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 Wins a Round Against Apple

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago

Apple 660

Daengbo writes "'A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple. He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.' Apple is currently suing Psystar over its sale of Mac clones."

cancel ×

660 comments

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

Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783623)

This is great news for everyone who believes in fair competition in the marketplace. Kudos to that judge, and I hope the countersuit goes well!

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783703)

Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple. By making the OS more accessible, more people will use it, and there will be less inhibition for people to not get a Mac.

Using the old logic - the per-unit profit on the OS is quite a bit, so they get a lot of money from the clones that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I seriously doubt the clones will significantly (negatively) impact Apple's sales of hardware - more likely it'll draw on the PC crown mostly, and probably have some positive PC->Apple market change as well.

Re:Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

pmontra (738736) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783877)

Actually I believe that it will damage Apple in the short and mid term. Apple will lose revenues for selling the hardware and the option of raising the price of the OS won't be welcomed by customers. I think that Apple doesn't care to have OSX on 20% of the pcs if that means gaining less money than they do now with a 9-10% share.

If a market of clones will bring OSX on 80% of pcs then Apple will gain more than now, but that will change what Apple is. Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware, much like HP and Sun. They're very different from software companies like Microsoft which occasionally develop hardware (XBOX, Zune, etc) to sell the software (Windows, which in turn sells Office).

Anyway, hell yes! As a consumer I'll be happy to see lower priced macs.

Re:Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783937)

The thing is, most Mac users I've seen are rabidly loyal to Apple. I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales (and might gain some from the people who won't switch now due to some perceived inconvenience, but will also not switch to a clone due to the potential of an inferior product).

Which is right? Only time and seeing the alternative will tell.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784151)

Some might be rabid but others hold them to a high standard, if you actually sit in a mac forum long enough you'll notice the huge amounts of whining and dissatisfaction with Apple. These are over little details as well because they expect more from Apple and are quite knowledgeable and know what they want. Don't generalise.

If you're whining and Apple don't respond (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784507)

but someone else WILL, surely they MUST be allowed to move.

Apple can't use their monopoly to make people take the hobsons's choice. That is NOT what Intellectual Property (tm)(c)(Pat Pending) was for.

PS I wonder if PJ is going to follow this after screaming about how Apple was winning and Pystar were eeeviiiil for abusing the court process...

Re:Hell yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784525)

Don't generalise.

Your point sounds valid but you are generalizing as well. It sounds like you mean "don't generalize, if your characterization is going to be negative. If it's going to be positive then generalize away".

Re:Hell yes! (3, Informative)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784537)

Well, we can try to pull some lessons from an experiment done in the past, when for a period Apple licensed their OS to other manufacturers. Conditions weren't exactly the same, of course, but it's still informative.

Apple did lose sales to the clone manufacturers, that much was fairly obvious. The clone manufacturers not only undercut Apple's prices, but they also would sometimes produce machines with better specs (on paper at least). Their build quality was often not up to Apple's standards, but quality doesn't always win out.

Today Apple is financially in a far stronger position and more product diversified than they were back in the clone era, so losing a percentage of their hardware sales wouldn't be as damaging to them as it was back then, at least in the short term. But I do think that in the long term it could have a negative effect on public perception of OS X, particularly if lower quality machines caused problems for people migrating from Windows.

Re:Hell yes! (3, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783983)

Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware...

This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.

Re:Hell yes! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784269)

Apple is neither a hardware nor a software company. They are a total solutions company. They focus on providing vertically integrated products that meet the customer's needs from the hardware all the way up to the software. That's why Mac laptops have incredible hardware features like magnetic clasps, incredible software features like appfolders, AND incredible features like instant sleep on close/hibernate on low power that require support from both software and hardware.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

dwarg (1352059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784377)

The kind of company they are is based on where they make their money. Apple makes some money selling high-end video software, but that's about it. iLife comes free with new macs. iWork doesn't have any copy protection on it. Steve Jobs has openly stated he doesn't care if you pirate OS X (he was assuming it would be used on Apple hardware at the time). iTunes barely breaks even, but it helps them sell iPods.

And that's the point, Apple uses their software to get you to buy their absurdly overpriced hardware.

The software IS the "Apple tax" and I think it's worth it when I use an Apple product and I think it isn't when it comes time to buy one. But the only way they offset the development costs is when you buy one of their machines because they just don't sell a lot of software.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784569)

This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.

In what essence have they not put their emphasis on hardware. Barring the iPod and iPhone (which are expansions to their computer business), didn't Apple just release their newest unibody laptops like last month? [slashdot.org] Didn't they release the MacBook Air last year. Apple refreshes their hardware every six months or so, maybe not at the rate most people would like, but they are still focused on hardware.

