HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Here we go again. Hmmm, I could’ve sworn this tactic got them nowhere the last time they used it.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Psystar Sues Apple Over Snow Leopard
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
I love it! 
I hope they win! Would love to see a whole new computer clone market emerge. On the case merits I think it has a chance to win because they aren't really after Apple for anything as much as they are asking the court to stop Apple from coming after them for simply using software availible for purchase on the open market. I think the day of a software developer telling people what they can or cannot do with licensed software is done. People can't expect the developer to support unintended uses of the software but they should be able to expect protection from the developer if they object to the softwares uses; especially when the uses aren't illegal.
I hope they win! Would love to see a whole new computer clone market emerge. On the case merits I think it has a chance to win because they aren't really after Apple for anything as much as they are asking the court to stop Apple from coming after them for simply using software availible for purchase on the open market. I think the day of a software developer telling people what they can or cannot do with licensed software is done. People can't expect the developer to support unintended uses of the software but they should be able to expect protection from the developer if they object to the softwares uses; especially when the uses aren't illegal.
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
I think the point is that OSx is sold seperately; as mentioned above if MS made their own type of 'PC' and wouldn't allow Windows to be installed on anything but these people would have their panties in a knot... I'm still not really sure why Apple is allowed to get away with this honestly.
i think what the problem is, if Tivo sold their software in a store and you could make it work on your gameboy, that should be ok to do.
Apple is telly Psystar that they can't do that even though they bought the software and made it work without changing the software.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,140
They're going about this wrong. You don't sue in Florida........go to Texas where all the patent trolls go to win.
They won't win this because the argument they use is just...stupid.
"Psystar's position with respect to Mac OS X Snow Leopard is analogous to that of a person developing a software application to run on top of Mac OS X Leopard," the attorneys say. "Just as Microsoft writes Word to run with Mac OS X and Google writes its web browser Chrome to run with Mac OS X, Psystar writes its software to run with Mac OS X Snow Leopard."
Psystar's issue is just that...exactly WHAT software are they trying to "run" on top of OS X? Their entire argument makes no sense, they aren't trying to run anything on OS X, they're trying to redistro OS X on shoddy hardware, which Apple may or may not support depending on the choices they make. Apple will also undoubtedly then have to take on technical support for the OS running on other platforms, which is something they've never wanted to do, and I don't blame them. Psystar is free to develop their own GUI on top of any *NIX and distribute it freely...why don't they just do that.
"Psystar's position with respect to Mac OS X Snow Leopard is analogous to that of a person developing a software application to run on top of Mac OS X Leopard," the attorneys say. "Just as Microsoft writes Word to run with Mac OS X and Google writes its web browser Chrome to run with Mac OS X, Psystar writes its software to run with Mac OS X Snow Leopard."
Psystar's issue is just that...exactly WHAT software are they trying to "run" on top of OS X? Their entire argument makes no sense, they aren't trying to run anything on OS X, they're trying to redistro OS X on shoddy hardware, which Apple may or may not support depending on the choices they make. Apple will also undoubtedly then have to take on technical support for the OS running on other platforms, which is something they've never wanted to do, and I don't blame them. Psystar is free to develop their own GUI on top of any *NIX and distribute it freely...why don't they just do that.
Thing is MS wouldn't be in trouble either, hence why Psystar will fail.
Where Apple are on thin ice is with their antitrust behavious w.r.t. lockins (itunes and co) which as their marketshare grows becomes more and more prone to being taken to court
LOL I was just recently bitching about how Apple artificially and legally ties itself to irrelevantly modified PC hardware. I don't know if Psystar could bring a lawsuit like this but the DOJ sure could. I am kinda amazed the EU hasn't given Apple trouble over this because they love antitrust lawsuits that bring in money.
