OSNews

"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."

Actually Psystar does have legal copyright restrictions on them. For example, they are not licensed to re-distribute OS X, but yet they are doing so, which is the basis for the claims in actuality. Psystar downloads all the updates from Apple then hosts them on their own site, therefore redistributing a copyrighted work without permission. What would be different is if Psystar was for hire, you supplied the hardware, and hired them to install OS X with your own copy. That would be and is a different issue altogether. Unfortunately that is not the case at all.

No license is required to redistribute anything. The law grants you that right. You just aren't allowed to make copies of it. If you go to Walmart and buy all of their pizzas, including their own store brand, and open up your own store and sell it, you have every right to do that. You can even do it at a greater price and try to make a profit if you like. Nobody can deny your right to do that. It is still Walmart's product so you can advertise it as such, and you own it, so you can sell it.

The problem comes into play if you open up the boxes, modify the boxes, and then try to resell them. Then its not Walmarts product anymore as you modified it, so you cannot violate their copyright and trademark.

Yeah sure you don't understand the issue but you think of yourself well informed enough to make completely flawed statements.

"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. "

You don't get the point, OS X is a intellectual property of Apple, intellectual property is protected by the law, and as a consequence Apple can not be forced to distribute or to sell OS X in a way that they don't agree with, they own OS X like you own your car and you would certainly not allow someone else to drive it without your approval.

Now you seem to be confused on the real issue with Psystar. If you have a pc and you install OS X on it by any mean, then Apple does not appreciate but it does not forbid you that technically, no technical barriers are in place to to that nor Apple will sue you for that because basically it does not know it that you are doing it. In other words that's your personal usage, you are not making business of installing OS X on a different hardware than a mac and sell it to make money.

Psystar is in the other hand just doing that. They are using third party intellectual property to make money without agreeing on a exploitation license. This is the deal. Go to look at their web site, it is clearly said:

"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package. We preinstall OS X on your machine so that you may be able to begin using your Open Computer right out of the box."

They install OS X on their machines that they sell them with a price including the price of a retail copy of OS X. They can't do that because they don't have any exploitation license for OS X provided by Apple. And allow me to doubt on the fact that Psystar buys a copy of OS X for every computer that they sell, they don't, so this is piracy. And don't forget that for every Psystar computer sold, there is not even a dollar that goes to Apple, even though that their intellectual property is used in a business selling computers.

What Psystar is doing is simply not right, you can't deny that, just get your fact right.

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


This is typical of the "i don't know what i am talking about" argument.

In your comparison you fail to mention that the Mac pro machine is a basic configuration that you can customize as you could with the Alienware machine. So it applies for the graphics, the storage, etc... A little bit of honesty would be welcome.

Secondly, you fail to mention that the Mc Pro supports up to 4 internal hard drives for up to 4 TB of storage, the Alienware supports two ghard drives; you fail to mention that the Mac Pro is a dual socket machine that supports up to 8 cores (two quad core Xeons), the Alienware supports only one processor with slower FSB; you fail to mention that the Mac Pro supports up to 32 GB of buffered FB-DIMM memory, the Alienware supports only up to 4 GB, do you realize that? You fail to mention that the Mac pro supports SAS 15000 rpm hard drives, the Alienware does not, and you fail to mention that the Mac Pro has well better RAID support than the Alienware.

I mean how can you say that the Alienware has something to do with the Mac Pro, that boggles the mind? Those are two completely different machines for different uses. The former is a desktop pc, the second is a worskstation. Trying to compare then make you just foolish.

"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."

No they are not, Apple designs his motherboards (a motherboard in a Dell is not the same as the one in a Mac pro or in a iMac), it design specific controllers for its machines, Apple designs specific cases for its machine (hence the motherboard have to be custom designed), etc.... I get 50+ sensors on a Mac pro, i get firewire 800, i get multitouch trackpads on a MB pro/air, i get MageSafe, i get sudden motion sensors, etc... Look at the internal design of a Alienware

http://www.alienware.fr/product_detail_pages/Area-51_7500/area-51_o...

and compare it with a mac pro

http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html

You can't say that Apple machines are identical to other computers (and why they should be anyway?), that's a matter of fact.

"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. "

What? So you are saying now that diversity in software is not good anymore or that it has reached a limit, you are crazy. It is not because that windows or linux are one the market that someone else can sell its own software and use its software to introduce a new diversity. What you are saying is that no one can compete with software any more, this is crazy....

