Friday, September 30th 2011
Apple Emerges Victorious Against Psystar, But Have They Really Triumphed? (UPDATED)
In a court ruling on Wednesday 28th September 2011, Apple's assertion that any kind of 'Hackintosh' was, is and always will be, illegal, was conclusively affirmed. This will bring great dismay to Psystar customers, potential purchasers of other "alternative Macs" and the many PC enthusiasts who want to run the latest Apple OS on the high-spec rigs they've built themselves from hand-picked components. This ruling has unfortunately sounded the death knell for enterprising and surprisingly plucky upstart outfit, Psystar, who showed what could be possible with an open mind and technical skill. UPDATE after the jump.
Psystar began selling their Mac OS X-capable Open Computer in April 2008, despite the fact that they unequivocally broke Apple's licensing restrictions. The EULA read:
In short, the case had more twists and turns than a whodunit novel, with Psystar actually winning a couple of small victories, although it was all ultimately for nothing. Psystar even filed for bankruptcy and just when it looked like it was all over, emerged phoenix-like from the ashes to continue fighting Apple. A surprising accomplishment in the face of such a powerful and relentless legal onslaught.
However, this Wednesday, Apple finally got the hands-down victory they had fought for so long, when judge Mary Schroeder of the US District Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco issued the final words in this case:
So there still remains the small matter of whether Apple will be able to keep select court documents sealed, which may cause a smile or two among Psystar supporters. Of course, the damages that Psystar is now liable for are going to completely sink what's left of the company. It's doubtful that Apple will actually see all the money that they're owed and likely that they won't care. It was all about stopping the competition.
So, are Apple triumphant in all this? Yes, they have been able to put the genie back in the bottle, they want to protect the 'purity' of their Apple Mac brand and keep any and all profits from the brand, which they have achieved. However, the bottom line is will this actually result in more money flowing into their bank account? It may not.
Think of the original IBM PC: it was cloned, against IBM's wishes and due to a legal technicality, they couldn't stop it. However, this made the platform grow phenomenally into the industry-dominating juggernaut that it is today, together with all the niche spin-offs, including the high performance enthusiast segment. And critically, it has made IBM's product much more successful and lucrative for them than if IBM had been allowed to keep it closed and proprietary with high prices.
So, by the same token, keeping the Mac platform closed and proprietary, Apple are likely to actually reduce awareness and interest in their products. Therefore, ironically, Apple's victory in court may actually be a bigger victory for those in the Anti-Apple camp, who want to see their market penetration remain small and who would be happy if they just faded away into obscurity. So, will Apple's current stance remain now that Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO and no longer has such a dominating influence over the company? This remains to be seen.
By restricting their products this way, Apple have actually reduced the market penetration of their much-loved operating system, since running it on more and cheaper hardware configurations is no longer possible. Many people that like the Mac OS would normally never buy a Mac due to the sheer cost of entry to the club, which this would have lowered. In time, those same customers may well want the 'real thing' for their next machine and buy a genuine Mac. There's no reason why Apple couldn't have licensed the OS for Psystar hardware and collected a handsome royalty on every sale in the process - a win-win situation.
For more details and lots of links, head on over to The Register article this story was based on.
UPDATE
Well, it looks like this really isn't over yet. Psystar are down, but they are not completely out and are most certainly not giving up. They believe that they have a very strong case, so will be taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Psystar eventually prevail, then it could mean the end of unreasonably restrictive product lockdowns by manufacturers. Read all about it over at update source, PC World.
Source:
The Register
You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labelled computer, or to enable others to do so.For a surprisingly long time, Apple did nothing. This caused some industry pundits to suggest that perhaps Apple had given their tacit approval for a clone. However, it turned out that this was most certainly not the case and Apple eventually sued Psystar. However, what surprised many, is that Psystar quickly countersued, asserting that Apple's EULA violated the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.
In short, the case had more twists and turns than a whodunit novel, with Psystar actually winning a couple of small victories, although it was all ultimately for nothing. Psystar even filed for bankruptcy and just when it looked like it was all over, emerged phoenix-like from the ashes to continue fighting Apple. A surprising accomplishment in the face of such a powerful and relentless legal onslaught.
However, this Wednesday, Apple finally got the hands-down victory they had fought for so long, when judge Mary Schroeder of the US District Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco issued the final words in this case:
The district court's grant of summary judgement in favour of Apple and its entry of a permanent injunction against Psystar's infringement of Mac OS X are affirmed.But even in defeat, Psystar won a tiny victory. Apple - in its eternal quest to protect any and all information about itself - had asked Schroeder to keep documents about the summary judgement case sealed. Schroeder refused, saying that to do so "without explanation" was out of bounds.
