I'm a republican. I like the idea of people taking care of themselves. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything. That's party discrimination. Yeah... Keep working hard on your job. Millions on welfare depend on you!
Self-reliance predates the modern Republican Party which doesn't remotely resemble it's origins as the Democratic Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Sir Thomas Paine and more.
Once upon a time Mac hardware was unique. Now it's not.
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so. The resulting "Hackintosh" machines work great. The only reason you can't simply shove OS X on a Dell is an artificial restriction within OS X.
So if Apple wanted to, it could release OS X as a direct competitor for Vista. It would sell boxed copies of OS X to run on machines that are certified for OS X. Apple would continue to sell its own line of certified hardware.
Many think this would be a mistake, because Apple's hardware is uncompetitive, and the subsequent loss of hardware sales would cost more than the new OS X revenue. Only the insiders at Apple would know for sure.
I personally think that this would be the best thing to happen to the World's computer industry.
So here is a thought exercise...
Imagine that Jobs and Apple *wanted* to do this. They have been wanting to do this for years. They want to enter the OS space. They want to take on Windows directly. But they are blocked by long-standing agreements with Microsoft. Their hands are tied.
But if Apple lost this case with Psystar... And the courts ruled that if Apple want to sell OS X as a product, it must be sold to any hardware capable of running it... Then suddenly those deals are moot. Apple's hands are untied.
C.
Once upon a time, FORD Cars were unique to their assembly line and yet they used the Combustion Engine that was available from various other Car Manufacturers.
They all ran on Petro--x86 processors.
They all managed to make their own flavor of car, have their own patents and fight for marketshare.
Capitalism, Free Markets and maximum competition for products that perform the same tasks are never in jeopardy when a company owns a small fraction of the markets.
OS X and Linux own small fractions of the markets. Microsoft owns the lion's share.
I really wish the American Bar Association (ABA) restores 3 days of oral, 3 days of written to pass the Bar.
Today's 1 day oral, 1 day written results in mountains of bulls*** like this lawsuit.
What's worse is that it produces armchair lawyers on tech sites as if they have a f'n clue how Corporate Law even works.
I don't like EULA's much either, but the courts can't force Apple to support 3rd party computers, if 3rd party manufacturers want to sell clones, they're going to have to support the software themselves, and that brings me to another point, if they modify Apple's code and redistribute it, that's copyright infringement.
Sebastian
Well the full story on the legality of EULA has yet to be written. There was a very recent case that may be applicable here. In that case the courts ruled that radio stations could resell CDs given to them by the record companies even if they where labeled "not for resale". So I don't see Apple having much success complaining about each Mac OS/X package they redistribute. This is no different than your right to sell a car or vacuum cleaner after you are done with it.
The copyright issue is a bit different and is where Apple might have a chance. I do not know enough about the specifics here but this will be a case focused on extremely narrow issues and specific pieces of code. Originally I was under the impression that Pystar simply had a utility that enabled installation of OS/X on their machine. I don't see that specifically being a copy right violation. I could be wrong, but the OS is being purchased thru normal Apple distribution channels, one copy per machine, so nothing is being stolen.
Part of the answer to Apples problems may lie in getting rid of the current EULA and have customers sign real contracts that might even be legal. The other possibility is for Apple to simply raise the price of OS installation disks to the point that economics prevent Pystar from succeding. Sure this screws everybody else but there are ways around that too.
In any event the entire history of the computer industry has revolved around these sorts of issues we see. Can Apple nail Pystar on copy right issues - possibly. The bigger problem is that Pystar can focus a lot of eyes on Apples practices. Though Pystar is focused on computers all this energy could impact other divisions. Proactive regulators would love to look into and "fix" the ITunes & IPod "problem".
I'm not saying any of this is right just that justice department is impacted more by politics than the law.
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so.
That's not entirely true. The most important thing that's unique to Mac hardware is that Apple makes certain configs, controls what those configs are, and tests ONLY for those configs.
The precise hardware configuration DOES have an effect on the OS and its parts. That's why sometimes an OS bug will affect one Mac and not another.
So Apple has to test for different machines, and respond to specific configs' problems when they arise.
Currently they have to test for a limited number of known configs--which they got to choose in the first place. (Hardware and software designed together.)
You can't argue that testing for "all manner of standard PC hardware" would not cost Apple time and money. It would, for every OS update, every new feature, and every patch or fix. At best they'd have to do more testing. At worst they'd have to add complexity to their code to account for all that variability. All of this takes time and money.
And that, in turn, means:
* Slower innovation of OS X. (Not only due to more testing, but due to the need for larger and more unwieldy teams.)
