Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[jaez]

You obviously don't know much about law firms. Psystar doesn't need a lot of money. Apple could 'pay' his law firm to 'settle' during their negotiations. This in no way implies that at any time his law firm believes he is right, just that they see an opportunity.

 

I'm sorry. I can't buy that argument. In my part of the world, if you do something that is clearly illegal beyond question you can't get "a settlement" for your illegal actions.

 

I would think it's the same over there in California and Florida.

 

 

Try again.

[NoSmokingBandit]

Until the judge makes a decision it's the illegal thing to do, but hey, why worry about legality when you can selfishly justify doing it in some way.

Actually, its legal until the judge says it isnt. Innocent until proven guilty. Same idea though.

Im interested in this just to see what happens. Whatever the ruling is im going to keep my hac and build more.

[GTR-33]

The anti-competitive part, is Apple trying to stop system builders like Psystar from "selling that PC" to others with OSX already installed.

That isn't being anti-competitive. It's protecting your assets.

 

I put OSX on my PC, and I put an Apple Label on the box, to make it comply with Apple's EULA.

No.

 

That's what happened to Psystar.

No it isn't. They were wrong off the jump. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

 

Apple doesn't want anybody to tell anybody the technical tips that enable OSX to run on a PC.

If that were the case why would this forum continue to exist? Which Apple has shut down before.

 

Remember, nobody ever "signs the EULA" !

You don't have to sign something to agree to abide by it. By installing OSX you are agreeing to the EULA.

 

The technical tips people have figured out that enable OSX to run on PCs are not the same code fragments developed at Apple that allow OSX to install on computers, people have "invented several alternative means" to accomplish the same goal, i.e. to install OSX on PCs, and Apple has no rights to these alternative competiting mechanisms of genius.

By "making it work" they have just broke the EULA. Apple doesn't lay any claim to the hacks and they don't want to either. What matters to them and the part you don't seem to understand is that it's THEIR software and they are only letting you use it. You don't own it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that you want to "have your cake and eat it too".

 

Nobody was interested in PPC. I think I mentioned this already. Even APPLE lost interest in PPC.

That's not even remotely true. There were Mac clones in the PPC days. Apple didn't lose interest in the PPC. IBM lost interest in making a better chip for Apple, as I mentioned already. Sony and Microsoft consumed most of IBMs PPC R&D for their respective processors.

 

I don't know about AIX and HPUX. No interest there. I suspect nobody challenges IBM or HP because they don't care about AIX or HPUX.

Public interest has nothing to do with the legality of proprietary operating systems. You are saying people care now, I hate to burst your bubble, but people have always been interested in Mac OS well before the days of the Intel Mac.

 

I'm sorry. I can't buy that argument. In my part of the world, if you do something that is clearly illegal beyond question you can't get "a settlement" for your illegal actions.

You clearly lack an understanding of how the system works. A law firm doesn't care if your innocent. They get paid either way. You seem to have assumed that attorneys only get paid if they win. They get paid to represent you win or lose and they catch a percentage of any monies that are won in court or through a settlement.

 

You really should go read a book or something. There is no point for you to continue to post as you clearly lack an understanding of how our legal system works and lack a basic understanding of the legal terms used in this discussion.

[Baliw]

GTR-33, Are you a lawyer? Just asking.

[Maxintosh]

I can't buy that argument.

You don't have to buy it for it to be true. I have personally dealt with Apples legal side and I know from experience what can happen.

 

Nice to see someone else has suggested that you try to pick up a book and read it. We're seeing a trend

 

Respect your passion to state your views, but laugh at your sheer ignorance on the topic

[slacker25]

@jaez

 

so you came from accrost the border are you even a citizen here yet .... cause if you r nopt and just on a stupid green card that is where our system reallly fails green card ppl can get by with a lot more here then a citizen untill they kicked out that is

[jaez]

@jaez

 

so you came from accrost the border are you even a citizen here yet .... cause if you r nopt and just on a stupid green card that is where our system reallly fails green card ppl can get by with a lot more here then a citizen untill they kicked out that is

 

Slacker25, I don't live in the US, I live in Canada. I lived in NY for 8 years, lived in Florida for 6 years. But, today, I'm Canadian.

