Psystar hires attorneys who've faced Apple before

Oh yes! Let's see Apple "taken down" again. I'm just itching to see the impression OS X makes on people when running on shitty hardware that looks like crap. You know, with keyboards that weigh all of 1 oz. and bend in the middle when you lay your hand on them. And the dull grey box, that's pretty too. All the I-got-no-life types who have no aesthetic appreciation for anything except the boogers they pick from their geek noses are hoping Apple is taken down to their level of dullness.

This *sounds* really scary, but isn't it more likely that the Burst.com cases were won on the basis of the facts of the case?

In other words, valid patents rather than clever lawyers?

Yes. it's back asswards. Burst sued Apple and MS for using their IP, while Psystar is defending against Apple for not letting them use their IP.

On one hand, I think Mac OS 10 is, by far, the best OS out there. The reason it works only on the Macintosh is that Apple obviously wants to create quality products that don't take an advanced logician to use. There is a reason that Steve Jobs panned Flash on the iPhone. Mac OS was made so that users would have an all-in-one solution - whether developing, creating digital art, or editing video - to intuitively take care of all one's computing needs. With Windows, you just get the base system - even in the most intricate versions of Vista - for which you still need to install loads of software on to do what most base Macs can do.

On the other hand, I really would like this OS to be available on other types of computers as well. The reason most gamers and computer nerds can use PCs is that, well, you can customize the hardware however you want to get the power and experience you need. There are obviously more ways one can have Windows on a computer. Plus, you do not need a virtualizer to run LINUX software on a PC; you just switch out the Windows OS for the LINUX one. Therefore, PCs tend to attract a lot of do-it-yourself computer geeks.

Apple's greatest strengths have often been their biggest weaknesses. Essentially, they provide everything one will ever need, but they do not allow for a whole lot of options for diversification. Microsoft, according to macrumors.com, are shifting their strategy to focus more on Apple's "end-to-end" model while still retaining an emphasis on choice. The reason Apple still hasn't taken over the Personal Computer market yet is that they tend to go with a policy where it's up to you to choose a complete Apple experience or a complete Windows experience. Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.

I don't think there's the slightest chance that Psystar can win this lawsuit. Apple has the right to license or not license their software in whatever way they see fit.

What's next, demanding that the iPhone version of OSX be licensed to Motorola and other cell phone manufacturers?

The whole thing is stupid.

Not all PCs look like crap. In fact, there are some from Alienware and Cyber Power PC that look amazing. I'm sure one could still create another chassis if one was creative enough. Also, I have seen plenty of PC users that are not complete nerds. Overall, I think Psystar's juncture has a lot more to do with options for the user, not just aesthetic style. In other words, your argument, I think, is extremely biased.

Isn't Apple the one suing Psystar in this case?

Don't you mean Apple sued Psystar?
In the Burst cases, these lawyers were the plaintiffs. Now they are the defendants.

[QUOTE=Crtaylor;1287065. The reason Apple still hasn't taken over the Personal Computer market yet is that they tend to go with a policy where it's up to you to choose a complete Apple experience or a complete Windows experience. Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.[/QUOTE]

First off, I think Boot Camp, which came from Apple, not a third party, proves that Apple does not demand a "one or the other" experience.

Apple is not yet in the financial position to lose its hardware revenue and replace it with OS X revenue. Such may change whenever the critical market share is reached with Macs and Apple cannot meet demand. At that point allowing competitors may make sense or more likely, be forced onto Apple. The company knows what it is doing as is evidenced by the massive turn around from its too near a death experience.

A massively larger and rapidly expanding customer base has not been Apple's primary goal but Snow Leopard suggests this may well be going to change and so one may see a loosening up of Apple's licensing. Meanwhile, Apple does not have to contend with the massive amount of calls that will result from OS X going into the wild-- supporting any OS on multiple devices is a nightmare-- even MS couldn't pull it off with Vista! So, let things remain the way they are. Apple is a star in the electronics arena and doesn't NEED to change anything, even if that strategy may change in the future-- but it will most likely be when Apple is good and ripe for such a major change in its business practice.

Yes, I mistyped, but my intitial comment of it being backwards should have made my point clear.

