5 ms·

Psystar Wins Legal Ruling Against Apple: Can Argue Apple is Overextending Copyright Law

18 points by mdasen 18y ago

theklub 18y ago
If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also sell more OS licenses.
- omouse 18y ago
  sigh In the past, Apple allowed other companies to license the OS and sell it on different hardware. The only reason this stopped was because Steve Jobs forced the renaming of a particular version of the OS so that the contract would no longer apply (it covered version X.Y, they changed it to X.Z) Also, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?
  - theklub 18y ago
    I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I think it would be good for apple in fact. They are missing a huge market segment.
    - ja2ke 18y ago
      Apple has deliberately ignored that potential "huge market segment" for years, to great success. Their brand, at least in the eyes of regular consumers, is probably perceived as a bit overpriced, but you know you are paying for a singular solid quality experience. The opposite is true of Windows and PCs, where I think generally (at least using my parents as a barometer) the feeling is that you're taking a bit of a gamble. Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California." That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
  - teej 18y ago
    I don't want the people in the discount computer market walking into the Apple store to get service on their machines. I pay a premium for my Apple products and I expect stellar service - right now, that's exactly what I get. My service experience would be diminished if AppleCare and the Genius Bar is bogged down with Joe Blows trying to get their interwebs working on their $300 Apple computer.
    - ijntybvrt 18y ago
      The Apple stores will only fix Apples - that's what you're paying the premium for. You might benefit from all the new apps that will get ported to Mac if it suddenly has 3-4x the market share.
  - GHFigs 18y ago
    That's not the reason it stopped, that's how it stopped. The reason was that it was a bad deal for Apple. It still would be.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  To whomever is downmodding theklub, please explain why. It reads perfectly rational and reasonable to me.
  - pavelludiq 18y ago
    Hardcore apple fans. There like: oh no, cheap macs! Im like: cool, cheap macs! p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
    - raganwald 18y ago
      I'm not downmodding you, but I will suggest that there is a difference between "Cheap PCs that run OS X" and "Cheap Macs." Apple tries to ship a certain complete Macintosh experience. Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X. So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
      - pavelludiq 18y ago
        First, it doesn't mater what you call it. Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right? So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
        raganwald 18y ago
        it doesn't mater what you call it. Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.
- ja2ke 18y ago
  I doubt Apple would let Walmart carry Psystar machines. I mean, they can't officially allow or not allow Walmart to do such a thing, but Apple could probably threaten to pull the iPod/iPhone line and all first party accessories, iTunes gift cards, etc, or something like that.
- Zev 18y ago
  I believe Apple did try the whole licensing thing in the mid 90's. Didn't work out too well for them so they stopped doing it. Don't forget: Apple makes a ton of money from hardware sales still. Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  If Apple were interested in selling more OS licenses, they could choose to do that on their own, without being compelled to through legal action. In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.
cschep 18y ago
Is there any way that this little company will ever be more than just a pain in Apple's side? They can't deliver an experience like Apple. Maybe they'll open some notApple Stores.
- jcl 18y ago
  As I recall, they were doing pretty well, aside from the court case. There seems to be a demand for a generic machine running OSX even if it doesn't "deliver an experience like Apple".
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
lpgauth 18y ago
They can't win... All Apple computer ship with a TPM chip and I'm pretty sure they could verify hardware with it...
- Zev 18y ago
  The only machines that Apple has shipped with TPM chips built in were the early developer kits that were under NDA.
  - lpgauth 18y ago
    I have a macbook first gen and has a tpm...
    - Zev 18y ago
      Looks like I stand corrected. Either way, my MacBook Pro doesn't have a TPM though. There's no way for Apple to use the TPM since not all their shipping computers have it.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  Current Apple models lack a TPM, and those that did have them never used them for anything. To check a machine: # ioreg -x | grep TPM
  - lpgauth 18y ago
    | +-o TPM <class IOACPIPlatformDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain 6> I know they don't use them but they can implement it in the next version they ship...
    - GHFigs 18y ago
      Nonsensical. Apple won't ship an OS that won't run on the computers they sell.
dhughes 18y ago
I say best of luck to Psystar, I hope they win, I may never buy an Apple or Psystar Apple computer (can they call it an Apple computer? ...OS X PC?) I still think a company that builds a system with the real OS X operating system, not a pirated copy, is certainly doing nothing wrong. If Microsoft made/controlled distribution of all the computer hardware in a PC and prevented anyone else from making a PC people would be mad as hell!
- Zev 18y ago
  Except, AFAIK, pystar machines dont come with "real" OS X. They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy) or B. Nonstandard hardware specifically designed to emulate things that PC's cant run. The latter is much much more of a grey area then the former. However, I think pystar does the former. I remember reading awhile ago that pystar shipped with a legit copy of OS X but a hacked copy installed, so if anyone wanted to reinstall, they would have to send it back and pay $50.
  - Haskell 18y ago
    > They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy) Hacked != Pirated. I am planning to use a hacked MacOS X for IPhone development and I will buy the OS. That's fine, I can pay for the software. I simply can't afford their overpriced desktop hardware. (The iPhone is reasonably cheap compared to their desktops). Edit: I don't know why this has been down voted. Maybe I should say that what adds to Apple's desktops cost, besides their premium for the brand, is the importation tax for items over $500 here. As high as 60%. With this tax, I can simply buy the software and assembly the hardware from commodity parts myself.
    - Zev 18y ago
      Theres an overwhelmingly large majority of the people who dont know enough in order to to hack os x and instead pirate a hacked copy. But hey, if you do know enough to hack it, kudos to you. Though if you're going by the "I bought a legit copy. I should be able to download it in modified forms if I want to" argument, then thats grayer then I would like. Especially if I'm developing for a platform that's controlled by the company that I'm pirating from.
gabrielroth 18y ago
This is a tiny procedural ruling. It's extremely unlikely that Psystar will win the right to sell OSX on non-Apple hardware against Apple's wishes.
eli 18y ago
This is pretty weak, as far as "legal wins" go. They merely won the right to argue that Apple is abusing copyright (rather than arguing they are an illegal monopoly because that argument was already shot down).
- ROFISH 18y ago
  Even then, if Psystar wins the right to use legally use OS X on their hardware, doesn't Apple have the right to refuse to sell OS X to OEMs, which is what I think the crux of the argument is, not the copyright/monopoly thing.

