Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the oh-give-me-a-clone dept.

The Courts 256

CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar and the dueling lawsuits since the beginning.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If these guys couldn't bounce back (0)

retech (1228598) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815299)

then no one could [lowendmac.com]

Re:If these guys couldn't bounce back (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815529)

wtf!!! stop using subject as part of the post. you see, there is the subject, which is, you know, the subject, as in "what you are going to talk about", and then the post, the place to write down your idea. stop fucking with data and metadata.

I couldn't agree more (4, Funny)

raynet (51803) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815581)

Re:If these guys couldn't bounce back

Re:I couldn't agree more (2, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816937)

This is hilarious and yet I feel the same as AC. I'm so conflicted.

Re:If these guys couldn't bounce back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25817117)

I hate Apple. Seriously.

As much as I dislike Apple... (2, Insightful)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815381)

This is probably the proper legal ruling.
Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (5, Insightful)

dssstrkl (900534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815423)

What's the problem with Apple making money using FOSS? Its not like they don't write their own code or contribute very strongly back to the community?

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815569)

That's the problem: Apple's code.
FYI: You realize the F in FOSS means FREE, right?

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815621)

That's retarded and you're retarded.

TROLL, TROLLED, BITCH!

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815747)

yes but free as in freedom not free as in beer.

btw i take it you new here.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816389)

Beer isn't free :(

Mac OS Forge (2, Informative)

krischik (781389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815895)

Well you can get all the sources here:

http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]

And especially zfs and launchd could be interesting to Linux and BSD. But then the Linux community suffers heavily from Not-Invented-Here syndrome.

Re:Mac OS Forge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816963)

Incorrect. They suffer from "The License Isn't GPL Compatible" syndrome. Do some research before you post something so close to a flame, will you ?

Re:Mac OS Forge (2, Interesting)

aetherworld (970863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817247)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that the only thing that makes the Apple Public License incompatible to the GPL is the fact, that you have to redistribute modified code under the Apple Public License and not the GPL.

Why exactly would that be a problem for Linux?

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (-1, Troll)

citizen_senior (1372475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816029)

Are you sure that the F in FOSS really means Free ? I thought that the F was for something quite other. Don't want to say the word in front of either the ladies - there appears to be very few here - or in front of the children - who are represented here in great numbers. You do see the word that I have in mind though, don't you ??

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (4, Funny)

Koiu Lpoi (632570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815737)

Adding a question mark to any sentence makes it a question?

actually, yes it does (2, Interesting)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816481)

These could be considered as a form of echo question [sil.org] . Consider the example:

"I ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks."
"You ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks?"
"Yes."

Here the repair that's typically assumed to be part of echo questions is the entire sentence (which would likely be seen a semantically aberrant). There's no structural change to the sentence with the question mark (modulo some theory about hidden movement which I don't feel like working out). You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (3, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815771)

There was a time when the KHTML devs were not happy with how code from Webkit was being released (i.e. although they stuck to the letter of the LGPL, they were being unhelpful so not really sticking to to its spirit), but I think that has now been resolved.

Other than that I do not think they have ever done anything other than what the licences were meant to allow them to do.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (4, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815441)

Though I disagree with Apple profiting off OSS which they did not initially create

Why not? Most tech companies do this in some way.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (0)

citizen_senior (1372475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816069)

Sompething to do with the sex life ?

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817277)

Or if not "most tech companies", then every company that profits off of OSS is profiting from code that they didn't write. Even if they actually start the project, there will still be other code that they didn't write. Either that, or they're wildly unsuccessful at attracting developers to the project.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

Xymor (943922) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815527)

There is nothing wrong from profiting from OSS. In fact, I think you're incentivized to put a price different than free by some FOSS licenses, probably to enfisize the difference between free and free.

As long as you distribute the source you're ok.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815597)

It's emphasize. Dear gawd.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816041)

I thought it was infanticide.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817161)

Incesticide.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815675)

Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create.

I don't really disagree with this; it's not like they broke any licenses at the time they did it. Now that the software is properly licensed, it'd be problematic if they stole from OSS, but it was probably legit when they first released OS X. Not that I know much about the history anyways, so maybe I should shut up.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815713)

Additionally, there's nothing in the GPL that says that you can't sell the software, and it explicitly states that you can sell copies of the source for profit. Nothing illegitimate about what Apple's doing really....

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815803)

What does the GPL have to do with Apple or their operating system? Mac OS X is based on BSD.

Still, the BSD license does allow software distributed under it to be sold with or without offering source code or contributing back, so Apple is fully within their rights to sell Mac OS X. I'm just pointing out that you were referring to the wrong license.

