Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Feb 2009 20:55 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Legal The legal case between Apple and Psystar has just taken another, very small turn. Psystar gained a small victory over Apple today, because U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup allowed Psystar to modify its counter-suit against Apple, after he had dismissed the original counter-suit. However, something more interesting came out of this ruling: the judge hinted at what would happen if Psystar were to win.
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 79 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 347924
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Small win? Large loss
by segedunum on Mon 9th Feb 2009 23:26 UTC in reply to "Small win? Large loss"
Member since:

Nice try, but the only option for Apple would have been for the judge to rule that there is no case and to have thrown it out completely. Anything else was a victory for Psystar. Apple even tried to pre-empt what the judge had suggested, and what Psystar ended up doing, over the extent of Apple's copyrights in order to try and discredit Psystar and make it look as if they were just stirring around. They failed.

The extent of Apple's copyrights is perhaps an even more interesting avenue the judge has suggested than anti-trust allegations, so the fact that the door appears to have been closed on the anti-trust angle is neither here nor there. The case is by no means over at all.

This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources:

"The judge did not name the "potential defendants," but in previous filings, Apple has claimed that Psystar was not acting alone. "Persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this amended complaint," said Apple in a November filing. At the time, Apple only referred to those individuals or corporations as John Does 1 through 10."

In the end, that's Apple's first and best hope - that the littler guy will cave in as he has been prone to doing so on so many occasions in the past.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Small win? Large loss
by poundsmack on Mon 9th Feb 2009 23:46 in reply to "RE: Small win? Large loss"
poundsmack Member since:

"This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources:"

Apple has a very strict price model it uses to validate and verify its legal expenses.

1. Apple sets aside X amount of money to win battles it is fairly certain it can win in the public eye, so as to make an example out of the company it destroys.
2. If 1 Then, Apple has justified it’s spending by winning the case and scaring others away who may later try the same thing.

This is what Apple hopes to do here. Apple’s other strategy won’t work as they want to make a martyr out of Psystar. Apples typical strategy goes something like this:

1. Apple sends a cease and desist letter.
2. Apple’s lawyer places a cease and desist phone call
3. Apple pays X amount of money to sent a hit man…
4. Normally it never makes it to step 3 as in step 2 the layer makes sure the person/company knows what will happen in step 3 

Edited 2009-02-09 23:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: Small win? Large loss
by tyrione on Tue 10th Feb 2009 02:33 in reply to "RE: Small win? Large loss"
RE[2]: Small win? Large loss
by Hakime on Tue 10th Feb 2009 03:08 in reply to "RE: Small win? Large loss"
Hakime Member since:

[b"Anything else was a victory for Psystar."]

Wrong, read the case again. This is by no means a victory for Psystar, as the judge has only allowed Psystar to use his copyright misuse argument as an offensive argument instead of an defensive one. By no means, he is saying that this argument is right or wrong.

"The case is by no means over at all.

This is perhaps even more worrying for Apple and suggests that they aren't going to be able to fund legal teams until the opposition caves in through lack of funds and resources: "

Yes right, even though the judge has stated:

"Apple responds that it is within its rights to determine whether, how or by whom its software is reproduced and how it is to be licensed, distributed or used. This may ultimately prove to be true. "

It does not seem to look good for Psystar to me.....

"In the end, that's Apple's first and best hope - that the littler guy will cave in as he has been prone to doing so on so many occasions in the past."

What? Best hope? Apple can easily prove that it does not misuse its copyright by using the definition of copyright itself. It can prove that Psystar's claims are not valid as it did for the case of monopoly and anti-competitive practices.


"Possible solutions for Apple would be to make the retail copy of Mac OS X really expensive, or to include a copy protection scheme that falls within the DMCA. "

Even if we assume that Psystar wins and that Apple has to distribute his OS on other platforms, then Apple will unavoidably create a license system for OEMs so that they can sell their hardware with OS X similar to what Microsoft does. And Apple can easily ask that any OEM must confirm to this license of usage and impose a very expensive fee so that few OEMs will even be interested in it. But anyway, that's not as easy as to say that suddenly Apple would not have any control on his product.

"Apple fans always claim that Apple's hardware is competitively priced and of higher quality than similar machines from competitors, so what is there to fear?"

Wait, the hardware is half the story or even less. You know that Apple differentiate his hardware not only by what it can do but also because it runs OS X, which is fundamentally the most important criterion of Apple's offering. What makes the Mac is fist and foremost its OS, and this is even more true since the switch to Intel chips. You know that if someone else starts to use Apple's OS, then Apple loses an important part of his capability to be competitive against pcs. And you know that Apple can't be happy with that as all his Mac business is built upon selling its hardware, and again for doing that, it needs competitive arguments, OS X is the strongest one.

I don't know why but i smell BS in what you are saying or is it just that you don't understand what you are talking about? And by the way, this argument alone, that Mac OS X is an Apple developed product which allow it to be competitive in the market, is itself an argument that supports the use of copyright by Apple. The judge has also recognized that.

"Yes, you're right, there is a lot of sarcasm in there. The reason for that is that we all know that cheap and unambiguously legal clones could mean a massive loss of hardware income for Apple. It has happened before, and it could happen again."

Not this is not sarcasm, this is non-sense!

Anyway, sure cheaper clones could mean loss of hardware income for Apple, heck, of course they are cheaper, they are assembled peaces of crap and the only way to sell them is to make them running a competitive OS that actually makes the success of the Mac. How ironic is that?

Plus, not sure that it could happen anyway. When it happened, it was when Apple was a completely different compagny that could not sell the Mac. This has changed, and yes Apple sells its Mac with the argument of OS X, this is surely the main argument why people buys Macs besides being better designed in and out hardware wise. But still the brand Mac has got a much better image and attraction than it uses to have when the clones happened.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

they are assembled peaces of crap

Crap? I have more faith in non-Apple-assembled computers than in Apple-assembled computers. Let me illustrate why with the histories of my Macs.

iMac G4 700Mhz 15". Died after a few years due to massive logic board failure.

iBook G4 1Ghz 12.1". Case became cracked and started falling apart within a few months. Was only used at home.

PowerBook G4 1.25Ghz 15". Hard drive exploded for no reason, and suffered from the infamous upper memory bank failure that Apple refuses to fix.

PowerMac G4 dua; 450Mhz. Resuming from sleep leaves one processor inactive, and usually leads to kernel panics.

PowerMac G4 Cube 450Mhz. Power button doesn't work, case cracked.

The only Mac that hasn't died on me yet is my iMac G3.

That's not premium or high end - that's utter crap. You want to know what's high end? My speakers, hand made by a small Dutch company a few towns down south, that still work even though they're 35 years old. Or my new speakers, from British brand Kev, that I know will alo stil work and be serviced decades from now. THAT is premium.

Looking at my other computers - I've owned and own about as many non-Apple machines, and NONE of them have EVER died. The only piece of hardware that ever failed in those machines was a single 40GB drive, that served me for 8 years before it died. I also own an UlstraSPARC machine from Sun, from 1998, which also still just works with all of its original components.

As you can see, I've been bitten often enough by Apple to realise that they have a tendency to sell utter, utter junk. Don't blame others and me for being a little sceptical.

Reply Parent Score: 5