* The growth of problems that Microsoft has faced from all that chaos of unpredictable configs.
* Apple spending money to help other companies sell computers instead of Apple's own.
* Apple getting tons of ill will and bad press every time some OTHER company's customers have a config-specific problem with an Apple app or update.
And it also means, in future, that Apple can't START making their hardware more unique. I'm sure they--and Intel--would love to, and maybe they will some time. Their recent acquisitions suggest they may have plans for making future Apple hardware do things other PCs can't, maybe with Apple-designed custom co-processors. What if Apple decides to do that? What happens later on when they eventually drop support for legacy systems? Do they get back out of the cloning experiment? Or maintain two OS's?
Mac cloning has real benefits, and nobody would deny it. But you cannot deny that it has real problems too.
Is part of this argument the fact that Apple sells OS X as a product, whereas Microsoft and Sony don't sell the OS that runs the XBOX360 and PS3?
-Kevin
Yes! It is really a qustion of the applicability of the "right of first sale". That is can a manufacture legally prevent you from reselling some you purchased from them. Mac OS is available on the shelf as a product sold by Apple. Interestingly this legal action is of equal concern to MS as they would like you to believe that you can't resell a PC with their OS on it.
There is more to it than that of course. Apple has focused on copy right issues that skirt around that issue. Probably a good thing to as recent court rulings would seem to indicate that Apple would have a hard time preventing a resale of the OS package. So expect a sharply focused law suit.
You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity. Let's complicate things a little to make your burger analogy a little closer to reality.
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
Do you think Burger King should still have the right to stop that?
Not unless Burger King specifically states that the sauce you buy off the shelf can only be used on a buger bought from Burger King.
Apple specifically states that the OSX you buy off the shelf can only be install on a Mac.
That is the difference.
So what stops you from putting the sauce on your own burger or installing OSX on your own non Mac computer.
Nothing
But what you can't do is to benifit financially from it. You can not start selling burgers and advertise that it taste just like a Whopper when you add the special off the shelf ketchup. Even if you don't actually supply the ketchup itself. Not unless to get a license from Burger King to do so.
And you can not sell a non Mac computer and advertise that it will run OSX. Even if you don't supply the copy of OSX. You can not use OSX as a selling point for a product without a license from Apple. OSX is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. They can do as they please with it. And Apple has the right to protect all potential income derive from the use of OSX. By not paying Apple for a license to sell non Mac clones, you are damaging Apple ability to sell licenses to the likes of Dell or HP in the future. Even if Apple has no intention of ever doing so. You can not force Apple to license OSX.
Just like how you must license someone elses copyrighted song if you want to use it in a project in which you might benifit financially from. And if the copyright owner of the song doesn't want his/her song used in your project, guess what? You can't use the song. That's final. A music copyright holder that is a vegetarian has every right to not license his/her song for a Whopper commericial. No matter how much Burger King is willing to pay for that license. There is no law broken by withholding the license to use your intellectuall property.
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
Your first mistake is assuming that I'm a republican. Nothing could be further from the truth, I'm not registered with any party nor will I be. I make up mind on a case by case basis, something that requires the capability to think for ones self.
As for truth or facts at least I don't run around supporting positions on the war, global warming or abortion based on ignorance or cowardice. Sometimes you need the strength to look past the posturing to discover the alterior motives. Let me clear both sides are blessed with hidden agendas but little if any thing from the left is based on facts or truths. The global warming debate being the most current example of crap science. That is not denying that something might be happening just that a good 80% of the alarmist reports have no solid science behind the proclamations nor are they properly reviewed as one would expect with respect to good science.
In any event if younare pro Apple then I stand by my original statement don't vote Obama. The rational is simple, to implement some of his plans he would need a justice department that is very much anti big business. Like it or not today Apple is a big business. More so there are many companies that would love to see Apple tripped up because of their inability to compete against Apples vertical business model. They are especially exposed here with ITunes & the IPods. It would not be a surprise to see Apple forced to split one or the other off or open up ITunes to other hardware. The writting is pretty much on the wall here, one just needs to tune into the pulse of the music industry and their revulsion with Apples power and success as an outsider. Don't get me wrong ITunes was one of the reasons I got my MBP but political donors expect pay offs and the music industry is heavily weighted towards the left.
