|
|
Psystar sued by Apple
Author: Gareth HalfacreePublished: 16th July 2008
Psystar has attracted Apple's attention with the sale of unauthorised 'Hackintosh' systems running MacOS X.
Psystar quietly introduced itself at the start of this year, offering off-the-shelf Intel-based PCs hacked to run Apple's popular MacOS X operating system. While the OS included with the so-called Open Computing units was legitimate – being a fully-shrink-wrapped retail version aimed at Mac owners who want to upgrade to the latest version – the installation was not, as it contravened the terms and conditions set out in Apple's end-user license agreement. The company later added insult to injury by offering rack-mountable servers which directly compete with Apple's extremely expensive Xserve range.
While people expressed major doubts as to the legitimacy of Psystar's business venture, everyone was pretty surprised when the units actually started shipping – and even more that they worked. The astonishment was complete when Apple completely failed to punish the brash young upstarts, with nary a complaint being heard – despite the entire venture underlining a cost differential between Apple Intel units and generic Intel units that many felt was an unfair holdover from the PowerPC days. With a bottom-end Psystar Open Computer – originally titled the OpenMac – going for $555, and an official Mac Mini of similar specification hitting $900, it's hard not to notice that something doesn't add up over in Cupertino.
It would appear that Apple's legal team has finally woken up, however: Betanews has revealed that Psystar is being sued for copyright infringement as a result of its rather shady activities. Scheduled for the 22nd of October, the suit will progress in the US District Court in Northern California with Judge James Larson presiding. Although neither Apple nor Psystar were willing to comment, it's hard to predict anything other than a victory for the company with the deepest pockets – and a loss for any end-users hoping to run MacOS X on generic hardware.
Do you believe Psystar was sailing too close to the wind with their commercial Hackintosh, or is Apple playing the bully in order to protect their unfair hardware profit margins? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (34)Stats: 0.063 seconds
Psystar should release any software and drivers they made to the public as we all know where this court case is going.
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz Q9450
Hard Drive: 150GB 10000RPM SATA
Video Card: GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Case: Black
Operating System: OS X 10.5 Leopard
Wireless PCI Express N Card: Included
Extra Optical Drive: DVD+/-RW
Additional Hard Drive #1: 750GB 7200RPM SATA
Power Supply: 600W Standard
This only cost a 1/3 (a third... yes that right!) for identical apple macPro version.
apple should be sued for monopoly, like microsoft has been time and time again
Sure the hardware may look nice, and the GUI looks good (I don't like the way it works, but I do freely admit I'm too used to Windows and, you know, a maximise button that actually works etc...)
A bit of decent competition would be good for the public.
If I could install OSX on my G33/Q6600 system I would go and buy it today. Sadly they don't want my money. Considering Apple don't make cheap tower systems and the mini seems neglected, I don't think it would affect their hardware sales. The kind of people who buy macs would still get them, even if they could use any hardware they want. If Jobs had the balls he would split the company to do software and hardware. With most people disenfranchised with Microsoft's offerings, there's a killing to be made by a new OS entering the market.
You can run OSX on your system you just need to get iATKOS or Kalway. Obviously downloading the torrents and using these without purchasing the license is illegal but there is nothing wrong with downloading them and then buying the license from the Mac Store which therefore makes you legal.
In the terms and conditions of the End-User License Agreement for the operating system, it states that this may only be used on an Apple "Branded" machine and NOT manufactured. So there is a loophole in this where all you would need is stick an "Apple" logo on your PC and you are covered.
But again this is a bit shady and who knows, Apple might decide to take you to court over this and say it is infringement of copyright.
I haven't tried the iATKOs or Kalway mods for running it on a PC. I have heard it is possible but it is a pain to setup.
Anyone here has run or is running iATKOS or Kalway on their pc?
What I want is Apple just to sell it properly.
