Filed under: Apple Corporate
With new claims, Psystar tries another angle
You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims.
It boggles the mind.
Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA.
Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable.
Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute.
The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court.
[Via Ars Technica.]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
nicleT said 11:05AM on 12-10-2008
Leech strategies (and tragedy)!
Reply
KA said 11:12AM on 12-10-2008
"Apple has 'leveraged' the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale."
Any idea how Psystar propose Apple are doing that?
Reply
Joey said 11:17AM on 12-10-2008
I still insist Apple could have avoided much of this nonsense by offering a reasonably priced expandable system. Right now their product matrix offers nothing in between an entry level consumer machine or a high end desktop, at least in terms of expandability. Their first system to even offer a hard drive bay or PCIe slot starts at over $2,000.
As it stands, even if Apple does defeat Pystar, and I assume they will, there will be other offshore companies ready to take their place. So Apple can either compete, at least to some degree, or they can sue every single no-name company across the globe that will be attempting to offer generic Mac systems. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Reply
required said 12:28PM on 12-10-2008
That is the gist of the problem, they're a Totalitarian organization. Apple just doesn't listen to its customers, if it did folks would be able to do simple things like replace batteries and upgrade.
MrGando said 12:33PM on 12-10-2008
I totally agree, that's why I got an ubuntu server at home instead of some Apple solution. Apple alternatives where too expensive for my needs.
iMac too big, MacMini , 1 HD, Mac Pro, too expensive.
So I built a PC that is capable of holding 6 HD's , 1333 mhz ram, and has a 1333 mhz bus. For not that much. and it's a hell of a server.
Level 5 said 12:33PM on 12-10-2008
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head here. Many people I know are less than enthused about Vista after buying a brand new computer. They obviously are not going to buy ANOTHER new Apple machine with less horsepower for more money. Period. Had Apple been competitive with a similarly priced EXPANDABLE machine, it would in fact sell. All the people who have bought OS X looking for a patch to run it on x86 hardware are more than proof here. I bought a quad-core Acer last January for $550. It smokes any Apple machine this side of the Pro. Given this; I'd love to see how OSX86 would run on it fully enabled (I have a partition running this, albeit with only one core and no sound FTL.), given how lightning a Ubuntu installed runs on this guy.
If Apple had given me a comparable speed upgradable mid-tower for only a little more (let's say something like $799), I would had absoultely jumped on it. Press the Mini's portability and use as a HTPC or projector presentation machine, and give the masses a GOOD tower that's not the Pro.
Apple should use this as a lesson, there is absolutely a market for function over form, instead of their current line up of the exact opposite. Instead of taking Psystar to court, they could simply RUN THEM OUT OF BUSINESS by providing what's keeping potential Apple customers away.
Joey said 1:22PM on 12-10-2008
"If Apple had given me a comparable speed upgradable mid-tower for only a little more (let's say something like $799), I would had absoultely jumped on it."
I agree with you 100%. Right now I'm in the market for a new Mac which would be my main system. I'd like to get something that's comparable to my $800 Quad Core Vista machine (1 TB HD, 512MB video, 6GB ram) that I can run on a switch to share monitors, etc. With Apple right now my options are:
1. iMac. This screws up my KVM setup since I can't share both monitors. The system also has limited ram slots, no hard drive bays and has less performance. And yet it still costs $400 more than my PC.
2. MacPro. I can get a quad core system that works with my KVM perfectly. However it's $1599 *more* than my PC and it has 1/4 the ram and 1/3 the storage. Sure the performance is better, but is that worth $1600? Not to me.
What I'd like is the mystery system sitting in between those two. The one that I've been purchasing for years, the entry level tower. Typically this system was priced between $1599-$1799 and provided expandability without the bells and whistles. Trouble is, it no longer exists. It never survived the transition to Intel.
liquidmark said 9:10AM on 12-13-2008
"Right now their product matrix offers nothing in between an entry level consumer machine or a high end desktop, at least in terms of expandability."
Apple doesn't have to offer that.
Seriously, what they do or don't sell doesn't give license to steal their property.
And NO, they don't have to sell their stuff to you if they don't want to.
It isn't their business to do what you want, it is their business to do what works for them.
Don't like it? Use windows or linux. Buh-Bye. Need help packing your bags?
liquidmark said 10:15PM on 12-10-2008
"They're a Totalitarian organization. Apple just doesn't listen to its customers,"
Good heavens!
They are a business that is in business to make money. Trying to please 100% of the consumers is a failing tactic. Apple knows this.