So there still remains the small matter of whether Apple will be able to keep select court documents sealed, which may cause a smile or two among Psystar supporters. Of course, the damages that Psystar is now liable for are going to completely sink what's left of the company. It's doubtful that Apple will actually see all the money that they're owed and likely that they won't care. It was all about stopping the competition.
Think of the original IBM PC: it was cloned, against IBM's wishes and due to a legal technicality, they couldn't stop it. However, this made the platform grow phenomenally into the industry-dominating juggernaut that it is today, together with all the niche spin-offs, including the high performance enthusiast segment. And critically, it has made IBM's product much more successful and lucrative for them than if IBM had been allowed to keep it closed and proprietary with high prices.
So, by the same token, keeping the Mac platform closed and proprietary, Apple are likely to actually reduce awareness and interest in their products. Therefore, ironically, Apple's victory in court may actually be a bigger victory for those in the Anti-Apple camp, who want to see their market penetration remain small and who would be happy if they just faded away into obscurity. So, will Apple's current stance remain now that Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO and no longer has such a dominating influence over the company? This remains to be seen.
By restricting their products this way, Apple have actually reduced the market penetration of their much-loved operating system, since running it on more and cheaper hardware configurations is no longer possible. Many people that like the Mac OS would normally never buy a Mac due to the sheer cost of entry to the club, which this would have lowered. In time, those same customers may well want the 'real thing' for their next machine and buy a genuine Mac. There's no reason why Apple couldn't have licensed the OS for Psystar hardware and collected a handsome royalty on every sale in the process - a win-win situation.
For more details and lots of links, head on over to The Register article this story was based on.
UPDATE
Well, it looks like this really isn't over yet. Psystar are down, but they are not completely out and are most certainly not giving up. They believe that they have a very strong case, so will be taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
If Psystar eventually prevail, then it could mean the end of unreasonably restrictive product lockdowns by manufacturers. Read all about it over at update source, PC World.
103 Comments on Apple Emerges Victorious Against Psystar, But Have They Really Triumphed? (UPDATED)
Let there be Apple Macs. Let there be Armani Jeans. Let there be choice. Let there be freedoms to choose what you want.
IMO Macs are great. Blxxdy brilliant. They have brought people and generations to the internet and email that would never have made it past a CTRL+DEL sequence. They have their place, they have a role to play.
But Macs are NOT FOR ME. ;)
Except for one thing. Apple brings 2560x1440 and IPS to the masses. The PC Goliath has FAILED to do that. Apple 1, PC 0.
I really don't see how they can make the case that products they sell on the open market belong to them after purchase. What Psystar should have done is sell the computers minus an OS, and sell people a copy of the OS or point them to apple. I really fail to see how apple could stop a company from making a product, fark apple and their gangster legal tactics.
I found a forum a while back, dedicated to the one task of slagging off Apple. Thread after thread of nothing but hate. Shit, I've got better things to do in my life than increase my blood pressure with impotent rants like that.
Let me start by saying I do not like Apple in general. I don't hate them, but I dislike them.
I feel some of you are being unfair to Apple. Recently, Apple has become better in prices, and their computers range from not over priced to mildly/moderately overpriced. If you try to compare Mac computers to a Windows computer, don't compare whales to monster trucks (ie: 2 completely different things).
1Kurgan1, I respect you, but your comparison was flawed and unfair. If you wanted to have a 1080p screen and an SFF desktop, why would you compare a PREBUILT All-in-one 27" IPS 2560x1440 with a CUSTOM BUILT SFF desktop with 1080p screen? Doesn't make sense. If you compare Apple's computer to other PREBUILT computers, then Apple has somewhat of a higher standard and a more controlled environment, whilst keeping the prices not too far from the competition. Note also that Apple has niche products like the iMac 27", and yes it looks expensive, but not only is it an AWESOME screen, it is All-in-One and prebuilt. The performance is OK/good compared to other All-in-ones. If you want an awesome screen, that iMac already looks like an OK buy, if you want it pre-built or All-in-one, then it is a GOOD buy, if you want it stylish as well, then it is a GREAT buy. Just because it isn't made for you, doesn't mean it sucks and is overpriced!
I don't get how you can even THINK of blaming Apple for this. A company sells their own computers, and makes an OS just for their computers. This OS is popular and a major reason why their computers sell well. They obviously intended the Apple OS to stay on the computers that are their's and for which the OS was designed for. Another company is enabling people to use this OS on their computers and are making a profit off of Apple's OS, simultaneously making Apple lose sells. What? Is Apple supposed to give them all their money and bow down to them?
Please, if you hate Apple, that's OK I understand, but do so for the right reason, don't just blame shit on them for no reason.
