Comments on: Apple must win its case against Psystar -- or else

Don Reisinger thinks Apple needs to demolish Psystar as soon as possible or face a thousand more Psystars. Is he right?

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Apple will win. And no, companies will pop up every couple decades and try it and their executives will have their arms torn from their bodies. The Franklin case was, what, 1983? Yes, that's about right. New crop of dummies with lawyer brothers-in-law to suggest, "Oh, Apple can't do anything but let you walk all over them. Piece of cake. Jobs will be on his knees when I wave this memo in court, begging you to let him clean the tires on your car with his tongue." I wonder what Jobs will do with all those houses in Miami. . .

[gyranthir]

I wouldn't be so confident. Their EULA and Shrinkwrap licensing looks mostly unenforceable as it's unconscionable, some of the limitations that Apple has placed on it.

A lot of people are hoping Apple loses as it treats its customers like crap, covers up and paints over complaints, over charges about 30 to 80% on hardware and is just overall legally a bully, a big kid on the play ground with a big stick in his hands.

[bgrubb]

Turned out that Apple was using the DMCA to back that EULA and it is VERY enforceable. Now that the Judge has given Apple nearly everything and all that is really left is figuring damages hopefully this will send a message to the other Mac cloners out there. The message being--what you are doing is ILLEGAL and we will enforce the law and squish you like bugs.

[wolivere]

Frankin computer was not about apple cloning, it was about using apple written software and putting your own name on it, and then selling it as your own.

Remeber up till 1997 Apple licensed out MAC clones, the largest MAC clone company was Power computing. When Apple decided to stop selling MAC O/S for MAC clones, the president of Power computing had a meltdown over it and was a huge Proponent of continuing the MAC clone buissiness. That is until Apple bought the company out.

And just who was that HUGE proponent of allowing MAC clones? Well none other then Steve Jobs, well at least he was PRO clone unitl he came back to Apple.

[wolivere]

My mistake, I mixed Steve up with the wrong company.

[Thad Boyd]

I'm with Gyranthir on the EULA enforcement -- I think it's a bad move and, worst-case, could call ALL EULA's into question. (Worst-case for the software industry, not consumers, of course.) Wired covered this back in April ( http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2008/04/apple_psystar ).

Apple should stick to claiming Psystar is damaging its brand. Because long-term, that's what Mac clones are likely to do: a big part of Apple's "it just works" reputation is due to the fact that running OSX on a very limited scope of hardware means having perfect driver support rather than worrying about supporting every product under the sun. (Has anyone else here installed 64-bit Windows? Talk about a pain. Linux has better hardware support at this point.)

Wolivere brought up the Mac clones from the 1990's -- does anyone remember actually using them? They were pieces of crap.

All that said: I'm on Psystar's side. A little competition never hurt anybody, and Apple's license agreements ARE legally unconscionable.

[chanart]

I've installed a 64-bit (vista ultimate), and it works perfectly. The only problem is with an old epson printer, but that's nothing comparing to the level of hardware support that current macs have for that generation of hardware.

[mdonovan90]

I think that Apple will emerge the clear winner against Psystar. They have great lawyer resources and I think that they will clearly show that Psystar is infringing on copyright. This case will be over very quickly. Psystar claims that they have the right to sell OSX on their hardware. That would be like apple saying that they have the right to put blackberry's operating system on the iphone or Garmin saying that they are able to put Tom Tom GPS software on their hardware. Apple will make a fool/example of Psystar!

[Dragon_Myr]

With all the Vista bashing Apple has done, I'm surprised they don't just go right for the throat and slice Microsoft in half. Apple has a lot to gain by licensing or allowing clones to use its boxed software. Apple's popularity and cult following of consumers and media alike could allow it to launch itself full force against Microsoft and do serious damage with an OS war where Apple has a much better footing this time around. Microsoft is not shy at all about doing these types of things. Zune is a great example. I think it would be smarter for Apple to team up with a handful of cloners (such as Psystar) and retail outfits, work out some details and rules, and then start a direct assault against Microsoft and their partners.

Personally, I've always hated Macs and the Apple OS's. I'm much more happy with Windows and Linux. However, I recognize the value of competition. Apple is competing with Microsoft in the OS arena, whether they want to realize it or not. Remember those Redmond photocopier banners from various OS X events? Apple's marketing team sure knows who their enemy is. The iPod never got international popularity by being sold only in Apple stores. Likewise, Apple software such as OS X will never get the mass market appeal it has the potential for unless Apple starts playing ball with Microsoft and expanding.

