Slashdot Log In
Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:19 AM
Daengbo writes "'A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple.
He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.'
Apple is currently suing Psystar over its sale of Mac clones."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Mac Clone Maker Psystar Files For Bankruptcy 366 comments
StikyPad was one of several readers letting us know that Psystar has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We've discussed the Mac clone maker's battles with Apple extensively. The company apparently has over $250,000US in debt, and states that it cannot turn a profit in the current economy. "The Chapter 11 filing will temporarily suspend Apple's copyright infringement suit against Psystar, which is currently before the US District Court of Northern California. But once the bankruptcy protection is sorted out, the copyright case will resume." And PC Mag is reporting that, on the other side of the Atlantic, two new clone companies are just getting started. Like PsyStar, FreedomPC and RussianMac promise to deliver PCs with OS X preloaded.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple. By making the OS more accessible, more people will use it, and there will be less inhibition for people to not get a Mac.
Using the old logic - the per-unit profit on the OS is quite a bit, so they get a lot of money from the clones that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I seriously doubt the clones will significantly (negatively) impact Apple's sales of hardware - more likely it'll draw on the PC crown mostly, and probably have some positive PC->Apple market change as well.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I believe that it will damage Apple in the short and mid term. Apple will lose revenues for selling the hardware and the option of raising the price of the OS won't be welcomed by customers. I think that Apple doesn't care to have OSX on 20% of the pcs if that means gaining less money than they do now with a 9-10% share.
If a market of clones will bring OSX on 80% of pcs then Apple will gain more than now, but that will change what Apple is. Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware, much like HP and Sun. They're very different from software companies like Microsoft which occasionally develop hardware (XBOX, Zune, etc) to sell the software (Windows, which in turn sells Office).
Anyway, hell yes! As a consumer I'll be happy to see lower priced macs.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, most Mac users I've seen are rabidly loyal to Apple. I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales (and might gain some from the people who won't switch now due to some perceived inconvenience, but will also not switch to a clone due to the potential of an inferior product).
Which is right? Only time and seeing the alternative will tell.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:If you're whining and Apple don't respond (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll turn your argument around: let's say I am a car manufacturer, new to the market. I sell the RemmeltCar and have exclusive contracts with dealerships. Spare parts can only be had through them or directly from me.
Would you buy my car based on this information?
Judging buy your post, you probably wouldn't. If you still would want to drive a car, would there be anywhere else you could go for buying one?
My point: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers. They have a monopoly (if you want to call it that) on their parts, but so do Dell, Compaq, Acer, Asus, etc. If you want to buy a computer, there are lots of places you can go.
If your argument is that you want to buy a computer with OSX on it, well, I'd have to let a judge decide that one. Which is how we come back to the topic at hand ;)
Parent
Re:If you're whining and Apple don't respond (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but in this instance, it very much is personal computers that run OS X. The whole point of all this is because Apple want to be the only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. Let me run that by you one more time. The only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. If that isn't the definition of a monopoly, please do tell me what is.
The problem with your "definition" is that "computers with OS X preinstalled" is not a market.
Determining what is or is not a market can be a bit difficult, but the following can help: There are many things I would like to buy. Typically, if I buy something in one market, I still want the things from other markets, but I have less desire to buy things in the same market. I might be looking at LCD TVs and Plasma TVs. If I buy one of them, I suddenly don't have any desire for the other anymore; I conclude that LCD TVs and Plasma TVs are in the same market. But TVs and DVD players are in different markets; after buying the TV, I still want the DVD player.
Now lets at the "computers with OS X preinstalled": Someone might go to two computer shops, looking at a computer with OS X preinstalled and a computer with Windows preinstalled. After buying one of these computers, that person is suddenly much much less interested in the other computer. Conclusion: Same market. Therefore: No monopoly.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, we can try to pull some lessons from an experiment done in the past, when for a period Apple licensed their OS to other manufacturers. Conditions weren't exactly the same, of course, but it's still informative.
Apple did lose sales to the clone manufacturers, that much was fairly obvious. The clone manufacturers not only undercut Apple's prices, but they also would sometimes produce machines with better specs (on paper at least). Their build quality was often not up to Apple's standards, but quality doesn't always win out.
