Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations, will ask court to declare Leopard EULA void
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 26th 2008 7:44PM
posted August 26th 2008 7:44PM
posted August 26th 2008 7:44PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Well no, they cant do what they like. Neither can you or any any other company making any kind of product.
There are laws that regulate trade.
Based on your line of thinking , things like insider trading would be perfectly legal.
look at what antitrust is.
quote,
"The antitrust laws describe unlawful practices in general terms, leaving it to the courts to decide what specific practices are illegal based on the facts and circumstances of each case"
Section 1 of the Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade ...."
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. ..."
Just because you develop and own something doesn't mean you can trade it in ways that are prohibited by law.
Apple is (imo) in breach of 1 and 2. I think Psystar have case and a chance of winning.
They... are in breach on... the products they trade...? head a-splode
Apple will easily win. EASILY
Also everyone seems to forget Apple isn't suing InsanelyMac - they're suing Psystar, the company that took the free 0sx86 and are selling it to uninformed customers.
Can I take Ubuntu and create a company and sell it for a profit? Not without Canonical's approval.
Apple's NOT suing the osx86 guys! They're suing a company that's making money selling their widgets!
@7on "They... are in breach on... the products they trade...? head a-splode"
Yep.. trading a product creates a whole bunch of conditions. Some protect you, others protect your customers. The question is.. Does Apple have the right to say what you can do with ther product once you buy it.
"Apple will easily win. EASILY
Also everyone seems to forget Apple isn't suing InsanelyMac - they're suing Psystar, the company that took the free 0sx86 and are selling it to uninformed customers."
Doesn't matter who they are suing. They are trying to enforce an EULA. Which is a contract. It is illegal to use a contract if it contains unfair or illegal conditions. And a contract that does is void. So if they lose they can't stop anybody buying OSX and selling it with whatever hardware they like.
How are they making a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking that they are in fact Apple?.. Do yourself a favour.. never go to court. The Psystar machines don't look like Apple computers. They don't have an Apple logo emblazoned anywhere on the case, which would be a trade mark issue, and much more straight forward. They just offer a plain ordinary looking PC with a choice of OS. One of those choices is OSX, so they are upsetting Apple. They are not advertising themselves as being Apple, so someone looking for an Apple computer is going to go to Apple. Someone looking for a cheaper OSX machine is going to go to Psystar, so no deceit involved.
"Can I take Ubuntu and create a company and sell it for a profit? Not without Canonical's approval."
Ohh what a bad analogy..Yes. You can. This is exactly what Linspire did. No bad blood from Canonical. Centos does the reverse and offers a copy of Red Hat Linux for free with Red Hat's blessings. The Linux world works in a very different way.
You can also start a company selling Windows on your own compilation of hardware, and even include your choice of software with it. It's pretty easy to get Windows OEM CDs legally for about £50 or so. Which is closer to this incident.
"Apple's NOT suing the osx86 guys! They're suing a company that's making money selling their widgets"
Widgets they purchased from Apple. Apple are still making money when Psystar buy a license. By selling these widgets, they granted licenses to Psystar. The matter in dispute is the conditions of the license. And if they are enforceable or not. Just being written down is not enough. They have to be legally binding.
If you buy a copy of OSX for your grey haired mac using granny, have you stolen that copy? Or are you just buying it on behalf of said grey haired granny?
Psystar are installing a retail copy of OSX on non Apple hardware for a third party. The issue is.. Can Apple legally prohibit them from doing so. The issue of the copy being an upgrade is further complicated if they can install it onto a blank drive without an earlier copy of OSX.
It would be easy for Apple to add in some more hardware ( ic's chips ) to make their hardware the only hardware to work with OS-X
Also the next version of OS-X might be a little more fussy about hardware - with the whole 64Bit memory thing.
MOnOpOliZe
What about the 100's of other computer manufactures out there.
What about the 10000's of other software companies out there.
Anyone can make a computer and write software. --- END OF STORY ---
Apple could charge $1000.00 for OS-X and then offer a $850.00 discount if you own a Apple MAC - and sell direct only.
Nope, if they tried that stunt they would get slammed for price gouging.
So, does this mean that Psystar are suing Apple because Apple sued Psystar for illegally using Apples product, in which Apple spent millions of dollars to produce?
I'm going to be nasty here so don't read on if you're sensitive as well as an idiot. As an aside that was mentioned in these stupid comments, the Mighty Mouse is a 4 button mouse. I'm sick and tired of idiots saying Apple makes only a 1 button mouse. Check the System Prefs. Smarten up. Grow up. Shut up.
The Windows community only want Psystar to win so they can install OS X on their own hardware.
I have been very much in favor of Pystar... but something just caught my attention (got me thinking), and brings me to this question:
What if Microsoft wrote (or re-wrote) their own EULA to say that any units of vista or xp bought after September 1, 2008 can only be put on Dell hardware.
Would this be acceptable? If so... what would everyone be saying and doing then?
No... Because MS and Dell are two different companies.
YES!!!
The whole question here is... "Who OWNS the software"
This case is a case of EULA vs First sale doctrine
Apples EULA and their terms assumes that apple still "owns" it and they are just giving you permission to use it. Psystar is claiming that because they purchased it they "own" it and can do whatever they like with it (which is putting it on non-apple hardware). The whole hardware issue has little to do with the suit and is just the catalyst. Cases against Microsoft dealt with other aspects of their OS but not with their EULA.
Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe EULAs have been tested in any court to completion, most cases usually ended up settling out of court.
FINALLY someone talking about first sale... everyone else is arguing about hamburgers.
This comes down to an issue of whether or not an EULA can dictate that a product purchased is only a license when all other aspects of the transaction function as a sale. Similar cases (don't have the references on hand) have come down against the EULA and said that if you buy it, and the transaction is such that it appears to be a purchase, you own it and may do as you wish with it (within legal limitations, obviously). The question is whether or not this will still be upheld with a piece of software as central as an OS.
"Saying that Apple should allow Mac OS on non-Apple hardware is preposterous"
Saying that ANY company has the right to DICTATE what I can and can not do with my own property is truly preposterous.
People have forgotten about PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. If they were selling (maybe they are??) computers with OSX pre installed then YES I agree its a commercial endeavor and should require licensing from apple. BUT if all they are doing is selling off the shelf copies of OSX with instructions for how to install it.
Well its MY PROPERTY apple does NOT (no matter what they claim) have the right to dictate terms to ME.
Its my property I can and will do with it as I please (no I do not have anything running OSX its a mundane operating system at best to me)
Imaging if FORD could dictate what changes you could make to your car. Or if chevy could dictate what gas company you bought gas from. Or if Mercedes could dictate what color you painted your car?
TO me EULA's that attempt to violate my personal property rights ARE null and void from the get go. They do not apply to me I do not read them I do not comply with them.
When its NOT personal OK licensing terms and EULA's apply.
When its personal YOU HAVE NO SAY in what I can or can not do with it.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Nilay, you are incorrect. Texas and California have a long history of ruling AGAINST EULAs