Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

When all the idiots stop with the analogies and accepts that they are irrelivent in their need to argu their pointless

points of view if this was the other way and yyoou all had a company with products simmilar to apples would you want anyone telling you what to do with it

those companies are predominately Linux when it gets down to the real work.

Not when it comes to the most sophisticated tasks like when an artists has to draw a scene. Those are still done on Macs.

You seriously have to be joking

.....Macs in their office...

from the days of Aldus the Mac has been good for creating and publishing documents. Yep, I'll give the Mac high marks for that.

sometimes even better than Windoze at this..although Bill's os always caught up in the end...

No businesses overclock their computers.

No business using Apple computers overclock, that's certain. Jobs forbid it.

Yet NONE of this has anything to do with the legality of running OSX on non-Apple hardware does it?

As long as it's Apple Labeled it's in agreement with the EULA.

You never answered the question... What can't a Mac do that YOU need it to do? Stop dancing around the question.

Actually, nothing. True. I can do everthing with Windows and Linux already.

I don't "need" the Mac for anything.

"I WANT" to do things with OSX that I can already do with Windows and Linux and FreeBSD.

I want to run GPGPU code under OSX on an overclocked machine.

That's all.

Not complicated. Not nerdy. Not geeky. It's for business.

Wow im utterly beffuddled at how much ignorance is inhere

CLONES FTW !!!

I think Psystar has something of a point in making Mac clones; Apple seems to be trying to monopolize things by restricting OS X to their own rigs, practically forcing would-be Mac users to buy a rather expensive machine... Adding to the fact that their iPhone's an epic fail - fewer features for twice the price of a Nokia... If Psystar wins, then it's time that Apple will be forced to make OSX native to a typical PC...

I find this whole thread interesting. However, we're all forgetting the most important point of all in all of this - it should be up to the end users (that is all of us out here / there) in having the choice of what software WE all want to use. Regardless of whether it be Mac OSX, Windows, UNIX, Linux, FreeBsd, or even something more dated if we so choose to use it (I used to run OS/2 (now that was dated but hey it was fully 32 bit way before windows ever was).

The whole point that Apple develops, allows and even distributes the software (Bootcamp) to its user base to allow them all to run Windows on their legitimate macs, and ok i'll also grant you that you're supposed to have a legitimate copy of windows to install also (and yes i'll grant you I did say legitimate for both) doesnt necessarily make them any less guilty for developing and distributing that software for free then what it does for all of us to install OS X onto our pc's if we so choose to.

Not all software out there is available for all platforms to do every single task suitably to everyone's liking and therefore we all deserve the right to choose and not be forced into buying a similarily specified computer system from different camps just to run an operating system on which we all know is just essentially a bunch of 0's and 1's and can run on any modern personal computer in circulation today.

I think Psystar has something of a point in making Mac clones;

No they don't. To make a clone of a company's product you need THEIR PERMISSION FIRST. Otherwise you just break the law and get sued like the retards they are.

Apple seems to be trying to monopolize things by restricting OS X to their own rigs, practically forcing would-be Mac users to buy a rather expensive machine...

Sorry to burst your delusional bubble Special Ed, but you used the word Monopoly where it doesn't apply. I got a great idea, I'm going to sue you for being a monopoly! I think you have a better car than I do so I'm going to sue you because I'm retarded and I keep saying that you have a monopoly on your car so often that I'm starting to believe it and I should be able to drive your car when I'm finished masturbating late at night just because I can. So even though the car is yours, I'm going to hop on the short bus to school and think I have the right to tell you to let me use it even though it belongs to you.

EDIT: I do love the "practically forcing" comment. What the hell were they thinking? Apple wants me to buy their product? A product they created, a product they can charge whatever they want for legally. Who the hell saw that one coming? Practically forcing me to enjoy it so damn much. ZOMG!!!! It's the end of the world!!!!!

Adding to the fact that their iPhone's an epic fail - fewer features for twice the price of a Nokia...

We have a 40% installation in iPhones this fall on campus. Not so much for the Nokia. Sorry, you fail again with the imaginary points to your argument.

If Psystar wins, then it's time that Apple will be forced to make OSX native to a typical PC...

You just keep thinking that. It's not based on any form of reality, but maybe with a little therapy you'll be able to stop riding the short bus to school in time.

No they don't. To make a clone of a company's product you need THEIR PERMISSION FIRST. Otherwise you just break the law and get sued like the retards they are.