"Apple is merely another variant on the same old thing. "

No it is not, you lack of arguments so you say non sense.

"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. "

All cars have wheels, a engine, doors, etc, that does not make them identical and that does not prevent every car maker to differentiate themselves in the quality of the car, the options, the engines, etc.... You are talking non sense....

"That is *IT*. Apple charges LOTS of money for yesterday's computers in new packaging, and a new image, and MacOS X pre-installed. "

Yesterday computers? A Mac pro is a yesterday computer, an iMac is a yesterday computer? Keep trolling.....

"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 ). "

This shows how limited your thinking is. Psystar is selling OS X without license, someone else can't sell the car that you build and take the money to him/her, that's the same thing. Psystar is making illegal business with third party intellectual property, Psystar is making business by marketing their products on behalf of a third party intellectual property without any licensing agreement. Apple sells OS X because it owns OS X, it has designed, it has built it, so it can sell it and decide that it is the only one to sell it, period.

I have no need to confront your personal attacks, just google 'looncraz.'

Apple is NOT being forced to do ANYTHING other than what they have been doing already, which is selling MacOS X as a stand-alone product ( even if they don't mean it to be, if you can buy it at retail, it falls into the x86 operating system market ). Within this market, Apple is wrong.

As I said, if Apple can prove enough differences between an HP/AlienWare/Whatever PC to their PC offering, they might win. Very simple. Your assuming this has already been proven.

Not so. While the Apple offerings are way ahead in the quality department, they are fundamentally the same as any other personal computer.

Your argument ( & Apple's ) is much like trying to say that a Ferrari is so different from other cars that it is no longer a car, and thus is not subject to the laws of the road.

No one would argue that the Ferrari isn't one awesome car, but no one would agree that it was so awesome it was no longer a car at all - y'know four wheels, an engine, seats... meant for transporting bodies.


Here is the REAL kicker:

EVEN IF Apple shows that the Mac is so unique as to be in its own market, they have little muscle to support their claims against Psystar. This boils down to anti-competition laws where the right of interoperability is guaranteed in the U.S..

If Ferrari makes a new type of spark plug their cars require and someone else finds a way to make a spark plug similar enough to work - Ferrari can do nothing about it unless the other party literally made an exact copy. The functioning and interfaces are open game - even if patented.

Sad thing, though, is the fear in corporate America to confront the "norm." Often, even if something is completely legal ( such as reverse-engineering the mp3 file format and competing with the patented product ), no corporation will do it, simply due to the expense of the likely litigation, and the frightening ineptitude of most U.S. judges.

If Apple wants a leg to stand on, they need to do one ( or all ) of the following:

1. Stop all retail OS sales.
2. Require buyers to sign agreement ( in ink )
3. Only allow upgrades from within Mac OS X
4. Encrypt MacOS X install DVDs, 256-bit +
5. Mutate the Macintosh platform even more
6. Ignore cloners, sell MacOS x86 unsupported.

In fact, if Apple could get smart:

Create a x86 universal install DVD. The DVD would have NO SUPPORT, but would be a bit cheaper ( like $99 ). It also would not care what machine it was on. Apple would supply NO DRIVERS or changes for compatibility. Make a little bit of money from this newest "black" market.

They don't have to, but Apple is trying to convince everyone that Psystar is suing to make the above a requirement upon Apple ( they aren't ).

--

Psystar does NOT need a license to sell MacOS X, because they are buying the copies at retail. Psystar WOULD need a contract for special pricing, but Apple isn't setup to provide said contracts.

Ultimately, it is the availability of MacOS X at retail where the problem exists. Retail has rules beyond the control of Apple. Many of those rules are for protecting consumer's rights. Retail-copies of software are legally treated as consumer-copies. Psystar thusly became a consumer, which would legally transfer the license to the software at no profit ( presumably - they could be in trouble if they made profit from the software sale itself without a license ).

As Psystar claims that the "retail price of MacOS X" is already included, I would say they knowingly protected themselves in this manner. See, if I buy 300 copies of MacOS X, I have a right to resell them to my heart's content - I own the copies. In fact, as an individual, I have the right to try to make a profit from that sale.

A business entity doesn't have the right to attempt to profit from another's product according to the EULA, but the LAW doesn't distinguish between entities, giving any business the right to buy something from Company A and sell it to Company B, with markup. If that wasn't legal, the free market would not exist.

