Psystar's antitrust claims against Apple dismissed
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 18th 2008 7:02PM
posted Nov 18th 2008 7:02PM
Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming -- Judge William Alsup in the federal Northern District of California today dismissed Psystar's antitrust counterclaims in Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit against the wannabe Mac cloner. According to the judge, Psystar's hotshot legal team failed to provide facts "plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors." Not only that, but the judge also found that Psystar actually contradicted itself in pointing out that Apple has to advertise heavily to promote OS X against competing operating systems that perform the same tasks, and that Apple is "certainly entitled" to ask its customers to only use OS X on Apple machines. Yeah, that's a smackdown. Psystar has until December 18th to amend its complaint and try these arguments again, but we can't say we think it's got a shot in hell here -- and something tells us that that court-mandated alternative dispute resolution process isn't going to get very far in Psystar's favor either.
Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and sells bootleg OSx86 machines out the back of his van, but he's not your lawyer and this isn't legal advice.
[Via Macrumors]
"Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and sells bootleg OSx86 machines out of his van, but he's not your lawyer and this isn't legal advice."
Ha! Good one. *golf clap*
+1 for relevant avatar
How much for an OSx86 machine Nilay? And does it have Blu-Ray?
Nilay, do you WANT to be my lawyer?
I wish OSX could be available to all computers, Apple could make a fortune, well, more than they already do.
But then it'd show that Mac OS X isn't really that compatible and Apple would have to pay A LOT more on support service for every macho trying to get their beloved OS to run on a PS3. They wouldn't make a fortune, but rather lose quite a lot of dough.
If so...what I'm going to do with my perfect-designed 2 buttons mouse?
*Crap
And you base your claim on what? Stuff you pulled out of your bum?
@Vander. Use it with your Mac, of course.
Their sales would be much higher, that's for sure. Unfortunately, costs would vastly exceed sales and they'd go out of business.
@lurch_mojoff
Probably from the size of the OSx86 community. I'd agree with him that I'm sure there are lots of people who are curious about the alternative OS, but won't switch because it would be prohibitively expensive.
I'd add that Apple make most of the drivers that ship with OSX. If they took a Microsoft approach and let hardware manufacturers create their own drivers, I think it would be possible to keep costs under control.
Unfortunately, most Windows crashes and bluescreens come from bad drivers, so stability would be something of a hit-and-miss, depending on which company wrote your drivers. Microsoft's code is usually quite stable, but 3rd parties often ruin it with bad drivers. Apple gets around that at the moment by creating all drivers in-house in consultation with the party who made the hardware. It doesn't scale very well, so Apple are forced to restrict hardware choices if they want to maintain predictability.
Also, seeing as there's currently no serial number or CD key that goes with OSX install DVDs, if Apple were to open up the OS to all hardware, they would need to become like Microsoft in implementing such anti-piracy measures. Otherwise, Apple would effectively make $zero$ from licensing OSX. And as other posters pointed out, the vast combination of hardware components would balloon Apple's support and R&D budget to a point it's no longer making a profit. And if another hardware maker (Dell, HP, etc) starts to have quality issues in the crapware/drivers that they include, customers would likely blame Apple for it (much as Microsoft gets blamed for most of the problems). So if Apple were to license OSX at all, it would have to be under draconian strict terms with a team of lawyers blessing each clone coming off the assembly line. In other words, it's as likely as Steve giving each American a free Macbook Pro. But I would settle for a Macbook. Call me, Steve. I know a great vegan place.
@loocas
I believe that's a symptom of Windows disease
They already tried that. Didn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Official_Macintosh_clone_program
@Hjr21
Short answer: No
Longer answer: Apple makes its money on high margin hardware rather than software that yields very little income (mind you, the iPhone is contributing a lot now). If Apple were to shift to sell OS X for other computers then they'd be shooting themselves in the foot by swapping high-margin sales for low-margin ones. They would need to sell a hell of a lot of OS X licenses to cover the losses and I highly doubt that there would be THAT many Windows users who would switch. Licensing OS X would be suicidal given Apple's current business model.
if they did that you can guarantee that the whole in store support "genius bar" probably would crash and burn real quick. that program is possible because of the limited choices for the hardware that is being used. totally open ended means way way too many factors. if they kept the program there would be no free quick fix for sure. cause there's no way they could solve most problems in 15 minutes.
then osx would run as hit or miss as windows since the hardware is no longer as tightly controlled. If windows ran ONLY on dell's and dell was owned by MS, they could make it just as user-resistant as OSX seems to be. Open that up to literally millions of different possible computer configurations instead of say...24 different systems that a current build of OSX runs on and you run into certain issues with compatibility. Apple does well at what they do, but then again MS does well also, they just have different goals.
