Psystar Looking To Charge Apple With Antitrust Violations

from the this-will-get-interesting dept

Tue, Aug 5th 2008 6:08pm — Mike Masnick

Once "unauthorized" Apple clone maker, Psystar, was sued by Apple, we fully expected it to challenge the legality of Apple's EULA (end user license agreement) which forbade putting the software on non-Apple hardware (a provision that even Apple has been known to ignore). The comments to our post suggested that a more likely option would be for Psystar to claim that Apple was violating antitrust laws in requiring the software and hardware be bundled that way.

Indeed, it looks like both of those predictions were correct. Psystar's response is likely to focus on both the legality of the EULA and whether or not Apple violated antitrust law. As predicted, this case may be very interesting to watch -- and the end result could be very important for many other companies in the tech space.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: antitrust, clones, eula
Companies: apple, psystar

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

GeneralEmergency, 5 Aug 2008 @ 6:56pm

Wouldn't it be funny if...
...PsyStar was a Microsoft shell company?

Eh...maybe not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GearsofPeace, 5 Aug 2008 @ 7:42pm
  
  Re: Wouldn't it be funny if...
  Given that Dell would love to ship PCs with OSX on them, I wouldn't be surprised if they were bankrolling the top-notch legal team Psystar somehow managed to hire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 5 Aug 2008 @ 8:00pm

Apple too dumb for its own good...
>> Given that Dell would love to ship PCs with OSX on them

If Apple was smart, it would let them. It provides them with almost as much control over the hardware platform to have a major OEM that it can dictate to, and lots of folks that hate buying pure Apple would be tempted to final try Apple's OS. In short, a win-win.

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TriZz, 5 Aug 2008 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re: Apple too dumb for its own good...
  I used to agree with you, but really...Apple isn't selling OS X when you get a Mac, they're selling an elitist lifestyle, a membership into a club that only owning a Mac gets you in. You start selling OS X to any Tom and Dick who want it on any hardware, and now you're diluting that membership.
  
  It's stupid, I know. But Apple's recent success is only because it's trendy now to own a Mac. I don't and have never seen that happen with any other Windows based PC manufacturer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jhunter, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:29am
    
    Re: Re: Apple too dumb for its own good...
    I have a Mac and I'm still not in any club :(
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric, 5 Aug 2008 @ 8:13pm

Er, ya...
A 'win-win' for Apple? Ya... right.

Apple makes NO money on computer hardware. And having NO control over the hardware would make support easier. And make developing the OS easier. (sarcasm)

I hate buying pure 'Ford', so I will sue them to put a Ferrari engine in a Ford Focus. I will then force them to properly service my car. And then sue the pants off them when I crash into a tree.

Uh huh...

Dr E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TravisO, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: Er, ya...
  >> Apple makes NO money on computer hardware
  
  You couldn't be more wrong, how do you think Apple stayed in business only 5yrs ago when all they sold was hardware (OS9 came for free on your Apple computer). There's a reason why an Apple computer costs twice as much as a PC with the same specs, a very large markup, to make up for the fact they sell so few of them. Nowadays they probably do make more money off of their iPod sales than computer sales, but no matter how you cut it, 95% of their profit comes from hardware and only hardware. Apple has mentioned in the past 100% of the money from iTunes goes to the record labels, servers and manpower needed to run the setup, iTunes only exists to sell iPods, which is why they don't open up iTunes to support any MP3 player.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 6 Aug 2008 @ 7:31am
  
  Re: Er, ya...
  From the I do not understand department I guess.
  
  To use your analogy, this would be Ford suing you for putting a Ferrari engine in a Ford Focus and reselling it. Or better yet, Ferrari suing you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: Er, ya...
  lol... makes no money on computer hardware.... i want some of that kool-aid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eric, 6 Aug 2008 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re: Er, ya...
  I see folks missed the (sarcasm) when I said Apple makes no money on hardware...
  
