The legal battle between Macintosh clone maker PsyStar and Apple is still being waged, but it appears that the two companies are going to do what some of us had already predicted: settle the whole thing out of court.
Let’s take a little trip back in time and walk through the various points of interest along the way. Back in April this year, an unknown company called PsyStar offered on its website a regular x86, which they called the OpenMac – quickly renamed to OpenComputer – for USD 400, which came with Mac OS X Leopard pre-installed. Doubts soon arose over the company’s legitimacy, but it turned out those concerns were unfounded, as OpenComputers were soon enough finding their ways to customers – and reviewers. Now that the company was real, everyone more or less assumed Apple would soon sue. And they did.
Apple sued PsyStar in July of this year, claiming copyright infringement and licensing and trademark violations. Psystar was filled with confidence, and hired a prestigious law firm to take on Apple. They also countersued Apple claiming anti-competitive behaviour. Cupertino wasn’t impressed.
As it appears, the two companies have now agreed to enter a voluntary stage of trying to find out if it’s possible to settle this case out-of-court. The fun thing here is – and this will appeal to Apple – the possible outcome of these negotiations can be kept a secret. Since Apple cannot allow PsyStar to continue to sell the Mac clone, the only acceptable outcome for Apple seems to be to end sales of the OpenComputer. In other words, a big sack of money has been put aside at Infinite Loop, ready to be shipped to PsyStar’s building. Coincidentally, these out-of-court negotiations are a lot cheaper for the small PsyStar. Everybody wins!
Except PsyStar customers, of course.
so much for hoping that the arbitrary ‘only on apple hardware’ argument is debunked. even though i can go out and buy the same hardware.
while i wouldn’t give up linux for OS/X i’d really like to hear a good reason why apple hardware is so special.
Because Apple wants it to be, and frankly it’s their right to define the terms of which they’re willing to sell their product under.
So did IBM, until compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS and started selling PC clones. IBM’s license didn’t allow it. The courts decided Compaq did nothing wrong, and today we have lots of choice in the PC market. I hope the same thing happens here. Psystar didn’t even have to reverse engineer anything. The chances of it are slim though, with the case going to arbitration.
Companies are not able to define terms in a vacuum. They are subject to governemt and legal oversight. Lets hope the system works.
Edited 2008-10-21 00:42 UTC
The difference there is the only part of the PC that was proprietary was the BIOS and it was properly reverse engineered according to law for compatibility purposes. I fail to see how anyone violating OS X’s license can claim to be doing that with a straight face
Seeing as the license itself is not valid in many countries, and it has never been tested in court in the USA, it may not be valid. I wish we could have found out. Damn arbitration.
Why is it, that an EULA can be omnipotent, but if a piece of software or hardware is simple enough to reverse engineer, everything is fair game? Does that mean Apple can’t touch EFI-X? Or do we need to reverse engineer all of OSX first? What if IBM had an EULA that said you can’t reverse engineer it’s BIOS? Lets all move back to the 70’s.
If the PC revolution showed us anything, is that loose control of IP is better for society. Tight IP control = dark ages.
Everything most certainly isn’t fair game, but clean room reverse engineering for compatibility is explicitly allowed. EFI-X’s main issue is they’re advertising it as being primarily a tool to facilitate OS X piracy with not so much as a hint of another, noninfringing use in sight.
I disagree.
We now have little (to no) choice as there is ONLY the IBM compatible on the market now for desktop use
How many people here honestly have the choice of sparc/PPC/Cell?
Before ‘IBM compatible’ became the gold standard was when we REALLY had choice in hardware
Sure, and you paid through the nose for it. The only time this wasn’t true was with the 16bit killers like the Amiga and Atari STs.
SReilly,
All the options may not have been cheap, but I feel I was correct in saying there was more choice.
Amiga and Atari produced better hardware and got market share as a result
If a company were to release a new platform today, it would barly have a chance.
The choice is gone, but the benefit of the monoply is cheap commodity hardware
Do you prefer choice or cheap?
The maket will eventually settle on a set of common standards, a set of common way of doing things both inside and out.