18 points by mdasen 18y ago

If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also sell more OS licenses.

omouse 18y ago
sigh In the past, Apple allowed other companies to license the OS and sell it on different hardware. The only reason this stopped was because Steve Jobs forced the renaming of a particular version of the OS so that the contract would no longer apply (it covered version X.Y, they changed it to X.Z) Also, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?
- theklub 18y ago
  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I think it would be good for apple in fact. They are missing a huge market segment.
  - ja2ke 18y ago
    Apple has deliberately ignored that potential "huge market segment" for years, to great success. Their brand, at least in the eyes of regular consumers, is probably perceived as a bit overpriced, but you know you are paying for a singular solid quality experience. The opposite is true of Windows and PCs, where I think generally (at least using my parents as a barometer) the feeling is that you're taking a bit of a gamble. Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California." That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
- teej 18y ago
  I don't want the people in the discount computer market walking into the Apple store to get service on their machines. I pay a premium for my Apple products and I expect stellar service - right now, that's exactly what I get. My service experience would be diminished if AppleCare and the Genius Bar is bogged down with Joe Blows trying to get their interwebs working on their $300 Apple computer.
  - ijntybvrt 18y ago
    The Apple stores will only fix Apples - that's what you're paying the premium for. You might benefit from all the new apps that will get ported to Mac if it suddenly has 3-4x the market share.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  That's not the reason it stopped, that's how it stopped. The reason was that it was a bad deal for Apple. It still would be.
whacked_new 18y ago
To whomever is downmodding theklub, please explain why. It reads perfectly rational and reasonable to me.
- pavelludiq 18y ago
  Hardcore apple fans. There like: oh no, cheap macs! Im like: cool, cheap macs! p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
  - raganwald 18y ago
    I'm not downmodding you, but I will suggest that there is a difference between "Cheap PCs that run OS X" and "Cheap Macs." Apple tries to ship a certain complete Macintosh experience. Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X. So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
    - pavelludiq 18y ago
      First, it doesn't mater what you call it. Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right? So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
      - raganwald 18y ago
        it doesn't mater what you call it. Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.
ja2ke 18y ago
I doubt Apple would let Walmart carry Psystar machines. I mean, they can't officially allow or not allow Walmart to do such a thing, but Apple could probably threaten to pull the iPod/iPhone line and all first party accessories, iTunes gift cards, etc, or something like that.
Zev 18y ago
I believe Apple did try the whole licensing thing in the mid 90's. Didn't work out too well for them so they stopped doing it. Don't forget: Apple makes a ton of money from hardware sales still. Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.
GHFigs 18y ago
If Apple were interested in selling more OS licenses, they could choose to do that on their own, without being compelled to through legal action. In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.

