Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

Apple was not worth the bother.

Oh really? Then tell us why Dell practically begged Apple to let them use OS X on their machines? Then you can tell us who you are trying to convince... us or yourself.

Oh really? Then tell us why Dell practically begged Apple to let them use OS X on their machines? Then you can tell us who you are trying to convince... us or yourself.

There you go again with this business of me trying to "convince" someone. I'm not trying to convince you that I am right. I am right. But, you are entitled to your own view too. That's the great thing about democracy. Like George Bush says, people can believe and think whatever they want, in this society, but I'm going to do this. Get it? That's the beauty of the thing. Your brain cells can conjour up the fantasies likeable to you, while leaving me to follow my own ways. Aint democracy great?

Dell never "begged" Apple. It was just an enquiry. Dell said, would you like us to help you get wider acceptance for the OSX, by throwing some of our ingenious marketing and distribution channels behind your Mac system? And Apple got scared. Thought they'd steal the business right from under them, put tail between the legs, and ran away from the DELL+APPLE wedding.

That's all.

ATTN Hagar

 

If you're looking for threads which are old news/going nowhere I nominate this one for the chop!

 

Cheers

 

S

Nah, keep the thread open. Psystar just got a reply from Apple. Things are about to get interesting. Why close the thread?

Sure, I understand your pain. Tired of hearing the same old arguments repeated over and over again.

But, you know, some things are worth repeating. Because people have delusions about what's what. And hearing the same thing over and over encourages them to eventually investigate the truth behind the various views, to form their own independent opinion.

@jaez

 

A Monopoly of Tying would be if apple and M$ got together and made it so that windows could only be installed on apple.

This would be because the rights to have windows on prretty much everything has been givin alrerady but if M$ had never done that it would be in their rights to lock it down and hey mighta been better OS in doing so.

I think you forget history. Or maybe you were to young to know those days.

Microsoft and IBM were in bed together, and DOS/IBM_PC was the "tied product" in those days.

So, just like your SNAPPLE+M$ comment, yeh, this was tried before.

Microsoft didn't "give users the right" to untie DOS from the PC.

These rights existed by law already, and although DOS+IBMPC was the way things started, other startups, like today's Psystar, challenged the monopoly of the MIBM deal, and introduced "IBM compatibles".

I dare say, IBM was alot BIGGER, even in those days, than APPLE is today.

But, with all their might, IBM+M$ could not stop the compatibles from entering the market.

Because, my friend, "IT IS THE LAW."

THOU SHALT NOT TIE.

It's a FELONY.

they include a new install disk from apple, in apple packaging, theyre all licensed. its just the clause in apples eula stating that you can only install it on original apple hardware

so max's claim that they 'stole' doesnt mean anything, imo

No, obviously it reinforces it.

explain, please. intel didnt want amd using their code. apple doesnt want psystar using their code. intels suit got trashed, but you think apple's will stand.....

Read what you yourself wrote. They are free to do that if they wish to, BUT they are NOT required by law to make anything compatible. Does a chevy engine directly fit in any Ford? DOH!!! \

but chevy cant legally keep people from drooping a small block chevy engine into a cougar if they want to do all the work to make it run.

but chevy cant legally keep people from drooping a small block chevy engine into a cougar if they want to do all the work to make it run.

That's because that Chevy engine isn't intellectual property, and the "work" you describe doesn't violate any laws. Software isn't the same as a normal product. With your engine, you own it. With software, you license it in accordance to the software license it comes with.

That's because that Chevy engine isn't intellectual property, and the "work" you describe doesn't violate any laws. Software isn't the same as a normal product. With your engine, you own it. With software, you license it in accordance to the software license it comes with.