The car market went through a similar phase in the first 30-40 years of its existence. Each car on those first few decades had its own mode of operation, its own way of shifting gears, going into reverse, gas pedal/lever, etc. etc. In the end, it was Cadillac who introduced the pedal layout we still use today in 1916 with the Cadillac Type 53, but it didn’t catch on, and was forgotten. It was the British Austin 7 that re-introduced Cadillac’s layout in the 1920s and onwards – Japanese car manufacturers copied the ideas of the Austin 7, and that’s how we ended up with where we are today.
Lots of different brands and types of cars, but they are all operated in exactly the same fashion and they drive on the same roads.
No monopoly, and still, lots of low prices. The computer industry will, eventually, settle on the same model.
In other words, it’s not as simple as “choice OR low prices”.
You are comparing a standard interface, in this respect you are correct. There is a standard way of interacting with your car, steering wheel. pedals etc (in IT, the equivilent would be moniter, kyb and mouse)
But the engine of a car varies as indeed does the fuel it runs on (engine being cpu types, fuel being OS)
In the car industry there is still quite a bit of choice
Not exactly true. Most cars today are built using standard, mass produced components. You see it all the way from dash boards to engine parts.
The same goes for computers too. Look at IBM POWER systems. Yes, the CPU is of a different architecture but the heat dissipation systems can be found in any x86 server IBM produces, as they are outsourced to the same company. POWER systems also use standards like PCI/PCIX slots, Emulex fibre channel cards that run in both X and P series servers, SCSI/SATA/FC HDs, the list goes on.
I agree wholeheartedly with Thom’s analysis in this matter. It ain’t as simple as “price versus choice”.
the commodores and atari’s of the world, couldn’t compete with IBM, and are now gone. WE made that choice, as people started buying PCs and let the other contenders fall to the wayside. Mismanagement of Atari and Commodore, didn’t help either. Market forces took those choices away from you.
Edited 2008-10-21 11:30 UTC
I don’t think Apple internals are really all that special. If I could build my own “mac” it would rock, and be a lot cheaper I think.
But they do design (eye of the beholder) very pretty to look at hardware.
For me it is OS X that makes it worth having, and the convenience of knowing the software/hardware are meant for one another… the dumbing down of ownership, I guess.
What you call dumbing down of ownership, I call not having to fsck around with the system, and being able to get my work done.
Some things are more important in life than jacking around with computers all day and night. I deal with broken, half-assed systems all day at work, and when I get home, i want something that just works, stays out of my way, and lets me do what I want to.
For me, that’s a Mac. It always has been, (even though I spent a few years trying to deny it) and always probably will be.
If I could save a few hundred bucks by building my own system, then I might consider it, but I’ll probably still pay the premium to get the phenomenal hardware support you get from Apple.
I’m down to my iBook, an iMac, and my crappy work laptop. (a horrid HP piece of junk)
I’ve gotten rid of more than three computers in the last six months. It feels pretty good.
Oh I agree!
I was not trying to be insulting. I simply meant that they are no-brainers to work with. We have all macs in our house (now).
I used to have PCs all over the place… running linux/FreeBSD, BeOS and OS/2. I actually wouldn’t mind doing that again, but I don’t have the room or the money.
“phenomenal hardware support you get from Apple.”
Tell that to 2/2 ibooks that died after 1 year. 1st one not under warranty, so I’d never let that happen again. 2nd one had a crack on the ethernet port… had nothing to do with the bad video card, but they still didn’t fix it even with the 3leet 3 year warranty. F**K aPple’s superior hardware myth. I’ve seen eMachines that had better hardware.
FAIL, damnit… no NO I SAID… NO. Refuse/Resist
Yep, the brand mythology can get as out-of-hand as the brand-bashing around here.
I have nothing against Mac computers. But to say the hardware bought from Mac is higher quality than the hardware available to PC people? It’s the SAME FREAKIN’ STUFF!! Same brands, same factories, and often the exact same model.
Apple and PyStar didn’t go into arbitration by deliberately choosing to do so upfront: the judge assigned to the case ordered them to. There’s a HUGE difference.
That being said, it is likely to be cheaper for both sides in terms of legal costs, but I still strongly suspect PyStar is quite screwed, and I doubt Apple will send them a big chunk of money to shutup: more likely they’ll be restricted to shutting down cheaply, or really being squashed. Apple doesn’t need to get any real cash out of the settlement to win: just closing down PyStar and their illegal actions is sufficient for a useful result.