Re:Hell yes! (3, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784577)

no apple pushes both to create the Apple experience. Thus if they loose the ability to push hardware the apple experience will go down.

Look at the iPod or iPhone. It is because you have the hardware with the software (iTunes Appstore) that competitors cannot match.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Interesting)

RMingin (985478) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784277)

It's very very easy to compensate for this. MS figured it out years ago. You want to give your existing customers preferential pricing on a new OS, but still gouge the new users?

UPGRADE PRICING.

Suddenly every existing OS release was an 'upgrade license', and there are two packages at retail for 10.6. 149$ gets you Snow Leopard Upgrade, which will install on any branded Mac without issue, just like existing versions have. You now have a new 499.99$ Unsupported Full Install package sitting next to it. Apple gets their money, Hackintosh users get somewhat validated, Apple still doesn't have to take their phone calls, and everyone is either happier or status quo pro ante.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

cabjf (710106) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784055)

Except Apple is making their money on the Mac platform by selling the hardware. The software is there to entice people to buy Mac computers. It didn't work last time they had a clone market, and I doubt it will work this time. I think Apple knows they don't have much of a case against individual users. Plus, going the RIAA route would turn a lot of people off from the brand. However, when it comes to other companies selling clones with Mac OS installed on it, Apple's case is pretty solid.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

KlaymenDK (713149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784085)

I agree, but would have worded it a bit broader:

I think the clone segment will actually help Apple as well as Linux*. By making the OS more accessible, more people will use it, and there will be less inhibition for people to get a non-Windows pc.

Running Mac OS is far less stigmatized than Linux*, which is still regarded as "the nerd's choice". The most beneficial effect for "us" will not so much be that users will be moving to Mac OS, but that users will grow more accustomed to the idea that moving away from Windows is a real possibility. No doubt Psystar will like this -- but it helps Linux* as well.

* "Linux" in this context: (any|all) of the free and Free operating systems.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

PawNtheSandman (1238854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784437)

It will hurt them. If Apple has to start making an OS to support various hardware platforms, it will become buggy and crash prone like Windows is. Thus all the Mac fanbois will no longer have a basis for their argument that Macs are superior to PC's.

But even if they win, Apple will probably pull some crap about only being supported on their hardware.

Re:Hell yes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783773)

No, this is terrible.

This will just allow teh ghay to spread.

Re:Hell yes! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783931)

Not necessarily.

There are an awful lot of chicks who use Macs. Fire up your OSX partition and woo them with the "ooh, shiny" and make them think that you're an artist or just somebody who(ha HA!) Thinks Differently(TM). Those types get the girlies' stinkboxes wet, and nevermind that Compiz-Fusion runs circles around the OSX GUI, but I digress.

The straights looking for easy pussy can wrestle OSX from MacFaggotry and use it to their advantage.

Re:Hell yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784171)

Oh look, you've caught it already.

Ha-hah! Gay is teh u! Uh-oh...

Re:Hell yes! (3, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783835)

If Psystar want's to compete, let them compete. Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails. The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.

Re:Hell yes! (3, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783913)

The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.

And while your statement is a tautalogical truth, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, which is Apple putting the artificial restriction on their OS, indicating it can only be installed on machines they've built.

No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.

If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.

Re:Hell yes! (2, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784353)

No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.

If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.

well that's what they are trying to do with the lic. So how exactly would they enforce what you reccomend any other way? Put hardware DRM in the machines or something? Why make it more complicated if the net outcome is supposed to be the same: Apple software is to be run on apple machines only.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784445)

"Put hardware DRM in the machines or something?"

Isn't that what got lexmark bitchslapped in the end? They DRM'd their crtridges so the printers would only use genuine ones, sued a competitor under the DMCA and lost.

"Why make it more complicated if the net outcome is supposed to be the same: Apple software is to be run on apple machines only."

And that's what PsyStar are contesting in the courts. Welcome to TFA.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784519)

The parent's point is that if Apple wants to sell their OS without the hardware, they should not be allowed to put in the license for that software that you can only use it on Apple hardware. Their remedy, if they don't want their OS being used on non-Apple hardware, is to not sell OS X separately from the hardware.

When you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray from Sony, do you have to agree to a license that says you can only play it back on a Sony player on a Sony television? Why should it be any different with Apple?

Re:Hell yes! (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784635)

No, what they are trying to do with the license is play both sides, being able to sell the OS seperate from the machine but control what you install it on.

Why should they even care what I install it on?

I paid for it.

This isn't a case of someone deciding to get a copy off Pirate Bay or boxes 'falling off the truck'. It's Paid For.