Apple and GPL (4, Informative)

krischik (781389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815937)

There is quite a bit of GPL licensed software in Mac OS X. Your can download the sources for that part of OS X here:

http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]

The sources to the BSD part of Mac OS X is there as well. And some of Apples own developments on top (launchd - Apples answer to init, cron and inetd - for example). launchd is pretty cool btw.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815683)

They're not profiting off the Free & Open Source Software that they did not initially create. You can download that bit for free, no profit for Apple. Free of charge, completely.

What they're profiting from is the non-OSS part that they did create (or bought the rights to, in the case of the NeXT created segment) and the integration of the F/OSS that they use with their OS. That's their work and not covered by F/OSS licenses.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (-1, Flamebait)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816035)

I'll try to respond to the replies so far.
I think the integration of closed-source with high dependence on 3rd party open source is somewhat taking advantage of the spirit of all the programmers who contributed and did not receive any monetary compensation for their hard work. On the flip-side, Apple investors are profiting heavily.
To create an analogy.... The food pyramid. Grains, vegetables, fruit, meat, and diary... represent OSS, the sweets/fats represent the Apple contribution. Only there are certainly lots of sweets/fats. I personally wouldn't mind using a Mac if I could disable more of the animations/glitz(time-wasters), and those drop shadows which make resizing a window rather sluggish. For instance, instead of a genie/scale/drain effect, I'd like a more-or-less identical option to cmd-h, hide. Which is instant, but requires using the keyboard, which requires me to, 99% of the time, look at the keyboard, wasting more time. Which is frustrating! Though the dock, after some tweaking, is quite usable.
91degrees, I agree. Most tech companies jump at the chance to exploit FOSS, even if they don't know what they're doing (there's a funny Dilbert comic about this).
Basically I dislike most of Apple's license agreements. Like when they released Safari for Windows. Technically the legalise stated you could only run it on Apple-branded computers. How can anything be in the spirit of OSS when restricted to a single hardware vendor(that's like MS making Windows run exclusively on MS hardware...) Which is somewhat ironic that a proprietary OS runs on nearly any x86.. but an OS(and many other Apps, not all) based largely on OSS do not? Where's the openness?
Safari wouldn't exist without webkit. And OS X wouldn't exist without BSD/NEXT. I'm sure there's more, but I'm unaware.
My problem is not a single Apple product, but I have a problem with their corporation as a whole. Which is why I'll never purchase any Apple product(to save any trolls that 'suggestion').
I quit my last job because I was refused the choice of OS. I was forced to use Apple OS X. Ever used Filemaker? It's owned by a subsidiary of Apple. Even Mac users I speak with think it's horrible.
I don't mean to rant endlessly, so I'll stop now.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816261)

Technically the legalise stated you could only run it on Apple-branded computers.

Technically, yes. But I don't believe that was ever intentional- more just incompetent cut-and-pasting which was fixed as soon as they knew about it IIRC.

As long as we're being intellectually consistent. (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816103)

Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.

Well, if you're being intellectually consistent in your ethics, then you should be disgreeing with Red Hat, Canonical, TiVo, LinkSys, Microsoft (yes, Microsoft), Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP, and a bunch of other big-name industry companies.

All these companies -- and more -- have profitted (well, okay, Canonical hasn't made a dime, technically ;) from OSS which they did not initially create.

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

JonathanBoyd (644397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816645)

Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.

Isn't that a bit daft? Are you against anyone profiting off OSS they didn't create? What's the problem with profiting off OSS as long as they keep o the licence?

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (1)

FireXtol (1262832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817539)

I got another analogy! Imagine a few restaurants. Linux, Apple, and Microsoft.
Apple has employees go to a food bank to pick-up free packaged/canned/etc foods(GNU), only they 'add to it' by cooking it/preparing it and adding herbs and spices(which no one argues are meaningless) they actually did buy(oh, the water is free).
Something already done by the 'food pantry'/charity(Linux) for free, but now there's a charge involved.
They don't pass that savings on, Apple is charging just as much, if not more, as the next restaurant(Windows) that buys/produces all its own food/herbs/spice(code). In fact, Mac charges per ingredient(minor upgrades), and there's a steep cover charge to get in(Apple-branded hardware).
Ingredients Microsoft, which actually 'buys all their food'(paying programmers for code), give you for free with the 'meal'(OS)!
This is either the best analogy ever or inedible. I seem to like food analogies though!

Re:As much as I dislike Apple... (3, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816909)

Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create.

They started with BSD code. Which is released under a BSD license which expressly allows this. What's the problem? You are free to make money off that stuff too if you like.