The Macs and other hardware are a different story obviously. The problem is Apple has done some things poorly of late that will generate consumer complaints. Screw ups like iPhone 3G cause people to focus on you in ways you don't want. Here we are talking about attorny generals, consumer affairs departments and general bad press. Once they are looking little things that may fly under the radar get noticed. I know that many in this thread are of a mind that Apple can do no wrong. Regulators and lawyers don't think that way though. There is an old adage that says "where there is smoke there is fire" which seems to be where we are at right now with Apple.
Dave
PS
By the way the above has nothing to do with the building catching on fire on the Apple campus. It is just an observation that if the regulatory envirnment changes much in the future Apple will have some explaining to do.
Lose, they are going to lose. Loose is where something is not tight, does not fit snugly. Lose is to not win.
Thanks
OK, so while we're at it, it's also "They are gonna (i.e. going to) lose, anyway." And to be perfectly honest, I think it must be "They will lose, anyway", as it is a future condition they can't influence.
That's not entirely true. The most important thing that's unique to Mac hardware is that Apple makes certain configs, controls what those configs are, and tests ONLY for those configs.
The precise hardware configuration DOES have an effect on the OS and its parts. That's why sometimes an OS bug will affect one Mac and not another.
So Apple has to test for different machines, and respond to specific configs' problems when they arise.
Everything you say is true.
Microsoft made a huge error by trying to get Windows work on *every* bit of PC hardware - and made this worse by permitting unlicenced drivers to mess up the system.
But Apple is not that stupid. It could sell their OS without making the same dumb mistake.
3rd party iPod hardware has to carry a sticker. The vendor pays Apple for the sticker. And consumers are certain that the hardware will work.
A similar program for computer vendors is completely possible.
If Epson says "you can only use Epson Ink in Epson printers"
Would this be legal?
C.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
Can't wait to see how Psystar's inevitable OpenXbox360s that use the console's custom OS bundled with near identical hardware fly with Microsoft. Then the OpenWii, OpenPS3, OpenPSP, OpenDS.
Bingo! In the unlikely event that Psystar would win their case that would mean that Dell and HP could also sell machines with OS X pre-installed without Apple's permission, support or fees. And this goes for Microsoft too. They would no longer be able to threaten OEMs with losing their Windows license if they shipped Windows-less hardware. As another poster mentioned there's more to this than Psystar. They came out of nowhere. Where did they get their startup capital?Somebody with deep pockets is behind this testing the legal waters. Follow the money and you will find the truth.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
I think there is something different that would happen in these examples. Copyright, trademark and patent laws are not very simple. There are laws that address protections for software.
Besides, where HP makes their money is in their ink and toner. The printers are supposed to be a loss leader. Where Apple makes their money is the hardware, not the software.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
It certainly is legal to sell 3rd party ink which works with Epson Printers.
So why not 3rd party hardware with works with Apple's software?
It certainly is legal to sell 3rd party ink which works with Epson Printers.
So why not 3rd party hardware with works with Apple's software?
C.
Because Apple has a copyright on OSX.
Not all ink cartridges have patents attach to them. You can bet that there are no third party HP toner cartridge/fuser. I'm willing to bet that HP have patents behind the technology that goes into those.
And how do you know that the third party ink company didn't obtain a license to sell their ink cartridges. Have you ever notice that it may take up to a year before you can get third party ink for a new printer. Is this because it takes that long to produce the new cartridge? Or maybe that's how long they have to wait before the printer company give them the license to do so. The printer companies wants to make as much as possible selling their new printers by making you buy their cartridges. But after a year or so it becomes advantaous to have a third party support their printer. Consumer laws doesn't allow a company to abandon support for a product before it's expected life cycle. For a car it's ten years. For a printer, maybe 3 to 5 (I really don't know). But the bottom line is that if there's no third party supply for a printer, then the company that made it has to keep making the cartridges for all their old printers.
I know, people will say, one more conspiracy theory but read me until the end and I am sure you will agree with me:
I personally think that Psytar is just a front...
Let's face it, most people would still buy Apple computers, even if Psytar was a legitimate business. So the financial interest of such a company is VERY limited.
The point I made above is to show that I don't see a start-up of so little commercial interest having enough cash to sustain a lawsuit that might last quite a long time and be extremely costly. And all this for what ? just to get the right to become a "legal software hacker" ??? I don't believe any court would grant this but I can see how companies like Microsoft could be behind such a scam.
Microsoft is essentially a software company (Zune and X-Box are just very small players in their business) so it would be natural for them to try to present Apple as a software company also because even if Apple is an integrated computing solutions company (combo hardware + software), Apple is stilling more and more their consumer section of the market and already started to dent into the business section too (without mentioning the education sector that is Apple's niche)
My point here is that the main beneficiary of presenting Apple as a purely software company is not individual clone makers but Microsoft. Apple can't compete on the software only, we saw it during the era of the legal clones that had to come to an end or would have sunk Apple.
