And it's all over, folks: The US District Court for the Northern District of California has just permanently forbidden wannbe Mac cloner Psystar from selling modified versions of OS X, providing any tools that enable users to bypass the OS X kernel encryption, and / or intentionally aiding anyone else from infringing Apple's OS X copyrights in any way. We knew this was coming following
Apple's decisive victory against Psystar last month -- the only
open questions were whether the court would include Snow Leopard and Psytar's
Rebel EFI software in the ban, since the lawsuit was specifically about Leopard and Rebel EFI wasn't the subject of any proceedings. Both issues were predictably resolved in favor of Apple: the court specifically included Snow Leopard and any future versions of OS X in the scope of the injunction, and while Judge Alsup couldn't address Rebel EFI directly, he did expressly forbid Psystar from "manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking" in anything that circumvents Apple's OS X hardware locks -- which we'd say covers Rebel EFI's functionality pretty thoroughly. Psystar has until December 31 to comply, and the Judge Alsup isn't kidding around: "Defendant must immediately begin this process, and take the quickest path to compliance; thus, if compliance can be achieved within one hour after this order is filed, defendant shall reasonably see it done." Psystar can still appeal, obviously, but it's already got its own hefty legal bills and a
$2.67m fine to pay to Apple, so we've got a feeling this one might have reached the end of the line.
P.S.- Amusingly, Judge Alsup appears to be pretty sick of Apple's shenanigans as well: in the section discussing Snow Leopard, he says Apple first tried to block any discovery of Snow Leopard before the OS was released, and then pushed to include the software in the case after it launched. That's why the Florida case over Snow Leopard wasn't merged into this case -- Alsup thought it was a "slick tactic" that "smacked of trying to 'have it both ways,' and offended [his] sense of fair play." Ouch.
posted December 16th 2009 1:43PM
@LowSky
If Apple sold to other markets their software sales might incrementally increase, but their hardware sales would plummet. Since Apple makes their money on hardware, that is the equivalent of committing financial suicide.
You have Apple's philosophy all wrong. They don't care about market share, they care about profit. Their hardware makes them profit. Why would they switch to a no-hardware model? That makes no sense.
You may not like AAC but it is a ratified standard and the replacement for MP3. You can blame the manufacturer of your car's CD player for not supporting standards instead of blaming Apple for wanting to use a superior codec.
You may not like built in batteries but Apple achieves both better life that way, and slimmer form factors in all cases. Most 17" laptops only last 5-6 hours (or less) on battery, the MacBook pro lasts 8 hours. If it lasts you an entire day, why does it need to be removable?
You are free to buy from whoever you want, but Amazon is not a good example to use. Not only are their songs not cheaper (from day one they've been selling songs at $1.29), but they're worse quality too. MP3s are not as good as MP4s. And since the music on the iTunes store doesn't have any DRM on it, that argument is null and void.
Apple doesn't care about netbooks or they would have made one. Have you been paying attention at all? The netbook market is dropping like a rock. Why would Apple want to be involved in that? As far as a tablet, who knows, but a tablet is not a defining factor of success, obviously. All of them so far have been dismal failures. You may have noticed that Apple doesn't enter a new market unless it can bring something that changes the market for the better, a la the iPhone and the iPod, not to mention the original Mac OS and the Macintosh.
And yes, the Mini is $600. That's because Apple isn't interested in the race to the bottom. They've never cared about making crap, they leave that to all the other companies who are content with living on razor thin margins.
You sound like somebody who is confused by OS X and doesn't know how to use it. It's extremely powerful if you take the time to learn it. I can't remember the last time I couldn't find an application for the Mac. Have you even bothered looking? And phone service, well that's just AT&T isn't it?
This just means Psystar will have to find another way, like including an EFI-X bootloader with every computer or build their own version.
It's wasn't Psystar's code that broke apples encryption to begin with, for that you'd have to thank Nekas & all the other dedicated members of the hackintosh community.
Good riddance to Psystar, shame on you for trying to sell code, which isn't yours, & is also available free!!
If Psystar was smart, they would written another OS like Apple did to compete with both MacOSx and Windows. But instead they steal from Apple and spend their money on lawyer and court fees.
Psystar just has to change its name to Ψstar, or PsyStar, or Psystars, Psystar II, or whatever for that matter, Lol. It just cost a couple hundred bucks.. ;-p
It's amazing how greedy and underhanded Apple is, trying to have their cake and eat it too. they can't get mad becuase a group is out there trying to satisfy consumers in ways that they refuse to because they feel they have their consumers by the short and curlys.
learn from this apple... LEARN.
@Thor e
One thing you forgot. Apple made their cake..
@Thor e
Learn what? That the courts will side with them against companies that try to sell derivative works of Apple's?
Yeah, I think they learned that already, thanks.
Apple computers are considered high end so OSX86 "dilutes" their brand.
They also control their hardware as a way of being able to compete with larger companies while still offering quality by limiting the amount of drivers/hardware they need to support.
Frankly I don't believe in copyright or patents. Both are "rights" bastardized out of reading the constitution very poorly and it ultimately reduces the advancement of technology because companies like Apple can hide behind big government rather than competing in other ways or improving their security.
@Atkins
Funny, you have pegged me 100% wrong. I adore Apple and think it's a perfect example of Free Market.
Microsoft controls 90% of the market but with that much market comes a gluten of problems that Apple doesn't have to deal with.
Instead, Apple is "small" (by comparison) nimble and quick to react to market trends. They sell themselves (like a designer clothing line) as a high end trend that also happens to be functional.
I'm amazingly PRO Apple, and simply disheartened that all companies eventually turn to the government for protection against their young and upcoming competition.
