[Updated 8/04] Apple Sues Unauthorized Clone Maker Psystar

[Cara Veteran]

*stares to Humroth*

I'm going to sue you for making fun of Humroth's statement about suing for looking because I feel it impacts my rights to feel safe and secure and your stares impact Homeland Security... ;) Yes, some are that stupid.

Ideally Apple will win a landmark victory here and go forward to challenge the 1984 ruling with success... Either way I do have confidence Apple will win this one, I did like the statements pointing out earlier regarding Manufacturer's proprietary tools... Lenovo, Dell, HP...all of them have tools that only work on their hardware because of one hardware difference or another without being challenged...

[hagjohn]

slightly off topic... has a EULA ever been tested in court?

I think it will come down to what was "modified" ... was it the OS X code or BSD (open source) code.

[Hurmoth]

*stares to Humroth*

:laugh:

I'm going to sue you for making fun of Humroth's statement about suing for looking because I feel it impacts my rights to feel safe and secure and your stares impact Homeland Security... ;) Yes, some are that stupid.

Ideally Apple will win a landmark victory here and go forward to challenge the 1984 ruling with success... Either way I do have confidence Apple will win this one, I did like the statements pointing out earlier regarding Manufacturer's proprietary tools... Lenovo, Dell, HP...all of them have tools that only work on their hardware because of one hardware difference or another without being challenged...

It is a far cry from free tools for their own hardware to a full blown operating system. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the 1984 ruling, so it won't be overturned, which means that unless people are reading that ruling wrong, any court in the US other than the Supreme Court cannot overturn that ruling and Apple will lose. Again, there may be more to that ruling that what I'm seeing, but I doubt Psystar would have gone this far without consulting lawyers first.

Here's an interesting question, why has it taken so long for Apple to decide to sue?

Remember, Apple isn't going after Psystar for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, they're going after them for changing their code, their proprietary software. But this could easily bite Apple in the ass if Psystar pushing the hardware policy. Apple may not be able to win against that argument.

slightly off topic... has a EULA ever been tested in court?

I think it will come down to what was "modified" ... was it the OS X code or BSD (open source) code.

I'm not sure, I suspect yes, but I don't know for sure though.

I'd imagine that most are probably settled outside of court.

[mrt2]

Unfortunately Hurmoth whether it be tools or an OS it all falls under the umbrella of software and there isn't a distinction of what kind of software. So in any case whatever ruling goes for one, goes for the other and if Apple looses that means a whole lot more hassle for ALL other hardware distributors who distribute ANY software that will only work on their hardware OS or otherwise. Also I reiterate if Psystar wants to pay a boat load of money to become and a licensed Apple Certified Partner/Reseller then that should be fine too... but there is no way and I repeat absolutely no way for them to resell OSX (this is regardless of whether they make money or sell it at a markup) without paying for the license to resell Apples OS. If Apple lost even that aspect of it would change the OEM and pc industry as we know it.

[Hurmoth]

Unfortunately Hurmoth whether it be tools or an OS it all falls under the umbrella of software and there isn't a distinction of what kind of software.

What about drivers? AMD/ATI, nVidia, Intel, etc. all make software specific for their hardware. There is a difference. I cannot believe anyone would even think there wasn't.

[xp1ode]

My guess is that if apple somehow looses this battle they will try to keep it quiet and try to bully this company as much as possible to stop them from selling it. Hopefully they loose the battle and they can start selling their software to run on any X86 hardware. It will problably give them alittle more money, but will probably turn the company into what MS has become, a big company with many hardware problems. So imo this is a double edge sword battle, since we hardly have any details as to why they are suing the company, because according to Psystar they haven't modified any files to make OS X run on the hardware. If that proves true then hopefully that is the only thing the company is doing worng. I'm by no means a Mac fanboy/hater but it would be nice to able to just buy OS X and run it on almost anything like Linux and Windows.

[mrt2]

What about drivers? AMD/ATI, nVidia, Intel, etc. all make software specific for their hardware. There is a difference. I cannot believe anyone would even think there wasn't.