Pheeeeww...
I started to kinda worry aobout the current mac users... they'd have to increase the price of every single point release to pay for the lawyers.
I don't really understand how Apple has any ground to stand on in this suit against Psystar. Apple will gladly sell you a box with an OS X install disc for $129, but then tell you that you can't do what you want with it. Does anybody else see how ridiculous and totally illegal this is? Do you think that General Mills would be able to defend itself in court if it started selling Cheerios with a EULA barring them from eating it out of anything but a General-Mills-branded bowl?
You can do whatever you want with it personally, but Psystar modified it and is now selling it preinstalled. You can't modify and resell- that's called plagerism.
It may be ridiculous (that's your opinion) but it's certainly not illegal at all. The only legality question is how the EULA is presented. Some courts have ruled it is illegal to bind a consumer to an EULA they cannot see until they open the box. That's why many companies now publish the EULA's online so consumers can review the EULA before purchasing the software, opening the box, and being bound to its terms.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
It's not cereal it's a software license? For $130 you get an upgrade to the current version of OS X, it is assuming you paid for a version of OS X originally when you bought your computer. A better analogy would be Dell buying Windows upgrades and installing that on their computers.
Wow, you must be, like, some law prodigy or something.
In the words of Judge Alsup: "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers... It is certainly entitled to do so."
Wow, Nilay's not our lawyer, but you are REALLY not a lawyer at all.
It is not illegal, EULAs are accepted and upheld, this has nothing to do with Cheerios ... and, um, that's about it.
The "what about buying a General Motors car ..." and now your "Cheerios" analogies have all been dealt with before, but for the record: you do not buy software, you actually buy a licence to use software, and with that licence comes licence conditions that must be adhered to or your licence is revoked. This is different from buying Cheerios or a car, where you are buying a physical product. Capiche?
Psystar deserves to lose the countersuit for the reasons listed -- Apple simply does not have a monopoly over anything in desktop computing. It also might shut up the uneducated Apple haters who insist that Apple has a monopoly on operating systems named after large cats and released by companies with a fruit in their logo, or whatever baseless claim they're making this week.
The *interesting* question here is who will win the arbitration, which has nothing to do with whether or not Apple is "entitled to ask" its customers to use OS X on only their own hardware, but on whether the EULA is valid and enforceable. That has nothing to do with the monopoly Apple obviously does not have, or whether or not Apple is right to want OS X used only on Apple hardware.
The real issue at stake is whether or not shrinkwrap contracts that Apple and others use are valid.
Adam,
Apple doesn't sell upgrades to consumer versions of OS X, it only sells full versions. If the $129 price was for an upgrade, they'd probably be on more solid legal ground, but since it's a "full version" that can only be sold on Apple-branded hardware, one could find the restriction to be arbitrary. Although the judge in Psystar's countersuit found that it was not arbitrary. But again, this doesn't matter, because the dispute resolution will revolve around whether they can enforce the EULA, not whether or not their "Apple-branded hardware only" demands are reasonable.
I agree, You should be able to run the software on the machine of your choice. What if all software was like this? For example you can only run Adobe Photoshop on a special computer adobe made. How would you feel?
An operating system is totally different, and I think you know that.
If you dont like the conditions of use then dont use it. simple as that. There is always an alternative for you - Windows, or even linux.
If Adobe chose to support a computer that they made and that computer only then that is their choice.
Do you complain that you cant install software for a garmin gps unit onto a navman gps unit? or what about a head gasket for a BMW, do you complain that it doesnt fit a Honda?
That's a flawed analogy. A BMW gasket doesn't fit on a Honda. Garmin software is incompatible with navstar units. If you can dremel down your bmw gasket to make it fit on a honda, it's perfectly legal.
I would not buy the product. If I can not live by the rules of the agreement, I do not enter the agreement. Someone else will come up with a better product and market if better.
So, what are you people who do not like the way Apple sells is products doing to make your own? Are you giving Linux a try? It is free!
How about Windows? There are many choices - you do not need to use Apple products at all.
It is about choice - you have a choice: if you do not like what Apple does, buy something else.
It is simple.
why do we have to use metaphor here, its very simple, apple built the OS and spent like thousands, if not millions of dollars on it, only to be copied and installed by pystar at totally little to no profit for apple. is that legal? is that even fair?
@Brat
While I disagree with Psystar, they DO pay Apple (indirectly) by buying retail copies of OSX. So they're not pirating it. But that still doesn't make it legal for them to modify then resell it.