If Microsoft did that all the PC OEM's would shrivel up to nearly nothing of what they are today. Microsoft would get rung up to dry by just about every developed country on the planet if they did that. Imagine if Microsoft was as powerful all the PC OEM's combined plus the Microsoft of today. If that doesn't bother you then ok but I think it would upset most people. That is what Apple thinks it has the right to.
How so, and what cases
note
1) there are very little you can do to punish a company - you can't put a company in prison
1a) USA fines as well
2) the case SINGULAR I am guessing you are thinking where MS were fined a record amount was due to MS initially the modest fine that the EU imposed. Now since you can't arrest a company for not paying its fines all you can do is ... fine the fine
Would they? I am pretty sure MS pushed a few years back that no PC should be sold without and OS, thus to reduce piracy.
Also MS are a traditional software house as opose to apple being a hardware house. yes it is now a very gray line since Apples are essencially over-priced "PC's"
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
The first thing Jobs did in 1997 when he came back to Apple was kill off the Clone's. We were authorized dealers for Apple and the clone company, and the clone startup was all wasted money for us.
Jakalwarrior
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,189
Why would they have to support it?
MS is a monopoly. Apple isn't (at least in this market).
I too am very sick of Apple's lock-in; it's more pervasive and evil than any other IT company (even Microsoft) has ever been. But without a monopoly status, we have no recourse other than to stop buying their stuff.
Psystar doesn't have a chance, except maybe getting Apple to stop selling retail boxes of their OS, but even that is doubtful.
I too am very sick of Apple's lock-in; it's more pervasive and evil than any other IT company (even Microsoft) has ever been. But without a monopoly status, we have no recourse other than to stop buying their stuff.
Psystar doesn't have a chance, except maybe getting Apple to stop selling retail boxes of their OS, but even that is doubtful.
If Tivo sold the software over the counter and then sold gameboy units with a tivo sticker on and their software preloaded for twice the price, then I assume the water gets murky.
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
That would be no because TIVO doesn't sell their software in any way outside of the machines they sell. BUT...
You should be protected when it comes to copying that software off a TIVO you have purchased and using it in your house to do whatever. As long as you don't sell or give away the software.
gwarren007
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2006
- Messages
- 25,309
It would be nice if apple released its OS to the PC market. I for one would buy the latest OS and dual boot it with W7.
You should be protected when it comes to copying that software off a TIVO you have purchased and using it in your house to do whatever. As long as you don't sell or give away the software.
You'd likely run into DMCA anti-circumvention issues if you did that and TiVO decided to care. Reverse engineering might be protected, but the DMCA abolishes a lot of those protections.
Not till Jobs goes to the big disabled parking space in the sky.
I can't see how locking OSX software onto hardware would not be a monopoly for the OS? We are not talking about overall OS market share here, we are talking about a specific OS being tied to a specific hardware wherein no other hardware could be used. It isn't Microsoft vs Apple in this case, it is Apple software vs Apple hardware and the lines that connect the two.
As for Psystar, they could have a good case, but boy, they sure are terrible at presenting it. Good point is that they do sell software over the counter, but their point seems to be that they offer additional software above and beyond the OS platform. Who cares about that, people buy Mac clones not for additional software above and beyond the OS platform, they buy it because they like OSX and don't want to spend a fortune on subpar hardware to run it.
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
Wow! Apple must love you.
The idea is not that the software runs on "top" of anything its a reference to that fact the emmulator runs before OSX and simply tells OSX that it is running on a EFI enabled x86 computer system. It may or may not report that the computer is using Apple firmware but again this is not illegal. The ONLY legal ground that Apple can stand on is that its EULA states that OSX is to be used on authorised Apple hardware only which IMHO is not enforceable. I hope that a court will rule that way as well.
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
My hope is that within my home the Fair Use Doctrine will continue to reign supreme.
Darth, I don't know about you, but that does seem like beating around the bush.
Also, doesn't the EULA also state that hospital or anything critical should not run OSX? Does Pystar want to start trouble over that? No, because that is utter crap and far flung at that rate. What they are doing is flinging crap around, and I agree, they should focus on the EULA section reguarding the OS being tied to hardware. Not this BS I quoted them from above.
