Why would Apple settle? It's an obvious bogus claim. Has Microsoft ever settled in such a case?
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
Why would Apple settle? It's an obvious bogus claim. Has Microsoft ever settled in such a case?
I'm not sure what you are saying.....you can buy a computer with higher specs that runs OS X....today....from Psystar. Legal or not, you as a consumer can do this...right now in fact.
So regardless of this lawsuit, you have your wishes.
Here's the link if you need it:
http://www.psystar.com/
-Kevin
That's also part of it. You can't just stick an original Leopard DVD in a similarly spec'd PC and hope for it to install. You need a patched version of the DVD installer to make it work.
From a popular How-to-Hackintosh site:
To patch the Leopard install disc, you'll need a Mac and a pre-patched image of the Leopard installer on your desktop. You can get this in two ways: Either by downloading the imageagain with BitTorrentor by buying and then ripping a Leopard DVD to your hard drive. Either way you choose, when you're finished you should place the ripped installer on your desktop and make sure that it's named osx-leopard105.dmg.
That's actually not true anymore. You don't need a pirated patched version to install OS X on generic hardware.
The CPU was, the chipsets were Apple's own. Since there were no computer chipsets for either the G3/4 series or the G5, Apple had to make their own.
The problem is that people do not always buy on quality. They often do buy on price. Apple chooses not to enter in that market. They compete and improve their product based on what other operating systems implement. That is part of their competition. If psystar wants to compete, nothing is stopping them from producing their own operating system and to tie it to their own products. What they cannot do, is use others products to compete without their OK. Dell and HP compete based on things like price and other hardware facts - not that they both run Windows. Apple doesn't compete with them on hardware alone, but with their own Operating system.
Psystar wants to compete by using anothers intellectual property for their gain. The only way to do this is with Apple's permission. Apple does not have to give this anymore than Tom Clancy has to allow his book covers to be used in a Barns and Noble advertisement or in their stores. He also does not have to compete with people transcribing his works online to make better books. They aren;t competeion, becasue Clancy never allowed the transcribers to use his work in the first place.
If their were any validity to this, Dell, HP or any other manistream PC maker that had gripes with Microsoft would have gone to selling Mac OS machienes just like Psystar does. Heck, Dell has begged for years to be allowed to sell OSX, they don't because as a million dollar company that has competent lawyers, they know that they cannot do this and not get sued right off the bat. They are far better equipped to fight Apple than Psystar is. They don't since they don't have to. THey can compete with Apple in whatever way they choose. They can ditch their licence terms with Micrsoft and sell their own operating system. In fact, lots of people did the same thing. They weren't able to cut the mustard and went away. So far Apple has been able to compete for years with both hardware and software companies. There just isn't anybody around to compete in both markets like Apple does.
Actually, that is what the original lawsuit is based on, among other things ... have you read the complaint?
No, other PC makers have a license agreement with MS, or they use Linux.
I agree that this COULD happen, but I doubt Apple would settle in this case as it might set a dangerous precedent and I don't think Apple would change to testing and supporting all hardware.
If Apple can't enforce their current EULA then all they will do is state that they will not warrant any other hardware for use of OS X and they assume no liability for non-Apple branded hardware. They will clearly state the system requirements ( which will be only Apple hardware) and they will put a big red sticker on the box saying "For Installation on genuine Apple branded hardware ONLY".
The other route would be for Apple to develop and patent a proprietary chip to add to the Apple system hardware which would be required to run OS X.
They will settle because it is cheaper on the PR front. Give the guy some money (amount covered by a NDA) and he goes away.
Yes, but Apple obviously is in the right here. That is why I don't think psystar's countersuit will ever see the light of day. Psystar most likely violated copyright laws by modifying Apple's software.
If you read the referenced posters comment it was all over board and I was merely trying to focus it to the topic at hand which is "Psystar countersues Apple". Apple has every right and will most likely win their original lawsuit.
First of all, I think the major disagreement is whether an Apple computer and OS X is one product or two products. I tend to think of them as two products. To think of Apple as a hardware company is misguided. They are are hardware company AND a software company.
Secondly, wouldn't you want Apple to compete on hardware specs and price?
I don't think these analogies work, but I would much rather talk about the issues than deconstruct analogies.
What Apple does is to tie one product to another. Sometimes that's illegal, sometimes it's not, but for the consumer, tieing is always bad.
Well, if that's the case why would any hardware manufacturer use resources to make drivers for Windows? Just have one guy sue Microsoft and you're golden.
Sorry, I don't think it works that way.
This is the important thing. The only market that is relevant is the PC market. There is no "mac market" anymore than there is a "McDonalds market" or a "ProTools market" or a "Tom Clancy Market" despite the fact that they are made up of generic components.