 

Canadians don't need Green Cards. We have NAFTA.

[jaez]

That isn't being anti-competitive. It's protecting your assets.

 

Psystar's compatibles are NOT Apple's assets. Stopping Psystar from selling their own PCs is anti-competitive.

 

 

No.

Yup.

 

 

No it isn't. They were wrong off the jump. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

 

Right, just because APPLE has the money to pay the best lawyers to file suits doesn't give them the right to supress competition.

 

It gives them the "ability" to surpress. But, not the right.

 

 

If that were the case why would this forum continue to exist? Which Apple has shut down before.

 

Information can't be surpressed "forever." The content of this forum would move elsewhere, if Apple shut it down. Many cos try and do succeed from time to time in supressing online content here and there, but that info always returns somewhere else on the net. At some point, the firms trying to surpress, "give up".

 

You don't have to sign something to agree to abide by it. By installing OSX you are agreeing to the EULA.

 

So, why bother signing anything then? Why does Apple require employees or outside consultants to sign confidentialty papers? If the signature isn't really important, then, who ever needs it?

 

 

By "making it work" they have just broke the EULA. Apple doesn't lay any claim to the hacks and they don't want to either. What matters to them and the part you don't seem to understand is that it's THEIR software and they are only letting you use it. You don't own it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that you want to "have your cake and eat it too".

 

They are not letting me use it. I paid for it. That gives me the right to use it. No "letting" involved at all, once compensation has been paid. It's the law.

 

We "make our operating systems work with applications" all the time. There's always some modification required to get third party apps to work. Configuration files have to be introduced or updated, or some os components removed and replaced by alternative versions the app uses etc..Part of the "use" of an OS is modifying the originally sold package components as necessary to get that OS to work "with the other tools" the user needs for his workflow.

 

The EULA is broken already. Can't break the imperfect EULA.

 

 

 

 

That's not even remotely true. There were Mac clones in the PPC days. Apple didn't lose interest in the PPC. IBM lost interest in making a better chip for Apple, as I mentioned already. Sony and Microsoft consumed most of IBMs PPC R&D for their respective processors.

 

IBM lost interest, because APPLE wasn't selling enough PPC computers. No market reason to continue to update the PPC chips.

 

APPLE wasn't selling enough PPC computers, because people weren't interested in the PPC product.

 

Yeh, I know "a few people" were interested. But, we're talking numbers here.

 

 

Public interest has nothing to do with the legality of proprietary operating systems. You are saying people care now, I hate to burst your bubble, but people have always been interested in Mac OS well before the days of the Intel Mac.

 

Public interest determines the likelyhood of product tying geting tested, that's all. It's good for Apple, that Psystar is building compatibles, because it means people care. Apple should be concerned if nobody wanted to build compatibles, like nobody wants to build AIX or HPUX compatible systems, so IBM and HP should care. Except, they build so many other products, they actually don't care either.

 

In other words, any company can do something illegal, and if the number of clients are few, they can continue with that illegal activity for a long time, and nobody will challenge them.

 

The few clients they have, will probably be greatful that they've got this product, and won't rock the boat, questioning the firm.

 

 

 

You clearly lack an understanding of how the system works. A law firm doesn't care if your innocent. They get paid either way. You seem to have assumed that attorneys only get paid if they win. They get paid to represent you win or lose and they catch a percentage of any monies that are won in court or through a settlement.

 

No. They don't "get paid either way." They get paid if the client has money, or they get paid if the client's counterparty has money and the client is in the right.

 

If the client has no money, and the client is clearly doing something wrong, that everybody can see is illegal, then the law firm has no hope of getting paid.

 

You really should go read a book or something. There is no point for you to continue to post as you clearly lack an understanding of how our legal system works and lack a basic understanding of the legal terms used in this discussion.

 

Ok. I'm not a lawyer. Never studied law. I'm using common sense here. I presume that the laws of any land are written with common sense principles in mind, regardless of how apparently obfuscating a language those laws may be couched in when viewd by the layperson.