Didn't you get the memo, it's not hip to hate gays now.
JUSTJOEL73
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 669
To anyone who is interested, there is a really good legal article on Groklaw about the whole Apple Vs Psystar Deal. This case is similar to that of MDY Industries, LLC Vs. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc (the case is about WoWGlider, a bot for WoW). The article goes into great detail how MDY got their asses handed to them in by Blizzard and how Apple will prevail.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060
Back in the mainframe world (and still on most IBM Big Iron) you get the OS loaded from the factory on the hardware. There's no running down to the local computer store and picking up AIX 10.1. What's the difference on PCs? What if IBM would have tied up the clone market in the beginning and only sold DOS loaded on a 8088? The Microsoft world is so used to getting a choice in what they install, but it hasn't always been that way. I might be able to buy AIX from IBM without the hardware. It doesn't mean IBM should make sure it runs on any PowerPC platform. I don't think Apple should have to supply SL to run on non Apple hardware if that's the way they wish to license their OS.
Apple makes their profit from hardware sales, not software so you can't really compare them to MS. Why would they want to lose hardware sales and have to support their OS on other hardware? If you want OS X, buy an Apple or use Windows or Linux on a PC. Funny how people think they're entitled to whatever they want, however they want.
Microsoft is not a monopoly
The US legal system disagrees. Or did in 2000, and that decision hasn't since been challenged AFAIK. I suspect the same arguments used then would still hold true today.
Microsoft is not a monopoly
Microsoft is a monopoly. But atm it isn't doing anything warranting the illegal aspects that can trip up a monopoly (antitrust)
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Would a standalone OS X actually be something that people would buy in large numbers? I really have my doubts. Sure geeks would by it, but average users DON'T dual boot or run in VM's. Really, Microsoft doesn't make that money selling boxed copies of Windows, its all about the pre-installs.
Then add on top the TREMENDOUS cost of support and Apple could end up losing a ton on money.
I used to think that standalone OS X would be cool but I think that keeping it tied to Apple hardware does make sense and actually is a far better fiscal decision that it may seem at first.
Then add on top the TREMENDOUS cost of support and Apple could end up losing a ton on money.
I used to think that standalone OS X would be cool but I think that keeping it tied to Apple hardware does make sense and actually is a far better fiscal decision that it may seem at first.
Darth Millennial
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 549
You're correct AZ they don't have to support their software in anyway if people are using it outside of its licensed uses but that doesn't give them the right to sue people over it use. Now
psystar has gone about it the wrong way. They should be building x86 PC's that just happen to work with OSX and provide support to people who want to use OSX with their hardware for a fee. If they aren't selling OSX then Apple has no grounds to sue them.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
The fact that Microsoft is/has a monopoly is irrelevant in this sense, and having a monopoly is not an illegal act or state of being. People need to never ever mention the word "monopoly" with respect to Microsoft because: a) we know they have a monopoly, and b) it doesn't matter if they do because it's not illegal to be/have one.
Apple simply wants total control over their product, end of story. They have a right to that, but only if they specifically state it, and the still-existing line in the EULA that says "only to be installed on Apple-labeled hardware" is just too damned vague.
If I put that Apple logo sticker (in every OSX box) on my home built PC by definition that PC is "Apple labeled" as the logo sticker was made by Apple and is the symbol of their entire company.
I think Psystar should just make machines and keep on keepin' on, and drop the silly lawsuits against Apple. Just make the machines, sell 'em, and ignore Apple completely. Easy enough to do.
Microsoft violated antitrust laws. It does not make them a monopoly, only that their distribution tactics were shady and illegal.
Anyways, being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's how you become one.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
Without Apple's consent this is a dead end road. We've seen how this plays out. Unless Apple is declared a monopoly, which would be wrong IMHO.