• This forum is for posting news stories or links from rumor sites. When you start a thread, please include a link to the site you're referencing.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM TO ASK "WHAT IF?" TYPE QUESTIONS.

    THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO USE YOUR MAC OR SOFTWARE.

    This is a NEWS and RUMORS forum as the name implies. If your thread is neither of those things, then please find the appropriate forum to ask your question.

    If you don't have a link to a news story, do not post the thread here.

    If you don't follow these rules, then your post may be deleted.

Mac clone maker hires law firm that has beaten Apple before!!

Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
827
Reaction score
35
Points
28
Location
123.45.6.7
Please let us know what you think about this.

The Miami-based Macintosh clone maker that was sued by Apple earlier this month has retained a law firm that has beaten Apple in the past, court documents show.

In a Monday filing that extended Psystar’s deadline to respond to Apple’s lawsuit, the company was represented by lawyers from Carr & Ferrell LLP, a Palo Alto, Calif.-based firm that touts its intellectual property (IP) expertise on its Web site.

Read More Here.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
185
Reaction score
7
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
White 2GHz C2D Macbook - 3GB RAM, 80GB HDD
I think the situation here is a little different since in the Burst.com lawsuit, Carr & Ferrell LLP were retained to sue Apple for IP infringement. In this case, they are defending Psystar - who blatantly violated Apple's licensing agreements. I think it is difficult to say that this firm really gives Psystar any sort of advantage, since they and their legal team are on the opposite end of the issue this time vs. the last time this legal team dealt with Apple.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,229
Reaction score
75
Points
48
Your Mac's Specs
2.6GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro - 8GB DDR3 SDRAM - 750GB 7200 RPM HDD - GeForce 650M GT 1GB VRAM
And now they're going to be a law firm that has lost to Apple before. Psystar sold and profited from a modified version of OS X without getting any permission to distribute from Apple. The case is as clear-cut as it gets.
 
OP
coltssaturday
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
827
Reaction score
35
Points
28
Location
123.45.6.7
And now they're going to be a law firm that has lost to Apple before. Psystar sold and profited from a modified version of OS X without getting any permission to distribute from Apple. The case is as clear-cut as it gets.

True, but some people are thinking about what will happen if Apple loses. If Apple loses it will be BIG, of course. And then you will see many companies pop up and cause a disaster for Apple. Nevertheless, that won't happen. Psystar's future should definitely be disaster!
 
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
506
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Edmonton, AB
Your Mac's Specs
Unibody MacBook 2.4GHz/4GB Ram/320GB HD
Apple won't lose so there's no point in even wondering "what if". It's very clear that Psystar was in the wrong.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Redmond
Your Mac's Specs
Mac mini
Have a look at their machines. Would you buy one instead of say an iMac or even a Mac mini?
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
Apple won't lose so there's no point in even wondering "what if". It's very clear that Psystar was in the wrong.

But Apple has a...what's that word...your know, board game, short man, funny monacle...on OS X one could say. Isn't that why MS was in legal doo doo years back?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
61
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
DFW
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.0ghz Core Duo 1 Gig Ram 80Gig HD, iMac 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo 1gig RAM 320gig HD
But Apple has a...what's that word...your know, board game, short man, funny monacle...on OS X one could say. Isn't that why MS was in legal doo doo years back?

I think it would be hard for someone to argue that a monopoly on an OS would be illegal. If apple would not allow anyone else to make an OS then they may have a case, but that is like saying that honda has a monopoly on the s2000 essentially.

I dont think they will have any problems with losing this case.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
I think it would be hard for someone to argue that a monopoly on an OS would be illegal. If apple would not allow anyone else to make an OS then they may have a case, but that is like saying that honda has a monopoly on the s2000 essentially.

I dont think they will have any problems with losing this case.

wikipedia said:
Microsoft stated that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. Those who opposed Microsoft's position countered that the browser was still a distinct and separate product which did not need to be tied to the operating system, since a separate version of Internet Explorer was available for Mac OS. They also asserted that IE was not really free because its development and marketing costs may have kept the price of Windows higher than it might otherwise have been.

So OS X is inestricably linked to Apple computers? OS X is a distinct and seperate product and does not need to be tied to the hardware.

ThisNation.com said:
But is Microsoft's market share (about 90%) so massive that it can behave like a monopoly? A monopoly can set prices artificially high because it has no serious competitors to force it to do otherwise. It can also arbitrarily limit the supply of the good or service it provides to create scarcity and drive prices up. In either case, the monopoly collects a "rent" on its domination of a particular sector of the economy. This rent represents income above and beyond the efficient price it could charge for its product in a competitive market environment.