Id like to keep OSX as mac only, it certainly compliment the machines nicely and vice versa.
It takes away the shine of OSX if you see it on a beige box. apple is in the premium brand and they need to protect that image, otherwise they will just blend in with everyone else. Its a bit like ferrari - would you think so highly of ferrari if they would sell you a ferrari badge to stick on your toyota?
Well, well, looks like a swansong has just begun playin'... too bad, they really schemed a decent rebellion. If you want to grab one of their anarchist macs, now would probably be the right time.
Sigh, this is really bad news. It would have been great for people to buy copies of OS X and use them how they like. Apple could easily change the agreement to only provide support services for their systems and not OS X itself. This isn't even about money, this is about ego within Apple.
I've never called Apple support before, but they probably don't even need to modify their contract to allow this - they could probably just ask for your Mac's serial number, and if you provide an invalid one, refuse you support.
I don't even think the anti-OSx86 stand that Apple's taking has all that much to do with money in terms of direct hardware sales. Sure, they might lose a few bucks if Psystar can legally sell clones, but it's probably less than they'll spend in lawsuits fighting it. I think what Apple (and Jobs, in particular) want to preserve is the "Mac experience." Yeah, OS X isn't perfect, but once you start installing it on generic hardware, you start having far more problems than you do with Windows, which is actually tested on millions of hardware combinations. Apple wants the ability to control how good the user experience is. If there are countless unreliable clones out there, it makes the public perception of OS X worse than it "should" be -- by which I mean, take the number of bugs you see in OS X on a Mac, and multiple it by 10. Or 100. It absolutely will tarnish Apple's reputation, and won't do anything to help them -- $129 a copy won't make up for the damage that unreliable clones would cause.
I don't understand how apple can be allowed to only allow it's OS to be used on Apple machines, but Microsoft can't bundle Internet Explorer with new versions of Windows because its 'teh monopolistic!!!1'
So true. So logical. So correct. Amen my friend.
*claps*
Without getting into too much of a history lesson here Microsoft was found to be a monopoly who abused their monopoly status. The US DOJ was able to prove Microsoft had used bundling and predatory licensing agreements with OEMs to unfairly (under US law) compete. Apple does not have a monopoly on computers so they are basically free to do whatever they want. If Apple had 90% market share they would be subject to different rules than they are having 8% market share (or whatever the number is this week)
Also, Microsoft is free to bundle IE with Windows. They simply have to allow it to be removed and allow the OEM to ship a competitors product.
It's pretty simple. Microsoft was not convicted of being a monopoly, but of anticompetitive behavior -- abusing their monopoly.
They forced hardware vendors to pay them for a license for a Microsoft operating system *even on systems that had no Microsoft software*, as terms of being a reseller. They subsequently signed a consent decree saying that they wouldn't engaged in these kinds of practices anymore. Bundling IE with Windows in order to drive Netscape out of the browser market was really just the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of the boatloads of illegal behavior they engaged in, particularly in the 90's.
you are talking about two different things. Computer Hardware has to have an OS or it's just a box of wires and boards. so this is a case of tying being needed. the degree of tying was the issue. Can Apple strongly restrict what hardware is tied to their OS software. The judge says yes. They can.
with the Internet Explorer issue, Microsoft was trying to demand that all systems that were preinstalled with Windows have IE on them and ONLY IE on them. The companies were not to put any other web browser on the systems. Because IE is totally not the same as Windows in functionality, the courts said that was abusive tying.
a parallel would be of Apple said that you couldn't use Firefox, Entourage etc but that you have to use Safari, Mail etc that comes with the software.
yes 'i' like it no more crappy bootleg hackintoshes thank you judge steve jobs is proud, people will to buy real macs now
I say this was an "under the table" deal with apple. lol j/k.
Is that what you look like when you go "under the table" ?
So when can we start suing every company that makes software for Windows but not for Macintosh? I'm sick of all those games being tied to Windows!
Apple markets OS X as an "upgrade" to your current Mac. Apple won't care if you buy OS X and run it on a PC you have yourself, but when you start selling these machines en masse you're asking for trouble.
Psystar might as well give up now!!
regardless of the legal stuff, I would have never bought on of their systems. I live in California and I'm not going to ship my computer across the country to be fixed by them under their warranty. it is worth it to me to pay the extra to be able to walk down the street to my Apple store and have them fix it and give it back to me the next day if not sooner
Do I even need to say it? I called this a long time ago. Psystar never had a case. Mostly because they're idiots.
