Comments on: Lawyers, money needed for Psystar's legal battle

They can probably skip the guns, but Psystar faces an uphill--if not impossible--legal battle if Apple takes action to halt the sales of Open Computers running Mac OS X.

[aMUSICsite]

No legal challenge?

As far as I can tell there has not been a legal challenge from
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.

[Mystigo]

trademarks

At the very least Apple has to defend the use of their
trademarks. I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar runs out of money
defending themselves just on that front.

[sanenazok]

Apple has three years

to file most types of suits. I think Apple will give them some time to make profits and then sue them to recoup both their profits and Apple's losses. Kinda pointless to sue the clone maker if all they've done is sell five boxes (about $1000 loss to Apple). Once the clone makers sell five thousand boxes then you're talking.

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.

[Penguinisto]

A more likely scenario.

I'm thinking that Apple is wanting to make sure that it has all of its legal ducks in a row if it intends to do anything at all.

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).

[getwired]

I don't think Steve's that stupid

Legally, sitting this one out is more dangerous. It sets a precedent
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".

[scottystep]

Why fight it?

Ok, Apple has every right to fight its EULA and has a valid case and would no doubt crush Pystar, BUT.....lets think on the grander scale here,

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.

[bartszyszka]

Make your own OS... This is stealing.

OS X is Apple's. They have a right to limit OS X's distribution to their own hardware or anywhere they please. As much as people might want to install OS X on other pieces of hardware, what Prystar doing isn't fair and it's encroaching on Apple's right to release their own product on their own terms. If Prystar isn't happy with this or consumers aren't happy with this, they can choose not to use OS X (i.e. not give their money to Apple). Bundle your computers with Windows or Linux.

[chuckjuhl]

Now really, what can Stevie do?

Now really, what can Apple do? Apple can?t win this for several very sound reasons.

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).

[mikalg]

Very good story

I would have to agree with Tom on this. Nice work Tom!

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.

[ismetd]

Hol on a minute...

Apple's Mac popularity is all time high, I believe there is gain to be made by Apple on these clones this time around;

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.

[DeVizardofOZ]

haha

me too, affordable hardware with A1 software, or am I wrong?

[getwired]

Those won't be Macs

They'll be PC's running OS X. There is a difference.

[getwired]

Go look at Dell and Apple's websites

and build a PC with exactly the same specs... The Mac is not a price
premium over the PC. That's a VERY common misconception.

[jprior]

It's not about Dell Vs Apple

Do it the other way round - find a $700 Dell with quad core, gigs of RAM, hundreds of Gb of storage, plenty of expansion and then find the closest spec Mac; Premium plus some, especially as Dell's are typically priced higher than a self-build or mom'n'pop box.

[Haggan]

Re: Go look at Dell and Apple's websites

Ok here we go:

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.

[fokkwp]

In the real world, its upgrades

The thing is, suppose you are in a company and, as always, you need to upgrade users. With a Mac, you usually have to go out and buy a full retail package, monitor (welded on) and all. On the other hand, in the highly competitive PC market there are almost always "specials" by Dell and others - mainstream, fully supported but sold as a come-on that month - for several hundred dollars less. And, if your users already have decent monitors, you have no need to buy a new one. So you end up comparing an on-sale PC with no monitor to a retail Mac with a monitor - you know which is going to be a whole lot cheaper while providing the same upgrade value for users. And really, if you have in-house support, the preferable Apple support is not of that much value to you. And and, if you think you may want to perform intermediate upgrades, like replacing hard drives and DVD drives (Blu-ray here I come) two years from now, buying an iMac with difficult interior access can be quite undesirable.

[Leria]

Yes, it is

I have compared Toshiba and Apple computers with the same specs, and the Apple one was nearly 2 times as expensive as the Toshiba one.
The Mac IS a price premium over the PC, even APPLE THEMSELVES say that!

[linadragon]

Ummmm

Lol thats cuz OEMS overcharge. Try to build the same system yourself and price the comonents you'll find they are priced very badly in comparison.

[drarkanex]

PC or Mac?

They'll be PC's running OSX, there is a difference"

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.

[weegg]

eh-hem

-------
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.

[getwired]

Not true, actually

Macs have one clear, delineating feature over PC's. They don't
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.

[jragosta]

Trademarks

While everyone wants to claim that this is all about the EULA,
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.

[sanenazok]

confusion?

even a dilution type claim requires some showing of confusion. I don't think that anyone would confuse the clone maker for Apple.

[jragosta]

Wrong goal

Apple doesn't have a goal of increasing software sales as you claim.
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.

[scottystep]

No doubt thats true...

I'm not pretending to know what Apples goals are, but isint profit margin on software sales much larger then that of hardware? Compare MS and Apple... how much hardware sales are a % of revenue for Microsoft? And for all the turmoil M$ is going through now, they still sit atop in revenue, still have a bigger brand recognition.

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.

[jragosta]

If Psystar wins

If Psystar wins, the result is likely to be that Apple would
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.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Another option

They could simply stop selling the OS at all and require people to buy a new machine each time or to only do OS updates to their base installation. If they never sell the installation media, then they can truly control the distribution of it. At that point, any installation media could be seized as counterfeit and Apple wouldn't have to worry about clones ever.

[Meerkat71]

but once again

It is about the bottom line, if Apple can make a profit why would they not want to do it? This is an excellant opportunity for them to really penetrate the market, heck they can even look at Psystar's sales as free market research.

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.

