Lawyers, money needed for Psystar's legal battle
Psystar's Open Computer, which appears likely to face a legal challenge from Apple in due time.
(Credit: CNET Networks)How much longer can Psystar get away with selling Open Computers?
Now that Psystar has satisfied any doubts that it's a real company making real products, the propriety of those products seems bound to be tested. In case you missed it, Psystar is currently selling Open Computers with Apple's Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, in what appears to be a clear violation of Apple's software license agreement for that product.
There's a running joke about the number of consumers that actually read the licensing agreements that come along with new software. But these types of agreements have been upheld by several U.S. court rulings as valid contracts between a software maker and a customer, even if the customer didn't have a chance to read the licensing agreement until after they purchased the product.
What makes this case interesting is that many believe so-called shrink-wrap or click-wrap licenses are ripe for a new challenge on the basis that EULAs (end user licensing agreements) allow software companies to put almost anything they can dream up in the agreement. An attempt earlier this decade to unify the various ways states treat the issue around the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which would have once and for all made shrink-wrap licenses binding contracts, never really got off the ground after heated opposition to the business-friendly terms of that proposal. Specific provisions of EULAs have been deemed unlawful, but the general concept that software customers license software, rather than purchase it, has endured.
If Apple decides to take action, Psystar will be on the defensive. According to legal experts, the company will need a significant amount of cash to fight off Apple's likely challenges on several different fronts. While Psystar might be able to make some headway, their only apparent hope of scoring a decisive win is to go for the antitrust home run and convince a court that Apple's domination of the market for computers running Mac OS X is harming consumers.
Rudy Pedraza, the head of Psystar, said that on the advice of his lawyers he was unable to comment on the legal issues potentially facing Psystar, although he did say that the company has yet to receive any contact from Apple. An Apple representative declined to comment on Psystar.
License to drive
The looming Psystar-Apple battle centers on the licensing agreement that Apple requires Leopard users to accept if they want to use the product, in much the same manner as almost every piece of software sold in the world. The most pertinent line is probably this one: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Apple's licensing agreement for Mac OS X Leopard says you can only install it on Apple-labeled hardware.
(Credit: Apple)There's little doubt Psystar is installing Apple software on non-Apple-labeled computers, said Richard Vermut, a lawyer with Rogers Towers in Florida who specializes in software licensing and technology patent matters. "Generally speaking, a software developer has the right to sell software with these shrink-wrap licenses, or end-user agreements, and they are enforceable" unless the terms of the license would harm the consumer or otherwise violate existing laws, he said.
The precedent for enforcing these types of licenses dates back to a 1996 case called ProCD vs. Zeidenberg, Vermut said. Back in the early 1990s, ProCD sold a specially organized compilation of a phone directory on a compact disc that Matthew Zeidenberg copied onto his hard drive and made available over the Internet for a cheaper price. ProCD sued Zeidenberg, claiming he was violating the terms of the license that came along with the software by redistributing the software.
To enter into a contract, the terms of the contract have to be "offered and accepted," Vermut said. The lower district court said the licenses were not enforceable because the terms were on the inside of the package, and therefore couldn't be accepted before purchasing the product. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit overturned that ruling, determining that "shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)."
In the ProCD case, Zeidenberg had the opportunity to review the license prior to installing the software on his computer, and his decision to click "I agree" constitutes acceptance of the terms of that license, the appeals court ruled. If you can back out of the deal after reading the terms, by declining to install the software or returning the box, you've asserted your right-of-refusal under that ruling.
This isn't exactly the most forthright way of doing business, but it's been the way software sales have worked for a long time, said Chris Ridder, a fellow at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society. "There are a lot of problems with shrink-wrap licenses, but there's a good chance the court would find it enforceable."
Vermut agreed. "For the most part, looking at more recent cases, courts are following ProCD," he said. "There still isn't any appellate court decision that is giving wholesale refusal to recognize this type of licensing."
One argument that Psystar could try to advance is that when you purchase software, the company is actually selling it to you, not leasing it with certain rights granted the way things exist now, Ridder said. This would allow Psystar to invoke the "first-sale doctrine" that allows owners of copyright works to sell or redistribute that product without running afoul of copyright restrictions.
You can't invoke the first-sale doctrine if what you purchased was a license. However, a 2001 case involving Adobe ruled that in some circumstances, courts will accept the notion of software having been sold, rather than licensed.
