MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Sure, let Apple charge $1000 per computer to license the MAC OS.

Aug 29, 08 - 02:39 pm Comment from: cptnkirk

Gee. this is like Yves St. Laurent being sued because they illegally restrict the Yves St.Laurent market by actively prosecuting counterfeiters. OL!

Aug 29, 08 - 02:39 pm Comment from: feral

this is ludicrous.
what this ultimately means is that all software should run on any hardware etc.
what competition is that?
what innovation does that bring?
lets all become the lowest common denominator...
cos that's always best.
fkn not.

hope pisstar gets obliterated beyond any recognition.

Aug 29, 08 - 02:40 pm Comment from: Cascadians

Just another bold attempt to steal the fruits of Apple's labors.

"But mommy, big bad Billy Goat did it, why can't I? They have good toys and I want them and I want to make money off them, they're mine mine mine!"

Aug 29, 08 - 02:40 pm Comment from: critic

"lets all become the lowest common denominator..."

That is the definition of the "competitive" windows market.

Why is PeeStar arguing such a weak argument? Have they paid off the court, or are they really that stupid?

The whole thing sounds ludicrous. I wonder if Apple is going to throw the knockout punch up front by going for a Summary Judgment.

INCREDIBLE.

Anti-Trust suits are expensive. Psystar doesn't have the funds to pay rent, let alone the costs of a legal action like this. Someone else is paying the legal costs.

Aug 29, 08 - 02:47 pm Comment from: feral

@ gregg

this whole thing is so sus.
from the very beginning it was shady.
ballmy puppets i say...

"illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,"

... Mac isn't a market... the market is "computers" in which the mac is only 8% of.

thats like saying the "Celica market" that toyota has...

Aug 29, 08 - 02:49 pm Comment from: feral

maybe it is why apple took so long to step up...
fastidious R&D;.

What I've been wondering are how did Psystar get its hands on enough legal copies of of OS X to install one per computer it builds? Shouldn't that only be available to officially licensed OEMs like in China or Taiwan where they manufacture the official Macs? If a guy walks into an Apple store and buys 100 DVDs wouldn't that draw a red flag? So how is Psystar going to sustain its business over the course of the court case for a year if it continues to ship 1 legit copy of OS X DVD with each computer?

@feral

windows has the least to gain (in fact, i think it would murder them), if OSX was licensed out. i think this is more mikey dell, that is pushing the buttons.

@ Denny

that is one of the options. the other one is this

http://cultofmac.com/the-solution-to-apples-little-psyster-problem/2629

@freebeer

from apple itself, yes it would cause suspicions. but there are apple resellers. still, its all very shady.

Aug 29, 08 - 03:06 pm Comment from: Anonymous©

Let's see, they wrote, what?!? "claiming that Steve Jobs' company employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market"

Yes, Steve Jobs' company "employs technology", is that illegal? "dubious licensing schemes"? What is "dubious" about no licensing allowed for non-Apple hardware? And, how does marketing, high-pitched or not, "illegally destroy competition"?

These lawyers must not have graduated from law school yet.

Aug 29, 08 - 03:08 pm Comment from: joey

I agree, it's Mickey Dell the asshat gettin' more than a bit nervous about giving the shareholders their money back.

Aug 29, 08 - 03:15 pm Comment from: HMCIV

MacDailyNews Take: We'll have some of whatever Psystar and their lawyers are smokin'. It is the last Friday afternoon in August, after all.


Didn't Kid Rock make a song about that? I tried to find it on iTunes but didn't have any luck. I wonder why.

Aug 29, 08 - 03:18 pm Comment from: HMCIV

BTW, let me get this straight. Windows gets sued because they put their OS on every computer. Apple gets sued because they don't put their OS on every computer.

I think my head exploded. That or I crapped my pants.

I don't know what the folks at Psystar are smoking, but I'll take some!

Aug 29, 08 - 03:48 pm Comment from: Mr. Reeee

"Apple ... employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market"

My eyes started rolling so fast and hard, I got a headache...

Swap Microsoft and Windows market for Apple and Mac market and it'll sound about right.

PissStar has Apple confused with Microsoft.

Aug 29, 08 - 03:48 pm Comment from: AAPLguy

Apple certainly does not destroy competition - Pystar has every freedom to create it's own operating system.