You can do that with Apache stuff too. Some OSS licenses expressly allow you to use their stuff as a basis for your own stuff. This is a good thing.

Cheers

Where's the logic? (4, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815389)

I never understood what these guys were trying to do. It was clear from the off that they would be legally defeated at every single last turn. Blam.

You see, whether or not you agree or disagree with the legal standing of this EULA, or that EULA... whether or not you have a position on all this stuff, whether or not you agree that the law needs to be codified more properly for modern times, changed to fit the needs of the public... whatever you think there are just simply weaker cases which need to be tested first.

These guys marched straight into the castle stronghold without a hope in hell, and pissed on the kings chips.

We all stood back watching, saying to ourselves... well, this won't go anywhere. This was stupid. These guys are going to get slaughtered.

And lo! It was stupid, it didn't go anywhere, and they just got it handed to them.

Re:Where's the logic? (3, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815409)

They took a gamble on how a very vague law would be interpreted by a judge. If they won, then they would have been sitting on a goldmine, having lost they will still have the paycheques they they took home each month. There was a lot of upside for hardly any downside.

There was a lot of upside for hardly any downside. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815561)

Except perhaps bad timing. Its probably not the best time to start a new business or look for employment.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816827)

There was a lot of upside for hardly any downside.

Until damages and costs are assessed in Apple's favour.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817197)

I think you mean "adjusted"

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817353)

Actually, I meant "assessed", as I meant that the judge, having ruled in Apple's favour, would assess damages (if Apple counter-sued, which I expect they did), and that the judge would also make a costs ruling in Apple's favour. I'm not sure what you mean by "adjusted", is this the term more commonly used in US jurisdictions? Or are we thinking about different kinds of costs and damages?

I wish they could win (1, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815591)

I hope they find an angle that works.

Really it is amazing how people will come out of the woodwork to support Apple in this. Sorry, I own multiple Apple products but I do not see how in the hell it is justified they can tell me or anyone else how to use their product once I buy it. This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA. How far would have that gone?

Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.

I'm glad they lost (2, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815695)

This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA

Except that Microsoft does say that with the Xbox and Xbox 360. They have 2 different platforms with 2 different lisencing strategies for their hardware. Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft. Apple doesn't have any obligation to market it's computer OS the same way that MS does, and unless you have a problem with MS, Sony, or Nintendo marketing their OS the same way Apple does I fail to see validity of the "Apple is the next MS" argument you are using here unless you plan to apply it to the other game station manufacturers as well.

Your whole second paragraph is self contradictory. Apple is suing Pystar for selling hardware with a "Hacked version of Apples OS" they are not suing Pystar for the computers they've sold with windows or linux installed, only those with OS X. If you want to go take the open source compnents of Apple's OS and recreate the closed source code yourself, and then sell computers with it you are free to do so. However, you'll quickly find that even with mooching Apple contributions to open source you won't be able to maintain profitability sell this OS for the same price Apple does their updates. They are a way to generate some income off of major OS updates from people that have already purchased Apple hardware. They are not sold at a profit by themselves, so Apple is free to restrict the sales to whomever they want in the EULA.

Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.

Re:I'm glad they lost (0)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816313)

Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft.
I haven't been to a big box retailer recently so perhaps you can purchase the XBox OS on an installable media, but I sure as hell know you can purchase a copy of Mac OSX on physical media for installation. So therefore your MS Xbox analogy fails.
  Apple doesn't have any obligation to market it's computer OS the same way that MS does, and unless you have a problem with MS, Sony, or Nintendo marketing their OS the same way Apple does I fail to see validity of the "Apple is the next MS" argument you are using here unless you plan to apply it to the other game station manufacturers as well.
Again please provide linx to where I can purchase on seperate physical media any of those operating systems. Oh wait, you can't. Here's a bad car analogy, imagine if Bridgestone decided that you could only put Potenzas on Ferraris and some clever chap allowed you to put Potenzas on a hyundai. Now recognize that is what apple is trying to do with leopard or whichever version of the OS they're selling.

Re:I'm glad they lost (3, Insightful)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816709)

your MS Xbox analogy fails.

No it doesn't. they are both Operating Systems for running specific hardware designs. Their is only one Xbox 360 design, but if I were to go out and purchase all of the parts necessary, assemble the system, and get my hands on a copy of the OS from some hacker I could conceivably install the Xbox 360 OS on reference hardware and do the equivalent of what Pystar is doing. It would be no less illegal based on the EULA and copywrite law as it is written and enforced at the moment. That it would be more difficult to procure a copy of the installable OS doesn't invalidate my analogy.