Big fish, little pond
Psystar's best shot--albeit a long one--at keeping its doors open for business would be to argue that Apple is illegally tying the purchase of its operating system to the purchase of its hardware because it has a monopoly on the sale of Mac OS X-based computers, said Jim Burdett, an attorney with Venable in Washington, D.C.
Burdett, a lawyer at Compaq during what he jokingly called the "First Clone Wars," said Psystar would have to convince a judge that the relevant market in this case is limited to just Mac OS X-based computers, not personal computers in general. Obviously, Apple has a very small share of the general personal computer operating system market but a rather large share of the Mac OS X market.
Do you buy a Mac because of the software, or because of the hardware?
(Credit: Apple)"People want Mac clones for the operating system, not the hardware," Burdett said. Apple will try to argue that its hardware is just as important a factor in making a Mac vs. PC buying decision, but Psystar will try to prove that with the response to the Open Computer, there is significant demand for Apple's operating system on non-Apple hardware.
"It would be an interesting situation to argue from the Sherman Act side, if you had the money," Burdett said. "I don't think it's too insurmountable, it's just a very costly issue to raise." Apple, with billions in cash, could easily fend off Psystar appeals for years if it can get a favorable ruling on its licensing agreement, or convince a judge to view the applicable market as the personal computing market in general.
This is the heart of the Psystar matter, and why the company has drawn so much attention over the past two weeks. Apple has been able to argue convincingly for years that the unique combination of its hardware and software is what makes a Mac a Mac. And now, a company has come along trying to challenge that definition, at a time when demand for the Mac has probably never been higher.
While the early reviews on the Open Computer are lukewarm at best, Psystar isn't trying to craft a high-end PC. It's trying to demonstrate that people want Mac OS X at cheaper prices. In the long run, buying Mac OS X on the cheap may not be a wise investment, but people still buy Kias, eat at McDonald's, and drink Natural Light for some reason.
Psystar seems determined, and we're just going to have to wait and see how the first legal salvos play out. It seems very unlikely that Psystar has the resources to mount a legal challenge to Apple's EULA--in effect, the concept of EULAs in general--but in the right venue, with the right judge, they could at least score some legal points while making a name, and some profits, for themselves.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Apple and we don't even know if there will be.
Apple could always loose the fight in court and have to open up
the OS which could lead Apple to have to allow this.
They could decide, to let this one go or to turn around and make
OS X for non Mac computers available.
Especially if more small companies jump on this band wagon
before Apple decide to take them to court, then Apple would
have to fight many companies not just this one.
trademarks. I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar runs out of money
defending themselves just on that front.
If Apple was going to license it's OS to other makers, it sure as heck would not be doing it for free. That would create something Apple can't work against - competition on a commodity item. Apple today=IBM in 1981. The IBM XT was a solid computer, even nicely designed, but underperformed when compared to CHEAPER clones. Of course, IBM made the mistake of not getting exclusive licenses for the software, something that Apple certainly has locked up.
I see absolutely no theory under which Apple would be forced to "open up." In fact, with any number of theories Apple can swoop down and knock out this clone maker. The case can serve as a deterrent to subsequent ideas.
It could be just as likely that Apple doesn't have to do anything about it... merely state that anyone who purchases such a clone is not entitled to support of any kind from Apple (which would be fair).
that any dinky company willing to put out some s***box computer
that is clearly not a Mac (that thing is LOUD and you can't even
UPDATE the OS on it) can go ahead and do so as Apple won't
enforce the EULA.
I am all but certain that Apple is mulling their legal options here
and won't be turning a blind eye to Psystar's "Mac".
Think about it, what made Microsoft the company it is now... Windows, not hardware. By the same token I think we all agree Macs are far superior in design and build quality so why not get its OS out there for the masses? Get it in the hands of people who can't justify paying a premium to run OSX? Once your hooked on OSX whats next... "I want the flashy iMac or MacBook now! I need an Ipod, Iphone.." Your introducing your software at least into a market where you may not have had a chance in the past. And for those who say a Mac is a Mac because of its hardware and software...they crossed over to Intel which lost some of their uniqueness, look how that change worked out! So now they have an increasing market share, billions of dollars in reserve so I say run with the clones! Now is the chance to get its OS out there, now is a perfect time with Vista being pushed down everyones throats.
Hell they already dropped "Computer" from their name recently, could this be a little forshadowing?? Focus on where the money is... software and we'll start seeing Apple in the enterprise.... a market where flashy hardware is usually sacrificed for cost.