Today Apple is financially in a far stronger position and more product diversified than they were back in the clone era, so losing a percentage of their hardware sales wouldn't be as damaging to them as it was back then, at least in the short term. But I do think that in the long term it could have a negative effect on public perception of OS X, particularly if lower quality machines caused problems for people migrating from Windows.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware...
This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is neither a hardware nor a software company. They are a total solutions company. They focus on providing vertically integrated products that meet the customer's needs from the hardware all the way up to the software. That's why Mac laptops have incredible hardware features like magnetic clasps, incredible software features like appfolders, AND incredible features like instant sleep on close/hibernate on low power that require support from both software and hardware.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Funny)
BINGO!!"
Redundant? Perhaps I was being a bit too subtle [wikipedia.org]??
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of company they are is based on where they make their money. Apple makes some money selling high-end video software, but that's about it. iLife comes free with new macs. iWork doesn't have any copy protection on it. Steve Jobs has openly stated he doesn't care if you pirate OS X (he was assuming it would be used on Apple hardware at the time). iTunes barely breaks even, but it helps them sell iPods.
And that's the point, Apple uses their software to get you to buy their absurdly overpriced hardware.
The software IS the "Apple tax" and I think it's worth it when I use an Apple product and I think it isn't when it comes time to buy one. But the only way they offset the development costs is when you buy one of their machines because they just don't sell a lot of software.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
no apple pushes both to create the Apple experience. Thus if they loose the ability to push hardware the apple experience will go down.
Look at the iPod or iPhone. It is because you have the hardware with the software (iTunes Appstore) that competitors cannot match.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's very very easy to compensate for this. MS figured it out years ago. You want to give your existing customers preferential pricing on a new OS, but still gouge the new users?
UPGRADE PRICING.
Suddenly every existing OS release was an 'upgrade license', and there are two packages at retail for 10.6. 149$ gets you Snow Leopard Upgrade, which will install on any branded Mac without issue, just like existing versions have. You now have a new 499.99$ Unsupported Full Install package sitting next to it. Apple gets their money, Hackintosh users get somewhat validated, Apple still doesn't have to take their phone calls, and everyone is either happier or status quo pro ante.
Parent
OSX will enjoy the same success... (Score:5, Insightful)
That BeOS, OS/2, and NEXTSTEP enjoyed. The fate of technically superior, generically compatible, for-profit alternative operating systems is pretty well established.
There are three ways to build a successful OS:
- Legacy monopoly position
- Free (libre)
- Make your money on hardware
Selling a "premium" OS for generic hardware is a surefire path to irrellevance.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a hardware company. If they cease to make money on hardware, the will exit the market. Legalizing clones would cause the Mac to disappear, and Mac OS X with it. The OS is not profitable by itself and never will be. The market is just too small.
They tried it once before, for those who do not know. Clones nearly killed Apple.
The notion that a judge would rule that Apple doesn't have the right to restrict what computers can run the software that they create is ridiculous. If this succeeds, the next step will be Apple having to add ROMs back into their machines to prevent this sort of crap.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
So, all the $$$$$ Apple put into R&D counts for nothing? It took over 5 years for Apple to develop OS X (not counting NextStep), and more time for them to enhance it.
And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?
What's "pure, unmitigated bullshit", is the mentality that some people should be force to essentially give away the fruits of their labours.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
"And after all that effort, they should be forced to essentially give it away for $130 and sacrifice their hardware business?"
Who's forcing a price on them?
They can charge what they like, surely?
It's the restraint of what is done with it after a sale that is at issue here. If that means that the current $130 is subsidised by hardware sales, then maybe they'll have to look at charging less for hardware and more for new OS versions? Business models have to adjust from time to time, you know. Especially when they are based on artifices like restraint of post-purchase usage which may not be legally enforceable.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is forcing Apple to do anything. If they don't want to sell it for $130, they don't have to. They just can't control what I do with it once they sell it to me.
Apple has no right to a return on their investment. If their business model depends on selling me an item, and then controlling what I can do with it after they sold it to me, they should have picked a better business model.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the difference. You can buy OS X and install it on any machine you want. Apple won't stop you; however, don't expect Apple to support it as it runs on non-Apple hardware. Now the moment you create a business to start selling it, you become a re-seller. As a re-seller, Apple can dictate what you can and cannot do.