If anything your "Bad Car Analogy" is worse than the one I used because tires are sold and not licensed as software is. I don't particularly like that software is licensed instead of sold but that's the state of things at the moment.

No, the XBox analogy does fail (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816801)

Because you don't buy the XBox OS but you DO buy the Apple Mac OS X OS.

You don't need a license to install and use software when it is required for the use of said materiel. So that's not the problem.

Apple could just not sell Mac OS X the same way as MS don't sell XBox OS. They don't. So live with the consequences.

Re:I'm glad they lost (2, Insightful)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816383)

Except that Microsoft does say that with the Xbox and Xbox 360. They have 2 different platforms with 2 different lisencing strategies for their hardware. Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft.

Microsoft doesn't sell the "Xbox OS" as a separate product. Apple does sell OS X independently of their hardware.

Re:I'm glad they lost (1)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816897)

Microsoft doesn't sell the "Xbox OS" as a separate product.

Neither does Apple. Neither company "Sells" any software. Instead, they both license software to users, and both sell at least some hardware which comes with the licensed software pre-installed. Apple arguably has more a more restrictive license for their computer OS, but that in and of itself isn't an indefensible legal position.

If you consider my point to be unnecessarily pedantic how about this. Apple doesn't sell boxed licenses of the Mac OS as a separate product either. What they sell are boxed licenses for Mac OS updates which by definition require the OS to have been installed on that hardware previously.

I don't particularly like that software is licensed instead of sold, but that's the way things are at the moment. Breaking the law is not a suitable substitute for changing the law.

Re:I'm glad they lost (2)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817135)

+3 insightful to defend hostile EULAs and lawyering shenanigans? Wow. Is this slashdot?

Psystar isnt selling you a hacked product (and even if they did it wouldnt be wrong). They are selling hardware/EFI that works with the OS X installer.

Its no wonder we have no consumer rights and no hacker rights when people support abusive companies and support their right to keep us locked out of the products we own.

The countries that are producing kids who have opportunities to hack and make stuff have already started to take over. The west is obsessed with defending all manner of silly IP. Its really time to rethink IP laws. Just because you like Apple products doesnt mean theyre on your side.

Re:I'm glad they lost (1)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817363)

Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.

It's not just an issue of them deciding what to do with their products. It's a matter of them deciding what you can do with the products you've bought from them.

Apple's monopoly is worse than Microsoft's. They have a monopoly on both software and hardware.

I'm sorry, but if my motherboard breaks on my machine, I should be allowed to replace it with whatever motherboard I want. If I bought software, I should be able to install it wherever I want.

This isn't about them controlling their stuff. It's about them controlling yours.

Re:I wish they could win (2, Insightful)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815757)

This would be akin to Microsoft having...

Judge actually ruled that this is pretty much the exact opposite of 'This would be akin to Microsoft...'

This particular ruling isn't about the EULA aspect of the case, it's about the (alleged) monopoly abuse. Psystar's argument was that Apple had a monopoly in the market for computers running OS X, and therefore had to abide by the much stricter laws on what a company can and cannot do if it gets into a monopoly position. The judge said that 'computers running OS X' isn't the applicable 'market' in this case, he defined the applicable market as 'computers running any OS', therefore Apple only have a minority of the market, and Psystar is wrong. In that market, Microsoft do have a big enough OS market share to be defined as a monopoly.

Re:I wish they could win (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816097)

he defined the applicable market as 'computers running any OS'

Define "computer".

Sincerely,
The mobile phone business

Re:I wish they could win (2, Informative)

penix1 (722987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816329)

The judge said that 'computers running OS X' isn't the applicable 'market' in this case, he defined the applicable market as 'computers running any OS', therefore Apple only have a minority of the market, and Psystar is wrong. In that market, Microsoft do have a big enough OS market share to be defined as a monopoly.

However, the other part of the Sherman Act (illegal tying) was still not addressed. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) [wikipedia.org]

Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.

(emphasis added).

Since you can buy OS X without having to buy an Apple Computer and since OS X will run on non-Apple hardware, it is illegal tying especially since it is a contract only (EULA) that prevents you from running on non-Apple hardware. Whether or not Pystar pursued this line I have no idea.

Re:I wish they could win (1)

JonathanBoyd (644397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817219)

Surely the ruling does address tying indirectly? If the market is defined as 'computers running any OS', then it is possible to buy a computer without OS X or another OS without buying an Apple Mac ergo Apple is not forcing anyone in the market to buy a component from them because you can buy either component (computer or OS) from someone else. The tying would only be applicable if the market was 'computers running OS X.'