And no, Apple is NOT obligated to allow PyStar to resell their [Apple’s] software on the PyStar systems, and I’d wager that PyStar will (if it comes to a court case in a court, as opposed to arbitration) be found guilty of both copyright and trademark violations.
There was no ordering – from what I understand, both parties simply agreed to enter negotiations. The judge may have urged them to, but it was not obligatory. I might be wrong though, I’m no legal expert.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3779041/Apple+Psys…
Yes, they were: if the judge determines at his whim that they’re not making progress towards an out of court settlement, he’ll kick it into the court room, but this wasn’t exactly a “voluntary” thing as done by Apple and/or PyStar.
This annoys me about Apple fanboys. If I sold trendy watches, but had some technology in place to ensure that only my watchbands could be used with the watch faces, you’d be outraged about it. If someone then found a way to circumvent my technology to allow generic (far cheaper) watch bands to be used with my watches, then you could use them whether I like it or not. Why is this any different?
I’ve heard arguments about Apple not making enough money on their software, etc. But they choose to sell it as a stand-alone product. I have no problem with them ONLY choosing to sell it with hardware, but as long as they’re allowing it to be sold as a stand-alone product, I’ll use it however I damn-well like, thank you. I’ll even resell it, it’s my right. They can put all the garbage they like in the EULA, but if it doesn’t stand up by law, then I’ll happily ignore it.
Even if this flies in the US, there are many parts of the world where this will not fly.
This annoys me about law-ignorant posters: they go and call people like me that know something about the laws some sort of fan boy because I happen to post in favor of what the law indicates is correct.
I use a different username at roughlydrafted.com where I’ve been called exactly the opposite (or worse!) by the writer and various minions there because I’ve been anything but an “Apple Fan Boy” there, and stood up for what I know is correct.
Grow up, and learn how to read and comprehend what happens in the real world, please? Just because you want something to be a certain way, doesn’t make it so.
Please point out where PyStar violated Apples copyright and/or abused Apple registered trademarks.
Go visit PyStar’s webstore, and tell me they didn’t:
http://store.psystar.com/osx
I’ll leave the non-trademark things for you to figure out, but I consider it unlikely you’ll want to bother, just because of the previously shown prejudice.
They’re reselling pre-installed retail copies of OS X. Where’s the copyright infringement again, exactly?
Full Specifications Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 preinstalled
No keyboard, mouse, or monitor included
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor
2GB of DDR2 800 memory
NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT with 512MB of video memory
Dual Layer 20x DVD+/-RW SATA drive (like a SuperDrive)
Dual Gigabit Ethernet
8 rear USB Ports
3 Firewire 400 ports (1 std on the rear, 1 mini on the rear, 1 std on the front)
7 channel Integrated Audio SPDIF and Optical Output
———-
They’re not licensed to pre-install OS X on any hardware. The only person authorized to do this, is the consumer, on Apple certified hardware.
Awww, waaaaah! Cry me a river.
In reality, it boils down to two factors: Apple’s “engineers” are too incompetent to support hardware that they don’t control with an iron fist, and Apple’s higher-ups are scared shitless that OS X’s glaring deficiencies would become (even more) obvious if they had the balls to actually *compete* with Windows or Linux on an even footing.
Apple should just go back to PPC processors and leave serious hardware to serious OSes – ya know, OSes that aren’t crippled by being tied to a single hardware vendor.
So competition, according to you, is bad? Or do you just believe that only the operating systems that *you* like should exist? Look, what’s so damn hard about this little condition–if you don’t like it, don’t use it. You have the right to dislike Apple, but please don’t troll. It degrades the quality of conversation.
Uh, no – congratulations on completely missing the point, though.
Competition is great – it’s Apple who is unwilling (or unable) to release an OS that competes on an even footing with… well, just about every other modern OS in existence.
Even Sun isn’t that restrictive these days – and they actually sell industrial strength hardware / software (instead of just pricing it that way).
Yeahhhh, no. What I’m saying is that Apple wants the advantages of using off-the-shelf commodity hardware, but they also want the same protections from competition they had on PPC.