The thing is, they aren't really Mac clones, are they?

They are PCs, which come with pirated software that can run on a rather large cross-section of PCs. The pirated software is wrong, I admit, but the fundamental principles of the lawsuit are right IMO.

Many people want to run OSX, many already have a PC capable of it, yet Apple want to sell you their sub-standard PC at a hugely-inflated price to run the software.

Microsoft were forced to remove IE from being embedded in Windows because it was "anti-competitive", I see no reason why the same principles should not apply to apple.

Many people want to run OSX, many already have a PC capable of it, yet Apple want to sell you their sub-standard PC at a hugely-inflated price to run the software.

Yes, and since it's their own product, they have that right. You either buy it or you don't. That's a free market. Beenie Babies taught us that. The market leader gets to set their own price, so long as they can sell enough of them to stay in business.

Microsoft were forced to remove IE from being embedded in Windows because it was "anti-competitive", I see no reason why the same principles should not apply to apple.

Microsoft was trying to limit the software you could run on their product, specifically software that competed with their own software. That's anti-competitive. Apple, in contrast, encourages you to install competing software on their product, they even provide the drivers for the competing software. You can't even pretend that Apple is being anti-competitive. You'd get laughed out of court.

What is Psystar doing wrong? Selling common Pc´s capable to run different os´? Including OS X?

Well,maybe they are stealing from this communitiy.

I like Apple. Great OS. But poor Hardware, no Drivers for latest GFX, and no way to go installing freeware on an ipod. Steve: i want to have the choice.

Even MS gives me that.

A bit less ignorence from apple could change worlds.

A bit less ignorence from apple could change worlds.

Who are you .. compared to apple you should just get back on the short bus with the rest of the tards they know what they are doing more then you

as long as there is not a high enough demand for the things you ask of apple .... they wont add this option and you can consider yourself the only one screaming i want

and if their is more people screaming i want this choice then they pry all in the hackintosh community well guess what go buy what you have tricked yourself into believing is a premium price and maybe apple wioll care but as long as you break9ing copywrite and EULA you dont exist to apple there for they see you as people that can go F themselves

and i dont blame apple this is just how coorprate amarica works and should work

yet Apple want to sell you their sub-standard PC at a hugely-inflated price to run the software.

Hold on there just a minute bud, your assumptions are not founded. Mac computers are not in any way, shape or form 'sub standard'. By calling them that you show your ignorance on this topic. They are designed and engineered a lot better than that 'kit' PC that you probably put together. I know this for a fact because I've actually owned both varieties. I will never waste my time building another PC, knowing what I know today about what goes into a Mac and how they never seem to have ANY issues, unlike your 'kit' PC. That said, they are NOT inflated price wise. You get what you pay for, and MANY people like myself are more than happy to pay a slight premium for a Mac computer knowing that it won't have any issues for as long as they own it. If you knew anything about this topic then you'd know that the whole reason why Apple decided (probably before you were born) not to allow people to build Macs like PC's is so that they could control the quality better. History has show that to be a wise (but unpopular) move on their part. Enjoy your piece-mealed caboodled PC if you want, but don't try to suggest that you could engineer and build one just like it yourself because it's not going to happen

I waiting for one of you Einstein's to accuse Apple of slavery

Microsoft was trying to limit the software you could run on their product, specifically software that competed with their own software. That's anti-competitive. Apple, in contrast, encourages you to install competing software on their product, they even provide the drivers for the competing software. You can't even pretend that Apple is being anti-competitive. You'd get laughed out of court.

Can you elaborate this a bit?

What browser did MS prevent you to install into windows and in what way? Are you saying you couldn't install Firefox or Opera or Natscape or whatever before they had to brake the link between Win and IE?

Even if so, isn't your argument that Windows TM is MSes property and that they can sell it to you at any conditions they seem fit and you have a choice of liking it or buying something else? By your logic, why would they ever allow you to install anything they don't want If they don't like it and it goes against their business model. It's their software, isn't it? You just have a licence to use it under conditions you acapted in EULA.

In the same way Apple is limiting on what hardware you can install their software, specifically hardware that is competing with their own hardware. Is that not anti-competitive?

I don't think it is a laughing matter at all.

MS also had their way for a long time until they went to court. Before the trial, that case also might have seem like a laughing matter.

It is only natural for Apple to encourage you of installing 3rd party software on their machines. The reason for that is because it is in accordance with their business model. They make money on hardware and that with a wide profit margin.