It's still only software regardless of what it does. I'm sorry that this is the case but the reality of it is... there is either HARDWARE or SOFTWARE. Whether it be drivers or otherwise... Now, are drivers and management tools and OS's different type of software? Yes they are... but it's STILL software and unfortunately there are no legal distinctions that I'm aware of (and I could be wrong but I don't think so) between the different types of software. What would happen if you started selling a third party video card and used Hacked Nvidia drivers to run it WITHOUT permission from Nvidia? They would be on you like white on rice in a snow storm... Also remember back in the 3dfx days and I believe it was Nvidia who released a patched/hacked version of their drivers to support 3dfx extensions without you having to buy a 3dfx based video card (this was back before Nvidia bought/licensed 3dfx technology)? 3DFX legal team was ALL OVER them and they won the case. So even from that alone we can see that whether it is drivers or any other software... if Apple lost this case it would start an ugly precedent. That?s like commanding that Toyota makes the OS and software that controls their consoles and gauges inside their cars so that Hondas could use them as well if Honda saw fit...

[DreadBoat89]

pystar is getting sued for distributing modified versions of updates (like the 10.5.3 to 10.5.4 update), not for bundling their computers with osx. am i correct? from posts in this thread, people seem to be mistaking this lawsuit as apple going after pystar for bundling osx on non-apple hardware.

if they are getting sued for bundling computers with osx, apple will lose for sure. but if its regarding distribution of modified updates... then pystar may lose.

[sn00pie]

That's the beauty of buying a Mac. It's what you get, instead of some ugly looking PC tower, you get a work of art that you want to show off.

On that note, I can't wait to buy mine! :p

[Cara Veteran]

pystar is getting sued for distributing modified versions of updates (like the 10.5.3 to 10.5.4 update), not for bundling their computers with osx. am i correct? from posts in this thread, people seem to be mistaking this lawsuit as apple going after pystar for bundling osx on non-apple hardware.

if they are getting sued for bundling computers with osx, apple will lose for sure. but if its regarding distribution of modified updates... then pystar may lose.

From what we can tell from the information that is public, this is correct. :)

[Hurmoth]

It's still only software regardless of what it does. I'm sorry that this is the case but the reality of it is... there is either HARDWARE or SOFTWARE.

You are trying to argue two different points that don't work. Of course software is software and hardware is hardware, but there is still a difference between tools that an OEM offer for their specific hardware and an operating system that is locked to specific hardware. One is legal (Dell offering diagnostic software specific to their hardware) and one is illegal per a 1984 federal court ruling (OS X being forced onto specific hardware only provided by Apple).

There is a difference. I'm baffled that anyone would actually try to argue that there isn't. One is for profit, one is to help their customer determine what is wrong with their system. If Dell had made their own OS and forced users to purchase their hardware to run that OS, then you'd have an argument. Or if Microsoft started making hardware and forced their users to purchase it, then you'd have an argument. But these are free tools to help their customers, not an OS that a company is trying to make a profit off of. HUGE difference.

[hagjohn]

That's the beauty of buying a Mac. It's what you get, instead of some ugly looking PC tower, you get a work of art that you want to show off.

On that note, I can't wait to buy mine! :p

I can build a PC for a heck of a lot less (at least 1/2 the price, if not more) than I can buy a MAC... and I can upgrade anytime I want. While the tower can be cool, it's the inside that I care about.

[guruparan]

My friend loaded mac OS X into his Dell laptop and worked on it for 1 week...(though he later revereted to vista)...

All he was trying to do was a small custom application for iPhone...

So...selling Mac OS X as a retail pack to install on a custom PC will be good...and will surely make thousands of problems in Apple for driver supports & application supports!!

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I do not believe that it ever was established that AutoPatcher was illegal. We simply complied with Microsoft's request so as to not angagonize a company that we wish to maintain positive relations with. That, and the fact that we don't have any lawyers or money for lawyers. :)

[+Warwagon MVC]

that hardly meant any sense, or maybe im just not reading it right since its so hot.

What he ment was, that there are ALOT of people that would love to run Mac OSX. They would even like to buy a Mac to do it. They would buy one if they where easily upgradable and around the same price as a dell. They don't want to have to spend $2,000.

[nekrosoft13]

I hope Apple lose, they shouldn't restrict people to have to purchase hardware as well as software. If people wanna run this on PCs then let them and start selling it properly, cash in!

agreed,

[Cara Veteran]

What he ment was, that there are ALOT of people that would love to run Mac OSX. They would even like to buy a Mac to do it. They would buy one if they where easily upgradable and around the same price as a dell. They don't want to have to spend $2,000.

