Mac clone maker wins legal round against Apple

shahvikram123 · Feb 10, 2009

computer world reports that:

Psystar can argue Apple abused copyright laws, judge rules
February 8, 2009 (Computerworld) A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple.

He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.

In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware.

Alsup had tossed Psystar's antitrust charges in November 2008 but left the door open to a modified complaint. Psystar took advantage of the opportunity and filed a revised lawsuit in mid-December. Apple, however, had hoped to quash Psystar's revision, saying that the Miami-based company "attempts to repackage its dismissed antitrust allegations under the guise of copyright misuse."
Use these best practices to meet the key requirements of a Data Loss Prevention solution. Read this whitepaper

On Friday, Alsup said that Psystar could continue to press its once-dismissed case. "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop," Alsup said in his ruling.

Apple started the legal wrangling in July when it said Psystar broke copyright and software-licensing laws by selling Intel-based computers with Mac OS X 10.5 preinstalled. Psystar has been selling machines equipped with Apple's operating system since April 2008.

Alsup also said that if Psystar proves that Apple abused copyright laws, some of Apple's charges against the company would be moot. He also seemed to say that that others would then be free to follow in Psystar's footsteps. "Moreover, if established, misuse would bar enforcement (for the period of misuse) not only as to defendants who are actually party to the challenged license but also as to potential defendants not themselves injured by the misuse who may have similar interests," said Alsup in his ruling.

The judge did not name the "potential defendants," but in previous filings, Apple has claimed that Psystar was not acting alone. "Persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this amended complaint," said Apple in a November filing. At the time, Apple only referred to those individuals or corporations as John Does 1 through 10.

Apple said it would reveal the names when it uncovered them.

Alsup also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used, but said that that would have to be decided as the case plays out. He did reject Psystar's attempt to include state unfair-competition charges in its countersuit, however.

Psystar has a week to submit its altered counterclaims, after which Apple must answer within 20 days. Alsup also told the two parties to get to work. "Both sides should be taking discovery and preparing themselves for trial and/or summary judgment," the judge concluded.

The case is currently scheduled to begin trial on Nov. 9.

Source:Mac clone maker wins legal round against Apple

the8thark · Feb 10, 2009

I think this is just lunacy. Apple invented OS X. And they have the right to have it on whatever machines they say. It's just happens to be that they choose to have it on their own computers. If psystar invented an OS and didn't want it on any psystar clones, I'm sure they'd be suing the clone makers too.

I'm all on Apple's side for this one. I hope psystar lose big time to teach them a lesson. If they want an OS on their machines, get permission for a windows or use linux or heaven forbid invent their own OS for their machines. Just don't do pinching someone elses work.

But in the small off chance apple do lose. Apple should charge a price for the other companies to have a license to use OS X on their machines. And make this license so high that no one can afford it so they pull out. And leave OS X where it should be on Apples.

shahvikram123 · Feb 10, 2009

the8thark said:
I think this is just lunacy. Apple invented OS X. And they have the right to have it on whatever machines they say. It's just happens to be that they choose to have it on their own computers. If psystar invented an OS and didn't want it on any psystar clones, I'm sure they'd be suing the clone makers too.

I'm all on Apple's side for this one. I hope psystar lose big time to teach them a lesson. If they want an OS on their machines, get permission for a windows or use linux or heaven forbid invent their own OS for their machines. Just don't do pinching someone elses work.

But in the small off chance apple do lose. Apple should charge a price for the other companies to have a license to use OS X on their machines. And make this license so high that no one can afford it so they pull out. And leave OS X where it should be on Apples.

I kinda agree with you, Apple did invent OS X and as a result they do have a right to say what machines its allowed to work on but what so bad in allowing other OEM's to use OS X but perhaps with strict conditions . For example only allowing OEM's to put OS X on certain hardware configurations , for example no cheap celeron crap, only Intel C2D or better, only 2GB+ of ram etc.... After all Apple is just another OEM like Dell or HP...

fleurya · Feb 10, 2009

the8thark said:
But in the small off chance apple do lose. Apple should charge a price for the other companies to have a license to use OS X on their machines. And make this license so high that no one can afford it so they pull out. And leave OS X where it should be on Apples.

I think Apple would get sued for discriminitory pricing.

Macswitcha · Feb 10, 2009

the8thark said:
I think this is just lunacy. Apple invented OS X. And they have the right to have it on whatever machines they say. It's just happens to be that they choose to have it on their own computers. If psystar invented an OS and didn't want it on any psystar clones, I'm sure they'd be suing the clone makers too.

