Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

Antonio wrote:

Really? You don't think that's just a little shortsighted?
Choosing battles? Apple is using a bazooka to take out a fly.

What's the difference?  It all goes in a document that is submitted to the court.  They're going to present any and every potential claim that they have.

This was never in contention. However, I already made my point.
But, I suppose I can't make anyone see past their forehead if they don't want to.

When you have a million-dollar legal team, every problem looks like a nail, er, something to be hammered.

er....

I guess we can debate till we're all blue in the face and get mad at each other, but only time will tell how this plays out. The copyright issue seems pretty straight-up and will probably be the biggest hurdle for Psystar. I doubt they can overcome it, but you never know with these things. They may have an ace up their sleeves... something to use as a negotiating chip or whatever. Who knows. Remember that legal issues between companies can be settled out of court, too.

It'll be interesting nonetheless.

I would hate it if it turns out they brought a knife to a gun fight.

Agreed. I'm rooting for Psystar... and I want to assume they knew the legal problems they'd be facing... and had a plan for it all before they jumped into the rabbit hole.

Then again, they could be idiots...

Antonio wrote:

For one, 'unfair competition'? Really? How?

Not that I completely disagree, but when you consider the amount of money Apple puts into R&D and hardware design, it's pretty lame that some generic box mfg can roll in and start profiting from Apple's labor. Eh? Now, if these people created their own OS, iLife suite, etc, it'd be a different story...AND they just might charge a little more for their hardware, no?

Apple charges what, $130 for their OS? Ms charges $500 (I don't know)? And MS sells 80 gazillion more copies? Apple charges so little for a superior OS because we've already paid the development costs of the OS with our hardware. These folk are cutting out the hardware from the equation, and benefitting from the low cost of the OS.

When Steve cut the last round of clone makers out, he gave them a chance to pay a "fair" price for the OS. One that would have rounded out the cost of Apple's development, as their own hardware does. (Profit has to come from somewhere, and it's not coming from their core software).

Then again, I'm a retarded consumer who doesn't know much about IT.

Last edited by mentholiptus (2008-07-19 9:25 am)

Apple charges so little for a superior OS because we've already paid the development costs of the OS with our hardware. These folk are cutting out the hardware from the equation, and benefitting from the low cost of the OS.

I keep hearing people say things like this, but (unless I've missed some obvious source of proof) it's just pure speculation. I would think only Apple knows this sort of thing, unless somebody has some insider view of Apple's books.

On the other hand, I guess a lot of the things said on forums is nothing more than speculation.

Last edited by thumbprint (2008-07-19 3:48 pm)

Czachorski wrote:

Both before and after this case, regardless of its outcome, it will still be copyright infringement to modify and redistribute someone else's work.  You could still modify the copyrighted work all you want in the privacy of your own home, but you can't redistribute it.

It isn't clear if this is actually taking place.  Psystar is using netkas' PC EFI.  PC EFI consists of two modified Darwin components: the bootloader, and the AppleSMBIOS extension.  The modified Darwin components are subject to ASPL 2.0, which permits redistribution provided that the modified source is made available.  Since netkas has not released his modified source, Psystar's binary redistribution technically does not conform.  However, since the time Psystar began shipping PCs, three similar (but better) ASPL 2.0-compliant EFI loaders have been released, so Psystar can easily rectify this issue henceforth.  Given the purpose of the ASPL, it is inconceivable that any monetary damages would be awarded if Psystar were found liable (it's a technicality, after all).  A fair solution would be that Psystar offer a downloadable patch for converting a PC EFI installation to a BOOT-132/Chameleon one.

A more interesting problem is the hacker's DSMOS, which is a scratch-built kernel extension whose purpose is to replace Apple's DSMOS in executing protected binaries.  It differs from Apple's DSMOS in that it contains a somewhat famous copyrighted key.  Unfortunately, since none of the free EFI emulators currently implement the EFI module necessary to run Apple's DSMOS, they must rely on the hacker's version.  Psystar could skirt the issue by switching to EFI-X, which implements the relevant EFI module, thus allowing Apple's DSMOS to work without issue.  Interestingly, the suit doesn't seem to address this point at all.

I see this case as very effectively shutting down the Psystars of the world, while saying nothing regarding the ability to install OS X in generic PC in the privacy of your own home.

The legal precedent that would allow Mac clones to exists is already well established and accepted in the legal community, so if that's the point of the suit, they'd lose before they even started.  This case (BS-aside) will likely have more to do with some non-kosher aspects specific to Psystar's operation.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-07-20 11:52 pm)

thumbprint wrote:

I keep hearing people say things like this, but (unless I've missed some obvious source of proof) it's just pure speculation. I would think only Apple knows this sort of thing, unless somebody has some insider view of Apple's books.

What, that Apple pays for the R&D on their OS?  Doesn't that go without saying?

Apple does have higher margins, but like any company, that's their prerogative. They are clearly investing the money they are making very well though, lowering the cost of the iPhone, buying PA Semi, and developing new products like the iPhone and MobileMe.

Pariah wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Apple does have higher margins, but like any company, that's their prerogative. They are clearly investing the money they are making very well though, lowering the cost of the iPhone, buying PA Semi, and developing new products like the iPhone and MobileMe.

The iPhone is NOT cheaper than it was before. It is actually more costly over the life of the mandatory contract. The lower sticker price is just to fool people who are too smurfing stupid to figure out the total cost.

How much of that revenue is Apple getting back though? For Apple at least, the iPhone is cheaper. I can't believe that AT&T decided to give them a bigger share of the pie for lower HW price upfront.

I have read the gist of the comments, and one thing is clear and that thing is that there are a number of points of view.

In my mind, after retiring from 35 years of retail sales, and expert legal testimony, the issue is more clear.

Simply put, if Psystar gains market advantage from the good will of App;e with out Apple agreeing to it, then Apple has a right to stop it... Period. In other words, if the Psystar sells more because of, or even at all because of it having OSX, as opposed to any other competitive advantage, then they must stop installing OSX, upon Apple's demand. That is a clear mis-use, a theft if you will, of Apple's equity, and Apple has every right to defend it.

But a closely related example would be Psystar selling its OSX capable computer, but without OSX, the latter being the customer's job to buy, evaluate, and install, along with other OS's. Then the issue is not so clear. These seem similar, but there is a world of difference between them.

Regardless of what you think, Apple has an absolute right to defend it and its reputation from someone using its products (as a sales instrument) in a way not intended by Apple, to make sales possible, thusly making Apple live with the risk that the product, and Apple's reputation along with it, would suffer from unpredictable or negative performance.

Apple, in this particular instance is absolutely correct, and I hope they prevail.

And I am not a big Apple fan in general. But what is right is right.

Last edited by Art743 (2008-07-22 5:28 pm)

You have a good point, Bat. This one you describe would be the interesting one to watch, in my opinion. The issues are not as obvious, and good arguments exist on both sides. This is the one to watch. If Apple becomes involved, I hope someone posts it. If I see it, I will, of course.

Thanks

What you are describing is the essence of the difference between the examples we used above. It will be interesting to watch, but, again, in the first example, the one in which Psystar buys and installs Mac OS to complete its product (thus creating its "USP", or Unique selling Position), and sells its product based on that, I am definitely in favor of Apple.