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's 54 Page Answer to Apple's Lawsuit with Counterclaim for Violation of ...
- Thread starter Sun Baked
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well if they're being backed by some large OEM who wants to launch a Mac clone, at least they'd know what they can and cannot do. If the EULA is ruled illegal, for example, then that would at least give them the legal right to install OS X on the PC if they can figure out how make it work without having to modify or patch any of OS X's code. Maybe something like Windows' Hardware Abstraction Layer which OS X could run on top of.
If all that mattered was the parts, why did not any of the authorized PPC clone companies sue Apple when Steve moved to System 8 and refused to license it to them? Or why did not they sue Apple to be allowed to continue to sell System 7 (which they were licensed to do) when Apple stopped selling it themselves? You don't think Motorola and IBM didn't have the money to put up a challenge? Much less any leverage over Apple since both made the PPC CPUs their Macs needed?
It's not the hardware that is the crux of the issue here.
It's not the hardware that is the crux of the issue here.
I think the case will revolve around the hardware, and will very much be a large part of the issue.
The hardware is irrelevant. It's no less illegal and wrongfully harmful to modify and sell Mac OS with non-Apple hardware now than it was to sell it packaged with an emulator when it was PPC only.
From a current legal stand point you are right.
But I can see a lot of benefits to having OS X officially supported for being run on none Apple hardware.
Well I can understand where you're coming from, but I think the only benefit it's going to do is give some an alternative OS. It's going to do nothing to drive the OEM hardware market forward now as Apple is able to do with things as they are. Some of us like all-in-one machines and super-thin laptops. The only reason other companies are making any now is to catch up to Apple. Apple is a competitive force in the OEM PC market and taking away their competitive advantage because some people think they're entitled is only going to hurt the market in the long run. Right now, Apple is proving that you don't need the commodity PC model to suceed and other OEMs are taking note. But if Apple is no longer in the picture because they're not allowed to create advantages through their own products (integration, etc.) it's going to be worse for the entire market in the long run.
What's so interesting about it? Tying is perfectly legal. It's done all the time. In order to prove that Apple's tying harms competition, Pystar has the same burden of proof that they're stuck with trying to prove an Apple monopoly. Both points are equally impossible because they rely on the absurd concept of an "Apple Macintosh computer" market. This market doesn't exist.
I doubt very much that any of the OEMs would support this lawsuit. They are smart enough to know that they can't force Apple into becoming their business partners.
No, THEY can't force Apple, but they can make sure Psystar's legal bills are getting paid. That way, if they do win - they can jump on that new market.
The not stupid enough to do it outright, but they will back the no name company with nothing to lose.
My point still holds. Even assuming any of the big OEMs were foolish enough to buy Pystar's feeble legal arguments (doubtful), even a favorable outcome for them would be far from obviously beneficial. At a minimum, Apple would be hostile towards them, and this does not make for productive business relationships. And even if Apple was ordered by a court to sell OSX to OEMs, we can imagine an number of options Apple has for making this an unpleasant and unproductive experience.
Not sure what this has to do with anything but I just wanted to point it out.
If for some reason Apple has to allow OS X to run on any computer, I.E none apple branded ones. Then (this is what I believe) we are going to basically end up with a Apple version of Windows. You are going to have so many availble hardware options in which companies develop drivers for (and it is my thought that some of the drivers for windows are so bad it makes things not work correctly) that OS X is eventually going to start having the same issues as Windows in regards to having a bunch of compatability issues.
So, if this somehow goes PSYSTAR's way, it will be a very interesting outcome.
ANYTHING STATED ABOVE IS MY OPINION!
not here to argue, just wanted to point that out!
If for some reason Apple has to allow OS X to run on any computer, I.E none apple branded ones. Then (this is what I believe) we are going to basically end up with a Apple version of Windows. You are going to have so many availble hardware options in which companies develop drivers for (and it is my thought that some of the drivers for windows are so bad it makes things not work correctly) that OS X is eventually going to start having the same issues as Windows in regards to having a bunch of compatability issues.
So, if this somehow goes PSYSTAR's way, it will be a very interesting outcome.
ANYTHING STATED ABOVE IS MY OPINION!
not here to argue, just wanted to point that out!
If Psystar feel that they can produce a better quality and cheaper hardware based system that can run OSX (without any modifications, as stated in the countersue), then why should they be prevented from doing so? There is no reason whatsoever why Psystar cannot compete with apple in the Mac OS market. Their benchmarks thrash the apple equivalents left, right and centre and it has been proved.
There is no reason, nor justification in only having the mandatory, non-avoidable alternative to that said "apple-labelled computer" - not apple branded hardware, not apple branded monitors, speakers, iphones, ipods, whatever to warrant OS X being limited to that said computer chassis. The hardware is identical to most PC's. The chassis must be labelled as an apple machine and by that, they limit and annhilate all competition. Apple do already have support for non-branded hardware.