They release THEIR machines knowing that people that get the whole Mac thing, will buy them. The others? Screw them! They aren't WORTH breaking up a perfect marketing strategy for. Trying to please them would destroy Apple 150k, A DAY, per store, market position. I agree with APPLE.
"Apple just doesn't listen to its customers"
Why should they?
Their customers aren't running the business.
That's like having joe public leading the military!
Seriously, Apple is making more profit with THEIR ideas than they ever could with yours or mine. Plain as that...
Joey said 12:20AM on 12-11-2008
"Apple doesn't have to offer that."
"Their customers aren't running the business."
Apple is a corporation and corporations exist only to make money. As it happens customers are merely an inconvenience on the road to the ultimate goal which is profit. I get it. I mean, seriously, if Apple was looking out for my best interest my iPhone would have a user-replaceable battery.
I also realize that Apple doesn't want or need my advice when building a product matrix. And that's good because quite frankly I'd be miserable at it. Can you imagine? "This year we're going to spend 1/3 of our R&D to make a computer into an obscure shape. It will have no expansion slots, a proprietary logic board, custom made internal components and will cost three times as much as any other competing product in its class." My brain would hurt after the first day.
Even still as a customer I am entitled to opinions and observations. And it's my opinion that a 3rd party hardware market is arising because a certain market segment could care less that their computer looks like a lamp or a diminutive lucite box inasmuch as they care about price and performance.
Does Apple have to address this market? Of course not. But if they don't address it then they're going to need to prepare themselves for the repercussions. And in this case that looks like a long series of legal battles.
liquidmark said 10:12AM on 12-11-2008
"Can you imagine? "This year we're going to spend 1/3 of our R&D to make a computer into an obscure shape. It will have no expansion slots, a proprietary logic board, custom made internal components and will cost three times as much as any other competing product in its class"
Actually, Joey, The iMac is the LEAST expensive All In One, AT SPEC, on the market today. That is it's class.
Look up the Dell XPS ONE, the Gateway ONE or whatever. Tou'll see that the imac outstrips them in value and power.
"Even still as a customer I am entitled to opinions and observations. And it's my opinion that a 3rd party hardware market is arising because a certain market segment could care less that their computer looks like a lamp or a diminutive lucite box inasmuch as they care about price and performance."
Those people are unimportant. If Apple caters to them, it would DESTROY their VERY PROFITABLE product matrix and then we'll all be seeing 2009 Performas in Best Buy. F**K NO!
"But if they don't address it then they're going to need to prepare themselves for the repercussions. And in this case that looks like a long series of legal battles."
Better to sue people who try to STEAL YOUR PROPERTY than tank your entire company because Joe Penny Pincher decides that he knows how to run your business better than you do.
Plus, After Apple crushes these fools. It will set a precedent. Then, winning future cases will be MUCH easier to do.
Joey said 11:11AM on 12-11-2008
"Those people are unimportant. If Apple caters to them, it would DESTROY their VERY PROFITABLE product matrix and then we'll all be seeing 2009 Performas in Best Buy. F**K NO!"
I see your point, I just find it hard to believe that you'd prefer a purposefully hobbled user experience just so your favorite corporation can earn more revenue. That seems, I dunno, a little masochistic to me. Especially since I assume you're an Apple customer and not just a stock holder.
Moreover the fact remains that Apple has a proven a track record of pursuing simplicity, otherwise known as hobbling their products, at the consumers expense (quite literally). The magic here is that their customer base believes, through excellent marketing, that this done in their best interests. And while this practice can be innocuous if not beneficial when implemented sparingly, Apple likes to push the limits. Will users accept a non-replaceable battery in an MP3 player? Yes. Okay now how about a phone? Sure. Alright, let's try a laptop. See the trend? And in each of these cases the product decisions benefits Apple far more than the consumer.
Apple will play this take-away game as long as customers let them get away with it. The iPhone will not have 3rd party applications. End users illegally create an ecosystem of 3rd party apps. Apple now either competes and offers a sanctioned solution or sues the relevant parties. The Mac will not have a reasonably priced upgradable computer within their product matrix. End users illegally create this niche product. Apple now either competes and offers a sanctioned solution or sues the relevant parties.
If this is the future of Apple innovation then I admit, I want no part of it.
liquidmark said 4:03PM on 12-11-2008
"I see your point, I just find it hard to believe that you'd prefer a purposefully hobbled user experience just so your favorite corporation can earn more revenue."
The user experience isn't Hobbled in the slightest.
That's like saying that driving a Mercedes isn't as good because you can't change the spark plugs (or whatever) yourself. Utter nonsense.