At that point their control over what it can go on should be limited to the old fashioned "I'm sorry sir, you installed your OS on unsupported hardware, I'm sorry it isn't working for you but we can't help you solve that problem."

Re:Hell yes! (1)

Fulg (138866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784651)

Put hardware DRM in the machines or something?

My understanding is that its already in there; in order to run OSX you must neuter the "Don't Steal MacOS X" kernel extension, which checks that the OS is only booted on Apple-approved machines.

This is the part Psystar stole from the existing Hackintosh community, so I kinda have mixed feelings here. Having another company fill the hole in the product lineup (i.e. upgradeable desktop machine) is cool, but when said company got there by stealing the work of others, it's not so cool anymore... :-/

Re:Hell yes! (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784415)

Especially since they went Intel x86, they were just asking for it.

Unless the conspiracy theories are true re: PsyStar being a front for Apple just testing the legal system, possibly to set precedent.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783967)

How is Psystar buying copies of OSX that Apple is (voluntarily) selling "forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable"?

The only thing at issue in this case is how much control a manufacturer should be able to exert over buyers through shrinkwrap "contracts".

apple club (3, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784293)

If Psystar want's to compete, let them compete. Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails. The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.

exactly. meddling in the market makes it unfair not more fair. Apple is only a 10% player in the computer market so their bussiness model is not in restraint of trade for computers.

Apple should form a "discount buyers club". To belong to the club you have to buy an apple computer. Then you get 90% discounts on the operating system updates priced at $1000 retail.

Re:apple club (2, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784501)

You are confused. Apple is trying to get the government to meddle in the market by getting the government to stop Psystar from reselling their OS. If the government were to keep it's fingers out of the 'free market'. Psystar would get to continue as it is doing now.

Re:apple club (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784579)

If the government were to keep it's fingers out of the 'free market'. Psystar would get to continue as it is doing now.

And that would be violating lic agreements? Yes that will turn out well.

Re:Hell yes! (0)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784597)

Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails.

What coattails is Pystar riding? Is Dell and all the other PC makers riding MS coattails? Pystar buys a licensed copy of OSX, makes their own computer and sells them together. I'm still failing to see the problem, other than Apple saying we don't want you to do that.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

bdsesq (515351) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783889)

No what it means is that the price of OS upgrades for OS X will increase. If Apple is truly using hardware sales to subsidize the OS then they charge more for the OS.

Free competition is not a judge telling you that you have to sell your property when you don't want to. Free competition is people bidding for something resulting in a sale that satisfies most or all of the participants.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783901)

They already want to sell their OS: if they didn't, it wouldn't be in stores. The fact that they think they can dictate what gets done with it is pure, unmitigated bullshit, and hopefully it gets knocked down in court soon.

Re:Hell yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784037)

No, they are selling updates. For updating an existing version of the OS installed on existing (Apple branded) hardware - just like you can get updates for PhotoShop that require purchasing a previous "full" version.

Re:Hell yes! (2, Informative)

Altus (1034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784167)

No, they sell full versions, but they are only supposed to be installed on Apple branded Macs according the the dreaded EULA.

How can they be full versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784631)

If they come with a restriction that they only get used on Apple hardware? First sale says "Fuck you" to that. And copyright in the US doesn't enter into it. For use of the software, any copy that is necessarily required IS NOT controlled by the copyright laws.

So you don't need to agree to the EULA to USE the software in the US. In germany, the EULA is not a legal contract. Similar issues elesewhere.
So "You have no license if you don't install according to the EULA" is irrelevant: NO LICENSE NEEDED.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784295)

So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it.

And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?

What's "pure, unmitigated bullshit", is the mentality that some people should be force to essentially give away the fruits of their labours.

Re:Hell yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784457)

So MS should start telling everyone that you can only install Windows on MS branded machines? Everyone else can go fuck themselves and install Linux?

Re:Hell yes! (5, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784535)

"And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?"

Who's forcing a price on them?

They can charge what they like, surely?

It's the restraint of what is done with it after a sale that is at issue here. If that means that the current $130 is subsidised by hardware sales, then maybe they'll have to look at charging less for hardware and more for new OS versions? Business models have to adjust from time to time, you know. Especially when they are based on artifices like restraint of post-purchase usage which may not be legally enforceable.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784593)

No one is forcing Apple to do anything. If they don't want to sell it for $130, they don't have to. They just can't control what I do with it once they sell it to me.

Apple has no right to a return on their investment. If their business model depends on selling me an item, and then controlling what I can do with it after they sold it to me, they should have picked a better business model.

