Psystar files answer to Apple complaint - "M" word used enthusiastically

Psystar files answer to Apple complaint - "M" word used enthusiastically

Summary: Mac clone maker Psystar has filed answers to Apple's complaint.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Hardware, Apple
62

Mac clone maker Psystar has filed answers to Apple's complaint.

PDF available here.

Thoughts:

On paper, Psystar's case against Apple sounds comprehensive, logical and thorough.

Psystar's lawyers have dug deep to paint a picture that it's not Psystar that's in the wrong but Apple, and that it's Psystar that's been harmed by Apple, not the other way around. Additionally, the lawyers eager to stress that it's not only Psystar that's been harmed, but Apple's own customers (due to high pricing and a lack of choice) and the wider tech industry (in that OEMs have been locked out on the Mac OS ecosystem).

Like I said, on paper the case sounds good (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer) and my admiration for Psystar has gone up several notches.

Highlights from the filing:

Note: All bold emphasis added by me.

On page 2 we see Psystar take a jab at Apple:

PSYSTAR admits that PLAINTIFF launched the Macintosh line of computers in 1984 but otherwise denies the allegation that PLAINTIFF is "[a] pioneer of the personal computer revolution."  On information and belief, PSYSTAR admits that the Macintosh (or "Mac") utilized a mouse, computer icons, and graphical user interface but lacks information or knowledge as to whether said components and functionality were novel and on that basis denies the remainder of the allegation.

Page 5:

PSYSTAR admits that for a period of several hours on one day that PSYSTAR colloquially referred to certain computers by the name of 'OpenMac' but denies that it currently sells any computer referred to by that name; PSYSTAR denies that it sells any computer under any name that runs a modified, unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system.

Page 5 again:

PSYSTAR denies the allegations in the final sentence of paragraph 12 of the Complaint, specifically: that PSYSTAR makes copies of the Leopard software; that PSYSTAR offers downloads of ‘updates’ to the Leopard software from the website www.psystar.com; that PSYSTAR copies any "updates" generated by the PLAINTIFF; and/or that PSYSTAR generates unauthorized, modified versions of software updates from the PLAINTIFF.

Page 5/6 ... "Oh no, we didn't damage your image":

PSYSTAR admits that the PLAINTIFF seeks an injunction against the alleged misappropriation and alleged infringement of the PLAINTIFF’s allegedly proprietary software and alleged intellectual property; PSYSTAR denies that it has misappropriated any such proprietary software or intellectual property.  PSYSTAR denies that its actions have harmed the consuming public, sells a poor product, and/or has advertised and promoted any such product in a manner that falsely and unfairly implied an affiliation with the PLAINTIFF.  PSYSTAR denies that its action have and/or continue to cause harm to the PLAINTIFF; PSYSTAR likewise denies that its actions constitute a misuse of PLAINTIFF’s intellectual property.

Page 6:

PSYSTAR denies that it has engaged in any action that is unfair, unlawful, exploitive, or that otherwise causes consumer confusion and injury nor that any such action has ever existed.

Page 7:

PSYSTAR admits that the PLAINTIFF claims to license the use of the Mac OS for use only on Apple-labeled hardware although PSYSTAR is without information or knowledge as to what this otherwise vague and ambiguous terminology (i.e., Apple-labeled hardware) refers.

Page 7:

PSYSTAR similarly notes that the PLAINTIFF has never denied PSYSTAR the authorization to install, use, or sell the Mac OS software on any non-Apple-labeled hardware until the filing of the present action.

Page 9:

PSYSTAR denies that Max OS, Mac OS X, Mac OS X version 10.5, and Mac OS X Server all constitute "an original work of authorship" "constituting copyrightable subject matter" as those terms are defined by the United States copyright laws and on that basis denies the allegations;

Page 10:

PSYSTAR denies that it has advised, encouraged, and assisted others to breach the License Agreement; PSYSTAR has not advised consumers to acquire Mac OS X software and install, use, and run it on non-Apple-Labeled computers.  PSYSTAR denies that it has unlawfully induced breach of the License Agreement by others.

Page 11:

PSYSTAR denies the allegation that it has engaged in an unauthorized use of any trademark of the PLAINTIFF; PSYSTAR further denies that any action of PSYSTAR has caused deception or confusion or mistake amongst consumers as to the origin, sponsorship, approval, affiliation, connection, or association between the PLAINTIFF and PSYSTAR and on that basis denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 54.