Sorry, but they don’t get to have their cake and eat it too – if they can’t handle competition, they should go back to the sheltered little walled-garden they had in the PPC days. Please, Apple: leave the serious hardware to serious OSes.
Yep, that’s the Apple zealot party-line alright. Took you a while, though.
Exactly what I would expect from an Apple zealot – if someone dares to poke a whole in your comfortable little RDF bubble, you can always just dismiss them as a troll.
Right. That isn’t a copyright issue but it is a contract dispute (The EULA forms a contract, after all). This court case may/will reveal weather that particular clause in the EULA is valid.
That’s all there is too it. No copyright issues, no trademark issues, just a simple contract dispute.
Perhaps you missed:
1. The fact that nowhere does PyStar on their site mention that Macintosh and OS X are registered trademarks of Apple, Inc. and this can reasonably cause confusion amongst potential customers as to their relationship to Apple, at least implying they have permission to do what they’re doing.
2. The fact that they’ve had to modify Apple software to allow system updates.
And of course, the one item Apple itself isn’t able to address specifically, but has someone else up in arms: PyStar got their EFI implementation without following the licensing of the creator.
Something which I believe you are not legally required to do except in specific cases. Even if this is an issue it is a very minor issue which is also done by many hundreds of websites across the internet and certainly does not require a large lawsuit from Apple to rectify: a letter from their lawyers would have sufficed.
As I understand it they do not “modify” the software: they provide their own update agent which uses their own update servers, from which they can re-issue unmodified Apple updates after they have tested and cleared them for use with their systems. That’s actually quite a smart, clean way to handle things.
However I concede it may, may be seen as “republishing” Apple software without a license, but it’s a very grey area: would a web cache between your Mac and the Apple update server be guilty of “republishing” too?
As such it is irrelevant to this lawsuit.
I don’t buy it. Nowhere on the website does Psystar claim to sell Macs, advertise their computers as Macs, or use Mac-like logos or slogans on their computers. In fact they go to considerable effort to make every customer aware that they are NOT Macs.
Only thing I see, the Mac operating system retail boxes. Since the computers do come with the Mac operating system included, why would that not be OK?
If you were selling used Apple products on eBay (like thousands of people do every day), would you have to blot out the logos?
OSX stipulates in its EULA that it can only be run on Apple-branded HW. They also distribute patches to OSX through their website.
Furthermore, in order to make OSX boot on general HW… pystar has to include some “magic” that sort of interferes with Apple’s IP. Normally, I think apple looks the other way when it comes to home brew hackintosh efforts. However, Pystar is trying to get a buck out of other people’s work; namely Apple’s OS, and the people who got the hacks for booting OSX on non-EFI machines.
Frankly, I have used a hackintosh myself… and I find Pystar to be a deplorable company. It is benefiting from other people’s work and they may end up effin it up for the rest of us. Why so many people support these leeches in this forum is beyond me.
For the 12,000th time…
An EULA is not law — it is an unsigned, private contract. Clauses in private contracts/EULAs that go against law (in this case, fair trade law) are not valid/legal and have been ruled invalid/illegal countless times in court.
EULAs are irrelevant, because they are superseded by fair trade law and copyright law.
Apple can’t go against fair trade law and dictate what a user can do with legally purchased software.
On the other hand, if a person makes multiple, unauthorized copies of software and sells/uses the multiple copies, then that person is breaking copyright law and is subject to criminal prosecution.
Also (in anticipation of the next fanboy point), the end user is hiring Psystar to install the software — completely legal and ethical.
I think Psystar is merely linking to the openly available Apple updates.
An end user can modify any product, including software, for his/her own, single use — completely ethical and legal.
Likewise, a end user can hire a company (Psystar) to modify any product, including software, for his/her own, single use — completely ethical and legal.
Apple is making a profit off of Psystar, from the profit margin Apple sets for their separately-sold, boxed OSX.
It makes no difference if fanboys and/or Apple calls the boxes “updates” — they are a separately sold product, and the owner of that product can do as he/she pleases with the product, as long as no laws (copyright included) are broken.