The Wikipedia article on tying seems fairly clear on this in the 'Tying in United States Law' section where it notes that 'The Supreme Court has since held that a plaintiff must establish the sort of market power necessary for other antitrust violations in order to prove sufficient "economic power" necessary to establish a per se tie.' In defining the market, the judge has ruled that Apple do not have the market power necessary.

Re:I wish they could win (4, Insightful)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816089)

Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing.

So when it sends reports following crashes where do they go? Apple.

When someone files feedback or some such where does that go? Apple.

When something doesn't work as expected who gets the blame? Apple.

Apple gets bad rep and no financial recompense from Psystar's business model. Why is this something that should be allowed?

Re:I wish they could win (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816193)

Apple gets bad rep and no financial recompense from Psystar's business model

Unless you count the $129/sale from the boxed copy of OS X that Pystar include as a financial recompense...

Re:I wish they could win (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817393)

And it is some level of financial recompense, but it doesn't address the question of whether it's fair recompense. The $129 number is a price subsidized by the purchase of a Mac. That's essentially the "upgrade" price. We don't know what the fully retail price of OSX would be if Apple were licensing it for use on non-Apple computers, because Apple doesn't offer those licensing terms to anyone.

It may be that, if Apple chose to license OSX for generic PCs, they would charge $500 or $1000 per copy. We don't know.

So in light of that, it's not clear that the $129 is sufficient for Psystar to say, "But we bought copies of OSX fair and square!"

Re:I wish they could win (1)

BigDish (636009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816693)

Lets change one word in your statement:
So when it sends reports following crashes where do they go? Microsoft.

When someone files feedback or some such where does that go? Microsoft.

When something doesn't work as expected who gets the blame? Microsoft.
--
Hmmm, sounds like the attitude most of Slashdot has towards Windows.

To be quite honest, I'd really disappointed to see this antitrust suit thrown out. Apple is selling PCs, and Mac OS runs on PCs - they just won't admit it. It's time the OS competes on technical merits solely, not vendor lockin/lockout.

Re:I wish they could win (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816627)

You do not buy an operating system. You buy a license to use an operating system. You are required to abide by the terms of the license.

Re:I wish they could win (1)

dshadowwolf (1132457) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817193)

I've never liked that analogy. And, at least in California, this "licensed not sold" thing has been shot down in court. See the recent Autodesk case.

Re:I wish they could win (1)

JonathanBoyd (644397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816719)

Really it is amazing how people will come out of the woodwork to support Apple in this. Sorry, I own multiple Apple products but I do not see how in the hell it is justified they can tell me or anyone else how to use their product once I buy it. This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA. How far would have that gone?

Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.

Actually, the problem is that they're installing Mac OS X then reselling it. They're not going after consumers or anyone who's violating the EULa; they're going after a company. Companies don't have the right to do what they want with someone else' software, especially when that involves violating the license. What if Microsoft modified some GPL software then started selling it in violation of the license by not distributing the source? That's similar to what Psystar are doing.

Re:Where's the logic? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816125)

I expected them to get the beat-down in court as well, but I'm left hoping this case doesn't set too much of a precedent.

Apple sells good hardware; they also sell a good OS.

It really is a shame that those two products can't be treated separately and mixed with other products on the market.

Yes, you can run a different OS on the hardware; yes, you can run the OS on different hardware (with as-yet-to-be-determined legal work-around).

Can someone bundle such a package to sell to consumers? Many mightn't want to spend their time on an OS install - that could be perceived as added value.

Perhaps someone will come up with a better car analogy - here's mine: wouldn't you be peeved if you weren't allowed to resell your car after you replaced its engine (and it passed all safety requirements, etc)? Whether it's one car (yours), or a company offering an "upgrade service" (Ruf Porsche caters to the high end) - it's a benefit for consumers to have those options.

Why make software so different?

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

JonathanBoyd (644397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817283)

Why make software so different?

It isn't. There are physical products you can buy that have licensing terms attached restricted resale e.g. multipack crisps or rental DVDs.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

Zey (592528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817531)

Apple sells good hardware;

At the very top end, sure. The Mac Minis, on the other hand, are way overpriced and under-specced. Hardware from two years ago at "average consumer desktop of today" prices. Woeful stuff considering the only alternative for a Mac desktop system (table lamps don't count) is the Mac Pro at a hefty USD $2800.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816401)

I never understood what these guys were trying to do.

