Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Mon 21st Jul 2008 14:35 UTC, submitted by Thom_Holwerda
Legal We covered earlier about Apple suing Psystar the creator of Open Computer. Now we have more details of the complaint . Apple's complaint is now available online (registration required).
Order by: Score:
v F... rickey Apple
by ciplogic on Mon 21st Jul 2008 14:41 UTC
RE: F... rickey Apple
by ringham on Mon 21st Jul 2008 14:59 UTC in reply to "F... rickey Apple"
ringham Member since:
2006-03-23

Your comment was completely unintelligible.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: F... rickey Apple
by ciplogic on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE: F... rickey Apple"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Yes sorry, you have right.

In 1987, Steve Jobs was booted out from Apple. At that time he start NeXT OS and Next Box.

At the very time, he was attacked in justice by Apple cause he copy many of ideas of Apple brand.
S. Jobs answer was: "It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans." - WikiQuote.org

Right now the same company, but instead S. Jobs to be attacked by Apple, right now he is the mastermind of the attack, did not try to make their product affordable, but instead it attacks the competitors.

They use iPhone, even was a Cisco brand, but they say that is too generic.

For me Apple looks like a behemoth that force you in the same as Microsoft or any monopoly do, but in their "stylish" OS, brand, products.

Shame of them that they not offer alternatives, instead they attack small companies, as did Microsoft with 235 patents to attack Linux.

Reply Score: 8

v RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by ringham on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
RE[4]: F... rickey Apple
by Ford Prefect on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F... rickey Apple"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Ahaha... so that's the reason why big companies nowadays do patent deals with each other to control the market on yet another level?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

You do realize that patents help protect small companies, too, right?


Patents have nothing to do with this situation/case.

From the Mac world article: "Apple contends Psystar's owners are aware of the end-user license agreement... and that installing OS X on its Open Computer constitutes a breach of contract... Apple argues that the end result of unauthorized use of its software and intellectual property is damaging to its brand."

Apple does not claim that a patent has been violated, they claim breach of private contract and "damage to their brand."

Edited 2008-07-21 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: F... rickey Apple
by javiercero1 on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F... rickey Apple"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

Indirectly their license agreements rest on the patents held by apple.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Well, Apple are not stopping Psystar form writing an OS, they just don't want Psystar to use theirs.

EDIT: Just noticed this gem:

"Shame of them that they not offer alternatives, instead they attack small companies, as did Microsoft with 235 patents to attack Linux."


In this example Microsoft were using their extensive software patent portfolio to bully a competing OS. The concept of a software patent exists almost exclusively for bullying purposes. That is why it is an "evil" thing to do. Apple are doing no such thing. They are not suing Psystar because the latter decided to use, say, the patented "jinni effect" in their OS. Apple are suing Psystar because they are violating Apple's Mac OS X EULA, Apple's copyright, and possibly DMCA (which I personally don't give a f--k if Psystar are violating, because it is another strongarming tool, like software patents, and doesn't protect anything).

Edited 2008-07-21 15:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Actually, patents have nothing to do with this situation/case.

Apple would be probably not be able to successfully sue for patent infringement (nor for copyright infringement), because, it appears that every OSX installation on a Pystar machine is backed by a legally purchased copy of OSX.

Pystar legally bought each copy -- Apple has been fully compensated for use of their patented (and copyrighted) property.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: F... rickey Apple
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F... rickey Apple"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Pystar legally bought each copy -- Apple has been fully compensated for use of their patented (and copyrighted) property.

No, Apple are not fully compensated - the pricing of Mac OS X assumes that the stipulations of the EULA are obeyed. For example (not based on facts, but a realistic hypothetical case) Apple make $200 per copy, $70 of which are calculated in the price of a new Mac (totaling $270 for software) and the rest $130 - the retail price of the upgrade copy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

An interesting point. I am not sure why you are being modded down (I would mod you up if OS News would allow it).

However, if Apple sells OSX in a separate box, I don't see how they can prevent someone from using it on the hardware one chooses.

Also, it would be foolhardy for Apple to offset the OSX price in an assumed new hardware purchase. One might install it on an older Mac (which would not go against the EULA).

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by Ford Prefect on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

You have to realize that Apple is a big company now worth a shitload of money.

Do you really think Steve Jobs decides on those issues? He will just call Apple's lawyers and ask them what to do.


There is no reason to criticize Apple for doing whatever other company in their position would do as well. Business is business and that also holds for funky Stevy. Or where do you think their success comes from? Don't be naïve.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by javiercero1 on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by tyrione on Mon 21st Jul 2008 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Yes sorry, you have right.

In 1987, Steve Jobs was booted out from Apple. At that time he start NeXT OS and Next Box.

At the very time, he was attacked in justice by Apple cause he copy many of ideas of Apple brand.
S. Jobs answer was: "It is hard to think that a $2 billion company with 4,300-plus people couldn't compete with six people in blue jeans." - WikiQuote.org

Right now the same company, but instead S. Jobs to be attacked by Apple, right now he is the mastermind of the attack, did not try to make their product affordable, but instead it attacks the competitors.

They use iPhone, even was a Cisco brand, but they say that is too generic.

For me Apple looks like a behemoth that force you in the same as Microsoft or any monopoly do, but in their "stylish" OS, brand, products.

Shame of them that they not offer alternatives, instead they attack small companies, as did Microsoft with 235 patents to attack Linux.


Go ahead and quote Steve. It shows you didnt' work at NeXT and realize that we did lose those lawsuits and for sound reasons.

This didn't stop the NeXT Computer or NeXTSTEP.

However, this pissant stripmall stunt of a company isn't NeXT, didn't write an Operating System, build hardware plants, sell workstations they designed and built, and have a founder dump in $125 Million of his own coin into PIXAR and NeXT, plus an additional $400 Million from other investors to pull off what later would come full circle.

When this little pissant company does this then they can have their founder make off-the-cuff comments while still losing in court.

Reply Score: 3

RE: F... rickey Apple
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:17 UTC in reply to "F... rickey Apple"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Shame Apple, shame!


Um, what shame? Why should Apple feel ashamed for defending their rights? If anyone is to be ashamed that are the Psystar folks, because they are profiting from other people's work.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: F... rickey Apple
by ringham on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE: F... rickey Apple"
RE[2]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Why should Apple feel ashamed for defending their rights? If anyone is to be ashamed that are the Psystar folks, because they are profiting from other people's work.


