Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations, will ask court to declare Leopard EULA void

Wannabe Mac cloners Psystar hired itself some hotshot lawyers to defend against Apple's lawsuit, and they're not wasting any time earning their fees -- as Psystar's hinted in the past, it's going to countersue Apple for antitrust violations and ask that the court declare the Leopard EULA void. That's a pretty longshot argument, especially since EULAs have traditionally been upheld in California and Florida and we find it hard to believe a court would find a company with ten percent marketshare to be abusing a monopoly position, but we'll see how everything goes down -- this one is going to have some fireworks for sure.

[Justin B @ Aug 26th 2008 7:47PM]

OH SNAP!

These guys are so, so fucked.

[kccboy2004 @ Aug 26th 2008 8:34PM]

I see that Apple has been caught and found guilty of lying ....

see this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7582197.stm

typical. this is what we have been saying....lying cheats !!!

[kccboy2004 @ Aug 26th 2008 9:04PM]

@clak,

that is really very smart. i get it. point taken. laughed out loud.

[GatgetMan @ Aug 26th 2008 11:19PM]

http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clakkl4.jpg

[Paul Chapel @ Aug 26th 2008 11:45PM]

I've been reading these discussions for a while now and would like to chime in with my 2 cents.

Let's say you're the president of Hewlett Packard and you're trying to find a way to beat out Dell for market share. The only thing that really makes Dell computers stand out from HP computers is price. After all, Dell computers run Windows too. So you gather your board members for a meeting about this and someone asks, "Why don't we make a better operating system to compete with Dell?"

You say, "Great idea! Let's design an operating system that's better than Windows." So you and your team of engineers spend billions and billions designing a new operating system from scratch. It's ten years ahead of it's time. It a 128-bit operating system and it's does computations five times as fast as Windows. Your built in security software is bullet proof and as a result, HP computers sell like hot cakes.

A few months later, HP is the market leader, but Dell steps in and says, "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't fair. HP is competing with us. How dare they! They can't make their own operating system. They have to license it."

A court steps in and says, "Hey, license your operating system to Dell." You, as CEO of the company, look up at the judge and say, "Hey, wait a second judge, we spent BILLIONS of dollars making this operating system and spend millions more maintaining it. Dell didn't lift a finger. Now you're telling me we HAVE TO license them our new software?"

The judge brings down his gavel and says, "Yes," but instead of licensing the operating system, you say "screw it. If we have to license every OS we write, what's the use of writing it when we're just going to have to give it away, for far less than we would make on hardware? We're just doing cheap R&D for Dell so that they can turn around and beat us in the market again. Why should HP do that if we can continue to license Windows for twenty dollars a copy?"

As a result, there's no innovation in the market. Everyone continues to use Windows because it's cheaper than developing their own operating system and then giving it away. Does that seem fair to anybody?

[bondsbw @ Aug 27th 2008 12:23AM]

Agreed, Paul.

Too many people don't understand that Apple is different. Apple produces and sells an end-to-end solution for computers, i.e. both the hardware and software. They are not the same kind of company as either Dell or Microsoft; each of these companies serve a different market and as such, have different market penetration.

Saying that Apple should allow Mac OS on non-Apple hardware is preposterous. They have played this same game for MANY years now. It didn't go so well for them during the first 20 years or so. But now that they've spent billions to make Mac OS totally beat the hell out of Windows, people complain that Apple is being unfair? Yeah, who is really being unfair now?

If Apple has to allow hardware manufacturers to sell computers with Mac OS (which would compete with their business model), you would have to force Chervolet to sell their Corvette bodies to Ford so that they sell it on the frame of a Focus with a 4-cylinder engine. Why would Chevy want to do such a thing?

Ok, so there's always the argument that Chevy doesn't have a EULA; if you wanted, you could take your Focus, buy a Corvette, and transplant the body. This would be an extreme effort. Apple has little recourse other than that of contract, or in this case, EULA, and it would not be worth any litigation against individual users. Chevy never has to allow Ford to advertise that they have a new 2009 Focus that accepts the body of a Corvette, just as Apple never should have to allow Psystar to advertise that they have a computer that accepts Mac OS X.

