“US-based Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple’s copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday in the US as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anti-competitive business practices,” Erica Ogg reports for CNET News.
“Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple’s tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is ‘an anti-competitive restrain of trade,’ according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell,” Ogg reports.
“Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple’s end user licence void, and is asking for unspecified damages,” Ogg reports.
“Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies,” Ogg reports. “The answer and countersuit will be filed Tuesday afternoon in the US in the US District Court for Northern California.”
“Apple will have 30 days to respond to Pystar’s counter-claim. In the meantime, Pedraza says it will be ‘business as usual’ at company headquarters,” Ogg reports.
More in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: All these years, all we’ve ever heard from these commodity box assemblers, large and small, is that “Windows is good enough; close enough to Mac that it doesn’t matter.” Come to think of it, though, we haven’t heard it much, if at all, in recent years. Anyway, one thing’s for sure, Psystar doesn’t believe the lie. They want the real deal: Mac OS X. So does Michael Dell. Therefore, if it isn’t already, it should soon become crystal clear to everyone that Bill Gates was wrong: it obviously does matter that Apple’s stuff is better.
Bottom line: Psystar is paying Apple a huge compliment.
So, good luck in prolonging the case to all involved, as every headline and article about it will broadcast the message that Mac is worth fighting for because Windows isn’t good enough. (It never was.)
Apple’s advertising agency couldn’t have dreamed up a better marketing campaign.
Because I know absolutely nothing of such things . . .
Can a game configured specifically for, say, the XBox be run on any other device? If not, what would Microsoft do if an XBox clone COULD play/run such titles as originally configured?
Are there XBox titles that can be run ONLY on that device? Same question for Nintendo and Wii, please.
If so, could THEY be sued for similar monopolistic, anti-competitive practices?
Yeah, whatever. Good luck Psystar. Next, Toyota will be sued because Ford doesn’t make the Camry.
Because I know absolutely nothing of such things . . .
“Can a game configured specifically for, say, the XBox be run on any other device? If not, what would Microsoft do if an XBox clone COULD play/run such titles as originally configured?”
“Are there XBox titles that can be run ONLY on that device?” “Same question for Nintendo and Wii, please.”
“If so, could THEY be sued for similar monopolistic, anti-competitive practices?”
Answer: NO. So Peestar is going out of business sooner or later.
Pay Apple now, or pay more later Peestar!
If Apple wants to make a product, it’s THEIR product. They are not twisting anyone’s are to buy it. But if this product becomes very successful and desirable, it means they should LOSE control over their product?
I can’t believe Apple hasn’t moved for a summary judgment against PeeStar.
PeeStar principles will eventually be filing BK.
Good luck!
diss-arse-star
It is to laugh.
Also, good going on the Happy Slip reference!
How can Apple be “anti-competitive” because it chooses to package the OS and hardware together as one product? Apple is not preventing any other company from investing the same capital and effort to do the same thing. Apple cannot be sue because its competitors are too lazy to do anything but rely on Microsoft for their OS (or violate the license on Mac OS X). If anything, Apple is making Windows box makers more “competitive,” to force them to match the standard set by Apple.
If Apple is ever “forced” to license Mac OS X, here’s the solution. Upgrade price for installing a new version of Mac OS X on an existing Mac, $129. Full price to install on non-Apple hardware, $1000. I’m sure Apple can invent some Microsoftian anti-piracy scheme to ensure the non-Apple hardware license for Mac OS X is valid.
psystar doesn’t get that apple is a hardware company hence the software that apple produces is meant to run that hardware.
regardless of Psystar’s intentions, they are morons.
Apple is allowed to make their own hardware and supply it with their own software, and not allow anything else on it at all, and not allow their software to run on anything but their hardware.
If psystar has its way, then i guess ps3 will play xbox games AND run the XBOX OS, and the Power PC version of OSX should run on INTEL processors, and Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control, and blackberry OS should work on my ti86 calculator….
I think we should all band together and have a class action lawsuit against psystar, for humiliation of the human race.
@ Ken
You hit it on the nail
Apple does not sell OS, they sell “Upgrades”
So I see the Ford Camry example up there somewhere…
A better example would be suing Chrysler for not letting GM put Hemi’s under the hood…
Microsoft ran afoul of the system because they took action to prevent other software working with theirs, not because they wouldn’t sell it to someone.