Apple really should settle and come up with some sort of licensing scheme and set ground rules. The risk that the courts will it for them is a realistic, but not inevitable, outcome.

[vze26wyc]

If Apple lets others use it?s OS then it will become MS and all the worms,viruses and nasties will invade.

[zaaz]

I think that Psystar is right when they say that what Apple is doing is like if a car maker would sell you a car and then tell you where you can go with it and where you can't or tell you which color you can use on it and which not. it's like a company selling hammers would only allow you to use the hammer to drive a nail in a piece of wood but not to break a nut. as a customer I should be allowed to buy a product and do with it whatever I want to because I BOUGHT IT. so, if I want to have a mac OS X on a pc then why not? because apple doesn't like it? of course that could be bad for Apple but fair to the customer. maybe what Psystar is doing right now is legally indeed questionable. but I think if someone ran a business which would simply offer customers a way to install a copy of mac OS X they legally bought on a pc then I don't think there is a fair law which could prevent it. so, it's like you buy mac OS X from Apple then you go to this company and they simply install the mac OS X on a pc you'd buy from them. I mean, just imagine if suddenly microsoft would decide you can only install their OS on dell computers. that's how bizarre this apple restriction is.

[benhomey]

Thing is Microsoft is a software maker, they don't make "Microsoft" branded computers, correct me if I'm wrong as I have never seen one. If one day Microsoft says you can only install on Dell computers, they will lose so much business as they have nothing much to sell other than keyboards and mouse.

The fact that brands like Dell, Compaq, Acer, IBM etc are selling computers that runs ONLY on Windows software, is because Microsoft gave them license to do so. Apple, like all other things, does otherwise. That's why you can never see any big brands like Dell, Compaq, Acer, IBM sell computers with Mac OS X.

Why I think Apple will win is as simple as - if it is legal to sell Apple's Mac operating system on another console other than that of Apple's, brands like Dell, Compaq, Acer, IBM etc would have already done so from Day 1 to reach more markets and gain more profits. But they did not because they are not granted the license from Apple.

[jmcentire]

You should probably read up on the licensing of software. You don't own it. Another post later clarifies that. It's not buying a car and painting it or driving it on any road you want. It's leasing/renting a car and trying to paint it. Go ahead... try it. If Hertz says you can't take the car out of the state and you do -- you're liable. The end. Too many people assume that they can buy intellectual property and they try to apply existent property laws to software. Try re-writing the Harry Potter books -- you BOUGHT them, right? Please don't use false analogies to justify claims.

[extirpator]

No, this is not like a rental car company like Hertz. With a rental car company, or even a leased car, you are going to return the car after a given amount of time, and the contract insures that you are not going to damage the car in such a way that they can not rent, lease, or sell that car in the future.

The purpose of intellectual licenses is to protect a companies software product from being tampered with and then remarked as a different product as it's a form of intellectual piracy/copyright infringement. When you obtain a copy of an operating system, the license is not a lease saying in 3 years you have to return this to us in it's original condition so that we can resell/lease it to another person. In fact Most people don't realize that a software license can be transferred from the original license holder to another individual so long as the original license holder agrees to for fit their claim to the license. This means if some one obtained a broken mac with osx, they own the licence to that software, and in theory should have the right to install it on a working computer.

The problem with the Apple Eula is the fact they are trying to force an os that can easily be shown to run on non branded hardware to only be used on branded hardware, and that is in fact a violation of several anti competitive laws, and very similar to why IBM lost MS-DOS to Compact and other clone makers.

[tclark23]

Yes Thad, we had a couple of Power Computing Mac Clones and they worked just fine. I would even say they worked as well as the PowerPC Macs we were buying at the same time and were MUCH easier to repair. They were using IDE hard drives and CD ROM drives when Apple was still using more expensive SCSI drives. Repair parts were available off the shelf , but I never replaced a mainboard on one luckily. When Apple bought the company the next Macs were also using the non-proprietary parts, helping Apple sell at a lower price. The end result was that little bit of competition helped Mac users purchase machines at a lower price. Competition is good for the user.