Page 20:

There is no likelihood that any members of the relevant consuming public will be confused with respect to any activity of PSYSTAR and one or more of the trademarks and/or trade dress of the PLAINTIFF.

Page 21:

The use of any trademark of the PLAINTIFF by PSYSTAR is protected by the Fair Use Doctrine and/or the First Amendment including but not limited to parody, non-commercial use, product comparison, and/or non-competing/non-confusing use.

Page 24:

The PLAINTIFF has attempted to leverage the rights granted under any valid copyright to areas outside the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act.  The PLAINTIFF has engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior and/or other actions that are in violation of the public policy underlying the federal copyright laws including, but not limited to, a failure to abide by the fair use and first sale doctrines.

Now we get to the meat of the answer, starting partway down page 24:

The PLAINTIFF has further engaged in copyright misuse through the use of an illicit trying provision in its end-user license agreement for the Mac OS X with respect to only utilizing the Mac OS X software on Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems and as is further detailed in PSYSTAR's counterclaims for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Cartwright Act, which are incorporated herein by reference.  By attempting to enforce this illicit tying provision, the PLAINTIFF is attempting to obtain, maintain, and/or enjoy rights not granted by the Copyright Act including, but not limited to, destroying competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market, which is wholly unrelated to any valid copyright.

Page 24/25:

The PLAINTIFF has further engaged in copyright misuse by utilizing any valid copyright in the Mac OS to maintain its monopoly in the Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System market and is further detailed in PSYSTAR's counterclaims for violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Cartwright Act, which are incorporated herein by reference.  By attempting to enforce its End User License Agreement as it pertains to any valid copyright, PLAINTIFF aims to maintain the aforementioned monopoly, the PLAINTIFF is attempting to obtain, maintain, and/or enjoy rights not granted by the Copyright Act including, but limited to, maintaining its monopoly in the Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket, which is wholly unrelated to any valid copyright.

Counterclaim begins page 26:

This is an action under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, Section 16700 of the California Business and Professions Code (the Cartwright Act), Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and state common law with respect to the unfair and anticompetitive conduct by counterdefendant APPLE (collectively referred to as the "Counterclaim").

Claims for relief, starting page 26:

  • ... seek redress for APPLE’s illegal tying of the Mac OS to Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems ...
  • ... seek redress for APPLE’s attempts to maintain its monopoly and control prices in the Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket and to destroy competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market ...
  • ... seek redress for APPLE’s illegal requirements of its customers to exclusively deal with APPLE as it pertains to the Mac OS and Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems ...
  • ... seek redress for APPLE’s unlawful conduct in violation of state law.
  • The Fifth Claim for Relief of this Counterclaim is brought pursuant to California unfair competition law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. to seeks redress for APPLE’s unfair and unlawful conduct in violation of state law.

This on page 30 is interesting but I'm mystified as to what it migth mean:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that there are substantial barriers to entry in the market for operating systems, including the Mac OS market.  It is prohibitively difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to create any operating system much less one that would offer substantially identical functionality, security, stability, and other aspects offered by the Mac OS.  As such, a potential new operating system entrant faces an almost insurmountable barrier to successful entry to the operating system market, in general, but specifically the Mac OS market.

Here is the claim that a Mac is nothing more than the sum of parts made by third-parties;

23. Any number of companies dedicated to manufacturing and sourcing various components used by the aforementioned manufacturers (e.g., hard drives (Western Digital), processors (Intel and AMD), graphics processing cards (NVIDIA)) also exist.

24. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that one or more of these manufacturers of computer hardware systems are capable and desirous of manufacturing computer hardware systems that host, execute, and run the Mac OS.  PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that there is no compelling technological reason that any one of the aforementioned computer hardware system manufacturers could not manufacture and sell computer hardware systems capable of hosting, executing, and running the Mac OS.  PSYSTAR, therefore, is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these entities constitute a market that PSYSTAR hereinafter refers to as the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market.

Page 31, "anyone can make a Mac":

On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that there is no technical reason that a third-party could not accumulate and assemble the hardware components in an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System such that said system would be capable of running the Mac OS, that is, such that the system would constitute a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System.