 

You see, I don't need to go to law school to follow the law. The law has to make itself comprehensible to me, average joe.

 

The first thing the Brits did when they landed in NA, is teach the natives English. So, when they took the land away from the natives, they could write down the law, explaining to the natives, why the land was no longer theirs. But, the native indians, who couldn't read English, simply ignored the signs that said "Private Property", and walked on the land anyway. The indians then formed the "know nothings" group, which claimed it knew nothing of the fantasies in the minds of the foreigners. So, if you write an EULA, and expect people to follow it, you must write it in the language of Average Joe, because if average Joe can't understand the law, he can't follow the law. The average citizen can only obey the laws that are comprehensible to him, and unless you're going to send him to law school to learn law, don't write the law in obscure legalese. Laws, that are only understood by lawyers, are only obeyed by lawyers. The rest of us are freed from the constraints, because we lack understanding.

[GTR-33]

Psystar's compatibles are NOT Apple's assets. Stopping Psystar from selling their own PCs is anti-competitive.

..but Mac OS is an asset of Apple Inc which is what is in question. Stay on topic.

 

Right, just because APPLE has the money to pay the best lawyers to file suits doesn't give them the right to supress competition. It gives them the "ability" to surpress. But, not the right.

What are you talking about? They aren't suppressing competition. Are they trying to stop Psystar from selling Linux boxes? No... Windows Boxes? No... They are only attempting to protect their own assets. You sound like a bitter child that can't have his cake and eat it too. You want to run Mac OS on a hack? Fine with me, just don't expect Apple to support it or be surprised if they decide to break it. Apple has the right because it's THEIR PROPERTY. YOU DON'T OWN IT.

 

Information can't be surpressed "forever." The content of this forum would move elsewhere, if Apple shut it down. Many cos try and do succeed from time to time in supressing online content here and there, but that info always returns somewhere else on the net. At some point, the firms trying to surpress, "give up".

Ok that wasn't my point even in the slightest bit.

 

So, why bother signing anything then? Why does Apple require employees or outside consultants to sign confidentialty papers? If the signature isn't really important, then, who ever needs it?

Why are you so hung up on a signature? It's logistically not possible to get a paper signature from every user in the world that installs Mac OS; moreover, if they did and you broke the EULA they would have something incredibly more powerful in court to use against you because a signature implies that you have read and are fully aware of what you are signing off to and there is no bending of the words when the proverbial {censored} hits the fan. Also there are countries that do not use a paper signature at for anything. When I'm in Japan, I don't sign anything, I use a stamp.

They are not letting me use it. I paid for it. That gives me the right to use it. No "letting" involved at all, once compensation has been paid. It's the law.

Wrong. They are letting you use it no matter how much you care to claim the opposite. You don't seem to understand that if you push Apple enough they will push this community back and break your install. You kind of ideology is what destroys good things. You can't take it for what it is, you have to pursue some kind of personal campaign to muddle things up for everyone. Apple could easily not even sell a disc and make it a download only or implement some other measure of breaking OSX on non-Apple hardware.

We "make our operating systems work with applications" all the time. There's always some modification required to get third party apps to work. Configuration files have to be introduced or updated, or some os components removed and replaced by alternative versions the app uses etc..Part of the "use" of an OS is modifying the originally sold package components as necessary to get that OS to work "with the other tools" the user needs for his workflow.

Speak for yourself. You clearly haven't been a Mac user very long. Welcome to the wonderful world of "my computer works out the box".

IBM lost interest, because APPLE wasn't selling enough PPC computers. No market reason to continue to update the PPC chips.

APPLE wasn't selling enough PPC computers, because people weren't interested in the PPC product.

Yeh, I know "a few people" were interested. But, we're talking numbers here.

Wrong. IBM didn't just "lose interest" because Apple was or wasn't selling enough computers. The market for a Playstation or Xbox chip is fifty times larger than the market for any computer processor. Video game consoles will outsell any computer at least two to one. It is numbers, but not for the reason you claim. You can't gauge public interest on numbers. People aren't interested in products they don't know exist. The average consumer doesn't care how the computer works, only that it does. So to say that Apple wasn't selling computers because people don't like the PPC is ignorant at best.

