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?

[supernads]

If Microsoft sold the operating system for an X-box as a separate, licensed piece of software and the parts to build one were readily available I would expect it to be done.

Apple is using a weak EULA and DRM not to protect the licensed software that they sell, but instead to protect a monopoly on the hardware that they sell to run this software. This is not a good position for them.

At least Microsoft is selling x-boxes at or very close to a financial loss on each individual unit. Apple is selling desktop systems that could be built to equal specifications for far less than the company is selling them for. If Apple weren't making an economic profit on each system sold under this monopoly there wouldn't be much to discuss. However they are doing so and it is at the expense of the consumer and competition

This is a lawsuit they should never have touched.

If explorer on the desktop was an unfair advantage for that browser, what do you call this?

[keithober]

I assume you meant "Secure Mobile Environment" by "SME", but acronymfinder.com gave me a lot to choose from (my personal favorite is "Sloppy Meateaters"):
Saami, Northern (Norwegian ISO Language Code)
Sales & Marketing Executives International
Sales Management Engineer
Sausage McMuffin with Egg (McDonalds)
School of Materials Engineering
School of Military Engineering
Secure Mobile Environment
Security Message Exchange
Selector Mark Enable
Senior Management Executive
Session Management Engine (software development and testing)
Shape Memory Effect (engineering)
Shape Metal Effect
Shawnee Mission East
Shimoga (Indian town railway code)
Short Message Entity
Signaling Message Encryption
Significant Military Equipment
Sinorhizobium Meliloti
Sistema Monetario Europeo (Italian)
Sloppy Meateaters (band)
Small and Medium Enterprises
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise
Small Management Element
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Society of Manufacturing Engineers
Society of Military Engineers
Society of Mining Engineers
Software Management for Executives (training course)
Soil and Materials Engineers, Inc (Plymouth, MI)
Solar Mesosphere Explorer
Solid-Metal Embrittlement
Solutions Middle East
Spatial Modeling Environment
Special Minister of the Eucharist
Specialized Market Expert
Sports Media Entertainment (broadcast outlet)
Squadron Medical Element
Square Meter Equivalent (textile trade)
Standard Model Extension (physics)
State Machine Editor
Static Model Exchange
Stato Maggiore dell'Esercito (Italian: Army General Staff)
Subject Matter Expert
Subject Matter Expertise
Submucosal Extension
Submucosal Mass Effect
Supply Management Executive/Expert
Surface Movement Element
Synchronous Modem Eliminator
System Management Entity
Système Monétaire Européen (French: European monetary system)
Systems Maintenance Engineer
Republic of Surinam (international auto identification)

[jmcentire]

How many times have you been working on a PC and cursed Windows? Sometimes the source of the issue is the fault of the hardware, not the software. If any company that comes along is allowed to install OS X and pass their POS hardware off as a more "cost-effective" Mac... the reputation of OS X will suffer. Mac does not support all hardware, so some third-party developer will be writing the drivers and hacking the OS to fit the needs of the cheapest components available to the manufacturer. The result will most likely be a whole host of Mac clones that drive their unwitting owners to curse Mac and OS X. The damage this represents to Apple/Mac, a company who has struggled for years to establish a quality brand image, is very real and very costly. I hope the judge realizes exactly what is at stake here. Psystar asked, `what if Honda told consumers that they couldn't drive on certain roads` [para]. The damage they represent to Mac is more akin to taking a Honda, switching the engine for that of a low-end Ford, and selling it. When the consumer sees the Honda logo but never opens the hood, all the problems with the retro-fitting will affect their judgement of Honda's quality.

[zaaz]

actually, I believe your scenario would work in favor of apple if it was really as bad as you want to believe it would be. because apple could simply say, well, you see, if you want a mac os x to run properly then you got to buy a mac. and they would have a proof for that too. you can't damage an image of something because no one will be selling macs but pcs with a mac os x on them. and if a pc would be really so bad with a mac os x running on them well then apple would have even more ground to make fun of them as they've been doing all the way. but I am afraid that a mac os x on a pc would actually make many people realise that apple is simply stealing money from them by selling their computers for much more than they are actually worth. so, I believe a mac os x would do perfectly fine on a pc and that's the real trouble for apple. who'd ever buy a a mac if he can get a mac os x for half that price? only people obsessed with the apple brand.

[humanssssss]

OSX uses Darwin and KHTML. Some of the open source developers will request Apple to remove their copyrighted work from KHTML because of Apple's unethical behavior.