The crux of Apple's argument: Psystar is a re-seller. As a re-seller, their contract would forbid them to do what they are doing. If they've never agreed to a re-seller license (which I doubt they did), then they're not allowed to re-sell OS X as they are doing. Also Apple alleges to install OS X on generic hardware, Psystar would have had to modify OS X. Apple did not give permission to Psystar to modify their code and re-sell it. If Psytar were just to sell OS X unopened in the box with instructions on how to install on generic hardware, they technically would be fine, but Psystar is actually installing OS X which is not okay. The second part of Apple's argument is that these machines do not receive updates from Apple as they fail some sort of verification. Psystar has been distributing updates by taking the Apple updates and modifying them. Again, Psystar does not have permission to modify and re-distribute Apple's code.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Informative)
Opening the box and installing it on a piece of hardware and selling the hardware makes things different.
No, it doesn't!
Actually, it does (kind of). You should at some time have a look at what the first sale doctrine allows you to do and what not. If you buy a used Mac G4, buy Leopard, install it on the G4, and sell the combination for a profit, including the opened box and DVD obviously, that is fine by the first sale doctrine. If you buy a used Mac G3, buy Leopard, modify it so you can install it on the G3 (which is perfectly legal), and sell the combination for a profit, then first sale doctrine does _not_ give you permission to do that because the software has been modified. Fortunately for you, the MacOS X license actually allows it. In case of any computer that is not Apple-labeled, Apples license doesn't allow you installation on that computer, so that computer now has an illegal copy of MacOS X. First sale doctrine doesn't allow you to sell any illegal copies of the software.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
The other possibility is that Apple might stop selling shrink-wrapped copies of OS X. Instead you get a copy when you buy a machine and that makes you eligible for upgrades. So every copy of the OS would be tied to a machine, in terms of sales, if not via hardware key.
Then PsyStar would have to pirate the OS and that would definitively put them in the wrong.
And that way everybody loses.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
And while your statement is a tautalogical truth, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, which is Apple putting the artificial restriction on their OS, indicating it can only be installed on machines they've built.
No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.
If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent's point is that if Apple wants to sell their OS without the hardware, they should not be allowed to put in the license for that software that you can only use it on Apple hardware. Their remedy, if they don't want their OS being used on non-Apple hardware, is to not sell OS X separately from the hardware.
When you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray from Sony, do you have to agree to a license that says you can only play it back on a Sony player on a Sony television? Why should it be any different with Apple?
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason you can only play a PS3 game on a PS3 is not because they've legally tied the game to the PS3, it's because currently the only hardware capable of playing it.
If another machine were to be able to play it, the only illegality involved would be if they stole copyrighted code from Sony (i.e. Sony's BIOS for the PS3) or violated Sony's patents in implementing their machine.
The parent's analogy is far more appropriate and closer to the truth than yours. Apple had their "PS3" moment when they were producing specialized hardware to run the Mac OS on. But today they sell Intel machines, ones that are completely capable of being built independently of Apple. If this were a video game console analogy, it'd be the Atari 2600 vs. the Coleco Gemini [retrothing.com] and Coleco won that one.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, I want to reply to this to correct a misunderstanding that many people are having.
There are two issues that are getting conflated: technical inability to use a product and legal inability to use a product.
Back when OS X ran only on PowerPC hardware, people with x86 were unable to use it as their operating system because their current system was incapable of running it due to differences in processors and machine code. This is a technical inability. Apple didn't need to put any statement in their license agreement telling purchasers that their software could only be used on Apple branded hardware because the only machines technically capable of running it were Apple branded hardware.
Now that Apple machines use x86 processors and a mostly-PC architecture, (one of the main differences is that Apple machines use EFI which makes them "legacy-free", whereas most PCs still have a BIOS and most PC operating systems rely on that BIOS to load themselves) it is not an issue of technical inability. If a machine has EFI (or an EFI emulator that boots from the BIOS), it is technically capable of running OS X as its operating system. Apple doesn't like this because they want to sell more hardware, so they put a provision in their license telling people that the software is not licensed for this purpose. This is legal inability.
