of people trying out OSX and then buying a Mac afterall.

Because they aren't modifying the software and selling it. They are telling you how to do it with your own copy of the software. That's not a copyright violation until you resell it.

People seem to be sketchy on what is legal and what is not. It's not illegal to only sell software for a specific machine. What is illegal is buying someone else's software, modifying it, and reselling it. Anyone who claims that Psystar is reselling unmodified copies of MacOS X should really explain why we have to go to their site and download their software updates instead of downloading them from Apple.

 

[r.j.s]

Notice how Apple's not going after the osx86 creators themselves? Apple's not too concerned about hobbists doing this for non-profit work. They're definitely not putting any dents in Apple's profits, and might be getting an equal amount of people trying out OSX and then buying a Mac afterall.

That's because it would be too hard to find out exactly who to go after and then the end state probably wouldn't be worth it, especially in the PR dept.

 

[hayesk]

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.

Uhmm... MS got sued for Windows requiring that IE be installed. At the time, they still made IE for Macs and even Solaris. So, the statement that MS got sured for making IE only work with Windows is incorrect.

 

[zombitronic]

Speaking of

BEING AN *SS,

it sure is easy to quote something from page 1 of thread and post it on page 12, isn't it? You really get a grasp of the entire conversation going on throughout the thread, don't you?

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

So is anyone who doesn't realize that this is not what is being debated. Of course Apple does this for profit. They're not positioned to lose their hardware profit solely in exchange for software profit. They make money by buying components at low bulk prices, creating hardware with desirable design, and marking up the final product. Their software, in contrast, is sold cheap.

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.

From the IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION section of the Super Mario Galaxy manual:

This Nintendo game is not designed for use with any unauthorized device. Use of any such device will invalidate your Nintendo product warranty. Copying of any Nintendo game is illegal and is strictly prohibited by domestic and international intellectual property laws. “Back-up” or “archival” copies are not authorized and are not necessary to protect your software. Violators will be prosecuted.

Oops. I think you got some bad information.

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).

Part of Apple's Leopard EULA states that you will not install their software on any non-Apple labeled computer. If you build a Hackintosh, you, as an individual, are in violation of the EULA. However, you're not making a profit using Apple's intellectual property, so Apple Legal is probably going to leave you alone.

On the other hand, Psystar is attempting to make a profit using Apple's intellectual property, while violating their EULA. They were aware of this violation from the beginning and deserve whatever the consequences may bring.

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.

You do have a choice. Choose not to buy an Apple computer or choose to build your own Hackintosh. Apple will probably not find out or will probably not care to take you to court. If you choose to profit off of violating their EULA, however, expect the legal consequences.

Next time, check your facts before throwing out insults.

 

[mccldwll]

Wading through all this rehashed crap, it becomes all too obvious that a lot of "folks" from the Dvorak/Enderle type spin factories are working overtime these days. None of this really has anything to do with Pystar, the pizza delivery boys. They have no interest in manufacturing clones; rather, are trying for a quick pay day either as a nuisance suit, or being paid by someone else to front this issue, possibly even hedge fund interests trying to impact aapl share price. Pay close attention to what is really going on here.

 

[nick9191]

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.

Microsoft have never been sued for making IE only work with Windows.

 

[macenforcer]

I like how all the anti pystar people are saying how if pystar wins then it will tear through apples computer sales. Lets let apples machines stand on their own merrit and not on forced sales like they are now. If apple loses massive sales of computers over this then the reason is their computers suck, are over priced and don't ever get updated. Maybe a little competition will kick em in the arse. I'm tired of seeing faster computers for half the price and everyone saying "well it doesn't run os x". Thats about to change folks.

 

[r.j.s]

I like how all the anti pystar people are saying how if pystar wins then it will tear through apples computer sales. Lets let apples machines stand on their own merrit and not on forced sales like they are now. If apple loses massive sales of computers over this then the reason is their computers suck, are over priced and don't ever get updated. Maybe a little competition will kick em in the arse. I'm tired of seeing faster computers for half the price and everyone saying "well it doesn't run os x". Thats about to change folks.

I never said that. I did say that it will destabilize OS X.