If I were them, I would encourage it also.

The only thing I can agree with is that they don't have to give you warenty on their product if you use it in a way that is different than what is described in terms and conditions of usage . Just like if you are using any other product in a way that is not approved by manufacturer.

Can you elaborate this a bit?

Sure.

What browser did MS prevent you to install into windows and in what way? Are you saying you couldn't install Firefox or Opera or Natscape or whatever before they had to brake the link between Win and IE?

Actually, you are misquoting me. However, either way I misspoke. They threatened OEMs not to include Netscape as the default browser, and forbid them from removing the IE icon from the desktop. The problem stems from MS selling Windows as an OS, and providing IE as a software package. (Both, by their own definitions, although MS later changed their minds and labeled IE as a "Windows Feature" during the DOJ trial.) This is anti-competitive because they use their leverage as the OS manufacturer to increase distribution of their own software product against other viable options.

Microsoft also demonstrated to the DOJ that removing IE altogether critically damaged Windows performance, therefore it could not be removed. A connection that still exists to this day.

Even if so, isn't your argument that Windows TM is MSes property and that they can sell it to you at any conditions they seem fit and you have a choice of liking it or buying something else? By your logic, why would they ever allow you to install anything they don't want If they don't like it and it goes against their business model. It's their software, isn't it? You just have a licence to use it under conditions you acapted in EULA.

On a purely technical level, perhaps. But Microsoft wears two hats. The OS vendor, and a software vendor. They cannot allow their OS install base to become a weapon to harm competitors in their App business. Apple has no such contradiction, because they do not sell Macs without OSX, and they do not license OS X as anything but an upgrade. Plus, they allow other operating systems to be installed so they are not being anti-competitive.

Microsoft doesn't offer IE for Mac, and Apple doesn't offer OS X for non-Apple systems. And both fit legally with in our judicial system.

In the same way Apple is limiting on what hardware you can install their software, specifically hardware that is competing with their own hardware. Is that not anti-competitive?

Cart before the horse. IE was designed for Windows as the Mac OS was designed for Apple's systems. Apple's product is the system, not the software. The software is the "accessory" just as IE is accepted legally an accessory to Windows, not a standalone application. Both could be, but legally they don't have to be.

I don't think it is a laughing matter at all.

Good for you. It doesn't change anything though.

It is only natural for Apple to encourage you of installing 3rd party software on their machines. The reason for that is because it is in accordance with their business model. They make money on hardware and that with a wide profit margin.

If I were them, I would encourage it also.

The only thing I can agree with is that they don't have to give you warenty on their product if you use it in a way that is different than what is described in terms and conditions of usage . Just like if you are using any other product in a way that is not approved by manufacturer.

Again, you just presumed product freedoms on software. It's not an equal comparison. People think they can do whatever they want with CDs because they own them, many cases never realizing they don't own the music. You can't loan CDs to people. That's unauthorized distribution. But people do it anyway, just as I installed OS X on my tablet PC just for the hell of it.

The difference is that I'm not stupid enough to take apple to court over it, any more than I'd be willing to challenge a music publisher over ripping CDs. It's illegal, but the music industry ignores it as long as it's personal use. The music pirates kept it so low key back then that by the time the industry realized what was going on they had allowed it to go on for too long and couldn't stop it. (Hell, Apple helped encourage it.) Psystar jumped right in, took everyone here and held them up to Apple's light, and showed Apple that this wasn't a problem that was going to go away. Now Apple has to put a stop to it, and everyone here will suffer.

And some people here are naively cheering them on.

I remember 'back in the day' that if you tried to remove IE from your hard drive that it would totally mess up windows to the point that it needed to be reinstalled again. Of course then IE would get reinstalled too

Sure.

 

 

 

 

Actually, you are misquoting me. However, either way I misspoke. They threatened OEMs not to include Netscape as the default browser, and forbid them from removing the IE icon from the desktop. The problem stems from MS selling Windows as an OS, and providing IE as a software package. (Both, by their own definitions, although MS later changed their minds and labeled IE as a "Windows Feature" during the DOJ trial.) This is anti-competitive because they use their leverage as the OS manufacturer to increase distribution of their own software product against other viable options.

 

Microsoft also demonstrated to the DOJ that removing IE altogether critically damaged Windows performance, therefore it could not be removed. A connection that still exists to this day.