PS3 games not playing on anything but the PS3 and XBox 360 games not playing on anything but the XBox 360 are technical inabilities. If somebody made a box that was technically capable of playing these games without infringing on Sony's IP (unlikely, but that's another bullshit topic), then Sony wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to sue the PS3-clone maker.
The only reason that Apple has any leg to stand on here is that copyright laws are crazy. The reason software requires a license is due to the fact that running a program requires a copy of it to be made from the external representation (disk, CD-ROM, DVD) to internal storage (memory). Only the copyright holder, by default, is allowed to do this. In order to allow others to use the program without breaking copyright law, current law says that they must be granted a license. However, a copyright holder's right to deny copying must be balanced against the potential abuse of consumer rights by not allowing people to copy the work that they paid for. It gets into a favorite argument of Slashdot users:
If a software company is only selling us a license, then why don't they give us a replacement CD at nominal cost in perpetuity, or, if the program moves from CD to DVD, why shouldn't I be legally entitled to order a version on replacement media? (For example, I have a lot of old games on floppy. If I purchased only a license to these, not the actual media, can I go to Microprose and ask for a copy of Civilization on CD-ROM because I don't have a floppy drive anymore? Why not?)
Legal inability in furtherance of selling some product reeks of tying [wikipedia.org], which is forbidden because it infringes on the rights of the buyers of a product.
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing at issue in this case is how much control a manufacturer should be able to exert over buyers through shrinkwrap "contracts".
Parent
Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Informative)
So fucking what?! Are customers suddenly no longer allowed to modify their own property nowadays?!
If I buy a T-shirt, the manufacturer cannot prevent me from tie-dyeing it. If I buy a Mustang, Ford cannot prevent me from turbocharging it. If I buy a book, the author cannot prevent me from crossing out parts of the story and rewriting it.
If I buy a copy of OS X, Apple CANNOT prevent me from modifying the fucking kernel!
Bullshit. Apple voluntarily made those copies of OS X available for sale, and Psystar legally bought and paid for them. There was no violation of copyright law. Full stop. Period. Even if we assumed the EULA were valid, there still wouldn't be a violation of copyright law because the only distribution occurred before the EULA went into effect, and was therefore governed only by the Uniform Commercial Code and copyright law itself!
For the twenty-millionth time, the GPL is NOT an EULA! It is a DISTRIBUTION license, which is completely different from an EULA in every way that matters.
EULAs are imposed upon the "end user" (by definition!), after the purchase. Because of this, they are both inequitable (they do not convey any rights to the user that he didn't have already) and contracts of adhesion (the transfer of ownership already occurred; the user has no choice but to accept the terms). For both of these reasons, EULAs are unenforcible in any sane court.
In fact, the only reason EULAs were invented at all is that some asshole came up with the theory that, because computer programs -- unique in comparison to all other creative works -- had to be copied from disk to RAM to be used, that that copy was an act of copyright infringement, and gave the publisher an excuse to impose an onerous license. This theory is now completely bunk, because copyright law has an explicit exception for software allowing that necessary copy.
The way the GPL differs from all this, and the reason it is valid, is that it grants rights that the user didn't already have. Namely, it grants the right to redistribute the software. Because it grants rights, it can also impose conditions and still be equitable. Because it only comes into effect when you try to distribute the software, an act which you do not otherwise have the right to do, it is not a contract of adhesion. And because you'd have to have distributed the software in order to violate the GPL's terms, and violation revokes your right to distribute, violation of the GPL implies violation of copyright.
Now do you fucking get it?!
Parent
You CAN a distributor CAN'T (Score:4, Informative)
So fucking what?! Are customers suddenly no longer allowed to modify their own property nowadays?!
If I buy a T-shirt, the manufacturer cannot prevent me from tie-dyeing it. If I buy a Mustang, Ford cannot prevent me from turbocharging it. If I buy a book, the author cannot prevent me from crossing out parts of the story and rewriting it.
If I buy a copy of OS X, Apple CANNOT prevent me from modifying the fucking kernel!