 

[liptonlover]

I'm not sure whether Apple will win or not but I hope they do. Having Mac OS X on a PC would hurt Apple's image. Macs are made to run Mac OS, and they do the best job at it. A PC won't do as well, resulting in less of a good user experience from PC users of Mac OS, and Apple is all about user experience. I just don't like the idea.

 

[GRB]

I hope Psystar wins. Apple's ban on using Leopard on anything other than Apple hardware differs from other software/hardware relationships insofar as that RIM's BB OS just won't run on an iPhone/Nokia/anything without major and fundamental modification. Nothing stops OSX running on a PC except for an artificial switch which Apple added in to stop that from happening. There's a fundamental difference here.

Plus, Psystar has case law which they could easily cite. A classic case is back in the days of AT&T's phone monopoly in the 1950s. Back then, if you were using a telephone on the AT&T network (which at the time meant every phone) that telephone HAD to be manufactured or licensed by AT&T. It was illegal to use a phone built by a third party. In the end the courts ordered AT&T to open up their phone networks and allow third party telephones so long as they followed the rules and didn't disturb the function of AT&T's network. With Apple, it's the same thing. No one's asking them to start supporting every PC under the sun, they can keep operating as they were, they just need to get rid of the lock like AT&T had to. Their obligation to the third party users ends there. If Leopard doesn't work on my PC because Apple didn't provide me with the drivers, then that's my fault, as a consumer I'll just choose not to buy Apple and go back to Microsoft. However, Apple cannot as a corporation make my decision for me by adding in the artificial lock which exists now.

 

[bobertoq]

Mhh... Yeah... Now lets sue Microsoft because the Xbox 360 OS only works on the Xbox 360.

 

[Greydog]

The real problem with this is that the games consoles have dedicated hardware that was designed specifically for that console. OS X now runs on Intel chips, which was designed for all computers. You can legally make and sell a machine identical to a Mac Pro (using the same hardware, but not software or design) and they can't do anything to stop you, this is completely different to games consoles that the software will only run on custom built hardware.

What the hell difference does that make?

What this is all about is now that Apple is actualyl mildly popular, the pc hacks out there want cheap, disposable macs at every corner drug store. So, hey Apple, give up on the 25+ years of hard R&D, give away the plans to the clones and stop taking all those greedy profits.

And we'll have a rehash of every other American industry that has gone "open" - no innovation, no consistent quality. Hey I know have the government nationalize Apple and force them to sell macs at steep discounts so that "everyone can have one".

So many of you just want to live off the hard work of others - give me my entitlement. Apple came from outy of the ashes to produce the best computer out there today, f*** Psystar and anyone else who wants to steal it. Where were they when Apple was selling Quadras? Remember what happened to those clones?

Hey let's just give out the plans for iPods and iPHones too so every jack-in-the-box computer maker and ride the wave.

Hey if you're too cheap to pay for a mac, stick to windows. No one is giving away BMWs either. Man it's sad what this country is coming to.

 

[GRB]

Mhh... Yeah... Now lets sue Microsoft because the Xbox 360 OS only works on the Xbox 360.

The Xbox 360 runs on a PowerPC processor, not the X86 standard which all consumer computers (Apples and PCs) now run. That would be like asking Apple years ago to make OS 9 run on PCs, which would be impossible legally since it would be asking Apple to fundamentally alter its products, which this suit (with Psystar) does not hope to do.

 

[digitalbiker]

I never said that. I did say that it will destabilize OS X.

How does it destabilize OS X?

The courts will never require Apple to make OS X operate on non-Apple hardware. The only consequence to Apple will be they will change the wording on the EULA such that Apple does not warrant OS X for non-Apple branded hardware. They will also put a big sticker on the OS X box next to the system requirements that states for Apple hardware only.

It will be the individuals risk if he trys to to install OS X and it doesn't work. Or the support and warranty will be up to DELL, Sony, Lenova, whoever if they sell OS X pre-installed on their pc hardware.

Since Apple will not be responsible and not providing support, very few people will buy non-Apple hardware. Most likely the only people to do this will be hackers and/or low income users who can't afford Apple hardware.