Good point. While Apple does make good products, it does get a little overprotective about its intellectual property. The company basically has a DRM-like policy for everything the company creates. Meanwhile, Microsoft - although their OS is obviously shitty in the first place - has an attitude of transparency, where different companies can implement their own creative juices into the Windows experience. If you ask me, Apple is being much more of a Napoleon than a messiah here.

Could you clarify that? I have many 3rd-party apps on my Mac and OS X uses considerably more open-source code in their OS than MS does.

I don't see any way psystar could possibly win this.

And what does it matter that these guys got a settlement out of Apple in the past? Good lawyers only get you so far, you have to actually provide an argument based on the facts to win, and psystar doesn't seem to have anything to back up their case.

It'll never happen on SJ's watch. So far, and I suspect for a very long time, Apple has not and will not be interested in becoming MS. There is always a battle for market share but even when Apple was doing badly they still had a very large number of users. I always felt the prediction of Apple's imminent closure was somewhat exaggerated. The game has changed but Apple will only play if they can play their own game. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. Their amazing software is a means to sell more hardware. Kinda topsy turvy, but it seems to work pretty well ;-) The thing is, SJ has no interest in selling software to run on others' hardware, so he wont. I am sure he would just think it a meaningless exercise. End of story.

This article was well-written. Congrats to the author. There have been
a few substandard offerings of late.

At the risk or sacrilege, I kind of like the Dell Bamboo case...
http://www.uncrate.com/men/gear/desk...dio-hybrid-pc/

If John Grisham is reading this then please consider the following as MY copyright!! :-) (just send the 2nd million!!)

OK . here goes

Conspiracy theory?

Trojan Horse leading to greenmail.

To avoid probs all they had to do was sell their box WITHOUT OSX etc.

Why didn't they?- that's the BIG question

A 'small' outfit of 'mysterious' pedigree (see all the reports from journos trying to contact someone within directly) deliberately provokes the big guy on the block-

Why?

ANSWER:

a )its a test case for some BIG 'shy' type corporate with lots to lose waiting in the wings ready to sacrifice the minnows in the event of a loss.

The box - all the reviews give it F - so there's little credible attempt to enter the market for all practical purposes the box could have been empty save for osx on board somehow.

b) The lawyers. This lot are EXPENSIVE. This 'small' outfit cannot afford them. Contingency fee? perhaps but doubtful.They're being retained by a Mr BIG!

As reported, Apple knows the calibre of this law firm - unbeaten so far. Their case is based on tenuous grounds but its enough to stir the waters.

Apple cannot afford to lose - should they do so ... well, every man and his dog will etc etc.

So, it may pay Apple to fork over 10 mill or whatever just to maintain the status quo - better a result you can bank than one you may or may not be able to ...

Uncertainty can be removed by a settlement.

HOWEVER!!! I'm putting Jobs S, on notice that should he do a deal with this lot then I and my neighbour's dog will immediately launch the FidoMac with OSX and 9 + windoze. To save time, if Steve would care to contact me via this forum then I shall be pleased to supply details of my Cayman Island account at the Toytown Bank whereto he may forward MY 10 mill :-)

.... and, Grisham J., .... I'll be watching you too .... ;-)

The fact that Psystar's lawyers won a completely unrelated case against Apple that, unlike Psystar's, may have been based on a legitimate claim, is completely irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that Apple is the plaintiff in the Psystar case, not the defendant.

There's no chance Psystar can win this case. The copyright violation convictions are just too strong. Best-case scenario for Psystar and the OSx86 community would be for the court to find Apple's EULA to be anti-competitive and therefore not legally-binding.

This being said, I'd like to take a moment to address the cynics on this board who have so much pent up angst against the hackintosh community... You simply have no understanding of the OSx86 community. We're not pirates; we're not anti-Apple; we're not malicious... We're your fellow mac-using brethren who need hardware solutions that address a market segment that Apple has abandoned: PROSUMER.

If Apple builds it, we will come (back). Until then, we will continue to find ways to use the hardware we need with the software we need.

