The soap opera of would-be Mac cloner Psystar was already full of shady twists and turns, but there's a possibility Apple's legal team thinks there's some truth to a few of the wilder conspiracy theories out there -- a paragraph tacked on to an amended version of the complaint filed in California says that Apple believes people or corporations "other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities." That could mean just about anything, of course -- we've always thought Psystar was being a little
too cocky, and no one's ever figured out how a fledging company that couldn't even
hold on to a credit card processor could retain such a
hotshot law firm -- but chances are Apple's just covering its ass in case it wants to sue the major investors of Psystar individually or even the OSx86 hackers that
unwillingly enabled the company's dubious business. Either way, with all of Psystar's
antitrust counterclaims dismissed and Apple adding new DMCA claims to its lawsuit, we've got a feeling things are about to go boom in Florida pretty soon -- if machines really are
still shipping, this is probably your last chance to grab a piece of (
semi-functional) history.
[Via
Daring Fireball]
posted December 3rd 2008 11:42AM
This just gets more and more hilarious.
You spelled tedious wrong
oh god..
Oh noes, it's all Microsoft's fault. Let's make insinuations in that direction without even knowing anything.
I see no mention of Microsoft, and no insinuation that it is Microsoft.
it is microsoft because without a windows pc, psystar wouldnt exist! apple should sue them too! again...
This is actually against Microsoft's best interests. The last thing they need is another OS to compete with in the "PC" market. Yes I deliberately said "PC".
That's funny because I was thinking hardware manufacturers and component makers (I'm thinking iPod clones two moves ahead)--not Microsoft. If Macs got cheaper and the OS more widespread due to competition, Microsoft is the last to benefit. Funny, if that was the insinuation, I missed it too.
I hope apple loses so badly, they deserve a nice $100 million "monopoly" antitrust lawsuit like Microsoft has had to deal with for absolutely no reason. The last 2 cases that MSFT was sued for was 1) the inclusion of Windows Media Player in their own operating system ?!?!?!?! and 2) including their own browser in their own operating system ?!?!?!?!?!?!
Unbelievable, because its funny that Apple packages iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari with all of their computers, with no alternatives out of the box.
Go PsyStar!!
Actually the comment on hardware vendors possibly backing it makes the most sense, by far.
Ballmer started his dirty tricks early...
Ha! he should have never made those anti-Apple iPhone comments...
I don’t think Ballmer is behind this because the last thing Microsoft want is Apple to release OSX for use on any PC. OSX is already gaining ground with Windows’ market share falling below 90% for the first time since 1995 and OSX rising to 8.9%:
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/12/02/1857253.shtml
The main thing limiting the spread of OSX is the high prices Apple charge for the hardware to run it but with that limitation removed more people would probably give it a go. I would never buy a Mac because of the price but I would give OSX a try if I could legally install it on a standard PC without any hacks.
LOL are you kidding? That still is an 80% difference.. which let me tell you, is HUUUUGEEEE..
@Patriks7
Way to completely miss the point.
He wasn't saying that because OS X now has about 9% of the market share, that Windows is crumbling. He very CLEARLY stated that the spreading of OS X to run on any PC would not help Microsoft, but rather harm them in terms of their market share. He stated the FACTS because they were completely relevant and helped his case.
He's not even an Apple fanboy - he flat-out said that he wouldn't buy a Mac because of the price, although he might install OS X if it could easily run on any PC. So please don't respond with that as your main defense.
@Patriks7 I wish you were somebody important and that there was an irony ranking on here, 'cause that's the type of "640K of RAM" quote that everyone's going to be chuckling about in a few years.
how is it not in microsoft's interests? opening os x just might kill apple. they make their money on hardware, not selling os x. no more apple, no more os x, no more problem. psystar is just a trojan horse, in that version of the conspiracy.
You guys do realize that Pystar has until December 18th to resubmit their complaint?
As long such things are still on the table, there's no reasonable prediction that can be made for the outcome of this fiasco.
This is not really a fiasco. What Phystar is doing is similar to what Compaq, Phoenix, and Microsoft did to IBM PCs. For starts IBM didn't have the DMCA in it's corner in the 1980's or there'd have been no PC clones period. Second IBM was under monopoly investigation at the time, so they were not in a position to take Microsoft to task for essentially handing the keys to the "PC" over to Compaq via DOS. The only things IBM managed to get were some patent lawsuits, but because of their market position and the size of PC makers by the time the suits settled, they didn't get the shutdown that Apple is requesting here.