[zedster @ Aug 27th 2008 1:03AM]

Lets keep the car example, a group of guys build a truck for fun,
they make it kind of complicated and ugly but it works great for what
they built it for, lets call this truck the BSD truck, then lets say some guy
see its in the garage says hey I can make money of that truck! He put his sticker on it,
body panels and a new radio and calls it his X -truck.

He realizes he lacks everything he needs for his X truck
so he strips some of the stuff he added to it and makes a new
Darwin mobile, then he says hey guys! I'm giving back to the makers of the
BSD truck!

People take the Darwin truck for a spin and add to it and mod it, pretty soon
its a great tricked out ride! then the men takes back the Darwin truck, steals the
add-ons and tweaks and sells it as the new X truck!

Then a another guy shows up and trys to get the body of the X truck to run on
his cheaper engine and shocks, the first man the owner of the X truck is livid! how could
this guy think he can take what I made!

At least microsoft doesn't try to play both sides in the oss v. proprietary software battle, Apple is a horriable
company selling image that comes with crappy tech.

And yes I realize the BSD license allows for it to be used for commercial use, however I would wager to
bet that a full review of OS X would come up with a few GPL issues.

[uagent @ Aug 27th 2008 2:12AM]

Wow bondsbw. I think that is possibly the most well-reasoned, rational and fair argument I've ever seen on this site, and actually makes me feel somewhat agreeable towards EULA's.

[Mark @ Aug 27th 2008 3:29AM]

@bondsbw:
I noticed a discrepancy in your comparison to cars. As you said, it would require extreme effort to transplant a corvette body on a ford focus. The reason for this is that the body shape isn't compatible with the focus. Now, a more reasonable comparison would be if chevy intentionally made the corvette have the exact same insides as the focus, making the body fully compatible. Then they advertised the car as a corvette and advertised that it could also take the body of a focus. Finally, they state that they will not allow the same to go the other way around and refused to allow anyone to put a corvette body on a focus, even though they are now fully compatible and identical aside from the body.

as for Paul Chapel:
The real problem here is exactly that they don't want to have to compete. Apple has created an artificial monopoly by forcing consumers to purchase their hardware to use software which is perfectly compatible with most of the modern hardware out there right now. Now, nobody is asking that they give their software away as you claimed, merely that they sell it to other manufacturers so that they can compete in that market. Even if people buy the other manufacturer's computers Apple still gets money from the sale of the software. The reason Apple doesn't want to do this is obvious: they get to enjoy a market with zero competition meaning that they can demand the exorbitant prices they currently do.

[FuzzyCat @ Aug 27th 2008 3:50AM]

@bondsbw

"If Apple has to allow hardware manufacturers to sell computers with Mac OS (which would compete with their business model), you would have to force Chervolet to sell their Corvette bodies to Ford"

Chervolet sell completed cars not car bodies. In your analogy Apple sell complete cars (eg macbook + osx) and car bodies (boxed osx) too.

I appreciate that Apple had a hard time when they licensed their OS 20 odd years ago but personally I don't see the value of their desktop/laptop hardware. When I first saw a Macbook pro I was totally astonished as you how BAD it looked. On the side panel I could see screws (silver) it just looked cheap (and I know it wasn't) . For me their value is in the OS. Selling an OS for $120 (ish) to anyone who wants to run it is just like printing money - only better. You can 'print' as many copies as you like and sell them to anyone who wants it.

Just because you might be forced to license your software it doesn't mean you can't license it for the full retail price which, knowing Apple, you pay (full price) when you buy a Macbook or whatever as part of the cost of the hardware. Microsoft DID license it for less than the cost because they WANTED to in order to get companies like Dell to put the software onto machines they sold.

Even if you were forced to license your software, it would then be up to the hardware manufacturers to match hardware with the software not the other way around (although neither is particularly difficult if you want to do it).

