Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations

[bemayo]

The notion that it is somehow wrong that Apple doesn't allow you to install their OS on other hardware is silly, but I think there are plenty of comments already posted that explain that quite well.

What I would address are the comments that indicate you should be able to do whatever you want to with the Mac OS install disc because you paid for it. I would point out that Apple spends large amounts of money on research and development of the OS, and those costs are offset by the profits from the hardware. They develop software to drive hardware sales, not the other way around. If you had to pay a fair retail price (what it cost them to develop the OS divided by the number of copies they sell) for that Mac OS install disc, then it would be a lot more than $129. Basically, Apple sells those discs/software to keep customers happy; they don't have to do it. They could simply say that you must buy a new computer to get 10.5. That's what you have to do with any number of consumer devices. The simple fact that it is using basic computer hardware is irrelevant.

It's really simple. If you don't think Mac OS is worth the cost of buying an Apple computer, look elsewhere. And be careful what you wish for. Should Apple lose, then we are virtually guaranteed that Apple will start charging a lot of money for OS upgrades and we will wind up with a bunch of that registration/license numbers nonsense.

 

[Play Ultimate]

How do you install another browser without first having a browser already installed to go get the other one?

Netscape was a commercial product. You installed it from the CD you bought. Or online if you already had a browser, which at the time very few people had. Not all browsers are, or were, free.

 

[kkat69]

This will be very interesting to prove. I'm still confident that Apple learned from MS's mistake and took appropriate measures and researched in great length the anti-trust issue so they don't fall prey to it.

Microsoft did a bad thing and fixed it and it cost them. For other companies (especially Apple) to not go and research their own practices and ensure they don't fall victim would be foolish.

The catch could be that they are a "Hardware" company and they also write software for the hardware and open the ability for others to write software for their hardware. A loophole to be sure, but the sales generated would have to be primarily on Hardware. Another issue to point out is Apple doesn't hold a majority market share so they could be exempt where as MS has held a major markshare since Jesus walked the desert.

 

[Play Ultimate]

What I would address are the comments that indicate you should be able to do whatever you want to with the Mac OS install disc because you paid for it.

I agree. When you "bought" the install disks you bought a license to use according to the terms described. (All of you did click 'accept'?) In any case, you don't own the software, Apple does. They are only letting you use it. This is generally true for all software that exists.

 

[w0ngbr4d]

A case like this will drag on for years. Hell AMD v. Intel hasn't even gone to trial and its been 3 years since the suit was filed and it will be another year till the trial starts. A case lasting that long will bankrupt a small company like Psystar.

By the time there is a resolution to this case Apple will have released the 10.8 or 10.9 equivalent. By then, none of this will matter.

 

[ajthomason]

You can add a second monitor to any of the new iMacs with a $15-20 mini-DVI to VGA (or mini-DVI to DVI) adapter cable that plugs into a little port on the side of it.

I ran a 20" aluminum model this way for a while.

For that matter, any Macbook Pro can handle attaching a second display, and use the built-in LCD in tandem with it, too.

both of these options are irrelevant, and off-topic. The iMac can only handle one additional monitor - You can't run two projectors with it, you can't have two monitors next to each other that are the same size/height/rez (I run two Dell 2408WFPs because they are the same height, running one of these and my MBPs screen is almost unusable.

 

[kntgsp]

Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

I buy things with the intent on not having someone tell me where I can and cannot place it in my own home.

But sure why not, let's let furniture manufacturers stipulate where you can place your sofas. Or how about whether or not you can stick certain brands of pots and pans in your dishwasher.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

It has been and should continue to be stricken down as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. It places the consumer in a non-negotiable stance wherein they have no choice to accept.

Either agree, or lose your job because you can't use Final Cut Studio, or some other Mac only program, since all the people in your particular field or division use OSX developed programs. Geeeee, which one do you think everyone will choose? Operating systems should be handled differently than individual programs.

It comes down to classifying software like this as a good or a license. And thankfully, in states where it's classified as a good, the EULA is not enforceable.

 

[billystlyes]

I am praying that Pystar wins! Apple hardware is just too niche and expensive. This could open things up own the road for real clones.