-Clive

Me too! But, then again, I'm a lover of the live bamboo plant:

Bambooweb.info Forum

Bambooweb.info

Mark Shuttleworth has requested the Linux Communities to improve Linux to go against OS X, not Windows.

The fact is that many GEEKS in the Linux Community have switched to Mac OS X. I use both Linux and OS X and to think Apple should listen to Psystar is ludicrous.

Psystar are retarded, they don't have a case.

Here's hoping the little guy can pull a win out.

The whole electronics industry has gotten completely absurd and needs a total overhaul. Somebody has to turn the whole industry upside down and shake it out.

What if General Motors sued YOU because you were putting THEIR OIL in somebody else's engine?

I am sick and tired of perverted protectionism where every company in the business carves out their little piece of turf and then hunkers down with an army of lawyers and sues the shit out of everybody who walks by.

The reason we can't record a TV show and automatically bypass the commercials is because TV-land's entrenched gentry sued the company who developed the technology until they drove them out of business.

Who gives a flying rat's ass whether Pystar violated Apple's End User License or not? Just because it's called an "End User License" does not make it law, or even legal for that matter; nor does it make it right or even ethical. This is why we have a legal system and courts. If allowed, Apple would frame their End User Agreements to tell all of us when we can or can't sit down on the crapper.

From the IP attorneys who work for us, the opinion seems to be that there's a good chance Pystar can win this case, and if there wasn't, it's highly doubtful an experienced, busy & expensive law firm such as Carr & Ferrell would have agreed to take the case on.

Here's from Apple's EULA for Mac OS 10.5:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single
Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more
than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it
could be used by multiple computers at the same time.


It seems that Apple may have let Psystar sell enough rope to hang itself. By letting the company sell enough computers to bankrupt it if they lose the case, Apple has solved the problem in a permanent way.
Apple's waiting seems very logical now.

Clever.

Come on MATT. Apple does not want to support every little piece of hardware on the planet like Microsoft cares to do. THATS IT. That's not protectionism, it is common sense.

"What if General Motors sued YOU because you were putting THEIR OIL in somebody else's engine?"

Then they would be a laughing stock, since they don't produce oil.

I'll mark you down as someone who does not believe in intellectual property, copyrights, or that anyone should have any control over what they invent/produce. I'll bet your IP law-yahs don't share that view.

I think the author needs a proof reader before submitting articles

Microsoft does NOT do that.
They're big enough to let the manufacturers write Windows drivers for their products.
In fact, Windows Hardware Compatibility List covers just a small fraction of all hardware that is being sold out there.

Do you use OS X? Theoretically, if Psystar wins then all Psystar would be doing is forcing Apple to add authentication keys to the OS install (something Mac users enjoy not keeping track of) and raising the price to some at least in the Windows Vista Ultimate range (something that Mac users enjoy not having to pay for an upgrade). This would weaken the "Mac experience" and destroy Apple's Mac business plan from day one in which it builds software to sell hardware. No one wins here, except the lawyers. Even Psystar loses as they now have to sell a $400+ version of OS X with their machines.

But that EULA isn't the issue here, it's the illegally copied and installed version of OS X that each and every Psystar machine has, not the copy of OS X that they sold along with it but was never used.

True Alienware's computers aren't crap, but then they aren't cheap PCs either, like Psystar's "cheap crap".

As for Psystar winning this, that's not likely.


Come back when you have something stolen from you that pays for your livelyhood and your yelling "thief". These guys are thieves. Just like the people that sell cheap knock-offs of Levi Jeans, Ray-Bans, iPods, etc...

Right. And look how many problems there are with all the different hardware.

Great Idea Pystar! Hire Patent Lawyers who have faced a company before on completely different grounds! If one team of lawyers has drawn Apple to the point where they are bored with a case, than surely, they will win against a likely different set of Apple lawyers on entirely different (and less stable) grounds. Well done.

I'd like to believe that, but can easily envision much clamor that Apple's prosumer tower is overpriced and that argument used as the justification for using Apple's IP without their permission.

The truth is too many people want the ability to determine what the manufacturer/retailer can charge. They do not have this right. They do have the right to determine that they are unwilling to pay the asking price and find a suitable substitute. I'll leave it for each individual and the courts to sort our whether their solution is both ethical and legal.