I would certainly welcome a 'Certified for use with OSX' program from Apple on non Apple hardware, hey they could even charge manufacturers for the certification. If they kept the program honest (unlike Microsoft) then as an end user I could go to a store and buy a cheap Acer laptop that's certified by Apple and know it'd work perfectly. (not unlike the cheap Acer laptop I have right now, running OSX as I type).

[Paul Chapel @ Aug 27th 2008 4:19AM]

I keep hearing people say, "Apple is anti-competitive. Apple is anti-competitive," and yet I fail to see how designing and coding your own operating system is not competitive. Doesn't Apple's OS make their computers more attractive than a Dell or HP computer? Isn't that the whole point of competing, to make your product more attractive than the competition? Forcing Apple to sell away their proprietary software is like forcing Coke to sell their secret formula to Pepsi.

What you guys really want to do is give Apple's competitors a right to be lazy. I've noticed no one is saying, "Hey, go write and design your own operating system, something better than OS X."

What everybody seems to be saying is, "Hey, just let Apple spend billions developing an operating sytem and when it's good and ready, sue them in court and gets the rights to sell it. And then when that's done, put it on second rate third party hardware and when it runs like crap, just blame it on Apple so that everyone thinks OS X is crap. Then you can go back to selling people versions of Windows."

I mean, think about it. Take your reasoning to its logical conclusion. What happens if Apple is forced to license their operating system and stop making their hardware profits. Development of OS X will stop, that's what. Apple will stop selling Macs and focus on selling people iPods and iPhones and then what? That's right. Microsoft will have 99 percent of the market. You think Microsoft is going to have a reason to innovate when that happens.

Remember what happened when they finally killed Netscape? Microsoft went from having 100 people on their IE team to 2. Good luck with that.

[Californian @ Aug 27th 2008 7:56AM]

@Paul
I entirely agree.
@Zedster
I hate Apple as much as you. I find them to make a vile OS, besides, who has only one mouse button? But that is beside the point in this instance. This is totally wrong. How dare some little copycat company go in there and start ripping off Apple for the only thing they have- their OS? Their computers are all overpriced for the same *exact* hardware, and the cases are a bit cheap if they aren't the nice ones. And some little company wants to go in there and use the OS for *free*? That's wrong. EULA-hating or not, you can't just go in there and take someone else's intellectual property just because it makes you money. That's like sayin, "Oh, I thought that Call of Duty 4 had a great multiplayer campaign, so my studio is just going to make a new single player and sell the multiplayer (which connects to the same servers) with it." No. If Apple is a bad apple, psysysysysterar is a rotten one with worms and mold. Go home to weird- and freaky-people-filled miami.

[Rich @ Aug 27th 2008 8:05AM]

The point of this legal case isn't to get Apple to support other hardware vendors.

It's about the right of someone to legally buy a copy of the operating system - which Apple sells as a standalone product - and install it on whatever hardware they choose. Does Apple have a legal right to say how their product is used?

[bondsbw @ Aug 27th 2008 8:19AM]

@zedster: The Darwin developers allow for just such a thing; they could have instead made it proprietary and sold it to Apple. Apple gives back to that community, but for in-house non-Darwin applications (I'm mostly talking about Aqua), they choose not to do the same. It's their right. And if you are angry about that, don't give them business. That's your right.

@Mark and FuzzyCat: Ok, let's do it this way. Let's pretend that starting this year, a company called CarTops makes car bodies that use a certain frame. Say that Ford, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, and Chevy all decide to use that frame so that people can put CarTops bodies on their cars. By the year 2020, all cars from Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Mercedes use the standard frame and come with CarTops bodies preinstalled. But Chevy, they don't... they feel that the Corvette bodies give them an edge on the market. They have no qualms with you using CarTops bodies, but none come preinstalled. And they don't let Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Mercedes owners buy Corvette bodies for the sole purpose of installing them on their other cars; they only sale newer Corvette bodies to replace older ones on Chevrolet-branded vehicles.