Which is the whole point of the debate. Just because apple throws some junk in the EULA doesnt mean it is an iron-clad contract between you and apple. The EULA can only be enforced if the terms within it are legal. Which is why psystar is suing apple, to try and prove that a clause in the EULA is anti-competitive. Apple could put in the EULA that every tusday you use iPhoto you have to go kill a hobo. I know what you are thinking "but murder is illegal! so they cant put that in there!" Well, anti-competitive practices are illegal and apple throws them in there. Which is why Psystar did what they did.

The EULA can only be enforced if the terms within it are legal. Which is why psystar is suing apple, to try and prove that a clause in the EULA is anti-competitive.

Have you noticed that the majority of people in the Applesphere aren't too worried about this? Just a few lawyer-wannabes from this site who have a personal interest in a cart-blanche license of OS X. Most rational people realize that there is nothing anti-competitive about what Apple is doing.

I expect Psystar's counter-claims to be dismissed relatively quickly now since I've read Apple's response. The Apple Legal team knows exactly what they are doing and how to remain legal while doing so. No judge in their right mind would side with Psystar at this stage, as they simply have no case anymore. They're obviously playing a strawman to draw attention away from their previously breaking US copyright law and Apple pointed it out very well.

The dust will settle soon, but expect this case to be over with.

When does this go before a judge?

intel didnt want amd using their code.

I'm not sure what you're thinking about. It wasn't "intels" code. AMD helped them to design it. Psystar did NOT help Apple to design OS X.

Early 1980s--IBM chooses Intel's so-called x86 chip architecture and the DOS software operating system built by Microsoft. To avoid overdependence on Intel as its sole source of chips, IBM demands that Intel finds it a second supplier.

1982--Intel and AMD sign a technology exchange agreement making AMD a second supplier. The deal gives AMD access to Intel's so-called second-generation "286" chip technology.

1984--Intel seeks to go it alone with its third-generation "386" chips using tactics that AMD asserts were part of a "secret plan" to create a PC chip monopoly.

1987--AMD files legal papers to settle the 386 chip dispute.

1991--AMD files an antitrust complaint in Northern California claiming that Intel engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.

1992--A court rules against Intel and awards AMD $10 million plus a royalty-free license to any Intel patents used in AMD's own 386-style processor.

1995--AMD settles all outstanding legal disputes with Intel in a deal that gives AMD a shared interest in the x86 chip design, which remains to this day the basic architecture of chips used to make personal computers.

1999--Required by the 1995 agreement to develop its own way of implementing x86 designs, AMD creates its own version of the x86, the Athlon chip.

When does this go before a judge?

If memory serves me right then it's the end of Nov. '08.

Dell never "begged" Apple. It was just an enquiry. Dell said, would you like us to help you get wider acceptance for the OSX, by throwing some of our ingenious marketing and distribution channels behind your Mac system? And Apple got scared. Thought they'd steal the business right from under them, put tail between the legs, and ran away from the DELL+APPLE wedding.

You seriously have to be the dumbest person on this forum. Seriously, your posts make me literally laugh out loud. Dell begged Apple to be an OEM clone so the can share in Apple ridiculous market growth. Apple was never scared of Dell. They just don't want their good named tarnished by the likes of Dell. Dell computers are junk at best. You get what you pay for.

You have still never answered half the questions I posed to you. You ignored them and continue to rant on about Apple being wrong and you don't even know what you're talking about...

What a joke.

What a joke.

But... but... but... jaez KNOWS he's right about everything. He said so himself. LOL

I can't wait until this case is over. I have a funny feeling that jaez is going to be changing his username :censored2:

Source (CNET)

 

Pretty big news for OSx86 perhaps as an outcome of this we will be fully 'legal' and not in violation of Apple's restrictive EULA. Rudy Pedraza is right on the money when he claims that people are open towards using OS 10, but don't want to pay Apple's ridiculous price premiums on normal (and often out of date) hardware. Personally I'm going to have to side with Psystar on this one as I feel that Apple's current EULA for Mac OS 10 is absurd: You pay $125 for software, and then can only install it on certain machines?

 

How do you guys think?

