Comments on: Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled

Apple seeks not only damages and any profits Psystar has earned, but also a recall of all Open Computers sold, according to a copy of the complaint seen by CNET News.

[eichelmanii]

The laws should be based on our common sense of justice and fair treatment. Monopolies are unjust. Hard linking products is inherently monopolistic (which I believe Europe has laws against). For example, I might make a printer that uses consumables, but it the printer requires only consumables from a certain manufacturer, either by license agreement or by mechanical connivance, this is monopolistic. If I sell PC hardware, like a CD Writer, but require by law or connivance that it only will work with Nero software, this is monopolistic. If I sell various CDs or DVDs, but require by law o connivance that only certain software may access the disk, (read DRM), then this is monopolistic. This is not a point about what the law is, but what we sense justice is or should be in these cases.

I can replace parts of my car with nonOEM parts. I take the risk. But will car manufacturers be allowed to have computers to sense what type of tires are used, and to disable operation if a nonOEM tire is used? or if nonOEM oil or driving fluid is used? or a nonOEM radio or GPS is installed? Will we sign license agreements for our cars agreeing never to receive service outside of an authorized dealer? Surely the performance and quality of the car is at risk in any of these changes, but the alternative is high-priced, monopolistic practices.

We must stop hard linking independent products.

[b_baggins]

Don't confuse a brand with a monopoly. Saying Apple has a monopoly on OS X is like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. It's stupid.

[tekwiz4u]

Look.....if I pay $3000 for a computer, AND ITS MINE, aren't I entitled to what I want with it? I certainly think so, especially if I have a receipt. What does the company care? They already have their money.

[Perry_Clease]

Yes, but you don't purchase OSX or Windows

[Penguinisto]

@Perry: Technically, that's true - you purchase a license for it. OTOH, If a consumer goes to the store, buys a copy of the OS install media, then does what they wish? It becomes a grey area that I doubt any OS vendor would want to find themselves in the middle of.

[humanssssss]

@Perry_Clease and Penguinisto

are two bunch of morons who have no clue the historical value of copyright. It wasn't until the corporations come in to ransack the whole notice of intellectual property right that last forever. Copyright used to expire, now it doesn't seem to. And copyright used to have fair use, now with the DMCA it doesn't seem to. Copyright used to allow derivative works in greater proportion, now it doesn't.

I'm 62 and I've been through these issues far more than these young'n who think they know it all.

[tekwiz4u]

I disagree with both Perry and Penguistino. A company can't tell me how I can control MY rules in my own home. Same goes as I cant tell them HOW to run their business. Why would a company care how I install their software within the confines on my own home? Do they have the right? If Open Computer sold their machines by itself WITHOUT the software, then I would think Apple has no case. It would be up to consumers to install the software, and I think Apple would have a harder case to press.

[applusr]

You are actually only buying the right to use the OS, that goes with any software.

[Penguinisto]

Folks, read the EULA. It is a contract. You had to agree to it before you could use your computer. It states very plainly that you have two options: abide by the EULA, or return the thing to the store for a full refund. That's it. Again, read it sometime... if you own a Windows or Mac computer, you only own a purchased right to use it (with Linux, the OS and its attendant programs are yours to do with as you please -- even redistribute-- so long as you abide by the GNU GPL, which makes sure you share the source code too).

I know this because I make a very healthy living working with and around computers professionally.

--

Now on a practical note, you can do pretty much anything you want (and violate it), as long as your modifications aren't distributed/sold - in Apple's case, they apparently draw the line at commercial distribution.

The funny thing is, Apple has been pretty awesome about letting folks put OSX on non-Apple machines on a hobbyist level (I have a Hackintosh here at home). But... I figured they would never let it slide with some commercial operation doing it, vis-a-vis Psystar.

[t8]

I actually considered buying a MAC because I hate Microsoft as a company. But now I can see that they are just as bad. Will wait for Android and see how that goes on a laptop.

[Perry_Clease]

It is Mac, not every PC has a MAC

[t8]

If they recall them, then don't forget the one at CNET as the photo suggests.
:)

[gmon750]

Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is a software company.
Apple's hardware comes preloaded with their own operating system that can only be used on their own hardware. Microsoft could care less what hardware is running their software. Taking out the emotional component, what part of this entire fiasco do the apple-bashers not understand? Apple is completely in their right to decide how their software is used. Psystar is just diluting the Apple brand and if the regular joe-user has problems with their Apple-clone, it will be Apple that will get the black-eye because their system is unstable.

