Psystar in rare win vs. Apple. Will Apple Cloning be allowed?
Oh noes! The tables have turned against Apple in its fight against Psystar and its anonymous, loaded silent partners. Gregg Keizer (who has been following the case closely) from Computerworld Reports:
A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple. He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.
In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware..
"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," Alsup said in his ruling..
This thing is a loooong way from being over and Apple has a few bucks (28 Billion) to throw around. But who knows, maybe you won't have to feel so guilty about building that sweet new Hackintosh Netbook if it is OK'd by the Feds, right?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
YahooLatest Stories on 9 to 5 Mac
- Apple patents the 3D Apple Store - Alice in Avatar-land
- Surprise: Warner admits iTunes sales slow on price hikes
- Apple ships Aperture 3: 64-bit, Snow Leopard/Intel only, 200 features, $199/£169 (demo available)
- What's coming to the Apple Store this morning?
- Apple Store Down. Can we has Core i7 MacBook Pros?
- Apple podcasts Mac advice video clips
- iPhone gains, BlackBerry loses US smartphone marketshare
AAPL Stock Coverage
196.19+2.07
Poll
Recent comments
- Sounds like hell to me. One
15 min ago - This is going to hurt:
99¢ is
33 min 53 sec ago - what is source?
43 min 44 sec ago - Bazzinga!
47 min 58 sec ago - HELL YEAH! I want my Apple
1 hour 3 min ago - so, since what century are
2 hours 6 min ago - Having been a Second Life
2 hours 9 min ago - Neither. It's "Cocoa". ;)
2 hours 34 min ago - Serves them right, maybe in
2 hours 44 min ago - This makes perfect
2 hours 45 min ago
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
Comments (27)
Not sure if this is a win... It's only allowance for them to change their counter-claim, very different.
The report said "Alsup (the judge) also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used,"..."He did reject Psystar's attempt to include state unfair competition charges to its countersuit"
This basically make the case go on for at least 20 days longer as it forces a time delay. In the end to allow Psytar to sell a few more computers.
Don't get ahead of yourselves.
What Apple could do is develop their own internal components and lock the hardware again, then say yeah you can load it on machines, but you have to buy those components from us.... so this hackinstosh movement will lock down the software further, thanks guys.
@mad-elph: I'm sure that is part of what pa semi is for. In a couple of years they will have custom chips that you can only get from apple. Probably the same thing is going to happen with the iPhone. They will create enhanced, better performing chips but it was mainly this that they were bought. Remember also that pa semi had a contract with the military before being bought by apple so one can assume that they will know something when it comes to security. Unfortunately jailbreak apps like crackulous are going to force apple to close the jailbreak loophole with hardware. Jerks like psystar and the crackulous maker are going to kill the mac mod community.
I hope this fails and Apple wins. I really don't like the idea of an inferior product having OS X on it. I buy a Mac for the design and the experience of running an operating system designed for that hardware. I think it taints OS X and I hope it fails. If I wanted to by an ugly computer, I would buy a Dell.
The main reason Apple is able to innovate the way it does is because it knows the hardware their OS is going to be running on. For example, now MacBooks have multi-touch trackpads, and so developers will be able to integrate that into their application design to take advantage of that type of user input. Also when they upgrade their OS or make any changes, it's easy to write drivers because they only have to write them for a select set of hardware that has been used in their iMac, Mac Pro, or MacBook lines. They don't have to create drivers for every frickin card that can fit in a PCI slot. This allows them to develop things faster with less bloat which also means less frustration for the consumer. Also their hardware designs are top notch. J. Ive does an amazing job at designing beautiful computers. That's practically a fact. Other than price, I don't know why anyone would want to use something other than Apple hardware. It's simply top of the line equipment.
Apple will definitely develop some type of processor that OSX will require to run. As far as I'm concerned there are only two things tying Apple to Intel. 1.) It gives people the option to run Windows, which makes it much easier for people to switch to a Mac. 2.) Intel can produce a large supply of energy efficient processors that meet Apples needs. So far it's been a great relationship. In the last 10 years Apple has greatly evolved their software, and in the next 10 years I believe they will greatly evolve hardware as well. They will develop microchip solutions that will blow everything else out of the water. I think they will find a way to do this while keeping an Intel processor in every Mac they produce. Maybe an Intel processor for basic computing, a GPU for graphics stuff, and then a separate processor that will work with the Open CL and Grand Central framework that they will be integrating into OS X. The special processor they develop will be specifically designed to more efficiently compute certain instructions. So when it is more efficient for the CPU to compute something, the instructions will get sent to that chip, when it is more efficient for the GPU to process something (parallel computing) then the instructions will get sent to the GPU, and when it is more efficient for their specially designed chip to process something, then it will get sent the instructions. Only OS X will be able to take advantage of this type of framework and hardware resources, and so it will perform many, many times faster than any other OS, even running on the same computer. Because there is still an Intel CPU, the user will have the ability to dual boot Windows, but Windows will not have the framework necessary to take advantage of Apples special microprocessors, and so it will not run as fast. This maintains compatibility with Windows while requiring OS X to be run only on Apple hardware, since only Apple hardware can provide the computational resources it was designed to function on. This kind of kills two birds with one stone and is a logical solution to many problems I see them facing in the future. I think one of the main advantages of this chip will be in MacBooks, because it's possible that if you're just surfing the web and listening to music (nothing too computationally intensive) it could shut down the Intel CPU completely and run only off of the GPU and Apple Chip (which would naturally be super energy efficient) and then you would get a few extra hours of battery life from your MacBook. Naturally, Windows would not be able to take advantage of such a feature.