If Psystar wins there are two ways to choose for apple:

a) 1 software for every pc and mac;

:censored2: 2 different softwares, 1 for mac and 1 for pc, so why losing this time, just to install a retail osx version on your pc that will never be a mac, but just a machine with an up to date and better hardware than Apple? So stupid, up to date and better hardware is not warranty of being a mac and in any case surely not running osx better than a mac, so what they will win a gold medal?

may be of being stupid.

But... but... but... jaez KNOWS he's right about everything. He said so himself. LOL

 

I can't wait until this case is over. I have a funny feeling that jaez is going to be changing his username

You guys just don't get it. I'm not Psystar.

I put OSX on my PC because its the right thing to do, just like many here have figured out.

It's efficient, to have multiple OSs on the same one computer.

I don't know what Psystar did wrong. Seems to me maybe they misused the "LEOPARD LOGO" or something like that. Infringed on APPLE's TRADEMARK, or something.

That's how these manufacturers go after the compatibles. Epson did it. Used patent infringement arguments and trademarks etc..because things like the EULA are useless to APPLE's arguments.

The court will probably take one look at APPLE's EULA and toss it out as meaningless junk. So, Apple will have to turn to its patents and trademarks to fight the case. You'll see. I'm always right.

And yes, jaez will forever be jaez.

When people run out of logical and factual arguments, they attack the character of the poster instead of the contents of the post.

I'm beginning to see this happening. You guys are out of rebuttals.

Give up already.

The court will probably take one look at APPLE's EULA and toss it out as meaningless junk. So, Apple will have to turn to its patents and trademarks to fight the case. You'll see. I'm always right.

Well, I don't know anything about your supposed record, but I can assure you you're going to be wrong in this instance.

When people run out of logical and factual arguments, they attack the character of the poster instead of the contents of the post.

 

I'm beginning to see this happening. You guys are out of rebuttals.

Well - if by that you mean that we've said all of the common-sense stuff and you just blew it off while spouting your make believe / always right {censored} - then I suppose yes. We have just given up on you and pre-teen perspective. Now we're just finding your overconfident boastful posts simply amusing.

So, please do go on... Tell us about the little green men if you aren't under their confidentiality agreements, I'd love to hear about your experiences with them and their probes.

Weee.... I'm a spaceman!!!

=)

Now we're just finding your overconfident boastful posts simply amusing.

 

So, please do go on...

It's not boastful. I'm a really humble guy. Why do you think it's boasting? Like everyone else, "I have opinions".

I accept other people have opinions too. I don't push my opinions on others. And I don't let them push their opinions on me.

How is this overconfident? Is Psystar overconfident because they believe that they have the right to build Mac compatibles?

I suppose, that's one way to look at it. On the other hand, they have humbled themselves to an APPLE attack, in order to fight for their "opinion."

@jaez

I was still kicking around on my C-64 at that time so yes i am old enough to remember

and no we dont resort to attacking the character of the poster cause we have no argument our argument been made and really good manner at that with Maxintosh input and im seeing john the geek here now and others VS you and like 1 or 2 others that still wanna believe this Comi BS ..... so you see we attack not for anything more then you are a twitt

@jaez

 

I was still kicking around on my C-64 at that time so yes i am old enough to remember

 

and no we dont resort to attacking the character of the poster cause we have no argument our argument been made and really good manner at that with Maxintosh input and im seeing john the geek here now and others VS you and like 1 or 2 others that still wanna believe this Comi BS ..... so you see we attack not for anything more then you are a twitt

Comi BS..where on earth do you guys come up with this stuff? The communists are dead, they've been dead since the Berlin wall fell. Communists belive in telling others what to think. That's like diametrically opposed to my viewpoint presented here. I think this must be the age of confusion. People don't know what things mean anymore. They throw out remarks intended to inflict psychological pain, but since they throw these wild curve balls without thinking, the projectiles actually go the other way leaving the target mystified.

Besides, like I said, the judge will decide Psystar.