If Psystar is using code originated by other hackers, Psystar could very well be violating the copyright on that code. Someone would need to do some research on that issue. Nevertheless, such an infringement does not involve Apple.
I would guess that those responsible for the hackintosh hacks hold a view opposite to yours — if Apple lost their case to Psystar, then the hackers would be free to work openly, without the need to retain a legal staff.
OSX stipulates in its EULA that it can only be run on Apple-branded HW.
That’s not legally binding, IMO. I’m no lawyer though.
They also distribute patches to OSX through their website.
Are they really? Or are they simply linking to the downloads at the Apple website? I’m not clear on this. If distributing patches themselves, then PsyStar may be liable for copyright infringement. But if simply linking to the Apple downloads, there’s nothing at all wrong with that.
Furthermore, in order to make OSX boot on general HW… pystar has to include some “magic” that sort of interferes with Apple’s IP.
So? That’s not illegal.
However, Pystar is trying to get a buck out of other people’s work; namely Apple’s OS, and the people who got the hacks for booting OSX on non-EFI machines.
B.S. Apple makes money from each of those PsyStar computers since PsyStar purchases a full retail version of MacOS for each computer they sell.
If those developed ‘hacks’ are patented and used without permission, PsyStar could be liable for royalties. That’s between the patent holders and PsyStar though, and has nothing to do with Apple.
and I find Pystar to be a deplorable company.
Again, that’s not illegal. But could you elaborate anyway? I’ve never used a PsyStar machine, but it’s my understanding they’re made with basic off-the-shelf components, the same computer parts that thousands of people buy every day from places like NewEgg.
I don’t know why we have to go through this over and over again for every PsyStar story…
Just plain surreal, really.
I have no idea what this means, and reading into it would probably not yield sensible conclusions.
The results will be seen eventually anyway. Either Psystar continue selling or they don’t.
No, I disagree. One advantage, for both parties, of an out-of-court settlement is that the results are not public information. Maybe Apple will have to pay PsyStar for anti-competitive activities, or provide hardware details. Maybe PsyStar will have to pay Apple some sort of license fee. Or maybe both parties call it Even-Steven and mutually drop their court cases.
If Psystar settles for a big bag of money from Apple, then what stops other relatively small companies from doing the same? They just can counter-sue and get “free” money. In my opinion this will set a difficult precedent for Apple, and leave a lot of customers with no support too.
I’m sure the “free money” thing is purely speculation – since this out-of-court arrangement will be held in private, and I’m pretty certain the settlement negotiations will include full NDA of the results from Apple, the public may never know if Psystar truly ever does receive any money.
Thus, small companies would have to actually take the risk that they get smashed/smeared into oblivion by Apple as the second or third to attempt this questionable strategy. You can be sure Apple won’t be giving out free handouts to everyone who pisses them off
Edit: Typo
Edited 2008-10-20 23:36 UTC
it’s highly doubtful that this ‘settlement’ will net psystar any money. as a matter of fact, this settlement is probably apple’s way of saying ‘we can do this the easy way… or we can do this the hard way’. of course, the hard way would be a lengthy trial that psystar doesn’t have the money/laywers to win. by keeping the settlement quiet, apple is also saying ‘you’d better keep this on the down-low, or we make you bleed’.
this isn’t particularly good or bad. it’s just run-of-the-mill expected behavior from a big company in this sort of situation.
there is some good that has come out of this, kinda-sorta. it has brought (a little) attention to the fact that mac os x can technically be run on generic hardware, and thusly, that macs aren’t magically special.
the funny thing is, lots of people predicted this exact situation when apple dumped powerpc for x86.
i’m actually fairly indifferent about the whole thing. from a blood, sweat, and tears perspective, the osx86 project people are far more interesting than psystar. their geekery is no walk in the park.
That is my beef with Psytar, they don’t do a good job of it. Their office is the front cab of a semi with the engine on – and people actually buy stuff from them!?
It’s more like an aborted Mac clone than an actual clone. If another company came along and offered something of decent fit and finish, Psystar would be forgotten in a jiffy.
So your saying someone with a posh good quality office like Apple would do better OS X on PC?
Quality has go nothing to do with the size of your office, it’s how you use it that counts.