Yes. Because Apple has never ever profited from the work of others... [cough] Xerox... [cough] Braun... [cough] open source developers... [cough] Microsoft... [cough] companies that developed USB... [cough] developers of multi-touch... [cough] list goes on...

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

" Why should Apple feel ashamed for defending their rights? If anyone is to be ashamed that are the Psystar folks, because they are profiting from other people's work.


Yes. Because Apple has never ever profited from the work of others... [cough] Xerox... [cough] Braun... [cough] open source developers... [cough] Microsoft... [cough] companies that developed USB... [cough] developers of multi-touch... [cough] list goes on...
"

Sometimes I wonder why do I even bother answering to trolls, but here it goes:

Xerox - Apple payed Xerox in stock for the right to look around PARC and use some of the stuff.
Broun - I don't really know what are you talking about.
OSS developers - Apple are following the respective licenses to the letter. I if OSS developers wanted to prevent Apple from using their software, they were free to add "Except for Apple" clause in the license.
Microsoft - wha?
companies that developed USB - wha?
developers of multi-touch - Apple purchased FingerWorks and are using their technology. So, once again I can't figure out what your point is?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Sometimes I wonder why do I even bother answering to naive mactards with no sense of history, but here it goes... (hopefully, we can dispense with the personal attacks afterward)

Xerox - Apple payed Xerox in stock for the right to look around PARC and use some of the stuff.


Never heard that Apple paid Xerox to visit PARC. It is more likely that Apple paid Xerox to license some technology. However, this point does not affect the fact that Apple profited immensely from the extensive work at Xerox. Whatever Apple paid, they didn't pay enough.

Furthermore Apple is being compensated by Pystar through the purchase of the individual OSX copies.


Broun - I don't really know what are you talking about.


Of course you don't.

Apple's retro designs come from decades-old Braun products: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-...


OSS developers - Apple are following the respective licenses to the letter. I if OSS developers wanted to prevent Apple from using their software, they were free to add "Except for Apple" clause in the license.


The spirit of the open source licenses is more important than their letters, and any attempt to exclude a specific, greedy company in an open source license would go directly against that spirit.

Apple's compliance may be "adequate," but it does not change the fact that Apple is profiting immensely from the work of others, and without paying for it.


Microsoft - wha?


Apple has used Microsoft code and development (one example will come in the next point). Apple has come back from the brink and profited greatly from Microsoft's work to make programs for the Mac such as "Word" and "Office" (and the $150 million Microsoft investment didn't hurt, either): http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html?hhTest=1


companies that developed USB - wha?


Apple did not develop USB. USB was developed by Microsoft, Intel, Phillips, U.S. Robotics, Hewlett-Packard, Lucent, and NEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#History

Apple profited immeasurably from the work of all of these companies.


developers of multi-touch - Apple purchased FingerWorks and are using their technology. So, once again I can't figure out what your point is?


Not surprising that you can't figure out the point.

First of all, multi-touch was largely developed long before FingerWorks existed -- multi-touch first appeared in 1982: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html Apple has profited massively from this prior work of others.

Secondly, Apple's purchase of FingerWorks does not negate the fact that the FingerWorks development was previously done elsewhere (not at Apple), with no input nor supervision from Apple. So, in this case, Apple is definitely profiting from the work of pre-Apple FingerWorks, regardless of how much they paid for the company


Apple almost always profits from the innovation and ideas of others, as Steve Jobs readily admits after misquoting Pablo Picasso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

Picasso actually said, "BAD artists copy, GOOD artists steal." -- the original Picasso quote has a very different connotation, and Steve Jobs and Apple do significantly more direct copying than "stealing."

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: F... rickey Apple
by tyrione on Mon 21st Jul 2008 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F... rickey Apple"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Sometimes I wonder why do I even bother answering to naive mactards with no sense of history, but here it goes... (hopefully, we can dispense with the personal attacks afterward)

"Xerox - Apple payed Xerox in stock for the right to look around PARC and use some of the stuff.


Never heard that Apple paid Xerox to visit PARC. It is more likely that Apple paid Xerox to license some technology. However, this point does not affect the fact that Apple profited immensely from the extensive work at Xerox. Whatever Apple paid, they didn't pay enough.

Furthermore Apple is being compensated by Pystar through the purchase of the individual OSX copies.


Broun - I don't really know what are you talking about.


Of course you don't.

Apple's retro designs come from decades-old Braun products: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-...


OSS developers - Apple are following the respective licenses to the letter. I if OSS developers wanted to prevent Apple from using their software, they were free to add "Except for Apple" clause in the license.


The spirit of the open source licenses is more important than their letters, and any attempt to exclude a specific, greedy company in an open source license would go directly against that spirit.

Apple's compliance may be "adequate," but it does not change the fact that Apple is profiting immensely from the work of others, and without paying for it.


Microsoft - wha?


Apple has used Microsoft code and development (one example will come in the next point). Apple has come back from the brink and profited greatly from Microsoft's work to make programs for the Mac such as "Word" and "Office" (and the $150 million Microsoft investment didn't hurt, either): http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html?hhTest=1


companies that developed USB - wha?


Apple did not develop USB. USB was developed by Microsoft, Intel, Phillips, U.S. Robotics, Hewlett-Packard, Lucent, and NEC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#History

Apple profited immeasurably from the work of all of these companies.


developers of multi-touch - Apple purchased FingerWorks and are using their technology. So, once again I can't figure out what your point is?


Not surprising that you can't figure out the point.

First of all, multi-touch was largely developed long before FingerWorks existed -- multi-touch first appeared in 1982: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html Apple has profited massively from this prior work of others.

Secondly, Apple's purchase of FingerWorks does not negate the fact that the FingerWorks development was previously done elsewhere (not at Apple), with no input nor supervision from Apple. So, in this case, Apple is definitely profiting from the work of pre-Apple FingerWorks, regardless of how much they paid for the company


Apple almost always profits from the innovation and ideas of others, as Steve Jobs readily admits after misquoting Pablo Picasso: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UjU0rtavE

Picasso actually said, "BAD artists copy, GOOD artists steal." -- the original Picasso quote has a very different connotation, and Steve Jobs and Apple do significantly more direct copying than "stealing."
"

Yes. Apple paid Xerox in Stock [Xerox made millions off of it] to visit PARC and to implement some of their ideas still in the proof-of-concept phase.

Improve your research. Go work for Apple Engineering and you'll learn quite a bit that you take for gospel for what it is--Urban legends.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: F... rickey Apple
by bryanv on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE: F... rickey Apple"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

Wow, you're a retard.