I wonder who is paying for all this (apart from the customers of both parties of course)
“How can Apple be “anti-competitive” because it chooses to package the OS and hardware together as one product?”
How can Microsoft be Anti-Competitive packaging the browser and OS together as one product? yet they are if they do that.
Simply: Apple sells (in boxed form) and OS which can be run on any appropriately configured industry standard PC (of which the Mac is now just one example). Yet they are trying to tie it to the sale to Apple hardware. That’s just wrong and the courts will quickly see that and rule against Apple.
“Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control,”
If your harmony runs unmodified Symbian as the Psystar runs unmodified Mac OS X, sure.
It certainly sounds like a creative defense. LOL!
@Antitrust “How can Microsoft be Anti-Competitive packaging the browser and OS together as one product? yet they are if they do that.”
Because they were giving the browser away for free which forced Netscape out of business by leveraging their monopoly on desktop operating systems.
FAIL.
Also, is not Darwin able to be run on any hardware? http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
Dr.E
This is and probably always was a money grab. Make some noise, scream a little, cry anti trust and hope Apple just pays some go away money and that’s that. Even if they lose they just declare bankruptcy and no money will change hands so much.
Just the fact that there are some lawyers trying this case that they probably know has little to no chance realize that Apple has a history of just paying out to get plaintiffs to STFU.
My neighbor is from France and only speaks French. I’m going to sue his ass for not speaking English. That’s anti-competitive too.
The Psystar argument is consistant with anti-trust regulation. The truth is that anti-trust is counter intuative. If you research past anti-trust cases, you’ll see that most are ridiculous.
Good thing the Law is so SIMPLE and CLEAR on such matters…
And also, it’s a good thing that Judges & Lawyers really understand technology….
On second thought……… YIKES!!!
Apple is toast if they get any bigger.
Hang on? You develop your own OS and hardware, sell it as a package and that’s anti-competitive?
You can buy a Mac and run whatever OS you like on it – that’s anti-competitive?
Microshaft are found guilty of anti-competitive practices and GET LET OFF????
There are too many barrack-room lawyers around here.
=:~)
Because having a tiny slice of a market controlled by a convicted monopolist makes you guilty of violating anti-trust laws. Old Willie was right… – The Eagles
When will people learn that monopolies are not illegal, abusing monopolies is? Ignorance is nearly pervasive, it seems.
The morons here are not Psystar but the lawyers who represent them and come up with this solution. I really don’t think Psystar came up with this angle all on their own. Thank you lawyers.
@ Antitrust
“How can Microsoft be Anti-Competitive packaging the browser and OS together as one product? yet they are if they do that.”
Microsoft did that to leverage their monopoly and deliberately put competitors out of business.
Apple has had their business model of vertical integration probably before the owner of Piss-star was even born.
They have spent billions developing the OS to support their hardware and have developed a reputation of reliability and generally have very satisfied customers.
For a long time very few people wanted Apples computers because their hardware was proprietary, the company was weak and was seen to be going out of business.
Now that Apple is strong again and profitable, this piss-ant from Piss-star wants some of the action.
One of the main reasons for the turnaround has been because of the switch to Intel processors.
This of course means that the only thing that differentiates Apples computers from the rest is the operating system.
Piss-star by selling computers pre-loaded with Mac OS X and selling them dirt cheap are eroding that differentiation and therefore harming Apples business.
They are also harming Apples reputation for reliability and good design. Mac OS X is not tested to run on every piece of junk PC. Piss-star sells butt ugly rubbish made from cheap parts that make more noise than a hurricane. Who gets the blame when these things malfunction, Piss-stars hardware or Apples OS? Where do customers turn to for support?
@ Antitrust “Simply: Apple sells (in boxed form) and OS which can be run on any appropriately configured industry standard PC”
Don’t you mean the OS is made to function adequately through the questionable (if not illegal) practice of hacking a PC to circumvent the measures that Apple put in place to prevent such a thing?
@ Antitrust “Yet they are trying to tie it to the sale to Apple hardware. That’s just wrong and the courts will quickly see that and rule against Apple”
If this is an illegal practise it should have been challenged 30 years ago.
