Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[Greydog]

What's most amazing here is when Apple had products no one bought save the evangelicals (who actually knew it was a superior product), and they were 800 mil in the hole, no one bitched about licensing problems or 3rd party drivers or monopolistic policies.

Now that they have developed superior products through R&D, imagination and shrewed business, products which are wildy popular, all of a sudden they are evil corporate giants" who stifle competition and crush innovation. Hmmm...just kind of like America...

What kind of computers are they using in Cuba?

When did we as a society become so jealous of success?

 

[digitalbiker]

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.

You are completely missing the boat with this rant!

Nobody is stealing anything or asking Apple to licenses clones.

The only thing that is going on, is that Psystar is challenging the EULA agreement that restricts OS X to Apple hardware only. Apple is also suing Psystar for illegally modifying OS X and violating copyright laws.

Psystar builds their own PC's and buys a legal copy of OS X from Apple. They either pre-install the OS for you or you can install it yourself. Nobody is stealing designs, plans, or software from anybody.

If Psystar is modifying OS X then the EULA case will never see the light of day. If Psystar isn't modifying OS X then we may very well see the courts force Apple to modify the EULA such that Apple does not warrant OS X for non-Apple branded hardware but Apple can't force the end user to only use OS X on Apple hardware.

 

[Belly-laughs]

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.

I like your bigger picture theory.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Retail versions of MacOS X are upgrades in practice. In theory, you are allowed to install them on any single "Apple labeled-computer", which would include an original Apple II computer. Good luck trying

But in practice, if you can install the retail version legally (it's Apple-labeled) and functionally (it is at least a reasonably modern G3 computer), then it had MacOS X legally installed at some time.

 

[zombitronic]

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.

Why are you pro Psystar? What have they done on their own merrit?

With millions of Macs sold per quarter, I doubt this will tear through Apple's computer sales. Obviously, a good amount of people find value in Apple's products, even if you're too godly for them.

Apple has every right to sell their products as a closed system. You, as a consumer, agree or disagree to this by choosing to buy a Mac or not. Just because you feel that you're entitled to an alternative setup doesn't mean that Apple has to provide that setup for you.

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.

That has already changed. That's the point of this whole mess. As it's been said before, you, as an individual consumer, can make the choice to violate Apple's Leopard SLA and build a Hackintosh with little or no consequences. But the moment you start up your own company and sell a product package that violates another company's SLA, you're in deep legal trouble.

If SLAs were suddenly made invalid, hundreds of technology companies would be crippled and the market would be flooded with crapware. If you really appreciated technology and innovation, you'd understand the necessity of protecting intellectual property. Instead, your arguments just make you sound like a spoiled baby.

 

[digitalbiker]

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?

You are not preventing Apple from competing. Apple still will be able to make and design OS X only for their Apple branded hardware. Apple will still make the only hardware that is warranted by Apple for OS X to run on properly.

The only change that might result is that Apple would not be able to restrict the purchaser of OS X to use the software on non-Apple branded hardware. That is a far cry from being forced to make OS X work on non-Apple branded hardware.

Therefore if a competitor really wants to take on Apple then they would have to build superior hardware, or offer similar quality hardware at a lower price, or provide better support, and they would have to take on the responsibility of warranting OS X to work on their hardware without illegally modifying OS X. I don't think that is going to be a problem for Apple, do you?

 

[digitalbiker]

You, as a consumer, agree or disagree to this by choosing to buy a Mac or not. Just because you feel that you're entitled to an alternative setup doesn't mean that Apple has to provide that setup for you.

If SLAs were suddenly made invalid, hundreds of technology companies would be crippled and the market would be flooded with crapware. If you really appreciated technology and innovation, you'd understand the necessity of protecting intellectual property. Instead, your arguments just make you sound like a spoiled baby.

First they are not saying that Apple has to provide OS X for non-Apple branded hardware. They are saying that Apple can't restrict the use of their software for only Apple hardware in their EULA. Those are two different things.