Am I the only one who seems to think that this could potentially lead to the fact that Apple may be opening itself up to exposing price fixing agreements on it's hardware and components from this now? Hypothetically, if they are- then couldn't their legal fervor in this case potentially come back to haunt them if the wrong e-mail or supporting document were to be made public???
If a new OS X were to come out that requires 4 times the video processing capability, but the same main CPU operating capability- they are expecting you to buy a new Apple computer in it's entirely instead of upgrading the one you have. That means all new software licenses, too. It's not wrong to be in business to make money, but the business model reminds me of why vacuum cleaners with bags don't sell anymore compared to those that have bagless canisters- my point being I don't want to be married to the company I already paid to buy a product from.
I am sad to see Psystar lose out here- it was potentially the first time you'd be able to run Apple's OS without being ridiculously overcharged for their proprietary, overpriced hardware. Oh well, we all lose in the end here.
I too want many products that I don't want to pay for. Too bad.
@Uncontrol
this case and article is not about pirating software in the sense of getting it for free. It is about legally obtaining a copy of OS-X and modify it, then install it on a computer not branded Macintosh and sell the computer.
OS-X, being based on a BSD *nix operating system, have the capabilities to run on just about any computer you can think of but Apple limits its use to only "certified" hardware thats branded Macintosh and that is the base essence of what Psystar wants to change in the court. Psystar wants to buy OS-X licenses, install it on their own computers and sell them legally.
I think you might be misunderstanding what price fixing is or are using the wrong term. Apple is the only company who sells computers running OSX so they wouldn't have any other company to collude with to price fix. So it would be legally impossible for them to price fix their computers under US law.
Price fixing under US law would be something like this:
Apple calls up Microsoft and makes an agreement that the iPod and Zune should cost no less than $200. They both discontinue their cheaper products or raise the price to the minimum of $199.
An example of something that is NOT price fixing:
Apple, by themselves, decides that the iPod should cost no less than $199 and they discontinue cheaper products or raise prices to meet the minimum of $199. Customers are still free to purchase a product from another company under the $199 threshold that Apple independently set for their own products.
How are we loosing here? We have choices: Windows, Linux.... You can buy OS X right now and try to install it on any computer you like. Will Apple support you, no! Will you be able to sell their intellectual property any way you like, no! You want to force them to support every hardware configuration? If you do not like it - build your own OS and set your own rules.
How much have you contributed to Linux to make it better - nothing? You people are whinny babies!
They are no different then Porsche or BMW or Rolls in that they make the car and the engine. They are not interested in their engine in another car, and if you do not like the car, then you can go to another maker - but you are not getting that engine. And if you did you would want them to support it in your KIA or Ford? Are you nuts?
You people need to get over it - not everything is in you price range. And just because you can not afford it does not mean people have to give it to you. You want a Apple - get a job that pays well, and pay the price. Otherwise get Dell.
Move on.
I agree with some of your points, but it's simply not a workable business model to compete directly with Microsoft in the hardware-agnostic OS market, no matter the outcome of any lawsuits or arbitration. There are massive barriers to entry in the OS market, which is probably the biggest thing that's allowed Microsoft to develop a monopoly and subsequently abuse that power.
It is phenomenally expensive to develop and test an operating system. Testing costs go thru the roof with the more hardware platforms you support. The number of unique hardware combinations has to be in the billions -- yeah, Microsoft doesn't test against all of them, but it has to test massive numbers of combinations of hardware.
Microsoft estimates its installed user base for Windows at 1 BILLION. Pre-Leopard, Apple's was estimated at 22 million. The economics of doing testing for a Windows-style scale of hardware diversity with revenues from today's 2 million annual Mac sales simply aren't there. Apple's task would be something like testing a new OS release on the computer of *every single individual* who buys the OS that year.
To use a car analogy (everyone's favorite), why do you think there are so few small car makers? It's not cheap to do emissions testing and crash testing, and to spend the capital required for design studios and huge manufacturing plants. If a Ferrari F430 sold on the scale of the Toyota Camry, the price would probably be closer to $60k rather than $180k. It's not that the parts in the Ferrari are that expensive (even though they are certainly more expensive than the parts in a Camry), it's that they have a much smaller volume over which to amortize their fixed costs.
Say all you want about the "Apple tax", but it is precisely because of very limited hardware combinations that Macs are even remotely close on price. I don't consider most consumer models to be significantly more pricey than their counterparts. When I keep a computer for 4-5 years, I certainly don't sweat a couple hundred bucks on the sticker price.
You can argue about the value of OS X versus the value of Windows, you can argue about the flexibility of the x86 PC clone architecture versus Apple's "lock-in" all you want, but you can't argue the economics of trying to compete head-on with Microsoft. To fail to grasp the profound barriers to entry in supporting the diverse x86 hardware ecosystem is to utterly fail to understand basic math.