 

 

 

On a purely technical level, perhaps. But Microsoft wears two hats. The OS vendor, and a software vendor. They cannot allow their OS install base to become a weapon to harm competitors in their App business. Apple has no such contradiction, because they do not sell Macs without OSX, and they do not license OS X as anything but an upgrade. Plus, they allow other operating systems to be installed so they are not being anti-competitive.

 

Microsoft doesn't offer IE for Mac, and Apple doesn't offer OS X for non-Apple systems. And both fit legally with in our judicial system.

 

 

 

Cart before the horse. IE was designed for Windows as the Mac OS was designed for Apple's systems. Apple's product is the system, not the software. The software is the "accessory" just as IE is accepted legally an accessory to Windows, not a standalone application. Both could be, but legally they don't have to be.

 

 

 

 

Good for you. It doesn't change anything though.

 

 

 

 

Again, you just presumed product freedoms on software. It's not an equal comparison. People think they can do whatever they want with CDs because they own them, many cases never realizing they don't own the music. You can't loan CDs to people. That's unauthorized distribution. But people do it anyway, just as I installed OS X on my tablet PC just for the hell of it.

 

The difference is that I'm not stupid enough to take apple to court over it, any more than I'd be willing to challenge a music publisher over ripping CDs. It's illegal, but the music industry ignores it as long as it's personal use. The music pirates kept it so low key back then that by the time the industry realized what was going on they had allowed it to go on for too long and couldn't stop it. (Hell, Apple helped encourage it.) Psystar jumped right in, took everyone here and held them up to Apple's light, and showed Apple that this wasn't a problem that was going to go away. Now Apple has to put a stop to it, and everyone here will suffer.

 

And some people here are naively cheering them on.

Hmm...you have some interesting points there. I'll have to chew on this for a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care much for Psystar nor Apple. I'm interested in this purely on the principal of the thing. Legal wise so to speak.

I don't think that music comparison is very good example. At least not in the way you did it (lending music). Linking music to a specific device such as iPod or something is more close to a situation that we have here.

I'm interested do you feel it is legal to rip a CD that you legally bought to a portable mp3 player and listen to it while riding a bus or something, or do you think that you have to buy a portable CD player if you want to do that? What does it matter what media is it on? I payed money for the right to listen to the music, haven't I? If it is legal, would it be elagal if you bougt a CD with an EULA that sayes its content must not be transfered to any other media? Or would that EULA be illegal?

I'm interested in your opinion since you seem to give well argumented answers (at least to what I was asking you) and I can appreciate that.

I'll just ask you what would you think If Autodesk was to embed into their EULA that Autocad must not be installed to anything but high end model of a DELL computer running Windows VISTA Ultimate.

Let say that it runs sufficiantly well on a Windows XP Pro homemade PC. Would that EULA be legal?

Unlike others, I think comparisons are good as a means to better understand the subject.

I'm interested do you feel ti is legal to rip a CD that you legally bought to a portable mp3 player and listen to it while riding a bus or something, or do you think that you have to buy a portable CD player if you want to do that? What does it matter what media is it on? I payed money for the right to listen to the music, haven't I? If it is legal, would it be elagal if you bougt a CD with an EULA that sayes its content must not be transfered to any other media? Or would that EULA be illegal?

I'm interested in your opinion since you seem to give well argumented answers (at least to what I was asking you) and I can appreciate that.

Well, CDs come labeled that you cannot duplicate the content, and the law only allows duplication for backup purposes only. So the music industry did throw a bit of a fit when this became commonplace. They even referred to Apple as criminals at one point for the Rip, Mix, Burn marketing campaign. They gave up that stance quickly once Napster came around and basically agreed to stop chasing people who at least legally purchased the CDs and focus all their efforts into dealing with the illegal sharing.

But technically (unless new CDs are labeled differently) it's still technically a copyright violation to rip a track from a CD. (EDIT: I hear a lot about "fair use" - and that may be a precedent now officially, but I haven't actually looked into how that affects CD ripping from a legal perspective. Again, the music industry has other problems to go after people for so I don't think it's ever been challenged really.)

it's still technically a copyright violation to rip a track from a CD.

NOT true! You see when you buy a blank music CD, you are already paying a special compulsory tax that gets paid to the labels that allows you to make those copies, but most people don't know about this even though it is built-in to this part of the copyright statute. Section 1008 of the copyright statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of recorded music without liability. Most people don't know about this because they only repeat the misinformation that the last misinformed guy told them. This is one of the worst dangers about the internet. One person says something that 'sounds' correct but isn't, and then a thousand other parrots repeat what he said, etc. etc. I suggest you check out Jessica Litman's website regarding this, as she was one of the people who actually drafted the original copyright law.