Page 31, the claim that Apple is anti-competitive:

For the purposes of this Counterclaim, the exclusive line of APPLE hardware systems that support the Mac OS are referred to as Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems.  PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that but for the anticompetitive conduct of APPLE as outlined herein, Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems would otherwise be a competing member of the otherwise diverse Mac OC Capable Computer Hardware Systems market.

An the "M" word:

That is, APPLE’s anticompetitive conduct has created a subsidiary market within the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market of which APPLE is the only member and wields monopoly power

Page 32:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE’s efforts to define the Mac and Mac OS as an environment of its own began no later than 1997 when APPLE released its Think Different advertising campaign. 

Page 33, enter the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE continued to distinguish the Mac OS from the Windows operating system in its Get a Mac campaign, which commenced in 2006 and continues to the present.  Through this campaign, actor Justin Long, in casual dress, introduces himself as a Mac while another actor, John Hodgman, identifies himself as a PC running the Microsoft Windows operating system; the PC character is dressed in formal, stuffy attire. 

Apple pricing coes under scrutiny on page 34:

36. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that marketplace economics likewise support the assertion that the Windows operating environment is not a viable substitute for the Mac OS.  For example, the MacBook is one of the cheapest Macintosh products commercially available that includes the Mac OS and traditional computer components (e.g., a monitor and a keyboard).  A MacBook with a 2.1GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 1GB memory, 120GB hard drive, and combo drive sells for approximately $1,099.00 from the apple.com website.  A similarly configured computer running an operating system other than the Mac OS retails at dell.com for approximately $674.00, which is nearly $500 less than that of its Mac OS and Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System counterpart.

37. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that a top of the line MacBookPro with 2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB memory, 250GB hard drive, Double-layer SuperDrive, and 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics card sells for approximately $2,799.00 from the apple.com website.  A similarly configured computer (albeit with superior hardware components versus that of the MacBookPro) and running an operating system other than the Mac OS retails at dell.com for approximately $2,300.00, which is nearly $500 less than that of its Mac OS and Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System counterpart.

Page 35 seens Pystar trot out the zealots:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE’s customer loyalty is well-established notwithstanding the higher prices of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System versus those of a similarly situated non-APPLE product.  APPLE customers have, in fact, been referred to by Seeking Alpha as "zealots" and "fanboys" in addition to "Mac loyalists."  These customers, accordingly to Seeking Alpha, will "defend the company and its products in any debate going on around them."

Page 36 sees Psystar roll out evidence that suggests that Apple is a monopoly based on the fact that Apple customers would pay whatever Apple asked for products:

44. PSYSTAR is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that a 'small but significant non-transitory increase in price' (SSNIP), including one of at least five percent in the Mac OS, will not result in a change in demand for the Mac OS.  PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that such a SSNIP would not likely result in consumers of the Mac OS or Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems or potential purchasers of the Mac OS or Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems electing to purchase another operating system, such as the Windows operating system.  PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE, as a monopolist in the Mac OS market, could profitably impose a SSNIP with respect to the Mac OS and not suffer a material loss of customers choosing a substitute product, such as the Windows operating system.  The nearly $500 price differentiation as illustrated above is, at the least, suggestive of the same.

Page 37:

PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that APPLE is content with the knowledge of having monopoly power in the Mac OS market and that nearly insurmountable barriers exist with respect to any other entity introducing a Mac OS-like operating system.  PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the most significant potential threat to APPLE and the Mac OS market is, therefore, not from a new operating system but from computer hardware system manufacturers that may offer a hardware platform upon which to run the Mac OS—Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems.

Page 38 ... dragging in Steve Jobs:

APPLE’s election to end the Clone Program accelerated at about the same time as the return of Steve Jobs to APPLE as its Chief Executive Officer. 

Page 40 ... beaating Apple with its own EULA:

Thus, as a pre-condition of a license to the Mac OS, APPLE unlawfully requires customers to agree to install, use, or run the Mac OS on—and only on—Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems.  As such, a customer is prohibited from seeking out and choosing any other computer hardware system that is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System—including but not limited to a Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System—on which to install, use, and run the Mac OS.

Page 41 ... customers are paying more because no competition exists:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that with competition eliminated in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System market as it pertains to the Mac OS and Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems, APPLE is free to control and charge customers supra-competitive prices as suggested with respect to the pricing of various Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems against otherwise functional equivalents that would exist in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems marketplace.