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Psystar's fate is in the hands of whatever judge they get.

You will still believe that OSX can only be installed on a MAC, and continue to use your OSX-MAC system.

We will still believe that OSX can be installed on a PC, and continue to use our OSX-PC system.

And Psystar will find out whether they'll be rich or bankrupt.

That's it.

That's reality.

And all the "twits", the "spacemen", the "dummies", etc..and all the other grand personal comments that elevate a posters character, won't change a thing.

I put OSX on my PC because its the right thing to do

Until the judge makes a decision it's the illegal thing to do, but hey, why worry about legality when you can selfishly justify doing it in some way.

the judge will decide Psystar.

That's the first correct thing that you've said in this thread

You will still believe that OSX can only be installed on a MAC, and continue to use your OSX-MAC system. We will still believe that OSX can be installed on a PC, and continue to use our OSX-PC system.

The difference is that the facts and the law will be on their side, not yours. They are interested in doing what's right. You are only interested in looking for an excuse to shoe-horn it on your PC. You're nothing if not transparent.

@jaez

This is true you will only continue to be a space cadet with a pipe dream and we will continue to make comments to prove that you are a little boy that cant take it..

@jaez

 

This is true you will only continue to be a space cadet with a pipe dream and we will continue to make comments to prove that you are a little boy that cant take it..

Rattle away slacker25, just try to keep the topic on Psystar somehow. This thread isn't about jaez, remember?

You guys are koo koo. Its not about doing anything just because you can. It's constrained by the law "do no harm."

 

Me putting OSX on my PC does no harm to Apple.

So how do you get to the point that Apple should be sued for being "anti-competitive" for not allowing you to install their OS onto a generic PC? How come this wasn't an issue when Mac OS was PPC based? Why aren't other companies with proprietary OSes being sued for being "anti-competitive"? IBM doesn't allow you to use AIX on just any machine. How about HPUX? They stand to serve completely different purposes though the point is valid.

So.. You got any ideas about these questions yet?

Until the judge makes a decision it's the illegal thing to do, but hey, why worry about legality when you can selfishly justify doing it in some way.

In most Western countries, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

However, I discovered something when entering the US through a land border one time long ago, that this "presumed innocent" is only when you're already in the country. At the border the exact opposite principle is policy, i.e. anyone entering the US border is presumed guilty until he can prove to the immigration officer that he's innocent.

I found this wierd. But, the officer insisted that he has the right to refuse entry to anyone, and they have no rights until they actually set foot on US soil. He said it is I that have to prove to him that I have the right to enter.

This was something like over 10 years ago. Today, looking on at current events, it seems that even those on US soil are being presumed guilty and have to prove they are innocent. Citizens are being arrested and held indefinitely, and have to prove that they are not terrorist, nor illegals, nor enemy combatants, or whatever. George Bush himself did say, "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists", so the policy of reversing the rights--the founding fathers instituted--was initiated at the top levels of government. They've even started linking Obama to terrorists now. Well, obviously, Obama isn't with George Bush and the Republicans, so in their eyes he must be with the terrorists. Don't be surprised if Obama is arrested and held indefinitely without trial in Guantanamo or something. He is terrorising the republican party, by simply being too smart. So, they have taken to attacking his character instead.

Hmmm....I see a trend here.

People are presumed illegal until they can prove they are legal.

It's the new standard.

No longer limited to border entry situations, the new doctrine seems to have spread far and wide within the land like a virus.

Not everybody is infected yet, however.

The difference is that the facts and the law will be on their side, not yours. They are interested in doing what's right. You are only interested in looking for an excuse to shoe-horn it on your PC. You're nothing if not transparent.

No, I want to do what is right too. In fact, if I can't find legal reasons to support my view, I can't engage in the action, my conscience won't let me. I believe alot of people are this way. i.e. they must find a justification to do a thing. Nobody likes feeling guilty and doing the wrong thing, so most people try to do what is right.