YES, you CAN modify the kernel (although maybe not under some stupid corner cases in the USA, thanks to DMCA. But pretty much everywhere else in the world) ...BUT...
you CAN'T re-distribute THE MODIFIED kernel to 3RD PARTIES, without obtaining a specific license to do so.
Psystar CAN obtain Mac OS X. Can modify the kernel (let's say in Europe, for the sake of avoiding DMCA). But CAN'T sell it on computers to customers, as they are selling a derivative of Apple's work, without Apple's license.
Bullshit. Apple voluntarily made those copies of OS X available for sale, and Psystar legally bought and paid for them. There was no violation of copyright law. Full stop. Period.
Up to that point : No, there's no violation of copyright law. The problem arises after that :
They sell the modified OS X together with the Psystar computer.
And Apple tries to prove in court that this is a derivative work sold without proper license.
What Psystar SHOULD have tried, is to sell users unmodified copies of Mac OS X, and bare naked clones, WITHOUT an OS on them, only an installer (either a boot disk to insert first before installing OS X or a special installer on a hidden partition / modified BIOS image) which is able to patch and install OS X from the original media.
This way they wouldn't have sold anything they lack a license for (the OS X they sell is Apple. Apple got paid for the copy and no derivative work is involved).
The end user did the patching and as no distribution occured, there's no way to use the derivative work argument either.
(Well except maybe that the installer/patched could fall under some problems with the DMCA in the USA. But in theory the above approach should be valid).
The way the GPL differs from all this, and the reason it is valid, is that it grants rights that the user didn't already have. Namely, it grants the right to redistribute the software. Because it grants rights, it can also impose conditions and still be equitable. Because it only comes into effect when you try to distribute the software, an act which you do not otherwise have the right to do, it is not a contract of adhesion. And because you'd have to have distributed the software in order to violate the GPL's terms, and violation revokes your right to distribute, violation of the GPL implies violation of copyright.
And the problem is that only a few license grants right to redistribute modified copies of a software.
Parts of Mac OS X don't follow that such license. And as such you can resell your copy *OR* you can modify your copy.
But you can't make more copy to hand to other people and - in Psystar's case - you CAN'T make a modification and resell that modification.
It's stupid, because Apple got paid for the original copy any-way. But it's currently the law and Apple is trying to see if they can manage to apply it to that situation.
Parent
apple club (Score:4, Interesting)
If Psystar want's to compete, let them compete. Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails. The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.
exactly. meddling in the market makes it unfair not more fair. Apple is only a 10% player in the computer market so their bussiness model is not in restraint of trade for computers.
Apple should form a "discount buyers club". To belong to the club you have to buy an apple computer. Then you get 90% discounts on the operating system updates priced at $1000 retail.
Parent
If they win... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if that means we can install things like HP-UX on non-HP hardware?
Re:If they win... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If they win... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only problem I have with OSX is that it is currently against the license agreement to use it on any machine other than an Apple branded machine. If they said "we only support Apple branded hardware", then I wouldn't have a problem with it - the user can use the disc and software however he wants, but only when it is installed on Apple hardware is he entitled to support.
In this vein, HP could sell HP-UX to whomever wants it, but only offer support if it is installed on HP branded hardware.
Parent
Blizzard and Glider (Score:5, Interesting)
Blizzard's win against Glider allowed Blizzard to dictate what you can and can't do on your own machine if you use their software.
The same should apply to Apple. You license OS X, and you agree to only run it on Macs.
(Not that I agree with the decision, but that's how I see it)
Tortious interference (Score:4, Interesting)
a) launching the software in an unapproved manner makes the copying from HD to memory an unauthorized copy in violation of the EULA and
b) selling a product that requires the end user to break the EULA of another product to work is tortious interference [wikipedia.org] Apple may actually have a case here, simply because of some WoW bot writer's inept legal defense...
Parent
This is not a WIN (Score:4, Informative)
I think you mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you mean, "others may be free to buy a mac to get the OS X license to put on a cheaper computer, which they won't do as Apple kills off retail sales of OS X"
So if they do win, sure you can migrate your OS across platforms. But you won't see other vendors shipping it.
It should be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.
If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.
The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.
Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.
If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.
For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.