It's good for Apple, that Psystar is building compatibles, because it means people care.

Wrong. It's not good for Apple. The only thing Psystar cares about is lining his own pockets on the work of other people. It's not good for Apple or the community.

[Maxintosh]

I paid for it. That gives me the right to use it.

You are a perfect example of the saying "A little knowledge is dangerous". Paying for it does NOT give you the right to use it any way that you please. I don't know where you picked up this misinformation from. Try going to a music store and buying some replacement guitar strings, and then wrap them tightly around someones neck, and you will be tried for murder. Your excuse that you did not murder him but was only trying to experiment in a new way to tune your guitar strings will not fly. Same goes for any other product that you buy. Most products are sold for a specific intent. In the case of OS X, Apple did NOT sell it to you to use any way that you damn well please. Apple sold it to you to use on a Mac containing a previous version of OS X. Just because you can shoe-horn it on a non-Mac computer doesn't magically make it OK.

[cain.]

I still do not think everyone here got the difference between installing OS X on an x86 machine without altering anything and installing it through changing parts of it. I do not think Apple could really do anything if someone really made a compatible machine that acts exactly as a Mac does and runs all-native - which Psystar did not. Of course, Apple would not have to offer any support for that hardware, just as IBM never supported Dell Computers

 

If people always have to do the engine comparison: If I built a car without an engine into which a Ford V8 fit perfectly, I could not make Ford support people using my car with the V8 inside, but Ford also could not forbid people to put in a Ford V8 if the purchase it properly.

 

Apart from that: Isn't it also 'illegal' to emulate OS X anywhere, then, by the current EULA? You cannot stick an Apple label to a virtual machine

[Maxintosh]

Actually, its legal until the judge says it isnt.

Translation: It's OK to break the law as long as you don't get caught

[slacker25]

@jaez

 

so you are saying that when apple alters the mac and the OS so that it wont work .. you will stfu

 

@cain. stop with the freakin engine comparison this isnt a CAR!!!!!!

[Maxintosh]

@jaez

 

so you are saying that when apple alters the mac and the OS so that it wont work ..

I don't think people like jaez will be happy until Apple makes all future OS X versions available only through download servers from Apples web site (say good-bye to DVD's). We all know that Apple could do it if they wanted to. It would certainly stop people like him in his tracks, but then it would be punishing all of the rest of us along with people like him

[slacker25]

@Maxintosh

 

Hmm or even worse lets say take the TPM and EFI and spead it to every peice of hardware not just the firmware ..... and then tag every Bineary and code with it and then what you got.

 

I guess he will never get even if the slim chance in hell it doesnt go in apple favor there is nothign in copywrite law preventing them from doing these measures

 

hmm those was some good ideas maybe we should workj for apples security department then we can aford more macs

[jaez]

You are a perfect example of the saying "A little knowledge is dangerous". Paying for it does NOT give you the right to use it any way that you please...

 

Most products are sold for a specific intent. ..OK.

 

Yes, yes, yes, half right. When a manufacturer makes and sells a kitchen knife, it's intended for use in the kitchen. But, once I buy the knife, I can use it in the garden instead. I can turn that tool into a garden utensil to turn soil, and the manuf may disapprove. But, I have the right to use it "creatively" to fit my needs. The fact that the manufacturer has a fantasy that I'm eating lunch at my kitchen table with his knife, is just that, the manufacturer's imagined fantasy. The manufacturer may look at his statistics, and see he's sold 100,000 kitchen knives, so presume that this lot of people are eating breakfast, lunch, and dinner with this particular product, all at their kitchen tables. But, the reality may well be that people find this particular type of kitching knife is really good for gardening instead, or fishing trips, or hunting moose. And maybe, nobody is really using the knife in the kitchen at all.

 

There are a couple of practical things about law, that you don't need a law degree to understand.

 

The first is that the law must be enforceable to be a law.