Also, UNLIKE YOU, i want Apple to survive so that they can continue to DEVELOP OSX and Macintosh Hardware, which are products that I like.
"Especially since I assume you're an Apple customer and not just a stock holder."
I don't own a single share of Apple stock. I buy Apple hardware and clearly remember the time when Apple was doing the CRAP that you want them to do. It was horrible and Apple almost died.
"Moreover the fact remains that Apple has a proven a track record of pursuing simplicity, otherwise known as hobbling their products, at the consumers expense (quite literally)."
Making something simpler isn't hobbling it at all.
Like I said, the imac is the LEAST EXPENSIVE All In One computer on the Market at spec. Don't believe me? Look it up.
"Will users accept a non-replaceable battery in an MP3 player? Yes. Okay now how about a phone? Sure. Alright, let's try a laptop. See the trend?"
You're reasoning is specious at best.
Apple does what they can to lessen user error. To make their products more and more foolproof. If you need to have a battery replace, simply take your machine to an Apple store or service provider. If you have a service plan, you machine will be serviced at NO extra charge. Simple as that.
Remember the iMac G5?
it was user-serviceable.
What happened?
Users opened the case and usually broke the computer because they didn't know what they were doing. So, Apple closed down the machine. You can STILL open it, but by doing so, you void your warranty because Apple WILL NOT pay for YOUR screw up!
"The iPhone will not have 3rd party applications."
As I recall, the iPhone didn't have 3rd party software support, now it does.
"Apple now either competes and offers a sanctioned solution or sues the relevant parties. "
No, Apple released a SDK for the iPhone and they didn't sue anyone to my knowledge. They also didn't release any competing products as far as I know.
"The Mac will not have a reasonably priced upgradable computer within their product matrix. End users illegally create this niche product. Apple now either competes and offers a sanctioned solution or sues the relevant parties."
Breaking up their PROFITABLE product matrix is NOT an option. Suing the parties that are outright STEALING their Intellectual Property is the BEST course of action.
Also, i must point out that Apple didn't start SUING until someone decided to STEAL and SELL their PROPERTY!
Apple already did the garbage that you want them to do during the 90's and it FAILED horribly. It was the most ill-conceived attempts to grab marketshare in the HISTORY of the Computer Market.
"If this is the future of Apple innovation then I admit, I want no part of it."
like I said, 'Need help with your bags?'
Good riddance to bad rubbish, I always say.
Apple makes @$$loads of cash with their present strategy, they have MILLIONS of satisfied customers (I'm one of them!), Their products are high quality and in the case of the iMac and Mac pro, have BEST IN CLASS pricing at spec.
If you aren't satisfied, then GO! Nobody CARES. Especially Apple.
Don't even say another word. Turn in your remaining Apple merchandise on Ebay or wherever and GTFO.
Joey said 12:44PM on 12-11-2008
"Apple does what they can to lessen user error."
Like I said, their marketing works wonders. A non-user replaceable battery ties the customer to Apple for product upgrades. It's as simple as that. Yes it may also lower manufacturing costs and yes it can lower user-error. But I find it ridiculous to assert that Apple didn't offer batteries in iPhones and iPods because users would have a hard time replacing them. What's next, rubber bumpers for for your desk?
"As I recall, the iPhone didn't have 3rd party software support, now it does."
Exactly because they addressed the gray market that was developing with 3rd party applications. Unless you think Apple miraculously did an about face for no reason at all. As I see it, you can thank the evil hackers (the ones that you want to abandon the platform you love) for the mere existence of the 3rd party app market. Needless to say the fact that Apple now advertises these same apps on TV is quite ironic.
The same can be said of the AppleTV (of which I own several). Out of the box it's incredibly hobbled (or in your opinion, "simplified"). Install a third party hack and suddenly it plays all forms of media and streams Hulu (and if things go well this week, Netflix as well). To me, this is a great addition to a somewhat mediocre product. But yet again Apple will either have to address this and sue the parties making it happen or offer an official solution.
"Also, i must point out that Apple didn't start SUING until someone decided to STEAL and SELL their PROPERTY!"
Since this is your main talking point just let me say this, I disagree with Pystar's actions and I hope they lose. I'm also staunchly against pirating OSX, I don't hack my AppleTVs and my iPhone isn't jailbroken.
"like I said, 'Need help with your bags?' Good riddance to bad rubbish, I always say."
The real issue here, which likely is the source of your arrogance, is that you don't fully understand both sides of the argument. That's a shame because you do have some good ideas here.
liquidmark said 2:00PM on 12-11-2008
"A non-user replaceable battery ties the customer to Apple for product upgrades"
The same way a removable battery in a SONY Laptop ties users to SONY for replacements. THINK man!
