Comments on: Apple looking for Psystar's backers

Apple amended its lawsuit against Mac clone maker Psystar to allow for the possibility that other individuals or companies are supporting Psystar's activities.

[rapier1]

While on some levels I think its a shame that Apple is going after Psystar I recognize that Apple has to defend their business model. Without the tight vertical integration I don't think Apple will be as valuable to it's shareholders.

[Penguinisto]

Agreed, to a point. The business model doesn't allow much for clones.

OTOH, I don't see why Apple couldn't license the thing to Psystar with a firm and public "we don't warranty these things - at all!" and still do just as well with their own in-house product line.

[medezark]

Of course, just as Apple has been allowed to modify their lawsuit, Psystar may modify their counter-suit, which if properly phrased might actually be allowed by even an informed and intelligent judge.

As for the DMCA, it never should have passed the senate, much less have been allowed into law in it's current form.

[Penguinisto]

The DMCA should have never been signed into law either... but it's going to take either a Supreme Court case or a Congress not in thrall to the RI/MPAA to change things back to a sane approach.

That said, it is law.

[medezark]

@Penquinisto:

Twice I've had to agree with you now. TWICE. It must be the end of the world. Or maybe we've finally come to a subject on which it's a matter of logic rather than opinion and we're right.

Oh, just to try to get things back to normal, I'm still having device driver issues (Wireless ethernet adapter) with Ubuntu. Not Ubuntu's fault, the vendor should release their driver to the open source community or get a decent programmer to work on their linux drivers.

[ralfthedog]

@medezark and anyone else using any device that does not have wireless Ethernet capasity or can't support 802.11n or can't support WPA ...

Apple makes a cool little device called an Airport Express. It is a wireless to wired Internet bridge. I use several of them at my house and they are great. It should be an easy way to get your Ubuntu system working without drivers.

[medezark]

Of course, just as Apple has been allowed to modify their lawsuit, Psystar may modify their counter-suit, which if properly phrased might actually be allowed by even an informed and intelligent judge.

As for the DMCA, it never should have passed the senate, much less have been allowed into law in it's current form. Also, if discovery shows that Psystar only modified Open source code from the BSD or Darwin distributions, what then? (Not certain which open source licenses are involved.)

[Renegade Knight]

It's fair use. Is it forseable that people will buy OS X and want to naturally install it on their own hardware? The thriving Hackintosh culture can attest that yes, it is. The principal of reasonable and forseable use (I'm probably making laywers cringe with my use of words) has roots in English Common law that predate the DMCA by a long shot.

[getwired]

It's not fair use. It's Apple's copyrighted and trademarked IP, and it's specifically sold as an upgrade for Apple hardware. Note that there is no such thing as a FPP version of Mac OS X - it's either sold as a part of a Mac, or as an upgrade DVD. How to use it is not something the consumer gets to decide.

[Penguinisto]

Sorry, but it really isn't fair use.

Fair Use would be a hobbyist or individual making a 'Hackintosh', without any commercial considerations or profit from the act of doing so.

Once you start monetizing the act, it is no longer Fair Use, any more (sadly) than Clean Flicks editing out the sex, violence, and swear-words from Hollywood's products then re-selling the results.

[Renegade Knight]

@getwired

Fair Use may be debated, the point of English Common law though is related. If's "Fair Use" to use your hair dryer to defrost your freezer even if you have to sign a EULA and TOS etc. I'm mixing fair use with another legal concept.

That said, Copyright doesn't preclude Fair use. Never, Ever. To be blunt, the act of creating copyright forced the concept of Fair Use to become a legal concept. If you purchase IP (to enjoy) you have been given by the IP holder Fair Use Rights to enjoy it. True the IP holders do their best to restrict your means and methods of enjoyment to try and squeeze more money out of you which is why they lose fair use legal cases.

Apple Makes an OS. PsyStar put's an OS on it's comptuer. Simple. The judge rulesd but IP isn't about controlling every nuance of your IP. It's about creating a legal right for you to profit from it. I suspect Apple profits from each an every PsyStar comptuer sale. Just as copyright law intended.

[solitare_pax]

A parallel to this problem can be found in the lawsuits launched by the Wright Brothers against Glenn Curtis and others who were infringing on the Wright Brother's patents for the airplane. While they didn't really seem to mind if people were building their own planes, they DID go after the people trying to make money off their invention.

So - the Hackintosh community is safe as long as it's mainly hobbyists - but Psystar is in deep doo-doo for trying to make a dishonest buck off of Apple's properties.