If you honestly think that apple being allowed to force you to use Intel chips, rather then, say, AMD chips, and feel it is ok, then you are very short sighted. If they can discriminate against you for changing your hardware, by shutting your system down so that it is no longer usable and crippled and still think it's ok to do so, then you have issues.
Apple have been involved in foul play and have lasted quite some time, now they scream foul when someone tries to flag them down.
I've had enough of this argument.
As I've said, I hope Psystar win.
There is no reason, nor justification in only having the mandatory, non-avoidable alternative to that said "apple-labelled computer" - not apple branded hardware, not apple branded monitors, speakers, iphones, ipods, whatever to warrant OS X being limited to that said computer chassis. The hardware is identical to most PC's. The chassis must be labelled as an apple machine and by that, they limit and annhilate all competition. Apple do already have support for non-branded hardware.
If you honestly think that apple being allowed to force you to use Intel chips, rather then, say, AMD chips, and feel it is ok, then you are very short sighted. If they can discriminate against you for changing your hardware, by shutting your system down so that it is no longer usable and crippled and still think it's ok to do so, then you have issues.
Apple have been involved in foul play and have lasted quite some time, now they scream foul when someone tries to flag them down.
I've had enough of this argument.
As I've said, I hope Psystar win.
Since the day that those with great power abused their great responsibilities. See Intel, see Microsoft, see Eireann, the list is huge, see Tescos, see Asda/Walmart.
The main thing you need to understand is that they Mac the OS, but they DO NOT make the hardware. They make the casing around the hardware components. They label it with an apple sticker. No one else can. Not even you.
ok so someone else makes the hardware whoop de doo. Apple is the only one making the OS, so shouldnt they have COMPLETE control over who and what can use it???
You CAN make your own hardware, you CAN'T put an Apple sticker on it and sell it. I know you're from the UK, but you might consider brushing up on US trademark and copyright law before getting into a legal argument involving two US companies, in the US, involving US laws.
Not when they are the only ones making that said compartment, which holds hardware no difference to anything else, or no superior than anything you could go buy from best buy.
Car analogies are popular. So, it's like Ford telling the world who are allowed to use their cars. They let you buy it, and won't stop you from it, but should you try and use it, they'd cripple the engine.
No, car analogies suck. There is no good analogy for this situation, besides, you aren't looking at the big picture. These lawsuits aren't about what YOU as a single person can do with Apple's software, they are going after another company for making a profit by using their copyrights and trademarks without permission. Period.
I've no concern over copyright, nor trademark. This is about the ethics. Ethics are globally understood.
And quite frankly I know what you said. Psystar do not put an apple sticker on their computers and sell it. As a result they aren't infriging on copyright, nor denting any trademark laws, as far as I can see. I'm quite happy with the knowledge I have of copyright and trademark legalities. This whole scenario involves neither. Fortunately, that's very similar no matter where you go for the most part.
Except that it IS all about trademarks and copyrights. Show me in the legal filings where this is about ethics ...
No that analogy works fine. Same principles.
Or you can change it to an extreme, quite plausible. For example, it'd be like going to a restuarant where you can go everyone can go and eat. However, it has a list on the window saying caucasian, oriental and hispanics are not allowed to enter. Should you try, they'd let you in. But when you get in, they'd dose you up with choloroform and leave you crippled on the floor.
Outward you look different, but as with everyone else in the room, they're all human, and they all hold the same organs, feelings and mental state. That is how apple discrimate with their OSX licensing. Since switching to Intel, they opened the doors, but they have a sniper picking off anyone who do not fit their demands.
Where on earth did you find that? Psystar are not copying anything. They are not altering the OSX system. They are not pretending to be apple. They are not making you to believe that they are affiliated, trading on behalf, or in part, with apple.
They in no part copy or distrubute copies, illegal, legal or otherwise of apples said intellectual properties. This is NOT about trademark law nor copyright law.
YES it does. They discriminate against the fact that the computer HAS NO APPLE LABEL. It is not marked as an APPLE BRANDED machine. The contents are the same. So therefore it does apply. It is the same, and it is very applicable to this scenario.
A decent analogy would be this:
It's like going to the store and buying a DVD, you decide you don't some scenes, so you change them, all is good. Then you decide to start selling your edited DVD, but by Psystar's reasoning, it's ok, because they bought a DVD for each one sold.
It's like going to the store and buying a DVD, you decide you don't some scenes, so you change them, all is good. Then you decide to start selling your edited DVD, but by Psystar's reasoning, it's ok, because they bought a DVD for each one sold.