First, Apple may well be barred from taking action against Psystar by the doctrine of laches. Apple has allowed the OSX86 organization to very publicly post the code for the emulator with not so much as a warning letter or cease and desist. Not a single complaint from Apple in more than 2 years. Psystar has a very good argument that it has relied on Apples very public and very well known and obviously deliberate neglect to enforce the EULA over the last two years. I believe that this very concise definition is applicable: "In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial."
So as for Apple waiting until Psystar sells a lot of boxes, that doesn't wash. To delay on a claim solely to disadvantage another party is a procedural no-no. It invokes the doctrine of unclean hands (and of course, laches.) In order to adequately preserver its claim, Apple has to give the offending party notice as soon as Apple is aware of a potential offense. The general rule is that if a breach is to be prosecuted, the claimant must give the offending party adequate and timely notice and opportunity to correct the breach.
There are specific rules in the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Model Civil codes adopted by most states, that discourage litigation by ambush. All that "swooping down" stuff may make for good drama on "Boston Legal", but it plays poorly in real courts.
At the very least Apple should have formally notified Psystar that Apple believed Psystar has transgressed something. That's what Cease and Desist letters are for. Apple's failure to notify Psystar, and its three-year failure to take any action against the OSX86 organization, provides Psystar with a good defense of reliance.
Second, Apple's recourse is extremely limited by the EULA itself and the law of contracts in general. Liquidated damages can only be recovered if they are set out in the contract. Attorney fees and costs can only be recovered if they are set out in the contract. Punitive damages are generally not allowed in breach of contract cases. Compensatory damages are generally limited to direct actual monetary loss. Generally, courts have limited relief in breach of Contract suits to either specific performance or involuntary termination. Not even a reliance award would be applicable here, as Psystar has made no direct representations to Apple. Apple would not be in a position to demand any monetary remuneration from Psystar for breaching the EULA. To my knowledge, there is no theory of law that Apple can rely on to expand its recourse beyond that specifically provided for in the EULA itself.
Third, Apple risks its own violations of the GPL licenses if it attempts to enforce the provision in the Eula at issue.
The kernel of OSX is freeBSD. Much of the rest of the OSX code, including Darwin, is also open source. Apple is bound by the terms of the GPL license in its use of that code, which makes up the core functionality of OSX. Not only can anyone freely modify that portion of OSX, but under the terms of the GPL license, Apple is REQUIRED under the terms of Open Source licenses to provide the non-proprietary source code to anyone that requests it. Apple acknowledges as much in its EULA:
"D. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site
(http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple-labeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.
You expressly acknowledge that if failure or damage to Apple hardware results from modification of the Open-Sourced Components of the Apple Software, such failure or damage is excluded from the terms of the Apple hardware warranty."
However, as several hardware vendors using open source code have recently found out, the GPL requires the vendor to also make their modifications to the open source code they use also open source. If you release the modified version of GPL code to the public in some way (as Apple has done with the GPL code in OSX), the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users under the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL V2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone. Apple can sell copies of its modified GPL code as part of OSX. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release the GPL code to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy of your modified GPL code on a web site for the general public. This is basically what the OSX86 organization has done. Neither Psystar nor the OSX86 foundation has modified any of the code owned solely by Apple. Everything needed to modify OSX to run on non-Apple hardware is contained in Apples versions of the GPL code (specifically FreeBSD and Darwin). Any modifications Apple makes to the FreeBSD kernel and Darwin Apple must make available to the public, and the public is free to modify those changes and distribute them in any manner they choose, and use on any hardware they choose.
So Apple cannot enforce the EULA without violating the GPL. If Apple should win an enforcement action on its OSX EULA it would be in violation of the GPL and would have to cease using the GPL code (specifically Darwin and FreeBSD) and that would be the end of the road for OSX.
Fourth, in spite of the author of this blogs implications, EULA?s have not fared well in the Courts in general. Only two federal circuits (the Seventh and Eighth) out of 13 have directly held that software can be licensed and is not sold. Internationally, and domestically, the ?First Sale? doctrine is more accepted, and is gaining support. Many jurisdictions, have formally classified shrink-wrap software as ?goods? subject to the UCC; the types of restriction like the ones at issue here in EULA?s are not enforceable, as those jurisdictions do not recognize software as ?licensed?, but instead classify software as ?goods? subject to consumer protection regulations and the laws governing the use of ?goods.? UTICA has fared poorly and in fact created a significant backlash against EULA?s in general in many jurisdictions. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. Important to this case, Florida is in the 11th Circuit, which tends to follow the 5th circuit more closely. The Fifth Circuit?s ruling in Vault Corp. vs. Quaid software (1988) indicated that one can use one?s legally owned or licensed software in any non copyright-infringing way desired, notwithstanding more restrictive EULA terms. Since using an emulator to allow copies of Vault?s client?s software to function without the original program disks (as the 5th circuit held was allowable in the Vault decision) is permissible even if the EULA prohibits it, Apple is going to have a tough time distinguishing how the legal purchaser and end user of OSX can be prohibited from running the software on non-Apple equipment using a emulator very similar to the emulator at issue in the Vault decision.