Re:Hell yes! (0)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784317)

I have a MacBook PRO. It cost $2000 1 year ago. I just bought my wife a Dell XPS 1530 with 4GB of RAM, BlueRay burner, 320GB drive space, Dore 2 duo and 8600 GT video card. This Laptop is very similar to my Macbook, but cost $1100. The current MacBook model has nicer GPU and better CPU, but less specs everywhere else. I'd of loved to get her a Macbook, but paying $2500 or over double just for the OS doesn't make sense.

So as a consumer, I want to see OS X on a Dell. But I understand how Apple doesn't want to have to support 100 PC manufactures hardware issues. And do they want the consumer left with the OS manufacture pointing fingers to the hardware manufacture, and Visa Versa. This is what I like about OS X - Apple can't do that. Apple supplied everything on the box.

But I'd love to be able to run OS X on my ESX server. Perhaps they need to not fight this, but license OS X with 1 support call for the price. Additional support calls at a reasonable price to allow a profit. Turn this into a win-win situation.

Re:Hell yes! (1, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784469)

And as a consumer I don't want to see OS X on a Dell. OS X works so well because it doesn't have the problem of supporting every crappy piece of hardware known to man like Windows has.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784505)

I kind of agree - disclaimer: I've a Macbook Pro at home, and a Hackintosh fileserver I built myself. Getting OS X to work on third party hardware involves some tinkering: quite a bit, in fact, as you've got to fudge the kernel extensions to get it to run on non-EFI PC hardware. Typically a point release from Apple will break Hackintoshes, for example: not because Apple are evil, but because it'll upgrade the hacked kexts with the new versions of official Apple kexts.
Psystar acknowledge this by releasing their own point release patches of OS X but this isn't trivial: OS X on random hardware is going to be a nightmare to support for the non-geek, and it wouldn't be fair to ask Apple to now start supporting and releasing patches for every new board that comes out.
Result: OS X would be perceived as buggy and fragile. Not something Jobs would go for, I think.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Interesting)

dwarg (1352059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784483)

The other possibility is that Apple might stop selling shrink-wrapped copies of OS X. Instead you get a copy when you buy a machine and that makes you eligible for upgrades. So every copy of the OS would be tied to a machine, in terms of sales, if not via hardware key.

Then PsyStar would have to pirate the OS and that would definitively put them in the wrong.

And that way everybody loses.

Re:Hell yes! (1)

dprovine (140134) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784077)

Does Apple have a legitimate beef that if something goes wrong they'll be expected to support it, even though it's running on who-knows-what hardware that they had no hand in designing or configuring?

Re:Hell yes! (0)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784155)

There's nothing stopping them from saying "We don't support this unless it's running on our hardware", so no. I have no issue with them not wanting to support other people's setup, I have issues with them twisting the law to try to prevent people from doing what they want with the software.

Re:Hell yes! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784141)

There's already another Psystar-like company in Europe: PearC (www.pearc.de)

Re:Hell yes! (0, Flamebait)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784285)

This is great news for everyone, because then we don't have to buy shitty macs (I have one, I know, I will never buy any more Apple hardware.)

I apologies for all the mac fanboys who will have to answer this telling me how I'm wrong.

Re:Hell yes! (0, Troll)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784515)

Just an anecdotal counterpoint to an anecdotal point... I've had 2 Apple laptops in the last8 years. The first was a Powerbook G4 500mhz that lasted 4+ years and still works just fine... it was finally underpowered is all... and my current 1st Gen Macbook Pro which is on year 3.

I have had issues with batteries on the MacBook Pro, which seem to go through their charge cycle quota rather quickly (replaced under warranty of course) and it may have a problem with the power supply as an underlying issue to that... which is a legitimate problem but one I can live with.

Otherwise I am a very happy customer. I've got an iPhone which works great, a 30 in. Cinema Display which is awesome to behold and an AppleTV with Boxee installed and a 1TB external drive attached... which also works great.

SO I can't back up the claim of shitty hardware, sorry... just typical problems with many laptops out there (battery related), especially after 2+ years of service.

Re:Hell yes! (4, Insightful)

Arkham (10779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784563)

Apple is a hardware company. If they cease to make money on hardware, the will exit the market. Legalizing clones would cause the Mac to disappear, and Mac OS X with it. The OS is not profitable by itself and never will be. The market is just too small.

They tried it once before, for those who do not know. Clones nearly killed Apple.

The notion that a judge would rule that Apple doesn't have the right to restrict what computers can run the software that they create is ridiculous. If this succeeds, the next step will be Apple having to add ROMs back into their machines to prevent this sort of crap.

If they win... (4, Interesting)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783665)

I wonder if that means we can install things like HP-UX on non-HP hardware?