[johnqh]

Most people don't understand copyright law, nor trademark law, so it is not surprising that we have so many Apple bashers here.

A lot of people think software should be free. The same group also pirate CD's, DVD's, games, Office, and any kind of software. Their reasoning is, why cannot I pirate Mac OSX?

What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't use DMCA? Mac OSX has copy protection (to check EFI, for example). Regardless of the EULA, copyright, trademark arguments, Psystar's installation circumvents the access control, so it would be an easy case.

I know...a lot of people don't like DMCA (I don't like it either), but that's the law, and a company profit from hacking another company's products, it should be penalized.

[tekwiz4u]

You buy my product, and I tell you to install it only on specific machines. And follow this rule for the rest of your life as long as you own my product. Are you going to listen to me? Are you not going to tempt yourself on trying to install it on other machines? Do you want me to come into your home and set the rules in your home? Would you like that?

That sounds like what is happening here.

[The_Decider]

What part of Pystar bought copies of OSX legally is confusing you?

[Penguinisto]

"A lot of people think software should be free. The same group also pirate CD's, DVD's, games, Office, and any kind of software."

That statement is crap. A lot of folks think software should be free, (as in "speech"), yes - hence Linux. Software CAN be free (as in "beer"), but nobody of sound mind expects it to be.

When you grow up and recognize the difference, get back to us.

/P

[b_baggins]

The_Decider,

what part of "modified it to run on non-Apple hardware" is confusing you?

[SeizeCTRL]

It's painful to see people who appear to have common sense side with Apple here. Dear god, can some of you not think for yourselves without Steve Job's prior approval?

Apple is acting like a bully and you all ***** and complain and cry monopoly and other retarded crap when other companies do similar things. We hear all the time how evil Microsoft is, how evil Intel is blah blah blah. It's the same thing, just because it is Apple doing it, doesn't make it any more right than when others do it.

This makes me wan to spend my entire next paycheck buying as many Psystar boxes as I can.

Riddle me this... what if I went to Newegg.com, ordered all sorts of hardware that was "approved" by Apple and build my own iClone? It shouldn't be that hard since they are running Intel processors now, so really the only thing propritary in all of it is maybe the case and motherboard... everything else should be pretty much off the shelf type stuff. Would I then be in the right if I some how managed to buy a bunch of Mac approved hardware and build my own?

[DrtyDogg]

No because you have to pay the Apple tax on hardware. ie $500 for 4 1GB sticks of Ram.

[Penguinisto]

Microsoft abuses its monopoly position and has been convicted of it. Apple is protecting its interests against one company (and notice that Apple has never chased osxx86.org, which is a hobbyist site dedicated to do what Psystar does, only without the monetary factor).

DirtyDogg: Only an idiot buys RAM from an OEM (ever price what Dell sells RAM for, especially on servers? Apple is doing nothing different there.)

[b_baggins]

Maybe Apple defenders realize the difference between a brand and a monopoly.

[Penguinisto]

Oh, as per your 'riddle' - Apple has left osxx86.org alone all this time... a website dedicated to making OSX run on non-Apple hardware. Given this, I doubt that Apple would really care much either way if you built your own.

[Maccess]

Recall the computers? Duh. The computers are PCs with EFI, hardly an Apple only technology--it was developed by Intel.

They're PCs, nothing proprietary there. It's not as if they have a proprietary Apple ROM chip like Apple's original macs.

The most Apple can do is demand that Psystar owners not install Mac OS X or remove MAC OS X--assuming it is installed, which may not be the case. Many Psystar users could be using Linux, FreeBSD, or any of several dozen different operating systems.

I just find it weird whenever an OS vendor assumes that all hardware that is capable of running their operating system will be used to run their operating system. Such conceit, but Apple is not the only conceited OS vendor.