Fifth, and probably the least of Psystar?s legal arsenal, there is some precedent to argue that Apple is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A 1984 Ninth federal circuit case held that "refusal to license [the company's] copyrighted computer software to those who did not purchase [the company's] hardware was an unlawful tying arrangement.? However, the issue would rest significantly on how the Court determined whether Apple had any kind of significant market control of the type of software in question.
To distill the analysis down to it succinct core: The reason Apple has not responded is because Apple knows it?s screwed. It was screwed the day it moved OSX from its proprietary PPC architecture to non-proprietary Intel architecture.
OSX is like the Wizard of Ozz ? all huffing and puffing and shock and awe. But when the curtain is pulled away, its revealed for what it is: an elegant GUI added on to an excellent open source operating system. OSX?s greatest strength technically (FreeBSD and Darwin) are Apple?s greatest weakness legally (the reliance on an open source OS kernel).
Where are the Trolls? One in particular comes to mind......
Interesting comment about Apple not making a move at this point from one of the responded readers.
Fear of losing a court case based upon the EULA {Hardware tie in} would cost Apple a great deal.
I don't think a loss is likely in this case, but you never know. I would think it more likely Apple is waiting for a large number of sales by Psystar to bring to court.
Apple may gain A LOT if it turns blind eye to this.
This in turn may encourage other cloners, pretty soon Macs are available everywhere..
I love to see that happen.
premium over the PC. That's a VERY common misconception.
Dell XPS Laptop: $1499
Tuxedo Black
Intel® Core? 2 Duo Processor T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB, 3MB Cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
High Resolution, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1440x900) & 2MP Camera
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
Size: 320GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
Slot Load DVD+/-RW (DVD/CD read/write)
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT
Dell Wireless 1395 802.11g Mini Card
Dell Wireless 355 Bluetooth Internal (2.0+Enhanced Data Rate)
56 WHr 6-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Integrated Sound Blaster Audigy HD Software Edition
Finger Print Reader XPS M1530
Apple Macbook: $1699
Specifications
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB
250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Keyboard (English) / User's Guide
AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
Roughly the same yes, but that extra $200 could mean a huge difference for someone who still needs to buy some software.
The Mac IS a price premium over the PC, even APPLE THEMSELVES say that!
Actually, no there's not a difference. If you've been anywhere near a mac in the last feew years, you will see that under the hood, it is ALL PC equipment, Chipsets and Processor. What Separated a PC from a Mac years ago was the hardware would not intermingle. But today, all Mac's are is sub-standard PC hardware gimmicked to run on a PC OS (OSX is FreeBSD/Darwin which has it's PC roots). OSX is stable yes, but it's still FreeBSD. Good job Apple for taking Open Source and making loads of money off it.
So in answer, is there a difference? No today there is no difference in a PC or a Mac.
But today, all Mac's are is sub-standard PC hardware gimmicked to
run on a PC OS (OSX is FreeBSD/Darwin which has it's PC roots).
-------
Blatantly wrong statement here, considering Macs run Vista faster
than their pc counterparts. Maybe the mac mini fits your statement.
use a BIOS. They use EFI for their firmware. The difference is
pretty apparent if you actually watch a Mac boot and you watch
the Psystar system boot Mac OS X. There are some huge
performance and complexity issues that punting the BIOS has
solved for the Mac - in addition to making it harder - yet not
impossible - for BIOS-based PC's to function with OS X.
There's also a very clear cut line that Apple uses in designing
their hardware. Open a Dell workstation, and open a Mac Pro. If
you see "the same thing" in the design, you're missing
something.
Psystar is clearly violating Apple's trademarks. Look throughout
their web site and they do not properly credit Apple with the
trademarks, and in some cases the trademarks are misused (for
example, they talk about 'OS X Leopard" instead of "Mac OS X
Leopard". Apple can kill them on trademark issues alone.
Their goal is to make money - and, as has already been pointed
out, the money is in the hardware. Apple's goal is to continue to
sell profitable products and a cut rate clone jeopardizes that goal.