What if the computing industry grew up the same way these car makers did? Let's say that for years, Microsoft and Intel didn't exist. Instead, IBM, Dell, Apple, Gateway, Packard Bell, Compaq, HP, etc. all did the complete system, both hardware and software. All of these systems had their merits; some ran faster, some ran smoother, and all eventually came together and made themselves compatible with the Internet.

Now, it's 2008. A startup called Microsoft comes in saying that it makes an operating system (named Windows) that can be used on any computer that runs an Intel microprocessor based on the x86 instruction set. Now, the Intel processors are FAST, and they are being manufactured in such quantity that none of the OEMs can say no to using their processors. All of the OEMs, by 2015, decide to go all-Intel, and with the exception of Apple, all of them feel that it would be better to use the Windows OS instead of their own.

Apple is different... they only enjoy the speed of the Intel chips, but they feel that they provide a better software component than Microsoft. The software itself sets them apart. So, they transition their OS team to Intel, and they even make it so that Windows can run on their computers. Of course, they will not allow competing OEMs to sell their OS or advertise systems as being compatible with their OS. And their only recourse, seeing as the OEMs are not in contract with Apple and thus cannot be held to Apple's terms, is to contract with OS X users, saying that as part of the sale agreement, those users would not run OS X on any other system.

- Microsoft allows anyone to use their software, but they don't allow you to install another OS on their hardware (Xbox, Zune).
- Apple allows anyone to use their hardware, but they don't allow you to install their OS on other hardware (Mac, iPhone).

How are those any different?

- Apple has never used legal action to keep Microsoft from selling Windows to Mac users, just as Microsoft has never used legal action to keep Apple from selling Macs to users that would install Windows on them. THAT would be anti-competitive.
- If Apple doesn't want their OS to have deep market penetration, why in the world should someone force them?
- Apple is a far cry from a computing monopoly.

[uagent @ Aug 27th 2008 8:55AM]

@zedster:

You made me think of something...XCode is built on gcc, not just "linking" to it, which means that gcc should be licensed to them under the GPL, not the LGPL. Apple then proceeds to include XCode with OSX... Which, if I'm not mistaken, means that the GPL would apply to the entire contents of OSX, since XCode is a component of OSX...

Mind you, Psystar really doesn't have a leg to stand on (if they really weren't just ripping off Apple, they should have filed a claim of GPL violation, then stripped out the trademarks, ala CentOS) but it would be great to see OSX up til now GPL'd (especially for those poor bastards using G5's who are going to be shut out of Snow Leopard).

[Paul Chapel @ Aug 27th 2008 10:00AM]

@Rich, who said: "It's about the right of someone to legally buy a copy of the operating system - which Apple sells as a standalone product - and install it on whatever hardware they choose. Does Apple have a legal right to say how their product is used?"

In a word, yes. Think of it this way. Let's say you go out and buy a Harry Potter book. You can do anything you want to do with it, right? You own it. You can burn it, chop it into little pieces or sell the book second hand to someone on Amazon. But what happens if you go to Kinko's and make copies of that Harry Potter book and then try to sell them on Amazon?

Think about it. You get sued right? JK Rowling will hang you out to dry and you know why? Ownership rights have limits. You can not infringe on the copyright of JK Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, without her permission. You can not profit from her copyright without her permission. So Apple, whether you like it or not, has the same rights. Apple established those rights in Apple Computers versus Franklin Computers.

Why is it okay to profit from someone's operating system, which costs millions of dollars to write, but it's not okay to profit from a book, which cost someone a few hours and some pen and paper. Someone explain that to me and your argument might have merit.

[Mark @ Aug 27th 2008 3:51PM]

@ Paul
Because you paid JKR for one copy and are selling many of them. Psystar buys as many copies of Mac OS X as they sell computers. Your initial argument was good. Everything else you said was moronic.

Is making a computer that you can install Mac OS X on illegal? Obviously, no.
Is buying a copy of Mac OS X and then selling it to somebody else illegal? Obviously, no. Lawyers may argue otherwise, but what it comes down to, is that I can go to Best Buy or wherever, buy a boxed copy of Mac OS X and without opening it, sell it to someone else.