@Atkins
Great question. My view (and the free market) states that Apple can do two things to protect themselves:
1. Increase their security to stop osX86 from running on unauthorized hardware
2. Actually offer hardware that has added value beyond what Psystar can offer to attract customers.
In both of these situations, instead of a company hiding behind an unconstitutional law, they are forced to strive for perfection, increase security and innovate in the hardware world. Ultimately this produces a better product for you and I, apple can continue to charge their premium.
As it stands, as much as I adore Apple as a company and their operating system, I'm a bit dis hearted that their computer hardware is generic Wintel with a pretty face.
I look at what the iPhone has done to the cell phone market with their hardware and software innovation and wish (as a share holder) that they would take that same leap forward with laptops and desktops.
Frankly I solely hold Apple and the iPhone responsible for the incredible smart phone advancements we have had in the past 18 months as companies try to one up Apple's unique abilities.
Thanks for the great debate Atkins!
@Atkins
Your statements are indeed true and appreciate your continued contribution.
The key fact you bring up is that competition can hinder advancement....of a particular company.
Using the above example, developing "hack proof" code can distract from a possible long term technology investments Apple plans to make. This can be looked at as "unfair" to the Apple that worked so hard to create such a great invention to begin with. That is to say, it's much easier for a big company to hide behind a "over bearing" agency (typically government) as they become too large to react fast enough to market demands.
MySpace vs Facebook, Microsoft vs Google, IE vs Firefox vs Chrome. In these examples the first was thought to be "too big to fail or untouchable" yet smaller companies innovated past them...even with government making it difficult.
The rebuttal is that any invention another company can simply copy is not a true advancement worth protecting. Again using apple's desktop hardware as an example, with expect for the iMac, none of it is even remotely unique. Apple can claim "ultimate support and reliability" on their hardware but even that is a reach.
The multitouch and gester hardware software combination on the iPhone however is *true* innovation that people are still trying to match.
Lets say for example that Apple forever holds a legal protection against anyone ever being able to use multi touch but them and it is deemed the best possible type of user input. The result is that apple is the best, no body is allow to match them and frankly they don't have to innovate more to continue being the best.
But the free market is a great thing, it finds itself a way around even the most hindering of government regulation. It just takes more time and effort.
The last example I'll give is software itself. Lets say the government said, "Starting tomorrow copying software is no longer illegal in the US!"
What would happen is that some companies would go out of business...but the survivors would improve ways of authorizing users to their software creating a totally new way of thinking about software usage. I think we are already getting there today with web and cloud technologies. Do you really have a "software choice" or a way to "steal" google, facebook or youtube?
@Atkins
Finally someone at Engadget that actually wants to engage in real debate!
I agree everything is eventually hackable, however at some point it will take so much effort to do so, that it may not be cost effective to bother. Just like if it took you 10 hours of configuration changes to allow you to "steal" a $15 software package.
I agree with your second statement as well. They focus brilliantly at a "all in one" solutions touting ease of use and safety.
I also agree that innovation *only* occurs when someone else is there to actually push another entity to do so. The free market argument is that patents artificially put others at a disadvantage... producing a "virtual" legal brick wall allowing the patent holder to sit idle while others find creative ways around it. If someone was however able to reproduce the same product because a patent didn't stop them, immediately both companies enter an arms race to produce yet another more innovative concept...hopefully harder to replicate than the last.
Finally on deregulation...yes. All regulation is bad but the explanation of why is far too long for Engadget comments =-)
As you seem to suspect, a large corporation is difficult to maintain in a free market. As already mentioned, companies reach a certain size where they have difficulty maintain their existing product base while attempting to predict the next best thing.
Small companies on the other hand, pop up by the dozens, all with slightly different ideas of the next best thing. Many fail but someone is smart enough and small enough to focus solely on a technology no other glutton filled monster corporation has the agility to focus on.
In the rare event that a large company exists for a long period of time, it is because they are doing things right.
With regulation and government intervention companies like GE (who lack any innovation anymore) continue to exist because they lobby for regulation that small companies can't compete with. the glutton of employees at GE, Microsoft, Big tobacco have the team of lawyers to wade through the muck.
Small companies however, can't possibly meet the same standards.
Case in point. Marlboro Cigarette recently supported a bill that made it illegal to favor tobacco with fruit favors. This was not because they have a heart.... this is because one of their smaller competitors Alteria specialized in flavored cigarettes as way to make them unique and focus on a niche market.
GE recently pushed to make incandescent bulbs illegal in the US because their is so much competition overseas, they can't produce bulbs as cheap as others < $.05 each.
Instead they suggest we move to CFL (which has some advantages) but for people who are exceptionally poor and prefer to change $.05 bulbs 1 time per year rather than spend $2.00 on a bulb that will eventually recover the costs in energy savings over years, they are unable to do so.
The list goes on and on. EVERY successful small business eventually becomes a large business, EVERY large business eventually turns to government to protect them from the small business.
@corecomps
How is taking OS X, violating Apple's EULA and selling machines with hacked firmware "competition"?
I'm not sure you got that word right. Competition would be if Psystar created its own OS and sold it on its own machines.
who cares? os x sucks bawlz. n0000bz
@gozerxp
apple is bad for the economy
@Atkins and why isnt that?
Jack = Atkins
Obviously the same person. Creating an alternate account so you can make it look like someone other than yourself agrees with your crusades against all who disagree with you? That's dedication right there. I'm impressed.
@kenny goo
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Psystar was relevant in the times of Vista. With Windows 7 doing really well, I do not see need to go through all the trouble.
Psystar computers were neither elegant like iMac or Mac Pro, nor they had true integration of software and hardware. The only people who bought those machines were people who wanted something better than Vista, but did not want to shell out the premium for Macs. I think these people will be happy with Windows 7.