If it ever comes out who the money is behind them then it may become much more clear. Perhaps it is someone like Dell, trying for a decision that would allow them to do the same thing. That would be a *huge* victory for them, and worth a small anonymous gamble to try to pull it off.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816987)

The problem is, Apple now have a judge saying they don't have a monopoly, so they could simply jack the price of OS X up to $1,000,129 with a $1m discount if it's installed on an Apple computer, or limit sales to 10 per customer, or use any other way of making it uneconomical to make clones, and it wouldn't count as monopoly abuse.

Re:Where's the logic? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817413)

On the plus side, they're probably making money until the court shuts them down, at which point they can declare bankruptcy and disappear.

it's a blow to us all. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815491)

apple are the worst kind of bastards that attempt to control your purchase after you've paid for it. why do we put up with this egotistical shit? i know some of you masturbate over your mac mini's every night, but the common man needs an affordable alternative to windows.

and don't say linux, it's a shit desktop.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815651)

I just moved from OSX to Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago.

Benefits:

  • multiple desktops, with nice shiny 3D desktop switching
  • future updates are free
  • it's much easier to find and install new applications using the built in package manager

Downsides:

  • No two finger right click so far, and the two finger scrolling is a little finicky compared to in OSX. Only matters in the evenings when I'm away from my desk though, the rest of the time I'm using an external mouse, keyboard and display anyway
  • The properietary ATI/AMD graphics driver for linux is pretty guff so far
  • Err.. that's about it

Poor attempt at flamebait tbh.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

NoName Studios (917186) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815687)

You do realize that OS X has fancy multiple desktops, free updates, and a built in package manager?(Spaces, Software Update, APT GET or my favorite the Trash Can.)

Before any one tries to refute the free updates, security fixes and other obvious updates(Web Browser, Codecs) come free from software update. New paid releases of OS X really only include fancy new features that people can live with out.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815735)

And yet in 2008 OS X can only resize a window from the bottom right. It won't boot if a non-system drive fails, the disk utility is atrocious, something that belong on redhat 3. And you can expect security updates as and when apple can be bothered.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815879)

Security updates are free, but if I wanted fancy multiple desktops I'd have to pay to update to 10.5, and that doesn't sound very free to me. I was living okay without multiple desktops sure, but with Ubuntu I got them for free, and I am now in fact using them.

The OSX security updates also were usually quite tardy as Mr AC points out just above me. Took them months to get a patch out for that big DNS bug a few months ago for example.

Ubuntu has become a fairly polished OS. If I had an nVidia graphics card then it would be almost perfect on this laptop. Canonical have done an awesome job. Linux is pretty much ready for any n00b to come along and use it for everything but the latest commercial games (which is often the main problem with OSX too).

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816493)

Linux is pretty much ready for any n00b to come along and use it for everything but the latest commercial games

Linux has made a *lot* of strides in the last few years, but it's still got a ways to go.

I've been running Kubuntu on a couple of machines, and am amazed at how usable it is. I'm planning on setting up my next workstation to dual-boot, because I will be able to do all of my non-specialized work on it and then boot into XP for things I can't run on Linux.

However, even running it on some spare machines has revealed that there is still often the need to do things like edit xorg.conf and manually specify what my monitor is capable of. Otherwise my choice is "slow open-source NVidia driver" versus "fast proprietary NVidia driver at 640x480 only". End users should *never* have to look up monitor specs to get a normal resolution. Especially on hardware like a GeForce 5200-based card connected to a ViewSonic CRT, both of which are hardly bleeding-edge.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816887)

It seems that's one thing the ATI proprietary driver does right* - it has its own application for changing resolution and configuring internal and external displays, and recognised my Dell flatpanel correctly.

*or wrong, as it would be much better if they could release it as a plugin for the built in Ubuntu resolution manager, rather than a separate application in the 'accessories' menu, which isn't very intuitive

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

gpalyu (995482) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817163)

"but if I wanted fancy multiple desktops I'd have to pay to update to 10.5, and that doesn't sound very free to me." Free multiple-desktop apps have been available for OS X for years. You are spreading BS. http://desktopmanager.berlios.de/ [berlios.de]

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815707)

I just moved from OSX to Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago.

Benefits:

  • multiple desktops, with nice shiny 3D desktop switching

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't multiple desktops exactly what spaces is for?

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815807)

Possibly, but I feel the need to pay to find out. My laptop came with OS 10.4

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

Talchas (954795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816303)

Just as a note, assuming your touchpad is a synaptics one, you should be able to get two-finger right click. I'm not sure exactly what the package name would be on ubuntu, but look for gsynaptics - it can change the settings for the touchpad w/o having to touch xorg.conf or restart X.

