Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware, OS
Psystar wins a battle, legal war just getting started
Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware.
On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well.
Judge William Alsup said, "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." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court.
Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.
The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.
[Via Macworld.]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
staniks said 11:10AM on 2-09-2009
Does anyone else feel like these guys are screwing it up for the rest of us? I for one am happy that Apple has gone Intel so I can run Windows when I need too but if these clone makers continue I fear that Apple may go back to PPC.
Reply
Randy said 11:46AM on 2-09-2009
Apple going back to PPC? Ha! won't happen. There are better odds on them switching to itanium.
Ryan Trevisol said 6:16PM on 2-09-2009
lol@ itanium.
No, they won't go back to PPC. What I don't get, though, is why they don't just make a decent computer and let you put Leopard on it yourself? Make a computer that will accept a Leopard retail DVD and they'd be off the hook. Of course, that would engage Apple in another Jailbreak-style cat-and-mouse game.
MichaelBB said 11:22AM on 2-09-2009
If there that determined to battle it out in court, and pay all the legal fee's , than let them go at it. For Apples legal department they more than likely have everything all setup and ready to go.
I think in the long run Psystar is going to loose and loose big time. I dont wish the bad on any company, but I do not see them winning this.
Reply
Blake said 11:37AM on 2-09-2009
THis is CRAZY!!! WHY should Apple be made to support OSX on non Apple hardware? What happens when these clones ship and then the users have trouble with the machines because of hardware issues? This will waste the users time and Apple's time as well!
IF YOU WANT THE MAC OS THEN BUY A MAC!!!
Reply
twistedarts said 12:00PM on 2-09-2009
I agree. BUY A MAC if you want OSX.
Stace said 1:24PM on 2-09-2009
Who is making Apple support OS X on non Apple hardware? Is Psystar selling AppleCare on non-Apple hardware now?
ae86takumi said 2:54PM on 2-09-2009
I agree..so back when Toyota and General Motors had their deal, If I chose to buy a Geo Prizm and not a Toyota Corolla. Toyota had to support it? Buy the real thing. I know it's not the same analogy, but you get the idea.
If you cannot afford it, be happy with what you have.
Joe RIckerby said 11:52AM on 2-09-2009
>The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.
And Psystar can sell machines for all that time? Man...
Reply
Richard Testani said 12:17PM on 2-09-2009
I agree - it's like if Daewoo just started putting Porsche engines in their cars, and claimed Porsche can't be the only company to make Porsches.
Why would anyone buy a fake Mac anyway? You're better off just installing the OSX86 project.
Reply
Andre said 12:34PM on 2-09-2009
That is a good analogy. AND, nothing is stopping Daewoo from buying Porsche engines and selling them in their cars. As long as they bought them, and didn't steal them, and as long as they don't call the result a Porsche.
Just like I can buy a Porsche engine, and install it in any car I want.
@Blake - I don't think Psystar is expecting Apple to support their machines. They just want to have the freedom to install OSX on their machines.
Isn't the world better off that Microsoft doesn't make PCs and only allow their OS on their own brand of hardware?
I have an iMac, a Macbook, and a couple of PCs. I would love to have the option to legally install OSX on my PCs and say goodbye to Windows.
basscadet said 12:39PM on 2-09-2009
Some people don't care about looks and really want just a cheap tool to do their job. What's different between a custom built PC system with EFiX that runs OSX and an Apple made system using the same hardware that also runs OSX?
The answer: just the case.
If one messes around and gets different non supported hardware then yes, it will start having problems, but as far as one sticks to the parts that Apple uses there's no magic component that "work better" when sold by Apple.
I wonder why would anyone mess with Psystars and not go get an EFiX and build a cheap box saving a heap of $$.
basscadet said 12:44PM on 2-09-2009
oh and one more thing, the Porsche / Daewoo analogy holds only as far as the exterior is concerned. Bodywork and fittings is all the difference, machine and gearbox is all the same. It used to be different back then when it was all dizzyingly fast SCSI vs IDE (but same crap beige box look lol), not anymore. Windows XP is kinda OK (after so many years though), Vista is crap and Win7 looks like XP Plus, why not throw all that out of the window (pun not intended) and install OSX on a custom made PC? I'm tempted to try that on my next upgrade, that's for sure.
sine nomine said 7:07PM on 2-09-2009
It would be more similar to Ford deciding to offer the GM OnStar system in its vehicles, without permission from GM.
All car makers out there offer vehicles with similar functionality, and use styling and options like OnStar help to add value and distinguish the brand from competitors. If Ford were to offer OnStar, that would be one less reason to buy GM. Even though GM would make money off of selling the OnStar systems to Ford, they are in the business of making cars, and one of OnStar's purposes is to add value to the GM brands to help them compete in the marketplace. If Ford wants that feature, they need to try to license it from GM, or if GM says no (which they SHOULD have every right to do), develop something similar on their own or license a similar product/service from another manufacturer.