 

If something claiming to be a law is written, but nobody can or will enforce it, then by default it ceases to be law.

 

How can Apple enforce the EULA?

[NoSmokingBandit]

Translation: It's OK to break the law as long as you don't get caught

Well, no.

This is technically still a gray area since a judge hasnt ruled in either direction. Killing someone without getting caught is illegal because judges have conclusively concluded that killing another person is illegal.

[slacker25]

the eula is something that has been introduced as conclusive if nothing else this will just reiterate that a contract is still a contract..... and while a contract not legal binding that it will cause jail time it will be more likly the judge will say you must obey or stop using said product and then after that if they do not comply they will burn pystar

[jaez]

Wrong. They are letting you use it no matter how much you care to claim the opposite. You don't seem to understand that if you push Apple enough they will push this community back and break your install.

 

That's fine. It's Apples right to break my install. I'm not begging Apple to help me install OSX on a PC !

 

If it's too difficult to do, I'll just ignore OSX.

 

I won't bother.

 

I tried to install OpenSolaris on my PC. I couldn't. The development isn't there yet.

 

So, I ignore OpenSolaris now. Someday, however, I'd still like to get Solaris to run on my PC.

 

I install OSX because it is easy to do. So, I can check it out, and fiddle with it, and see if its something I could use, or develop software for.

 

It's simple.

 

There's no pushing.

 

[Maxintosh]

When a manufacturer makes and sells a kitchen knife, it's intended for use in the kitchen. But, once I buy the knife, I can use it in the garden instead.

Great! Now all you've got to do is learn the difference between a kitchen knife, and intellectual property, and I think we'll be making some real progress

 

How can Apple enforce the EULA?

It's a contract. I don't think the courts will have a problem understanding that

[jaez]

Translation: It's OK to break the law as long as you don't get caught

 

It doesn't matter if you get caught. It's not a law. It's an EULA. It's like a BYLAW.

 

Many years ago, when I was just a student, I discovered that all laws are not the same.

 

You see, I was moving into a new apt building, and this idiot had parked his car right in front of the storage elevator where you're supposed to move in furniture. There was a big sign in front of the elevator door saying "DO NOT PARK HERE. ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES WILL BE TOWED". Yet, there was this dude's car sitting in front of the exact spot, blocking access to the elevator. I had a big truck with my stuff, ready to unload. I was on a time schedule, had to return the rented truck etc..I was pretty annoyed. So, I went into the rental office to complain. It was a holiday and late in the afternoon, and I was tired, in no mood for this, the person in the rental office was just a security guard, since it was after regular hours for office staff. The security guard told me he could do nothing about the illegally parked car, it was management's problem. I got annoyed, picked up the office phone and called 911, I said to the cops, I know I'm not supposed to be calling 911 for this, but I don't know who else to call right now, and can you please direct me to the right phone number I should call. They said, they'll send a cop car out right away. Good. Cops arrive, they take a look at the situation, I point out the trouble, they agree it's a bad thing this guyhad done parking his car there, but they are very sorry, they can't do anything either.

 

Now I'm mystified. I say, but the sign says it's illegal.

 

The cops say to me, yeh, but it's a bylaw, the city police only enforce city laws. The driveway infront of the elevator is not on public property. So that sign you see there, isn't a city sign. It's the property's own sign, only the property management can enforce that law. The police have nothing to do with this. This is private property. You have to talk to the management of the building.

 

Cops leave. Not their jurisdiction.

 

I go back to the office again, furious. Security guard says again, nothing he can do, everybody is on vacation, he's the only one there right now, and he is not going to take the risk of calling the tow truck to tow that car, because if anything happens to the car, it gets damaged or somthing, while its being towed away, he'll have to pay. He needs management's permission to call the tow truck. He says to me, but you can call a tow truck and take the risk if you want, he won't stop me from doing that. It'll be my responsibility to pay for any damages to the dude's vehicle.

 

Well, it was a long evening. I moved in carefully taking furniture around the illegally parked car and into the elevator. And I got a new understanding of the law.