Aug 29, 08 - 04:01 pm Comment from: alansky

I'm going to sue Apple for using an apple in their logo. I've been to many Apple stores and I don't see apples for sale anywhere. That's false advertising!

Aug 29, 08 - 04:03 pm Comment from: alansky

PissStar has Apple confused with Microsoft. —Mr. Reeee

I like "Psychostar" myself.

Aug 29, 08 - 04:22 pm Comment from: Macromancer

"... to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,""

Um, hey nimrods, Apple *IS* the Mac market.

Destroys competition in the Mac market?! Apple created the Mac. The Mac is Apple. It's not like Kellogg's monopolizing the cereal market, preventing other companies from entering it. It's like someone suing Porsche for destroying competition in the Porsche market. Here's hoping Apple's lawyers bury them.

"I'm going to sue Apple for using an apple in their logo."

It's been done.

Aug 29, 08 - 04:48 pm Comment from: ericdano

Then the same can be said of the XBox and PS3 markets. This will be thrown out of court rather quickly.

Aug 29, 08 - 04:54 pm Comment from: Demon

The case and claims by Psystar are without merit as Apple's role and place in the PC Market has been fully defined and accepted by the courts from pervious litigation (Microsoft's Anti-trust cases). Apple's systems are very competitively priced in the PC market, can you build yourself a cheaper system with off the shelf parts, of course. Is that what Psystar is doing with there Open Computer without a doubt.
Quality, customer support, customs design, and manufacturing cost real money as well as part of the cost of a Macintosh system is the MacOS and it's R&D;cost, a full retail license for Vista Ultimate is about $300.00. Psystar is buying what amounts to upgrade License of Mac OS X for $129.00 and selling them as a full license. Psystar is also violating the Hackintosh EMF License terms that they use to run the MacOS on the generic PC Hardware.
Psystar choose to violate not just Apple's License but, the Freeware Hackintosh EMF License to make and sell their Cheap Mac clones. They did it without principle or due diligence. Apple as called them to the carpet and the options were flee or fight.
They picked fight and got a law firm that has no real desire to go into court and argue the case. The law firm for Psystar is going to attempt to negotiate an exit for the Brothers that will leave their wallets mostly intact so, they can move on to their next get rich quick scheme, and the law firm can get their pay day too.
Apple Legal team are sharks in the kiddy pool with this case, I'd expect Psystar will be eaten alive. The Brothers will need deep pockets, a rich sugar daddy, a law firm working on contingence or a miracle cash machine to pay for the litigation, If their is no settlement before the court date it will be a long and very, very expensive lesson for the Brothers. If there is a settlement don't expect to see Psystar selling anything that might even be used to run the Mac OS on it.
In the opinion of two experts I've talked with Psystar's case and arguments have no merit and borders on frivolous.
That being said, everyone hoping that Psystar will win somehow should really be asking yourself if Psystar wins will it really be good for the PC Industry the answer is of course is no, Apple will simply pull the plug on Mac OS for their PC's and start shipping the systems with Microsoft Windows, because Apple simply can not compete with Microsoft in the OEM OS space, it does not have the resources or the cash.
Apple would eventually migrate it's customer base from the Macintosh to a new platform most likely running OS XI, and PA Semi designed processors.

Somebody sue Psystar for cornering the market on idiocy.

Aug 29, 08 - 05:34 pm Comment from: Big Al

Screw Psystar, I want what Demon is smoking.

In order for Microsoft to destroy Apple in an open Mac market, Microsoft would first have to make a competitive OS.

Like that's going to happen in the next 7 years.

What their smoking is probably 10 to 15 percent THC.

And I have my checkbook. How much pretty please

Mr. McMullen's scenario would not work in the long term because of the inevitable hardware legacy issues that would result.

Can you imagine trying to keep a start-of-the-art OS start-of-the-art and still keep on functional on five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten year old hardware?

I can only assume Mr. McMullen didn't think of this at the time he wrote it because of his personal situation at the time.

"These lawyers must not have graduated from law school yet."

You said it brother. These folks are fools!!!!!

TO MDN: please find out how to get a little of what Psystar is smoking for your MDN Readers.

Much appreciated.