Re:it's a blow to us all. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816789)

Well, I just tried that package, did have to change xorg to even get the gsynaptics application to start unfortunately. Didn't see any options for the 2 finger right click, and it broke the 2 finger scroll functionality. Ubuntu has moved to some other configuration files for configuring input devices these days, and I do have the 2 finger click option in one of those, but it doesn't have any effect (while the scrolling option does, and I just use the keyboard for right clicking).

They'll probably get it right eventually. I'd still want to be able to use 2 finger click even if I no longer had a mac. My next machine is going to be back to nVidia graphics so if the Macs at the time I'm buying don't have nVidia graphics I'll probably just get a Dell again.

what for????, its just x86 now anyway (-1, Flamebait)

eniacfoa (1203466) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815731)

outside of being a spastic that doesnt know how not to get virus's, or needing to use final cut pro, what do we need a mac for? its not PPC anymore, so whats the diff? you want to run ubuntu on apple HW? buy an x86 box for a lot less than your crapple...Apple lovers, I dont give a shit about your mod points, mod me down, dont care...your a sucker that loves to get locked into suckage. If you really need to use final cut pro, I can understand that i suppose ;), im a musician who uses creative software...

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (0, Flamebait)

sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815817)

Your an idiot.

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (0, Offtopic)

pyrophoric (1174417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816271)

No, you're an idiot.

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (2, Insightful)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815881)

Apple's hardware is fairly priced, so even if you want to install Linux, you are no worse off than buying x other brand.

Go match a Dell to a Mac Pro, or a Sony Vaio laptop to a MacBook, you will see they are all competitive.

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (1)

NekSnappa (803141) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816245)

Man you are gonna get so hammered by the haters!

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (2, Informative)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816317)

doesnt negate the fact that its true. The only product Apple puts out right now thats not really that competitive is the Mini, but otherwise the rest of the line is very competitive. The difference is in buying a Mac you buy things that for some people they dont need or want. But then thats the Apple difference, you know your machine is going to be supported for years (Still running Tiger on 10 year old systems) when some Vista "Capable" models where barely that out of the gate.

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816349)

I already did a quick comparison [slashdot.org] for a "Mac Tax" article [slashdot.org] and it didn't come out well for the Apple. It was more on the Mac Mini because integrated monitors are something I would avoid like the plague, but it was still "Apple versus other brands".

Not that I've got anything specific against Apple - my wife's old iBook would be quite a nice laptop to work on, just as soon as I fix the backlight - but given the choice then I'd rather spec what I want at what ends up being a more reasonable price.

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816371)

Whoa buddy, watch out - that is NOT what the Slashdot community needs to hear, and they will react negatively to your comments with unproven arguments.

I'll start them off:

Apple's Hardware fairly priced??? WHoa, I bought an Apple Mac LC and it cost me $2000 for a LOW END machine. Then I was always doing CMD-. to try to quit a frozen app. And that LC didn't even come with a 5.25 inch floppy drive!!!

I just built a PC with a $32 motherboard and a few other parts I had around the house... and it cost me $32! And that isn't including the mail-in rebate that I just submitted 27 weeks ago.

Plus, you have to be rich to own a Mac, like a BMW owner. And then there is Steve Jobs - I hate his sickly self all dressed in black. Give me Steve Balmer any day!

Re:what for????, its just x86 now anyway (1)

spiffyman (949476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816817)

They are competitive, at the beginning of their life cycle. Because of the way Apple updates its products, though, price competitiveness goes down throughout the cycle until the next refresh.

All this means is that yes, you should wait until the next refresh to buy a shiny new MB/MBP/MP.

What no one seems to see... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815835)

Psystar is not modifying the OS. Check the details! They are not running a cracked or modified version of OSX on their systems. What they have done is created the EFI backbone so that will allow the OS will install run nativly on it. This is no different from when IBM made their machines, and people reverse-engineered the bios to make clones.

All apple has to get them on is that the OSX license stipulates that it MUST BE INSTALLED ON APPLE HARDWARE. This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.

These guys are going to have a rough time of it, but I home that they succeed. Apple should not be the only hardware manufacturer allowed to run OS-X, no more than microsoft should be allowed to decree that windows is not allowed to run on AMD and Gigabyte.

We should be allowed a choice!

Re:What no one seems to see... (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25815929)

The first Psystar machines did have a modified version of Mac OS X, for the record.

Re:What no one seems to see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25816373)

you do have a choice...buy apple or not.

There's your choice

Re:What no one seems to see... (1)

GSPride (763993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816525)

As has been pointed out above, Microsoft does, in fact, make an OS that must be installed on Microsoft hardware, namely their XBox OS. Sony and Nintendo do the same thing, so do most (if not all) cell phone and smartphone manufacturers.