Piss-star in this case are a corporation posing as a single end user when they purchase a boxed copy. They are then breaking the EULA license agreement, then using software written by a 3rd party (Who also didn’t give permission to use their software either) to hack their cheap rubbish to run Mac OS X. They are parasites making a profit from Apples reputation, hard work, billions spent on R & D over 30 years all for the small price of $129 per computer. They have not made any licensing agreements with Apple, like Dell, HP etc have made with Microsoft.
@ Antitrust are you saying that once Piss-star purchase a boxed copy of Mac OS X they are free to do with it what they will and that Apple no longer has any rights to proprietary technology each DVD contains?
If Dell & HP behaved in this way Microsoft would shut them down over night.
Are you saying that all software EULAs aren’t worth the paper they are written on?
I’m sure that Adobe, Microsoft and every other software maker on the planet would have something to say about that.
@ morons (“Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control,”)
@ Antitrust “If your harmony runs unmodified Symbian as the Psystar runs unmodified Mac OS X, sure.”
Logitech would soon get a cease and desist order too from Nokia, because since the dawn of commercial software development it has always been illegal to use others work without their permission.
“There are too many barrack-roombama lawyers around here.”
If you insert “N LA” between the “B” and “I” in BIDEN, you get:
OBAMA BIN LADEN
I think your idea of customer service is the freedom to experience “Vista-capable”, which is exactly what Jobs always worked to avoid. You are not doing the public any service, neither is the Pshysters.
MSFT is anti-competitive because it bundled a FREE software (browser) into its OS with the sole purpose of crushing a rival software from Netscape, whose ONLY real income is selling its browser. The same can be said for many other software demise on Windows, which MSFT can easily undercut by various ways, because you are limited to play in their sandbox if you want to reach a majority of the PC market. Since Windows dominate 90%+ of all PCs, there isn’t another equivalent ‘market place’ for these software makers to compete with MSFT equally.
When you cannot distinguish the difference between a brand (Apple, Mac, MSFT, Windows) and a market and economic segment (personal computers, MP3 players, smartphones), you really have no business using the word ‘monopoly’.
Monopoly is when you supply 90% of all sausage meat in the world because it’s cheap (in every sense of the word), not what kind or brand of sausage. Just because you can squeeze a different specialty sausage meat (M) into your generic casings and packaging and sell it cheaper, it does not mean the specialty sausage maker (A) is obligated to sell the meat to you to repackage and resell wholesale – even if A sells the meat separately to individual customers – or that you are doing it correctly to meet the true expectations of customers who expect the same quality from A. In fact the sale of your entire product line relies on the reputation A has built on M for decades, without A and M and its brand and reputation you have nothing but empty, cheap, tasteless pig intestines.
People have been sucking on the MSFT twinkie fillings for so long they actually think buying any separate fluffy cake and cream and then jamming them together makes the same thing.
and so they’re psyst?
who luvs ya baby. i do that’s who!
Whatever…
Apple ported OS X to the x86 platform to begin with. Then Apple threatened Psystar with legal action, probably not expecting them to fight back, but they did. I don’t believe they realize what kind of Pandora’s Box they may have opened if David does win against Goliath.
I think the message is people do want the Mac OS X experience, but they want it with affordable hardware, and better options of upgrading components (like video cards) inside the box, looking at you Apple. Honestly, doesn’t it all come from the same place these days anyway?
And really, how well does anyone think OS X would work in a world without the explicit oversight of running it only on Apple’s hardware where all the drivers are bundled for it? Mediocre as it may be, Windows has one thing amazing going for it. And that is how it continues to hold up with the sheer volume of driver support for all legacy and new types of different hardware out there.
@JimR
“Mediocre as it may be, Windows has one thing amazing going for it. And that is how it continues to hold up with the sheer volume of driver support for all legacy and new types of different hardware out there.”
Have you read about what experts have been predicting about what you pointed out? It’s simply a matter of time and when that last straw gets put on the camels back, somethings gonna give.
I don’t envy MSFT. If they DO break backwards compatibility, they risk potentially huge OS defections. If they DON’T, they risk the code base collapsing under it’s own sheer size.