Proprietary?
So General Mills COULD sell Cheerios with a EULA barring the purchaser from eating the product out of anything but a General Mills branded bowl? Both cereal and software are products. Cereal, obviously, is not sold with a license. Are you are saying that it could be and that there would be no legal consequences for the manufacturer?
I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the real teeth in the Apple lawsuit against Psystar (now in arbitration) was that Psystar had to violate the DMCA in order to crack the OS to run on non-Apple hardware. Granted, DMCA is criminal and not civil, but I'm sure there's something in there for a civil suit..
this is such a fucking dumb comparison
Pystar is buying OSX, modifying it, and reselling it as their own product. That is something they have NO RIGHT to do.
The whole car analogy is no good. A better analogy would be:
I buy a copy of Stephen King's It.
I rewrite the introduction and foreword.
I put on a different cover.
Then I publish and sell It.
Wow! I don't think my favorite author would be very happy with me.
I think Psystar needs a salute for their effort in trying to take down Apple.
Touché.
It was a good effort by Psystar, but they need to give up before their legal bills become too high.
I think people have failed to give Apple enough credit for NOT going after individuals who install OSX86. As far as I know they haven't sued anyone besides Psystar who was trying to capitalize commercially. Apple has done pretty much nothing to make it harder to run OSX86 since the original 10.4 release that included minimal copy protection hooks. They actually include KEXTs in their .x releases for hardware they don't even ship which directly helps the OSX86 users. They deserve credit for that.
if you own a legal copy of os x .... and own a intel pc.... and learn how to port it .... that is perfectly legal my good friend =]
psystar knows or thinks it knows one thing... that what they are doing is PERFECTLY LEGAL... in their eyes, so what they're not thinking clearly on what they are saying.
now...
IMO i think apple is right for standing up for itself because OS X is SUPPOSE to be ONLY for the mac but also that Psystar cant run the OS smoothly and quietly! hence giving apple os x a bad rep...
if psystar made an osx86 machine that ran smoothly, quietly, and "just like a mac"... im sure the problem would have been much less and most likely steve jobso will spend most of his time trying to make an agreement to pay them off or buy them..
n e who.. psystar sucks .. there ideas of selling a low-cost mac is great..actual product=crap
I feel like I'm in crazyland here.
WHAT is so hard to understand about the fact that Apple should be allowed to put whatever limitations it wants on software that it created and maintains? What motivation would Apple have to continue producing a product that they no longer have the ability to price so that they can keep their profit margins? They spend their money on R&D to MAKE OS X, do you think that Steve Jobs has some OS X tree in his office that grows updates and improvements? Of course they don't, they hire engineers, and they pay them well too. Part of the reason there is a premium for Apple computers. If it's decided that Apple must let anyone install OS X, I can't imagine them continuing to update it or support it: The OS X upgrade pricing is dependent on the amount of revenue they draw in from selling their computers, as that's what they use to offset selling OS X at $129. I think it's ridiculous that so many people think they're entitled to do what they want with OS X or any other product just because it's convenient for them. If I invent something that people want and are willing to pay for, why shouldn't I be able to control its use if that's the agreement made when I sold them the item?
Let's say you invent a new kind of bed, super comfortable, and you have decided to only offer them to people that buy homes in a new subdivision, and to do so at a discounted price, as you have worked out that you'll recoup money lost in the bed price by charging a little more for the house. Then some ass from another neighborhood comes over and says "I should be able to buy your new kind of bed at the same price as the people in this subdivision, there is nothing about that bed that keeps it from fitting through my door and being used in my bedroom, so I'm gonna sue you so you have to give me the bed at a subsidized price.
It will do NOTHING but stifle creativity and lead to intense crippling of software if Psystar wins, and if Psystar does win, a year from now you'll be kicking yourself complaining about how bad Psystar was to have done this. Meh
MEH!
/rant
I think the bed analogy is the best one here yet. Bravo!
"WHAT is so hard to understand about the fact that Apple should be allowed to put whatever limitations it wants on software that it created and maintains?"
They can continue to put whatever limitations they want in the software. The problem is what Apple is trying to do is control a product after they have sold a physical copy to someone.
"What motivation would Apple have to continue producing a product that they no longer have the ability to price so that they can keep their profit margins?"
Continued Mac sales? The Apple ecosystem and profit margins is tied to hardware design and software design. Why would they suddenly have to change that. I very much doubt the majority of Mac fans would buy generic hardware and Apple would collapse. This isn't the 80s anymore, and nothing coming out of this case will change that.