I do all of my development in a closet.
hahaha! so spot-on! i was personally thinking of the creepy guy in the park with the trenchcoat lined with fake rolex.
if psystar had any genuine business ambitions, i can’t give them much credit. but, maybe it was just a subversive and intentional taunt. maybe it was their plan all along. i mean, it’s not like they made much of an effort to appear legitimate.
“Which party asked for this cannot be known at this point,”
Well PsyStar has the most to lose, being the little fish. A million dollar settlement against them could be fatal. So it’s in their best interest to find a permanent solution.
But I’m sure Apple doesn’t want their EULA tested in court either.
And, as mentioned, the negotiations could have simply been requested by the judge.
On this point, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. No company wants their EULA tested in court. Adobe tried that with the guy that was splitting their bundled software on eBay, and got smacked down for it. I believe something similar happened to Autodesk, trying to prevent the resale of licenses. The courts have pretty much held that software falls under doctrine of first sale, and not a “rent-but-don’t-own” license as the software companies try to apply.
Where pystar likely screwed up was in making Apple updates available for download for their customers, that falls pretty cleanly into copyright law.
Where Apple screwed up is in making OSX a standalone product available for purchase, rather than selling them as updates requiring an original installation (that would have come via purchase of an Apple system). At least in that point there would have been an element of contractual consideration in their license agreement, to the extent that customers were purchasing the software at the price Apple extended under the assumption they had already invested in the original license. Nothing would require them to make a “full” version available. EULAs rely on contract law, after all.
I’ll state the necessary IANAL, but from the POV of pystar pre-installing OSX on clones, I really don’t see where they violated any actual laws. If they legally acquired the software, doctrine of first sale allows them to do whatever the hell they want with it, short of copying and re-distributing it. Put another way, does anyone think Microsoft should be able to prevent system builders from pre-installing a legally acquired copy of Windows on their systems, without having Microsoft’s blessing?
I think some people are placing far too much blind faith in the validity of Apple’s EULA. The EULA, by nature, relies on contract law, and stretches into provisions of copyright law. There are basic provisions that an EULA simply cannot circumvent, regardless of how cleverly worded it is. One of the most basic principles of contract law is that one cannot waive their protections under contract law.
I do think pystar’s anti-trust claims are bollocks, and I would also be interested to see how Apple’s original claims actually play out if it winds up making it that far. But as I said, I do believe pystar shafted themselves by redistributing Apple’s updates, there’s no two ways about that in terms of copyright violation.
Anyways, it’s worth sitting back and eating popcorn to watch how this plays out. Apple is certainly a legal savvy organization, but then the legal firm pystar has engaged has a strong track record too. If it does come down to a legal argument revolving around the EULA, it could have repercussions beyond this issue.
Anyways, just my 2c…
But as I said, I do believe pystar shafted themselves by redistributing Apple’s updates, there’s no two ways about that in terms of copyright violation.
Someone buys the full retail version of the Macintosh OS, they are entitled to the same updates as every other customer, IMO.
I’m on the fence regarding the legal/technical aspects though. Is Psystar actually distributing the upgrades? Or are they doing a pass-through to the actual Apple website?
This will surely suck for Psystar’s customers, but I can’t say I feel bad for them. I mean, I’m pretty sure that those customers knew that this could happen and if they didn’t, well… they need to be more careful when they purchase a legally-in-the-gray” computer.
If PsyStar gets money for copyright and trademark infringement, it doesn’t make sense. Apple should be the one to get the money. I could imagine tens of companies opening the next day selling OpenMacs, being sued and receiving money from Apple to close doors…
You would be correct, naming a product “OpenMac” would get any company in serious legal hot water with Apple, and rightfully so. But Psystar does no such thing.
sell Solaris. It is better.
Settling out of court smacks of defeat for Apple because it gives the impression that they do not want their EULAs or other artificial restrictions tested.
Hardly. Why go through the very expensive legal battle if they can settle? It makes sense, both for Apple and Psystar, to have this dealt with as efficiently as possible. True, Apple may not want their eula tested–I don’t believe that any software company truly wants to test their eula in a court battle. But also, this is a defeat for Psystar as well. The way I interpreted some of the announcements they made, it sounded like they really wanted this case to be out in the open, not settled in secret though it may be to their best advantage to do so, since in my opinion they really couldn’t win this. No, I don’t believe that reselling OS X, or even offering it pre-installed, is a violation of any U.S law–reselling is specifically permitted, in fact. It violates Apple’s eula, something I had hoped to see tested. Depending on what they were doing with their software updates, though, they could still be guilty of copyright violations and making unauthorized derivative works.