Get back to me after the release of Windows 7 and lets see what happened.
Don’t know if it’s with Balmer’s private founds or with M$’s… But these few guys at Psystar must get quite few bucks for fighting on!
Is this thing on?!? You dolts who think a software developer such as MS is behind this don’t understand that they stand to lose as much as Apple if Psystar wins. If you break Apple’s EULA you will most likely break everybody’s. And since Dell makes his money on piggybacking MS it really doesn’t make much sense that he really stands to profit much from this either. Stupid as they all may seem I refuse to believe they are collectively that stupid AND suicidal.
Apple is not ABUSING their monopoly; MS was and is. That is the difference. It’s kind of funny that no one remembers that Apple was not sued (at least successfully) when they yanked their OS licensing from UMax, Motorola, Power Computing and everyone else upon Jobs return to Apple in ’97. Those deep pockets could have afforded to stick it to Apple at that time if they wanted to to keep the gravy train rolling. But they didn’t. Apple was as close as to circling the drain as it ever was when Steve re-entered Cupertino after his exile and would have probably been fairly easy pickings.
Apple, Microsoft and every other software maker out their has something to lose in this case. Copyright laws were designed to protect the PUBLIC by
1. providing the copyright holder with adequate protection from theft and
2. by setting a definite limit on the amount of time which an author has a right to EXCLUSIVELY use and control his work. Works enter the public domain after either a certain period of time has passed or other criteria has been met.
These checks and balances assure the public ownership and its’ rights are not indefinite and thereby encourage future works.
Copyright is in and of itself, by design, a legal, limited monopoly. End of story.
“Because they were giving the browser away for free which forced Netscape out of business “
And how much was Netscape charging for their browser? Netscape started that “price war”.
re: Wordsmith
If you insert cheap booze and marijuana into a 40 year old living with mom and calling himself Wordsmith, you have a pathetic loser with more spare time than actual purpose in life.
“They have spent billions developing the OS to support their hardware and have developed a reputation of reliability and generally have very satisfied customers.”
None of which is a reason why they should be allowed to sell a separate boxed OS yet force the bundled purchase of a Mac to use it. That’s one thing antitrust laws are designed to stop.
“I think your idea of customer service is the freedom to experience “Vista-capable”, which is exactly what Jobs always worked to avoid.”
Stupid rabid fanboy.
What I was pointing out is that companies don’t have full rights do do whatever they want despite the law giving Microsoft as an example. Where in the post did it support what Microsoft was doing? Microsoft there was given as a prime example of what companies can’t do.
“whose ONLY real income is selling its browser.”
I seem to recall Netscape was out to crush Microsoft by establishing the browser as a platform, and giving it away was part of the strategy to get it everywhere. But do you know anyone who ever licensed netscape and paid money for it? Giving it away for free to everyone then hoping some would pay for commercial licenses was the flaw in Netscape’s model. The second problem was falling behind Microsoft in development and not competing well on features with Microsoft’s later browser versions. But Netscape not Microsoft set the expected market price ($0) of a browser to a customer.
“Antitrust are you saying that once Piss-star purchase a boxed copy of Mac OS X they are free to do with it what they will and that Apple no longer has any rights to proprietary technology each DVD contains?”
Yes, there are protections in Antitrust law which, once you have purchased a product stop you forcing the purchase of another product to use it. Where does this primarily come up? For example your car manufacturer cannot require that you purchase their OEM oil filters or other parts to maintain warranty. Agree, disagree if you like, but it’s the law.
“And really, how well does anyone think OS X would work in a world without the explicit oversight of running it only on Apple’s hardware where all the drivers are bundled for it?”
And really, how well do you think the OS would work if the only peripherals you could buy and use with Macs came from Apple. Rabid fanboys seem happy with the idea that vendors should be creating memory, processor upgrades, video cards, scanners, printers, keyboards, webcams and so on it all compatible with Mac OS X, even when Aplle sells similar products. They get quite pissed off when PC compatible products don’t include a Mac driver. But create a whole Mac OS X compatible computer rather then just parts, then the idiots come out and start howling that the moon.