Mac users are really hot on Parallels right now. Being able to run Windows on a Mac makes them laugh at Microsoft's discomfort. However, MS isn't really a hardware company. They make their money selling software and every Mac user running XP in Parallels is a good MS customer. What I want to do is run OS X on a cheap Windows box. The "it just works" stuff was different back in the day of OS 7 with polling instead of interrupts, nearly proprietary SCSI drives and specific RAM chips, however, now Macs are running non-proprietary hardware like SATA, IDE, DDR RAM and now even Intel Dual Core CPUs. The "special" hardware of a Mac isn't very special technically, only designed by an artist to look better. From the point of view of the mainboard, one SATA drive is like another, so it should be possible for a company to easily produce hardware capable of running OS X.

Apple, however, doesn't allow their software to run on anything but "Apple-labeled" hardware. That doesn't mean it won't run on anything else. Now in the day of OS X/Intel and what amounts to "off the shelf" hardware, the only thing stopping someone from installing OS-X on different hardware is that stipulation in the license. In this instance, Apple is being more greedy than MS, who allows some "virtualization" of their software. Although Apple has Boot Camp and Parallels has provided a really neat way to run Windows on a Mac, Apple hasn't seen fit to reciprocate in their license.

Bill and Steve may both be pirates, The GUI that MS "stole" from Apple was originally stolen from Xerox PARC and the Star. Apple even swiped the mouse from Xerox. But MS hasn't written a slick way to install OS X on a Windows box. Parallels has said that although they can run OS X in Windows they will not violate Apple's license. Now, although Psystar is probably a couple of pikers and fly-by-nights, it may well be that once the court has to pass judgement on the Apple license, we may find that the way opens up for virtualized OS-X on virtual Macs. That would suit me just fine. Apple is now making money elsewhere on iPhones, iPods, iTunes and soon iMovies, maybe they could loosen up on their license a bit to allow virtualized OS X to run on virtual Macs.

[webheads]

Apple didn't swipe the mouse from xerox or the GUI. Apple was invited to tour PARC by PARC and after the visit they signed a deal with Xerox and invested money in Xerox for the rights to develope a GUI with a mouse.

[jmcentire]

I doubt Apple cares about where you install your copy of OS X. I think Apple cares about where companies install copies of OS X. The difference is simple: you are capable enough to differentiate the operating system from the hardware. The average consumer is not. If something breaks, they blame what they see, the OS brand. If you think all hardware is the same, I doubt you've worked in the industry. I can tell you that I've had parts from certain manufacturers that failed all the time. Memory with bad sectors, hard drives that have failed ridiculously frequently... ask any gamer if the video card makes a difference. The harm this represents for Mac lies in those details. Apple has spent a lot of time and money to develop a brand that is as synonymous with quality as it can be. When OS X is installed on commodity (or worse) grade hardware, most users will blame Mac for the inevitable failures.

[piepiecakecake]

Um, that would be a 'hornet's' nest there, Don. Bees live in hives. Would have gladly sent this correction privately if the option were available. And the OS and mouse were actually legally acquired from Xerox, tclark23. Microsoft reverse-engineered a Mac without permission (it wasn't until later that portions of the OS were licensed to them). That's the difference. Microsoft could have approached Xerox just as easily as Apple did; they didn't. Psystar is selling products in blatant violation of Apple's licensing agreements, which, like it or not, puts them in the wrong from a legal stand point, pretty much period. If that rattles anyone, start writing letters to yon Congress People.

[comptrav]

You are wrong though. By the First Sale Doctrine, Apple cannot tell you how to use the software you purchase from them. Recent cases dealing with AutoDesk and Promo CDs have uphelp this. Now Apple could deny technical support/updates to non Mac hardware, but they legally cannot tell you that you can't install it.

[hotinplaya]

First of all, when you purchase Mac OS X , you are in fact buying an "Up Grade" since your Apple computer came with it already installed.

I do not believe anyone thinks that $129.00 is a fair value for the OS, and that Apple is being fairly compensated by Shystar.

I believe we may see Apple licensing OS X to a select group of PC OEM's who agree to certain minimum hardware requirements with the up coming Snow Leopard!

If you have been following, Snow Leopard 10.6 drops PPC support (Intel only) and is being described as "lean and mean". about 1/3 as large as 10.5

I also believe if Apple license's OEM's and decides to sale Mac OS X to the public, it would be priced similar to what MS charges for their software, except they will offer one version.