Apple merely needs to point out that their hardware grouping can be branded as a "Mac" versus other generic PC's just like a publisher can have a "Tom Clancy Novel" that is made up of the same raw materials (ink, paper, and glue) that other books do. This does not make up the legal definition of any sort of antitrust issue. Apple competes in 2 different and related market that anybody else can compete with Apple. The computer market and operating system market faces multiple sources of competition just like different reading materials and differnt authors.
While this may be what Apple chooses to do I'm surprised that nobody here has suggested what I find to be a much more likely scenario: a return to custom ROMs. Just like in the old days Apple could put custom ROMs on the motherboard and the OS will only install if the ROM is present.
If, for whatever reason, Jobs doesn't like that idea I think Apple would just be able to clearly mark the retail OS box as "upgrade" and only sell to customers who have an upgrade coupon (either a physical coupon that comes with each Mac in the box, or a digital one that is initialized when the purchased registers their Mac).
Because suing Apple is the "in" thing to do right now.
I think something like this is what we are heading toward.
Wait, you're saying that not only will I get money from Apple by suing them, but it will also make me fashionable?
Its doesn't matter what I want. OSX is Apple's product and they can sell it and license it as they see fit. Apple already competes in a fashion that they want to. Since I do not work for Apple, my feelings personally are irrelevant.
Exactly, I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar was started at the advice of lawyers to spark a lawsuit. Psystar's best case scenario is a settlement. If all they win is the right to sell OS X on generic computers, then they will be out of business in whatever small amount amount of time it takes for Dell and the rest of the major companies to start marketing OS X on their own computers.
Since by buying an upgrade version you are declaring that you already own a legitimate copy of Windows XP. The locks are only a manner of enforcing that contract since MS isn't gonna send an agent to check your house for a copy.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the enforceability of EULAs on the whole. Provisions like MS's are just fine; 99% of things EULAs (including Apple's) commit the purchaser to do are fine. However, the clause that Apple has in their Mac OSX EULA stating that I can only use it on Apple machines is what's illegal, as can be demonstrated through that AT&T Carterphone affair.
I don't understand: Psystar is reselling copies of OSX, which anyone is legally allowed to do, and they're not allowed to call it "OSX"? So if I'm reselling my Ford F-150, am I not allowed to call it a F-150 despite that being a trademark of Ford?
My point: Psystar only uses Apple's trademarks in relation to their resold copies of Leopard, not in relation to their own products.
I have no problem with the way Apple bundles OSX with its Macs. It's also not illegal to install Linux on your PS3. Also, yes you as an individual can use the PS3's software for whatever you like. If you get it to run on your iPhone, then go ahead and do so. You are, however, not allowed to sell such modifications commercially because it would take a fundamental modification of the software to do so. As well, the people you would be selling it to would have already have to have a PS3, otherwise it's copyright theft since Sony doesn't sell the OS separately.
What Psystar does is just resell you something that Apple already sells. That's perfectly legal. Now, where they do get into a bit of a gray area is by modifying the software to override Apple's locks. True, that is illegal, but if the courts find that the locks were illegal to begin with, then the court will most likely forgive Psystar's earlier actions. That is, however, the ONLY modification Psystar makes on your behalf.
Nintendo's locks must be pretty weak then, cause I see lots of N64 emulators online.
The reason why such emulators aren't commercialized is because to sell them is copyright infringement. In theory, every customer buying your emulator must already own an N64, and all the games they play with that emulator must be ROMs from the game cartridges they own -- at which point, such sales are legal. Practically that won't happen though, so Nintendo would sue the company for copyright infringement since they are selling the software to people who haven't bought the original hardware. Psystar isn't doing that. They're selling a product which Apple already sells. The copy of Leopard you buy from Psystar is as legitimate as the copy you buy from Apple (ignoring those modifications, but I addressed that above).
So yes, you can start industries around derivative works. A lot of used car dealerships would go out of business if that weren't the case...
But they have a monopoly on the Mac market. Take the following example: consider a world where PCs only have 40% of the market, but where Dell sells 90% of those PCs. Dell would have a monopoly which they could be taken to court for, despite the fact that Dell only has 90% of 40% of the entire consumer computer business. Here, Apple has a 100% of the Mac market and they're using that leverage to snuff out entrants like Psystar. That's monopolistic.
Sure it is, if I repaint it and sell it. It surely isn't the original product anymore.
edit: or if I buy a iPhone, colorize it/stud it with diamonds/make it into a bomb and resell it. That's a derivative work and it's perfectly legitimate to do that.
When I say "you" I meant you as a consumer. We are all consumers here, and we communicate our personal feelings on the subject. Most of us aren't lawyers either much less lawyers specializing in IP and copyright.
So the question still stands: Why would the consumer want Apple to win?