Bottom line, if an opportunity presents itself wouldnt you want to investigate it? Apple is not the company it was in the 90's and for good reason.
I say Apple can still sell top notch hardware combined with their software but if there is demand for one piece of the pie and not all, wouldnt you want to persue it? Especially knowing how big the potential could be.
increase the price of shrink-wrapped OS X to a ridiculous level
(and maybe offer an upgrade version at a more modest price).
Historically, OS X disks have technically been upgrade disks
since you can't buy a Mac without an OS and OS X can only be
installed on Macs. If the courts were to break that connection,
Apple could fix it by selling an OEM version at 10 times the price
of the upgrade version.
I'm not a fanboy of any OS, just to be clear, but it seems to me that the most boo hoo, is coming from the Mac owners that had to pay an extremely high price for their machine, no losing some of their exclusivity.
I'm not going to get into whether Psystar is right or wrong, that is a fight between them and Apple, however to overcome the objections of having to support all the drivers etc. Apple can make available an OS to run on PC with certian specifications that would ensure the optimum experience, just like games manufacturers do, if you don't follow the specs and you have a bad experience the ball would be in your court.
In my opinion if Apple really cares about and wants to grow their client base, this is the golden opportunity for them to do it.
license software, rather than purchase it, has endured," but that
does not mean it is on strong footing. There is a huge difference
between selling the disc with OS X (to which the FSD applies) and
copying the SW onto a hard drive (to which it does not). You
need a license to reproduce OS X onto the hard drive, but if
licensed, the law authorizes you to sell the hard drive because it
is a "lawfully made copy."
Fast forward to the situation here, the EULA clearly licenses the
reproduction right, but purports to license it only if it is
reproduced onto a Mac as opposed to any other tangible
medium. The analogy might be a book publisher who owns the
copyright in a novel, and licenses others to reproduce the book,
but only if they agree to reproduce it onto paper from the book
publisher's paper mill subsidiary.
The courts could take the approach of saying "it is not copyright
infringement because the reproduction right was licensed, but it
is a breach of contact because it was reproduced onto the
wrong medium." Alternatively, they could say "it infringes the
reproduction right, because that right was licensed only
contingent upon it being reproduced onto an approved medium,
and reproduction onto any other medium infringes." But
regardless which approach is taken, the antitrust and copyright
misuse doctrines will certainly warrant consideration -- whether
the exclusive right to reproduce OS X can be leveraged in this
way to force people who want to use OS X to buy a Mac. If the
EULA limitation is seen as an agreement in restraint of trade
(basically, I'll let you reproduce my OS X onto a hard drive if you
agree not to put it on a hard drive used in any of my
competitors' computers), then the reproduction would be
"lawfully made" because the restriction would be unlawful, and
the computer with the lawfully made copy could be sold.
But the myth that software is "licensed, not sold" is just that. The
copyright owner can license the right to reproduce a copy, but if
the copy itself is lawfully made, the owner of the tangible
medium has the absolute right to sell it. The position pushed by
Adobe and Microsoft (and the BSA) is tantamount to saying "the
limitations Congress placed on us in the Copyright Act do not
apply whenever we tell you they do not apply."
Part of the appeal of this product is that it is pre-installed. Take that out of the equation and simply let the end user do that part. It's easy on OS X, and it would completely derail any arguments Apple could have.
People are free to buy OS X if they don't own a Macintosh. If Apple wants to argue that case, they will need to stop selling OS X entirely and only make it available at the time of purchase of a new system.
Point is, the BMW engine requires a precise transmission match-up, 50:50 power displacement, alloy wheels(they stay nice and cool when braking hard), and a certain level of "Sports-Refinement" the Merc just can't provide.
Mac provides the whole ensemble as a complete package for a reson.
A Mac isn't a Mac.. it's a PC. The only thing that seperates a G5 from my Asus Core 4 Duo, is my computer is a nice black sleek case, and the mac has an apple logo on it.
You can't say it's the "whole package" when the reality is the only difference between the machines anymore is the shell, not the suspension, the ineterior, or the engine, just the plastic shell.
Apple needs to realise their mistake. If they keep using Intel Hardware, and the same guts as an off the shelf PC, they're going to find themselves in court a lot more often. And if Apple takes this to court and wins, MS gets grounds to overturn part of the court ruling against them.
Thank you Apple, for proving finally you're no better than MS.
Yes, mac provides the whole package to people like u for a reason. to make a lot of money on "fine tuned" (overpriced) hardware. if psystar had more time to work on theor box it could have been just as functional as a store bought mac.