I profit from my work.

My boss profits from my work.

My boss's boss profits from my work.

The investors of the company also profit from my work.


To make a sweeping generalization that it's wrong to profit from the work of someone else is outright ignorant. Profiteering itself is not unethical, immoral, or necessarily wrong.

To profit off someone's work without their consent (as is the case here) is unethical, immoral, and an outright jackass thing to do. Perhaps it's even illegal.

But don't go saying it's wrong to profit from the labor of someone else. It's perfectly fine if that person has agreed to it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

Wow, you're a retard.

I profit from my work.

My boss profits from my work.

My boss's boss profits from my work.

The investors of the company also profit from my work.


To make a sweeping generalization that it's wrong to profit from the work of someone else is outright ignorant. Profiteering itself is not unethical, immoral, or necessarily wrong.

To profit off someone's work without their consent (as is the case here) is unethical, immoral, and an outright jackass thing to do. Perhaps it's even illegal.

But don't go saying it's wrong to profit from the labor of someone else. It's perfectly fine if that person has agreed to it.


As retarded as it may sound, your boss, your boss' boss, your company, etc. compensate you for your work by paying you a fair salary. So I fail to see the relevance of your example.

Also, if you agree with me, why are you insulting me?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by apoclypse on Mon 21st Jul 2008 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Not to mention that Psystar IS profiting from someone elses work without consent. But people here don't seem to care about that unless its Apple who is profiting legitemately from others work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Mon 21st Jul 2008 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

There are not any posts here that assert that Pystar is not profiting from using OSX.

There are posts that question the legitimacy of Apple's claims against Pystar. Pystar and/or the end user is legally purchasing copies of OSX and installing them on a computer, one at a time. Pystar is not criminally violating copyright law by making many unauthorized copies from one master copy.

Apple is suing for breach of contract (the EULA) on the shaky assertion that they have a right to dictate what hardware the software purchaser must use. In some jurisdictions, there are laws against such post-purchase stipulations by the manufacturer.

Apple is also suing for "brand damage," a claim which might actually hold some weight if Pystar actually named the OS "Open Mac".

In addition, there are posts here that remind us that Apple is hardly a stranger to profiting from the work of others.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: F... rickey Apple
by snozzberry on Mon 21st Jul 2008 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F... rickey Apple"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

Since you're fond of bandying about the charge of "profiting from the work of others," would you be so kind as to provide us an example of a comparable company which has not done this, to validate your point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: F... rickey Apple
by tupp on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: F... rickey Apple"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Since you're fond of bandying about the charge of "profiting from the work of others," would you be so kind as to provide us an example of a comparable company which has not done this, to validate your point.


Whatever gave you the notion that I am "fond of bandying about the charge of 'profiting from the work of others?'"

I merely state facts for clarification: Pystar profits from OSX, just as Apple has profited from the work of many others.

No one here has argued that Pystar doesn't profit from OSX, so validation of that point is unnecessary.

However, a few posts here by Apple fans dispute fact that Apple has profited enormously from the work of many others. So, I replied with plenty of examples and links in an earlier post to more than validate that fact.

Providing "an example of a comparable company which has not done this" is irrelevant, and additionally unnecessary since my point is already validated by the examples and links given.

By the way, there is a difference between Pystar profiting from OSX and Apple profiting from opensource code: Pystar pays for each copy of OSX...

Edited 2008-07-22 01:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: F... rickey Apple
by acidblue on Mon 21st Jul 2008 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F... rickey Apple"
acidblue Member since:
2006-02-06

Exactly, well said.

Reply Score: 1

Psystar Screwed Itself
by NathanHill on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:18 UTC
NathanHill
Member since:
2006-10-06

This is going to be a ridiculously easy case to decide.

The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers - I mean, heck, how did they think that would be legal? They might have been okay if they just let you buy Leopard and then install it for you - but they went too far. Goodbye, silly company.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Psystar Screwed Itself
by alcibiades on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:24 UTC in reply to "Psystar Screwed Itself"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers

Not at all clear they did this. From the prose on the site it looks like they may have written a script which downloads from Apple and then does some kind of modified install. What would be unlawful about this? There does not seem to be any clause in the Eula which forbids it, and even if there were, does anyone seriously think it would be enforceable? You might as well require the user to only do his updates while standing on one leg and bowing in the direction of Cupertino.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Psystar Screwed Itself
by lurch_mojoff on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Psystar Screwed Itself"
lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

The instant Psystar started modifying the OS and pointing its copies of Leopard to its own update servers

Not at all clear they did this. From the prose on the site it looks like they may have written a script which downloads from Apple and then does some kind of modified install. What would be unlawful about this? There does not seem to be any clause in the Eula which forbids it, and even if there were, does anyone seriously think it would be enforceable? You might as well require the user to only do his updates while standing on one leg and bowing in the direction of Cupertino.


There is a clause in the EULA forbidding the installation and use of Mac OS X on non-Apple branded hardware. Psystar's OpenComputer-s are not Apple branded. It doesn't get any clearer that that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Psystar Screwed Itself
by Vanders on Mon 21st Jul 2008 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar Screwed Itself"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Correct. So all Apple have to do is prove, in a court of law, that this section of their EULA for OS X is in fact legally enforceable. It certainly is not clear at this point that it is.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Psystar Screwed Itself
by alcibiades on Mon 21st Jul 2008 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar Screwed Itself"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, there is such a clause, however the problem is that such clauses are probably not only unenforceable, but actually are unlawful anti competitive behaviour.

Now, were they making unauthorized copies in order to allow downloads of updates, they might be screwed under copyright. But their site suggests they ain't.

Edited 2008-07-21 20:28 UTC

Reply Score: 4

I wonder
by bolomkxxviii on Mon 21st Jul 2008 15:27 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

I seriously doubt this will ever actually make it to court. I wish it would though. I would like to see how many of Apple's points would stand up in court. I have my doubts about the EULA surviving as it currently is worded. Instead, Apple will crush Pystar under a wave of lawyers.

Reply Score: 5

Reporting bias
by alcibiades on Mon 21st Jul 2008 16:54 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

The reporting on this seems very unfair to Psystar, both to the company, and to its case.

First we had the reports, basically on no evidence, that the firm was a scam. It plainly was not, it was a perfectly valid company, it did ship product and is still shipping.

Then there was the rumor after the suit was announced that its site was off line. It was not. You can still place orders.

