I like the IBM strategy. If anyone sues IBM, and IBM decides the plaintiff is wrong, the will bury them. If anyone sues IBM, and IBM decides the plaintiff is right, they will throw dice and depending on the result, sometimes they will bury them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like the IBM strategy. If anyone sues IBM, and IBM decides the plaintiff is wrong, the will bury them. If anyone sues IBM, and IBM decides the plaintiff is right, they will throw dice and depending on the result, sometimes they will bury them.
Again, tell me where in the Leopard EULA it states where I need a previous valid license of OSX (therefore implying that the boxed edition of Leopard is an upgrade). All it states is that I need 'Apple hardware' which is exclusionary to other hardware manufacturers.
It is not sold as an OEM license though. the EULA clearly has requirements that would preclude ownership of OSX on a machine - it is an upgrade it has not been marketed as a standalone product. There is no commercial OEM version of OSX available. It is an upgrade.
Just because you can squeeze though a locked door does not make it legal for you to enter.
Are you sure you mean preclude? Anyway, you can buy a Macbook on Ebay with a wiped (or no) hard drive, go out and buy Leopard, and legally install it.
Yeah, that's par for the course.
Naïveté
You buy your car, you own your car. You don't buy an OS to own it, you but the right to use it under the term of the copyright holder. If you were to do the same with a car (either leasing from Ford or renting from Budget) they DO tell you what you can and can't do with it.
"OSX with hardware" is grammatically equal to "hardware with OSX". Therefore, I'm not gonna try to guess what you were saying.
Apologies if I don't choose to go and insert the symbols for a forum post. If I wrote cafe, would you correct that too?
To a reasonable extent, yes. Psystar's argument is that Apple's restrictions are unreasonable. It's the same thing as my lease agreement from Ford telling me to murder Rick Wagoner, there are certain limits which the courts can enforce on contracts. Even though I accepted the contract, the court will still deem the Rick Wagoner clause illegal and invalid.
The hardware has always included the software portion though - its included when you got the "mac branded computer" or "Apple Hardware". Once you meet that basic requirement, all that prevents an install is the system requirements.
If you have to hack OSX to achieve any of these things, you are breaking an agreement between you and Apple. If you want to have a legal partnership with Apple for a business (which Psystar and every other PC maker needs), you cannot violate it without penalty.
Right, that is because murder violates other laws. Bundling a proprietary system together in an open market is perfectly legal unless you want to argue that Apple somehow has an illegal market on Mac Machines - they can because its their own product and the to items (hardware and OS) are related items.
Remember - Apple doesn't stop other OS from existing on their hardware - they even have a mechanism for doing so. In this way, Apple is accommodating competition for the user.
Only if the agreement is held to be valid in the end. Psystar is betting that it won't be, so they will be pardoned for initially hacking the software to begin with should the court side with them (or at the very least, they will still have to pay fines for hacking the software but they will still win their goal of having that part of the EULA declared invalid).
Wondercow
Not exactly, but that's another topic.
Probably. Just like everyone else there are things that I can overlook and things that are pet peeves. It grates on me the way people drop proper accents
To a reasonable extent, yes. Psystar's argument is that Apple's restrictions are unreasonable. It's the same thing as my lease agreement from Ford telling me to murder Rick Wagoner, there are certain limits which the courts can enforce on contracts. Even though I accepted the contract, the court will still deem the Rick Wagoner clause illegal and invalid.[/QUOTE]
Not exactly, but that's another topic.
Probably. Just like everyone else there are things that I can overlook and things that are pet peeves. It grates on me the way people drop proper accents
To a reasonable extent, yes. Psystar's argument is that Apple's restrictions are unreasonable. It's the same thing as my lease agreement from Ford telling me to murder Rick Wagoner, there are certain limits which the courts can enforce on contracts. Even though I accepted the contract, the court will still deem the Rick Wagoner clause illegal and invalid.[/QUOTE]
Are they? As I said before, Microsoft would be immediately shut down if they started locking Windows to Microsoft-built PCs. Sure, part of the reason why is because MS does enjoy the vast majority of the market, but there's still the fact that it is anticompetitive (irrespective of MS's market share). If I can go out and pick up an OSX license (which has NOT yet been proven to be merely an upgrade) then why can't I use it on whatever hardware I want?
It is great that Apple accommodates competition on the OS side, but that's something entirely different; this suit is to get it to accommodate competition on the hardware side.
Selling a product on the condition that you must agree to buy another product from the same company in order to use it isn't bundling. It's tying and may be illegal according to U.S. law.
Wondercow
Not exactly, but that's another topic.
Probably. Just like everyone else there are things that I can overlook and things that are pet peeves. It grates on me the way people drop proper accents. Again, though, that's another topic.
Sure, but that's void due to other laws. The way the law currently stands Apple--and any other software maker--has the right to limit use (and EULAs have often been upheld. In fact wasn't there a "big" ruling just the other week?). If the EULA portion is adjudicated then we'll have an answer. And since there're really only two sides to this one of them will most likely be eating a fine dish of crow while wiping the egg out of their eyes.