 

[gonyr]

Legally you are not buying software. You are buying media and you are licensing the use of that software per your agreement with the manufacturer. You don't actually own anything except the media.

If you don't agree with this, then don't check the "I agree" box. Your software won't load, and you should be able to get the refund. If you do check the "I agree" box, one can reasonably assume you "agree". Right?

Or do you usually agree to contracts with the intent to break them?

I haven't taken one side or the other regarding the apple v psystar, but what you've said here raises a question in my mind: If I'm buying the media, and licensing the software, what happens if I accidently break my media (say by sitting on the disk)? According to your argument, my license would still be valid, but the media obviously is no good. Shouldn't I then be provided with a new copy of the disk for the price of new media alone (a blank DVD)?

 

[Bubba Satori]

Apple will make Psystar an offer they can't refuse. I'm thinking $100M.

 

[BenRoethig]

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.

Not so much. If they were hard coded like video game consoles, Apple would not be able to update their own systems.

Mac OS X needs drivers, just like windows and they're found in the extensions folder among other places. Being a much newer operating system, its much more efficient in how it handles them. They've also befitted by using fewer chipsets (don't get me wrong, the OS requires support for a lot more devices than you people realize) and family chipsets families that used common drivers during the G3-5 days.

Today things on the hardware side are much more Mac-like. Both chipset and video card makers rely on chip families to cut down on expenses and the need for a number of drivers. SIS and VIA have also exited the chipset business leaving Nvidia as the last of the third party chipset makers. In short, with the exception of the ROM chip issue, Mac OS X already has the drivers to run most of the chipsets and video cards released for x86 machines in the last three years. They need them for their own machines to function.

 

[macFanDave]

This case ought to get tossed.

The Mac OS has a market share of <10% so calling Apple a monopolist is absurd. I've been a Mac user since the market share was south of 2% and I've always believed that their will be an OPTIMAL market share figure and it's not 90+%.

I chose to use Macs BECAUSE Apple is a monopoly. Apple makes the hardware, the OS and many of the most important applications. As a consumer, I signed up with the apparently anti-competitive company because the user experience is superior to the Frankensteins bolted together from Dell's, Microsoft's and dozens of ISA's bits and pieces.

I've said for a long time that Apple can probably be free from anti-trust hassles until they get to about 15-20% market share. Psystar is jumping the gun since Apple can show that consumers have options other than Macs, so they don't have the power to abuse like a real monopoly has.

Furthermore, anti-trust laws are currently obsolete and unenforced. Have you heard of ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco? Clear Channel Radio? The XM-Sirius merger? The government doesn't care about the consumer. It would be pretty hypocritical for the trust-busters to come back from the dead to pick on poor lil' Apple.

Maybe President Obama might be interested in restoring consumer rights, but there's a lot of other things he'll need to tend to first. If McCain gets in, look for ExxonMobilChevronTexacoBPShell and FOXClearChannelXMSiriusABCComcastTimeWarnerCBSAdelphiaSinclairNBC.

 

[lowbatteries]

Not sure if this was mentioned (this thread got long fast!) but Microsoft wasn't sued because of how IE was embedded in the OS, or how they tried to lock people in with proprietary features. Netscape had proprietary features too.

They were sued because Microsoft took specific actions to make sure Netscape wasn't bundled with PCs (like threatening their vendors who preinstalled Netscape). Their actions were found to be anti-competitive.

You can't be sued for having a monopoly just because you have one, you have to take unethical steps toward protecting your monopoly.

Apple is simply trying to control who distributes its software and HOW it is distributed.

Edit: Whether or not they have the right to stop the user from doing what he wants with the software is questionable, but they definitely have a right to keep another company from distributing it.

 

[Scooterman1]

As long as it doesn't cost them too much to battle this out with a Giant like Apple, and they win, it could be a good thing for consumer price choices.

 

[ataylor]

some of the analogies that people are using are a bit misleading.

