Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
Legal The week isn't even over yet, and we already have another instalment in the Apple-Psystar soap opera. Psystar has filed a new lawsuit in the Florida Southern District Court in Miami, asking for an injunction and damages because of Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers".
Thread beginning with comment 381325
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm confused...
by JayDee on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:37 UTC
JayDee
Member since:
2009-06-02

Apple is suing Psystar for installing OSX on non apple labelled computers and now Psystar is suing Apple for preventing them from installing the newest version of OSX on non apple labelled computers? This makes no sense to me but it is the US justice system we're talking about here... Nothing seems to ever make sense. Why can't they just settle their issued already. I would love to have the option of installing OSX on any computer I wish. If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by merlin747 on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:53 in reply to "I'm confused..."
merlin747 Member since:
2006-11-09

hehe... that's the US for you... maybe they should improve the software patent system. :-P

That would be really funny to see...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by looncraz on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:51 in reply to "I'm confused..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

It is like hedging your bets... if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely, then they can almost afford to lose the previous so long as no damages are awarded.

The new lawsuit likely focuses on Snow Leopard and any product thereby derived. As such when/if Psystar wins the lawsuit they will be able to continue business as usual indefinitely with Apple forbidden to interfere.

Now, let us assume Psystar loses the current case:

They are found guilty of copyright/patent violation and told to stop distributing MacOS X... except MacOS X isn't a single product - it is a product line. Therefore, the court orders on each case of infringement individually, but a court has already settled the newest round of products ( Snow Leopard+ ), so those become legal - with everything that Psystar has done no longer meaning anything at all.

This really only holds completely true so long as Apple doesn't re-decide to seek damages ( though they probably can't prove any damages ).

The best result, naturally, is that Psystar clearly wins both cases. A good result is that Psystar wins the second case, regardless of the first.

The bad case is that Psystar loses both. Then we are full fscked.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by Tuishimi on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:44 in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

It is like hedging your bets... if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely, then they can almost afford to lose the previous so long as no damages are awarded.


You think? Shall we place a wager?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by jragosta on Sat 29th Aug 2009 12:42 in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
jragosta Member since:
2009-08-29

"if Psystar wins this new suit, which is actually rather likely"

Sure - as likely as hell freezing over.

The judge already rules on this issue wrt Leopard. His ruling was that Apple was not abusing its copyrights in refusing to license its OS to all comers.

Snow Leopard is even stronger for Apple - because the Snow Leopard advertising specifically states that it's an upgrade. The courts have consistently ruled that upgrade licenses are enforceable - that is, Microsoft can sell you an upgrade license for less money than a full license and you can't install it on a clean system.

Psystar has even less chance of winning this one than the one they ALREADY lost. Dell's not getting much of a return for all the money they spent supporting Psystar.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Sat 29th Aug 2009 12:26 in reply to "I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?


You've hit on the one point that truly stands out to me. EULAs aside, it is just as trivial to install OS X on a PC as it is to install Windows or Linux on a Mac; either way it's a small freely available bit of software that enables booting the "foreign" OS. As far as I'm concerned, Apple is being quite hypocritical about it. They would have a valid argument in my eyes if they completely disallowed other OSes on their hardware, but in fact they promote the ability to run Windows as a benefit to buying a Mac. This makes them seem petty and childish with their lawsuits against "clone" makers.

I love OS X, and I love the simplicity and overall design of Macs. But I can't stand Apple's business practices sometimes.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by wirespot on Mon 31st Aug 2009 16:43 in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

You can't say "EULAs aside" because that's exactly the point of the matter: Psystar broke Apple's EULA and is trying to justify it in very creative ways.

The EULA is a set of terms set by the creator of the software. Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it." If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed. Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.

This is basic copyright law and it affects everything, including Windows, GPL etc. If in some absurd way Psystar managed to win this it would throw ALL software on its head.

You're probably confusing things with the old EULA troubles, which were about software companies who tried to sneak the EULA past the buyer and make them agree to it automatically, without even knowing what was in it. That's no longer the case. Nowadays, responsible companies (Apple included) make it very clear what the EULA is BEFORE you buy. The terms are on their website and on the box of their products.

It's every company's right to set whatever terms they want (within the law) for stuff they've created themselves. It's Apple's right and no, Psystar CAN NOT come and say "hey, let's ignore what the creator licensed us to do and set up a business to compete directly with the creator, using their own stuff." That's not allowable, nor sane.

Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by viton on Tue 1st Sep 2009 11:41 in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

This makes them seem petty and childish with their lawsuits against "clone" makers.


Microsoft doesn't sell PC hardware, so they can't dictate which HW you can use. Apple does.
Imagine what Microsoft will do if you create XBALL360 and rip their software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I'm confused...
by rockwell on Mon 31st Aug 2009 13:55 in reply to "I'm confused..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

If a mac user can install Windows, why can't a PC user install OSX?


Um, because Steve Jobs is a douchebag? Here's the thing that Mac fanbois can't get through their skulls: Windows will always outsell OS X, because it's cheaper and, for 99% of computer users, it's "good enough."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 16:55 in reply to "RE: I'm confused..."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Your inflammatory language notwithstanding, you are correct: Windows is "good enough" for the masses, especially now that Windows 7 is out. It's not really cheaper though, unless you are talking about the total cost of the computer (hardware and software), and even there one could argue perceived value. As I've said before, it all comes down to money. Apple firmly believes they will lose more on hardware sales than they will gain in OS sales, especially when you figure in losses due to rising support costs.

After reading the exhausting but quite comprehensive review of Snow Leopard at Ars Technica, I'm inclined to believe that Apple is also quite proud of their achievements and are wary of seeing their baby on unsupported hardware. After all, most of the improvements in SL are geared towards developers whose projects are tied to the popularity of the Mac ecosystem. If OS X becomes just another OS then why not jump ship to Windows or even Linux?

I think that's another big issue; the Mac has always been and always will be a niche product. Apple likes it that way. They are a brand, a fashion statement, a social club where the price of admittance is the iMac on your desk or the MacBook in your lap.

I'm a poor man by most standards; I struggle to pay my mortgage and car payment and I work for the local government. Yet I have owned several Macs in my life and when the time comes I'll own another one (I no longer count the Performa 460 up in the attic). The thing is, I don't like Apple as much for the glamour as I do for the technical aspects of their OS. I'd love to be able to run OS X without a hitch on this machine, but it's an AMD box with very little OS X-friendly hardware. In the past it's been worth the extra money to buy a refurb Mac to get OS X; now that SL is only $30 perhaps even I can afford to build a "clone" of my own and for once have the best of both worlds.

Edited 2009-09-02 17:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2