Not exactly, but that's another topic.
Probably. Just like everyone else there are things that I can overlook and things that are pet peeves. It grates on me the way people drop proper accents. Again, though, that's another topic.
Sure, but that's void due to other laws. The way the law currently stands Apple--and any other software maker--has the right to limit use (and EULAs have often been upheld. In fact wasn't there a "big" ruling just the other week?). If the EULA portion is adjudicated then we'll have an answer. And since there're really only two sides to this one of them will most likely be eating a fine dish of crow while wiping the egg out of their eyes.
erm, what the f do you mean? This is the ever-returning discussion: why doesn't Apple open up OSX? and there are ALWAYS people claiming Apple does it to 'protect their ideal OSX from bad hardware'. This is an idiotic remark, and any sane person knows this isn't true, they do it for profit, but I don't blame them.
But anyone refusing to see this, I will refer to as an ass, yes.
MEntioned above: there are tons of mindless fanboys that claim profit is not Apple's primary motivation, as if they are innocent idialists.
indeed, good point.
Ok, when I open up my manual of any PSP or xbox game, this is nowhere to be found... hey, go figure: when I researched this this is because my country DOES protect consumers from monopolizing greedy corporations! So I didn't get the facts wrong, we just live in different legal systems
(This law btw lets me use my iPhone without a simlock or 2 year contract)WRONG! intellectual property is NOT being violated here: their is no illegal spread of the material: a psystar system comes with a legit OSX license. THe EULA on the other hand is being violated, but EULAs aren't necessarily completely legal. I am a fair judge would rule apple's restriction isn't legal, because their is no technical reason for the restriction.
I can indeed, but I don't want to fear my system crashing after every update, because Apple changed something that makes the hackintoshes crash again (yes they do that)
But Apple ties them together in the Box, in fact Apple needs to argue that the OEM disks are not sold to the consumer since the product is pre-installed. Its no different than Nintendo requiring that I purchase a Wii in order to legally play Mario galaxy. Heck they can even bundle the two together legally.
And Apple can indeed sell its retail boxes to consumers on the condition that they have a legal version of Mac OS. They are upgrades. Your presumption that Apple sells a full version of OSX is flawed because that is not the case and never has been the case. If this were illegal Apple would have been sued long ago by compaies like Dell.
You are not agreeing to buy another product - you are and always have been buying one product.
Really? So if I buy OS X I don't have to buy another product in order to use it?
This isn't even a valid question. Replace OS X with any piece of software and see what you get. It's too loaded to be useful.
Apple has always sold the Macintosh as one product (except in the clone years), they choose to sell OS X in order for owners of older computers to upgrade. If they didn't you would have to buy a brand new Mac every time a new OS came out if you wanted the latest and greatest.
Nope. Those hypothetical facts neither support a monopoly nor an illegal monopoly.
It's not a derivative work. It's a physical product, not a copyright preparation.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Nor does Apple.
Sure they do. You don't have any rights to any Ford copyrights at all. Any such use would be infringement. You're welcome to use a Logitech mouse with an Apple computer, too, though--but you're mixing your analogies into a tangled mess.
It is an upgrade as a matter of law. It is not possible to buy a bare system for its use. A Macintosh is licensed as a matter of fact to run the OS with which it was originally packaged--that license never parts from the system. Any subsequent license is predicated on the prior license, by virtue of being restricted to Apple-labeled systems.
A business Apple will always own 100% of.
Yes, they do, in both cases. Ford does indeed list restrictions--look at a purchase agreement for a car sometime. Even something simple, like an alarm clock, only grants you the rights you purchase.
A seller has the right to set whatever terms it chooses on the sale, particularly where pricing is set based on preexisting circumstances. Since you have no rights to the product until Apple gives them to you, you have nothing more than what is given. The scope of what is being sold to you is clear: a license to use and possess OS X on a Macintosh system. It's the same with a branded-disc sold by Dell for $20--it's Windows, but only for use on your qualifying Dell. Any other use is outside of the rights you own, and you have to turn elsewhere to get those rights. If what you want is not for sale, too bad. That's the market at work.
But you can't, because no such license is available for sale. The only licenses available are for Macintosh computers.
That's not a factor. GPS manufacturers sell upgrades and replacement firmware/maps. Thousands of software publishers sell new versions of software at a discount for customers already owning a prior license--in fact, some high-end software is sold exclusively this way. You must purchase a general license (the most common example is a site license), which then makes you eligible to purchase software titles at below-cost prices.
You've answered your own question.
Yes, because the computer is always licensed to run its original shipping software, which makes you eligible to purchase any subsequent version and install it.
The quoted sentence:
Selling a product on the condition that you must agree to buy another product from the same company in order to use it isn't bundling. It's tying and may be illegal according to U.S. law.
As another poster pointed out I must purchase a Nintendo Wii in order to use Wii game. There are myriad other examples of companies that tie products together and do so legally.