"They spend their money on R&D to MAKE OS X, do you think that Steve Jobs has some OS X tree in his office that grows updates and improvements? Of course they don't, they hire engineers, and they pay them well too. Part of the reason there is a premium for Apple computers."
So how is this relevant at all. Apple can continue to develop OSX closely tied to their hardware. However if they continue to sell physical copies separate from the hardware, they have a problem. And that is where Psystar comes in.
"If it's decided that Apple must let anyone install OS X, I can't imagine them continuing to update it or support it: The OS X upgrade pricing is dependent on the amount of revenue they draw in from selling their computers, as that's what they use to offset selling OS X at $129."
This is just stupid. Of course they would continue to support their own systems. Worst case: They would probably just stop selling physical copies and move to a different system for upgrading. Remember, this all stems from Apple selling PHYSICAL copies of their OS.
"I think it's ridiculous that so many people think they're entitled to do what they want with OS X or any other product just because it's convenient for them. If I invent something that people want and are willing to pay for, why shouldn't I be able to control its use if that's the agreement made when I sold them the item?"
I think it's ridiculous that a company can say what I can do with their software after I legally purchase a physical copy. What your saying is that after you invent and sell something to someone, you get to control what they do with that. I could understand that you would have some rights if the user was required to sign a contract to purchase the software but an EULA in not a contract. It is something that tries to limit you AFTER you have legally purchased the software. Which is where this case will be very interesting.
It's not a matter of Apple being different than an MS box (in fact, they're pretty much the same), it's the fact that apple ARTIFICIALLY DRM's their operating system to run only on mac (it's not a natural limitation). Important thing here is that it's the same beast (it's not a Ferrari vs Civic, in fact Macs are never the fastest in hardware, they get their upgrades after PC market is usually saturated with the The-best-of-the-best, ie you can buy i7 computer at best buy right now, but not a mac, yet). It's the same Civic vs Corolla, except Honda pees in your tank (sues you) when you steal the gas for your Toyota from "their" gas station.
There are many ways to look at this. Either way, this situation is not pretty. Apple is a bunch of proprietary communist creeps, and psystar is a bunch of crooks. Take your side.
I don't think you know what communism is.
Actually, Apple is epitomizing capitalism. The people suggesting they're entitled to some because they were born are much closer to communists.
You're right, it is an artificial limitation, and binding arbitration will have to decide whether or not Apple can get away with it. From a user's perspective, it is completely arbitrary and is a way of forcibly breaking what would otherwise work just fine.
However, if this limitation is not allowed, Microsoft will never have any commercial competition again. The future of a Microsoft-controlled desktop computing world would make current versions of Windows look like utter perfection.
Congats to the many idiots on this page who have commited crimes against analogies.
Hardware/software licensing cannot be compared to :
Car parts/engines
Snack foods.
Why even use an analogy ?
I don't agree with Apple overcharging for run-of-the-mill hardware and I have run OSX86 on several PCs, and just for the record breaking a EULA in the comfort of my own home is NOT illegal, Apple could sue me for it but it is NOT a criminal offence.
Mind you I own an iMac and a Macbook and accept that Apple is also not breaking any laws by closing down Psystar.
The funny thing is if Apple's marrket share keeps growing at the rate it is presently then this very case could come back to haunt Apple in the near future.
Let me use an analogy to explain what is wrong with your comment.
Let's say you signed a contract saying that you wouldn't call people idiots for using analogies. Then you subsequently called people idiots for using analogies.
That would represent a breach of contract. Which is illegal, like breaking a EULA.
Or i could avoid the continued stupid use of analogy to tell you what is wrong with your comment.
Saying that breaking a EULA is illegal does not make it so. But then I'm sure law courts across the land are queued out the door with EULA breakers.
Oh wait no they are not because breaking an EULA is NOT a criminal offence, but let me leave you a rather neat way for you to correct me.
List the legal statute that you refer too, and bear in mind I'm not American so pull that international law book out of your behind and put your smart money where your smart mouth is............
To make it really simple for you oh flaming mac madman
A EULA is a contract if i break it then i have broken a contract, Apple could take me to court to seek damages from me for breaking a contract with them, but breaking a contract is not a criminal offense and therefore NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
The legal enforcement of contracts is different from country to country which is one of the reasons that some EULAs are upheld in court some are not.
Feel free to come up with a silly analogy to argue with legal fact I don't really care.
I recommend you look up the definition of "illegal". It does not apply only to criminal offenses. It applies to all things which are counter to applicable laws, including contract law. In fact, the term can even more broadly be applied to things which are against rules such as those of a game.