Second, they are not making the EULA or SLA invalid. They are arguing what can and cannot be included in a EULA. EULA's are perfectly legal and enforceable unless they include language that is not enforceable. That is what this is all about.

Can Apple restrict the use of OS X for only Apple hardware?

 

[GRB]

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.

Since when was my argument talking about the PowerPC to Intel switch? I was just arguing that Apple cannot arbitrarily ban legally-purchased copies of OS X from compatible hardware just because they did not make the hardware. Apple could have been equally as vulnerable from such a suit if they were still using PowerPC CPUs and they actively stopped you from using OS X on a third party PowerPC-based computer. The only reason why no such suits ever came up is because practically no one used PowerPC in the consumer space other than Apple -- i.e. there was no third party PowerPC market there to MAKE the third party hardware.

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)

The reason why AT&T was forced to open up was actually not because it was part of the "national infrastructure" but because AT&T was not allowed to arbitrarily limit what I could and could not use on their network. As a paying customer of the AT&T phone service, the court ruled I was allowed to use whatever phone I wanted to with that service so long as it didn't interfere with the network. I'm the consumer and I can do what I want with your product is what the court ruled; you cannot make my decisions for me.

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 this is the way you took the AT&T example, then you've seriously misunderstood it. In a proper analysis of this example, Apple is both the phone network operator (in this case, this network is Leopard/OS X) and the phone manufacturer (in this case, the actual computers themselves like the Mac Pro, MBP, etc). Apple currently says, like AT&T did, that you cannot use any other non-Apple hardware with their 'network' (i.e. Leopard). AT&T was told in the 50s that this type of behavior was illegal, and that they had to let other manufacturers build hardware too. Should the court rule correctly, they will also find that it is illegal for Apple to limit the use of their 'network' to only their hardware and that companies like Psystar must be allowed to build computers for Leopard.

If MS decided tomorrow to build their own box and limit windows to their hardware, they should be allowed to do it.

That statement just proves that your argument is not based at all in United States law but is only your opinion. No, in fact, Microsoft would not be allowed to do that as they would be declared a vertically-integrated monopoly and broken up into pieces like AT&T was by the US Justice Department. Disagree with that all you want, but it's the law in the United States. Full stop. If you want, you can run for election in the Senate and change the monopoly laws, but until then the law of the nation just doesn't allow for that. They won't allow for Apple's vertically-integrated practices either in this case.

EDIT: Also to your argument about having to support third party hardware, that's entirely baseless. Apple can just declare that their warranty does not cover those who use their software on non-Apple hardware, and that's perfectly legal. In other words: GM cannot legally stop me from crashing my car if I want to, but they sure aren't liable for me doing so. They say that in the warranty that they're not liable, and that's perfectly legal. I as the consumer choose to take that risk. Or, to go back to my AT&T example, AT&T was never asked to provide a warranty for those third party phones and they were never liable to. It was at the discretion of the customer to use those phones. AT&T never had to help those customers.

 

[netnothing]

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.

Ok, so Apple is then selling OS X to anyone (like today) but it only works on their hardware? Meaning...to get it to run on other hardware, you have to do what Psyster is doing today?

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.

So I get this on an individual user basis, but does this give Dell or HP the right to buy the software and resell it? Basically getting a machine to run OS X?

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.

I think we will always see the case where at times Apple will "fall behind" in updating hardware because of the fact that you as a user can't update it.

-Kevin

 

[zombitronic]

First they are not saying that Apple has to provide OS X for non-Apple branded hardware. They are saying that Apple can't restrict the use of their software for only Apple hardware in their EULA. Those are two different things.

Second, they are not making the EULA or SLA invalid. They are arguing what can and cannot be included in a EULA. EULA's are perfectly legal and enforceable unless they include language that is not enforceable. That is what this is all about.