Is installing it on a non-Macintosh computer illegal? Depends on the interpretation of the law. If we're going with the spirit of the law, then no: I paid for one copy of Mac OS X, I'm using one copy of Mac OS X, everyone should be happy. Actually, it depends on whether the EULA is a legally binding contract, on whether in fact that behaviour is anti-competitive, and on other things.

My personal opinion is that, legally, if Apple doesn't want you installing Mac OS X on non-Mac computers then it should pull all copies of it off the shelves. They sell copies of a fully-licensed operating system. It is not an upgrade version or anything of the sort. If it's not an upgrade version then I should be able to install it on whatever the hell I like provided, I buy as many copies as I install.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Aug 27th 2008 4:05PM]

What Mark just wrote is 100% correct, and the courts will recognize that in the first reading of Apple's paperwork. Good bye EULA - hello reality.

[Paul Chapel @ Aug 27th 2008 9:19PM]

@Mark

You're missing several important points. First of all, my example with JK Rowling illustrates that she, as author of the Harry Potter books, has ownership rights that an ordinary person doesn't have. As the copyright author, she has the authority over who sells her books. If JK Rowling doesn't want Barnes & Noble or Borders selling her books, she has a right to refuse them.

Apple authorizes who sells their products through the Apple reseller program. Psystar is not an authorized reseller. The CEO of Psystar has the right to buy one copy of OS X for personal use, but once they buy hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X, for the explicit purpose to resell them, they have violated Apple's copyright and EULA and must obtain a license from Apple.

Furthermore, when you buy a Mac, the software that comes with it is subsidized by Apple. Ever wonder why OS X is so much cheaper than retail versions of Windows. Anyone who buys upgrades for their Macs, which is what a copy of OS X constitutes, is also buying a subsidized copy of OS X, because it is stated in the contract that you accept, that you will use OS X only on Apple branded computers.

Listen, we can argue the merits of this case all day, but it really comes down to this: Apple spent billions to develop OS X and they have the right to dictate how you use it. I'm sure if you spent as much money as Apple has developing an operating system, then you would feel exactly the same way. I'm sure anyone would get pissed if a court FORCED them to sell their software in a way that they didn't want.

[Mark @ Aug 27th 2008 11:56PM]

@ Paul:

Assuming JKR is the one that owns the rights to her books and not her publishers/whoever she does in fact have the right to refuse the bulk sale of books to Barnes & Noble. Barnes & Noble has the right to go to whichever bookstore pleases them most, let's say Amazon, buy a few thousand of these books and sell them back to you.

Whether they'd be able to turn a profit or not is disputable, but that's not the point: while Apple doesn't sell something to me, I don't have the right to do anything with it. When Apple does sell something to me, I can turn around and sell it right back to you. In fact if you weren't an illiterate idiot, you might've read the Apple EULA, which states that you're allowed to resell:

"You may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party, provided that: (a) the transfer must include all of the Apple Software, including all its component parts, original media, printed materials and this License; (b) you do not retain any copies of the Apple Software, full or partial, including copies stored on a computer or other storage device; and (c) the party receiving the Apple Software reads and agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this License." http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html

Long story short, they may arguably have the right to tell me that I can't modify it; they do have the right to tell me I can't steal pieces of it; what they do NOT have, is the right to tell me that I cannot install it on any piece of hardware I like. Once again, you have this the wrong way around, the judge isn't forcing Apple to sell anything, Apple is attempting to dictate to me how I can and can't use a product they willingly sold me. Don't want people installing it on other hardware? License it as an upgrade version, pull it off the shelves, do whatever you like, but don't sell me a fully-licensed operating system and THEN tell me I can only use it on your hardware.

Finally, unimportant, but interesting: Vista Ultimate OEM: 190$ (way more features than OS X, but I won't get into that); Vista Business OEM: 130$; Vista Home Premium OEM: 130$. Now tell me, how exactly is 130$ a subsidized price for an operating system that has a support lifecycle of 4 years?