The problem is this, is an Apple and Apple if you have the same driver Hell that you do in Windows just because a select group wants to be able to toss untested parts into a machine?

My thoughts...

No.

Apple systems are not for everyone, sadly, why ruin it for those who enjoy them the way they are (With a rapidly growing market-share so there must be a few) just for those who don't want an Apple for what it is...

Apple is simplicity, stability, elegance...change that and you no longer have an Apple system, you have a beigebox.

[osirisX]

Apple should have kept quiet. Let the hackers run around installing OS X onto generic PCs. If Apple loses, they = screwed.

[Cara Veteran]

Apple should have kept quiet. Let the hackers run around installing OS X onto generic PCs. If Apple loses, they = screwed.

Which is why I can't think Apple would have pursued this with any reasonable chance of losing. :)

[+Warwagon MVC]

The problem is this, is an Apple and Apple if you have the same driver Hell that you do in Windows just because a select group wants to be able to toss untested parts into a machine?

Apple is simplicity, stability, elegance...change that and you no longer have an Apple system, you have a beigebox.

But why can't apple still be all that, just cheaper?

[Cara Veteran]

But why can't apple still be all that, just cheaper?

Component Quality, R&D Costs, (mostly) bulletproof drivers...

These are all things that would suffer if an Apple was released at beigebox prices. I agree we need a more reasonable headless Mac, however, no one of importance seems to think that there really is a hole in the Apple lineup.

[JustGeorge]

I hope Apple lose, they shouldn't restrict people to have to purchase hardware as well as software. If people wanna run this on PCs then let them and start selling it properly, cash in!

agreed,

I want to be able to buy just the OS as much as the next guy, but how can you say Apple should be forced to support another platform or sell the OS that THEY own separate from the hardware that THEY designed? Its their products and they're well within their rights to dictate how they're too be packaged/sold.

Personally, I think Apple would go to hell in a hand basket if they had to support half the multitude of hardware/software configurations that Microsoft has to deal with. Apple likes to control everything and opening up the OS to generic PC hardware would be a nightmare for them.

@ Cara,

I call B.S. on the quality comment. Apple's uses the same crap all other PC makers use other than the anal packaging and Exterior designs. All very pretty, but don't kid yourself thinking that a cpu, motherboard or a stick of RAM is any better in a Mac.

Edited July 15, 2008 by VRam

[theyarecomingforyou]

Apple is simplicity, stability, elegance...change that and you no longer have an Apple system, you have a beigebox.

Allowing OSX to run on PCs will not turn Apple hardware into a "beigebox". Apple hardware will still be stylish, it's just that other manufacturers will be able to release their own machines (which may not look as good as Apple hardware but are certainly past the beigebox era). The problem is that Apple has it easy - in order to run OSX you have to buy their overpriced hardware. If they were to open it up then they'd have to actually start competing with other manufacturers, which I think would be a good thing.

People look at Apple hardware are think "wow, that's stylish"; that wouldn't change if OSX was opened up to run on conventional PCs. What it would do is offer people a choice. Many people might like OSX but not like the hardware or not want to pay the premium for it - those customers shouldn't be ignored. OSX running on PCs doesn't undermine Apple hardware, but it will make them work harder.

[Impact]

I really don't care which way this goes. I would sure love it if running OS X on PCs was supported by Apple and it might get more apps like decent games and stuff on to macs if more PC users get the chance to use it because they would want those applications, just on a better OS. It might also get more apps like stress testing and things like that to test overclocks, etc, that Windows has, so that people with PCs don't even have to load windows. But on the other hand, if Apple wins, it won't inhibit my ability to continue to be able to run OS X on my PC, as the demand is only growing to be able to run OS X on non-apple hardware. The whole reason that I don't wanna buy a mac is because they aren't upgradeable. By running OS X on my PC, I get the best of both worlds (upgradeability and a better OS). I have zero compatibility issues with my PC and OS X, so as long as you are willing to work at it, there should be no problems running OS X on many other PC configurations.

[LTD]

Finally. About time.

As it has always been the case, for years now, there are still those out there that have no understanding of Apple's business model and why it's so successful.

It has been explained time and time again, but people can't seem to fathom Apple's winning strategy. Just like the competition. ;)