Can Apple restrict the use of OS X for only Apple hardware?

Yes. Can Nintendo restrict the use of the Wii system software for only the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Can Cisco restrict the use of the Cisco router software for Cisco routers? Yes.

If this clause were made to be non-enforceable, what makes you think it would affect only Apple? Can you imagine the damage this would cause to companies who create closed hardware/software systems? You may hope for intellectual property anarchy right now, but it would only hurt the overall quality of the market. On top of massive technology company stock price crashes, these companies would lose money that they'd otherwise invest into R&D, we'd notice a decrease in future product quality and we'd have a flood of "Wal-Mart" quality products.

 

[digitalbiker]

So I get this on an individual user basis, but does this give Dell or HP the right to buy the software and resell it? Basically getting a machine to run OS X?
-Kevin

If Apple is ever forced to modify their current EULA so that it removes the restriction of OS X to Apple hardware, then I don't see any reason why Dell or HP couldn't do this.

However I doubt that HP or Dell would actually do this because

1) They would be paying full retail price of OS X which would increase the price of their final product.

2) They would have to warrant OS X to run on their hardware for their customers without the ability to modify OS X code. If they modified the code then they would be in violation of Apple's copyright.

3) Dell or HP is large enough that if they wanted to do this they would cut a deal with Apple so that they would be an OEM of OS X and give Apple a slice of sales in exchange for modified versions of OS X at a lower cost.

Since number 3 hasn't already happened then I would bet that it won't happen anytime soon.

 

[pdjudd]

Having read numerous threads on this topic repeating the same nonsense over and over I have come to the conclusion that people who support Psystar are essentially wanting the courts to determine how a company (in this case Apple) should be able to sell its products.

Apple has created OSX and the product has various trademarks behind that title despite certain components being open source. The fact is, since OSX itself is not open source, you cannot re distribute any modifications of its compents with OSX as a whole. You cannot create a business model selling modified copies of OSX reguardless of what those modifications ammount to. Apple determines what software makes up OSX and it determines how it is sold. You cannot go into busienss selling hacked X-Boxes with a hacked OS to play third party titles. THis is Apple's OS, its their business to determine how it is sold.

Indidually speaking, Apple doesn't care about end users hacking OSX on their own time - nor do they support such activies either. However a business cannot just do that willnillingly becasue they feel like they are being opressed. Psystar just cannot go and sell an OS that they do not own the rights to distribute just like I annot go into business selling a re-painted Ford car without their OK.

I cannot fathom why anybody would even want the courts to dicate how a company can sell its intellectual products. Must a record company sell 8 tracks of its latest releases (or allow others to sell them home brewed)? No.

Furthermore any claims of monopolistic activies are ludicris. Selling your intellectual content in limited ways is not monopolistic - its a busness decision. Also, there is no such thing as "the Mac Market". The only place it exists is in ones head. Intelectual property is an exclusive product. By creating it and owning the trademarks associated with it, you get to choose who it is sold or distributed. I cannot create a paperback version of a Tom Clancy novel if he decides to leave it as a hardback book. The book may contain the same type of paper, but it does not change the fact that intellectual property remains with the owner unless they relinquish this right. Apple owns OSX and it's trademarks. They get to decide how it gets sold.

Now there are some exceptions related to competition in the market (they are very limited), but in this case, Psystar is arguing a market that does not exist. In fact the compuer market is made up of several computer makers and Operating systems. All of them have restrictsions on what you can do with them. The crux of this argumet has to so with the fact that Apple sell's upgrades in their retail store. Like Microsoft, these discs have the full operating system. They use different methods to verify the eligabuility of their use, but that does not alter the fact that the discs have restritions on their usage. Psystar as a corporation cannot break those agreements on behalf of anybody - not when you run a business. Otherwise, contacts in general become invalidated as long as you have an "agent" to do it for you. Psystar is not going to get very far in arging monopolistic practices when Apple's business model works the same way as Pro Tools does, expecially when Apple is a minority in the computer market.