If becoming a software company and allowing clones, Apple would not be able to compete with cheap computer makers and therefore would not be able to develop new hardware, this means, no new innovation (specialty of Microsoft by the way: do nothing new, consumers should be happy with what they have already and are anyway already demanding too much )
When you buy a mac, that might be true that you pay a little more than the same hardware from a generic manufacturer but, you pay also for design, and mostly for the development of the NEXT mac !! When you buy software, you pay MUCH more than the media on which it is sold, or the packaging in which it is wrapped, you pay for the development of the next update and new software too.
Microsoft wants to assert its monopoly on Operating Systems and sadly for them, they are loosing ground to Apple but HEY that's called competition !!!! (and OSX is better and CHEAPER than Windows). This is why I strongly suspect that the main beneficiary of Psytar is not Psytar but MICROSOFT !!!
I kind of agree with you, but the MacBook is just a cheap PC that is over priced, so if anything I hope this law suit causes Apple to lower it's price. Remember, the iBook G4 was $999, they moved to intel which is cheaper to buy than motorola's G4 Chip because of the bulk rate, and what did Apple do? Rase the price $100, such BS, they should have lowered the price $100 to $899.
The MacBook is made our of crappy plastic, the topcase cracks, the bezel comes off the display, the hard drive's go way to quickly. They are cheap machines and they don't hold up like the old iBooks so they should be priced like so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7
Psystar, will you just roll over and die please? Pretty Please? No one wants Mac OS X on cheap PC hardware. This cheapens a genuine Mac experience. Mac hardware and OS X go hand in hand. One without the other is just not quite right.
Are we seriously so blinded by our fanboyism that we can't at least *see* where Psystar *might* have a point? I attempt to provide a purely objective argument below so that the Zealots can see the error in their blind imperialism. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
[center]-- -- -- -- --[/center]
Psystar doesn't say Apple is a monopoly. They say they are monopolistic, i.e. conspiring to monopolize. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use anti-competitive tactics to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This is what Psystar is accusing Apple of.
How might Apple be anti-competitive? Psystar says they are Tying (legal definition) OS X to their own hardware. Tying in and of itself is not illegal unless it is used to promote sales of an unrelated product. This is where the majority of the debate is:
Does OS X really necessitate running *only* on Apple's hardware? Macs contain a high proportion of generic parts themselves: hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... In reality, Apple's hardware isn't any more unique from Dell's as Dell's hardware is from HP's. Moreover, the OSx86 community has shown us that with almost no modification whatsoever, they can flawlessly run OS X on third-party hardware.
These are simply the facts. It will be up to the judge/jury to use these facts (along with those that support Apple's case) to decide whether or not OS X is really meant for Apple's hardware, and subsequently, whether or not Apple is using anti-competitive means to (attempt to) acquire a hardware monopoly where there might not have otherwise been.
[center]-- -- -- -- --[/center]
This being said, Psystar stands little to no chance at avoiding the copyright infringement charges, which are an entirely different case.
It's okay under fair user to modify one's own copy of a copyrighted work (in this case OS X) and it's even okay under the First-Sale Doctrine to resell your copy of OS X... but you may not resell a modified version of a copyrighted work. Psystar has clearly done so and will likely be found guilty of copyright infringement.
Please note that these charges are separate from those regarding EULA-breaking/anti-competitive practices.
Of course Apple could just stop selling retail boxes of Mac OSX, and sell "Upgrade edition" Boxes, which require an existing copy of Mac OSX to install. Or not offer upgrades beyond the version of OSX you get with your computer. Nothing forcing them to sell a product at all.
Apple have done the cloner thing before and it almost killed them. Apple probably had a chance to make Mac OS the dominant platform back when Windows was in it's throws of infancy if they licensed clone's then, they didn't, Windows has surged to dominance, and Apple tried to claw back with a cloning program which failed miserably. I doubt they will want to do it again. Plus they do pretty well out of selling hardware
If Apple are forced to endure clones again, and all of the sudden making computers (and thus Mac OSX) is not profitable anymore and Apple stop then that's not going to be good for competition is it.
<sarcasm> Maybe this is all an evil plot by the Linux users of the world who are annoyed that Mac OSX and not Linux is considered the competition in the desktop OS market. </sarcasm>
Comments
I'm a republican. I like the idea of people taking care of themselves. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything. That's party discrimination. Yeah... Keep working hard on your job. Millions on welfare depend on you!