[Paul Chapel @ Aug 28th 2008 2:26AM]

@Mark

Dude, I've already been over this. The part of the software agreement that you quote if for personal use, not commercial use. The two are completely different things. You obviously aren't familar with the First-Sale Doctrine or you wouldn't be making such a pathetic argument.

I've already stated that anyone can buy copies of OS X for limited personal use, but once you start selling it in bulk and under the banner of a corporation like Psystar no less, you become open to licensing issues. A reseller is a company or individual that purchases goods or services with the intention of reselling them rather than consuming or using them.

A reseller is bound by agreeements that he/she makes with the originating company. In some cases, the originating company even sets the price.

And it's not like Microsoft doesn't also have a reseller program too. They've sued people for trying to sell OEM copies of Windows on Ebay.

This whole Psystar drama isn't about whether people have the personal right to buy a copy of OS X and do whatever they want. The Psystar drama is about whether someone, with no intention of using the software themselves, has the right to sell Apple's software in bulk, on hardware not approved by Apple. No matter how much you complain, the law is on Apple's side.

What I expect to happen if Psystar wins by some unseen miracle is that Apple will say okay, we will no longer allow resellers to sell subsidized copies of OS X. The unsubsidized copies will now be sold for $1000. And if you come to the Apple Store, you will now need your Mac serial number to buy a subsidized copy.

And more than likely, Apple will use Fairplay to restrict people from copying the disks. So no matter what, Psystar is not going to win this.

[Chad @ Aug 29th 2008 11:10AM]

@ Paul Chapel

You are very much incorrect. First and foremost, there aren't separate personal and commercial sections of the license agreement. There is one agreement encompassing all situations. That fact nullifies your entire argument. Even if the EULA specifically stated that you could not resell the software, the law has time and time again nullified this, specifically in Texas and California. Guess what, the case was filed in California. Secondly, apparently YOU aren't familiar with how the courts have applied the First-Sale Doctrine to software. They have repeatedly found that this doctrine ALLOWS anyone to resell software. I'm not sure why you even brought it up, as it specifically contradicts the point you are making

It's laughable that you think the law is on Apple's side here. Precedent has been set in California that suggests Apple's EULA could just as well be printed on toilet paper...it's next to worthless. They have already shredded Adobe's EULA (SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc). I'd be VERY surprised if Apple won this case.

[Scott @ Aug 26th 2008 7:48PM]

Good luck with that!

[Decoy @ Aug 26th 2008 8:55PM]

Clak, Zak, good to see you boys here, you totally didn't say anything about the 3G problems, the iPhone cracking problems, the MobileMe problems, the MagSafe problems etc, we all missed your input on those.

[krizoitz @ Aug 26th 2008 10:23PM]

@Decoy

3G Problem - turns out the iPhone antenna are just fine, its ATT's network that sucks
iPhone cracking - yeah a couple people show us cracked iphones (gee maybe they dropped it) some how its a problem?
MobileMe - this one was a legitimate screw up, which they are compensating people for and fixing, oh the horror
MagSafe - some power cords were broken, Apple is replacing them free of charge, again, the horror!

[GatgetMan @ Aug 26th 2008 11:29PM]

http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=c2wz5.jpg

[Macbeth @ Aug 26th 2008 11:42PM]

@krizoitz


3G Problem - far from the truth, other 3g phones work w/ no problems where iphone spazzes out.
iPhone cracking - stress fractures and cracks aren't the same thing. stress fractures are more like tearing, not impact.

[Striker @ Aug 26th 2008 7:50PM]

I actually believe that Psystar has a case against Apple, hopefully, the court will decide in their favor. I personally believe that their case that Apple has a monopoly by forcing their products in order to run their operating system is completely true.

[Zak @ Aug 26th 2008 7:58PM]

So you're saying Apple has a monopoly on Apple products?

Yeah. That's going to hold up. In related news, I have a monopoly on my own arms. News at 11.