Should we let the courts decide arbirtrataly that somebody does not own the rights to their own content? I sure hope that doesn't happen. The courts should step in if actaul ownership comes under question, but this is not a case where this is happening. Apple's ownership of OSX is very valid. If the courts strip intellectual property rights, few people are going to want to create something just to loose their rights to it.

This is a case of US law which is based on the facts at hand dealing with companies. Despite what your personal fellings of Apple not meeting a market segment, they are irrelivant. This is about controlling your brand name. Atari lost a great deal of control since their system had no protection against third party developement and it was a disaster (legally anybody could do it due to the off the shelf nature of Atari). This is not what Apple wants and they have readilly avaialble licences terms that make that clear. Apple does not have to cater to anybody they do not want in an enviorment with a varied market like computers do. If Apple does not want their product to reach a particualr user, that is their choice. Nintendo should not be forced to sell Adult only titles despite that being a market either. It is Apple's decison on how they want to sell their own product.

 

[digitalbiker]

Yes. Can Nintendo restrict the use of the Wii system software for only the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Can Cisco restrict the use of the Cisco router software for Cisco routers? Yes.

No, they wouldn't be able to either, I'm not sure if they do right now. So who cares, it will have no impact.

Nintendo Wii software won't run on anything else without modification of the software which is a violation of the copyright. The same with Cisco routers.

I don't get your point. Just because they can't restrict the use of their software to certain hardware doesn't mean that others can modify that software to run on other systems.

 

[digitalbiker]

Having read numerous threads on this topic repeating the same nonsense over and over I have come to the conclusion that people who support Psystar are essentially wanting the courts to determine how a company (in this case Apple) should be able to sell its products.

Apple has created OSX and the product has various trademarks behind that title despite certain components being open source. The fact is, since OSX itself is not open source, you cannot re distribute any modifications of its compents with OSX as a whole. You cannot create a business model selling modified copies of OSX reguardless of what those modifications ammount to. Apple determines what software makes up OSX and it determines how it is sold. You cannot go into busienss selling hacked X-Boxes with a hacked OS to play third party titles. THis is Apple's OS, its their business to determine how it is sold.

Indidually speaking, Apple doesn't care about end users hacking OSX on their own time - nor do they support such activies either. However a business cannot just do that willnillingly becasue they feel like they are being opressed. Psystar just cannot go and sell an OS that they do not own the rights to distribute just like I annot go into business selling a re-painted Ford car without their OK.

I think you have been sucked into the wrong argument.

No one is saying that anyone can take your IP and modify it, and re-sale it. If psystar did this then they are in the wrong.

However if psystar is using a clean legally purchased copy of OS X and they are using it without modification on their own hardware. Then the only thing keeping this from being perfectly legal is Apple's EULA clause. That is what the courts will test.

What can and cannot be included in a EULA? What is a valid restriction of use?

In your Ford case, you are wrong. It is perfectly within your right to buy a Ford car, re-paint it, and re-sell it. Are you telling me that you have never sold a used car?

 

[Argonic]

Very interesting, especially that Apple uses hardware in their macs that are build by other manufactorys, so if you buy an empty mac case and you put your own hardware in it, you're save then?

Don't get me wrong, I own a macbook and it's the best computer that I ever had

 

[hagjohn]

Big difference: Microsoft is a monopoly. Apple's monopoly is over operating systems for Apple hardware, but in the context of the industry, they are still a small player.

If OS X was released for a PC, MS would lose their "monopoly" in a heartbeat.

I won't buy a OS X desktop because they are too expensive and I can't do anything with it. I've built all my PC's except for my original and I'm not going to start buying one now. If OS X was PC compat, I would buy OS X in a minute.