If you do not have contract law, enjoy your third world nation.
I need a favor from you...
Will you do my programming project for me? I'll be nice and I'll let you keep your rights to the code - I'll go so far as to buy it from you. Then I'll change all of the comments you used and call it my own source code.
I recommend oh intelligent "Unix System Engineer" that YOU look up actual law.
Contract law is used to describe contracts but when you sign a contract you do not sign it with the police or a court you sign it with a 3rd party, if you break a contract then you are actionable by the 3rd party in court, YOU CANNOT BE ARRESTED FOR BREAKING A CONTRACT STUPID.
But then I'm sure Apple can afford a better lawyer than you, and the UK is not a 3rd world nation its the country that gave Amercia it's laws.
You need to google actual law sites stupid and maybe ask engadget to rename this whole post "Q&A With Unix System Engineer who knows diddly squat about actual law"
"Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law"
So again i ask quote the law that states breaking a contract is illegal, because I actually know about contract law, whereas you don't
I'm not fond of EULAs. I pay for the license, so I should be able to use the software on 1 computer (for operating systems at least; games or apps might be different), and do whatever the hell I want with it, so long as I don't break any laws (export control, maliciously modifying the code, selling copies of the software, etc etc). Hell if they want to limit technical support to Apple hardware, fine by me, but let me use the software in any non commercial way I want to.
"in any non commercial way I want to."
So you mean like Psystar ISN'T doing.
but you just brought up a big chunk of the trouble. Psystar modified the code in MacOSX to make it work on their machines, to call out for updates to their machines etc. They in essence created a new OS -- the Psystar OS -- by stealing very likely not just the Open Source bits of MacOS but also stuff that Apple wrote themselves. and its that last bit that is going to bite Psystar in the tush. Because they could have gone to the Open Source and created their own OS from 'scratch' with a Mac OS like interface (example: Vista. tell me they didn't basically copy the GUI from OSX. of course they did) and put it on whatever they wanted. they might have been able to create the OS in such a way that it would even run software made for Mac. I'm not a software engineer so I don't know. but Psystar didn't do that. they stole. and they got caught and tried to weasel out of it. but the Judge says no. they can't get forgiveness by saying that Apple is a bigger villan.
"Let's say you invent a new kind of bed, super comfortable, and you have decided to only offer them to people that buy homes in a new subdivision, and to do so at a discounted price, as you have worked out that you'll recoup money lost in the bed price by charging a little more for the house. Then some ass from another neighborhood comes over and says "I should be able to buy your new kind of bed at the same price as the people in this subdivision, there is nothing about that bed that keeps it from fitting through my door and being used in my bedroom, so I'm gonna sue you so you have to give me the bed at a subsidized price."
Not the same at all. First, Apple is suing Psystar. I agree that Psystar's antitrust should have been dismissed. This is more like this situation: If you sold the bed to everyone at a store without limits, but inside the bed's cardboard box you put an agreement that this is to be used in this subdivision in these specific homes. These are sold at your retail outlets separate from your model homes. Someone comes in and buys them at retails to resell at another subdivision. You sue them saying they are breaking the agreement. See the problem!
"It will do NOTHING but stifle creativity and lead to intense crippling of software if Psystar wins, and if Psystar does win, a year from now you'll be kicking yourself complaining about how bad Psystar was to have done this. Meh MEH!"
creativity: probably not. crippling of software: more than likely. I bet Apple will stop selling physical copies of their OSX and move to a different system for OS software updates if they lose. We will have to see. Either way it will be a good test of EULA agreements after sale, as there have been contradictory cases regarding it.
The sad truth for the ridiculous over the top mac fans (cough cough Unix System Engineer)
Is that by the time Apple increases it's market share they will not be able to stop this happening, oh and that a now unknown 3rd party will probably walk in with an OS that blows Apple and MS away. Or Steve Jobs will die and Apple will go back down the crap pan LOL
Major4Play: If you're calling people like Unix "ridiculous over the top mac fans", despite the fact that he's made very salient and relevant points without resorting to name calling like you are, then what do you call people like you? Ridiculous over the top mac hating mouth breathing bottom feeders?
I'm so sorry that you're upset that Psystar lost their delusional countersuit against Apple, but just because they (and you) don't understand what a monopoly is doesn't mean you're actually correct about anything you're spouting.
Try to understand this simple concept. There can never be an Apple monopoly, ever - EVER - unless the monopoly laws are changed. As long as Apple competes in the same marketplace as Microsoft and PC hardware makers, Apple can never have a monopoly. Please get that through your head. What's Apple's market share again? Is it 100%? No, it's more like 14% now. That's because Apple does not and can not have a monopoly.