This may also be a defeat for us, the consumer. This case, if it goes to open court which it still may, would set a much needed precedent for certain software eulas and practices here in the states. It is for this reason I’m still hoping for this to go through a full legal battle.
Apple cannot settle because they have to make it clear to these companies that they can’t make money off Mac clones, and if Apple sues them then they can’t make money off Apple in the process by settling out-of-court. It would be a dangerous thing for Apple to do if they want this to stop.
My Cupertino sources tell me that there is something very interesting behind all this. As a couple of posters here have rightly said:
frankly it’s their right to define the terms of which they’re willing to sell their product under.
And no, Apple is NOT obligated to allow PyStar to resell their [Apple’s] software on the PyStar systems…
Yes, this is absolutely right, and how it came about is a real story. It seems that when the discussions of moving to Intel were taking place, Jobs told his guys that of course, they would deal with the clone issue by just forbidding people to resell OSX. His team told him that they could not do that. They told him that you can buy any product made by any company in the US and most OECD jurisdictions, and the maker cannot stop you from reselling it.
One of my sources says that he then became totally furious and broke a chair, but I don’t myself believe that.
Well anyway, he then flew to Washington and met with the FCC and Justice. He explained to them that Apple was the most creative company in America and perhaps the world. It was the company that Microsoft and everyone else imitated. It was always first with everything, its products were better quality and easier to use than anyone elses. So, he explained, it should obviously be the only company in the world that should be able to stop people reselling these products without its permission.
Justice and FTC agreed. And that is why the posters above are quite right. Apple is the only company in the world to have this right. And may it keep it for ever!
Sarcasm alert?
“The Fuehrer is furious!”
saw the madtv irack video on youtube its creative
———-
One more point I read teh FAQ at the Psystar website :
Open Computer and OpenPro
When you purchase an Open Computer or OpenPro you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand that Apple Computers does not support the Open Computer or OpenPro in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the Open Computer. In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will operate correctly as the Open Computer and/or OpenPro is not supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not develop the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals, Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the Open Computer and/or OpenPro in any way. Psystar is not responsible for any legal repercussions brought upon you due to your use or involvement with the Open Computer and/or OpenPro.
Edited 2008-10-21 23:07 UTC
A company sells a hardware (like psystar/dell/any).
They offer a patch which users can use to patch OS X to run on that pc. When the updates are available they give out another set of patches that can be used on the update to patch it and then they can update the OS.
Yes I have been there seen doing that. (PPF patches type of patch.).
The user buys OS X retail and does what he wants. Will that be wrong.
I mean the vista inspirat theme does it, Vista Transformation Pack changes windows. Then why not the mac patcher!.
Would it violate a EULA that can be tested in COURT???
Hmm Interesting .. What does anyone want to say?
…from Psystar directly to its customers. It looks like they don’t give a damn about those who bought their products and were the reason Psystar was able to provide a service/product in the first place, and instead are more interested in making a quick buck at the expense of their customers.
I would’ve preferred to see them fight this in court and attempt to “legalize” Mac clones but having the judge call bullshit on Apple’s EULA. THEN we might be getting somewhere, and everyone wins. I don’t even see how Apple can “lose,” except maybe as a monopoly manufacturer of PCs with Mac OS. As it is, looks like Psystar’s about to just take the money and run.
Ironically, it’s not really a “clone” at all, considering it’s just a PC with a modified BIOS. Yet, it looks like this will remain somewhere between gray and illegal. It’d be nice if *something* good comes out of this, but probably nothing will.
This just serves as a kick in the face to the computer/PC industry by a small, greedy company who felt like cashing in on something I’m sure a lot of people would like: to run Mac OS X, but not having to go through Apple and pay a premium to do it.
Can’t say that I would’ve bought their computers in the first place, unless they proved their reliability and trust as a company… looks like that’s shot.