 

[Stratus Fear]

If I write a text and copyright it in the US, the medium it is sold on is at my sole discretion. If I want it sold as a paperback book, and nothing else, someone can't go and sell it as a web-based text without my consent, even if they pay me. Doing such for their own personal use may fall under some fair use laws, but I don't know. Modifying my text and reselling it is obviously also a "no." Psystar is in hot water regardless because the only way to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine requires modification of code and they've been reselling it this way. We've established that this isn't legal.

Anyone disputing the illegality of redistribution of a copyrighted works on an unauthorized medium should provide some case law here. Is there any?

 

[GRB]

Having read numerous threads on this topic repeating the same nonsense over and over I have come to the conclusion that people who support Psystar are essentially wanting the courts to determine how a company (in this case Apple) should be able to sell its products.

Apple has created OSX and the product has various trademarks behind that title despite certain components being open source. The fact is, since OSX itself is not open source, you cannot re distribute any modifications of its compents with OSX as a whole. You cannot create a business model selling modified copies of OSX reguardless of what those modifications ammount to. Apple determines what software makes up OSX and it determines how it is sold. You cannot go into busienss selling hacked X-Boxes with a hacked OS to play third party titles. THis is Apple's OS, its their business to determine how it is sold.

I don't think anyone disagrees that it is illegal to modify the software in the way Psystar has, but they do it against the (what us Psystar supporters consider) illegal lock Apple puts on its software. If the courts rule in favour of Psystar, expect something similar from the ruling: the courts will chastise Psystar for distributing illegal modifications of OS X but would let it slide since they would simultaneously declare Apple's limitations illegal (a case of the ends justify the means).

Indidually speaking, Apple doesn't care about end users hacking OSX on their own time - nor do they support such activies either. However a business cannot just do that willnillingly becasue they feel like they are being opressed. Psystar just cannot go and sell an OS that they do not own the rights to distribute just like I annot go into business selling a re-painted Ford car without their OK.

Actually, you can go into business selling repainted Fords. It's called the used car industry, have you heard of it?

Furthermore any claims of monopolistic activies are ludicris. Selling your intellectual content in limited ways is not monopolistic - its a busness decision. Also, there is no such thing as "the Mac Market". The only place it exists is in ones head. Intelectual property is an exclusive product. By creating it and owning the trademarks associated with it, you get to choose who it is sold or distributed. I cannot create a paperback version of a Tom Clancy novel if he decides to leave it as a hardback book. The book may contain the same type of paper, but it does not change the fact that intellectual property remains with the owner unless they relinquish this right. Apple owns OSX and it's trademarks. They get to decide how it gets sold.

Selling a book only in paperback is not the result of a vertically-integrated monopoly, unlike Apple selling the hardware which uses its software. Yes, a copyright holder can choose how to distribute their materials so long as it doesn't violate US monopoly law on vertically-integrated companies. Books don't, Apple does.

Should we let the courts decide arbirtrataly that somebody does not own the rights to their own content? I sure hope that doesn't happen. The courts should step in if actaul ownership comes under question, but this is not a case where this is happening. Apple's ownership of OSX is very valid. If the courts strip intellectual property rights, few people are going to want to create something just to loose their rights to it.

No one's saying Apple shouldn't get paid for Leopard. Apple will always get the price they ask for Leopard. They aren't allowed to restrict what I do with Leopard once I've bought it, however, which is what they do by saying I can only use it with Apple hardware.

This is a case of US law which is based on the facts at hand dealing with companies. Despite what your personal fellings of Apple not meeting a market segment, they are irrelivant. This is about controlling your brand name. Atari lost a great deal of control since their system had no protection against third party developement and it was a disaster (legally anybody could do it due to the off the shelf nature of Atari). This is not what Apple wants and they have readilly avaialble licences terms that make that clear. Apple does not have to cater to anybody they do not want in an enviorment with a varied market like computers do. If Apple does not want their product to reach a particualr user, that is their choice. Nintendo should not be forced to sell Adult only titles despite that being a market either. It is Apple's decison on how they want to sell their own product.