[darryl365]

If somehow, Apple loses this case, (which I doubt) the problem will not only be one that Apple will face, but any manufacturer that has an EULA.
What many are failing to recognize is, that users agree to the terms before using the software. You have an option to not use said software, which must be agreed upon before using.
This isn't unique to Apple.
It's the same when you sign up with a carrier plan for cell phone usage. You have the option not to use. If you agree, it is legally binding.
If you do not like the terms, you simply do not make use of the software.
This is not about Apple being a bully.
If EULAs are not legally binding then, I want to duplicate copies of Photoshop and start selling it in my on package.

[zaaz]

@ darryl365,

making a copy of a software is a very different story from simply using it in the way you want. and since you mention the cell phones. what apple is doing is similar to if a mobile phone service provider would allow you to only call numbers belonging to them. of course you might say well it's their right to do so if they want it. but it's something that it goes clearly against the freedom of a customer. just imagine if all the car makers would agree on starting to sell cars with a restriction that only one person can drive it? so, only the person who actually buys the car can drive it. how fair would that be? or just imagine a pc seller who'd only allow you to install certain software? like, you can only install antivirus products from symantec but not mcafree or kaspersky or whatsoever? you simply have to see that this term of use apple is applying to its OS X is simply unfair to the customer. and I really don't think apple can sue a person if he decides to put their OS X on a pc because when you buy something you have to have the right to use it the way you want. I think if the customer is not given this right then he's just a puppet who's only purpose is to bring profit to companies.

[kenaustus]

The $129 price for a full version of OS X has been a good deal for those that have bought a Mac. the Family Pack is even better.

Now guess what Apple will do if they do not win the case. What is the most expensive version of Vista? The retail price. Lots of activation joys also.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that Apple would set a price that keeps a clone from being cheaper than a Mac. You might be able to buy one for your old Dell, but you're going to comparing the investment with a new Mac, even if it is mini.

For those that own a real Mac Apple will work out a way to ensure their final cost will be $129. Accountants, lawyers and programmers can figure out that rather easily, especially since Apple maintains records of Mac serial numbers.

There is no joy to the clone makers if Psystar isn't burned at the cross by the court.

[byrontx]

I am hoping Apple loses on this. I love the Apple OS but I hate the rip-off pricing on hardware. The result? The systems I own are running Windows. I just will not cough up the premium that Apple demands. Were Apple to allow clones again it would really take off and give them some serious market share at a time when MS has really been stumbling. (BTW: I owned some of the Apple clones and they were good systems).

[corinhorn]

There is no premium for Apple hardware. Macs are not more expensive. Compared spec for spec (processor speed, bus speed, amount of cache, RAM speed, HD speed, screen resolution, viewing angle, wireless, ethernet, everything) to competitors, Macs cost the same and in many instances cost less than competitors.

What people don't like is that Apple doesn't make a cheapo computer with crappy specs for less than $500. Dell and others do, but once you customize these cheap computers to have decent specs, they will cost the same as Macs. See the comparisons found at http://www.nillabyte.com/showthread.php?t=206 and also at http://www.nillabyte.com/showthread.php?t=205.

[georgek412]

to corinhorn

That is just a lie. Please take the time to read this article showing test by test, how much a mac mini (priced at about $50 more) is pwned in teh face by a Psystar Open Computer. Not to mention if you bought a Mac with the specs of a Open Pro, you'd be paying about $1,000 extra, for that stupid little apple on the side. All the power to ya, Psystar.

[tabeast2]

Apple: my software only on my machines. Ok, so the reciprocal result - Microsoft starts branding laptops and says the same thing. sorry dell and hp, its been real, go write your own OS.

[jbaustian]

Quote: "I'm on Psystar's side. A little competition never hurt anybody, and Apple's license agreements ARE legally unconscionable."

Apple already has a little competition, from every Windows PC manufacturer. It doesn't need competition from companies using its own OS.

Can Generic-Brand Cola buy Coca-Cola syrup and put it in their own cans? I don't think so.

Can any cable system take the HBO signal, give it a new name and sell it as their own? I don't think so.

[dewittdale]

There is no cola analogy possible here. A relabeling of the can would be deception. A binary box doesn't try to relabel an OS.

[Stratoukos]

I would just like to point out some faulty assumptions I've read on countless debates

1. Apple is mean/evil for not letting me run OSX on other PCs
No they aren't. Have you ever complained because you cant play an Xbox game on your Playstation? Or because you can't watch a DVD on your washing machine? Every machine on your home probably has a processor in it, so with a little modification you could run anything on anything (I'm really oversimplifying things here..). If the manufacturer is ok with this you're ok. If not, tough luck. Microsoft's policy is to allow everyone to use their OS and so far it has worked great for them. Apple has a different approach so if you can't accept their terms, don't use their products.