Then the general approach seems to be that they are toast now that Apple's legal department has got around to suing, and what took them so long.

I'm very sceptical about this. They may not have taken adequate precautions at the start to avoid trespassing on Apple's branding and trademarks. But on the core issue: whether Apple can stop people installing purchased retail copies of OSX on hardware not bought from Apple, and whether Apple can stop me paying the corner shop to do something with my purchased copy of OSX, this must be very doubtful indeed.

It is hard to see that the arguments on this and other threads are going to hold up. One argument is that they do not use the purchased copy of OSX. No, they do not take it out of its shrinkwrap and do an individual installation. They presumably do some kind of disk imaging. Since all copies are identical, is this really going to be enough to get them hung? And all copies are identical, are they not? Like, there is no individual calling home from each differently serialled copy of OSX, is there?

If they are using hacked images, does this hang them? I think its going to be a tough argument to make, given that there is a retail copy purchased on the customer's behalf, included. There is clearly no intent to defraud, the system being installed clearly is OSX, and there are minimal hackings solely aimed at getting it to run on competitively supplied hardware. That sort of thing is explicitly permitted by the DMCA.

The problem is going to be, when you make this argument, that the Apple hardware is available from other people off the shelf. You can buy all the components elsewhere. So Apple is going to end up arguing that it should be able to force buyers of its OS (which it voluntarily sells at retail) to buy their hardware from Apple rather than from the others who are willing and able to supply it. Yes, there is the minor modification of the efi. That is not going make any difference to the argument, its just part of the attempt to make you buy from Apple.

Apple's central problem here is that the distinguishing mark of a Mac is simply that these parts, which could have been bought anywhere, were bought from Apple. It is purely a question of channel. That is the only difference between a Mac, a Dell or a Compaq: its just about who you bought them from. So the case is quite nakedly about forcing people to use parts bought from Apple. Will it really hold up?

One doubts it. Take an analogy. You can buy razor blades from a whole bunch of people. They are not identical, but very similar. Could Gillette in the days when everyone used wet razors really prevent by a condition of sale a third party from packaging their own handles with packs of Gillette blades? Back in the days of the British motorcycle industry, there were bikes called Tritons. They had a Norton frame and a Triumph engine. Could either party really have stopped a third party by condition of sale from buying engine and frame (assuming they were available independently) and supplying them as units? Don't think so.

More examples will occur to you as you think about this. Folks, its not going to fly.

There is, incidentally, a very suggestive posting on the Psystar site:

The Announcement About The Announcement
We're pleased to announce that we're going to announce something very big, very soon. We ask you to keep a close eye on this page as it will post here first.


Looking forward to it with interest!

Edited 2008-07-21 16:58 UTC

Reply Score: 12

Document requires registration of fee?
by BSDfan on Mon 21st Jul 2008 17:33 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

Why is the legal document not public? aren't such things supposed to be available to all?

Reply Score: 4

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

You can probably head down to the courthouse and check it out yourself. RFCExpress (who are not the courts or the government) did it for you, and offer it conveniently on the web. In return, they ask to be compensated.

Don't want to pay them? Don't. Go do the legwork yourself. Someone offering documents in a more accessible format for cost doesn't mean they aren't available for free elsewhere.

Reply Score: 3

alexandru_lz
Member since:
2007-02-11

whether Apple can stop people installing purchased retail copies of OSX on hardware not bought from Apple, and whether Apple can stop me paying the corner shop to do something with my purchased copy of OSX, this must be very doubtful indeed.

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but as far as I understood, Psystar is not doing that. As in, you do purchase a retail copy of Leopard, but the version they use is patched, and so are the updates they use (you can't use Apple's official updates).

Even if the hacking is indeed minimal, this isn't really the end of the day. because one of the claims Apple makes is related to damage to the company's image. Quite frankly, depsite repeated claims of Hackintosh users or ex-users (I've gone through it myself a couple of times), there's a handy difference in stability between the two systems, due to the use of a not-quite-perfect EFI emulator. On an EFI-enabled motherboard, this is not a problem, but on the kind of system that Psystar sells, the image you get about OS X is that it's a feeble system that tends to crash due to mysterious reasons, which gets massive 500 MB+ updates that download horribly slow and need to be propperly hacked in order to load on your machine. Which is not exactly a fair image.

Granted, you also get the idea that Apple sells horribly overpriced hardware, which they do. Truth does hurt I guess.

Apple's central problem here is that the distinguishing mark of a Mac is simply that these parts, which could have been bought anywhere, were bought from Apple. It is purely a question of channel. That is the only difference between a Mac, a Dell or a Compaq: its just about who you bought them from. So the case is quite nakedly about forcing people to use parts bought from Apple. Will it really hold up?

Actually, this is arguable. It might be true for Mac Pro (I'm not sure about it though), but I'm sure you'd have a very hard time building a Mac Mini or an iMac from stock parts. Most of them are available, but some (like the Mini's motherboard) are not.

Could Gillette in the days when everyone used wet razors really prevent by a condition of sale a third party from packaging their own handles with packs of Gillette blades?

I tend to agree on that; I'm sure Gillette could *license* those to anyone, but I have a hard time believing that a company using Gillette blades (with the name "Gillette" stamped on it in big letters) use it without licensing and without paying hefty roylaties. If this was so, and to carry on with your analogy, I'm sure Coca-Cola wouldn't object if I started producing funny-shaped bottles filled with Coca-Cola.



As for the innovation part -- I think people start to take it for granted the Apple have been the bing innovators and Microsoft the ones who were copying stuff. This isn't quite true -- a lot of Apple's innovations aren't really, well, in-house, beginning with the GUI and ending with USB or Spotlight.

However, what is true about Apple is that they have tended to be early adopters of such technologies; my old iMac G3 had only USB ports in a time when most computers didn't have any and Windows was regularly crashing when dealing with them. The same goes for Spotlight, for instance -- it's certainly not the first desktop search/indexing solution, but it got very good integration and it's quite helpful.


Nevertheless, I think it's wrong to give credit to companies for being the first ones to do X or include Y. Credit should be given on how well a feature is implemented; if it weren't so, we'd be using Xerox Stars now.

Edited 2008-07-21 23:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Correct me if I'm wrong -- but as far as I understood, Psystar is not doing that. As in, you do purchase a retail copy of Leopard, but the version they use is patched, and so are the updates they use (you can't use Apple's official updates).