[sharmajunior]

First Apple puts a notice up to tell its users that they may consider installing one of the three programs they have on their website so as to profit from it. Then they take the notice down so as to avoid a backlash from users. Then there was this company "Psystar" who came up with hacked copies of OS X and started to sell them with a different view to consumers. Then Apple goes after them once, then a second time and now a third time with an open ended lawsuit to get money that they thought is there's. Don't forget Microsoft still owns a part of Apple after its bailout. Now Apple is being sued over antitrust laws. When is this dictatorship by steve jobs gonna end? He doesn't let Adobe's Flash or Microsoft's Silverlight run on the iPhone, Apple's own Monitors that are about a year old aren't HDCP enabled and therefore can't play some HD movies that are encrypted from iTunes. I mean is there anything else that is more hilarious than this. Apple's own arrogance and strict control is gonna lead to its own demise.

One more thing. There were about 200,000 iPhones that were unlocked here in the U.S. and were shipped overseas to other countries about 3 years ago when it was exclusive to the U.S. There is still an underground market for Apple products that they wish to control but can't. China is coming up with it's own version of Mac simply because they have the blueprints as most if not all Apple products are built in China.

The more Apple tries to control its products, the more there will be people who hack and sell there stuff illegally. Seems like Apple isn't learning from its past mistakes.

I would suggest that Apple open up its system so that the whole world appreciates it rather than a few selected groups. The more you limit something, the more likely it is going to have a backlash at it.


P.S. : Apple's troubles are just starting.

[Perry_Clease]

Groan. More BS in that post than in a big feedlot

[jypeterson]

@ sharmajunior:
How do you suggest that Apple protects their intellectual property? From an investor's point of view, Apple is doing just what they should do. From a consumer point of view, Apple is doing just what they should do -- create a product that works well.

Apple is allowed to control its products. Which company isn't?

Microsoft profited from their investment in Apple, and that agreement and investment has already matured and revenues realized for Microsoft -- years ago. The only way Microsoft might own part of Apple is if their hedge strategy includes owning investments in rival companies.

Your arguements are cheap and unfounded. Actually, they are just plain dumb as your logic is skewed. Essentially, your arguement sounds like:
1) Microsoft owns shares of Apple
2) Microsoft has been sued under antitrust laws
3) Apple is now being sued under antitrust laws
4) Since MS owns Apple shares, Apple = Microsoft

Are you kidding me?

Anyway, no company is perfect, not even Apple. However, they hold the highest customer satisfaction rate with computers, laptops, customer service (in the PC industry), et cetera. The reason they have this distinguishment is through product quality control. That's why they won't let Silverlight or Flash on the iPhone -- yet. Once you lose control over the product, you lose control over customer satisfaction, and then you can be blamed by consumers even though it's not your fault.

Apple is doing what it needs to do. They should protect their property.

[Penguinisto]

...a big feedlot in Omaha, no less.

[protagonistic]

"
I would suggest that Apple open up its system so that the whole world appreciates it rather than a few selected groups. The more you limit something, the more likely it is going to have a backlash at it. "

And I would suggest you get your facts right before posting.

[Thomas, David]

I am curious, who fed you this line of false information?

Apple has zero, and I mean ZERO obligation to do something they don't want to do, with something they solely own. That's insane for anyone to think otherwise.

Why people lose any capacity for rational thought, (and I recognize that many many more don't have any capacity at all) is beyond me. If you wrote a system. You want to be the only one to sell it, no one, can legally, or morally take it from you. Granted, if you are broke and a large corporation stomped your butt and took it, it still wouldn't be legal. I recognize the fact you would need money to protect yourself legally. But this Psystar case is something in reverse. A tactic to undermine Apples business model. To not even see it means you are blind.

[Renegade Knight]

@sharmajunior:

Is apple Allowed to control their products? Hell no. Once I buy it I want to control it so I can enjoy it as I see fit.
Apple should be able to control their products up to a point. That's the point at which they have "passed it on" to someone else. Then the someone else should control.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The language they have added is pretty common in the legal world based on other lawsuits for tech companies. They want to keep the door open in case there are other parties involved that can be sued on the same lawsuit.

Outside of that, there isn't anything new about the lawsuit. It will come down to the EULA being very closely examined for its legality and I'm not entirely sure Apple really wants to risk that. If they keep at it, eventually Psystar will cry Uncle and give in. If they don't- well, it will be a very interesting court case and one that could go either great for Apple or cause a very big headache for them resulting in a major restructuring of their entire computer business.

A Pandora's box- do you dare to open the lid?

[Penguinisto]

I do - let's put the stupid EULA concept to the test once and for all.