Apple avoids "monopoly status" by manufacturing computers. This case could have merit if Apple didn't exclusively produce their own hardware (viz., their PC line). Because they make Macs, their also make operating systems that allow their operation. And because of that, there is no anticompetitive practice going on. To claim such, would be to claim that Nokia has to create a version of their OS to run on Sony phones. Or that Samsung has to create a version of their OS to run on Toshiba LCD televisions...

Just because Mac OS X can be hacked to run on other platforms (PCs), doesn't mean it was designed for such purposes. Psystar's argument only works if you assume such... and that is not the case.

Aug 29, 08 - 06:38 pm Comment from: smyhre

I vote for a law that makes all people (lawyers, juries, and judges) who award money to dumb illogical people pay the amount they award to these dumb people out of their own pocket. That should at least make people think twice about the case.

What's interesting to me is the question about what exactly makes a Mac a Mac. Psystar (interesting play on words for a name, no?) seems to be arguing that hardware is not relevant. It seems to be largely a psychological thing. They wish to "liberate" the OS as in the M$ model yet fail to realize that this isn't really the whole story. What makes a Mac a Mac is the whole thingamajigger, as so many of us have been saying for so long. It's Apple's personality and all the little details made just for us. It's the difference between a Hallmark card stamped out for any old mom or dad versus the one your kid makes for you when art class decided to focus on "the ones you care about most." Try as they might, no one will make a Mac. To make something so good, they'd have to care about what they made more than what profit it may bring them.

Psystar's shot at becoming a star will fade quickly. They have no real argument, despite their obvious grand sense of who they think they are. That's the point, though. They're manipulating. They're getting attention. They've gotten something out of this already because they can't be that naive. Psychological stars. Yeah, whatever.

But hey, maybe it's getting somebody laid. Chances are there's a scraggly Zune user who thinks someone's a hunk for fighting against mean ol' Apple. I'd say "more power to 'em," but if this is the best they can do, even scraggly Zune users walk away at some point.

MDW "light," as in "the end of the tunnel."

Aug 29, 08 - 08:34 pm Comment from: MacFhearghaile

Demon should be an analyst since he gets his facts from the same place the analyst do, out of his butt.

the judge should jail these buffoons for contempt, and frivolous lawsuits

I'm cheering for Psystar. Macs to the masses. MDN was right, Windows isn't good enough. What is there to fear of the outcome if Psystar wins?

Hypothetical: Let's say for a moment they do win and it becomes a precedent for OS X to be sold on any computer. Soon, the HPs, Dells, and Lenovos are suddenly shipping with OS X and not Windows. People start using OS X and love it. Harmony ensues. Within years OS X has nearly phased out Windows in businesses and academia everywhere. Diseases are eradicated, the quality of human society improves globally. Apple continues to make its own computers and continues to improve OS X. A percentage of people still pay for Apple hardware because it's branded better, but at the same time Apple works with governments and organizations to improve technology everywhere. Years later mankind has colonized Mars and continues expanded interstellar travel with OS X powered spacecraft.

All this, because Psystar was "thinking differently". Here's to the crazy ones, because those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world... COULD be the ones that do.

I fail to see how the Mac zealot mind works. On one hand it desires that sort of communist utopia in worshipping the Mac, but on the other hand it prides itself as part of a tiny guild of separatists, confederates if you will. Attempting to resist the very change it wishes to create.

Sometimes I think you zealots think Apple would turn into Microsoft if that happened, if it's not happening already.

Do you people pride yourselves in Apple or in using the decent OS that is Mac OS X and empowering the masses to do the same?

Aug 29, 08 - 11:15 pm Comment from: GizmoDan

"marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market"

What Mac market? Apple invented the Mac market. They have no monopoly in the COMPUTER market. That's like saying that Dell has a monopoly on computers that are called Dell.

What a bunch of loosers. I hope they loose their shorts.

I will construct and sell a "Ferrarim" super car and charge Ferrari if they try to forbid me to do that! ;(

Psystar to win. After all, all they are doing is seeking the right to build and sell modern universal PC hardware... exactly as Apple build and sell, and in competition with Apple and the modern universal PC hardware line it calls 'Macintosh'.

Judge to throw Apple's case out of court in a day.