The main point is that the hardware between auto makers offers similar functionality, and there are alternatives to OnStar that Ford or whoever could make use of. Allowing Ford to use OnStar simply because they want to could damage GM sales. A company should not be forced to use their own product damage their own business.
All PC vendors offer hardware with similar functionality, and distinguish their brands with styling and various options, just as an auto maker does. The operating system is one of those options that may (or may not - some people just don't care) cause a person to buy one model over another. Forcing a PC vendor to offer to a competitor an option that distinguishes their brand is going to hurt sales. Vendors like HP or Sony do offer their own custom software on their machines, and no one is attempting to force them to license it.
macxprt said 12:33PM on 2-09-2009
If this goes through and Psystar wins (or gets close to winning) this lawsuit, I can see Apple putting serial numbers on MacOS X or embed codes in the MacOS ROM to prevent unauthorized installs.
Reply
Richard Testani said 12:39PM on 2-09-2009
Yep, I can see that.
But what's stopping Apple from simply updating their TOS and tighten up this loophole Pystar is abusing?
Stace said 1:12PM on 2-09-2009
What's so bad about running OS X on non-apple hardware? You fanboys really need to get a grip -- OS X is an awesome OS, but some of us don't need to pay Apple's exorbitant hardware costs on something that sits under our desk.
Stop taking it so personally. Psystar isn't out to get you. I'm glad I finally have a consumer-grade product to buy. I didn't need to drop the bucks on a Mac Pro just for the case form factor I wanted. Why won't Apple release something more affordable than a Mac Pro. The Mini doesn't count -- it's an unopenable box as far as Apple is concerned. The iMac at least lets you upgrade RAM trivially, but anything else requires a warranty-voiding disassembly. And you still have the cost of an LCD whether you need it or not.
Reply
Jack Chance said 2:56PM on 2-09-2009
Apple needs to make something that is 2 or 3 times bigger than the mini, has user upgradeable HDD, RAM, a graphics card that can play games and is priced like an iMac without a screen.
I think that would encourage many people to stick with mac hardware.
Right now there is a big gap between the mini and the Mac Pro for people who want to keep their current monitor. (Like the awesome Dell monitors with tons of inputs)
I have the mini, and i have upgraded the RAM and CPU (no easy feat). But i would really like a machine with better graphics. There are a few reasons i haven't gone hackintosh:
1) Looks. The mini is beautiful
2) Support. Most of the hackint0sh stuff I have read suggests that there are problems and always fears with new software updates etc.
I used to love Apple. But now i kind of have a love/hate relationship with them. (Although some of that is ATTs fault)
bhamm said 3:10PM on 2-09-2009
"What's so bad about running OS X on non-apple hardware?"
You're missing the point. There's nothing 'bad' about it, but Apple owns OS X and can allow (or disallow) it on whatever hardware they want. It's really not your decision. If you don't like that, you should write your own OS.
Secondly, Apple makes next to nothing on software. Their margins/business model revolve around selling hardware. Running it on bad/cheap hardware weakens Apple financially, and weakens their brand.
"Stop taking it so personally."
It's not a personal affront to me, but the reaction you're seeing stems from this freaking entitlement attitude you and Psystar seem to have. If you want OS X, buy the hardware built to run it. If Apple doesn't make the kind of hardware YOU want, then buy a damn PC.
Stace said 3:35PM on 2-09-2009
@bhamm: I can't believe I'm arguing on the internet. Okay, here goes...
"Apple owns OS X and can allow (or disallow) it on whatever hardware they want. It's really not your decision. If you don't like that, you should write your own OS."
That sounds an awful lot like an apologist defending his fanboy object of desire.
Do you really believe that? Would you believe that if Microsoft did it? Like, say, if Microsoft made a keyboard that just totally kicked ass, and there were no solid technical reasons you couldn't use it on a Mac, but MS said you couldn't and would sue anyone who sold a Mac with that keyboard bundled?
Maybe if Sony released a PC that had no technical reason you couldn't run linux on it, except they put in the EULA that you weren't allowed.
Nobody's asking Apple to do anything.
I sincerely hope you were opposed to Microsoft having to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows, and are similarly unopposed to Microsoft's practice of disallowing resellers of selling computers with any OS other than Windows installed.
As for the entitlement comment, I fail to see how this is a sense of entitlement. Apple would not provide me with a sub $2000 machine that was easily upgradeable. Psystar did. I bought from them. I even paid for a license for Leopard, which I shouldn't even have needed to so, since I have extra licenses for it. All I did was pay Psystar to install the OS on it for me, because when I made that purchase, I did the math and decided my time was worth more than the cost difference of going it alone.
It'll be okay. Apple isn't going to get hurt over this. If anything, more copies of OS X will be sold. Apple's OS footprint will grow. These are all good things.