“1. providing the copyright holder with adequate protection from theft”
No-one’s stolen anything. the OS Psystar is selling is brought and paid for. Apple has their money. No-one’s modifying anything, the OS runs unmodified on the hardware. Psystar is not trampling on any rights of the copyright holder.
The only question is whether Apple can force you to run an OS capable of running on generic hardware on Apple hardware. In any other similar case the OS vendor has lost that argument.
This could become the most valuable advertising campaign for Apple ever!
Hoot!
@Antitrust
You’re getting a bit too technical for this site. Apple can get away with it because Apples fans will love them not matter what they do to screw them over.
@Antitrust –
Keep posting mate, you are hilarious …
A typical embrace, extend and extinguish run-of-the-mill Microsoft zombie ie. WANKER.
… But hilarious none the less.
However, your limited grasp of the Microsoft antitrust case beggars belief, maybe Psystar should hire you as their personal “court” jester.
Unusually weak response from MDN on this one. I wonder if that’s because if Psystar win this and OS X is freed into the hubbub of the PC mainstream, MDN’s own ‘Mac Fundamentalist’ niche will be become pretty-much pointless?
I would be difficult to find a place for a website evangelising the Mac, when most of its readers will be happily running OS X on optimised, custom-configured, highly-upgradable and inexpensive PC boxes.
I think, this is what the margins warning refered to. Apple will build cheap computers to outsell these guys in the marketplace. Remember, if you buy a machine like that from Psystar, you can never be sure it is still working if the os is updated.
Insert McCain after President and you get:
Continuing Bad economy, more tax cuts for the rich, more people with no health insurance, higher gas prices, no infrastructure investment, more borrowing from other countries like China, Russia, no investment in fuel alternatives, more unemployment, lower wages, more corporate control of the government, more anti-Bill of Rights and civil rights judges, a repeal of women’s right to chose.
Pretty much you get a continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda. Less freedom for you, more freedom for Big Brother to spy on you and control your life – to protect you.
@Antitrust
I think you are wrong. Netscape was selling it’s browser when Microsoft introduced Explorer. Then Microsoft started bundling Explorer for FREE with Windows and that was something that Netscape couldn’t compete with. Netscape finally started giving away it’s browser but too little too later. Microsoft funding was also something that Netscape couldn’t compete with either, given that the revenue of selling the browser had gone away.
Besides Explorer was another example of “Good Enough” Microsoft spooge being offered to the public.
Let’s not forget. Explorer is REQUIRED in order to download updates from Microsoft (still) – it’s a little hard to delete it when it’s really tied to part of the “operation system”.
Wonder where does Psystar get the money to sue Apple (hint : may be the secret Microsoft funds now available since the linux case is closed )
From the article: “But other legal experts say Psystar faces a tough legal challenge in proving Apple has engaged in antitrust behaviour by loading its software on its own hardware and thereby allegedly harming consumers and competitors.”
I don’t know about consumers (well I do and the lawsuit is a farce) but who are the competitors? What other company makes consumer desktop computers with their own software for example? Not Microsoft and not Dell. The only one that actually comes to mind is IBM and the OSWarp. You don’t think that Apple wiped them out do you?
“Wonder where does Psystar get the money to sue Apple”
Ballmer sacrificed three days of his Hostess Twinkies budget. He wasn’t particularly happy about it either.
The Psystar Antitrust claim against Apple is an attorney grasping at straws, desperately looking and hoping for a bargaining position. Currently Psystar has no position to bargain from, with a counter claim (no matter how out of reality it is,) they setup a position from which to bargain. Without the counter claim Apple would just roll over them. Apple may still just steam roller over them anyway, because an expert has told me the claims may by Psystar that invoke the Clayton and Sherman Acts would only apply to Apple if it’s Hardware and Operating System defined a market and market share all there own without any alternatives, and even then it would be an uphill war for Psystar to win just because of legal presidents and the ways the laws have been enforced over the years, a monopoly is not illegal in and of itself. The judge on Apple’s motion and reply to the charges can toss all of Psystar’s claims as without merit and relevance to the law. Which is what Apple’s Legal team will ask the Judge to do.