Page 42 ... calls for Apple to be restrained:

PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE’s pattern of conduct makes it clear that unless restrained, APPLE will continue to misuse the EULA for the Mac OS and various intellectual properties including copyrights related to the Mac OS to artificially exclude competition from Mac OS Computer Hardware System manufacturers thereby depriving customers of a free choice between Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems that would otherwise be capable of running the Mac OS.

Page 46 ... Psystar damaged by Apple:

PSYSTAR, as a result of APPLE’s illicit tying behavior, has been damaged and requests compensatory relief in addition to a declaration as to APPLE’s illicit behavior.

Page 48:

PSYSTAR, as a result of APPLE’s illicit monopoly maintenance, has been damaged and requests compensatory relief in addition to a declaration as to APPLE’s illicit behavior.

Page 49:

PSYSTAR, as a result of APPLE’s illicit exclusionary behavior, has been damaged and requests compensatory relief in addition to a declaration as to APPLE’s illicit behavior.

Page 50:

PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that as a result of APPLE’s illicit behavior, PSYSTAR has been damaged and requests compensatory relief in addition to a declaration as to APPLE’s illicit behavior.

Page 53, summary of what Psystar wants:

1.  Entering judgment for PSYSTAR against APPLE on all counts; 2.  Award PSYSTAR compensatory and statutory money damages, including treble damages and punitive damages, as appropriate; 3.  An award of prejudgment interest, as appropriate; 4.  Declare APPLE’s actions to be in violation of state and federal antitrust laws, state law of unfair competition and the common law, and enjoin APPLE from carrying on such conduct; 5.  Enter such other preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as is necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by APPLE’s unlawful conduct; 6.  That the Court enter such additional relief as it may find just and proper; and 7.  That PSYSTAR recover the costs of this action.

Thoughts?

Topics: Hardware, Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

62 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Looks good apart from ...

    'PSYSTAR denies that Max OS, Mac OS X, Mac OS X version 10.5, and Mac OS X Server all constitute ?an original work of authorship? ?constituting copyrightable subject matter? as those terms are defined by the United States copyright laws...'
    This looks like it will fail.

    "This on page 30 is interesting but I?m mystified as to what it migth mean..."
    One of the definitions of a monopoly is a market where the barriers to entry are so great that only one player can exist. Psystar are saying that the (MAC) OS is one such. I think this will fail: see Microsoft, *IX's, SOLARIS, ... It is also one of the definitions of a copyrightable work that it has required tremendous effort to produce, contradicing the first point.

    The tying claim however seems to have merit: indeed the switch to INTEL looks to have opened Pandora's box for APP?E. Should they lose on that front then iTunes, iPod and the like also constitute a vertical locked-in market. Ouch.
    jacksonjohn
    • If there is even a chance of success...

      Apple will buy everyone at Pystar out for gobs of money. I would say, even if there was a 5% chance of success, they will go the safer route because their entire business model depends on premium hardware margins.

      Pystar doesn't even have to win for Apple to lose.
      http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/07/18/how-the-psystar-laws.html
      [B]But if it {Apple} doesn't get everything it asks for and it's forced to concede some points and the court orders Psystar to pay Apple some sort of licensing fee, Apple will have stepped on a bee's nest.[/B]

      TripleII
      TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
      • Except....

        I would imagine Psystar is well backed in its endeavor. Or would be. There is more to be gained by the "public" -> other OEMs through seeing this to the end than Apple could gain by buying out Psystar, and so I believe Apple will get a long-deserved crack on the head WRT their monopolystic behavior. Which it is, as is quite logically illustrated by Psystar.
        ibarskiy@...
      • ... I'd say >5% see ...

        ... the reference in a post by Paul Murphy at
        http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1121

        Looks like Psystar read that ruling
        http://www.jstor.org/pss/1372482

        Can I have my gobs now please ;-)

        Buying out Psystar won't be the finish though will it? Others will follow, most especially big corporations who don't have a PC product or an iTunes store and would like to muscle in.
        jacksonjohn
  • Sounds an awdul lot like the IBM PC Clone War.

    There may be one achilies heel for Apple.
    http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3445951
    [B]By the mid-80s, PC clones would start eating into the market share that IBM's early machines enjoyed. Because the IBM PCs used readily available components, it was easy for competing PC builders to make their own machines and reverse-engineer the BIOS (define). Compaq came out with the first IBM PC clone in 1983 and it was an immediate hit.