[i_made_this]

Apple has burned one too many bridges at this point. This suit - no matter the outcome - will bring down serious wrath on them and their corrupt business methods - but if, and only if, the case goes to court. This may well be the legal trump card Psystar's holding onto tightly - they intend to "expose Apple" and a case against the likes of poor little Psystar by big bad Apple will be proof postive to a jury that Apple loves to settle out of court in order to pay cheap & quiet for their sins,m and they love to beat up on big kids like Cisco and little kids like Psystar. Whether or not this scebnario is true is not quite the point - the point is that fair minded jurors backed by the ever-righteous media (not C|NET! :P) will decide in favor of Psystar.

In any case, our "forecasts" (92 of them, as I write this!) are unimportant. We'll see Psystar's stratregy unmfold in another four months when they go to war in court to defend themselves. BUT if I were Psystar (and wished to play out the scenario which I've suggested), we'll see sooner than that because NOW would be their time to counter-sue Apple even more severely not showing their strategy yet behind grounds that sweep broadly at first.

This case will make legal history, whichever way you slice it. If Apple wins, we're in for a lousy future. Microsoft will come out the biggest $$$ winners no matter who wins because of consumer perception. And we can't be conned into buying an Apple.

Ironically, what Apple infers by bringing suit, is that their O/S is of relatively little value - an inference Redmond will make major brownie points with - we can be sure! lol

[hutwarmer]

i_made_this

do you really believe the garbage you spew? REALITY CHECK - Apple will be just fine after this. i wouldn't even expect a raised eyebrow, much less 'serious wrath' over this.

But if it gets you that excited, carry on.

[vmlenigma]

You guys have to understand , Unlike windblows, Mac OS X does not run on just any piece of crap....as Windows users know with their Vista Machines....LOL anyway Way to go Apple....there is a reason why I pay extra

[DrtyDogg]

is ignorance one of the reasons?

[gsmiller88]

I would never buy a non-Apple computer to run Mac OS X. Sure it's a great OS, but any OS is only as good as the hardware it runs on.

And out of curiosity, will the CNET reviewer who bought a Open Computer be returning theirs?

[Vegaman_Dan]

I don't think the CNET reviewer with the Psystar computer has a choice. Apple is demanding that the machine be recalled.

Now how they would ever hope to make that happen is beyond me. I'm not sure it is even legal for them to take the machines from the final customers.

[Penguinisto]

I dunno - Leopard runs decently on my Hackintosh, and if I had an SSE3 processor, you'd never know the difference in performance. I'll soon have a refurb Dual-Core Dell that will be running Leopard as well.

[The_Decider]

Why does everyone say it is 'Apple's Hardware'?

It is Intel's processor in that "Apple Hardware"

It is ATI's video card in that "Apple Hardware"

It is not like you can buy "Apple Hardware" off the shelf.

Apple is a software company, not a hardware company.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Except that Apple itself says that you cannot install the OS on anything other than an Apple Computer, which is made of hardware provided by Apple.

Spin this the way you want, but it doesn't hide the fact that Apple is waaaaay out of line on this one, burning too many bridges with existing customers and turning away new ones. This is a bad deal.

[b_baggins]

So, is it Dell hardware or HP hardware? If Ford uses a Mitsubishi engine is it Ford hardware?

It's a stupid argument. It's Apple hardware because Apple contracts with vendors to supply parts at a contract grade (you did know that vendors have different grades of the same part, didn't you?) and assembles the resulting set of parts into a unique system that they brand their own.

Rush is right: Ignorance is the most costly commodity we have in America today.

[The_Decider]

To the comments that imply that EULA's and copyright have nothing to do with each other. A EULA exists for mainly two reasons:

To give you permission to copy the program to memory so you can run the damn thing legally.

To restrict your rights concerning copyright further.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Apple's showing their true colors here for consumers, fans, and OEM's alike. Wow. Way to totally ruin any positive reputation you might have gotten from this. You could have just settled out of court or come to an agreement with Psystar. Now you're proving you really do not care about anyone except Apple. Psystar wasn't costing you any money at all and this is what you do.

Actions speak louder than words. Apple's actions here say a lot about the company. Unfortunatley they aren't *good* things.

[applusr]

I think someone at GM said that say thing about Toyota

[Penguinisto]

Actually, Apple has left osxx86.org alone... which means they don't mind the hobbyists.