@Antitrust:
When you purchase an engine, you can do whatever you want with it. When you purchace a boxed Mac OS X, what you are purchasing is: The box, the printed matter and the media (the phisical DVD). Whith the price you get permisson to USE the software based on some RULES (called the EULA). IF you disagree with these RULES then DO NOT USE the software and get your money back. That’s it.
By the way: You can do whatever you want with the box, the printed matter or the media. You can even eat them, ’cause you OWN them. But you don’t OWN the software.
This isn’t a case of taking a boxed copy that anyone can buy at the store and just run on any old hardware. It requires unauthorized modification to OSX to have it function. Just because the software CAN work on any average PC, doesn’t mean Pystar has the “right” to take it, modify it, and use it in ways that Apple (the creator) doesn’t want it used in. The EULA is very clear about the fact they are licensing a copy and only own the media, not the software…
“The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in
read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the
terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property
rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or irecorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. “
The license is also very clear about not running it on any non-apple labeled hardware, or enabling anyone to do so…
“Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. “
The license is also very clear about not modifying the software…
“F. Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components, or by applicable law, you may not copy,
decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof.”
@ Antitrust
So by your logic, I could build a piece of hardware to run the Wii software, and Nintendo should be forced to allow me to purchase and resell that software for my systems?
Or another example – Coca Cola corporation should be forced to give me their formula so I can make my own soft drink to compete with them?
In reality Pystar and Apple are direct competitors – they both build and sell computers. Apple has created software to enhance the user experience on their computers. Pystar could do the same thing.
One more thing – Pystar is NOT using an unmodified version of OS X. It has to be hacked to run on Pystar hardware.
Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies…
I KNEW PSYSTAR WAS UP TO SOMETHING!!
And I was the one who mentioned here that Apple looked like it was headed for a trap.
NOW WHO THE FSCK IS BEHIND PSYSTAR?
Steve Balmer?
Of course a Mac / OS X hardware tie-in seems to be on the horizon.
Remember, Apple kept using PowerPC processors so Mac OS X could be tied to hardware. Because OS X is the draw to buy Apple branded hardware.
But when Apple switched to Intel processors it opened a can of worms.
I’m sure Apple has seen this problem in advance and has a solution for it.
The only reason Psystar is in existance is because Apple’s hardware selection is very few and very pricy. Just high end.
Yes feature for feature, Apple hardware is competitive on the high end, but on the low end, with less features Apple doesn’t play ball.
It’s really sickening to see my hardware equal to $3000 MacBook Pro being sold in Best Buy as a Windows machine (without OS X) for a mere $600.
What I’m trying to say is Apple wouldn’t be bothered by Psystar or any “Mac clones” if they played the high end AND the low end.
They did it for the iPod and Apple DOES HAVE 30 Billion in the bank.
So what’s the problem Apple?
Give us our $600 Mac tower!!
@Antitrust: You obviously are not the least bit educated on copyright. There are several copyright issues here that you don’t seem to grasp. Just because you buy the book that does not give you the legal right to copy it and resell the copies. Nor does it allow you to make copies of chapters or other portions to give out to anyone without ADDITIONAL payment to the author. NOr does it allow you to copy and resell updated materials that have been made available since the original publication. None of that does not fall into the realm of “Fair Use”. And they are reselling it. That’s a fact. So get yours straight.
Neither do you seem to grasp what is behind the antitrust arguments; precious little. Just like a car maker they do not prevent you from making after market parts for their product, i.e. tires, stereos, seats, etc. What they do (and legally I might add) is prevent you from trading on their name. You cannot take a Ford engine, running gear, seats etc. put it on a homemade frame and then turn around and resell it as a Ford. And since Ford does not sell their engines without being installed in a Ford vehicle to the general consumer (to the best of my knowledge), if you were to do something like that they certainly would not be on the hook for warranty repairs.
What’s next? Are you are going to say that all the carmakers are in violation of antitrust laws and restraint of trade issues?
You are obviously an MS fanboy just wishing and hoping that someone will take down Apple so that MS will no longer look like a bully that makes crappy software. Now that people’s eyes are being opened to a legitimate alternative to Windows MS no longer needs someone else to make them look bad. Microsoft can and does do that themselves. If Apple were to go away tomorrow it would not make MS products suddenly look good. And the excitement would not suddenly be there for Vista. But here’s to wishing and dreaming…
@Raving MacHead
“It’s really sickening to see my hardware equal to $3000 MacBook Pro being sold in Best Buy as a Windows machine (without OS X) for a mere $600.”