Self-reliance predates the modern Republican Party which doesn't remotely resemble it's origins as the Democratic Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Sir Thomas Paine and more.
Once upon a time Mac hardware was unique. Now it's not.
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so. The resulting "Hackintosh" machines work great. The only reason you can't simply shove OS X on a Dell is an artificial restriction within OS X.
So if Apple wanted to, it could release OS X as a direct competitor for Vista. It would sell boxed copies of OS X to run on machines that are certified for OS X. Apple would continue to sell its own line of certified hardware.
Many think this would be a mistake, because Apple's hardware is uncompetitive, and the subsequent loss of hardware sales would cost more than the new OS X revenue. Only the insiders at Apple would know for sure.
I personally think that this would be the best thing to happen to the World's computer industry.
So here is a thought exercise...
Imagine that Jobs and Apple *wanted* to do this. They have been wanting to do this for years. They want to enter the OS space. They want to take on Windows directly. But they are blocked by long-standing agreements with Microsoft. Their hands are tied.
But if Apple lost this case with Psystar... And the courts ruled that if Apple want to sell OS X as a product, it must be sold to any hardware capable of running it... Then suddenly those deals are moot. Apple's hands are untied.
C.
Once upon a time, FORD Cars were unique to their assembly line and yet they used the Combustion Engine that was available from various other Car Manufacturers.
They all ran on Petro--x86 processors.
They all managed to make their own flavor of car, have their own patents and fight for marketshare.
Capitalism, Free Markets and maximum competition for products that perform the same tasks are never in jeopardy when a company owns a small fraction of the markets.
OS X and Linux own small fractions of the markets. Microsoft owns the lion's share.
I really wish the American Bar Association (ABA) restores 3 days of oral, 3 days of written to pass the Bar.
Today's 1 day oral, 1 day written results in mountains of bulls*** like this lawsuit.
What's worse is that it produces armchair lawyers on tech sites as if they have a f'n clue how Corporate Law even works.
I don't like EULA's much either, but the courts can't force Apple to support 3rd party computers, if 3rd party manufacturers want to sell clones, they're going to have to support the software themselves, and that brings me to another point, if they modify Apple's code and redistribute it, that's copyright infringement.
Sebastian
Well the full story on the legality of EULA has yet to be written. There was a very recent case that may be applicable here. In that case the courts ruled that radio stations could resell CDs given to them by the record companies even if they where labeled "not for resale". So I don't see Apple having much success complaining about each Mac OS/X package they redistribute. This is no different than your right to sell a car or vacuum cleaner after you are done with it.
The copyright issue is a bit different and is where Apple might have a chance. I do not know enough about the specifics here but this will be a case focused on extremely narrow issues and specific pieces of code. Originally I was under the impression that Pystar simply had a utility that enabled installation of OS/X on their machine. I don't see that specifically being a copy right violation. I could be wrong, but the OS is being purchased thru normal Apple distribution channels, one copy per machine, so nothing is being stolen.
Part of the answer to Apples problems may lie in getting rid of the current EULA and have customers sign real contracts that might even be legal. The other possibility is for Apple to simply raise the price of OS installation disks to the point that economics prevent Pystar from succeding. Sure this screws everybody else but there are ways around that too.
In any event the entire history of the computer industry has revolved around these sorts of issues we see. Can Apple nail Pystar on copy right issues - possibly. The bigger problem is that Pystar can focus a lot of eyes on Apples practices. Though Pystar is focused on computers all this energy could impact other divisions. Proactive regulators would love to look into and "fix" the ITunes & IPod "problem".
I'm not saying any of this is right just that justice department is impacted more by politics than the law.
Dave
Apple's current hardware is now entirely made from generic PC parts. Not the cheapest parts. But there is nothing in there that is unique to Apple. Windows runs on Macs. And it's easy for amateurs to get OS X to run on all manner of standard PC hardware. It's trivial to do so.
That's not entirely true. The most important thing that's unique to Mac hardware is that Apple makes certain configs, controls what those configs are, and tests ONLY for those configs.
The precise hardware configuration DOES have an effect on the OS and its parts. That's why sometimes an OS bug will affect one Mac and not another.
So Apple has to test for different machines, and respond to specific configs' problems when they arise.
Currently they have to test for a limited number of known configs--which they got to choose in the first place. (Hardware and software designed together.)
You can't argue that testing for "all manner of standard PC hardware" would not cost Apple time and money. It would, for every OS update, every new feature, and every patch or fix. At best they'd have to do more testing. At worst they'd have to add complexity to their code to account for all that variability. All of this takes time and money.