It is interesting to juxtapose this argument against those complaining about immigrants and off-shore workers diminishing their ability to make a livable wage. Some insist on being paid top dollar but are comfortable demanding that everything be provided to them at the biggest bargain.

They are only buying time. They'll probably try to sell as many systems as they can and then fold.

Perhaps give some thought as to why Apple does what it does Apple has never had the intention on being in every box, but being the best user experience. PERIOD! That has been the whole primes to their developing. Sure, they want sale like anyone else, but being the biggest, does not mean you are the best. And look at the $$; its not like they are struggling. So please STOP trying to make Apple out to be like M$. M$ competes on size while Apple competes on quality. They have tight controls which keeps the user experience very high!


WHAT? Please point out an example where M$ has transparency?? M$ has their OS locked tight while Apple uses large amounts of open source code. Please show me anything related to what you are talking about.


No you asshole, the reason why you can't record TV and automatically bypass commercials is because these commercials PAY to allow said TV shows to produce and air. Without sponsorship, there would be no content you fool!


Its called Capitalism you schmuck! But you see it as ok for someone to work hard, develop a product, establish themselves in a market place, and have someone else with an army of lawyers come and take it from them?? Or allow others to use it outside the intentions of the inventor?

I care rather anyone violates anyone else's IP agreements. It's Apples IP to do with as THEY want, not as you want. Why should they NOT be allowed to sell software on their hardware? Next, you will want to strip the TiVo code out and run it on a theft box, or run your phone software on another brands hardware?

What is there to win? You agree to install Apple software on to Apple hardware. When you don't you breach that agreement and can be held accountable.

I really hate assholes like you Thinking everyone has the right to take from anyone else. Why don't you list YOUR money making ideas here and let us run with them and make money for ourselves. I gather you think it is fine to download movies and music for free also!!

People like you are worse than lawyers.

That's just an absolute and absolutely false statement. When a company sells a product, there are plenty of rights that consumers automatically get with the purchase of that product. You mention licensing, but the licensing point is Apple's weakest argument. Their argument is that the terms in the EULA are completely enforceable, a position that is hardly proven. EULAs are one sided non-negotiated contracts and are inherently suspect. That doesn't mean many of the terms aren't enforceable, but it's not automatic. The part in the EULA about running a legally purchased copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware is very unlikely enforceable.

Apple may win on some of its claims, but what worries me about the comments I constantly see is that intellectual property rights are too often perceived as absolute. IP is an artificially defined entity (as opposed to real, physical property) and has specific purposes for its legal existence. Conveying perpetual and absolute rights over the IP is definitely not one of those purposes.

You seem to be under the impression that intellectual property is some absolute ownership over the "thing" itself, when it isn't. There is a grossly incorrect perception that copyrights (along with patents and trademarks) are like a physical piece of property where the property owner has exclusive access and therefore rights over that property. It takes only a moderate moment of thinking to realize this isn't true. IP has severe restrictions around it, with variations depending on the type of IP. Copyright and patents, for example are for an explicitly limited period of time for the sole purpose of giving exclusivity to the creator so that they can profit from it. That specifically in the US Constitution. There are also many rights and freedoms that consumers enjoy like fair use of copyrighted material.

What you espouse is that someone can use a contract to secure greater rights for themselves that they normally would have. That seems a bit outrageous if you just think about it. The Psystar case will show many different areas of the law, but on the specific issue on the enforceability of certain provisions in the EULA, Apple has a fairly weak case - especially in regards to the "you can install only on Apple hardware". If Apple sells a boxed copy of OS X and I go in and buy it, Apple cannot put artificial restrictions on my use of that item that would deny my normal legal rights.

If you think you can contract away everything and anything, then you just are plain wrong and there's no sense discussing it.

if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. Apple would indeed gain a significantly larger marketshare. On the other hand, many of us consider it extremely important to retain all the simplicity built into what you call the "Apple Experience". That's why we did not go to the PC to begin with.

I strongly suspect that this could be one of those cases where you can't have cake until you eat the broccoli.