The first part seems to be true, the second part may not be. They may be updating by having the user download a script which does a modified update install.

Does it matter if they use an individual different CD from every install? Don't know. They would probably argue that if they are all identical (and they are, are they not?) that it both makes no difference, and is immaterial. Its just a workflow thing.

If it were to turn out that each purchased copy was different, that might be a different matter

Reply Score: 2

This is madness.
by atsureki on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 05:19 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

There would be no OS X if not for Apple's business model. They make profits selling hardware, which they invest into developing software, which they use as a consumer incentive to sell their hardware and make more profits. No one is entitled access to their products except on their terms. That's how property rights work, and I believe that much is entirely enforceable.

Under no circumstances should the courts force one company to adopt the practices of another, and in this case, it would mean the death of the Macintosh if not of Apple itself. No one can compete with Microsoft at simply selling an OS, especially not an aftermarket one. The profits are dismal. It only works for them because they're a monopoly, and being a monopoly means no one else can break into their market, not IBM, not Be, not NeXT, and not Apple. Their money comes from collecting the "Microsoft tax" on every PC sold. Their retail sales are insignificant.

When Apple did the clone licensing program back in the day, they lost their best sales to low-end, low-margin systems they didn't bother with and faster-to-market powerhouses they had yet to produce. Cloners didn't need Apple's margins because they didn't need Apple's engineering budget. OEMs in general are very fragile because they work with low margins and engender almost no loyalty; it's purely a numbers game. Apple can't exist in that space, either.

Because Apple sees the Mac as a complete product rather than a PC sold with an operating system (their competitors' paradigm), they must guard the OS against theft just as any hardware maker would the operating system in their embedded device: it's part of the product, and it's what makes the device what it is. Apple exists and makes the products we all envy because of the way they work. Force them to change the way they work, and you destroy the products.

The argument for end-user rights is a complete red herring. Yeah, we should be able to emulate Mac OS 9, AmigaOS, and in the future, abandoned versions of OS X without having the proper hardware; that goes to the heart of ownership and preserving the value of a purchase. Individuals should even be allowed to do it now, with current versions of Apple software, reverse engineering restrictions be damned, but companies are always held more tightly to licensing terms, and for good reason. In this case, it's not about whether EULAs are enforceable against end users, but rather whether it's legally defensible to resell software with a broken EULA. Trust me when I say no one wants this. Not only would it destroy the one legitimate threat to Microsoft's desktop monopoly by forcing all their competitors to fall in line and play by their rules, but as an added bonus, finding that EULAs can't be enforced as long as the asking price has been paid would mean that the GPL is stone cold dead and anyone can assume full control over free-as-in-beer software because they've paid the asking price.

So if you're one of the crazy and/or shortsighted villagers at Apple's gate with a torch and pitchfork clamoring about user rights, just be careful what you wish for. Choice is an extremely important right, and the wrong precedent in this case would systematically eliminate it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is madness.
by alcibiades on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 07:29 UTC in reply to "This is madness."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Under no circumstances should the courts force one company to adopt the practices of another, and in this case, it would mean the death of the Macintosh if not of Apple itself.

This is both mistaken and illogical. It is mistaken in that the issue is not anything Apple is supposed to be made to do. It is about what other people should be allowed to do. It is not about making Apple support other hardware. It is about allowing other people to install their bought copies on whatever they want.

No one is entitled access to their products except on their terms. That's how property rights work, and I believe that much is entirely enforceable.

Well no. You sell something, it is no longer yours. The property rights that apply now are those of the buyer. That is what property is about - buying and selling!

It is illogical in that it argues that no-one would willingly buy Apple hardware if he had any choice, but it also argues that the benefits of single sourcing for hardware and software are immense. Both cannot be true. Either there are benefits and they are immense, in which case freeing the OS will have minimal bottom line effects. Or it will have enormous effects, in which it must be that buyers do not in fact value integration and single sourcing, so it cannot actually have the benefits claimed.

Pick one...

Edited 2008-07-22 07:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is madness.
by tupp on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 07:52 UTC in reply to "This is madness."
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

There would be no OS X if not for Apple's business model. They make profits selling hardware, which they invest into developing software, which they use as a consumer incentive to sell their hardware and make more profits.


That is one way of looking at it, but such an interpretation is not an empirical fact. Suffice it to say that Apple profits both directly from hardware and directly from software (Final Cut Pro, Ilife, Garage Band, Logic Pro, IDVD, Quicktime Pro, boxed OSX, updates, etc.).


No one is entitled access to their products except on their terms. That's how property rights work, and I believe that much is entirely enforceable.


In most jurisdictions, manufacturer/customer rights work like this: once a company sells a product, it becomes the property of the customer. So, the company has no control over how the purchaser chooses to use the product.


Under no circumstances should the courts force one company to adopt the practices of another, and in this case, it would mean the death of the Macintosh if not of Apple itself.


Certainly, this statement is an exaggeration. Pystar sales is not going to kill Mac hardware nor Apple sales. Even if Pystar were to become a financial threat to Apple, Apple could prohibitively raise the price of boxed OSX, which would probably put Pystar out of business. Something else must be at issue in the eyes of Apple.


Because Apple sees the Mac as a complete product rather than a PC sold with an operating system (their competitors' paradigm), they must guard the OS against theft...


There are no OSX "thieves" -- each Pystar copy of OSX is legally purchased.


... just as any hardware maker would the operating system in their embedded device: it's part of the product, and it's what makes the device what it is.


What other electronics manufacturer has ever sued any end user in regards to post sale use of its product? Apple is unique in this regard.


Apple exists and makes the products we all envybecause of the way they work.


Who is "we all?" Anyone who envies Apple products is probably a victim of Apple marketing and naive about product design and usability.

However, I am sure that a few of Apple's competitors envy their marketing success.

The way Apple usually works is to use ideas and innovation that originated elsewhere.


Force them to change the way they work, and you destroy the products.


Again, Pystar sales cannot destroy Apple products.


The argument for end-user rights is a complete red herring.


Not really. Allowing a manufacturer to restrict the end use of a product opens the door for a lot of uncompetitive practices in which the end user would ultimately suffer.

In this case, Pystar would not be able to compete with Apple hardware sales, and the end users would have fewer choices and would be forced to pay higher prices (Apple's monopoly on hardware). That is why manufacturer stipulations on end use of a product are not allowed nor enforceable in many jurisdictions.


In this case, it's not about whether EULAs are enforceable against end users, but rather whether it's legally defensible to resell software with a broken EULA.