Legally, a monopoly or "trust" exists when an individual or firm can explicitly force competitors out of business by slashing prices, buying up and hoarding supplies, bribery or intimidation (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914).

Apple can set the prices of their computers at whatever price they want because you can not, according to their EULA, use OS X on anything but Apple hardware. Don't you think that Apple could still profit off of every machine if they cut their prices $100? $200?

If OS X was available for other computers, then do you think Apple would keep selling their entry level desktop at $1000 when other people can sell them for $500?
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
1,868
Reaction score
106
Points
63
Your Mac's Specs
G4 Cube
So OS X is inestricably linked to Apple computers? OS X is a distinct and seperate product and does not need to be tied to the hardware.

I think therein lies the problem...if Apple were to release it's OS for general use, then it'd run the risk of turning into Windows. There's simply too much hardware for it to support reliably, because not all programmers are as skilled as the ones they hire for their hardware. Mac would be just as buggy as Windows if they did a general release of OS X. You could argue that Mac limits their hardware to their own for smooth operation, but if you really try doing an iMovie project with a consumer HD camcorder and 1GB RAM/5400rpm HDD on the Mini, you'd see the experience is not so "smooth" after all.

I think this is the gap that EFI-X is trying to fill...it fills that niche for consumer power users who don't have $2,800 to spend on a nice machine and don't want the limitations and expense that the iMac offers (limited RAM, non-upgradable CPU, built-in screen, etc.). There's no mid-range Mac for those of us who want a built-in Time Machine drive, 8 gigs of RAM, and a quad-core processor. It's kind of a tough situation. Apple is turning into Microsoft, in some ways. I was just reading a good article at Newsweek on the topic:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157545

I really like Apple, but some of their business practices aren't so great and they've had some annoying flaws lately (buggy iPhone firmware, glitchy MobileMe rollout, etc.). One of the reasons that it's a tough situation is that Apple tries very hard to make good products and now that their user base has expanded, they've come under more scrutiny than in the past. Every flaw, mistake, and rumor is notice.

Although I do hope Psytar wins so that I can have a cheap Mac, I also hope Psytar doesn't win so that we can continue to have good Apple products. Pystar makes really crappy computers anyway...all of the reviews I've read said that they are loud and used cheap parts, which is lame - you can do better for the same price and still make a profit. I think it would have been better if they had released some quality clones instead of junker clones, haha.

I don't know...I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand, Apple is kind of running a monopoly - no one else can make Apple computers. They're a billion-dollar company and almost all of the money goes back into themselves. On the other hand, I enjoy my Apple products and Apple is a well-run company from a business standpoint...they probably need vacuums to suck up all the money they've been getting in lately. It's a tough call and I'll be following this intently.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
454
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
Lancashire UK
Your Mac's Specs
MBP 15 inch 1.83. iBook G4.
Would there be other consequences for Apple in relation to the operating system should a court ever agree that they cannot just tie it to their own hardware. Surely they couldn't be forced to alter the OS to work on these other machines more smoothly?

Clearly there may be profitability issues and product growth issues if people don't see value in the hardware but I don't quite understand or appreciate at this moment in time what the big deal would be about quality of the OS if Apple were told that they had to let their OS be bought for use on other hardware.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Location
Denver, CO
Your Mac's Specs
eMac, 1GHZ, 1GB Memory, OS X 10.5
Invariably, people will learn how to build an Intel system that can run OS X out of the box. It's not hard to figure out what parts to gather up. Intel is Intel, the video card Apple uses is the same as what is out there.


James
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
Would there be other consequences for Apple in relation to the operating system should a court ever agree that they cannot just tie it to their own hardware. Surely they couldn't be forced to alter the OS to work on these other machines more smoothly?

Clearly there may be profitability issues and product growth issues if people don't see value in the hardware but I don't quite understand or appreciate at this moment in time what the big deal would be about quality of the OS if Apple were told that they had to let their OS be bought for use on other hardware.

The quality of the drivers and compatibility is never on the OS manufacture for 3rd party products. MS is just "kind" enough to supply thousands upon thousands of drivers with their OS for a lot of hardware out there. Just because you buy a 3rd rate video card from some off the wall company, doesn't mean it's the OS developer's fault for it not working with crappy drivers.

That's where MS tends to take a lot of flak. "I just installed a new printer and it won't work. Vista sucks."

And with Vista's launch, a lot of companies were left with products that didn't have drivers. There was a HUGE uproar over this. I barely saw mention of how Protools hardware wasn't compatible with Leopard when it first came out, even though protools is probably the most recognized brand name in the digital recording industry.
 