Maybe I'm mentally limited, and can't understand why the things I do are really wrong? But, I believe that I'm right, that's why I do them. I don't claim to be the smartest being out there, but I aint' never think that I'm the dumbest either. So, like any average guy, I gotta work with what I've got, an average size brain, for my species at least, and a typical education among those who live in my part of the universe.

I don't know whose side their law will be on. Laws differ from region to region. In my part of the universe, the law is with me.

Psystar clearly thinks it is doing what is right. They hired a law firm to represent that. The law firm took the case, and Psystar doesn't have alot of money to pay, so the law firm must also think that Psystar is right. That's a whole law firm, with lots of lawyers, holding legal qualifications from Psystar's and Apple's part of the universe, so the firm must know what the law is over there. The Lawyers working for Apple, on the other hand, are being paid BIG BUCKS, so of course they'll take on any case that can pay them hard cash in these troubled economic times, regardless of how weak they think Apple's position really is. So, from the looks of things, Psystar is the legal entity, and Apple the illegal one. Still, we'll see what the court says.

So.. You got any ideas about these questions yet?

So how do you get to the point that Apple should be sued for being "anti-competitive" for not allowing you to install their OS onto a generic PC?

Actually, we can already put OSX on a PC.

The anti-competitive part, is Apple trying to stop system builders like Psystar from "selling that PC" to others with OSX already installed.

That's what is anti-competitive. Apple took court action, and initiated a suit against Psystar. That's the anti-competitive action.

If Apple didn't sue, they wouldn't be anti-competitive. It's that act of suing that makes it so.

It's trying to prevent competition for the hardware product.

I put OSX on my PC, and I put an Apple Label on the box, to make it comply with Apple's EULA.

But, I can't sell my PC like that, without Apple suing me. That's the problem.

That's what happened to Psystar.

I'd have to remove OSX from my PC, sell the PC independently. Then, sell my legal copy of Leopard to the user so that he can re-install OSX on the PC.

Then, if he has trouble installing OSX himself, I then have to, again independently, "sell technical consulting service" to help him with his computer problems.

In which case, the first two transactions are perfectly legal, and nobody can question them, and the third Apple will try to twist into something illegal. Again, producing problems for the seller.

Apple doesn't want anybody to tell anybody the technical tips that enable OSX to run on a PC.

But, Apple is fine with people figuring it out on their own, and using it, just not transfering that knowhow to others.

Maybe, Apple thinks of these tips as part of their "trade secrets".

But, if people know these tips, it's no longer a secret, is it?

At what point, does the knowledge in my brain, become Apple's property?

If I never worked for Apple, and never entered into any contractual agreement where I had to sign secrecy documents etc..but figure out things on my own, is it still Apple's property?

If so, there would never be competiting products in any market.

Remember, nobody ever "signs the EULA" !

The technical tips people have figured out that enable OSX to run on PCs are not the same code fragments developed at Apple that allow OSX to install on computers, people have "invented several alternative means" to accomplish the same goal, i.e. to install OSX on PCs, and Apple has no rights to these alternative competiting mechanisms of genius.

These alternative technical advances are the respective properties of the individuals who discovered/invented them, and they can do what they like with their property. Most choose to give the technical tips away freely, in forums like this, whereafter these things enter the public domain, never to be surpressed again.

How come this wasn't an issue when Mac OS was PPC based?

Nobody was interested in PPC. I think I mentioned this already. Even APPLE lost interest in PPC.

Why aren't other companies with proprietary OSes being sued for being "anti-competitive"?

Lack of interest, mainly. Apple's OSX has captured the imagination of many onlookers, because they choose FreeBSD open source, and people love FreeBSD, it has lots of unix applications already, for a long time FreeBSD was the leading OS used for internet servers, FreeBSD was considered a best-in-class tool, Apple built on that. Changing to Intel meant that Apple could keep up with Windows, Linux, and FreeBSD finally, so only now is OSX worth consideration.