Not sure what is meant here. Within most private contracts (such as EULAs), any provision deemed invalid or illegal does not impair the validity or legality of any other provisions of the contract.


Trust me when I say no one wants this. Not only would it destroy the one legitimate threat to Microsoft's desktop monopoly by forcing all their competitors to fall in line and play by their rules, but as an added bonus, finding that EULAs can't be enforced as long as the asking price has been paid would mean that the GPL is stone cold dead and anyone can assume full control over free-as-in-beer software because they've paid the asking price.


Strongly disagree here. The fate of Apple's EULA has no bearing on that of the GPL (or on that of any other EULA).

First of all, an EULA is a private contract, and every private contract must be taken on an individual basis depending on the provisions included. Just because one private contract is found to have a provision(s) that is invalid/illegal, it doesn't mean that all other private contracts are invalid.

And, again, just because one provision of a contract is invalid/illegal, it doesn't mean that the remaining provisions in the contract are invalid/illegal.

Furthermore, there is a dramatic difference between the nature of the provisions of Apple's EULA and that of the GPL provisions: Apple's EULA tries to impose restrictions beyond those allowed by law, while the GPL merely grants extra rights, in addition to those allowed by copyright law.

Apple EULA's attempts to restrict an individual end user's hardware choice. On the other hand, the GPL grants extra freedoms for the modification and distribution of software. Under certain conditions, the GPL allows the right to modify and/or distribute the source code, and additionally allows unlimited copying and distribution of the unmodified source code (and resulting binaries), all at no charge.


So if you're one of the crazy and/or shortsighted villagers at Apple's gate with a torch and pitchfork clamoring about user rights, just be careful what you wish for. Choice is an extremely important right, and the wrong precedent in this case would systematically eliminate it.


An imaginative analogy, but hardly accurate. If the Pystar case goes to trial and if Apple loses, it is doubtfull that Apple will be destroyed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This is madness.
by Vanders on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 08:06 UTC in reply to "RE: This is madness."
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with the premise of your post, but I'd like to point out that the GPL is not an EULA. The end user of a GPL product does not have to agree to anything before they can use the software. The GPL only applies when the software is redistributed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This is madness.
by atsureki on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: This is madness."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Allow me to clarify some things.

Almost all of your arguments seem to center on one of two premises: "Apple is teh sux" and "Psystar is an end user and entitled to consumer rights." I am not quoting you; I am delimiting strings, so let's not get so nit-picky this time.

The latter is just patently false. Your or my right to make a hackintosh is worlds away from a commercial business's right to sell software they haven't licensed for resale under conditions directly violating the only license in effect. That is why consumer rights is a red herring; this is an intellectual property and commercial redistribution issue. Yeah, the IP word makes me cringe too, because we've all heard of the RIAA destroying individual lives under that banner, but Apple is not going after individuals. Their OS knowingly permits casual piracy. Apple is very easygoing about the actual customer.

As for the former, I'm going to ignore your bizarre anti-logic about Apple not having a right to protect IP if they didn't invent every facet of it and just acknowledge that you obviously don't like Apple. Wonderful! Apple is a niche, so they're very easy to avoid. You still have your choice of millions of greige, plastic boxes, all with one other OS. Why only one? Because that's a monopoly: a single company stretched over an entire industry.

Here's what a monopoly isn't. Darden Restaurants does not have a monopoly over The Olive Garden simply because they don't franchise out. The Olive Garden is not a market, it is a single business within a market, and it is Darden's right not to franchise, regardless of what the consumer expects after it worked out so well for McDonald's. The Olive Garden is profitable just the way it is and doesn't need to be told that everyone should be able to own and operate one, and nothing about the way the Olive Garden does business prevents anyone else from making and selling food. Enforcing copyrights and trademarks over their building design and menu does not a monopoly make. See the parallel? Probably not; analogies are fun toys, but mostly ineffectual at persuasion. In any case, calling Apple a monopoly because it controls the terms of sale for its own products is a stupid thing to say.

Maybe Psystar didn't actually shoplift or duplicate copies of Leopard, and no, they are not a direct threat to Apple, but legitimate licensees would be, just as they were before Jobs came back and killed the clone program. If a court invalidated the clause that OS X can't be installed on non-Apple PCs, it would be taking away Apple's right not to license their software to OEMs, and it would set a precedent that licenses can't control the terms of redistribution and use after the point of purchase, which, by extension, would also legally cripple the GPL's clauses to keep its software free. Both licenses rely on copyright protection to keep their work from being co-opted and used against them. That's just what copyright is, and that's what it means that Psystar stole Apple's OS.

As for who "we all" are who envy Apple's products, that would be referring to the general consensus on this article's comments that people want OS X without having to buy a Mac. For the most part, people just want some neat software and are ignoring the ramifications against the source of said software. In your case, you just seem to have some massive grudge against Apple, so I guess you're not part of that demographic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This is madness.
by tupp on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is madness."
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Allow me to clarify some things.


After your two personal attacks against me, it is difficult to resist the urge to respond to this opener with something like:

"I doubt that you are capable of clarifying even the simplest of concepts, because your bloated arguments are full of faulty, imprecise and tangential notions, typical of the mentality on which Apple marketing thrives."

However, I will refrain from such retaliation, and merely ask that everyone please do not refer negatively to another individual poster and to please limit the arguments to the specific issues in question.


Almost all of your arguments seem to center on one of two premises: "Apple is teh sux" and "Psystar is an end user and entitled to consumer rights."


Not sure to which "arguments" you refer. I responded to eleven points in your post. Of the eleven responses, four could possibly be considered critical of Apple, and nowhere did I state or imply that Pystar is an end user.

In the passages that might be considered critical of Apple, I merely state facts (paraphrased here):
- Apple is unique among computer/electronics companies in litigating end users on post-sale use of a product;
- Apple is really not very innovative;
- Apple's products are not exactly the pinnacle of usability;
- Apple is perpetrating uncompetitive practices, by attempting to restrict the end user's choice of hardware.

Where did I state/imply that Pystar is an end user? Pystar certainly could be considered a facilitator of the end user.


The latter is just patently false. Your or my right to make a hackintosh is worlds away from a commercial business's right to sell software they haven't licensed for resale under conditions directly violating the only license in effect.


The "license" in question is a private contract. There are zillions of different private contracts. Some provisions in contracts are valid and legal, while others are not. Provisions which restrict the end use of product are not usually valid/legal, and are usually included in an attempt to stifle competition.