Just my two cents... But some people call me crazy. What do I know...
Holy shit, this post has some awesome thoughts. You really put time into writing it!
More like 200$ than 0.2$...
Or they could walk over to IBM, Toshiba, Sony and buy the Cell processor's evolution. Going back to Power PC wouldn't be all that hard. Maybe I don't understand something about it, but isn't it something as simple as a new platform for Power PC with multiple cores and process threading and encryption. It would be powerful (look at PS3 linked 'super' computers)
Then again I might be wrong.
I was very optimistic about this processor when it was in development, and there is no doubt that in many ways the architecture is a little ahead of its time. So far ahead, in fact, that we probably don't even know how to use it to its full potential.
It's not very energy efficient though. And Apple loves energy efficiency. Also they would lose compatibility with the x86 platform, and that would hurt sales a lot. They just got done getting away from Power PC. I doubt they'll go back. Also Intel has more money to invest in R&D and can develop new processor architectures faster. I'm also guessing that Apple gets Intel processors for a pretty good price, which puts a little more money in their pocket.
So I'm going to say No on the whole Cell or Power PC thing. Just my thoughts.
Did anyone remember how much faster things got after Apple switched to Intel? Try comparing an iBook G4 to a Macbook; no comparison. Or a G5 imac to a Intel iMac.
Time for a propitiatory (In-house developed and built) "security check" chip on the logicboard like they did with iPod accessories.
It isn't good for ANYONE if Psystar wins.
i hope your right, otherwise its gonna be serialisation and osx upgrades costing a whole lot more.
If Pystar wins it only means one thing for the consumer.. Lower prices and more options.
Would the PC world be the same as it is today if IBM were the only company that had the DOS operating system? Do you realize what the selling of the operating system actually did for Microsoft and the PC world?
DELL, COMPAQ, HP, TOSHIBA, SONY... None of them would be in the PC business, without the move to sell the operating system.
Competition is the fundamental cornerstone of innovation.
Why would anyone want to have the mac locked with a chip? So apple can continue to charge huge prices for there hardware locked with there software?
If the hardware was so superior why do they need to lock it? Wouldn't everyone just know that it's so much better that it demands a 2-3 x premium over similar hardware?
If you don't like the Mac prices, don't buy a Mac. Simple as that.
If Pystar wins it not only means lower prices and more options. It means less quality, less reliability, less compatibility, less exclusivity and less innovation.
Do you see Mercedes licensing out their latest and greatest engines to clones? No. The one they do license (to Pagani) is from the 90's and the Italians extensively retuned it and build it on their own dime.
Should Mercedes design, build and market engines and then be forced to sell them to Kia because Kia says Mercedes has no right to build engines exclusively for their cars?
Pystar is just a diseased leech trying to suck off some of Apple's growing success. Steve was right to kill the clones as soon as he could.
Car companies do that a lot.
Chevrolets have toyota engines.
McLarens use BMW engines.
The Delorean used a Renault V6.
The list goes on and on.
Nobody uses Benz engines because they are too expensive, but I am allowed to buy one and put it in whatever car I want, assuming it fits.
You can't force someone to sell it's Software if the company doesn't want to. They make money by selling their hardware. What's up with the world these days? Think Apple is too expensive then fucking buy a pc running Windows or Linux.
It's like everything else in the world, there is always a give and take. Maybe I we should start suing those girls that don't want to date fat people because that is wrong.
You want to talk about competition?
We have here a company that was almost dead and became one of the greatest tech company in the world. Do you know why? Because they worked their asses off and innovated the industry in many ways and gave the customer what he/she needed.
What's the purpose of innovating if you can't have the exclusive?