Re:If they win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783761)

Why would you want to? ;)

Re:If they win... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783843)

If Pystar can win on OSX, the same argument could, in principle, be made for other operating systems. I suspect, though, that the impact would be pretty minimal. HP-UX only runs on PA-RISC or Itanium, so the wild world of x86 whiteboxes isn't going to happen unless HP wants it to. Further, HP-UX is the sort of thing that(with the limited exceptions of a few hobbyists, and people looking for HP-UX experience on the cheap) would only be run by outfits that care about Big Serious Enterprise Features(tm) and support contracts and stuff. All HP has to do is say that HP-UX, and anything you run on it, is only supported on HP hardware and most of the value dries up. OSX, by contrast, is frequently run in the desktop area, where support is a fairly minimal consideration.

Re:If they win... (3, Interesting)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784409)

The only problem I have with OSX is that it is currently against the license agreement to use it on any machine other than an Apple branded machine. If they said "we only support Apple branded hardware", then I wouldn't have a problem with it - the user can use the disc and software however he wants, but only when it is installed on Apple hardware is he entitled to support.

In this vein, HP could sell HP-UX to whomever wants it, but only offer support if it is installed on HP branded hardware.

How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (2, Informative)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783715)

I wonder if the requirement by Apple that OSX be installed only on Apple produced hardware is guilty of violating the Sherman act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act [wikipedia.org] .

Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783785)

That's only if they had an illegal monopoly on the PC market as a whole. If Apple were the only maker of personal computers than you could have a case here.

Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784303)

That's only if they had an illegal monopoly on the PC market as a whole. If Apple were the only maker of personal computers than you could have a case here.

Wrong. Section two is all about monopolies. Section one is all about contracts agreements, and conspiracies, with intent to restrict free trade. And a BIG rule is that you cannot have lease agreements or sales contracts which specify that the product in question may only be used with a certain other product. For example, Ford cannot form an agreement with Shell, whereby all Ford lease agreements stipulate that until you are paid off and actual own your car, you can only fill it with Shell Premium. You may note that other people sell gas other than Shell, and other people sell cars other than Ford. Similarly, Lexmark or HP cannot have the nice people at BestBuy make you sign a contract when you buy a printer, swearing you will only refill it with their brand of ink/toner. Yes, even though more than one company makes printers.

Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (3, Informative)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784583)

Totally agree. This is the reasoning that Codeweavers uses when you buy Crossover Linux from them. I am glad that the judge agreed to look at this again. Its an important legal point. For all of our rants against Microsoft, we forget that in terms of behavior, it is a relatively chastened version of what it used to be. Apple has not yet undergone that learning experience and which is why they feel free to overprice commodity hardware by such large margins.

RTFA (4, Informative)

MoellerPlesset2 (1419023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784185)

That's what they sued for- antitrust violations. And that's what got thrown out.

What's happened now is that the judge decided they could come back and
file a new complaint based on copyright law instead.

That doesn't mean their new counterclaims (Apple sued them) necessarily have any merit.
In fact, I don't really see how this is a 'win' at all - if you file a complaint and it gets tossed out,
you wouldn't normally be barred from trying again, if your amended complaint is substantially different.

mod parent up! (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784585)

Mod the parent up. In the gush of "Psystar wins a round!" exclamations, the GP and TFS seem to have forgotten that their initial counter-suit based on anti-trust claims was thrown out. This is just the judge saying, "well okay, you can try plan B if you like." At best, this is a neutral result for Psystar, not a victory. The real test of whether what they are doing is illegal or not is the outcome of Apple's original suit, not Psystar's counter-suit.

Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (4, Informative)

db32 (862117) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784599)

Please don't ever go into law or business because it is clear that your understanding of either is unbelievably flawed. Monopolies aren't illegal. A monopoly is perfectly legal so long as it came to be through legal competition. The only real question here is whether or not a company can enforce a EULA. There is no monopoly nonsense here. The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it. I hope they get their asses handed ot them for it. I have yet to hear any stories about Apple giving a rats ass about people installing on x86 themselves, only about them getting pissed that these assholes are taking what is an upgrade and installing it as a full OS. The pricing of the OS X isntalls are based on the fact that you are required to install it on a Mac that you purchased...a Mac that has part of the OS costs rolled into it.

At the end of the day if the judge rules that Psystar can do this because Apple sells OS X in stores and voids their ability to say that it can only be installed on Apple hardware I suspect Apple will pull OS X off the shelves pretty fast and modify the way their users can get access to the upgraded software. Or worse, they will put in some godforsaken activation shit like Windows. I frequently get to experience the joy of trying to recover an OEM system using non OEM hardware and Windows demands reactivation and then fails, and then MS says "fuck off, that is an OEM product key." Selling OEM licenses on PCs you built if you don't have an OEM deal has been repeatedly held up as illegal.