    "They probably wish they had made it more proprietary, like Apple," Schinnell said. [/B]

    Honestly, how does that read any different from what Pystar is doing? Especially if the copy of OS-X they purchase is not modified and all you have is a shim (like reverse engineered BIOS originally)

    Now that Apple hardware is really nothing more than a list of carefully chosen off the shelf components, what can Apple really do?

    If I go to the grocery store and carefully select a bunch of fruit, can I then bar all others from buying that same choice?

    Anyway, this is interesting to watch.

    TripleII
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    • But they don't

      You have to modify Leopard to get it to run on non-Apple hardware.

      Case closed, Psystar loses.

      Especially the asinine argument that OS X is not a copyrightable work.
      frgough
      • re: But they don't

        [i]You have to modify Leopard to get it to run on non-Apple hardware.[/i]

        Then they'll have a hard time proving this:

        [i][b]PSYSTAR denies that it sells any computer under any name that runs a modified, unauthorized version of the Leopard operating system[/b][/i]
        Badgered
      • Reading Comprehension.

        OS-X is not modified, per the countersuit. Therefore the DMCA BS doesn't apply. They appear to have written a shim (basically a BIOS extension) that allows for unmodified OS-X to run on the hardware. There is no copyright infringement, it is paid for, every copy. Apple is simply trying to enforce what people do with the property they purchase in an unenforceable EULA.

        It doesn't' say pre-purchase that it is illegal to run on non Apple hardware, too bad so sad.

        Rebut this. I purchase a DVD. It nowhere on the box tells me that it is anything other than a "Disney DVD". I open it up (after purchase, non refundable) to see it stamped on the disk "Only legal to play in Disney sanctioned DVD players". I say ESAD Disney, good luck enforcing that in court.

        BTW, if what you say is true, every BIOS is guilty of copyright infringement because EVERY single one puts workarounds in place to support the UNMODIFIED OS. Now that's really an asinine argument.

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
      • Except they may not have modified Apples code...

        They may have modified only the open source pieces, in which case they may still have a case.
        mrlinux
        • Getting Hardware and Software Confused

          The hardware bit of a "Mac" gives some basic instruction in how the software (in this case OSX) is to use the hardware. On a PC, there is the BIOS (that was originally created by Intel). You don't have to modify Windows XP to run on a PC, you just install it.

          With Macs, the confusion is that someone has found a way to hack OSX to run on a standard PC, but of course this violates the user agreement. What Psystar has done is basically back-engineered the equivalent of the BIOS for a Mac so that OSX will recognize the computer and install. No modification of OSX is therefore required, it thinks it's a Mac it's being installed on.

          The only piece of hardware that's unique to a Mac is that particular "dongle" (if you will), but otherwise all of the rest of the hardware is completely generic to any PC.

          Apple has been using the sales of the computer (the hardware) as a secondary income, as they can buy at greatly reduced prices, but turn around and sell at retail prices to the consumer.

          That'd be equivalent to Microsoft saying that you could only run Windows on computers you can only buy from them that have a specially installed dongle on them instead of any pc you chose to buy or build yourself.

          I can't blame Apple for wanting to keep that cash cow to themselves, but the hardware market is completely different than it was 20 years ago when most companies built a custom computer and the OS that ran on it (Commodore, Amiga, Atari, etc). Now, there are a set of standards for computer hardware that manufactures have to adhere to for compatibility, and over the years, Apple has used more and more of these standard parts, with the CPU being the last, truly unique aspect that seperated them from any other OS.

          Honestly, I see this as a good thing, as the price of the hardware keeps more people from making the switch, and they'd actually gain ground in the OS market. The more people use a Mac, the more developers will also code for the Mac.

          At this point, Apple is it's own worse enemy for market penetration.
          Drakaran
  • Tying and Boot Camp

    Apple got greedy. They included Boot Camp in Leopard and opened the door wide for the tying argument.

    I made this observation months ago just after Apple filed suit against Psystar. I hope this gets on CourtTV (or whatever they call it now).
    djchandler
    • makes no sense

      Boot camp allows Windows, which does not support EFI to run on a Macintosh computer.

      It has no bearing to the fact that you must modify OS X to get it to run on non-Apple hardware.