The difference between Nintendo and Apple in this case however is that Nintendo also owns the copyrights and patents in regards to their own hardware like the Wii or GCN or N64. I need to get a license from Nintendo to be legally allowed to make software for those consoles or otherwise I am committing copyright infringement. However, Apple does not own any of the patents in regards to X86-based computers -- companies like Intel do, and they've granted free access to them for the industry. Therefore, I am legally allowed to build a computer that is functionally no different than that of an Apple. Since my computer is therefore no different from an Apple computer, then by rulings like the AT&T Carterphone example I've been touting, Apple must remove arbitrary limits it has on the use of its software so long as I pay Apple for it.

 

[hagjohn]

This isn't about what YOU do with your license of the software, this is about whether another company can profit from Apple's research and development work by hacking OS X and selling it for their own profit.

Isn't that was all PC makers do?

 

[zombitronic]

I don't get your point. Just because they can't restrict the use of their software to certain hardware doesn't mean that others can modify that software to run on other systems.

My point is not about modifying software. My point is that they CAN and NEED TO be able to restrict the use of their software to certain hardware. It's about the damage of voiding a clause that states that a brand's software may only be installed on that brand's hardware.

Can Apple restrict the use of OS X for only Apple hardware?

Yes. Can Nintendo restrict the use of the Wii system software for only the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Can Cisco restrict the use of the Cisco router software for Cisco routers? Yes.

No, they wouldn't be able to either, I'm not sure if they do right now. So who cares, it will have no impact.

These types of clauses do exist. For example,

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer.

This is what Psystar is trying to fight, yet their monopolistic claims on this matter are far fetched.

 

[GRB]

This is what Psystar is trying to fight, yet their monopolistic claims on this matter are far fetched.

Here though I disagree. Apple is undeniably the textbook definition of a vertically-integrated company (they make the software, they make the hardware for that software and they own the stores that sell those products) and they're only a step removed from a full-on monopoly. Antitrust/monopolistic arguments are the arguments Psystar need to make.

 

[digitalbiker]

My point is not about modifying software. My point is that they CAN and NEED TO be able to restrict the use of their software to certain hardware. It's about the damage of voiding a clause that states that a brand's software may only be installed on that brand's hardware.

These types of clauses do exist. For example,

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf


This is what Psystar is trying to fight, yet their monopolistic claims on this matter are far fetched.

You are just re-stating what the dispute is about. I agree that we are not talking about modifying the IP and that we are only talking about whether Apple has the right to restrict OS X to only their Apple branded hardware.

Your comment was that this would have dire consequences for all EULA agreements and it would cause the collapse of all R&D, etc. etc.

Here I don't understand your point and I don't agree with your comment. Nintendo has patents and copyrights on all wii hardware, so having a restriction in the EULA for their wii software is pointless. IT WON"T RUN ON ANYTHING ELSE! If someone else builds a wii clone it would be illegal.

Same with Cisco. Their software only operates on Cisco hardware. If someone else builds a Cisco router clone it would be illegal and they can't use cisco software so who cares about the EULA.

The difference with Apple is that they do not own the x86 computer patents and copyrights. If Apple writes OS X and it will run un-modified on any x86 hardware then the only thing restricting the use of OS X on x86 is Apple's EULA.

This is where the dispute lies. Can a EULA legally dictate and restrict use in this case?

I personally doubt that the case will ever get this far, as Psystar appears to be modifying OS X which is definitely illegal!

 

[pdjudd]

I don't think anyone disagrees that it is illegal to modify the software in the way Psystar has, but they do it against the (what us Psystar supporters consider) illegal lock Apple puts on its software. If the courts rule in favour of Psystar, expect something similar from the ruling: the courts will chastise Psystar for distributing illegal modifications of OS X but would let it slide since they would simultaneously declare Apple's limitations illegal (a case of the ends justify the means).

