Don't confuse bravery with stupidity. What if Apple requests legal fees after they win, and are granted them? Do you think these guys have a properly maintained corporation? It is not that hard to pierce the corporate veil in most states. Co-mingle funds, neglect board meetings and recorded minutes, don't maintain proper capitalization... these are all used to establish that the corporate protection is not valid. If Apple is aggressive enough, they could theoretically end up with huge personal judgments.
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
Don't confuse bravery with stupidity. What if Apple requests legal fees after they win, and are granted them? Do you think these guys have a properly maintained corporation? It is not that hard to pierce the corporate veil in most states. Co-mingle funds, neglect board meetings and recorded minutes, don't maintain proper capitalization... these are all used to establish that the corporate protection is not valid. If Apple is aggressive enough, they could theoretically end up with huge personal judgments.
Yeah, but it wasn't widely used by Apples competitors, it was mainly used by Apple.
I'll just clear up my position on this matter, as many of my posts seem to be distracting
I don't care about psystar - they did break the law. I just want it to set an example and make Apple produce a version that can be installed on other machines, I'm not saying that they should licence it to Dell etc., but just have one that I can use on a machine and allow hardware manufacturers to produce drivers.You MacRumors folks and your analogies. Give me a break. Metaphors, similies and analogies are used to explain something that is otherwise difficult to understand. Nothing is difficult about this. It is a EULA, a contract. Read it, follow it. Maybe fight it out in court. That's all we need.
Cars, toast (not the DVD-burning kind), hammers or any other non-software product do not relate well to the software industry. Software purchasing is different, so using analogies such as these is pointless. You are just trying to pound a square peg into a smaller, round hole.
see, that one actually works
Cars, toast (not the DVD-burning kind), hammers or any other non-software product do not relate well to the software industry. Software purchasing is different, so using analogies such as these is pointless. You are just trying to pound a square peg into a smaller, round hole.
see, that one actually works
No I get where you're coming from.
The problem is that what if a company isn't reselling your product at a lower or higher price point.
Let's say Apple sells OSX for $100.
You pay me $500 for a computer with OSX on it. That's $400 for the computer and installation, and $100 for the OSX disc.
I'm not making a profit off OSX or undercutting your sale of it, as I still have to buy the software from you. Or if the customer buys the software and gives it to me to install on a computer they purchase from me. Same difference, only I'm cutting out the redundancy of forcing the consumer to purchase two things separately.
If Psystar is charging less or more for OSX via this method, then yes there is a problem as it is causing financial harm. But only if this is the case. Otherwise I don't see the harm.
But if the OSX license is simply being slid over without any money exchanging hands, Apple isn't losing money on OSX sales. These are people who would have installed OSX on a hackintosh regardless of Psystars existence, or continued to use XP/Linux. Both endings result in no Apple computer being sold.
They are saying if you don't buy an Apple computer, we don't want your money. Which is fine. I'm not going to argue their business pratices. But I think it's a little ridiculous to then try to squash these people because they don't want to wholeheartedly embrace every single product you make, and only desire one.
It's a case of Apple being mad that they can't pigeonhole the consumer into paying for market up hardware. THAT's what they are mad about. It's like saying you can buy my orange, but you can't eat it unless you buy one of every one of my other pieces of produce. How nuts is that?
At the risk of too many analogies, it's like a Ford dealership selling tires. They say you can only put them on a Ford. But they fit just as well on a Toyota. So I go to the Ford dealership, buy some tires and put them on my Toyota.
What's the issue?
And if there's a market for people who like putting Ford tires on their Toyotas, I open a business, buy tires from Ford, and charge people to put them on their car, saving them the trouble. Ford still makes money on the tires, and I am not reselling their product. The only thing I charge for is my labor.
I am selling my service utilizing a product which would have been purchased anyway or not at all. It's a win financially for Ford. And if the tire falls off, they come to me to bitch, not Ford, since the liability waiver they force you to sign says they aren't responsible for my service.
It doesn't hurt them financially.
It would send shockwaves through more than just tech. So, yeah, it won't happen.
And spurious motions and paperwork? Really? Apple will argue this purely on merits in order to establish precedence. Cheap lawyer tricks are used when you don't have a case.
That is one of the key points of the case, I believe. To Be Decided In Court! By judges (it'll be plural, don't worry) who have a firm, intelligent understanding of the laws as they relate to the software industry. *ahem* Well, something like that.
Sure, while this is true, you still can't legally run OS X on a PC.
And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could make an emulator for PS3 to play other platforms on it. And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could modify a Cannon printer to use Lexmark ink. And I'm sure if someone really wanted to, they could modify OS X to-- Oh wait. The latter has already been done.
The fact of the matter is, people need to realize that OS X is for Macs. If OS X is released for PCs, it will just become another Windows.
that is not ture, mate. you wont get a decent desktop for 350, never and nowhere...
The difference is that putting Ford tires on Toyotas won't significantly bring Ford car sales down.