Apple created their OS, can can license it however they choose. What give you, or any consumer, the right to unilaterally disregard the licensing agreement for OSX? If Apple is creating a good product, but are selling it with a over-restrictive license, that looses them sales, then that is certainly bad business practice, but there is nothing illegal, or immoral about it, and nothing gives you the right to decide that you don't like how Apple is selling their product, and do whatever you please with their work.

And as for Psystar not modifying the OS at all, I was under the impression that, at least initially, they did need to modify the OS, and that they still take and modify the various updates and patches to work on non-Apple hardware. In fact, i'm pretty sure that one of the central thrusts of Apple's case is the modified security and other patches that Psystar provides.

Re:What no one seems to see... (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817481)

A lot of people are forgetting that the only reason Psystar got nicked is they were openly violating the EULA.

You, as an individual, can get OSX and do whatever the hell you want with it. What apple doesn't know won't hurt them ; )

>and nothing gives you the right to decide that you don't like how Apple is selling their product, and do whatever you please with their work.

I live by the philosophy that if you purchase something, you can do what you want with it as long as you don't violate copyright. **** Apple's EULA.

A EULA is only enforceable if the company knows you are violating it.

-Viz

Re:What no one seems to see... (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816557)

This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.

No, it is not. Microsoft does not make hardware. The only way it could be considered the same is if Microsoft bought a computer hardware manufacturer and then said "You can only run Windows on Microsoft hardware."

All apple has to get them on is that the OSX license stipulates that it MUST BE INSTALLED ON APPLE HARDWARE.

Apple makes no secret that the license requires the use of Apple hardware. Because Apple sells a license to use the software, Apple has a legal right to restrict that use any way it wishes. Don't want to use Apple hardware, don't use OSX.

You can not dictate the terms of licensing. You do not have a right to use something in a way that is specifically prohibited by the license. Apple has rights too, and your rights end where Apples rights begin. Apple doesn't have to do anything just because you want it done in a certain way.

Quit being a whiny, selfish brat and use something else.

Money talks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25815877)

So Steve, how much does a judge cost these days?

Tying Arrangement (1)

Weeksauce (1410753) | more than 5 years ago | (#25816381)

What everyone seems to be missing here is that it's not about whether Apple profits from FOSS or does good in the community, but it's using an illegal tying arragement on OSX. Does Apple have the right to tell me for what purpose I can and cannot use software that I purchase? What I got to the store and buy Clorox bleach, that bleach is mine and what I do with it is my business. It would have been nice to see a Dell or Eee out in time for the holidays running OSX.

Re:Tying Arrangement (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817533)

It is most certainly not using an illegal tying arrangement. They get to dictate the terms of usage for their creation. The price that they sell it for is a direct reflection of their hardware restrictions. If you don't like their terms, don't buy their stuff. They make no secret that it requires Apple hardware. They are up front, this is simple contract law. You do not get to just scream and cry "illegal" because you don't like the terms. It just means you don't enter the contract. That simple. Noone is holding a gun to your head saying "You have to use OSX, and you have to buy Apple gear to do it!". I am so sick of this modern whiney bullshit like everyone owes you something. Don't like their terms? Tell them to screw off by not purchasing their stuff.

I suspect you would bitch and moan if they sold an OS X install box for $2000 that said "Because you insist on using this on unsupported hardware you will be paying out the ass for our risk to reputation by your crybaby crap when it doesn't work as advertised ON OUR HARDWARE. Please do not call support because you are not eligble. We are a hardware company that has built software to help sell that hardware. We are not interested in supporting your use of our software on hardware that wasn't built by us. Have a nice day".

Their hardware. Their Software. Their Rules. Don't like them? Don't give them YOUR money. But just becaues you don't like how they do business does not give you some inherent right to steal their shit. And in fact...you are wrong about your Clorox. Go look at the labels for those household chemicals. Almost ALL of them state very clearly that your ass can be held liable for not using them in ways consistent with the labeling.

Re:Tying Arrangement (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817581)

Why is it illegal? It may be undesirable, from the point of view of the consumer, but how exactly is it illegal?

Comparison... (1)

Casexy (1410819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25817545)

If Microsoft released Windows 7 and only allowed it to be installed and run on Microsoft branded machines, how long would that last? About ten seconds, yes? Then why the hell can Apple get away with it? Give them some competition. Maybe then we could have Macs that aren't overpriced, new hardware options, and case choices other than ugly grey and slightly rounded. Maybe then we'd have competition. You know, that thing our economy is based on.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?