That action speaks far louder than anything else.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Penguinisto wrote:

"Actually, Apple has left osxx86.org alone... which means they don't mind the hobbyists.

That action speaks far louder than anything else."

Yes, it says that there's no money in hobbyists, but there is in by suing a company into the ground.

[b_baggins]

Vegaman_Dan,

Apple makes billions of dollars a year. They aren't suing Psystar for the money. They are suing them to protect their business model.

[Penguinisto]

Yep - no money in the hobbyist realm... but that wasn't the point. Microsoft recently went after one of their own MVP's for distributing a free plugin that added functionality to the free version of Visual Studio. The guy wasn't making a profit, and was harming no one, yet there they were making legal threats.

Apple on the other hand has left an entire osxx86 website alone - a site dedicated to building patches and modifications to allow OSX to run on non-Apple hardware.

Therein lies the diff.

[Perry_Clease]

You can read the entire 16 page complaint at http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/images/apple.pdf

[Sumatra-Bosch]

I smell a brother-in-law lawyer. Someone at Psystar either is a brain-damaged lawyer or the CEO listened to his brother-in-law, the brain-damaged lawyer, who convinced him with some of the spurious arguments that are being bandied about here. Apple will end up with liens on some cheezy houses in Fremont. Psystar will end up being a punch line in commercial attorney law-geek jokes and Psystar's principals will end up cleaning toilets with their tongues at the In-n-Out Burger in Chico.

[Penguinisto]

That'd be interesting, since Psystar is based in Florida... ;)

[Vegaman_Dan]

I have a confession.

I plugged in a Microsoft Mouse into my Apple G4. I'm sorry, I know it was wrong, and this non-Apple hardware was connected to your system without permission, but... but I wasn't thinking at the time. Then I did something silly and installed a non-Apple application onto the hard drive. Yes, I know this is a violation of the EULA, but I had hoped that using Firefox would be okay.

I'm sorry, and I fully expect to face your wrath for daring to.... 'think different.'

[Perry_Clease]

Well at least you didn't have to download the drivers, just plugged it in didn't you :)

Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about someone using a non-Apple mouse on a Mac. The Apple Store sells a number of non-Apple mice, you can even get a MicroSoft brand keyboard or mouse. Apple also sells Apple brand mice for use on PCs running windows and lists the PC hardware specs on the webpage. What you can not do, legally, is install OSX on a non-Apple PC

[StargateFan]

What I don't understand is how Apple is going to demand and execute the recall of all already sold Pystar PC's. If I had spent money on a fully functional Pystar PC, as a consumer in a free market how is one company going to demand that I give my purchases property back. Even if Apple offered a refund on the exact same cost, they can not force consumers to give the machine back. Of course I am no lawyer but the only avenue I see Apple having for full control over a recall is pressing charges on terms of stolen property. Even then I don't see any real way to win that case. What Apple ought to do to stimulate the recall is offer Macs at the same specs as the Pystar that the user bought.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Depending upon how the ruling comes out, it is possible that the court can declare that all Psystar systems are considered counterfeit products and in many states owning such products is illegal and punishable by law. This varies in the implementation from state to state, but Apple can insist that every single owner of a Psystar computer return it or be accountable for it. Also, they are under no obligation to refund any money as it would be an illegal product.

Now that all said, it's far easier to make such claims than to ever actually implement them. I seriously doubt Apple could ever expect people to return the machines, and I think there might be some legal backlash to that as well.

[Ramblin Round]

I use both Macs and PCs. and I do so on their individual merits, so Im neither an Apple lover or a Microsoft basher. I don't know much about trademarks and copyrights, but I do believe 'innovation' is what takes the world ahead and needs to be acknowledged.

About the Psystar issue, I don't think we can draw a parallel between individual hacks and an 'institution' trying to sell a hack and making it seem legitimate, and making money off it. Apple may be restrictive in its policies, but the 'choice' of agreeing to those restrictions are very much in the hands of the user. You can choose to Mac or you can just let go. You can circumvent their restrictions and install Mac OS X on a PC at home, and I agree it would be an 'over reaction' by Apple if they were to go after you, on an individual basis. But there cannot be a situation where a company willfully and openly circumvents restrictions that Apple has the rights to impose, make money out of it, and be legitimate.