Again, once someone purchases a product, it becomes the property of the purchaser to use in any way they choose (as long as such use doesn't violate any laws). That is the way it is, and that is the way it should be. One should not need a "license" to resell any item.

In addition, it is irrelevant whether Pystar or the end user provides the copy of OSX to install on the non-Apple hardware -- the result is the same. Anyway, who can disprove that the end user instructed Pystar to purchase the copy of OSX.


That is why consumer rights is a red herring; this is an intellectual property and commercial redistribution issue.


This situation really does not involve intellectual property -- not in the sense that patents or copyrights have been violated. Apple is suing for breach of contract and claiming that their brand has been damaged (which might involve trademark issues, depending on what Pystar did).

In regards to redistribution, there really is no issue: individual copies of OSX are being legally purchased and installed into individual computers. A perfectly legal and ethical situation.


Apple is not going after individuals. Their OS knowingly permits casual piracy. Apple is very easygoing about the actual customer.


One can put any spin on the situation that one prefers. However, Apple is trying to stifle competition, and the customer will have fewer choices if Apple prevails.

Furthermore, there is no piracy in this case -- copies of OSX are being legally purchased. Apple claims breach of contract and "brand damage," not piracy.

Edited 2008-07-22 22:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: This is madness.
by atsureki on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This is madness."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

How could anyone come to the conclusion that I stated or implied that Apple does not have the right to protect their IP?


Because you took off on chronicling every idea from Cupertino that may in fact not be originally theirs just because someone said Psystar was profiting from Apple's work. Pardon me for assuming you meant something by it and were not merely nitpicking a choice of words.

When you buy a boxed retail copy of Leopard, you're paying for the rights granted in the EULA, not ownership of a product. It is reasonable and most likely legally defensible under fair use for end users to ignore the distinction, but Psystar is not an end user. It is completely unreasonable for a commercial operation (the defendant) to ignore licensing terms and make up their own, and Apple has grounds for copyright infringement even if they don't choose that approach.

And yes, you clearly called Psystar an end user, and you did it again right after denying it:

[...] nowhere did I state or imply that Pystar is an end user.


... followed closely by ...

- Apple is unique among computer/electronics companies in litigating end users on post-sale use of a product;


Emphasis mine.

Apple is not suing people who have made their own hackintosh for private use, or people who jailbroke their iPhone, or even the people who distribute the methods to do so on the Internet. They're suing Psystar. Either you're under the mistaken impression that "Apple sues Psystar" is just code for "Apple sues Psystar...'s customers," (a mistake I am under no obligation to identify or correct) or you just called Psystar an end user.

Please stop talking about monopolies. It's tedious. You appear to think everything is a monopoly if you just look close enough, i.e. the Nintendo Game Boy may not have a monopoly on portable gaming devices, but it does have a monopoly on Nintendo Game Boys. Back up for a moment and ask yourself if a word with such a definition would be of any use to anyone, ever. Your link doesn't support your unique interpretation, either. Patents are indeed legal monopolies over whatever invention is patented, for two reasons: only one vendor in the market, and a barrier to entry for any would-be competitors. Again, Olive Garden is not a market, it's a brand name. It's one of many competing entities in the "Italian restaurant" market, in which there is no monopoly and indeed no systemic barrier to entry, just as Apple does nothing to prevent Amiga or IBM or indeed PlayStation from competing in the desktop computer appliance market. They just do it better, which is no reason the courts should force them to let others use their technology against them.

You're also grievously misusing the word fact.

In the passages that might be considered critical of Apple, I merely state facts (paraphrased here):

[...]
- Apple is really not very innovative;
- Apple's products are not exactly the pinnacle of usability;


These are not facts. These are your personal judgments. They are inherently subjective, and they are further evidence of your bias against Apple.

Personal conversation comes last because it's irrelevant to anyone else just reading through: I may have offended or insulted you -- that's a matter of personal interpretation and not for me to define for you -- but I did not engage in personal attacks, and I'm certainly not the one who referred to people as "mactards" in this article's comments, which alone is enough to identify you as someone who hates Apple. I'm hereby done with you. If someone else replies to one of my posts, I may engage in discussion, but your ridiculous equivocation and other abuses of language are very tiring and make it impossible to discuss anything meaningfully. Just do me a favor: if you do decide to "get the last word" and respond to this, quit spamming the immature Usenet point-by-point dissection garbage and just write down some thoughts, maybe with a quote or two to illustrate. No one wants to read the same text over and over just to find out what your opinion is.

You got my goat. Congratulations. Keep it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This is madness. part two
by tupp on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This is madness."
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I'm going to ignore your bizarre anti-logic about Apple not having a right to protect IP if they didn't invent every facet of it


How could anyone come to the conclusion that I stated or implied that Apple does not have the right to protect their IP?

I certainly have no problem with Apple going after someone violating one of their patents/copyrights/trademarks. However, the situation with Pystar is significantly different -- Apple is actually being compensated for their intellectual property.


... just acknowledge that you obviously don't like Apple.


I have nothing against Apple, but I do like the truth. Most of the of the claims praising Apple's altruism and superiority are false.


Here's what a monopoly isn't. Darden Restaurants does not have a monopoly over The Olive Garden simply because they don't franchise out. The Olive Garden is not a market, it is a single business within a market, and it is Darden's right not to franchise, regardless of what the consumer expects after it worked out so well for McDonald's. The Olive Garden is profitable just the way it is and doesn't need to be told that everyone should be able to own and operate one, and nothing about the way the Olive Garden does business prevents anyone else from making and selling food. Enforcing copyrights and trademarks over their building design and menu does not a monopoly make. See the parallel? Probably not; analogies are fun toys, but mostly ineffectual at persuasion. In any case, calling Apple a monopoly because it controls the terms of sale for its own products is a stupid thing to say.


I am not familiar with the relationship between the Olive Garden and Darden Restaurants, but judging from the above paragraph, it appears that Darden is the parent company of Olive Garden.

If so, Darden probably does have a monopoly over The Olive Garden in the form of a trademark. Patents, copyrights and trademarks are all forms of legal monopolies. Please see the definition of a patent in the second sentence of this page: http://www.innovatelegal.co.uk/patents.htm

Darden/Olive Garden can sue to prevent someone from using their brand/trademark. Such cases are successfully litigated all the time.