@ws

You have to remember it is no longer Apple Computer Company, it is Apple Inc. When the "mac" was a IBM ppc exclusive domain it was Apple Computer. Now we have Intel based chipsets which opens up a whole new architecture in the build. Same as all the other computers that are out there. Just another pc in the eyes of technology. One of quality but never the less another personel computer like the rest of the masses. I often wondered why Microsoft stopped supplying the discs that used to be included in the purchase of those windows machines. Just maybe it could be that once you sell them, they are no longer yours. Maybe there is exclusion? Look at the deal with AT&T;and tell me that is the only phone service available in the United States. It is just a phone no matter how many bells and whistles you attach for crying out loud.

I wonder if Steve has learned from his capital mistake in 1984. Imagine what would happen with Mac OS if you get the clones back on stage. It would mean the end of windows and a predominance for the next 20 years! Let the competition start.

"Apple 'has engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior"
Yea right, that's why Psystar illegally re-selling OSX, and OSX Server, illegally reverse engineering the code to produce updates, NOT asking Apple for permission to use any of its intellectual property before going into business for itself and claiming it is an Apple compatible system. Just the word Apple in the name is a copyright violation. There's a big difference with anticompetitive and down right STEALING! I don't see anyone making Playstation 3 clones, Xbox clones, or Wii clones? Is that because Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are being Anticompetitive? NOT!!
Apple like these other companies has the right to license or NOT license there products to others. They R&D;, design, build, market, ship, and support all of there products themselves. They outsource some factories to build there products but all under Apples supervision and guidance. Perfectly Legal and not anticompetitive. Your case is stupid and will fail miserably.

"Sure, let Apple charge $1000 per computer to license the MAC OS."

They've already made their decision on that. They license Mac OS in a box. All that's being argued is whether that license can be allowed to force the bundling of a Mac sale.

"Gee. this is like Yves St. Laurent being sued because they illegally restrict the Yves St.Laurent market by actively prosecuting counterfeiters. OL!"

No, it' like Yves Saint Laurent saying if you buy an Yves Saint Laurent perfume you're only allowed to wear it with Yves Saint Laurent clothing, even though there is nothing about the former that requires you use the latter.

"Quality, customer support, customs design, and manufacturing cost real money as well as part of the cost of a Macintosh system is the MacOS and it's R&D;cost"

Fine, increase the price of a standalone Mac OS X license to reflect that. Don't subsidize Mac OS X standalone licenses sales from Apple hardware revenues. That actually IS illegal so not an argument Apple is likely to make.

"Psystar is buying what amounts to upgrade License of Mac OS X for $129.00 and selling them as a full license. "

If it "Amounts to that", Apple should have put those words somewhere in the marketing materials, on the box or in the license agreement, but they didn't. So it's a full version.

"To claim such, would be to claim that Nokia has to create a version of their OS to run on Sony phones. "

Different again, since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design of. No-one's asking Apple to create a special anything, or even support the OS on the clone hardware. All they're saying is it's illegal for Apple, who produces industry standard hardware designed to an industry standard spec using an different but again completely open BIOS spec to stop other people doing the same and running legally purchased Mac OS X boxed product purchased at retail on it.

"The law firm for Psystar is going to attempt to negotiate an exit for the Brothers that will leave their wallets mostly intact"

You're right, but the law firm will be negotiating a solution which is roughly equal to the percentage chance of Apple losing (even if small) times the cost of Apple losing (very large if there is legal precedent allowing mac clones, as Apple's overpriced hardware business will be decimated) leaving the Psytar brothers rich and Apple's Mac business intact.

@ Denny
Apple should charge $1000 to lisence OS to each computer, because if you think about it, most desktop PC's are about $700-$900 and even with the os you are still getting a cheaper computer than the mac pro, it could be the mid range desktop we have been waiting for!

"... since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design of."

Wrong, and this is where your argument fails.

The Mac uses "industry standard" components in it's (Apple's) design of the Mac. The uses of "industry standard" components" is not the same as some sort of basic "fundamental design" of a computer. Apple and every other major PC maker has patents covering their computer engineering.

To use a car analogy, there is a basic "fundamental design" to the automobile, but that doesn't mean anyone else is allowed to build and sell a Ford (Dodge, Altima, Chevy or what ever).

Aug 30, 08 - 11:09 am Comment from: MacIrish

"from each according to their ability (Apple) to each according to their need (Psystar)" -
a definition of the essence of communism, quoted from a book well worth reading, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

I wish all these Apple fanbois would get real. Technology has brought us the UPC (Universal Personal Computer). Apple - or no one else - is gonna be allowed to hold back technology just so they can protect its monopoly position. Apple is building, advertising and selling UPCs and is readily using the names of Windows, Linux and OS X as a major selling point of the UPC. All Psystar is doing is asking for the same rights as Apple has to make and sell UPCs.