End of day, this is a bunch of greedy little assholes trying to take someone else's work and profit from it and a bunch of people expressing a disgusting sense of entitlement in defending their nonsense. Look, if you don't like Apple's terms, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT! That is how this is supposed to work, this is how the market is supposed to regulate itself. Instead, a bunch of moron consumers buy shit they KNOW has bad terms and then pays lawyers piles of cash to try and get their way. But hey, for all the bitching that goes on around here about how evil lawyers are, the prevailing mentality is to support the lawyers rather than not buying products with shitty terms and letting the market sort itself out.

Someone's jealous (1, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783725)

Wozniak is on Dancing With The Stars and I guess Steve's left Dancing With Psystar.

If this works... (2, Interesting)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783831)

If this works... I wonder if it will be possible for other hardware makers to be sued for making Windows only products. One of the big barriers to Linux adoption is chipsets that have no Linux driver and it seems that some companies go out of their way to make hardware that won't work with Linux intentionally.

Re:If this works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783961)

if they do i'll sue every one of them until i can run any hardware in the market on my commodore 64.

Re:If this works... (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783975)

How are the two things in any way related, exactly?

Re:If this works... (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784001)

Citation?

Some hardware manufacturers don't employ devs who code for Linux. It's a shame, but hey, that's an extra cost. Linux doesn't yet have the market share to warrant employing dedicated devs to write drivers for Linux (please bare in mind the many, many distros, dependencies, package types, kernel revisions which drivers would need to be developed for. Source code is great, but I don't want the hassle of compiling it thanks).

It's an infinite regression paradox. Devs need to code for existing hardware to increase uptake, which then need support from vendors with newer versions. More uptake is needed to increase the viability of dev time... The trouble is nobody wants to go first.

Re:If this works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784489)

L4t3r4lu5 said:

Citation? ...

Zombie Ryushu said:

If this works... I wonder if it will be possible for other hardware makers to be sued for making Windows only products. One of the big barriers to Linux adoption is chipsets that have no Linux driver and it seems that some companies go out of their way to make hardware that won't work with Linux intentionally.

Re:If this works... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784509)

How can a free OS (or a free anything) have market share? Does rain compete against the water company?

Maybe I'm wrong but they normally charge for goods in a market. You can measure how many copies of Windows are sold, you can measure how many Macs are sold, but the number of Linux OSes that are sold is miniscule compared to the number that are simply installed.

I've installed Linux on quite a few friends' Windows boxes. I set them up dual boot and diable networking in Windows, negating the need for any antivirus or other malware protection, install Firefox and change the agent to report IE on Windows for those sites that "require" IE and Windows. None of those boxes can possibly be counted in Linux' "market" share.

Re:If this works... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784003)

You situation does not apply here The suite will NOT force Apple to preinstall and sell MacOS on thirdparty hardware. It just means if you buy the software you can install it on thirdparty hardware. At best, if you find some hardware vendor breaking compatibility with Linux intentionally, you might be able to write a driver yourself for it. The vendor would not be able stop your alternative driver from being installed and used. That is all.

Re:If this works... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784047)

> If this works... I wonder if it will be possible
> for other hardware makers to be sued for making
> Windows only products.

Probably not, the judgment isn't telling Apple to help Pystar sell/make clones, simply to allow them to.

>[...] chipsets that have no Linux driver and it
> seems that some companies go out of their way to
> make hardware that won't work with Linux
> intentionally.

Seems isn't enough, you'd need proof. Anyway, again, it's not a matter of making it easy or hard, but of telling them "no you can't do this". It would stop the "no you can't do this", but not the "we won't make it easy for you".

Re:If this works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784157)

[S]ome companies go out of their way to make hardware that won't work with Linux intentionally.

Never attribute to malice...

Re:If this works... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784173)

No. The problem isn't that the software/hardware is tied to an OS, the problem is that Apple is trying to PREVENT them from doing what they're been doing, and installing their OS on other hardware.

The difference is in support versus aggression. They don't have to support the hardware, but Apple shouldn't be suing another company for putting their software on other hardware.

Blizzard and Glider (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26783863)

Blizzard's win against Glider allowed Blizzard to dictate what you can and can't do on your own machine if you use their software.

The same should apply to Apple. You license OS X, and you agree to only run it on Macs.