Psystar and their lawyers apparently could not comprehend this simple truth, and neither can you.
The problem I have with all this is some 'premium' image Apple has created. If you pay a lot of money for a premium product, you really shouldn't get a bog standard product with a paint job in return. And that's all that Apple is, generic cheap hardware in a nice box with an operating system that is just as if not less secure and stable then Windows. You are not paying for a better quality product, you are paying for an IMAGE and that is it.
I challenge you to show me where I can buy a Mac Pro case, if it's "generic hardware". It's a solid aluminum case, not plastic. It uses a custom made power supply, not a generic one. There is nothing on the market like it, anywhere. But since you're so convinced it's cheap generic hardware, show me where I can buy one on the open market, and not from Apple.
Christ, it's like retardation is a hobby for you people.
yeah, I'M the retard when you're the one who immediately goes to the case when I refer to generic HARDWARE! I guess you can include the case at a stretch but when I said "cheap hardware in a nice box" I thought that I had covered that, yes they are nice cases, but almost every manufacturer has their own case designs, granted they may not be aluminium but you can buy Lian Li cases which are aluminium for less then a 1/5 of the premium on the mac pro.
Learn to read what I say then start throwing insults like retard about please.
I also love how you've attacked my entire argument based on the case, and not on the processor, motherboard, ram, hard drive, power supply, dvd drive, SATA connectors, 24 pin motherboard power connector, wireless cards, bluetooth cards, or any other computer hardware component.
I admit Juxterium is exaggerating, but so are you. Lian-Li is an excellent supplier of high end aluminium tower cases, some very similar to Apple's. As well, there is nothing really special about the power supply in the MacPro that you can't get from a good third part supplier. Some even better with modular designs. Even for you Zak, a Mac fan, you should know that the Mac is all about the complete package, and is more than just the sum of its' parts. That is the whole Apple philosophy. Image is very much an important part of Apple.
well Jux if that is what you think of Apple, then don't pay. simple as that. but until we get a statement from an authority otherwise, Apple is within their legal rights to use whatever cheap hardware and pretty case they want. Because some folks don't like the hardware or the case doesn't mean that Apple has to give into their wants.
No iEye post? The only reason I clicked on this thread was to see him eventually get flamed. Bummer
Thats just it. I do not think THEY DO have the right. to ask yes to COMPEL no (to use OSX on only apple hardware)
I will never let go of the "fact" that when I buy something its my property to use as I see fit not as apple see's fit. I do not never have and never will recognize "license" on my property.
I do not recognize EULA or TERMS or CONTRACTS for my own usage of my own property. I just don't and neither should anyone else.
When its not for my own use OK terms can apply the IP afterall does not belong to me but the PRODUCT I BOUGHT DOES.
We are LOSING our personal property rights.
RIGHTS are derived from property. No property No rights. Its just that simple.
You dont get it do you? When you buy a dvd or cd do you own it or does it have an agreement you wont copy and distribute. Apple has NO PROBLEM with people doing the x86 thing. When is the last time they sued anyone beside psystar , who was making money off osx by modding it. People say "its my stuff, i bought it, i should be abe to do as i wish" Bullcrap man. If you buy a cd can you go out and take that cd, change it and resell it. YOUR BREAKING THE LAW. Again, if Ford sold a car should you bve able to remove teh engine, install it in another car and sell it? Whats the difference between this and someone going into a ford dealer and saying, "I want that new chevy engine but i want it in your ford mustang body and YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO ME OR IM SUEING" Does someone have the right to buy anything, mod it, and then sell it? NO. you want to put buy osx and install it on a pc, im sure apple isnt gonna sue you but if you take that same os and install it on your own homemade computers and sell it, THEY CAN SUE YOU. thats what psystar did. They took someone else's stuff and RESOLD IT. You have the right to do with the stuff you buy what you want but you dont have the right to resell it and make money/a living. Apple has every right to not allow its os on other systems, just like its not illegal for ford to tell chevy they cant use there engines. If i buy a ford do I have the right to a chevy engine and if they dont give it to me i can sue them? This is like Chevy coming to Ford, and saying "we like your new engine and we want to use it in our cars" and ford say "NO, thats are engine, you can tuse it in a chevy" and chevy says" than i suing"....Dont you guys see, anyone who agrees with psystar is just wrong and selfish. Its all about them. i should be able to do this and I should be able to do that. I want an apple the same price as a cheap pc. WELL YOU KNOW WHAT? I WANT A FERRARI FOR THE SAME PRICE AS MY FORD ESCORT but i dont see it happening.