Sure, if (okay, when) EULAs are invalidated as most of them are printed nowadays, it'll be a very good day indeed - even if vendors wind up getting all butt-hurt about it. MSFT, Apple, and you-name-it will go nuts when they find out that they only have copyrights like the rest of the planet, and not some carte blanche to demand that end-users can only do this or that with products that the users essentially buy (the whole "you're only buying a license, not the compiled binary code" argument is crap anyway).

Sometimes it's a good thing to see these things tested.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto:

Do you know how frustrating it is for me to agree with you? Everything in my being screams to contradict you and yet- I feel exactly the same way you do on this issue.

EULA's have become a club that the OEM's like to brandish to keep everyone in line. I would love to see the EULA's picked apart and let the companies realize what they would like people to assume is true is actually quite different. It could mean freedom for a lot of products and end users.

This is also why I don't think Microsoft is behind Psystar. They could stand to lose as much if not more if Apple's EULA's get shot down since Microsoft's own EULA's are among the most draconic and restrictive in the industry. It wouldn't make sense for them to bring the issue to light when they can only stand to lose like the other OEM's.

[DrtyDogg]

I have to agree with you on this I for one would consider donating to Psystar's legal fees if it meant that these harsh EULAs where finally challenged in court.

[Seaspray0]

OMG! We all agree on this one! I think I'm going to vomit.

[Dalkorian]

All this agreement on this subject means one thing and one thing only - the world has come to it's end. We just don't know it yet.

[kgbird]

I think that Apple could crush Psystar if they had a real desktop that didn't cost $3,000.

I have an iMac that is 3 years old and I needs a bigger hard disk, more RAM and a faster CPU. I maxed the ram out a 3GB and I can't address the disk or CPU issues in that form factor without major surgery and it won't be supported no matter what I do. I looked at buying a more expandable Mac and the Mac Pro is $2800 minimum which is way too much for the average consumer.

As a result I built a Hackintosh for $800 with a Quad core CPU and it rocks.

[uhpl508]

Is it ok to throw away your old Mac and transfer the license to another machine and install the upgrade there on new hardware?

[Vegaman_Dan]

uhpl508 wrote:

"Is it ok to throw away your old Mac and transfer the license to another machine and install the upgrade there on new hardware? "

In reality, it's fine. But if you follow Apple's EULA specifically, they tell you that the OS is part of the original hardware purchase and can only be used on that system. Ironically they also tell you in other areas that you can install it on several machines for personal use. It's confusing to everyone.

[DrtyDogg]

As long as the hardware was made by apple.

[myles taylor]

So because they don't build the product you want it's okay for you to steal their intellectual property? I agree they should make a mid-ranged tower, or a machine that's more upgradeable, but that doesn't give Psystar the right to steal all the hard work that Apple put into OS X and profit off of it.

See my comment below.

[DrtyDogg]

@myles Taylor:
but they didn't "steal" it, They purchase retail copies and install it on their own hardware. By doing that they "aren't breaking any laws(questionable)." They are only violating a contractual obligation(EULA), that the software be installed on Apple branded hardware(again questionable legality).

[uhpl508]

What are the actual limitations on a EULA? In all seriousness, if Apple's EULA for OSX said that I had to buy an iPod from them within 365 days of install, would that be legal? Ignore whether you think that is good business, would something like that actually be legal? Other than requiring me to do something illegal, what is the boundary on these things?

[Tom Krazit]

Courts will from time to time strike down specific provisions of EULAs, but the general concept is considered to be on relatively safe ground. That example probably wouldn't fly, but it seems to be a case-by-case thing.

I wrote this earlier in the year on Psystar's legal options, if you're looking for more info.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9933896-37.html?tag=mncol

[gerrrg]

It turns out that the primary backer of Psystar is Steve Jobs.

In retrospect, a brilliant idea to get apple fans that can't afford apples to buy p-apples, but continuing to maintain the OS revenue stream.

[The_happy_switcher]

Probably monkey boy Balmer and his band of merry thieves at Microsnot.

[Seanathome]

Give me a month... I'll become a Psystar backer. :) Too bad I'm close to broke right now... :/

[RompStar_420]

I am backing OS X, want an Apple, get an Apple, and if you don't like it, buy a PC or get Linux or some other flavor of UNIX. Hack a PC and install legal copy of OS X and tell no one and then you'll get away with it, but you can't be stealing openly someones else's Operating System and then claim that it is perfectly ok, NO IT IS NOT OK.

IF you don't like none of these choices, and make your own operating system or go back to DOS, good luck or stop using computers all together, or back to pen and paper.

[Seaspray0]

Psystar was purchasing the OS and reselling it with non-apple hardware. It wasn't stolen.