[Fil0403]

If the courts were to break that connection, they would much probably and very much more easily not allow Apple to sell an OEM version at 10 times the price of the upgrade version due to competitive reasons, don't you think Einstein?

[sanenazok]

First Sale Doctrine

The FSD has very little use for the clone maker. Licenses are NOT sales and the Adobe case is so narrow, an anorexic supermodel wouldn't fit through it. It would be different if the clone maker was merely reselling unopened OS X boxes. It would be an "unauthorized reseller" but it could still sell the boxes. I think the best theory is anti-competition, at least that won't be lost on a motion to dismiss (most likely summary judgment, but the clone maker will just run out of money). Yay courts, goodbye choices.

[Reflautas]

Not so fast on FSD

The story says "the general concept that software customers
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."

[Vegaman_Dan]

Preloaded versus Kit?

Psystar could preconfigure the system on the hard drive to a point where it's ready for the Apple Mac OS X CD to be inserted. Apple could not possibly argue any case to prevent that. Psystar can include a copy of the OS in the original sealed box from Apple. They don't have to charge the full price- they can take a loss on the OS a bit if they want and Apple can't fight that. As long as Psystar pays full retail price from whatever supplier they have and then keep the product sealed when they sell the package to a customer, then they are out of the equation entirely. The EULA would still be binding to the end user and not the distributor.

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.

[kevinskrause]

a Mac is a Mac, is a Mac!!

You can put a BMW engine in a Mercedes but it's still not a Bimmer. What you have is an over-bloated piece of garbage that can't handle the raw power and superior engineering and design the engine demands. How would they make up for it? With shiny chrome wheels and a few additional creature comforts and options.

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.

[sanenazok]

An OS is an OS is an OS and not an engine

Granted an engine is highly tuned to the chassis and all support components. A Linux-based OS, like OS X, ain't nowhere near hardware specific. How do you think they have it running on so many different Mac configurations from Laptops to desktops to a phone. Granted the jump from the laptop to the phone is complicated, it's really not that big of a deal (see HOBBYISTS that put linux on PDA's - I have linux on my Dell Axim). The reason for having a computer is the way the computer operates and the software that runs on it. If the clone maker runs all software (except crippled Apple stuff) then it's going to be good enough.

[Swalters1]

Need to check your hardware a bit closer

You may not have noticed, but starting 4 years ago Mac and PC's became more and more alike. There's a reason that Vista runs on the MacBook, it's because once you pull off the pretty shell, all the electronics are off the self Intel Nvidia based hardware. They're a slightly different revision, but they are a PC. OSx will run on the PC's built by these guys because they're using the exact same hardware.

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.

[sonymaster101]

I smell a fanboy.

there really is no "fine tuning". it is jsut that most mac users dont realize that a mac IS A PC. that is, it is completely x86 hardware based.

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.

[orbital318]

Easy

Apple doesn't need to fight them. Once they prove that only buying a mac from apple is a true mac, the fight will be won. If apple changes how it boots in each iteration of the os and then you can't update the clone, only the tech savviest will want it. I don't think this is a fight apple will try to battle in the courts.

[TheSmellyMoa]

Brains, sanity needed for Psystar's stupid founders

What complete twits. These guys should be in a movie - a high-tech version of Dumb and Dumber.

[magicman73]

argumentum ad hominem much?

Not a single shred of anything even remotely capable of being called a rational argument there, huh Moa? What's so dumb about them? They clearly showing that the desire is for the Leopard OS and not the Mac itself. Every designer I speak to want the OS for it's capabilities. They don't really care about the mechanics.

Perhaps next time you should concentrate more on formulating an actual point instead of just insulting.

[Jens Peermann-2231419515406315]

Is Psystar just a stand-in?

Since Microsoft - via the Vista debacle - has demonstrated that it can no
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.

[Vegaman_Dan]

A silent backer?

I suppose they could be backed by some company or group who wants to push the EULA situation to court. It could be Microsoft going after Apple, but really Microsoft doesn't benefit either way from this as it promotes a competitor's product.

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.

[Bridging the GAP]

What really is going on here

The CEO of Psystar is very smart. Look at all the free publicity
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".

[eastmanweb]

I agree. It's a stunt to get attention

You're right. It's not about selling Mac OS X. It's about receiving free publicity for a small PC business.

[The_happy_switcher]

Who want this box?

As loud as a vacuum cleaner from what I heard in one review.

[Igiveup2]

You mean like my G5?

NT

[Penguinisto]

If I were Apple, I'd merely shrug.

Why not? Just put out a statement that says, in effect: "by installing OSX onto a non-Apple-branded computer, you agree that you are not entitled to support or assistance of any kind from Apple whatsoever".

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

[Vegaman_Dan]

Putting the genie back into the bottle

If Apple allows a company to come in and demonstrate that you can indeed purchase a machine with more horsepower for less money than the nearest Apple product and still get OS X, then that will not show Apple in such a favorable light. They will have to work even harder to justify the perceived much higher prices to consumers and consumers are frankly cheap.

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.

[G. J. Goldwyn]

I put OS X Leopard on my toaster...

I didn't want Psystar to be the only one, so I put OS X on my toaster and photographed it. http://acomputerpro.wordpress.com

[getwired]

Can you imagine...

a beowulf cluster of those things?

[fokkwp]

Demand for OSX on non-Apple computers

"there is significant demand for Apple's operating system on non-Apple hardware."

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 - ??)

[Lee in San Diego]

Do they ship the OSX install disk, and total cost

"Maybe the problem is Psystar has to modify software in the OS
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?