... a monopoly.. just one which would get it's ass handed to it if it were to work the same way as Apple.
there both monopolies, but microsoft has been sued so many times, so now that it plays ball.
this would be a first for apple, and the courts cant go back on there previous judgements. so if there have made microsoft play ball its about time apple did, but i hope they get screwed.
i'm pretty sure that the courts dont want to give microsoft a dam good reason to claim millions of the lost pennies back
I wish I had a psystar unit just so I could send a nice '**** off' letter to Apple :)
Its not the EULA which is getting psystar into trouble. EULA's have never been tested in court. Its distributing a modified version of OSX which is going to make this court case a walk over. If they hadn't modified OSX then it would be a much more interesting case.
Look, if this company Psystar modified part of someone else's property, in the case Apple's, then they should get sued or at least made to cease/desist.
This space was GOING to be my rebuttal for the Macs are too expensive, but before I clicked the almighty Submit Reply button I actually paper-assembled a comparable rig. Woah, Apple IS about 200% more expensive, and that's with a workstation level motherboard (Tyan), 2 Quad Xeon Processors, and a Lian-Li case (style points).
Oh well, when you make your living on the machine, it's worth it to have it "just work".
That's why Apple needs to get a spanking. :D
Even so... I think is way too expensive. :(
It's anecdotal in the extreme, but after administering and using over 30 Macs, I can tell you firsthand that their failure rate is VERY low. There is a reason for Mac fandom.
I guess what I was saying is that let's spank Apple for the right reasons. This particular deal with Psystar isn't it.
I don't question that: It's very easy to have a very low failure rate if you have complete control over the hardware. However, Apple should give consumers the choice: premium stability for premium price (Macs) OR normal stability for a regular price (ie, normal custom PC running OSX legally). :(
Alright I can go with that. But that does mean that the majority of component manufacturers out there would have to build drivers for both Mac OSX and Windows. The entire Mac experience that enjoys tight-knit software/hardware would suffer at the hands of third party companies like Nvidia, ATI, Realtek, Intel, etc...
That said, I don't think Apple is relying on their Mac side of things for the future. They seek to dominate the media market.
And to say that this won't hold up in court is just silly, Psystar modified and distributed Apple's own software which is copyrighted. Psystar dont stand a chance in hell...
I hope Apple get a kick in the arse. Large monopolised corporations are ****ed, no matter what they're selling.
Really get your own opinions ladies and make sure they are actually based on facts too..
Um....wasn't that why Microsoft were shafted by the EU courts in the first place? Over their OS, their internet browser and their media player?
The way I interpreted the original news article is that the OS X version that Psystar are shipping is fully sealed and legitimate copies. The hacking is done on the driver level to get the hardware to work, so actually the OS itself is fully legal except for the lack of apple branding on the case? Unless I'm mistaken here, Apple are just doing a Sony and using legal might to silence a company offering a cheaper alternative to those available directly (I'm referring to Sony legally silencing the import company offering cheaper, better imports from Japan before the delayed release in Europe)
Apple may only have 10% of the overall market, but they have a 100% monopoly over the Mac OS market. Legally silencing a company that is offering a cheaper alternative to the same market IS anti-competitive tactics, and it IS showing a desire for a monopoly. A silimar thing happened with Dr Pepper - Coca Cola tried to buy it, the worldwide trade commision veto'ed it as it would have left Coca Cola with a monopoly in the fruit flavoured soda market.
Why would Apple be charged with abuse of a dominant position in the computer market?
Makes no sense.
Psystar will lose this one easily.
PS:
Have a read:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Inside_the_EU_Courts_Ruling_Microsofts_Abuse_of_Dominance/1190052315
Ah ok, I was mainly going on the fact that they were forced to offer a version of Windows without the Media Player and interpreted that as part of the court ruling in the first place! ho-hum
Still, with the amount that Apple overcharges for its hardware, something needs to be done to tell them it's not acceptable, unfortunately it's probably never going to happen!
Apple claims more elaborated:
... in addition to the eight total claims, request for a permanent injunction, and money damages, Apple wants a recall of every Psystar machine ever sold.
...
# Copyright infringement:
# Contributory and induced copyright infringement: ...
# Breach of contract: ...
# Inducing breach of contract: ...
# Trade dress infringement: ...
# Trademark dilution: ...
# State unfair competition: ...
# Common law unfair competition: ...