And that, in turn, means:
* Slower innovation of OS X. (Not only due to more testing, but due to the need for larger and more unwieldy teams.)
* The growth of problems that Microsoft has faced from all that chaos of unpredictable configs.
* Apple spending money to help other companies sell computers instead of Apple's own.
* Apple getting tons of ill will and bad press every time some OTHER company's customers have a config-specific problem with an Apple app or update.
And it also means, in future, that Apple can't START making their hardware more unique. I'm sure they--and Intel--would love to, and maybe they will some time. Their recent acquisitions suggest they may have plans for making future Apple hardware do things other PCs can't, maybe with Apple-designed custom co-processors. What if Apple decides to do that? What happens later on when they eventually drop support for legacy systems? Do they get back out of the cloning experiment? Or maintain two OS's?
Mac cloning has real benefits, and nobody would deny it. But you cannot deny that it has real problems too.
Is part of this argument the fact that Apple sells OS X as a product, whereas Microsoft and Sony don't sell the OS that runs the XBOX360 and PS3?
-Kevin
Yes! It is really a qustion of the applicability of the "right of first sale". That is can a manufacture legally prevent you from reselling some you purchased from them. Mac OS is available on the shelf as a product sold by Apple. Interestingly this legal action is of equal concern to MS as they would like you to believe that you can't resell a PC with their OS on it.
There is more to it than that of course. Apple has focused on copy right issues that skirt around that issue. Probably a good thing to as recent court rulings would seem to indicate that Apple would have a hard time preventing a resale of the OS package. So expect a sharply focused law suit.
Dave
You're oversimplifying it to the point of absurdity. Let's complicate things a little to make your burger analogy a little closer to reality.
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
Do you think Burger King should still have the right to stop that?
Not unless Burger King specifically states that the sauce you buy off the shelf can only be used on a buger bought from Burger King.
Apple specifically states that the OSX you buy off the shelf can only be install on a Mac.
That is the difference.
So what stops you from putting the sauce on your own burger or installing OSX on your own non Mac computer.
Nothing
But what you can't do is to benifit financially from it. You can not start selling burgers and advertise that it taste just like a Whopper when you add the special off the shelf ketchup. Even if you don't actually supply the ketchup itself. Not unless to get a license from Burger King to do so.
And you can not sell a non Mac computer and advertise that it will run OSX. Even if you don't supply the copy of OSX. You can not use OSX as a selling point for a product without a license from Apple. OSX is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. They can do as they please with it. And Apple has the right to protect all potential income derive from the use of OSX. By not paying Apple for a license to sell non Mac clones, you are damaging Apple ability to sell licenses to the likes of Dell or HP in the future. Even if Apple has no intention of ever doing so. You can not force Apple to license OSX.
Just like how you must license someone elses copyrighted song if you want to use it in a project in which you might benifit financially from. And if the copyright owner of the song doesn't want his/her song used in your project, guess what? You can't use the song. That's final. A music copyright holder that is a vegetarian has every right to not license his/her song for a Whopper commericial. No matter how much Burger King is willing to pay for that license. There is no law broken by withholding the license to use your intellectuall property.
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
Your first mistake is assuming that I'm a republican. Nothing could be further from the truth, I'm not registered with any party nor will I be. I make up mind on a case by case basis, something that requires the capability to think for ones self.
As for truth or facts at least I don't run around supporting positions on the war, global warming or abortion based on ignorance or cowardice. Sometimes you need the strength to look past the posturing to discover the alterior motives. Let me clear both sides are blessed with hidden agendas but little if any thing from the left is based on facts or truths. The global warming debate being the most current example of crap science. That is not denying that something might be happening just that a good 80% of the alarmist reports have no solid science behind the proclamations nor are they properly reviewed as one would expect with respect to good science.
In any event if younare pro Apple then I stand by my original statement don't vote Obama. The rational is simple, to implement some of his plans he would need a justice department that is very much anti big business. Like it or not today Apple is a big business. More so there are many companies that would love to see Apple tripped up because of their inability to compete against Apples vertical business model. They are especially exposed here with ITunes & the IPods. It would not be a surprise to see Apple forced to split one or the other off or open up ITunes to other hardware. The writting is pretty much on the wall here, one just needs to tune into the pulse of the music industry and their revulsion with Apples power and success as an outsider. Don't get me wrong ITunes was one of the reasons I got my MBP but political donors expect pay offs and the music industry is heavily weighted towards the left.