EDIT: lol slow at typing other "Don't hate" posts have come before me :p
TL;DR version: Stop the non-logical hate. If you want to argue about Apple being inferior, do so in the right manner. Stop blaming the for Global warming!
As I said before if they had just begun selling machines minus an OS then Apple wouldn't have had any legal recourse. What apple would have likely have done is stopped selling retail copy's of the OS, and then the company would have no choice but to fold. But I doubt even that would have made apple happy. Apple seems to only be happy with victories achieved through shady legal means and horrible business practices.
However, they sell the OS just so that Mac users can upgrade if they'd like. If they would not be selling their OS, your argument wouldn't matter anymore.
Thing is you guys compare it to the only other OS for sale, which is Windows. Just because Microsoft does something this way, doesn't mean Apple has to do it Microsoft's way!
Perhaps a more tech related example will help illustrate my point. You have MSDN. Do you think it is right for you to be giving all the Windows licences that you don't use? If I have MSDN and my Uncle's business or my friend's friend or wtv needs a Windows key, I would not give it to them, as Microsoft says I can't. MSDN was made for personal use, OS X was made for use on Apple computers.
Just because you have something doesn't give you the right to do whatever with it.
EDIT: Just came up with another example... It's not very good but I'll share it anyways.
If the Sony suddenly makes this awesome OS for their consoles (PS2/PS3), and it brings lots of great features and becomes a great multi-media experience and is much lighter etc, and they decide to sell the OS to the public so they can upgrade if they would like... And people find a way to make it work on a computer or X360. Does it give these people the right to install and use this OS without even owning a Sony console?
If the Sony suddenly makes this awesome OS for their consoles (PS2/PS3), and it brings lots of great features and becomes a great multi-media experience and is much lighter etc, and they decide to sell the OS to the public so they can upgrade if they would like... And people find a way to make it work on a computer or X360. Does it give these people the right to install and use this OS without even owning a Sony console?
The answer is YES!!!!!
If you want to ask a mod to change the poll, feel free. :toast:
You are renting the software for a specific use.
Nominative Pronoun / Dative Objective / Genitive Possessive Adjective / Possessive Pronoun
I / Me / My / Mine
You / You / Your / Yours
He / Him / His / His
She / Her / Her / Hers
It / It / Its (His) / Its (His)
We / Us / Our / Ours
You / You / Your / Yours
They / Them / Their / Theirs
Olde 2nd person (Personal You)
Thou / Thee / Thy / Thine
Indefinite personal pronoun (Impersonal You)
One / One / One's / -
Remember: There are no apostrophes in possessive declensions except for one situation, when one shouldn't forget one's apostrophe! LOL ;-)
ENOUGHT! No more grammar. I promise. (But this post was to help people whose first language isn't English!)
Apple is a terrible, anti-competitive and monopolistic company. If they had more market share, they would get hit with some big-time lawsuits like Microsoft has in the past. They are currently being shielded by their low install base.
They sell overpriced budget hardware made in chinese sweatshops and package them as ultra high-end premium goods.
The only thing high grade is the monitors. Everything else is budget grade to maximize profits.
At least that's how it was last time I decided to look. It's been a while since I googled apple hardware teardowns, though.
If people are stupid enough to buy Apple and think they are getting the absolute best hardware, then let them. I will hapilly pay 1/4 the proce for something that will blow their computers out of the water.
Their OS is nice, though. Can't argue that.Sorry if I'm wandering off topic. Been watching football, hockey, baseball and soon : MMA. Full day of boozing for old Techtard.
:D
Just because you bought Norton, doesn't mean you can install it on 20 PCs. You need a 20 PC licence... Just because you have the Norton disc doesn't mean you are allowed install it on many different computers at once.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License
P.S: I mistakenly use the spelling licence (UK) instead of license (US), but I don't feel like correcting myself
TLDR version, You got 3 choices:
1. Buy the right to use this software in a specific way and use it in that specified matter
2. Buy the whole software for a few billion and use it however you like or as specified in the buyer/seller agreement you guys agree to.
3. Don't buy it. Go buy another OS, use Linux, or make your ownI disagree. It is NOT an awkard legal situation, it is clear and defined and defines the rules. It does not disadvantage the buyer. If the buyer wants the software, he can put an offer... But you'd have to pay billions as I said. If you want a free OS, linux is there, but there is a price tag if you want an easy to use OS, and if you want to use the OS for cheap, than ya gotta follow the rules. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT, simple as that.
Just FYI, making an OS is HARD and COSTLY and time-consuming.Your posts are kind of ridiculous... Press the thanks button on his post instead of posting useless posts