[myles taylor]

The main reason I think Psystar is in the wrong is this. Apple can sell OS X for so low for two reasons. 1) They make most of their money off of hardware and they don't need to have huge margins on the OS. 2) If anyone runs OS X, they have to have an Apple machine to put it on, which means Apple has got money from them otherwise. This is why they don't make it a nightmare to register the OS and why it's so easy to pirate it. If Apple sold their OS on it's own, it would be more expensive. It's like a subsidized OS....kind of like a cell phone. Even if Psystar should be allowed to do that, they should pay a premium for the OS, not a subsidized price.

[medezark]

Miles, you're absolutely wrong. As OS-X, if purchased at retail is ALWAYS an upgrade version, the price of OS-X is actually higher than the purchase of an upgrade version of Windows. On to p of that you're paying a CONSIDERABLE markup on the originally hardware in order to get on the OS-X train, making the purchase price of OS-X about 5 times the purchase price of non-upgrade version of windows. Do the math.

[myles taylor]

How am I wrong? You just proved my point. You pay for OS X in other ways and if you're only purchasing the OS, you're ripping off the company because if you weren't paying for the hardware, you aren't paying full price (for R&D etc) for the OS.

As far as it being upgrade only, have you compared OS X 10.5 with OS X 10.1? That's like comparing Windows Vista with Windows 95. Yea....

You called me Miles? It's Myles. Also...learn to spell and use proper grammar. It makes your points a lot more readable.

[medezark]

Sorry Myles, I didn't mean to insult you by mis-spelling your name.

Your comment was that "Apple can sell OS X for so low for two reasons" (btw, bad grammer for you as well), implies that OS X is a lower cost operating system as compared to windows. My rebuttal was that, because the price of OS X is directly tied to an increased hardware cost, the EFFECTIVE price of OS X is much higher than windows (from a new user standpoint), and that as the retail cost of an upgrade version of windows is equivalent to the retail cost of an upgrade version of OS X, thus you can not say that apple sells OS X at a low price point.

Now, add to this the fact that while Windows is developed entirely by Microsoft's programmers, or with code that Microsoft has actually licensed or purchased, as opposed to OS X relying on open source code for the core operating system, resulting in lower development costs for OS X, and OS X again cannot be said to "sell for so low".

[Seaspray0]

Tom Krazit, when you got your pystar to play with it, weren't you the one who had to click on the EULA agreement? Apple didn't make pystar agree to the EULA when they purchased it; that's imbedded in the software setup, right? So, will this be pystar's defense? I'd like a story on this.

[Perry_Clease]

"Is apple Allowed to control their products? Hell no. Once I buy it I want to control it so I can enjoy it as I see fit. "

You do NOT buy the OS, you buy a license to use it.

[zato_3]

"Apple looking for Psystar's backers"
Psystar is just more of the usual 24/7/365 black propaganda operation that has been conducted against Apple for years all over the internet, in the courts, and in the media. It's unusual in that it may cost the backers as much as 10 or more million by the time it's cleaned up. What would be worth that much to an Apple competitor? What does it accomplish? It continues and may extend the most popular anti-Apple black-pr theme - "the Apple Walled Garden" and "Apple Nazi Control" , "Fuhrer Steve".
But I don't think that's it. I think it has to do with China. And account control.

[zato_3]

"But I don't think that's it. I think it has to do with China. And account control."

Let me take that back. I can't see anything good coming from this for any Apple competitor except for the black-pr value. Dell could benefit if Apple were forced to license OSX. Microsoft would not benefit. They would take a big hit. But there is little chance of Psystar winning anything so no danger for MS.
However, I think Apple WILL license OSX soon. Possibly at Macworld in Jan. So this lawsuit would be dropped. The parties involved may have known that all along.

[medezark]

Where are you getting the "OSX will be licensed soon?" rumour? If so, would apple's settlement with Psystar merely be back licensing fees for previously sold Psystar's? And if Apple does provide licensed software to third party OEM's, what pricepoint will the license be?

With their current hefty mark-up on systems (as compared to other vendors) Apple would have to price OS-X at around $800 per license.

[aplman--2008]

The Apple we know and love would not be the same if clones happened. The magic of Apple is that they build the hardware and software together. They build the whole widget and should be allowed to do so without the fear of sharks like pystar building their crap. Isn't that why windows was invented?

[scweezil]

Hmmm...seems that defender of freedom "Pystar" has it's own EULA.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746

[gggrrr222111]

Psystar is going to get its but kicked if it continues to make
hackintosh computers.
If I could decide what would happen to that company, I say they should go be sent to the sun so Apple would never have to deal with them again.