The Macs and other hardware are a different story obviously. The problem is Apple has done some things poorly of late that will generate consumer complaints. Screw ups like iPhone 3G cause people to focus on you in ways you don't want. Here we are talking about attorny generals, consumer affairs departments and general bad press. Once they are looking little things that may fly under the radar get noticed. I know that many in this thread are of a mind that Apple can do no wrong. Regulators and lawyers don't think that way though. There is an old adage that says "where there is smoke there is fire" which seems to be where we are at right now with Apple.
Dave
PS
By the way the above has nothing to do with the building catching on fire on the Apple campus. It is just an observation that if the regulatory envirnment changes much in the future Apple will have some explaining to do.
D
They gonna loose anyway.
Lose, they are going to lose. Loose is where something is not tight, does not fit snugly. Lose is to not win.
Thanks
OK, so while we're at it, it's also "They are gonna (i.e. going to) lose, anyway." And to be perfectly honest, I think it must be "They will lose, anyway", as it is a future condition they can't influence.
That's not entirely true. The most important thing that's unique to Mac hardware is that Apple makes certain configs, controls what those configs are, and tests ONLY for those configs.
The precise hardware configuration DOES have an effect on the OS and its parts. That's why sometimes an OS bug will affect one Mac and not another.
So Apple has to test for different machines, and respond to specific configs' problems when they arise.
Everything you say is true.
Microsoft made a huge error by trying to get Windows work on *every* bit of PC hardware - and made this worse by permitting unlicenced drivers to mess up the system.
But Apple is not that stupid. It could sell their OS without making the same dumb mistake.
3rd party iPod hardware has to carry a sticker. The vendor pays Apple for the sticker. And consumers are certain that the hardware will work.
A similar program for computer vendors is completely possible.
C.
What's worse is that it produces armchair lawyers on tech sites as if they have a f'n clue how Corporate Law even works.
The legal arguments are less interesting than the commercial ones.
But before you start calling Psystar's lawyers idots, you might want to notice that they have beaten Apple before.
C.
Would this be legal?
C.
If Epson says "you can only use Epson Ink in Epson printers"
Would this be legal?
C.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
Can't wait to see how Psystar's inevitable OpenXbox360s that use the console's custom OS bundled with near identical hardware fly with Microsoft. Then the OpenWii, OpenPS3, OpenPSP, OpenDS.
Bingo! In the unlikely event that Psystar would win their case that would mean that Dell and HP could also sell machines with OS X pre-installed without Apple's permission, support or fees. And this goes for Microsoft too. They would no longer be able to threaten OEMs with losing their Windows license if they shipped Windows-less hardware. As another poster mentioned there's more to this than Psystar. They came out of nowhere. Where did they get their startup capital?Somebody with deep pockets is behind this testing the legal waters. Follow the money and you will find the truth.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
I think there is something different that would happen in these examples. Copyright, trademark and patent laws are not very simple. There are laws that address protections for software.
Besides, where HP makes their money is in their ink and toner. The printers are supposed to be a loss leader. Where Apple makes their money is the hardware, not the software.
Yes, Most ink jet printers state that you may void your warrantee if you use other brand ink.
But the issue is, can you make a printer that takes advantage some one elses ink technology. Can I go out and design a laser printer that uses an HP laser toner cartridge? And advertise, HP quality without the price of an HP printer.
It certainly is legal to sell 3rd party ink which works with Epson Printers.
So why not 3rd party hardware with works with Apple's software?
C.
It certainly is legal to sell 3rd party ink which works with Epson Printers.
So why not 3rd party hardware with works with Apple's software?
C.
Because Apple has a copyright on OSX.
Not all ink cartridges have patents attach to them. You can bet that there are no third party HP toner cartridge/fuser. I'm willing to bet that HP have patents behind the technology that goes into those.
And how do you know that the third party ink company didn't obtain a license to sell their ink cartridges. Have you ever notice that it may take up to a year before you can get third party ink for a new printer. Is this because it takes that long to produce the new cartridge? Or maybe that's how long they have to wait before the printer company give them the license to do so. The printer companies wants to make as much as possible selling their new printers by making you buy their cartridges. But after a year or so it becomes advantaous to have a third party support their printer. Consumer laws doesn't allow a company to abandon support for a product before it's expected life cycle. For a car it's ten years. For a printer, maybe 3 to 5 (I really don't know). But the bottom line is that if there's no third party supply for a printer, then the company that made it has to keep making the cartridges for all their old printers.
I personally think that Psytar is just a front...
Let's face it, most people would still buy Apple computers, even if Psytar was a legitimate business. So the financial interest of such a company is VERY limited.