  Dr E
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLS, 5 Aug 2008 @ 9:30pm

Merely for information, one can purchase the OSX software all by its lonesome from Apple (about $100). It is in the EULA that Apple attempts to limit its use to Apple products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2008 @ 10:33pm

Remember the 90s
This happened before, except apple licensed their software instead of being forced to allow it. It ended terribly for apple because the harware was of very poor quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry P, 6 Aug 2008 @ 1:23am

EULAs
Imo this is going to be pretty interesting suit to watch, if the courts rule that EULA restrictions are unenforcable than open source software is going to be fair game to people/companies who want to ignore the licensing it comes with. There's always two sides to a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ed, 6 Aug 2008 @ 4:28am

Apple violates its own EULA
I'm very concerned about the comment you made regarding Apple putting its operating system on non Apple hardware. You should very well know that they own the OS and therefore aren't bound by the EULA as you and I are. It was a ridiculous thing to say, and I'm pretty disappointed since you are usually much smarter than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 4:40am
  
  Re: Apple violates its own EULA
  When Mike said Apple ignored the provision, I don't think he meant Apple was somehow violating their own EULA (which as you rightly point out is nonsense).
  
  I think the point was, if Apple had reason to put OSX on non-Apple software, that weakens any claim they might make that OSX in some way needs to be on Mac hardware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Apple violates its own EULA
  I'm very concerned about the comment you made regarding Apple putting its operating system on non Apple hardware. You should very well know that they own the OS and therefore aren't bound by the EULA as you and I are. It was a ridiculous thing to say, and I'm pretty disappointed since you are usually much smarter than that.
  
  Just to be clear, it wasn't *APPLE* violating its own EULA, it was Apple's EULA not making sense -- showing that Apple wasn't even aware of what was in its EULA.
  
  What happened was it offered Safari for Windows, but in the EULA said it could only be used on Apple hardware.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2008 @ 11:34am
  
  Re: Apple violates its own EULA
  GOD i HATE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T FOLLOW LINKS...
  
  FTLITFA (From The Link In The Fracking Article)
  
  "the EULA for Apple's newly-released version of Safari for Windows requires that "The software allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."
  
  Safari for Windows...only allowed to be installed on Apple Hardware.
  
  Might I suggest you try following the links next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuse5k, 6 Aug 2008 @ 5:06am

Apple's violation of its own EULA
In another post regarding this matter it was brought up that in the EULA for quicktime it states the same thing:
You may only use this software with Apple hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 6 Aug 2008 @ 6:36am
  
  Re: Apple's violation of its own EULA
  In another post regarding this matter it was brought up that in the EULA for quicktime it states the same thing:
  You may only use this software with Apple hardware.
  
  Funny, considering Quicktime is available for Windows on the Apple webiste. Very curious...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike (profile), 6 Aug 2008 @ 10:00am
    
    Re: Re: Apple's violation of its own EULA
    Funny, considering Quicktime is available for Windows on the Apple webiste. Very curious...
    
    Right, that was the point. Apple's EULA still said it could only work on Apple hardware, even as they were offering it for download on Windows... thus showing that Apple didn't pay attention to its own EULA (and it was Safari, not Quicktime).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. G, 27 Aug 2008 @ 11:11am

Simple solution to claims of tying/bundeling antitrust
If Apple stopped selling OSX as a retail product, it could invalidate any claims that Apple might be illegally tying the OSX operating system to Apple hardware. Simply, you end up with a product in which the OS is considered just one of the components; i.e. the OS is there to make the product work, just like a keyboard, battery, or screen. So, if the courts ruled that bundling OSX is an antitrust law violation, Apple could just stop selling OSX separately. (Not too good for Apple customers who are then limited to the copy and free upgrades that came with their machine).

The whole antitrust claim is ridiculous anyway. No one is forcing consumers to buy an Apple - there are plenty of other operating systems and hardware out there to choose from that arguably do the same thing. What monopoly?

What Psystar has done is analogous to the following example: a "Mercedes" car called model A1 manufactured by Gigi Cars Ltd. (nobody has heard of them either) advertising that their model A1 runs faster, cheaper, and better that a 300SL Mercedes. Mercedes sues Gigi Cars Ltd for using the Mercedes name to sell their product without licensing or permission. Gigi turns around and sues Mercedes for antitrust law violation because, if a consumer wants a Mercedes engine, they have to buy the whole car and Mercedes doesn't allow their engines to be used by other manufacturers in their cars without a license from Mercedes.

Perhaps the credit should go to Mercedes for developing such a nice engine and perhaps the courts should recognize that one company's intellectual property shouldn't be distributed without the owner's permission just because everyone likes it so much - that smacks of communism and it will ruin this country. Think about it.

This is just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derlo, 29 Oct 2008 @ 2:54pm

new file engine search!
Know more about it at http://newfileengine.com/
Use the search and follow the link!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]