(Not that I agree with the decision, but that's how I see it)

Tortious interference (3, Interesting)

grimJester (890090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784491)

There go my mod points, but you raise an interesting point. The Glider case decided that

a) launching the software in an unapproved manner makes the copying from HD to memory an unauthorized copy in violation of the EULA and

b) selling a product that requires the end user to break the EULA of another product to work is tortious interference [wikipedia.org] Apple may actually have a case here, simply because of some WoW bot writer's inept legal defense...

Hooray!!! (1, Troll)

Brad_McBad (1423863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783879)

One of my major issues with Apple is that they force users to spend through the nose for standard hardware so they can run an OS.

I mean, my other problem is that Macs make people with more money than tech sense tell me that I don't know how to do my job, and that they "just work" - A claim I can almost instantly prove wrong by crashing the bloody things.

Re:Hooray!!! (-1, Troll)

M1rth (790840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783919)

Hell, these days Apple forces users to spend through the nose in order to run WinXP too ;)

Re:Hooray!!! (2, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784121)

Not all Mac users "have more money than tech sense" y'know.

I use Macs because they are the best fit for the job I use them for - internet, email, word processing, video editing, photo editing.

There is no possible Windows solution that is better for the tasks I use my computers for.

In terms of usability, the Mac does "just work" - this doesn't mean it never crashes or has problems (that would just be silly). But for the 95% of the rest of the time where it's working fine, Mac OS X works for me.

I have Ubuntu installs too, on the older machines in collection that I still use (you know, Apple hardware ages pretty well, and Ubuntu runs pretty well on it).

You'll counter my argument by telling me that I could just use Ubuntu full time and it would be cheaper and better, but until I can run Photoshop (yes I do have a fully paid for copy of CS), Final Cut Pro and other commercial apps, I'll stick with OS X as my main OS. For all the ancillary stuff that works just as well on Ubuntu as it does on OS X, since my main machine is OS X, I don't really see the need to explicitly use something else - there's no problems with spyware, viruses, malware and other junk to worry about, so it's win-win.

Your arrogance that you automatically assume that you know more than all Mac users is unbecoming. Grow up.

Re:Hooray!!! (0, Flamebait)

Brad_McBad (1423863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784287)

No, my friend. You are the arrogant one, for assuming that I was expanding my argument to all mac buyers. I don't I accept that for certain tasks they are the standard, and I don't have a problem with it. I never said I knew more than all Mac users.

I was actually referring to the Starbucks slurping, Khaki wearing, self appointed kings of techno-cool. You don't want to run Ubuntu on everything. Fine. That's your prerogative

I missed off the major thing that gets my goat about Macs. And that's that Mac users take everything that isn't fawning appreciation as an attack. Which you helpfully revealed at the end of your post.

So forget growing up, why don't you fuck off?

Re:Hooray!!! (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784207)

I agree on the standard hardware but they certainly wrap it up in a much more sophisticated way than the rest of the computer manufacturers.

This is not a WIN (4, Informative)

sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26783955)

for Pystar. They simple get another chance. Read past the writers slanted interpretation. Words like "seemed", "might", "could", "if" are signs hes laying out what could by slim chance happen. He is not laying out all the other more likely outcomes. Good luck on pressing for the overstretching of the copywrite....THATS all they have. Oh and Apple still is due to name those involved with Pystar...this should prove interesting yet. /my money is still on Apple

I think you mean... (4, Interesting)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784015)

others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed

I think you mean, "others may be free to buy a mac to get the OS X license to put on a cheaper computer, which they won't do as Apple kills off retail sales of OS X"

So if they do win, sure you can migrate your OS across platforms. But you won't see other vendors shipping it.

Re:I think you mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784389)

Apple would lose too many upgrade purchases by current Mac owners.

Concerned about the potential of the courts (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784131)

My biggest concern here is that the courts could have the ability to decide that a business model, in ANY business, is wrong.

This is really what is on trial here. Apple says one thing, Psystar says the opposite, hey that's what courts are for. But the fundamental point here is that this has the potential to lay waste to the basic Mac business model.

Whether you like or hate Mac, this has to be somewhat concerning for any company.

Re:Concerned about the potential of the courts (2, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784497)

'Monopoly' is a business model. Like it or not, governments already decide whether business models are 'wrong' or not.

The government's job is to protect the people. Everyone disagrees on exactly how this is done, but quite a few think that businesses should not be able to dictate what people do with products that they buy.

Others, think that IP rights are more important and that businesses should be able to tell their consumers what they can do with things they have purchased.

This is actually one of the biggest battles our court system is facing right now: The rights of the buyer vs the rights of the creator. (Or at least, IP-holder.)

So it begins again! (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784143)

Steve Jobs is busy being away, dying of AIDS.

The clones have arrived and are back taking a chunk out of Apple's market.

All they need now is a PHB from some unrelated industry to start pulling Apple in different directions, causing it to sink even further.