Putting OS X on a PC will significantly bring the Mac sales down as the OS is such a deciding factor.
Its sad that this society thinks it should have complete control over everything they buy, and should have more rights than the company supplying them with products!
You MacRumors folks and your analogies. Give me a break. Metaphors, similies and analogies are used to explain something that is otherwise difficult to understand. Nothing is difficult about this. It is a EULA, a contract. Read it, follow it. Maybe fight it out in court. That's all we need.
Cars, toast (not the DVD-burning kind), hammers or any other non-software product do not relate well to the software industry. Software purchasing is different, so using analogies such as these is pointless. You are just trying to pound a square peg into a smaller, round hole.
see, that one actually works
Here's to the crazy one's...
Please, enough with this argument.
The BOM for an Apple computer is virtually identical to every other Intel box - the same components from the same manufacturers. Some very cheap boxes might cut corners on the power supplies or some other things, but the CPUs, chipsets, disks, NICs, etc are all the same.
I'd love to know how an OS can "respond well" to a better power supply
.But that's just it, I highly doubt it does bring Mac sales down.
These are people who didn't want a Mac computer to begin with. They just like the operating system. They would have built a hackintosh themselves, or continued to use XP/Linux. A lot of people don't give half a rat's ass what the computer looks like. It could be a dodecahedron painted bright purple, and if they liked the operating system, they would still buy it.
The people who care about the shiny case and the inflated sense of self worth will still buy Apple's computers. That will never change. And that's great for them.
But to argue that it's suddenly siphoning off all their computer sales is ludicrous.
The problem is that Psystar's own claims for the countersuit are "misinformed and mischaracterized."
Their argument that they "simply 'leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS' to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system" is the entire reason that they're in the wrong.
The opinion of some that Apple's software license agreement is justified or not is a moot point in this case. The SLA exists and Psystar violated it.
There's no way to prove that people weren't going to buy an Apple computer before they learned of an alternative, but that's not the point. The point is that Psystar is attempting to make profit while violating Apple's SLA.
Using the justice system is a great way to stop this. Without being able to enforce them, SLAs would be meaningless.
Their argument that they "simply 'leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS' to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system" is the entire reason that they're in the wrong.
The opinion of some that Apple's software license agreement is justified or not is a moot point in this case. The SLA exists and Psystar violated it.
There's no way to prove that people weren't going to buy an Apple computer before they learned of an alternative, but that's not the point. The point is that Psystar is attempting to make profit while violating Apple's SLA.
Using the justice system is a great way to stop this. Without being able to enforce them, SLAs would be meaningless.
I was referring to the ability to have a PC with two DVI/VGA ports, not a powerful machine. I've actually just found one for £199 on Dell's site (ex VAT, but that doesn't matter to me)
But the countersuit is going to oopen them to more damages.
Why?
They say they are leaveraging Open Source underpinning to archieve their product.
Open Source Licenses are also enforceable, thanks to a recent court ruling, so if they are not abiding by the terms of those licenses as well, but admitting they are using them for commercial gain in legal documents, it's a no brainer of a case.
Seeing as Apple hosts many of the projects, I wouldn't be surprise if we don't see counter-countersuit on that basis. It maybe the fastest route for Apple.
Although I can't see getting Hackintosh involved, so it have to be abuse of say Darwin License .
You people can argue in here all day, but at the end of the day, I'd like to see Psystar win. There is a place for Psytar and a place for the Apple store. Both existing only HELPS customers. Damaging the Apple "image" is for fanboys, I want options!
They just want the operating system, and currently, they need to buy a Mac to get it.
If they can build a hackintosh themselves, then they don't need Psystar. If they're happy with XP/Linux, they don't need Psystar.
Psystar fills the need for those who can't do the hack, and don't want XP. It is a substitute for Apple, leveraging Apple's own product against them, so Apple is being harmed.
That is a shortsighted view.
The less money Apple makes, the less they can innovate. How does that help consumers?
Ok it's getting late here, so I'm just gonna post a few more.
My point was there is no way to enforce it completely. There's no way for Apple to come after every single person who builds their own hackintosh. They'd have thousands of court cases that would stretch for years.
They show their computers on their site next to an OS X DVD box. That implies endorsement.
The problem is that they freely sell the OS on their shelves and on the shelves of countless retailers.
If they don't want people installing OSX on computers outside of their own, stop selling it freely in the store and require proof of ownership of a Mac to purchase it.
If Psystar was pulling OSX off of macs and then distributing software that isn't freely available in any retailer, I would agree there's a problem.
But Apple has done everything possible to make it freely available in the store in a nice pretty box. They want a completely closed system, restrict OSX like I stated above.
Absolutely right. You never buy the software, you buy a license to use it under certain conditions....period.
All these car and bread analogies fall flat because they are physical products produced for your exclusive use.
Software is a copy of the underlying work and copyright.
That shows the OSX software they install and one of the products you buy.
That does not imply endorsement. If I show a picture of a car I'm selling with Firestone tires on it, that doesn't mean Firestone endorses my company.