cschep 18y ago

Is there any way that this little company will ever be more than just a pain in Apple's side? They can't deliver an experience like Apple. Maybe they'll open some notApple Stores.

jcl 18y ago
As I recall, they were doing pretty well, aside from the court case. There seems to be a demand for a generic machine running OSX even if it doesn't "deliver an experience like Apple".

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

lpgauth 18y ago

They can't win... All Apple computer ship with a TPM chip and I'm pretty sure they could verify hardware with it...

Zev 18y ago
The only machines that Apple has shipped with TPM chips built in were the early developer kits that were under NDA.
- lpgauth 18y ago
  I have a macbook first gen and has a tpm...
  - Zev 18y ago
    Looks like I stand corrected. Either way, my MacBook Pro doesn't have a TPM though. There's no way for Apple to use the TPM since not all their shipping computers have it.
GHFigs 18y ago
Current Apple models lack a TPM, and those that did have them never used them for anything. To check a machine: # ioreg -x | grep TPM
- lpgauth 18y ago
  | +-o TPM <class IOACPIPlatformDevice, registered, matched, active, busy 0, retain 6> I know they don't use them but they can implement it in the next version they ship...
  - GHFigs 18y ago
    Nonsensical. Apple won't ship an OS that won't run on the computers they sell.

dhughes 18y ago

I say best of luck to Psystar, I hope they win, I may never buy an Apple or Psystar Apple computer (can they call it an Apple computer? ...OS X PC?) I still think a company that builds a system with the real OS X operating system, not a pirated copy, is certainly doing nothing wrong. If Microsoft made/controlled distribution of all the computer hardware in a PC and prevented anyone else from making a PC people would be mad as hell!

Zev 18y ago
Except, AFAIK, pystar machines dont come with "real" OS X. They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy) or B. Nonstandard hardware specifically designed to emulate things that PC's cant run. The latter is much much more of a grey area then the former. However, I think pystar does the former. I remember reading awhile ago that pystar shipped with a legit copy of OS X but a hacked copy installed, so if anyone wanted to reinstall, they would have to send it back and pay $50.
- Haskell 18y ago
  > They require either A. OS X to be hacked to run on the machines (aka: your pirated copy) Hacked != Pirated. I am planning to use a hacked MacOS X for IPhone development and I will buy the OS. That's fine, I can pay for the software. I simply can't afford their overpriced desktop hardware. (The iPhone is reasonably cheap compared to their desktops). Edit: I don't know why this has been down voted. Maybe I should say that what adds to Apple's desktops cost, besides their premium for the brand, is the importation tax for items over $500 here. As high as 60%. With this tax, I can simply buy the software and assembly the hardware from commodity parts myself.
  - Zev 18y ago
    Theres an overwhelmingly large majority of the people who dont know enough in order to to hack os x and instead pirate a hacked copy. But hey, if you do know enough to hack it, kudos to you. Though if you're going by the "I bought a legit copy. I should be able to download it in modified forms if I want to" argument, then thats grayer then I would like. Especially if I'm developing for a platform that's controlled by the company that I'm pirating from.

gabrielroth 18y ago

This is a tiny procedural ruling. It's extremely unlikely that Psystar will win the right to sell OSX on non-Apple hardware against Apple's wishes.

eli 18y ago

This is pretty weak, as far as "legal wins" go. They merely won the right to argue that Apple is abusing copyright (rather than arguing they are an illegal monopoly because that argument was already shot down).

ROFISH 18y ago
Even then, if Psystar wins the right to use legally use OS X on their hardware, doesn't Apple have the right to refuse to sell OS X to OEMs, which is what I think the crux of the argument is, not the copyright/monopoly thing.