IBM doesn't allow you to use AIX on just any machine. How about HPUX?

I don't know about AIX and HPUX. No interest there. I suspect nobody challenges IBM or HP because they don't care about AIX or HPUX.

Someone else will have to answer these two. Do they really prevent installing on alternative machines? I don't even have the interest to look it up.

I'll let those with an interest in AIX and HPUX respond to these.

you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The phrase that a person is innocent until proven guilty refers only to when a person has been charged with a penal offense. Until then it is the persons character, or in your case the lack of character which determines their actions upon the topic of law. Bottom line. You have free will. You can continue to do what's wrong, or realize that it's wrong and do what's right.

Psystar doesn't have alot of money to pay, so the law firm must also think that Psystar is right.

You obviously don't know much about law firms. Psystar doesn't need a lot of money. Apple could 'pay' his law firm to 'settle' during their negotiations. This in no way implies that at any time his law firm believes he is right, just that they see an opportunity.

Remember, nobody ever "signs the EULA"

Not true. You 'sign' it by installing it. Perhaps in your zest for stealing the product you glossed over the very first line of the contract which clearly states: "BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE." (They put it in caps, not me)

If Psystar then I would have done things slightly differently.

1.) Sell the hardware machines without an OS pre-installed.

2.) Distribute in the same way as iAtkos and Kalway Distributions instructions and patches to get the OSX installed onto the machine. After all is this really any different to the existing threads on how to install onto specific boards or presold machines. On these forums you cannot post where to download these distributions from but it doesn't exactly slow anyone down does it.

3.) Sell a legal copy of OSX Leopard which Psystar have a legal ability to do already I understand. There are UK sellers that sell OSX Leopard CD's without machines so clearly this initself is not illegal.

It is then upto the individual user to install the OSX software onto the Psystar machine, however you cannot sue Psystar for the end users behaviour. After all the OSX86 contributors aren't being sued by Apple as they aren't attempting to make money. If you want to go down this route then you would need to sue Gigabyte/Asus etc for making motherboards that run OSX as well.

Apple is not a monopoly in that there is no competition/alternative. There is ample competition from other OS such as Windows and the umpteen Linux Distro's out there. Apple already have bespoke motherboards made for them, and whilst the chipsets and processors etc are standard it would not be much for Apple to implement an additional chip to ensure that they are no longer just standard components, and that there is specific apple hardware there. Also start stripping the extra hardware drivers out from the retail CD's so that only the Apple Hardware has drivers there. Whilst I am sure that the individuals here would be able to get round this it is more likely to get the community noticed by Apple.

If you want to determine that a Apple have a monopoly on computers running OSX then you also have to say that Microsoft has a monopoly on systems running xBox360 software, Sony has a monopoly on systems running Playstation and Nintendo have a monopoly on systems running Wii software. This may be an inconvenient truth but it is unfortunately the same, whether we are interested in them or not. The same also goes for HP-UX, AIX from IBM, Mainframes and various other enterprise Big-Tin solutions that are all proprietary. On this definition then these are all monopolies, wether we want to actually make a HP-UX or AIX system or not.

However it seems that it is seen that Playstation, Nintendo Wii and xBox are not monopolies as they compete with each other. Apple competes with Windows based systems so I would find it very difficult to believe that they will be able to successfully argue that Apple is a monopoly. Although this is the USA where you can sucessfully sue McDonalds for serving hot coffee as it isn't labelled that it is hot, so maybe I shouldn't.

You obviously don't know much about law firms. Psystar doesn't need a lot of money. Apple could 'pay' his law firm to 'settle' during their negotiations. This in no way implies that at any time his law firm believes he is right, just that they see an opportunity.

I'm sorry. I can't buy that argument. In my part of the world, if you do something that is clearly illegal beyond question you can't get "a settlement" for your illegal actions.

I would think it's the same over there in California and Florida.

Try again.