I'm all on Apple's side for this one. I hope psystar lose big time to teach them a lesson. If they want an OS on their machines, get permission for a windows or use linux or heaven forbid invent their own OS for their machines. Just don't do pinching someone elses work.

But in the small off chance apple do lose. Apple should charge a price for the other companies to have a license to use OS X on their machines. And make this license so high that no one can afford it so they pull out. And leave OS X where it should be on Apples.

My feelings exactly. The audacity of forcing Apple to allow their invention to be played on hardware that they don't want it to be played.

If the Phystar wins, that will mark the end of Apple.

Wait I take that back, this may help Apple given that the same people who have made Apple what it is will still buy Apple while the market for OS X will widen.

Mama Luigi · Feb 10, 2009

I think anti-trust in this case is off the mark. That's implying that Apple is not competing in the computer industry, but rather in the Computers-That-Run-OS-X industry.

On the other hand, it IS legal for people to, say, buy a boxed copy of OS X and then elect to sell it to someone else (as long as it's not an OEM copy specifically designated as not being for resale). It's also legal for a company to put computer hardware together and sell it. So it seems the whole thing is whether Apple's EULA stating that OS X can only be installed to Macs is actually enforceable. That's up for a judge to decide. Personally, I think it's a bad EULA, but then again, it's not really in Apple's best interest to allow all their software to be totally open because then not many people would buy Macs anymore.

Just as I don't like the recording industry telling me where and when I can listen to music that I supposedly "bought," I don't like a software company telling me what hardware I must buy in order to run this software that I bought. However, Psystar is not an end-user, so things are different for them. An individual might break Apple's EULA by installing OS X to non-Apple hardware, but it's not like Apple's going to come after them. When Psystar does it, though, then what?

Like I said, we'll see. IMO, both companies are being pretty arrogant.

Kash · Feb 10, 2009

Calm down people, all this means is that Apple's attempts to throw out the case failed and that there will be a trial. This ruling has zero impact on whether or not Psystar will win at trial.

harryb2448 · Feb 10, 2009

Kash said:
Calm down people, all this means is that Apple's attempts to throw out the case failed and that there will be a trial. This ruling has zero impact on whether or not Psystar will win at trial.

All this is allowing is new argument to be introduced when it goes to hearing. Long long ways to go yet.

Can you really imagine say GM being forced to permit their motors to be used in Ford vehicles?

Mama Luigi · Feb 10, 2009

Kash said:
Calm down people, all this means is that Apple's attempts to throw out the case failed and that there will be a trial. This ruling has zero impact on whether or not Psystar will win at trial.

In a way that actually hurts Psystar because I doubt they have a case, especially with the whole "monopoly/anti-trust" angle they're taking.

Man, this would have all been way easier had they just told people to install OS X on their own. Just sell pre-built, OS X-ready computers and direct people to buy OS X from Apple. There'd be a market for that - not everyone is interested in assembling a Hackintosh on their own and they'd rather have someone else do the work of choosing the right components to maximize compatibility.

eric · Feb 10, 2009

i can see both sides on this, and i'm trying to find a good analog to the issue here.

i guess, in a way, ths is like any given car manufacturer being sued as an antitrust case becasue they won't share their unique technology, like v-tec, idrive, mygig, etc. the bottom line is that, you can always buy another car, or if you absolutely must have idrive, well, you're going to have to pony up the cash for a bimmer.

i think in the end though, with the way things are going more and more open source, apple may just be shooting themselves in the foot.

Garrett- · Feb 10, 2009

Rewrite the EULA for Snow Leopard when it releases, and immediately suspend support and production for Leopard.

Game over.

Mama Luigi · Feb 10, 2009

Garrett- said:
Rewrite the EULA for Snow Leopard when it releases, and immediately suspend support and production for Leopard.

Game over.

Oh, that'd be a GREAT move. Just cut off G5 owners like that, even the ones whose computers are still under AppleCare (there are a few). Great way to build goodwill among your customers - nothing like putting a petty legal fight in front of customer satisfaction!

Meanwhile, the EULA already "prohibits" the installation of OS X on non-Apple hardware. Not that that's stopping anyone. People will still find a way to do it regardless of what the license agreement says. Furthermore, EULAs are inherently flawed in that their admissibility in legal proceedings is questionable at best. They're good for backing up legal threats against people and small companies who don't have the stones or the pockets to fight back, but they don't stand up in court.

Macswitcha · Feb 10, 2009

Garrett- said:
Rewrite the EULA for Snow Leopard when it releases, and immediately suspend support and production for Leopard.