I agree. This is what I was trying to point out. If anything, Psystar is offering a choice with more affordable hardware that is roughly the same as what Apple offers at a premium. Let’s face it, wouldn’t we all want cheaper Macs from Apple? These days with OS X running on the x86 platform, it really begs the question, “what really makes a Mac… a Mac?” The hardware is the same in almost every aspect. Jobs himself admits the magic is in the software. If the answer then is Mac OS X and its suite of applications, then the Mac experience can be easily replicated.
Apple offers the Mac Mini as its low-end, yet that still seems rather expensive compared to something upgradable you could buy from Psystar and still gain the “Mac experience” using OS X. Shouldn’t MacBooks be starting at sub-$1000? C’mon Apple….
I’m just fed-up with the attitude that the zealot Mac fanatics must adorn to in order to justify their purchase of an Apple-branded computer which has hardware almost identical to something which is sold for significantly less and which could probably run OS X just as well, if not better.
If there is anything the consumer looks for the most, it’s a choice. Cat’s out of the bag, Apple. Even if Psystar goes down, others will pop up. Apple hasn’t had to deal with pressure of competition in its own space of selling the OS X experience it markets since it killed off the clones in the 90s.
Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? Reap what you sew….
@Antitrust: “Yes, there are protections in Antitrust law which, once you have purchased a product stop you forcing the purchase of another product to use it. Where does this primarily come up? For example your car manufacturer cannot require that you purchase their OEM oil filters or other parts to maintain warranty. Agree, disagree if you like, but it’s the law.”
Apple sells hardware and they are not bundling the software like you think. If you want to buy a Mac and then install a different operating system on it you can. You MS knuckleheads just don’t seem to understand the difference between hardware and software.
And let’s get away from the crappy car analogy and stick to computers and peripherals. First off, since when does Kensington’s driver SOFTWARE work with any hardware other than Kensington’s hardware? Or Microtek’s? Or Invidia’s? Etc. If it does it is a fluke. And they don’t sell the software alone and unbundled for other hardware.
Next issue. Apple does not have a monopoly in computers. Not in hardware nor in operating system software. So the whole monopoly issue is moot. iPods yes. Computers no. But then again you’re thinking like a fanboy stuck in his MS certified packaging box with its’ fancy holograms. By your logic every manufacturer has a monopoly because no one else makes exactly the same product. Nobody else makes a Camry so Toyota must have a monopoly on it. Well, yes they do. It always amazes me how people with OS envy shout form the rooftops that Apple needs to let everyone in on the deal and that it’s anticompetitive because not everyone can supposedly afford it. Well, you just keep driving your Ford Escort and complaining the whole time that Mercedes doesn’t make their vehicles for people of lesser means all the while not understanding that all people and all products are not in fact created equal. When you understand that then you will finally be in the game. Until then just keep wishing in one hand while krumping in the other. Report back when you figure out which one filled up first.
I can buy a copy of OS X, and use it as a frisbee, if I like. I believe if I were to market it as an Apple Frisbee, or market it as running or flying the Apple OS, I would be breaking the law. One cannot put a Ferrari engine in a Pinto, and claim that it is a Ferrari. One cannot publicly use someone elses’ property for profit, or even non-profit, without getting proper permissions. Can I sell my sneakers, used as they are, as Air Jordans, just because I write those words on a paper, and shove the paper inside of them?
It’s laughable that a company with roughly ~10% of the market is getting sued for monopoly abuse.
Really?
………. Really?
Able Archer, et al. have nailed it. Antitrust has absolutely no concept of what “antitrust” is. If you cannot legally create and sell a hardware/software bundle without sharing it with everybody and eventually having to compete LITERALLY with your own product, then I have officially lost all faith in the US court systems.