How are Apple's terms illegal though? You can't just go into a store and purchase a Vista upgrade (despite the disc having the full version on it) and install it on a blank machine. The software locks and the license prevents it. You would have to modify the software to bypass the locks and ignore the EULA. You try and make a business out of it and I will guarantee that MS will go after you just like Apple is going After Psystar. Apple's protection methods are not as restricive as Microsofts, but that doesn't cahnge the fact that you cannot make a busness model out of it.

Actually, you can go into business selling repainted Fords. It's called the used car industry, have you heard of it?

Yes, but Psystar is not selling a "used Mac" they are selling Apples brand "OSX" illegally.

Selling a book only in paperback is not the result of a vertically-integrated monopoly, unlike Apple selling the hardware which uses its software. Yes, a copyright holder can choose how to distribute their materials so long as it doesn't violate US monopoly law on vertically-integrated companies. Books don't, Apple does.

Exactly how is Apple selling its operating system illegally? You can buy a Mac and use a different OS you know? I can buy a PS3 and install Linux on it too? I can't use Plastations software anywhere else though, is that illegal?

No one's saying Apple shouldn't get paid for Leopard. Apple will always get the price they ask for Leopard. They aren't allowed to restrict what I do with Leopard once I've bought it, however, which is what they do by saying I can only use it with Apple hardware.

Which is why Apple doesn't go ofter individuals. The game changes when you try and make a business model from it. Businesses have to conform with stricter rules than individuals do.

The difference between Nintendo and Apple in this case however is that Nintendo also owns the copyrights and patents in regards to their own hardware like the Wii or GCN or N64. I need to get a license from Nintendo to be legally allowed to make software for those consoles or otherwise I am committing copyright infringement. However, Apple does not own any of the patents in regards to X86-based computers -- companies like Intel do, and they've granted free access to them for the industry. Therefore, I am legally allowed to build a computer that is functionally no different than that of an Apple. Since my computer is therefore no different from an Apple computer, then by rulings like the AT&T Carterphone example I've been touting, Apple must remove arbitrary limits it has on the use of its software so long as I pay Apple for it.

Not exactly. The thing that prevents you from running nintendo titles on generic hardware is the locks that Nitendo enforces in thier systems. A better example is that back in the day, you could buy a console with an Add-on that allowed you to play Atari games on non-atari consoles. Atari obviously did not like this, but there was nothing stopping the third party developer mess that sprouted up. Your not going to see that happen becasue companies like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, are very careful when they allow developers access to their techniology.

THe same concept applies with Apple. They are very careful about the type of hardware works with their system - OSX. The fact that the hardware is generic is irrelivant. Just like books, paper, nor specific words have any unique ownership. Just becsue you own a ream of paper and have access to words and letters does not mean you can create a business around derivitive works. You cannot create a business model aroound somebody elses work.

 

[r.j.s]

How does it destabilize OS X?

Think about it, Jack buys an off-the-shelf PC. He wants to run OS X, so he does a little homework and chooses one that is close to a Mac. He purchases OS X and installs it, neither Bluetooth or airport work ...

Apple won't help him and the PC maker wont help, so what does he do? (I take it from your sig you know something about the nature of people in this country.) He will sue for support from Apple, who will settle, and then start doing driver testing and such - supporting more and more hardware until they are where windows is now. (Hardware and driver hell, anyway.)

It's a slippery slope.

 

[macsmurf]

What I don't get, and still aren't getting is why any consumer would be hoping that Apple wins the suit. What the consumer wants is a superior OS and superior hardware. If Apple already provides this then very few would buy Psystars products. If not, then the consumer would want better products from Apple, and the only way to do this would be for Apple to compete on a level playing field. Free competition simply works.

I can definitely see why Apple aren't happy, but from the POV of the consumer it just doesn't make sense.