It does very little to destabilize OS X.

If Apple loses significant sales of hardware to some other manufacturer using OS X as the pre-installed OS, it will be because Apple has dropped the ball and is either significantly over charging for the same hardware or they are way behind in updating the hardware.

Personally I don't think Apple has anything to worry about. Most likely Apple will squash Psystar for modifying the OS and the EULA argument will never reach the court. This is how all corporate giants squash their competition these days. Lawsuits.

 

[Counterfit]

It's a monopoly almost akin to the textbook price fixing in the educational system.

Price fixing is an agreement between competitors. That has nothing do at all with monopolies...

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

So Microsoft has to pay to fix a hardware issue with a (manufacturer name)?

Actually, I just looked, and it appears MS does indeed have a retail software warranty. Why you'd ever need it, I have no idea. This doesn't apply to OEM installed software though.

Apple and what they do restrict trade and stifle technology

How the **** does Apple stifle technology? And how does their not licensing OS X restrict trade? There are plenty of other computer manufacturers,

 

[Greydog]

I hope Psystar wins. Apple's ban on using Leopard on anything other than Apple hardware differs from other software/hardware relationships insofar as that RIM's BB OS just won't run on an iPhone/Nokia/anything without major and fundamental modification. Nothing stops OSX running on a PC except for an artificial switch which Apple added in to stop that from happening. There's a fundamental difference here.

Plus, Psystar has case law which they could easily cite. A classic case is back in the days of AT&T's phone monopoly in the 1950s. Back then, if you were using a telephone on the AT&T network (which at the time meant every phone) that telephone HAD to be manufactured or licensed by AT&T. It was illegal to use a phone built by a third party. In the end the courts ordered AT&T to open up their phone networks and allow third party telephones so long as they followed the rules and didn't disturb the function of AT&T's network. With Apple, it's the same thing. No one's asking them to start supporting every PC under the sun, they can keep operating as they were, they just need to get rid of the lock like AT&T had to. Their obligation to the third party users ends there. If Leopard doesn't work on my PC because Apple didn't provide me with the drivers, then that's my fault, as a consumer I'll just choose not to buy Apple and go back to Microsoft. However, Apple cannot as a corporation make my decision for me by adding in the artificial lock which exists now.

No you're totally off base. Apple made an engineering decision to use Intel chips because motorola technology was seriously lacking, hindering Apple's competiveness. Thery didn't switch to Intel so that cheapskates could push the OS on to other cheaper hardware. Otherwise, we'd still have motorola and your arguement is bogus.

As for your AT&T example, that came down to the fact that the telephone system was part of the national infrastructure. You can't have seperate telephone networks which would limit who you could talk to, which would have a severe impact on everything from safety to commerce, etc. You can argue the internet, but hey windows PCs work just as well as macs online (well, ok, I am just illustrating a point)

Apple doesn't own the intenet. They make the telephone in this case, except the telephone needs software to make it run, hence they make the software too. If MS decided tomorrow to build their own box and limit windows to their hardware, they should be allowed to do it. But that;s not their business model. DOn't force that on Apple. And don't be so naive to think that if they did allow 3rd party drivers for alien hardware, there wouldn't be lawsuits, support issues, etc. from every tom/dick/harry who screwed it up. They don't need it - the reason they are a success today is because they have avoided the outsiders from mucking it all up.

 

[gnasher729]

I like how all the anti pystar people are saying how if pystar wins then it will tear through apples computer sales. Lets let apples machines stand on their own merrit and not on forced sales like they are now. If apple loses massive sales of computers over this then the reason is their computers suck, are over priced and don't ever get updated. Maybe a little competition will kick em in the arse. I'm tired of seeing faster computers for half the price and everyone saying "well it doesn't run os x". Thats about to change folks.

What you are suggesting is absolutely anti-competitive. Apple competes in the computer hardware market by producing computers using high-quality components, by using top-quality design, and their major competitive advantage is MacOS X, which Apple created by buying Next for 400 million dollars and then investing millions and millions of dollars to improve it. That is how Apple is competing. And you are saying that you want to prevent Apple from competing. How can you justify that?