 

Up until that point, I had thought all laws were the same. You could call a cop on any illegal activity and get it settled. Whenever I saw a street sign, I had automatically presumed that it had the same force of law as any other sign. If it said "NO PARKING" I thought it meant just that, it was illegal to park there. Now I know that some signs are put there for "Psychological effect", and nobody really bothers to enfore the law, because "it costs too much to try".

 

So, all end users are guaranteed that the EULA will never be enforced.

 

It's a meaningless document.

 

Purely psychological.

[dies]

It's a contract. I don't think the courts will have a problem understanding that

 

Hmm...

 

Not sure whether you're giving the courts too much credit here or not enough...

 

Me, I tend to agree with those that think Apple's wishes do not a law make.

[jaez]

It's a contract. I don't think the courts will have a problem understanding that

 

Sure the EULA is a contract. But a very weak contract. More like a handshake. A gentleman's agreement.

 

The most important point of a gentleman's agreement is that it is subject to the indiviidual's conscience and understanding.

 

Each individual is entitled to follow the contract without giving up his rights as granted to him by law.

 

So, in jurisdictions were the law says 'tying' is illegal, and the individual's understanding of that in this context is that OSX can't be legally tied to MAC, he is released from those clauses in the contract that attempt to strip him of the rights granted by the laws of the land in which he resides, while at the same time is beholden to those clauses in the contract that are also supported by his local laws.

 

You know, Warranties have been around alot longer than EULAs, and the writer's of WARRANTY documents usually give the consumer the full picture. The text of a warranty usually states very clearly that the local laws supercede any clauses in the written warranty, whenever there is found a conflict between the statements in the warranty and the local law of the consumer's jurisdiction.

 

This little piece of valuable information, alerting the consumer "to his rights", is conveniently left out of the EULA documents.

 

I wonder why?

 

Don't the EULA writers want the consumer to know that he may have rights that supercede the text of the EULA itself?

 

 

In the end, the intermediate user like Psystar is the only entity that gets to test the EULA in court, the end user is too costly persue with such a weak contract, and even the for likes of Psystar the EULA will have to be augmented with things like Patents and Trademarks to have any effect at all.

[rishu]

Hi friends

 

Apple created OS X to go with their hardware, and be sold exclusively by them, for profit. I would like to see how this whole thing plays out.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Houston Best Florist loans with no credit check pisos vilafranca download iPhone ringtones

[Bob Ajob]

"Apple sold it to you to use on a Mac containing a previous version of OS X"

 

Do Apple ONLY sell upgrade products - is this mentioned anywhere in the license agreement?

 

Is this the exclusive status for acquiring a legal entitlement to license the FULL (i.e. not upgrade-only) operating system for personal use? Put simply, must I purchase Apple Hardware in order to legally purchase a FULL license for their operating system? [with or without agreeing to license it after purchase?]. Do Apple currently sell fully functioning, licensable versions of their operating system without Mac hardware being a prerequisite, even if it may not be their intention to do so?

 

If I purchase OS X online, direct from Apple, will I receive a version that would fully install and work (on a genuine Mac or otherwise) with NO current existing operating system?

 

Is it possible for me to purchase a copy of OS X Leopard 10.5.4 which works out of the box (no modification) on my hardware. The answer must be YES (as I have done so) with the terribly difficult 'shoehorning' of installing a bootdisk containing some extra drivers that (legally?) bypass checks for some incompatible or missing components.

 

Is a product that is paid for in full but totally unlicensed illegal in itself? Which law are you breaking by not agreeing to license a product? Surely it is only an agreement that has been broken, not a law?

 

Here is an interesting theoretical argument -

 

If I purchased a genuine [but physically broken] second-hand/old Apple Mac (i.e. Mac Mini) with a fully functioning operating system, then personalise, modify, upgrade and repair the original hardware over time to the point that it contains nothing but commodity parts (i.e. ends up being a normal PC) then am I still licensed to install the original operating system on a single machine (i.e. no longer Apple-labelled) perhaps using 3rd-party tools such as bootdisks and usb dongles? Is the license transferrable to new hardware or locked to the original system hardware only?