 

[Mal]

I haven't taken one side or the other regarding the apple v psystar, but what you've said here raises a question in my mind: If I'm buying the media, and licensing the software, what happens if I accidently break my media (say by sitting on the disk)? According to your argument, my license would still be valid, but the media obviously is no good. Shouldn't I then be provided with a new copy of the disk for the price of new media alone (a blank DVD)?

Should they? Probably. Do that have to, no. They do allow you to order replacements of the original media. If you broke your retail install media, you might could conceivably call up Apple and get them to send you another set (providing you could prove the others had broken) for slightly less. They're under no obligation to do so, though.

jW

 

[zombitronic]

some of the analogies that people are using are a bit misleading.

Yea, bakeries should sell you bread but only allow you to toast it if you buy their toaster.

If that bread comes with an EULA, yes.

 

[tsice19]

I'm going to sue Lexmark because I can't use their ink in my Canon. *

I'm going to sue Nintendo because I can't play my Wii games on my PS3. *

I'm going to sue Apple because I can't run their OS on my PC. *



Silly kids, you can't sue people for those reasons! C'mon!


If you want to use Lexmark ink, you'll use a Lexmark Printer.

If you want to play Wii games, you'll buy a Wii.

If you want to use OS X, you'll buy a Mac!



*Please do not contact your lawyers, I'm not really suing anybody


Edit: Just think of OS X as a game and Macs the only console that it plays on!

 

[w0ngbr4d]

Apple will make Psystar an offer they can't refuse. I'm thinking $100M.

Exactly. Psystar is looking for a quick payday.

2 Options:

• settle the case to get Psystar off Apple's back
• drag the case out as long as possible in order to pound Psystar into the ground with legal bills

The second option won't work if the lawyers are working on contingency. This will be a tough call.

 

[MaynardJames]

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us what music CDs we can play while driving.

Or better yet, let's have car manufacturers tell us how far we can drive our car, or what type of maintenance we HAVE to do to it, or what we can or cannot add/subtract from the car. Ohh... wait a tick.

 

[ajthomason]

Should they? Probably. Do that have to, no. They do allow you to order replacements of the original media. If you broke your retail install media, you might could conceivably call up Apple and get them to send you another set (providing you could prove the others had broken) for slightly less. They're under no obligation to do so, though.

jW

On this topic, I had a copy of Flight Sim 2004 (from MICROSOFT), scratched the disk and sent them an email, I even admitted that it was my fault. A week later, I had a set of 4 disks in the post with big labels saying 'Unlicensed Software, Illegal without separate licence from Microsoft'

So... it seems that some companies do this.

 

[zephead]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this is what I posted on Engadget about the same topic:

Let's use an example from everyday life to prove that there's nothing wrong here. Hamburgers. Anyone who knows how to make them can sell them. Nobody has a monopoly on hamburgers.

So, let's say that Joe's Burger Place decides to sue Burger King. Joe wants the recipe so he can sell Whoppers at his burger place, because he doesn't think it's fair that you can only buy Whoppers at Burger King. The Burger King bigwigs say that they want Whoppers only sold at Burger King, because they're the ones that make them and they hold the rights to it.

Who do you think will win?

 

[ajthomason]

I'm going to sue Lexmark because I can't use their ink in my Canon. *

I'm going to sue Nintendo because I can't play my Wii games on my PS3. *

I'm going to sue Apple because I can't run their OS on my PC. *

The Lexmark uses different Ink to the cannon, and there are compatible ink cartridges available if you don't want to buy the real ones.

The Wii Games are completely different to the PS3 ones and would have to be COMPLETELY re-written for them.

OS X will run on a PC WITHOUT MODIFICATION if Apple just allowed it.

... There is a huge difference.

 

[kntgsp]

If that bread comes with an EULA, yes.

So that person should then be forced to pay a fine or go to jail for using a non bakery sanctioned toaster?

Yay dictatorial control!

 

[r.j.s]

OS X will run on a PC WITHOUT MODIFICATION if Apple just allowed it.

... There is a huge difference.

Then how come you have to use Psystar's version of OS X, and their updates. Check the site. It will tell you that the retail disc will not work, and Apple's updates will not work. There is something shady there.