Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Apple files motion for dismissal of Psystar counterclaims

Prince McLean, AppleInsider
Apple has filed a motion with U.S. District Court seeking to dismiss the claims of Psystar, which allege that Apple has used a monopoly position as the manufacturer of Mac computers to cause restraint of trade, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust law.

Apple files motion for dismissal of Psystar counterclaims

  • http://twibe.com trainwrecka

    Apple makes software to run on their hardware. Coca-cola makes Coca-cola to put in their bottles and cans. Just because it can fit in a Pepsi bottle doesn’t mean it should.

  • Akie

    Is there a point that Psystar has missed?

    Apple do not sell a copy of OS X. They only sell an upgrade as it is assumed you already have a working copy of the OS. So if Psystar is installing an upgrade on there hardware they are breaking the terms of use of the upgrade package.

    If Psystar want to install OS X on their hardware they need to buy a full license, which Apple do not sell.

    Comments Please.

  • http://www.ccsgraphic.com CCS

    From psystar.com:

    “The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels.”

    Sounds like they’re trying to say it works out of the box…

    Also form the psystar.com site:

    “Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific.”

    Isn’t Mac OS X as well? Oh, wait…

  • Realtosh


    There are clear license violations because the TOS for MacOS X software clearly states that is is only for installation on Apple hardware.

    Psystar’s biggest problem is that they are conspiring with its’ customers to violate the terms of the software.

    If the software works unmodified as stated by the Psystar people there are ways to make Mac clones. However by installing the Mac OS software on non-Apple hardware Psystar has clearly violated the terms of the license of the OS software.

    Someone with cojones could start selling Psystar’s Open Computers without a license for Mac OS X. They could advertise that the hardware is fully compatible with Linux and Windows and even fully compatible with Apple’s Mac OS X, if and when Apple choses to license Mac OS X for third-party hardware. Then buyers would read between the lines. They would walk into an Apple store and buy Mac OS X, and then run home and install it their newly purchased Open Computers.

    Unfortunately, I suspect that some software modification is necessary to allow the software to load onto and work properly with OPen Computers.

    If not, there is a great business opportunity for someone who wants to make crap computers that runs Mac OS X. For those who want solid quality hardware, with a reliable company supporting their computer hardware and standing behind their warranties, Apple does a great job of delivering computer hardware that runs Mac OS X already.

    Again, it would violate the terms of the Mac OS X software license to install it on third party hardware, but it would be easier for individual geeky customers to get away with it than a commercial enterprise to try to profit on Apple’s proprietary investment in its’ products.

    As long as the OS software works off the shelf, which I doubt, and the company neither encourages the violation of the license, but also includes a written disclaimer by which they disown any actions of clients who violate the terms of other manufacturers OS licenses, that they don’t support such a violating configuration, and actively discourage customers in writing to so violate other company’s software licenses, then there is a viable business opportunity.

    Such an entrepreneurial company could sell computer hardware with Linux installed that many in the blogosphere and in the public by means of press reports would know that is fully compatible with Mac OS X.

    The press would repeatedly interview the management of this company, who would state unequivocally that they have applied to Apple for licenses to resell MacOS X for their hardware. Also that in the meantime, even thought their hardware is fully compatible with MAc OS X, that they actively discourage customers from buying their computers and installing Mac OS X at home. They could further say that doing so would violate their warranty and that they wouldn’t support such a setup that violates Apple’s software terms.

    Such a company ought to be free of any legal liability. They are free to sell all the Linux computers they wish. If the hardware happens to also also be compatible with Mac OS X is immaterial, as long as they are not violating any protective patents on any of the hardware.

    The customers who sort of read between the lines and install Mac OS X software anyway, worthless warranty by nameless company be damned, would clearly be violating their Mac OS X licenses. But a number of geeks would try it anyway, and would write about it, incentivizing others to also try it out.

    Apple would likely challenge such a company in the legal court system, but I not convinced that this is a fight that Apple would be guaranteed of winning. If Apple would be successful in stopping my more indirect example, it would be a very tenuous conspiracy to help end users commit violations of their terms of service.

    If the hardware company doesn’t sell any Mac OS X boxes, along with the hardware, doesn’t install the Mac OS X, doesn’t support the hardware with Mac OS X, and also actively discourage potential customers to not install Mac OS X, even though it is fully compatible; then I would say that they are showing a good-faith effort not to be complicit in other efforts to install Mac OS X on their Linux hardware.

    I hate to throw out this example that may hurt Apple, a company that I like very much. But, the devil’s advocate in me like to play with what is possible. Again I repeat, this is all likely just an academic exercise done in vain, because I don’t believe the assertions by Psystar’s management that Mac OS X works off the shelf. In fact they say that the kernels are not modified, but they likely have to massage the code so that it installs on non-Apple hardware. Maybe Psysytar has to strip out the code that prevents Mac OS X from installing on non-Apple hardware.

    But it was fun writing about a creative work-around, even though I would likely never buy such a computer myself. If the software worked off the shelf, which I don’t believe, I would consider setting up such a company to sell Linux hardware that just happens to be Mac -compatible. But I wouldn’t hold my breath, hoping that Mac OS X installs off the shelf on non-Apple hardware.