The only real case Apple has is the EULA and DMCA violated to break the EULA. Phystar is using paid for software from Apple which makes it license violation, not copyright violation (something courts won't nail down even for GPL terms btw, every other case lands differently) the rest of Apple's complaint is noise except maybe trying to "pierce the veil" of Phystar corporation which would be hard to get in a trade dispute.
mabhatter, this is NOT the same as Windows legally licensing its software out to hardware makers. IBM never owned Windows, Microsoft licensed out software for use in IBM machines, then to anyone who wanted to use it. IBM didn't own the design of the modular PC, so other companies came along and did it too once Windows was licensed to them. Very different case than what Apple is going through here.
FJ, mabhatter is more correct than you are.
IBM never handed the keys to Compaq via DOS; it was Microsoft's right to sell DOS to whomever they wished to sell it to (there was no Windows at the time, and wouldn't be for many years to come).
The "PC" (or "IBM" as it was called at the time) architecture was open. The only proprietary bit was the BIOS, which Compaq was able to reverse-engineer (*not steal*). This opened the floodgates to everyone doing the same. IBM never had a leg to stand on.
It's not exactly a similar situation with Apple, but the DMCA can be used against people who reverse-engineer hardware or software because it can be said that they circumvented some kind of protection technology in order to do so. What was legal in the 80s is not legal now. The other bit Apple's using in their claims against Psystar is the EULA.
@mabhatter said: "The only real case Apple has is the EULA and DMCA violated to break the EULA. Phystar is using paid for software from Apple which makes it license violation, not copyright violation"
You are forgetting that early on, Pystar copied and illegally hosted Apple's OS X updates on their own server so yes, copyright violation in at least one instance.
no more mac clones, yay
So has Apple's claim that Psystar is violating it's EULA and needs to stop been upheld by the court? so far all it seems is that Psystars counter-claim of Apple being a monopoly has been thrown out.
And the monopoly claim should have been thrown out. How does Apple have a monopoly on anything? I can't buy a different computer, running a different OS? I can't by a non-iPod portable media player and get get my digital music from another vendor?
Psystar is breaking the law by violating Apple's patents and encouraging others to violate Apple's EULA. It's as simple as that.
I cannot understand why so many bash Apple. If you don't like it, don't buy it. No one is forcing anything on you.
And regarding the complaint on price, get over it. You can't always get what you want. I would love to buy a new Porsche 911 GT3, but I don't have that sort of cash. I don't bash Porsche for it. I get over it.
If I reply to this comment, does the low rank come free of charge?
There will be another company out there that will start shipping OSX running computers soon. Although the option to release OSX to everyone is still there apple and is unlikely to go away. They need to really think about the future.
You are an incredibly ignorant person, based on this post and previous posts I've seen you make here. Apple has already licensed the Mac OS out to 3rd party vendors. You know what happened? It immediately cut into Apple's profits. you know why? Because Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY.
Apple makes all their money on HARDWARE. Not software. When other people are allowed to sell hardware that runs OS X, people stop buying Apple hardware. This is not a difficult concept to comprehend, so you may want to commit it to memory so we don't have this problem any more.
The bottom line is that Apple has already gone down this road, and it leads to financial ruin.
Yes I am ignorant. And no I didn't read your post.(except the part about being ignorant)
Sorry I didn't realise you were an apple fanboy. Be gone Fanboy for I am heathen to your god and religion that is STEVE JOBS.
Had you actually read his post, you would've noticed that it is quite un-fanboylike in content. We should introduce the death penalty for people who toss the word fanboy around without actually knowing whether the other person has a nuanced, considered opinion.
Read his previous posts then I will consider you point.
Thi, your ignorance has nothing to do with whether I'm a fanboy or not. You're an ignorant tool and you apparently aren't interested in educating yourself with facts. So why are you posting again? Your blind hatred for Apple makes you worse than any so-called Apple fanboy. Or are you just too stupid to figure that out?
Write a post that either makes sense, contains facts or something along those lines and I will be impressed. Until then you're just another Apple hating, bottom feeding ignorant mouth breather.
Zak I don't care. I have a blind hatred for apple fanboys. Not Apple.
Of course you don't care. Why should you care about making sense? You should really just keep spouting ignorant bullshit all over the forum instead, that's much better than knowing what the hell you're talking about.