With all this crap the real losers are the Apple users who not only like the software but the design and quality of the hardware. For us this means that the the software will be more expensive. Now do yourself a favor and check the prices for the OS, iLife and iWork and ask yourself if a new Mac is really that more expensive!
Is it not possible that allowing others to use the OS Apple develops for itself to sell its hardware cripples Apple's ability to compete?
With only a 10% market share, to strip them of their operating system exclusivity and uniqueness would undermine Apple's business.
It is unfair that others get a free ride at Apple's expense.
I'm not sure I buy into what TZ has argued. After all, if Apple sold its OSX to every vendor out there that would bring in a lot of revenue. So I don't think its a free ride at all. If you buy OSX then you have paid Apple for a product.
The straight argument here is that (whether or not this is legal is another issue) a company like Pystar has taken on what many millions of people have said over the years, Apple products are in many cases prohibitively expensive. They are high quality and excellent computers, but that should be one option. Why do we need to "beg" for matte displays, or tablets (going to 3rd party for them) or Netbooks. If Apple won't create the devices we want, i'd love to get them from somewhere!
As for the Hackintosh community, I feel there is a little hypocrisy here. They are afraid Pystar will lead Apple to make it harder to hack devices. So its okay for individuals to hack the Mac OS, and put it on their devices for themselves or friends (or maybe a fee? as we all know occurs on College Campuses around the country) But its not okay for a single company to do it. That line is awfully gray.
just my .02
"Apple products are in many cases prohibitively expensive"
I paid $1200 for a G4 iBook 5 years ago and still use it for Photoshop CS4. Never upgraded one single thing (hardware) or had any problems what so ever.
It came with great software. I bought 2 operating systems ($129) each and currently using ilife 08 and iWork 08 ($79 each).
This is one of my best investments ever made and I seriously doubt that having bought a pc laptop back 5 years ago, upgrading windows twice and using "original copies" of Office software would have been less expensive in the long run.
And I am not sure that you can still do some photoshop CS4 on those machines (unless you laptop back then already cost around $1200 itself.
Believe me, the premium you pay for Apple computers gives you cheap, innovating software, very good quality and reliability! And that's what makes Apple so good and makes it first choice for professional applications.
This is real life, if you like something you have to pay for it specially if the product is good. A good worker always charges more then the average one, so if your concern is the money, get the cheap guy!
Plus each time your PC breaks down you can add another $1000 dollars to fix it. With in 2 years a PC becomes more expensive then a Mac.
$1000 a fix? BS.
And IDK about you, but the iBook G4s i've seen take 15 seconds to boot Safari. Not exactly nimble.
You are not just paying for the hardware which is something you don't get. You are paying for the development costs for apple to come out with it's hardware and software and their designs. This is not dell where your only job is to come out with the cheapest, low quality pc's possible. You are paying for the highest quality in personal computers and it's software. If you want to make your own mac then go ahead, but don't make a business out of it. Doing so, will leave apple with no control as to the quality of the os and on the hardware it performs on. Part of the reason windows sucks so bad is that it is made to run on a zillion different platforms with no ability to specialize. A jack of all trades mastering none.
Since Mac OS X runs only on Macintosh hardware, Apple does not need to use serial numbers for its OS or other software (iLife and, most recently, iWork). This translates in a definite advantage when it comes to managing a network and even for individuals, who do not need to fear the loss of precious serial numbers. They do this because hardware is the source of its revenue, not software.
If Psystar wins, I fear this may all come to and end, as Apple, essentially turned into a software provider, will seek to protect its revenues from software much more than now.
I told you all that the Mac OS X would be opened up to non-Mac computers...now we are one step closer!
Read my prophetic blog article on the subject...
Psystar really needs to win the case, for OSX to survive another 30 years. Especially what is happening with Steve Jobs, it would be best if they let other companies use their OS. If another company is backing psystar, it is most likely HP.
If apple loses, because there SW sticks to there HW, Toyota needs to give away there motormanagement software to Ford??????
Sushibreak
That judge was probably just doing that so that he could by a Mac for cheaper. Pystar or what ever their name is, is doing this illegally. They have been installing Mac OS X on computers (that are not authorized by apple) with out apple's permission. Isn't it illegal to use apple's software and resell it with out apple's permission. Pystar should be heavily fined and shut down and that judge should be tried for an unfair ruling.
Really all Apple needs to do is stop selling Mac OS X and just give it away (and obviously have it installed on new Macs) then it's not "tied" to the hardware and they don't make a penny from it so it's not stretching any copyright. It's just part and parcel of the "Macintosh".
I mean, I can't install TomTom's OS on my Garmin afterall. So what's the diff?
Apple should only sell upgrade disks. If you have a Mac from the last 8 years then you already have OSX. You shouldn't need a full OS installer except the restore disks that came with the computer.