If you want to use automobile analogies in this modern age - think of every car being perfectly able to run in three gears... but Ford attempt to stop ALL cars other than its own using the third gear... because it engineered the technology for the third gear - and refuse to even licence it... so that Ford cars have an unfair advantage.

Psystar to win... FREE the OS!

@MacIrish: Nice pull!

Jim R: Cheer for whomever you wish. But your rationale for a Psystar win is woefully inadequate. Psystar is only "thinking differently" if you buy into the rationale that thieves think differently. Hell, Jeffrey Dalmer thought differently too. How about acting appropriately. Their antitrust argument is nothing but a deflection of the real issues and if you don't know that then you should be doing your homework instead of posting on forums.

And as far as how the Mac zealot mind works... Well, let's put it this way. While I don't speak for anyone here I, personally, would rather see Apple stay at their current market share than to have filet mignon turned into McDonald's dog food burgers just so I can get them on every street corner. The Mac ceases to be the Mac if it becomes homogenized, watered down or ubiquitous. 'Nuff said.

@Antitrust: again... you (and every MS fanboy like you) just don't have a clue. Apple sells HARDWARE. Any software they sell is created simply to sell more HARDWARE. Not the other way around. The software enables the hardware and makes it much more useful and user friendly. You are not forced to by any software that is made by Apple or made for an Apple operating system (with the sole exception of the Mac OS that is included in the price when you buy a Mac). You are free to buy any Apple Macintosh computer and install the operating system of your choice on it and any other software that you wish. If you buy a Porsche and then use it daily for hauling horse manure (like that which emanates continuously from the minds and mouths of MS/PC apologists) in the trunk and back seat that is your choice. But don't complain that Porsche doesn't manufacture and sell a cheaper version of your crap wagon.

"...since the Mac is industry standard hardware which Apple does not own the fundamental design..." The Mac is NOT industry standard hardware. There are many ways to discern this fact but we'll stick with the most egregious of your Dvorak-speak. The term industry standard hardware means nothing in this instance. If you are referring to industry standards such as USB, Firewire, SATA, and other component standards then yes, Macs do use mostly non-proprietary designs. What makes their designs non-standard is that they don't use the same components purchased from the same suppliers and manufactured to the same tolerances and specifications as the cheapie PC box assemblers in the PC/Windows industry. Most of their components are designed and manufactured with much higher tolerances than the crap you find in most sub-$1K PCs.

The evidence is clear on this. Macs work better with less hassle and setup (and usually many years longer) even when using completely proprietary solutions such as Avid and ProTools which require very specific hardware on which to run. Just because a hard drive says it is XX {enter industry standard bus component here} doesn't mean it will work or work well. Most standards have ranges of performance i.e. compression, speed, size, etc. under which they are allowed to operated and still be considered "standard compliant".

Your overly simplistic view of the computer industry, engineering, and manufacturing (not to mention the law and ethical business practices) are what Microsoft has come to rely upon and expect from their user base. Since most of their user base don't know anything about these things and know nothing about alternatives to Windows and the business model it uses (not the same one Apple uses - got it finally?) they can get away with the "Macs are overpriced" spin that they constantly spew.

Bottom line. You want the Mac OS then get a Mac. If you want Windows, Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, or any other OS that runs on the x86 (or x86-64) chipset then you can buy any machine you want. And there is nothing wrong with either option. It's just that people like you are either:
1. too blind to realize there's a difference,
2. too hard headed to understand the facts,
3. too caught up in (as in biased) the MS Windows/box assemblers business model to realize that there are different ways of doing business (including the business of computers)
4. just too cheap and/or poor to buy a higher quality computer with the operating system they truly desire.
5. or all of the above.

While I am busy getting work done because I spent a little extra money up front to buy a tool that doesn't break every time I turn it on you are busy rationalizing your Yugo purchase when you needed a Mack truck in which to haul around your manure and hoping, just praying that someday somewhere someone will make it possible for you to own the object of your affection. A Mac. Good luck with that. As William Congreve once wrote (and people have been misquoting ever since), "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."