There's news in the Apple vs. Psystar saga, and even though I know I promised not to report on this for a while, this news is a pretty important development, and we're more than two weeks down the road anyway. As you all know, Psystar filed a second lawsuit concerning specifically Snow Leopard in Florida, and Apple motioned to have the case combined with the Apple vs. Psystar case running in California, claiming there is no difference between the two. Judge Alsup has denied this request.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
and have to sell mac os x to clone makers they could do that and stop upgrading mac os x and fixing bugs
and create a new os that can't be used by clone makers and isn't sold on dvds in stores and can only be upgraded if you have a mac and a original licence
Edited 2009-09-24 23:35 UTC
Member since:2009-06-02
Member since:2005-07-24
That is not needed.
The ONLY thing Apple SHOULD do in that case is to make a high-priced "Full Version" which permits installation wherever it works. The version will have no lock-downs or warranty what-so-ever. No support.
THEN, the flip side, is the normal MacOS X for Apple's customers has, now, a comparatively discounted price - with an Apple hardware ownership pre-requisite ( like an upgrade version ).
Then all Apple needs to say in court is: we have discounted the price of the MacOS X upgrades because our customers have already purchased part of the product, using that copy on non-Apple hardware constitutes theft of 1/2 the full retail cost of MacOS X.
Done.
--The loon
Member since:2005-10-12
Then all Apple needs to say in court is: we have discounted the price of the MacOS X upgrades because our customers have already purchased part of the product, using that copy on non-Apple hardware constitutes theft of 1/2 the full retail cost of MacOS X.
Done.
--The loon
Only problem would be that, legally speaking, it would not be theft, and so no authority would bring prosecutions. Other than that, it would be fine.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:
2009-02-11
I'm not sure about this, but since 10.5 and 10.6 are treated as different products, doesn't that makes the first lawsuit irrelevant? Apple doesn't sell Leopard any more, so even if the lose the first lawsuit Psystar won't have a legal way to buy it.
As a side note, since Snow Leopard is an upgrade (and AFAIK upgrade licenses stand in court) and Psystar can't get Leopard, are they forced to buy the box set for $169?
Member since:2006-01-08
Member since:2005-07-24
The problem is that Apple needs to show an added benefit for the "upgrade" label to apply, generally.
This seems to be largely untested waters, so the judge would have to think it over carefully...
If the new "upgrade" version of MacOS X was released at the same price point as the old "FULL" version, then there seems not to be any added benefit for such a label to offer protection, legally.
I think the real problem is that Microsoft doesn't allow Apple to compete on the OS-side without Apple facing immediate destruction.
This entire suit could even be perpetuated by Apple themselves to try and trick MacOS X onto normal hardware, with little extra cost to Apple. Not likely, but it would work well... and Apple would merely need to release a higher-priced Full version with no limits, no returns unless disc is defective, and no support outside of the dedicated forums :-)
Hardware support would arise almost on its own, and getting the open-source crowd into the action on Darwin would really help the mess that is MacOS X to work much better.
I'm thinking, of course, of a MacOS X Lite, which is actually a Full version.
Owners of Apple hardware then get MASSIVE benefits in comparison. Everything is relative.
--The loon
Member since:2006-03-11
I don't know of any reason this is a problem. Where are there legal requirements related to this? All they need to do is change something (fix a single bug, change the splash screen) and they can market it anyway they want "NEW AND IMPROVED". They can also charge anything they want.
Again they can charge what ever they want to for their product and easily justify charging more for full product verses an upgrade to an existing OS. If I 'upgrade' my WinME license to Vista it is not a real upgrade it is a full new operating system, no real upgrade path. With MS even if you could upgrade you also had the option to do a clean install of the new system.
Member since:2005-07-24
You misunderstand my comment a bit. You are not wrong, though ;-)
What I mean is that Apple can't simply rename an existing product and expect the law to care. They MUST, generally, show something very different for the new meaning to take effect.
A standard upgrade is not an 'upgrade version' in the software industry's standard vocabulary - which the judge would likely use in consideration.
The real problem is that this is largely untested waters. If the two products are 100% considered exclusive of the other, then the latest MacOS X 'upgrade' moniker could hold some weight in the second case. BUT, if the law merely sees them as different iterations of the same product (which is what is the case), then this changes things considerably.
This is to say that an 'upgrade' is not the same as an 'upgrade version.'
Microsoft nor Apple has any requirement to provide upgrade versions of their software to the retail channel, beyond some contractual obligations perhaps, BUT they do have to abide by the law when they do so in order for their non-signatory contracts to mean anything (EULAs / TOUs).
Microsoft does this by lowering the price on the upgrade versions. Apple could copy this by raising the price of MacOS X considerably, but changing tune and unlocking OS X from the hardware in full versions, but only supporting real Apple hardware in any official manner.
The "upgrade version" would be what they currently sell, except locked to the hardware. And the price could remain the same as is today, but is a relative discount to the price hike.
Then, if anyone hacks the upgrade version, Apple has the following going for them:
1. OS X "Upgrade Version" has a distinctive value from the unencumbered retail version
2. Support costs are a part of the hardware system, not the software product.
3. A renewal fee for continued support is included with each "Upgrade Version."
4. Sales of the higher priced full version will increase the costs of would-be cloners, reducing their ability to compete on price.
5. Apple makes money on each clone... even more than they do now, anyway.
I think you get the idea :-)
Of course, the way it should be.. and the it ends up being are far too often too far removed to make things like this truly predictable.
--The loon
Member since:
2006-01-03
Member since:2006-07-26
Right, they had a valid reason and they succeeded in excluding it in the CA case.
Apple can't keep releasing $29 service packs, calling it a new OS, and delaying the case indefinitely.
If the judge re-opened discovery, what would happen in 6 months when OSX 1.7 Rain Leopard came out, or 2 months after that when 1.7.2 Acid Rain Leopard, or another 2 months later when the brand new 1.8 Hail Leopard comes out with no new features that Apple sheep gladly fork over money for?
Member since:
2006-12-16
I'm sorry, but a software manufacturer should *never* have the legal right to dictate where and how you install the software. These mongrel proprietary software companies already screw us, the consumer badly. And the sad thing is, no government wants to make these mongrels support their products properly.
I hate Apple, I hope the bastards lose.
Dave
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-27
Member since:2005-07-06
>I'm sorry, but a software manufacturer should *never* have the legal right to dictate where and how you install the software. These mongrel proprietary software companies already screw us, the consumer badly. And the sad thing is, no government wants to make these mongrels support their products properly.<
I hate to say it but nobody is screwing the consumer except the consumer. nobody is putting a gun to the heads of the consumers and saying buy my product or die.
Bottom line, it is your choice as the consumer to buy a product or not. If you don't like it, don't buy it. if you can't agree to the legal terms of use, nobody says you have to use it.
There is a reason apple and companies like it do as well as they do, and it is not because they screw the consumer or because they force people to buy their products. It is simply because people like their products better then the alternatives and therefore are willing to spend the money on said product.
Businesses are successful because people like their product. If you were part of the majority on your line of thinking these business would already be out of business and new companies would have taken their place that met the requirements of the majority.
my point is, the vast majority of consumers do not think they are getting screwed or they would take their business elsewhere.