See you at the next apple post.
I called this one too. Groklaw's article nails it when they describe the dubious likelihood of a large expensive law firm defending a clearly fly-by-night operation like Psystar who apparently can't even stay at one address for an extended period of time and certainly doesn't have the capital to hire a law team like that.
Anybody with an iota of common sense and certainly anybody who actually passed a bar exam will tell you that Psystar's "The Mac is its own market" argument was doomed to insta-failure. The judge even brought up the fact that their accusation was self-contradictory. Nothing about this Psystar business makes any sense at all. Again, anybody who's passed a bar exam will also pick up on the fact that Psystar is using the OSX86 project's work and trying to make a profit from it while violating Apple's eula at the same time.
Psystar literally doesn't have a leg to stand on OR a pot to piss in. So how the hell are they affording these lawyers, and how are these lawyers not smart enough to figure out that Psystar is a lost cause just by looking at them? They're being backed by somebody big.
"Psystar literally doesn't have a leg to stand on OR a pot to piss in..."
It's not literal unless psystar is a bladder-less, leg-less person.
"So how the hell are they affording these lawyers, and how are these lawyers not smart enough to figure out that Psystar is a lost cause just by looking at them? They're being backed by somebody big."
Law firms are willing to take risks when they can file suit against highly profitable and liquid companies.
How are you not smart enough to figure this out?
@Coolty: Actually, Psystar is a corporation...which means that it is, in fact, bladder and legless.
Zak,
You sort of contradict yourself. It would make sense that Psystar would have a bigger backer for the reasons listed. However, wouldn't a bigger backer be smart enough to understand that these legal challenges are doomed to fail?
Best way I can figure the whole conspiracy theory would make sense would be if they weren't trying to win the suit, but just bring negative publicity against Apple.
Who knows.
@ Zak - How many replies will it take for you to realize that anti competitive behavior does not require a complete or near market monopoly? I'm not suggesting what Psystar did was right, I'm just asking for you to realize that Apple does need to have a monopoly to be subject to anti competitive laws, as it seems all your arguments are based on this false assumption.
Sisyphus - Really? Law firms are willing to take risks when, as I said in my previous post if you had bothered to read it, the claims Psystar are trying to make are clearly not defensible?
Law firms will take risks when they believe they will win. There is no logical explanation as to why Psystar's law firm is defending them. How are you not smart enough to figure that out, especially when I already spelled it out for you?
Unix - there is no contradiction. I pointed out that Psystar's claims were not going to fly, which only serves to illuminate the fact that there is a law firm defending them DESPITE that.
Gnormie - I can only assume you didn't actually read the details of the countersuit that got thrown out. Psystar was, in fact, claiming that Apple was a monopoly. A monopoly with 14% market share, apparently.
"Law firms will take risks when they believe they will win."
The same can be said of corporations, especially those that would be willing to spend money on lawsuits in which they are neither the defendant nor the plaintiff.
As for whether Psystar's claims are defensible, I submit that is a matter of your non-expert opinion (unless of course you can provide some credentials to the contrary). Time for a little voir dire?
One more thing...
Apple has a 14% market share of the overall operating systems market, but that's not an apples to apples comparison. Windows runs on machines assembled by third-party hardware manufacturers or distributors.
To my knowledge, Apple has a 100% market share of machines running OS X.
No more *commercially available* mac clones, if Pystar goes down. However, OSx86 is here to stay, so you can (and likely always will be able to) build a mac clone with cheaper, faster hardware on your own.
As if even a significant fraction of osx86 boxes are preinstalls...
Apple Cop. believes Darth Vader is behind the scheme, along with Dr. Evil making hilarious prank email spams.
Luke... I am your fasha! Farjer? What's a Farjer?
Why wouldn't Apple want their OS in more markets on more machines? Wouldn't the exposure be great for the company? Lower prices bring in new customers and build new relationships.
Oh yeah, people would realize that the OS is incredibly limiting, able to run on just a tiny fraction of all PC related hardware. Then they would realize that Apple jacks up their prices 30-50% over what a competitor would charge for the same functionality.
I can't comprehend how even the most strident Apple fan would be against allowing the OS to be put on more hardware platforms. Wouldn't it be great to be able to go into a store, pick out your hardware and manufacturer, then add on your OS (Apple, Microsoft or Linux), and walk out a completely satisfied customer?