@Jim R
Who cares if you are fed up that the lowest end mac is still too pricy and not upgradable? If you don’t like it, then buy a windows box and accept the alternative. The problem is that people want their cake and want to eat it too. If you want to run OSX, you buy Apple hardware and follow the terms they set forward when you buy the machine. If you don’t like the prices Apple sets, or the options they make available, then you choose an alternative. There is no shade of gray here… Even if the software can run on other hardware, Apple owns the software and has specifically forbidden its use on anything other than its own hardware. Who exactly does Pystar think it is, that it can blatantly take software written by another company and trash the experience Apple is trying to deliver. A mac is more than just OSX, it is a specific blend of hardware and software that has been tested to ensure usability. Hacking up the software and running it on untested platforms destroys the experience Apple is known for, and Apple is well within its rights to sue anyone who violates the agreement.
Wether you like it or not you can’t just take the software, hack it up, and do whatever the hell you want. That isn’t the way it works. For the sake of all things good in this world, I can’t wait to see Apple sue the living crap out of Pystar. Such a blatant ripoff of all of Apple’s hard work. And for all the people who think Apple deserves this simply because they won’t conform to your wishes, it isn’t Pystar’s decision. It isn’t your decision. Apple is well within its own rights to determine what prices and what models to sell. God forbid that you not like it, that you use an alternative.
I think the MS boys are getting the issues mixed up. MS used Explorer to bury Netscape. Apple is protecting their investment. I once spend 3 days trying to get my sound board to work in windows 95. Why do people think cheap upgradeable boxes are a good thing. This is the reason I switched to Apple.
Psystar’s comments and claim of antitrust are simply smoke. They are deliberately ignoring the primary claim against them: They appropriated, modified and distributed as if it were their own Apple’s Intellectual Property (i.e., the Mac OS X 10.5.4 update). In the process they used Apple’s trademark and name without permission. Had they not done these actions, it is not unlikely that Apple would not have taken any action even though they were likely to be very unhappy with Psystar’s selling systems with MacOS X installed.
Obviously, Psystar does not have any confidence that they can refute these charges so they keep trying to change the agenda. Even if they win an antitrust settlement, they are likely to lose big on the charges that they misappropriated Apple’s Intellectual Property.
Anyone who’s ever used multiple computers from different manufacturers or do system testing knows different finished product feels different. The entire Psystar product line hinges on the reputation Apple built with Macs as a whole system, without which all Psystar has nothing but illegally reselling OS X CDs without a license agreement.
Psystar is basically claiming that Mac software is excellent while Mac hardware is generic when Apple sell them as one product. Psystar is simultaneously committing libel while using the “Mac” trademark in their product name. Yeah. No legal problems there.
@John Horvatic
Apple is being non-competitive in their allegiance to AT&T;. They have tied a piece of hardware to a company that was busted once before for being anti-trustworthy. In this country you may only use the one phone service. That being said, even when you have the service of that company (AT&T;) you now have to repurchase a new service contract for the iPhone even when you purchased legally the phone from a private party other than Apple. Do I hear monopoly playing in the background?
To carry the logic a little further concerning monopoly. Once I make modifications to a Toyota Camry or a Ford Escort. I assume liability as long as I am not trying to make claims not intended by the original platform design. The look and feel of ones personel property is strictly that of the individual. If it were not my property you could say it is a lease which a totally different from ownership. Does anyone think that when they purchase something it is not theres? The intellectual property of Apple is not in question only its application on something other than its own hardware. That is like saying you can’t build an internal combustion engine and use it because it is too much like the one I build. Or how about if I buy a diesel engine from VW and put it in a Jeep or a Suzuki to increase the performance of the vehicle. Yes someone does have a monopoly of exclusion. What is sad is that this has to play out in the courts of men.
“Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? “
One TINY little difference you’ve missed here… Apple doesn’t own almost 100% of the personal computer market, as Intel owns nearly all of the processor market. It’s 10 times less than that.
And because you bristle at the price Apple charges for a Mac, that’s not anyone else’s problem but your own. Save your money and buy one.
Actually XBox games CAN be run without an XBox, just Google for “xbox emulator”.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
“Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? Reap what you sew….”
This argument doesn’t work, it would work as M$ needs Apple, but what is going on here is a company using another companies product putting it on their product and re-distributing it. Which is not the case with Intel and AMD they offer processors yes but different brands ala Windows and OS X.