Game over.

In addition, do not sell leopard disk separate from Mac. Have the OS X installed on the mac.

Mama Luigi · Feb 10, 2009

Macswitcha said:
In addition, do not sell leopard disk separate from Mac. Have the OS X installed on the mac.

So people who want to upgrade their OS are no longer allowed to? What about G4/G5 owners who are still on Panther or Tiger and have put off getting Leopard?

What if you buy a used G5 that shipped with Tiger and now you want Leopard?

What if you want to reformat and reinstall your OS?

What about the millions of Leopard discs that are already out there?

fletch33 · Feb 10, 2009

to me the problem if for some freak chance the court rules OS X can be installed by others on their machines we are going to be paying a lot more for future OS X upgrades since Apple will now be relying more on OS income rather than just getting it in their higher priced computers.

no more $99 OS releases and we would probably see an OS X version of M$'s validation key and practices.

i dont think this will happen but wanted to mention it anyway.

gixxersean · Feb 11, 2009

I hope apple wins this, however, I wish I could build my own Mac from scratch...w/o having to pay $2799 for a Mac Pro that I could kinda configure.

Mama Luigi · Feb 11, 2009

gixxersean said:
I hope apple wins this, however, I wish I could build my own Mac from scratch...w/o having to pay $2799 for a Mac Pro that I could kinda configure.

In Apple's defense, the Mac Pro is one machine that actually may live up to its high price tag. It's not easy to configure a Mac Pro to the same specs for the same price. Most high-end workstations cost even more than the Mac Pro.

That being said, it's very easy to configure a machine that will easily keep pace with the Mac Pro in many areas for a much, much smaller amount of money. See, the Mac Pro uses Xeon processors, which are really great, but also really expensive. It's hard to pinpoint why Xeons cost so much - I think it's at least partly due to marketing, but part of it is because they are made to higher standards, designed to run continuously for years on end, and they support a lot of stuff that standard desktop CPUs don't, like ECC memory and dual-socket use.

The problem is there's no middle ground between the very expensive Mac Pro and the decent but outdated iMac. There's also no expandable alternative to the Mac Mini. Those two gaps in Apple's lineup are ones that Psystar is trying to fill.

gixxersean · Feb 11, 2009

I really want to build my own computer is the thing. I really like OSX. Sometimes I'm jealous of my friend that built his own computer and when I see him changing stuff out for the newer stuff, like processors and video cards, I wish I could do that, but you can't do that on an iMac. I don't use/want to use windows for anything except for gaming so building a windows machine is kinda out of the question.

Mama Luigi · Feb 11, 2009

gixxersean said:
I really want to build my own computer is the thing. I really like OSX. Sometimes I'm jealous of my friend that built his own computer and when I see him changing stuff out for the newer stuff, like processors and video cards, I wish I could do that, but you can't do that on an iMac. I don't use/want to use windows for anything except for gaming so building a windows machine is kinda out of the question.

Well, you can do one of several things. One option is to just pick one and deal with the limitations—either get an iMac and deal with the lack of hardware options, or build a PC and deal with using Windows (though you can always install Linux instead). Another (much more expensive) option is to get a cheap Mac, like a used white MacBook, and then also build a PC for gaming. The last option is to just build a PC and then hack OS X onto it. We can't go into the details of hacking OS X onto non-Apple hardware though so you'll have to do that research somewhere else.

Personally, I couldn't decide for a few years. I was a Mac user all my life but starting in 2004 I switched between Mac and Windows a few times before deciding that I cared about hardware options more than OS X, so I switched to Windows full time.

Not sure why I keep browsing Mac message boards though... it's weird. I feel like I can still appreciate OS X, but I have no respect for Apple because of how controlling they are and how much they overcharge for their hardware.

fletch33 · Feb 11, 2009

Mama Luigi said:
I feel like I can still appreciate OS X, but I have no respect for Apple because of how controlling they are and how much they overcharge for their hardware.

yeah they should change there approach and let shady manufactures put OS X on their machines and instead have 6 different versions of their OS and change OSX pricing from $99 to something like $299 to $599 for the OS X version that best suits your needs.

ooh wait maybe E-Machine could build a nice OS X desktop for $299. man that would be awesome and then i could constantly replace my power supplies and motherboards every couple years if im lucky and they last that long.

OR

i could buy a great more than fairly price OS X and run it on a machine that will most likely go maintenance free for 5 or more years saving me hundreds in upgrades and repairs.

hmm tough choices