      Nor does it modify the fact that Psystar is damaging the Apple brand.
      frgough
      • You can keep repeating it over and over, doesn't make it true.

        Per the Pystar countersuit, OS-X is completely unmodified. What part of that is unclear to you?

        As for damaging the Apple brand, how? In Apple's world, we would still only be able to get phones from Ma Bell and only in black.

        TripleII
        TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
        • No! - You could only get a Ma-Bell phone from Ma-Bell - NT

          NT
          raycote
      • Demonstrates

        Boot Camp demonstrates that Intel Macs run Windows and other operating systems like any garden variety PC. It also demonstrates that the EFI is simply an artifice to keep OSX from otherwise booting on any (other than Apple) x86 platform. It actually makes the tying argument for Psystar. And the EFI is [i]not[/i] a proprietary part. It's an Intel part, and has been used in products other than Apple's.

        Has anybody stopped to think that Apple P.O.'d MS by releasing Boot Camp with Leopard, and MS is behind Psystar?

        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DA143CF93BA3575BC0A961958260

        http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/web.whatnext/hit.miss/miss07.html

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY

        This kind of thing sounds just like a Ballmer reaction. And Apple continues to rub salt in the wound with their advertising campaign. MS bailed out Apple several years ago or we wouldn't even be having this discussion. In that light their advertising is disingenuous to say the least.

        Another issue hacking off Microsoft and the other members of the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is the manner of Apple's implementation of the the TPM. And as of today, Apple isn't considered a promoter, contributor or even adopter of the technology.

        https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/about/members/

        Why is that?

        TPM is intended to be used as a means of establishing individual identity, not protecting vendor intellectual property. And it's to be used at the end user's discretion. There's to be a means of turning it off if the hardware owner wishes that to be the case via a BIOS or other such setting. Apple is standing the concept on its head as a means of artificially locking down its platform.
        djchandler
  • Gittum Psystar!!

    To me it looks like Psystar has a fighting chance!
    NamelessFor Now
    • Riiiiight

      because a judge is going to agree that OS X is a non-copyrightable non-original work. Uh-huh. Expect Microsoft to file a friend of the court brief on that one on behalf of Apple.
      frgough
  • RE: Psystar files answer to Apple complaint

    IBM Clone War was started by a big mistake by IBM by
    being too generic, now the Mac has become more generic
    it is in danger of becoming involved in a clone war. The
    Mac is just going threw a transition and will start to use
    some Apple only hardware more again and still keep the
    intel CPU, but Mac OS X today still dosn't run propperly on
    none Apple hardware as PC hardware is diferant in little
    ways, first they still use an outdated BIOS, Mac do not use
    a BIOS and so Apple is correct in tying it down to Apple
    only hardware as it will allow them to optomize the OS to
    get the best out of the Mac as they control Hardware &
    Software that is great for consumers, and Mac computers
    are cheaper just by a small fraction, I work on PCs fixing
    them and can tell you all that the PC is not cheap at all, it
    cost you more than you think as it has hidden costs, and to
    fix these I actualy use a Mac.

    I agree Mac price is a little high than it should be but not
    as much as PC, they are charging too much on PC
    computers from the cheap hardware I see in them, Mac
    hardware including high end Dell machines are worth the
    money and this is what most overlook when looking at the
    price, would you buy a nice looking book or a ok looking
    book, then you opt for nice looking book just to find it has
    missing pages, all because you whent for looks.

    That is what PCs are becoming, they look nice but crash
    crash broken, Apple hardware looks good and is good but
    you only get what you pay for and as they designed the
    machine and the OS they can make the OS work well as
    well, Microsoft Vista is good but too many generic
    hardware threw Clones make Windows Vista shit, not
    Microsoft fault but Clone makers

    Clones are bad, imitation is not as good as the original and
    will never work as well as the original.

    I would also like to point out that Apple should allow
    others to use Mac OS X if they can get it to work but them
    companys must state that it will not work as well or be the
    same on none Apple hardware.

    But the Clone cost more, cheap hardware good for me as I
    will charge you all to fix them.
    XArt
    • IBM's mistake was not owning the OS - Bill sold the OS to cloners - NT

      NT
      raycote
  • Popcorn time

    Looks like the case is going to go forward. At the very least, it will be interesting, and as I've noted before, if the parties don't settle, it's dead certain that significant case law is going to come from it.
    John L. Ries