However, the analogy is inaccurate (and Monty Python-esque in scope) in that it compares computer software with a restaurant establishment. Even so, if Darden sold The Olive Garden trademark to another company the purchaser would have every right to use that trademark in any way it chose.


In any case, calling Apple a monopoly because it controls the terms of sale for its own products is a stupid thing to say.


Someone doesn't understand the definition of a monopoly. If only one company can sell a product, then, by most definitions, that company has a monopoly on that product, regardless of who is the manufacturer.

In this case, Apple is trying to prevent the resale of OSX, presumably, so that it can be the only one who sells hardware that works with OSX. Thus, Apple seeks a monopoly on OSX hardware.


Maybe Psystar didn't actually shoplift or duplicate copies of Leopard...


If Pystar did either, Apple would have them "dead to rights."


If a court invalidated the clause that OS X can't be installed on non-Apple PCs, it would be taking away Apple's right not to license their software to OEMs.


No. OEMs would be making many copies from one master, which involves copyright law. A separate agreement is needed to allow such distribution.

Also, most OEMs wouldn't bother buying boxed OSX, because it would is too unwieldy and it would add too many extra costs.


... and it would set a precedent that licenses can't control the terms of redistribution and use after the point of purchase, which, by extension, would also legally cripple the GPL's clauses to keep its software free.


Distribution is not the issue. Distribution rights for software are protected by copyright.

The issue is whether or not a seller can dictate to a purchaser how he/she can use the product that he/she purchased. The conclusion is and should be no -- a purchased product is the property of the buyer, who can use it in any way he/she chooses.

Again, there is no way that the outcome of this case will legally affect the GPL. A defeat of the Apple EULA provision restricting hardware choice would not impair other provisions of the Apple EULA, nor would such a defeat affect the GPL's privilege granting provisions.



... you just seem to have some massive grudge against Apple


No Apple grudge here. Just an appreciation for the truth

Perhaps someone is overreacting to criticism of something that is unreasonably beloved.

Edited 2008-07-22 22:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Apple is being blind
by Morgan on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 06:08 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm quite happy with my Macs as well as my iPhone, but I honestly think Apple is in the wrong here. They sell a product (OS X 10.5) at retail, that is specifically designed to be installed on both Intel x86-based and PPC-based hardware. As they are the sole manufacturer of Apple computers, they make a lot of profit from that same OS being preinstalled by them and the cost rolled into the purchase price of the computer. Because of this, every single retail box of OS X they sell -- whether it is used to upgrade a PPC or older Intel Mac or to install from scratch on a used Mac with no prior OS -- becomes nearly 100% profit.

So, if I buy Leopard at retail, and I then install it on a generic, home-built x86 machine, Apple has already made their money. In fact, it technically makes even more money for them, because I have breached the terms of the SLA (Software License Agreement, which is Apple's term for an EULA). By breaching these terms, I have voided my right to free technical support from Apple. I can't call them for support when my OS breaks, which is one less customer tying up their support system and therefore less expense per sale.

I don't like Apple's stand on this issue, and I really wish they would see the light and modify their SLA to say that if you install on a non-Apple-branded machine, you still maintain the right to use the software but you give up any rights to free technical support as well as the right to take them to court if you blow up your box while installing/using the OS. This way, they still profit from the sale, you still get the "Mac" you really want instead of the cost vs. feature compromises you get with their systems, and no one has to sue anyone over it.

Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apple is being blind
by alcibiades on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 07:34 UTC in reply to "Apple is being blind"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

As they are the sole manufacturer of Apple computers

Yes, but what exactly is an Apple computer? Its just a collection of off the shelf parts, assembled by a Far Eastern OEM, at the behest of Apple and with the Apple label on it. There is nothing unique about it except for efi. [May not apply to the mini. They may have sole source on mini main boards, as someone here suggests.]

Its like saying that Dell is the sole manufacturer of Dell computers. Well, it is in a way. But you can duplicate any machine in the Dell lineup from the same parts bought elsewhere.

Lets imagine Dell produces some software and says it can only be installed on Dell computers. Do you really think that would hold up? That I would be prohibited from installing it on an identical machine I or the corner store had assembled from bits bought in from a mail order house? No way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple is being blind
by Morgan on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 12:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple is being blind"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The difference is, Apple develops the only OS that is preinstalled on their machines. Dell doesn't develop XP or Vista, Microsoft does. Therefore, Dell not only doesn't make money off of the OS on their machines, they have to pay a small fee to Microsoft to include it. My point was not who actually manufactures the individual parts that make up each brand of computer, but rather who profits from the OS being preinstalled on the different platforms.

Reply Score: 2

The Rolls Royce precedent
by unclefester on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 07:59 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

In the 1960s 'udesirables' such as rock stars started buying Rolls Royce cars and painting them in weird colours. RR tried to introduce clauses in sales contracts preventing their cars from being 'tastelessly' modified and demanding that modified cars could be forcibly bought back from owners. The RR contracts were deemed unenforceable and owners could legally modify a a RR anyway they liked.

Reply Score: 1

Branding irons
by orfanum on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 12:34 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Just a few observations.

High engineering costs have been quoted as a reason why Apple must protect their gateway OS that constrains people to buy Apple hardware, but I am wondering how much that is now the case post-move to Intel and more generic hardware - perhaps someone with some inside knowledge could help to quantify/qualify this for us?

Apple branding - Apple will reap a negative image from this sabre rattling; sure, it's Apple's perfect right to defend what it feels needs protection but it may well be done at a significant cost to image, i.e., one of its chief intangible assets, if I am not mistaken.

Finally, there seems to me to be a certain inexorability to Apple's moving away from OSX and sales of associated hardware with the post-Intel paradigm in the not too distant future; perhaps some will find this an extrapolation too far but I hark back to the recent change to the very name of Apple itself, from which the term 'computer' was dropped. Apple will move completely into the appliances realm, is my stab at it.

Apple may have its day in court (or out-of-court) with PsyStar but the legal basis for continuing with the way things are run now will eventually shift - like votes for women, the apparently inconceivable will become a necessity, and Apple will have to learn to live in the post-suffrage environment, as it were.

PS - I hope those with a Mac bent will not take this as a defence of PsyStar, it's not - it's a critique of Apple, for which the 'PsyStar Incident' provides the context.

Reply Score: 2

so, two thing...
by hobgoblin on Tue 22nd Jul 2008 22:25 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

1. anyone else reminded of ibm vs compaq?

2. hw long will it be until we hear about apple going to a pa semi designed cpu?

Reply Score: 2