B&O


Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
745
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Location
Brit in Tokyo.
Your Mac's Specs
MBP i7, Mac Mini & iPhone 3G.
I think therein lies the problem...if Apple were to release it's OS for general use, then it'd run the risk of turning into Windows. There's simply too much hardware for it to support reliably, because not all programmers are as skilled as the ones they hire for their hardware. Mac would be just as buggy as Windows if they did a general release of OS X.(1) You could argue that Mac limits their hardware to their own for smooth operation, but if you really try doing an iMovie project with a consumer HD camcorder and 1GB RAM/5400rpm HDD on the Mini, you'd see the experience is not so "smooth" after all.

I think this is the gap that EFI-X is trying to fill...it fills that niche for consumer power users who don't have $2,800 to spend on a nice machine and don't want the limitations and expense that the iMac offers (limited RAM, non-upgradable CPU, built-in screen, etc.). There's no mid-range Mac for those of us who want a built-in Time Machine drive, 8 gigs of RAM, and a quad-core processor. It's kind of a tough situation. Apple is turning into Microsoft, in some ways. I was just reading a good article at Newsweek on the topic:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157545

I really like Apple, but some of their business practices aren't so great and they've had some annoying flaws lately (buggy iPhone firmware, glitchy MobileMe rollout, etc.). One of the reasons that it's a tough situation is that Apple tries very hard to make good products and now that their user base has expanded, they've come under more scrutiny than in the past. Every flaw, mistake, and rumor is notice.

Although I do hope Psytar wins so that I can have a cheap Mac, (2) I also hope Psytar doesn't win so that we can continue to have good Apple products. Pystar makes really crappy computers anyway...all of the reviews I've read said that they are loud and used cheap parts, which is lame - you can do better for the same price and still make a profit. I think it would have been better if they had released some quality clones instead of junker clones, haha.

I don't know...I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand, Apple is kind of running a monopoly - no one else can make Apple computers. They're a billion-dollar company and almost all of the money goes back into themselves. On the other hand, I enjoy my Apple products and Apple is a well-run company from a business standpoint...they probably need vacuums to suck up all the money they've been getting in lately. It's a tough call and I'll be following this intently.

(1) I think a few years back Mr Jobs quoted a guy from MS (I forget his name) saying some like "Anyone that is serious about software makes their own hardware". I couldn't agree more with Jobs or you on this point.

(2) If and I would like to highlight IF, they do win and they won't. Then you would see Apple firing out OSX 10.6 within this year and then a new clause in the user agreement. They haven't a hope in ever winning. It is a clean cut case that will most likely never see the inside of a course room.

If apple make OSX they can direct it's usage. This is why they have user agreements.

Invariably, people will learn how to build an Intel system that can run OS X out of the box. It's not hard to figure out what parts to gather up. Intel is Intel, the video card Apple uses is the same as what is out there.


James
I am no super computer nerd, I just like computers that work hence I am a mac owner. I know this was true about two years ago and could be a little off on this so bare with me. But PC with Windows run X86 and use BIOS and Apple uses X86 with EFI. I know there are ways around it all. I think this is why there have been some much more updates recently.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly over an OS any more than Ford has a monopoly over sync or Chrysler has one over on-star. They are both software on top of their hardware that you can only get if you buy from their company. There is no government case right now that sync has to be available in BMW's or that on-star has to be available in Honda's

OSX is part of the hardware, anybody can buy it and Apple is not artificially raising its prices. If you get down to it and compare 2 systems from two different manufactures and put the same hardware in it, Apple will be very competitive, and sometimes cheaper.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
3,494
Reaction score
204
Points
63
Location
Going Galt...
Your Mac's Specs
MacBookAir5,2:10.13.6-iMac18,3:10.13.6-iPhone9,3:11.4.1
Installing OS X on "other than Apple" hardware isn't that hard. Selling it after you do that however is illegal. Psystar won't win, but they did inspire me to have some fun playing with OS X and some cheapo hardware. Cheers to the trailblazers, hopefully we'll have an unsupported Open Source version of Mac OS some day to play around with.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
6,188
Reaction score
254
Points
83
Location
New Jersey
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Pro 8x3.0ghz 12gb ram 8800GT , MBP 2.16 2GB Ram 17 inch.
Although not hard to install on third party hardware, it is still illegal to do so.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
3,494
Reaction score
204
Points
63
Location
Going Galt...
Your Mac's Specs
MacBookAir5,2:10.13.6-iMac18,3:10.13.6-iPhone9,3:11.4.1
LOL Of course, why wouldn't it be.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top