Linked by David Adams on Fri 3rd Oct 2008 15:24 UTC
Gutsy/foolhardy Mac clone maker Psystar responded in August to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit with an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. Earlier this week, Apple's lawyers filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, calling it "deeply flawed." In its statement, Apple contends: "One of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturer's unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act."
Permalink for comment 332340
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-24
In the opening of the motion, Apple states the following:
This is flawed logic, on purpose. Psystar's counterclaim is not attempting to force Apple to license its software to them. Not at all, unless I magically miss something so tremendously stupid about Psystar's claim.
No, Apple sales its software publicly to virtually anyone who will pay. Making the binary form of the product usable for whatever purpose the owner ( of the copy ) would so desire. Apple can state which uses the software will be supported in deployment, but cannot say that a specific use is banned outright, with only a few exceptions.
However, regarding Apple's name and product name being used, this should be basically irrelevant. Psystar isn't claiming the product as theirs nor are they claiming some sort of official support via Apple. They are not in a large, legal, licensing agreement which bars them from re-distributing software, pre-installed on non-Apple computers.
No, in fact, Psystar has no restriction upon them to not do what they are doing. They legally reversed engineered a product for interoperability, then they legally built machines compatible with Apple's software offerings, and then they installed a completely legal copy of MacOS X onto the compatible machine, thus they created a product.
This product did NOT claim to be made by Apple. It DID NOT brandish the Apple logo ( AFAIK ).
No copyright violation. No trademark violation.
It is obvious what Apple is trying to do: Ensure that their business model doesn't change, and contend that Apple's computers + MacOS X is a single product, and thusly a singular component of this product is not subject to anti-trust laws. They also try and quietly claim the market itself doesn't exist.
From the motion:
This is utter nonsense, of course. The computer market consists of lots and lots of players, virtually everyone of them bundling software with their product, and all of those products are nearly identical to an Apple computer. I mean, after all, an Apple computer *IS* just a computer. It isn't something new, it is just the same thing done differently, and some contend, better.
Google: types of monopolies
[vertical/horizontal, Microsoft vs Apple]
If Apple can paint their own computers as something magical that has no competitors because it is so unique as to be in its own market, then it wins. Psystar needs to show that a Mac computer is just that, a computer.
I wondered how hard this would be, so I figured I'd run through a little test:
1. Apple Mac Pro:
( some of these have option upgrades ).
Processor: (2) 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Memory: 2GB 800MHz DDR2 ECC, buffered
Graphics: PCI-Express, ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
Storage: 320GB SATA II; 7200 rpm; 8MB cache
RAID: Optional
Optical: 16x DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW, IDE?, SATA?
Software: MacOS X, whatever works
2. Alienware Area-51 7500
Processor: Intel® Core⢠2 *(your choice)
Memory: Up to 4GB Dual Channel DDR3
Graphics: PCI-express, Whatever you want
Storage: SATA/ II, Whatever you want
RAID: Optional
Optical: IDE / SATA, Whatever you want
Software: Windows, whatever works
How do we make these two machines seem so radically different as to NOT be competitors in the same market, simply when the only difference is the default choice of software?
Hmm... hrm. Uh, maybe not allow anyone else to get the software??
BUT, Apple lets anyone get the software, and merely through a few technical hurdles in the way of would-be cloners.
--
Indeed, Alienware's Area-51 7500 was a random pick. Most every computer sold today is as similar to the Mac Pro as they are to most any other given computer on the market. Especially considering the rift between Windows Vista, Windows XP, & Linux meaning the market already has software diversity, so different software cannot be used to render one's-self out of the market in definition.
Apple is merely another variant on the same old thing.
Indeed, Apple will only pre-install a copy of MacOS X with your Mac, but they they can't prevent you from installing anything else.
Alienware will likely only be willing to install Windows XP or Vista, but you can put whatever works on it yourself.
So.. WTF is the difference between a HP/Dell/Compaq/Alienware machine and an Apple machine? They are the same underneath and in most or all options, the parts are even as interchangeable between a Mac and a HP as HP is with Dell and Dell is with Compaq, and as they all are with my home-built, or the alienware.
The entire difference is in three places: Marketing, Physical appearance & quality, Software.
That is *IT*. Apple charges LOTS of money for yesterday's computers in new packaging, and a new image, and MacOS X pre-installed.
Well, Psystar has not violated their rights with marketing, Psystar has not copied their packaging, and Psystar legally obtained MacOS X, because Apple sales it to the public as its OWN, segregate, product ( like Microsoft does Windows ).
And THAT is what this all boils down to: If Apple sells MacOS X to the public, or to retailers, then they will have no option in permitting Psystar to continue, unless the judge is just stupid, or I'm somehow missing an elephant sitting on my chest.
HOWEVER, should Apple prevent the sale of the software without a computer, one could call that illegal bundling. Their hardware is nothing special anymore. When they were the PPC king, and made their own hardware, their motion would have made more sense. Today, however, they are nothing more than a systems integrator with a pre-installed operating system which they so happen to also develop.
No problems making a competing product. Indeed, back in the day PPC CPUs were for sale to whomever, and one could do whatever was needed for interoperability - and some did. Apple's saving grace was merely the amount of custom hardware in the machines. This no longer holds true, even if a new ROM is flashed on an ATI card for MacOS, the hardware is unchanged.
Apple's computers ARE NOT DIFFERENT ENOUGH in the RIGHT WAYS, to get away with Apple's claims. Period.
Go Psystar!
--The loon
P.S. I am running BeOS R5.1d0, Apple's MacOS X, Microsoft Windows XP SP3, Ubuntu Linux, and another BeOS install for live testing.
Yes, one machine:
Intel Pentium 4 D 925, 3.0GHz - Dual Core
512MB DDR RAM ( for software compatibility )
2x SATA 80 GB drives,
3x PATA IDE 120x2, 80x1
ATI Radeon AnW 9600 Pro, 256MB
1 DVD-/+RW, DL
Software choice: I'll take 'em all please!