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 Dec 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?
You have to read Zak's post above. He does make a good point as to why Apple can't let their OS be licensed to other Hardware Manufacturers.
because apple sells computes, not just the OS.
#1. OS X on generic hardware would likely end up with the sames sorts of issues as Windows does with driver issues. Mac is a closed system. The downside is that you can't just run anything you want. The upside is that it is more stable because the OS is tailored to the hardware. If Apple opened up OS X to generic hardware, the user experience would not be that good.
#2. Apple makes about 20% profit on a lot of it's Mac line. Selling OS X separately would cannibalize Mac sales.
Apple will never sell OS X for generic hardware, at least not while Steve jobs draws breath.
Actually no. I want stability and don't mind a limited system. You see' you can't have everything. You might buy more expensive hardware but you can get cheap software and I would like to keep it that way. I am typing on a 5 year old iBook G4 with 1 Mghz processor and 758MB RAM on which I run CS4 everyday and I never had to update shit and never had any problems whatsoever (it's even the same HD). Hell yeah, it was worth $1200!!! You don't like to pay for a Mercedes, get a Ford, it's that easy.
And yes, there is someone else behind Psystar than just the owner who will suddenly go back to South America when shit hits the wall!
Maybe you'd understand if you read one of the other of billions of posts on the matter in the past 8 years, rather than just regurgitating the same ill-considered questions.
Here's a quick summary of the answer:
As consumers, we'd all love to have more choice in operating systems, so it's a no-brainer to advocate OSx86 available for all hardware.
As a business, Apple could never afford to do this due to the massive barriers to entry in generic x86 OS market. The economies of scale for supporting that hardware simply don't exist unless you own a massive percentage of the market.
Come on now people the last thing on microsoft's mind is Apple, and no there not enemies, but Apple does have a lot of enemies out there and if someone at Psystar goes to jail which is pretty possible, we will soon find out who's behind it all
Well, if you want to accuse Microsoft, at least there's a precedent -- Their funding of Baystar who funded SCO in the suits against Novell, etc. It's pretty much cut-and-dried that Microsoft funded that FUD campaign, and it seems like a legitimate tactic for them to try to use again.
The problem with that argument is that Microsoft really needs Apple to provide legitimate competition so that they can argue that they're not a monopolist.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone was behind the whole Psystar thing, but I doubt it's MS.
Give it few years if Apple's market share keeps rising then this problem is going to keep resurfacing.
Violating an EULA is not illegal, it's breaking a contract, if you break a contract with a company they can sue you for damages at which point the court must decide if the contract is valid or not then decide on suitable damages.
Apple can chase people like PsyStar who do this on retail systems, especially since Psystar still have to buy loads of copies of OSX from somewhere but home builders are safe to try and do whatever they want (As long as you actually bought Leopard and didn't torrent for it as that is violating the law).
And by the way if you rant about Apple's profit margin then you are a fanboy, YOU'RE A CUSTOMER praising Apple's ability to make a profit out of YOU is just sad.
To rant is to complain. I think you mean "raving about Apple's profit margin", which makes sense if you're a shareholder, in which case a large profit margin is in your personal interest.
Personally, I want Apple to make *some* profit because I want them to keep developing products that are pleasant to use so that I am not stuck with the MS nightmare. Beyond that, I have no interest in them making large profits, because I sold my stock awhile ago...
Apple, I want to love you but you're not making it easy. Just because you date all the other designers doesn't mean I'm willing to pay for your high maintenance ways. I know you say you're clean, but that girl next door, the PC, has some charm as long as she's had her shots.
I'm sorry, but it's just not working out.
I was always under the belief that EULA meant nothing when it is put under the legal microscope?
In the post about people buying used copies of XP to install them on new PC's people had no problem violating the EULA. They claimed that it had no legal legs to stand on and there's no way you'd ever get in trouble for it.
Why is Apple's EULA legally bulletproof as everyone so far seems to think?
and yes, I like my idioms
My understanding is that EULAs are generally held up by US contract law.
The more controversial practice of including a EULA that can't be read until AFTER the product is opened (shrinkwrap EULA) seems to be only legal if you're allowed to return the item after opening it (frequently within 30 days) to indicate your disagreement with the contract.
Moshe!
GO Psystar!!!
Charge!
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Can't they postpone the lawsuit? They don't even have laptops out yet!
It's been pointed out in various ways and means but it's not complex. It's very simple:
1.) Apple has been down the Mac clone road before. Eliminating the Mac clone market made sense, as the clone makers ate into Apple profits. Hence, Apple creates the OS for specific hardware and you get a consistent user experience with few surprises and problems. Yes, it limits the hardware that the OS runs on and the price for Macs is higher than most of us would like but guess what? You don't have to buy the newest or latest Mac right now. You can buy a used Mac from macofalltrades.com and save money. Price isn't a barrier to owning a Mac any more.
2.) Psystar isn't going to win because Apple's EULA forbids running the OS on any hardware that isn't Apple and clearly, Psystar hardware isn't Apple. Simple as that. Psystar loss imminent.
3.) Obviously this small company isn't paying their own legal bill. Someone bigger than them is behind them. Psystar had to know going in that Apple would sue them, and their legal team obviously knows they will lose. The lawyers are in it to get paid. Nothing more. Whoever is paying the legal fees likely wants Apple to get bad press. Why? What company do you think would benefit from any bad publicity linked to Apple's OS? Same company who invested in SCO to help them kill off Linux (which by the way, didn't work).
What's Linux?
And on today's episode of "As the Apple Turns"......
It's obvious who's behind the shyster...er...Psystar clone-maker.
SCO!
:-D
I wouldn't be surprised if it was that nut Richard Stallman. Seems like he wouldn't mind people stealing the work of others just because its software and therefore should be "free".
For those of you who don't know who Stallman is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
I hope i dont sound stupid or anything,
I've been folowing this problem from the begening. My question is this.
Isnt spystar sorta but not really using mac components? i mean, an intel processor is the same that a pc and a mac uses am i wrong? like i get the EULA is that OS X cant be install on a machine that doesnt have a pretty apple on it, but arent all the component sorta similar?
please go easy on me...lol im just expresing my though..
Halla :-)
What about "Michael Dell". First Jobs goes to him when apple was hurting, then Dell goes to Jobs when the Intel switch happens.
Both deny each other creating a feud. Dell is open to other OS'S besides Winblows. Like Ubuntu or possibly Mac OS X?