Re:If this works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some hardware manufacturers don't employ devs who code for Linux. It's a shame, but hey, that's an extra cost. Linux doesn't yet have the market share to warrant employing dedicated devs to write drivers for Linux (please bare in mind the many, many distros, dependencies, package types, kernel revisions which drivers would need to be developed for. Source code is great, but I don't want the hassle of compiling it thanks).
It's an infinite regression paradox. Devs need to code for existing hardware to increase uptake, which then need support from vendors with newer versions. More uptake is needed to increase the viability of dev time... The trouble is nobody wants to go first.
Parent
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
That's what they sued for- antitrust violations. And that's what got thrown out.
What's happened now is that the judge decided they could come back and
file a new complaint based on copyright law instead.
That doesn't mean their new counterclaims (Apple sued them) necessarily have any merit.
In fact, I don't really see how this is a 'win' at all - if you file a complaint and it gets tossed out,
you wouldn't normally be barred from trying again, if your amended complaint is substantially different.
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:5, Informative)
At the end of the day if the judge rules that Psystar can do this because Apple sells OS X in stores and voids their ability to say that it can only be installed on Apple hardware I suspect Apple will pull OS X off the shelves pretty fast and modify the way their users can get access to the upgraded software. Or worse, they will put in some godforsaken activation shit like Windows. I frequently get to experience the joy of trying to recover an OEM system using non OEM hardware and Windows demands reactivation and then fails, and then MS says "fuck off, that is an OEM product key." Selling OEM licenses on PCs you built if you don't have an OEM deal has been repeatedly held up as illegal.
End of day, this is a bunch of greedy little assholes trying to take someone else's work and profit from it and a bunch of people expressing a disgusting sense of entitlement in defending their nonsense. Look, if you don't like Apple's terms, DON'T FUCKING BUY IT! That is how this is supposed to work, this is how the market is supposed to regulate itself. Instead, a bunch of moron consumers buy shit they KNOW has bad terms and then pays lawyers piles of cash to try and get their way. But hey, for all the bitching that goes on around here about how evil lawyers are, the prevailing mentality is to support the lawyers rather than not buying products with shitty terms and letting the market sort itself out.
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it.
And what exactly is wrong with that? That's what we call capitalism. If you sell Item A, and I sell Item B that works with Item A, then I'm trying to profit off of your work. Or rather, I'm exploiting a market opportunity created by your work. Psystar selling hardware that interacts with data sold by Apple is no different than Apple selling hardware that interacts with data sold by RIAA members.
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Psystar assholes are trying to profit off of someone elses work, that is all there is to it.
The value of your gratuitous advice for me not to go into business or law has to be measured against this gem. I believe the system you are ranting against is called capitalism. Products create markets, which can lead to other products that you did not intend. If your sensibilities are so offended, one wonders if the following equally offend your taste (staying close to this subject) :
1. Apple's profiting off BSD kernel (what is your favorite pejorative for Steve Jobs, given your love of Psystar above ?).
2. The entire aftermarket slew of non-Apple products that exist for iPod ?
Or is it that your sensibilities are affected only if rules of capitalism work against Apple instead of for it ?
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:4, Informative)
The BSD license which applies to said BSD kernel permits profiting explicitly.
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Section two is all about monopolies. Section one is all about contracts agreements, and conspiracies, with intent to restrict free trade. And a BIG rule is that you cannot have lease agreements or sales contracts which specify that the product in question may only be used with a certain other product. For example, Ford cannot form an agreement with Shell, whereby all Ford lease agreements stipulate that until you are paid off and actual own your car, you can only fill it with Shell Premium. You may note that other people sell gas other than Shell, and other people sell cars other than Ford. Similarly, Lexmark or HP cannot have the nice people at BestBuy make you sign a contract when you buy a printer, swearing you will only refill it with their brand of ink/toner. Yes, even though more than one company makes printers.
Parent
Re:How does the Sherman act affect Apple ? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:New versions of OS X will be sold only online (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, that's fine. Why doesn't Apple just do that instead of trying to abuse copyright law?
Apple's retail presence has been rather strong for the last several years. Not being able to sell OS updates in their own retail stores would somewhat limit their ability to get people to buy those updates... Plus not everyone has a good internet connection.
Parent