2. I "bought" OSX so I can do whatever I want with it
No you didn't. You can't buy OSX as you would buy a car. You just licence a copy of it. That means that you make a "contract" (EULA) with Apple that permits you to use their software if you abide with some rules. You don't own OSX. Apple owns it. It's somehow like leasing a car. The leasing company lets you use their car but you have to agree with their rules. So... once again if you can't accept their terms, don't use their products.

Now Psystar may be a bunch of kids, but they're not stupid. EULA's legal power has been disputed in the past and it's called an end-user license agreement. End-user. In this case the end-users are those who buy the Psystar PCs. So theoretically Apple has to hunt down the users not Psystar, something that would have a devastating effect ontheir reputation. Of course it's not that easy to beat a giant like Apple, but these guys saw that they had 0.1% chance to become rich as hell and the took it. Wether they win or lose, we just have to sit back and watch.

[zaaz]

1. there are certain things that are not compatible and that's fine. an xbox wouldn't read a dvd from a playstation. so, you need an xbox dvd to play it on xbox. as well as an xbox couldn't wash your clothes so you'd need to buy a washing machine for that. but tell me one good reason why couldn't I simply hack an xbox and change it in the way that it would be able to read playstation dvd's? because some company doesn't like it? and on what ground can a company prevent me to I don't know buy a xbox and turn it into a washing machine if that was possible? just because they didn't like it?

2. the first question here is why can't I buy OSX as I would buy a car? why not? do I pay any less because I am just "licensing" a copy of it? I don't think so. so, I buy a car and I can do whatever with it I want right? I can buy a toyota and yet I can remove its engine out and put in a honda engine if I knew how to right? I can do all kind of modifications I want, right? why can't I do the same with the OSX DVD I bought? why can't I tweak it? why can't I use it the way I want? because some company doesn't like it? it's not a problem that there are restrictions the problem is when these restrictions are unfair. so, it's like a leasing company would only let white people use their cars. how about that? why not if they like it that way right? so, the problem is not the EULA but that you simply can't put in there whatever you want. because customers have their right too and the market should simply respect them.

unless you believed that a company has all the right to put whatever they want in the EULA then you have to agree that there are restrictions which one can legitimately question and see as unfair because they limit your freedom. I mean why couldn't apple then say that you can only install their latest OSX on their latest line of computers? because it would be unfair? well, there you go.

[Stratoukos]

(Sorry for the double post but I can't find a way to edit my comments)

Psystar also uses the Netkas EFI to emulate Apple hardware on non-Apple PCs. Netkas' EFI EULA clearly states that his EFI cannot be used for any commercial use so that's another EULA violation.

[extirpator]

Actualy Netkas originaly didn't have a eula with his earlier release, it was only after psystar came into existence that he added the eula claiming that people could not use it commercially. Unfortunately for him his eula, if enforceable at all, would only effect versions released after the eula was added; however, as the software is open source, so long as they are not charging any additional fee for putting on the computer, there is little Nekas can do to stop them or anyone else from distributing it with a computer.

[solitare_pax]

If it is fine for Psystar to build Macintosh computers, one has to wonder how long it will be until Psystar starts building knock-offs of X-Box, Playstation, Sega or that very nice, expensive Nintendo WII ? All of those systems probably use off-the-shelf parts, like Macs, but they are grossly overpriced, if you are just looking at the hardware, and have had their own flaws like any machine does.

[tclark23]

piepiecakecake, Xerox sued Apple for their use of the Star GUI and mouse after Apple sued Microsoft for taking the interface from them, but the case was thrown out by the court because the three-year statute of limitations had expired. Apple eventually lost the court case against Microsoft, losing their claim to the GUI as well. That isn't the same as paying royalties or entering into a contract with Xerox. It sounds more like getting away with theft because Xerox didn't pay close attention to their GUI intellectual property while being preoccupied with Laser Printer patents.

[PFYC]

What Apple is doing is what IBM was found guilty of in its antitrust case -- bundling. They need to sell OS X separately from the hardware, although they could probably ask any price they want. When Apple was a niche player they could get away with a lot, but now that they're beginning to move into the mainstream they need to watch their step.