§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions:

"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

That's pretty sweet. I knew there was similar legislation in Canada, but I never realized it passed in the US too. I stand corrected.

Regardless of the currently 'gray area' approach to fair-use laws, I think this lawsuit, the hundreds before (Cassette Tapes, VCRs, etc..) and undoubtedly many more to follow; are just part of the growing pains of technologies as they are developed and become integrated into our lives. Because we are interested in them, and because there is a lot of money on both sides of the issue - we are much more aware of these 'growing pains' than we are of the ones from earlier times. However, in everything (especially engineering) there have been these kinds of debates.

I think at some time in the future we'll look back on the legal wars over EULA's, Media-Use Rights, Copyrights in the digital arena, etc.. much the same as we now look at state/federal building codes, FCC Bandwidth regulations, energy and transportation consolidation/de-regulations.

I'm totally against Apple on this, and basically I've disputed it in other posts so I won't go into it here... the bottom line is that if Apple is saying that OSX is an 'accessory' of buying an Apple computer - then they are obligated (not saying 'legally obligated'... but meaning 'in good faith to the consumer') to update it and support it for the life of the hardware it runs on.

Taking the OSX + APPL = IE + MSFT analogy... Microsoft determined (with the help of the DOJ :censored2: ) that IE was a free accessory as part of Windows... not long after that it stopped developing IE for other platforms and abandoned previous plans to market it as a saleable piece of software. I would have no problems with Apple saying that OSX was an accessory to their hardware... if they didn't sell it as a retail piece of software. Based on their hardware EULAS - at least those from days gone by - once your warranty period ran out, they were no longer obligated to provide support on that Mac... you could buy extended warranties, but only for so long... then you were on your own. They still do this today, although in a less overt way - they call it a 'genius bar' or more accurately the 'You-need-to-buy-more-stuff-from-Apple-bar'.

It would have been very easy for Apple to say to Apple owners: "If you have a mac, call this number and request your free copy of OSX Leopard" - then there would be no debate about the EULA... it's not available to just anyone... only to Mac owners. However, if I can go purchase a copy of it and I pay full retail for it - particularly if I previously own Tiger and I purchase the family upgrade version (licensed for 5 machines) - then you are selling software... because it's available for sales that are not directly tied to hardware.

Now, I'm not saying that I have a legal right to run Leopard on my hackintosh - I don't, any more than I have a legal right to rip all of my DVD's to my hard-drive so I can just select them from VMC without having to dig through stacks and stacks of dvd cases, or rip all my CD's to HD for the same reason... however, I do all of these things without losing a minute of sleep - because I paid for the MEDIA... not the MEDIUM. As long as I own the DVD for the movie I'm watching... it's pretty shaky (legally speaking) for the publisher to try to take action against me for watching it via a different MEDIUM... I paid for the movie - not a $0.20 DVD.

So we'll wait and see how it all works out, but it won't be simple and it won't be quick... but then again, ~70 years ago if you could make an antenna and connect an amplifier and a microphone to it... you were a radio station - regardless of the frequency at which to transmitted. Go try that today!

@john the Geek ... with music copywrite it is not really illegal to rip the music due to portible devices ipods and what have you.

But it is rather illegal to share with out permission

it is rather illegal to share with out permission

Again, not true. In Jessica Litman's book entitled 'Digital Copyright' she explains this in much more detail. Your local library probably has a free copy of it to read if you want to learn your rights. She explains; "copying your CD and carrying the copy around with you to play in your car, in your Walkman, or in your cassette deck at work is legal. Borrowing a music CD and making a copy on some other medium for your personal use is legal. Recording music from the radio; mixing different recorded tracks for a ‘party tape,’ and making a copy of one of your CDs for your next-door neighbor are, similarly, all lawful acts. The copyright law says so: section 1008 of the copyright statute provides that consumers may make non-commercial copies of recorded music without liability."

@Maxintosh .... i am aware that of how that all works but you know very well in the USA most your rights are only your rights when they dont make lars ulrich scream

in all reality this copywrite law appliys to all media unless other things like EULA is added and trhe law system will honor them whcich here in US they will honor those. and can i think be applied to music

ir anything really

i am aware that of how that all works but you know very well in the USA most your rights are only your rights when they dont make lars ulrich scream