Everyone except mac fanboys know that a properly configured windows machine of a similar cost to a mac will kick its ass in almost everything. I'm talking photoshop, movie editors, and of course, something mac lacks, good games. So why is it so much more powerful you might ask? because you get more machine for your money when you dont buy from apple. they are the most overpriced oem box company on earth.
and by the way, last time i checked, bmw doesn't have a comparable street legal car to the mercedes benz slr mclaren.
Perhaps next time you should concentrate more on formulating an actual point instead of just insulting.
longer be counted on as a future supplier of reliable software - particularly
operating systems - some PC manufacturers may be looking for other OSs to
run their machines. And they're certainly looking at the Mac OS X and would
like to know how well Apple's EULA will hold up in court.
Of course they don't want to put their own business on the line. So they pay a
small manufacturer to be the guinea pig and supply the lawyers. If Psystar
should win a legal battle against Apple, it will win the battle on behalf of all
PC manufacturers.
Is this a possible scenario? I think it is. Psystar appears to be amazingly
relaxed while facing the possibility to get blown off the face of this earth by
Apple's lawyers. While Apple is suspiciously silent about the whole affair.
I could see this being pushed by some other group that wants definition from the courts on EULA's. Heck, it could even be a group of lawyers doing this since it could be stuck in the courts for years, milking Apple the entire time. It is the sort of test case the legal counselors like to dig into.
he is receiving for his new company without spending a dime of
advertising. He is launching a clone computer business in an
already saturated market. How does he get the word out and
drive revenue???...do something unique and shocking...offer
Mac OSX.
If you configure a computer on the Psystar site, you will notice
that no OS comes standard and there is a large variety of OSs
they will install. This is a pure publicity stunt.
Here's what is going to happen:
1. Apple will demand a halt of Psystar installing Mac OSX. Jobs
doesn't want it on any non-Apple hardware, and he shouldn't.
Apple user's experience is superior. Apple's target market is the
80% of those users out there that want their computers and
other devices (MP3 players and phones) to just work as
advertised without any "configuration" issues. Wasted time is
money.
2. Psystar will comply with Apple's request. Any legal cost to do
this is very small compared to the value of the PR received.
3. Psystar has sucessfully made a name for itself. Now lets see
how good they are at providing cheaper clone hardware.
It's never been about "delivering Mac OSX to the masses".
Publicly, state that it's not a Mac if you park it on a Hackintosh rig, but legally? Don't do a damned thing about it.
Even if it sells like gangbusters, folks who want the real thing will step up when they get the time and money to do so. Folks who want support and features will get the real thing.
Only if it cuts into Mac sales would/should Apple bother... because as it stands, Psystar is chasing a market that Apple currently wants no part of, so unless/until Apple decides to start making machines to fit that demographic (sorry, but the Mac Mini isn't that demographic)? Why bother doing anything?
/P
Also, if they let Psystar get away with this unchallenged, they open the floodgates for any and all other companies to do it too. This helps in getting OS X out more to the masses, but cuts very deeply into Apple's hardware sales. They become more of an OS supplier and not a hardware one.
Who knows, this may be their intent. It will be interesting to see where this leads.
I do agree that they should make some comment publically to make it clear that there will be no support at all for these systems or for OS X installed on non-Apple hardware. That wouldn't do them any harm and help keep things separated.
- Demand for OSX on non-Apple computers
- by fokkwp May 2, 2008 10:34 AM PDT
- "there is significant demand for Apple's operating system on non-Apple hardware."
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Do they ship the OSX install disk, and total cost
- by Lee in San Diego May 2, 2008 10:54 AM PDT
- "Maybe the problem is Psystar has to modify software in the OS
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (179 Comments)That's a total non-brainer to prove. The "hackintosh" was the holey grail of Mac fans from day 1 - especially back when Macs cost 5 times the equivalent PC for similar hardware. When Apple sold its OS to other hardware manufacturers, they lined up to buy. Lots of people today would like to be able to run Mac OS on their choice of hardware.
Why doesn't Psystar sell the computer with the OS not yet installed, and let the user violate the agreement when they install it themselves? Psystar would be "guilty" only of reverse engineering the decryption module for the motherboard or whatever. (Maybe the problem is Psystar has to modify software in the OS also to get it to run - ??)
also to get it to run - ??"
Can anyone who has taken delivery of one of these clones tell us if
it includes the OSX install DVD?
Also what was the total cost of clonership, PC+OSX+Shipping?