For instance, in Apple's world, if Co A buys OS X, regardless of how, no one else can use it, nor can Co A use that to make any product. In the real world of laws, Co A can do whatever they want, within the law, with that one copy they own. Even if they wanted to sell that copy at a profit because they could, or even if they wanted to include it in a competing product. So long as no specific agreements between Apple and Co A have been signed, Co A is not obliged to do anything other than stay within the bounds of the law.

Apple's world is like going to a warehouse, buying 10,000 light bulbs, without any agreements, and then having the warehouse tell you that you cannot resale those bulbs, and if you do, you can't do so for profit nor can you put those bulbs in any lamps, because the warehouse just happens to sell lamps. NO warehouse would ever say that, of course. But Apple is just brazen enough to try it.

This must be a troll, because even Apple fanboi are not this stupid, but what the hell, I'm sure I have some point to make somewhere along the line.

"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. "

No you are stupid, you can not understand a simple concept: if you created something by investing money, employing working man intellectual or manual power, then you own tis creation, being software, cars, books, TVs, clothes, etc.

And the Sherman Act says:

" the [Sherman Act] does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may arefuse to sell. "

How can you argue against the law? You are embarracing yourself.

"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. "

No they are, sorry you are trolling. A Honda and a Toyota can have similar basic technical features, that does not make them identical, or that the Honda is not special in comparison to the Toyota.

"Today, however, they are nothing more than a systems integrator with a pre-installed operating system which they so happen to also develop."

Oh, so they develop their OS and they are only system integrators, like Dell is, or Alienware is. What a bunch of non sense, again you fail miserably to understand intellectual property, what should i say, you must be stupid.

"Apple's computers ARE NOT DIFFERENT ENOUGH in the RIGHT WAYS, to get away with Apple's claims. Period. "

You keep talking about hardware difference but that's not even the question. The question is: I have created the software and the hardware that i sell, can someone else use the software that i have created for my hardware (having some similar components or not to some other hardware out there, that does not matter), to sell its own hardware without agreement, without license and by violating my intellectual property?

"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.
"

No one prevent you to do that, again as long as you don't decide to sell computers with third party software without agreeing in a license.

And by the way, Dell, Alienware, or whoever else sell pc with windows because Microsoft provides them with an OEM license, so they sell computers with windows pre-installed on it because Microsoft allows them to do that, they signed and agreed in a license.

Psystar is selling computers with windows, so presumably they have taken a license from Microsoft, why we require them to agree with a license when it comes to windows and not when it comes to OS X?

Think about that....

We need to discuss this calmly and logically, and we need to be clear about what points go to what. We especially need to stop calling each other stupid, it does not progress the argument.

No, you do not need a license from MS to sell machines with Windows. MS has nothing to say about it. You do not believe me? Go here:

http://www.ebuyer.com/store/Software/cat/System-Builder-Software-(O...)

You can buy as many OEM copies of whatever as you want, and having done so, you can install one copy per machine on as many machines as you want, and either charge a fee for doing it, or bundle it with the price of a machine that you've installed it on.

If you really wanted, and could get anyone to pay the price, you could do this with retail copies as well, and also not need a license. Naturally, if you start doing this by the million, you'll want to deal direct with MS. You'll get a better price and a more convenient to use package.

Someone remarks that Apple owns OSX like I do my clothes and can therefore dictate what customers do with it. Well yes and no. Apple owns OSX. It can sell to who it likes. It chooses to sell a particular copy at retail. Having done that, it no longer owns that copy, and it cannot tell the buyer how to use it.

Think of it like a book. I bought a copy. I did not buy the book. The copyright owner has the right to make copies, or allow others to make copies, and he did not sell me that right. On the other hand, I own my copy like I own my clothes, and if I choose to cut bits out of it, read it in the bath, paint the cover colors, he has nothing to say. Just like if I do the same thing with my nice new Brooks Brothers button down shirt, Brooks has nothing to say either. Just like if I buy a Polo shirt, and just under the logo have my initials embroidered on it. Lauren has nothing to say about it.

What I buy at retail is my own copy - books, records, films, whatever, I can use them as I like, and resell them as I like. And yes, it is a sale and not a license in all those cases. If it barks like a dog, looks like a dog, chases rabbits, eats dog food, mates with dogs, then has puppies, no court is going to buy that this here animal is really a kind of rhinoceras, whatever it says on the Eula that came with it.