[Anonymoose @ Aug 26th 2008 8:01PM]

you know what, i thought they had no shot, but after reading your post, i'm thoroughly convinced. why should a manufacturer be allowed to operate as both a hardware company and a software company and have one bound to the other? i'm inspired. i need to tell memorex this so they can go ahead and just burn movies straight onto their dvds and sell it cheaper than the studios do. hey, it's their hardware, right?

[Keaton @ Aug 26th 2008 8:16PM]

@Zak

No Apple has a monopoly on its software only going onto its hardware...
Big Difference.

[Snitch @ Aug 26th 2008 8:54PM]

Psystar has no case, Why???? cause there's linux and the giant microsoft, which you can use to do pretty much the same thing as a Apple product without breaking any laws. you can't force apple to make leopard compatible with Pcs, same way you can't force Ford to install ferrari engines in their cars. Let me tell you was going on, lawyers are crooks, they go to school for that, Ask Nilay he should know lol, they can't just tell their client that they have no case when they can milk them for money, they always try to go all along with you until you don't have a dime, then that's when you end up in jail and you lawyer ends up with your wife

[Decoy @ Aug 26th 2008 8:53PM]

Hey, what if Nike made you sign a EULA that insisted that when your wear their shoes you can ONLY wear Nike branded clothing to go with it?

Weird, but not a monopoly.

Then Psystar comes along and is all like "Hey, here's some Nike sneakers and some cordoroy slacks, wanna try it this way?"

RESPONSE: Fuck you Psystar, going with Nike isn't supposed to be about having choices. It's supposed to be about the "pure Nike experience" that can only come when the sneakers are worn with Nike clothes.

[zephead @ Aug 26th 2008 9:44PM]

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?

[John @ Aug 26th 2008 10:12PM]

actually, this is more analogous to someone opening up a restaurant next door to burger king - let's call it "Psyburger". They see that people like to buy Whoppers, but you can only buy them with the BK fries and other items. So, Psyburger then has people run over to Burger King, buy Whoppers, and then sells them to people at their restaurant. Then, BK goes to court saying that just because Psyburger bought the Whoppers, they don't actually OWN the Whoppers, just the rights to eat the Whoppers.

Who do you think would win that one?

[Jase @ Aug 26th 2008 11:55PM]

You are right don't listen those the fanboys who know nothing. Apple is in clear violation of the Sherman Act section 1 for trying their OS to the hardware. its about time someone challenged it because their business practices are outrageous. Having 10% of the market share is not a bar to a antitrust violation. Market share is only one factor and has nothing to do with a trying violation. They have a very very good case against Apple and for those who say California is not a good venue 1st. Antitrust cases are removed to federal court and 2. the 9th circuit is the most overturned circuit so even if they loose chances are it will be over turned.

[Tyson @ Aug 26th 2008 11:59PM]

PS That message was written on a MBP.

[Isaac @ Aug 27th 2008 12:17AM]

@ Jase

Unfortunately it is actually an antitrust violation to accuse another company of violating the Sherman act.

Ain't government great?

[Mark @ Aug 27th 2008 3:37AM]

@Snitch: Hate to tell ya but OS X is fully compatible with a lot of pretty standard pc hardware. Since it now uses Intel Core 2 it's compatible with most machines. So, in short, they aren't asking Apple to make it compatible, it already is. They want Apple to allow them to buy a license to sell their machines with it.

[e2_98 @ Aug 27th 2008 4:17AM]

@john

all this talk is making me hungry, but on that theme, its not the right of ownership, its the right to sell, psyburger wouldnt have the right to sell said burger under the trademark of whopper, as thats owned by burger king. Even if psyburger sold it under another name this would still be illegal as its still a whopper.

The problem is that people have come to expect to buy a piece of software (i.e windows) and install it on pretty much any pc they wish. If we agree that the OS is a component of a computer, like an engine of a car is a component, you wouldnt buy an engine from ford and expect to put it in your VW and expect it to work, nor would that be a reasonable action on the part of the consumer.