[larryennis18466]

Apple has to use it's head to win this. Us geeks took a project on when Apple switched to Intel chips an that was to make a Mac from compatible "off the shelf" parts. It was done and it found it's way onto web sites like ExtremeTech.com and other communities. This one person that started Psystar could have been a geek done it a few times and figured that he can make some money on this idea. This exploits Apple's OS X. For it to work on this Mac, OS X had to be altered to run. This is the point that Apple MUST make. That Psystar took Apple's Mac OS X and changed it in order for it to run on this hardware they have put together and this is a blatant violation of the software license. They have to make this clear to the court. I am hoping Apple wins to avoid another IBM. History has a funny way of repeating itself and now it is Apples turn.

[raintalk]

Apple should have switched to Linux years ago. It would have helped to grow the Linux market and got consumers and manufacturers away from Windows. Apple could have sold their UI in the market as an application and better protect it. Unlike Windows, the UI in Unix sits on top of the OS - it's not part of the OS.

Thumbs up and good luck to Psystar for taking on this battle.

[Uncoveror]

Breaking Apple's monopoly on machines that can run OSX might cut into Apple's profit margin, but is would be huge for consumers. Breaking monopolies is always good. We need an alternative to that steaming pile of crap that is Windows Vista without overpaying for hardware that we can't even configure to our liking, and Linux ain't it.

[oniamien]

It occurs to me that one could argue that Apple's efforts to tie their opperating system to a specific brand (their own) of hardware is comparable to the type of anti-trust issues that Microsoft has dealt with in the U.S. and Europe. After all, if Microsoft can get in trouble for pushing out other web browsers, or for including free software (as with the issues Microsoft had in Europe with Windows Media Player) how can Apple not be at risk for forcing consumers to pay them a (theoretically) inflated price for hardware? Even if it is worth the cost it still forces you to pay Apple. Also, before you say that Apple is not a monopoly, consider the points that are often advance by Apple supporters: that it is the software of choice for people in the photographic, film, and several related industries. At least in my experience professionals in this field usually choose Apple, presumably because it is better for thier purposes. Certainly, it is more popular than Windows in that area. I think another issue is that OSX is not like proprietary software on proprietary devices because apple sells it separately from the computers (although they expect you to use their machines.) Palm, for instance, does not let just anyone buy their software (as far as I know) and usually such devices are not really upgradeable anyway. Furthermore, Apple's software practices are not particularly consumer friendly because making an Apple user pay to make the relativly minor upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 or 10.3 to 10.4 etc. seems like making a Windows user pay for service packs.

I don't really know how this will turn out, though that will probably have a lot to do with the judge unless it comes out that Apple did something anti-consumer and it hurts their argument. What would be really interesting is if the whole idea of licences were questioned. I am a little worried on that fron because I have seen a company that has a license attached to how you use a physical device (it distinguishes between profesional and consumer for the same physical item!) I'm rooting for Psystar, but we'll see what happens.

[Chiatzu]

gyranthir, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Your Apple hated is showing.

Zaaz, you don't own Windows, you purchased a license to use it. Sort of like renting it for a long time. You can't legally and rightfully modify the software to suit your needs, as if you owned it. Psystar modified OS X to get it to run on their PC computers, as if they owned it. That alone is a big no no.

How is Psystar "competition" when it is USING THE APPLE NAME AND REPUTATION to basically steal their name brand recognition - recognition Apple has created through years of product research, development, manufacturing, and advertisement money. And now it's competition because Psystar is pilfering it as their own to slap on some no-name probably cheaply made PC? How is that considered "competition?" To think that is absolute lunacy.

Great article, btw. You dissected the pros and cons well ,and I think you summed it up well. Stop the rabid dogs now when there are few, before there are many and will tear you apart.

[extirpator]

Actually you do own windows under terms of a license. The purpose of these licenses are to help define the intellectual properties to prevent individuals and companies to stop them from producing plagiarized content and distributing it in ways that violate the intellectual property rights and copyrights of the software creators. The question at hand is did Psystar violate Apples intellectual property right with what they did? The answer is probably not, as a software company can refuse to honor a warranty if software is not installed on an intended device, but it is not with in the legal rights of a software company to force software to be run on specific hardware if it can be proven that it can run on other hardware with out physically modifying the the base software to get it to work. As EFI is not part of the operating system, but a replacement to a bios, unless apple owned EFI (which they don't), the only thing apple is doing is trying to force people to used branded hardware. This is not enforceable as it is a violation of the anti-competitive laws. This is very similar to when IBM lost the the BIOS case with Compact resulting in the current PC clone market.

[Dango517]

More then likely Apple will win. This will be sad news for consumers because Microsoft will win too and continue there monopoly unchallenged. Left alone, to go there own way Psystar might assist Apple in gaining market share from M$.