Even if the battery were removable, you would STILL have to get the battery from APPLE! If you use a third party battery and your MBP pops a capacitor or something, then Apple won't cover you.
"As I see it, you can thank the evil hackers (the ones that you want to abandon the platform you love) for the mere existence of the 3rd party app market"
First off, I don't own an iPhone, so I could give a rat's @$$.
Secondly, I believe that Apple was going to release a SDK ANYWAY.
"The same can be said of the AppleTV (of which I own several)."
Buy a Mac Mini. it is a better deal than an Apple TV.
"To me, this is a great addition to a somewhat mediocre product. "
OR you could have gotten a Mac Mini, did all of that AND MORE and not void your warranty.
"The real issue here, which likely is the source of your arrogance, is that you don't fully understand both sides of the argument. That's a shame because you do have some good ideas here."
Pardon me?
I understand the other side VERY well, but I also see how foolish their ambitions are.
You may think that I'm arrogant, but it is hard to NOT look arrogant when you talk with people that want a REPEAT of one of the darkest hours of Apple's history!
It is hard to NOT look arrogant when people, like you, want to argue for something that has PROVEN not to work, time and again
It is hard to NOT look arrogant when people, like you, fail to see the genius of their present marketing strategy and the success of their market position when it is staring you right in the face!
Seriously, right now, in a recession, where are the layoffs at Apple?
Oh look, they are hiring more people!
Surely their sales are slipping?
Nope.
Well, maybe their stores are empty?
Not from what i see.
Well, Maybe their products aren't getting updates?
They just updated their Macbook, Macbook pro and Macbook Air lines not too long ago. Other updates are bound to happen in january.
Their ability to pull this off?
NOT doing what Joey says is a great start!
Look, nothing is stopping you from making your OWN OS and your OWN budget hardware and selling them. Let's see how long you last. Apple has 30 years experience. Think you can top that?
Yohannon said 7:45PM on 12-15-2008
Liquidmark seems to have an issue with the idea that, if I BUY Mac OS X, I should be able to run in on any compatible hardware. What "L'mark" is suggesting a world where it's perfectly okay to tie the media to the machine it's played on -- for example, a world where Sony DVD's, CD's or Blue-ray disks only worked on SONY branded hardware, and Sony could enforce that limitation in court.
Calling it "theft" to install a legally purchased product on "unapproved" hardware is needlessly inflammatory and the sign of a troll.
Jon said 11:17AM on 12-10-2008
I don't see that Apple has any obligation to provide OS X on other machines, regardless of any of Psystar's dubious arguments to the contrary. Apple is primarily a hardware company, and all of their software is designed to sell Apple hardware. So it would damage Apple significantly if they were forced to license OS X to other vendors, but I can't see this happening.
Reply
MadMike said 11:34AM on 12-10-2008
How do they afford all of this? I mean Psystar has to be in the red somehow, unless they are burning through VC faster than I burn through Jack Daniels.
I doubt they are selling millions of PC's at what? 8% markup?
Lets say they are selling ~100,000 computers a fiscal quarter, so 400,000 a year at a profit of $70 a piece?
That's only around $17.4 Million after taxes per year or roughly $4.35 MM per quarter. Say they got $35 MM in VC...
Legal costs are at least $2.5 MM per quarter.
I'm not an accountant but it looks like they are bleeding money.
Reply
AppBeacon said 12:58PM on 12-10-2008
MadMike,
I've also noticed Psystar doing lots of AdWords advertising for lots of Apple related keywords. So, they are bleeding even more money.
This really highlights the conspiracy aspects of the John Doe defendants Apple has reserved the right to sue. TUAW posted about this some time back.
Big John said 11:35AM on 12-10-2008
I really don't see how Psystar has any case and I don't see how it's a monopoly. First of all, Windows is the OS of choice for most of the business and PC world (although Apple is gaining). Secondly, Apple makes it's own hardware and writes it's own OS and these are made to work hand in hand with each other rather than one company writing the OS, another making the motherboard, another the video card. yadda yadda yadda like the case with any Windows Machine. Apple is it's own company with it's own products. Why shouldn't it have exclusive rights to those items. And besides, alot of the popularity of the apple OS is based on how stable and reliable it is which is due to the reasons stated above. If another company comes in with it's own hardware not specifically designed for the Mac OS it may not work as well which could give consumers using MAC OS for the first time on an off brand machine a bad opinion of the OS and end up hurting MAC sales. If Psystar likes the OS so much then they should have designed it on their own rather then ripping off Apples. Or they could use Windows.
Reply