[Rednecs @ Aug 27th 2008 4:50AM]

@ e2_98

Maybe I like the performance of my ferrari engine but the size of my focus for city driving, so I go into my garage and modify my ford engine bay, the ferrari engine and other stuff so it works with each other. Now I have a focus body with a ferrari engine which I can use to race grannies in the supermarket car park!

Notice how I did not just plonk the engine from the ferrari into the ford, I made changes where required. Nor do I expect Ferrari or Ford to support the resultant mutant car.

Now all the grannies in the supermarket car park can't keep up with my mutant car and want a piece of the action as well so I start providing a service to put their ferrari engines into their fords. Will I get sued by Ferrari/ford....will the grannies finally break my unbeaten streak...will I ever find out who moved my cheese!? Tune in next week to find out....

[Evo1216 @ Aug 27th 2008 1:05PM]

@rednecs

You would not be sued for providing the service of installation, but you WOULD be sued if you started putting a bunch of those ferrari/focus monsters together, and then resold them to make a profit off of the total product.

In the case of Psystar, if all they were doing was aiding other users who had purchased OSX install it on a non-Apple product, they wouldn't be sued for that. Instead, they're buying the OS, installing it on their crappy systems and then re-selling it, and they're main selling point? That it has OSX on it! Something they never put a single dollar into creating. It's called Intellectual Property, look it up!

[phanbouy @ Aug 26th 2008 7:50PM]

totally man, apple has a total monopoly on apple operating systems. bastards.

[troy @ Aug 26th 2008 9:01PM]

This is the most moronic statement in the whole world

[zephead @ Aug 26th 2008 9:49PM]

Someone needs their sarcasm detector fixed. ;)

[Craig B. @ Aug 26th 2008 10:15PM]

Oh no, where'd your old avatar go!? See, this is what happens when people have monopolies on their avatars.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Aug 27th 2008 4:03PM]

Yes, Apple has every right to own their operating system, and they have every right to go after anyone who steals it or claims it as their own property. UNTIL APPLE SELLS IT. Once Apple sells a particular copy of their operating system to ANYONE, it is totally and complete none of their business about who they RESELL it to. Psystar is not ripping OS X DVDs. They are reselling Apple OS X DVDs.

Now Apple is trying to say in their ridiculous EULA that you don't own the operating system, you've only purchased a liscence to USE the operating system under their ridiculous restrictions. This is comical for the following reasons:

1) You NEVER sign an agreement to these conditions.
2) You NEVER see the conditions until AFTER YOU PAY.
3) There are NO NOTIFICATIONS of the conditions which are visible on the product before you pay.
4) They would not be legally binding even if there were, because you don't sign anything.

Simply put, for a licensing agreement, you need a contract signed by all involved parties. Do you think Microsoft sends 1,000 copies of Vista to Dell, then Dell sends $20,000 to Microsoft, THEN Microsoft tells Dell what they can and can't do with the copies? Get real.

Microsoft and Dell sit down with a horde of lawyers and agree not only on the price, but on all the TERMS of the license. What can be done with those copies, etc.

So what is Apple suing about? They're suing because Psystar called bullshit on their fraudulent EULA. No one buys an OS X license on a single-copy basis. They buy a copy of OS X. What they do with it after that is not Apple's business.

Sorry to state something so obvious to the Apple fanboys, but this is basic ethics and basic property rights. You understood this in third or fourth grade.

I'm typing this on a Mac Mini so please forgo any anti-Apple ad hominem attacks. OS X is great, the OS X EULA is hilarious fraud - which is why no one pays any attention to it. The Psystar lawyers are going to give Engadget a right cross to the nose when they blow up the whole idea of consumer LAs.

[Crayola @ Aug 26th 2008 7:50PM]

no shit... this is watching some liveleak self-immolation creep-fest

[nik @ Aug 26th 2008 7:51PM]

Oh, this will be great!! I'm not a microsoft fanboy either - i own a mac - but the fact is that you could indeed have an argument against apple - i would say bundling.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Aug 26th 2008 7:57PM]

Whoo, GO PYSTAR! If you can sue Microsoft for having IE on their systems, you can sue Apple for not letting others license their OS.