The point I made above is to show that I don't see a start-up of so little commercial interest having enough cash to sustain a lawsuit that might last quite a long time and be extremely costly. And all this for what ? just to get the right to become a "legal software hacker" ??? I don't believe any court would grant this but I can see how companies like Microsoft could be behind such a scam.
Microsoft is essentially a software company (Zune and X-Box are just very small players in their business) so it would be natural for them to try to present Apple as a software company also because even if Apple is an integrated computing solutions company (combo hardware + software), Apple is stilling more and more their consumer section of the market and already started to dent into the business section too (without mentioning the education sector that is Apple's niche)
My point here is that the main beneficiary of presenting Apple as a purely software company is not individual clone makers but Microsoft. Apple can't compete on the software only, we saw it during the era of the legal clones that had to come to an end or would have sunk Apple.
If becoming a software company and allowing clones, Apple would not be able to compete with cheap computer makers and therefore would not be able to develop new hardware, this means, no new innovation (specialty of Microsoft by the way: do nothing new, consumers should be happy with what they have already and are anyway already demanding too much
When you buy a mac, that might be true that you pay a little more than the same hardware from a generic manufacturer but, you pay also for design, and mostly for the development of the NEXT mac !! When you buy software, you pay MUCH more than the media on which it is sold, or the packaging in which it is wrapped, you pay for the development of the next update and new software too.
Microsoft wants to assert its monopoly on Operating Systems and sadly for them, they are loosing ground to Apple but HEY that's called competition !!!! (and OSX is better and CHEAPER than Windows). This is why I strongly suspect that the main beneficiary of Psytar is not Psytar but MICROSOFT !!!
so conspiracy theory or logical reasoning ?
The MacBook is made our of crappy plastic, the topcase cracks, the bezel comes off the display, the hard drive's go way to quickly. They are cheap machines and they don't hold up like the old iBooks so they should be priced like so.
Psystar, will you just roll over and die please? Pretty Please? No one wants Mac OS X on cheap PC hardware. This cheapens a genuine Mac experience. Mac hardware and OS X go hand in hand. One without the other is just not quite right.
Are we seriously so blinded by our fanboyism that we can't at least *see* where Psystar *might* have a point? I attempt to provide a purely objective argument below so that the Zealots can see the error in their blind imperialism. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
[center]-- -- -- -- --[/center]
Psystar doesn't say Apple is a monopoly. They say they are monopolistic, i.e. conspiring to monopolize. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use anti-competitive tactics to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This is what Psystar is accusing Apple of.
How might Apple be anti-competitive? Psystar says they are Tying (legal definition) OS X to their own hardware. Tying in and of itself is not illegal unless it is used to promote sales of an unrelated product. This is where the majority of the debate is:
Does OS X really necessitate running *only* on Apple's hardware? Macs contain a high proportion of generic parts themselves: hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... In reality, Apple's hardware isn't any more unique from Dell's as Dell's hardware is from HP's. Moreover, the OSx86 community has shown us that with almost no modification whatsoever, they can flawlessly run OS X on third-party hardware.
These are simply the facts. It will be up to the judge/jury to use these facts (along with those that support Apple's case) to decide whether or not OS X is really meant for Apple's hardware, and subsequently, whether or not Apple is using anti-competitive means to (attempt to) acquire a hardware monopoly where there might not have otherwise been.
[center]-- -- -- -- --[/center]
This being said, Psystar stands little to no chance at avoiding the copyright infringement charges, which are an entirely different case.
It's okay under fair user to modify one's own copy of a copyrighted work (in this case OS X) and it's even okay under the First-Sale Doctrine to resell your copy of OS X... but you may not resell a modified version of a copyrighted work. Psystar has clearly done so and will likely be found guilty of copyright infringement.
Please note that these charges are separate from those regarding EULA-breaking/anti-competitive practices.
-Clive
Apple have done the cloner thing before and it almost killed them. Apple probably had a chance to make Mac OS the dominant platform back when Windows was in it's throws of infancy if they licensed clone's then, they didn't, Windows has surged to dominance, and Apple tried to claw back with a cloning program which failed miserably. I doubt they will want to do it again. Plus they do pretty well out of selling hardware
If Apple are forced to endure clones again, and all of the sudden making computers (and thus Mac OSX) is not profitable anymore and Apple stop then that's not going to be good for competition is it.
<sarcasm> Maybe this is all an evil plot by the Linux users of the world who are annoyed that Mac OSX and not Linux is considered the competition in the desktop OS market. </sarcasm>