I think this is the beginning of the end for Apple.

Re:So it begins again! (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784335)

Troll more please. Go back to /g/ and stop making Slashdot more worthless.

Re:So it begins again! (0, Offtopic)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784571)

How exactly is that a troll?

If Pystar wins, it will be terrible for OS X users (3, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784243)

Disclaimer: My primary home computer is a Mac (which you probably guessed from my sig).

If Pystar wins their lawsuit, it will be terrible for not just Apple, but OS X users too.

Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.

One of the reasons Microsoft has so many problems is that Windows needs to support every hardware configuration imaginable. If Windows fails to do so, as it did with Vista, Microsoft bears the brunt of the criticism (not the hardware or driver maker), and essentially has to take the lead in solving the problem.

If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.

What's more, Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers. Clone sales undercut Mac sales far more than Apple received licensing fees for Mac OS.

For OS X to continue as a high quality operating system, Pystar must lose.

     

Re:If Pystar wins, it will be terrible for OS X us (1)

Hodar (105577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784473)

Back in the days of the Apple clone start-up "Power Computing", Apple discovered that not only did they have the task of supporting their software on non-Apple hardware, that the Apple clone-makers made BETTER Mac's than Apple did. By this, I mean that Power Computing produced memory bus speeds of 66 MHz, when the best that Apple could muster was 33 MHz. So, how did Apple compete against superior engineering?

Yup, Apple allowed Power Computing to only make memory buses half the width of Apple's offerings. At the eng of the day, Apple killed off the clone industry; because Apple realized that they were NOT gaining marketshare, but rather the clones were cannibalizing their hardware sales. Why buy a Mac for $3000, when you can get a faster, more feature laden offering that runs the same software for $2000?

If Pystar ultimately wins, it may not increase the Mac marketshare, but may mean that Apple is now forced to support hardware that is 'compliant' to various specifications instead of 'compatible' with those same specifications. Those two words, compliant and compatible, do not mean the same thing. This means that instead of supporting a thin set of hardware products, Apple will be forced to support a wide range of 3rd party hardware - while maintaining thier OS and software prices static.

Sometimes a step forward means you are stepping on a landmine.

Re:If Pystar wins, it will be terrible for OS X us (1)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784493)

Not at all. If Pystar win, then all it means is that Apple can't force them to stop selling machines with OS X. It doesn't mean that Apple has to provide any support for OS X on third party hardware. I don't know where you get this idea, "If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable" from. It doesn't.

Re:If Pystar wins, it will be terrible for OS X us (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784607)

Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources.

Most people would hardly describe a company with market capitalization larger than Dell, HP, Sun, Sony, and Intel and 32,000 full-time employees [yahoo.com] as 'small'.

Poor Apple. They're such a lonely little company.

Apple doesn't have to support Psystar or anybody else. Obviously it would be up to third parties to provide drivers and hardware support for computers that Apple doesn't make.

Re:If Pystar wins, it will be terrible for OS X us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784633)

The right of first sale should trump Apple's right to profit from an obsolete business model.

"Free" additional marketshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784259)

So, the biggest argument I've heard for why Apple doesn't want to sell their OS freely is because they don't want to support non-apple computers (more hardware variety = more trouble to support)... so, if they let Pystar sell their fake Macs but don't have to support hardware related issues, it sounds like Apple is getting that segment of the market essentially for free.

Awe, too sad for apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784263)

This case truly makes me smile as I hate when big companies throw their weight around to make the smaller guys cry. Granted the Apple found out that Pystar has a very rich partner backing them 100%. But even if Pystar wins 100% and allows companies to make Apple Clones. Apple still wins as they will undoubtedly give the OS upgrades for free with their hardware or charge more for non mac clones as they will require more to support.

  Other cases that make me smile include any thing against sony, or RIAA, or RIM. May they all go burn in hell.

New versions of OS X will be sold only online (3, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784341)

If Pystar wins, OS X will no longer be sold retail. New versions will only be available via a paid online update.

Apple will then assert that it's impossible to install it on commodity hardware without stealing the source code outright.

Watch Mac prices drop.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784349)

as soon as PyStar starts selling clones legitimately. Apple continues to fuck consumers over time and time again using exactly identical components as other big name brands and charging a high markup.

Anyone who tells you that Apple is using "high quality" components compared to HP/Sony/Lenovo/etc is 100% lying out of their ass.

It should be legal (5, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26784523)

When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.

If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.

The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.

Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.

If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.

For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.

This could kill Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26784637)

If it kills Apple.
If it kills Apple then Psystar is also dead.
So it begs the question: Who or what is behind Psystar?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>