Modify Colors
Could Psystar Defeating Apple Have Broader Consequences?
Several months ago, a small company called Psystar began selling computers pre-installed with OS X, which violates Apple’s license agreement. After some time, Apple sued Psystar and Psystar counter-sued Apple. Psystar’s counter-suit was thrown out, but, recently, they have been granted the chance to revise their arguments.
Today, OSNews is reporting that the judge’s statements may imply that, if Psystar were to win the suit, the precedent set would allow anyone to sell OS X-based machines. While I am definitely not a lawyer, I suspect the implications could be even bigger than that.
It would be logical for this case to essentially prove that you can’t lock an operating system to specific hardware.I am now completely speculating, but it seems like that could mean that you might be able to sell your own game console with the PS3’s software, for example.
Even if I am completely incorrect in this speculation, I still hope Psystar prevails. As far as I am concerned, if Psystar wins this case, consumers win. Even a loyal Mac fan should support Psystar, because allowing others to develop hardware for OS X would just force Apple to make even better hardware.
Related posts:
- Does Apple Face Any Serious Threat From Psystar? Psystar emerged a year ago as a small company trying...
- Is All Lost For Apple? For those of you not following the Psystar and Apple...
- What if Psystar Wins? From the beginning it seemed like a long shot, but...
- Can An Unkown Linux Gaming Console Survive? EVO keeps quietly showing up in the news for their...
- Comic: An Itch Apple Can't Quite Scratch Psystar seems to just keep bothering Apple, most recently promising...
The significance is also the other way around. If Apple wins, the implication is that software suppliers can tell you what to do with their packages.
Do you really want to be told that you may not install Office under Wine? Or Photoshop? Or that you may not install Windows on a machine that does not come from a ‘certified’ manufacturer? Or that you may not use more than x G of memory with this particular Windows edition? Or (as is now the case) that you may not install this copy of Windows in a VM?
Or that you may not use this copy in a business? Or that you may not use this tool in way of trade?
Yes, the judge will do his best to narrow it as far as possible, but this is a really important case. So is the PearC situation.
Apple makes money off hardware not software, so it would lose out if Apple didn’t make some changes. What it would likely mean is that you couldn’t purchase OS X for $130 – It would cost $500-600 or else you could only get one copy of OS X with each purchase of an Apple computer and it wouldn’t be available for separate purchase. And Apple could also drop the Mac entirely and focus on iPods or iPhones, but believe me you will not get a cheaper Mac. If you want an Apple product, you are going to have to pay for it. And it is Apple is not tying their hardware to a specific OS, but the other way around. You can easily install Windows on Intel Macs and with more effort Linux as well. I run Linux in Vmware Fusion on my Mac and use it more often than when I had a separate Linux machine which cost more than my previous Mac Mini with less power and I got $200 trade in value on the 3 year old Mac Mini – 1/3 the price I paid for a new one.
“Even a loyal Mac fan should support Psystar, because allowing others to develop hardware for OS X would just force Apple to make even better hardware.”
I wouldn’t bet on it. Apple tried licensing the hardware for other systems a few years ago. The support issues for non-Apple machines can quickly become a nightmare as manufacturers substitute cheaper hardware for the “standard”. The beauty of Apple software & hardware together is that they really ARE made for each other. There’s no worry about having to download drivers for a new computer (like there is with Windows PCs) because it’s not current with the OS.
As a former programmer, I know how difficult it can be to write for and support multiple platforms or hardware devices. The fewer variations there are, the better the software can be.
That being said, I gave up on Apple when my 3 year-old (beige) G3 was no longer supported with the new (OS-X) operating system. I switched to more generic hardware, downloaded several distributions of Linux, tried them out, picked one, and have used it (or the newest releases of the same distro) ever since. I’ve not looked back. As a Mac owner since 1984, I had a long, mostly good run with my various Macs. I just didn’t see a need to be forced into a hardware upgrade for such a relatively new machine. That does not mean I would not recommend a new Mac for many people (including my own father), but it’s just not for me anymore.
While I do believe IP laws to be necessary in this non-post-scarcity world we live in, the way they work now is just wrong. So while i usually would support apple in this case, the fact that IP laws suck in their current state makes me prefer that psystar wins.
The whole concept of patenting and IP needs to be revised for this high tech society we live in, recently it has only been slowing innovation, instead of encouraging it, as was originally intended. The fact that there are companies that exist for the sole purpose of claiming IP and then suing proves that.
Another example would be apples recent threat to palm, on the multi-touch. The fact that they even have a patent on that is wrong, the tech has been around for ages. Patents on tech should last no longer than 2 or 4 years, depending on the situation, that time is more than enough to capitalize on a idea with todays short release cycles. Inspections for the possibility of prior art should also be harder, if the idea has been around for a while (even if not patented) then it should not be possible to patent it.
Well, that was my rant anyways.
I’m sure, if the precedent comes about, you could do such a thing with the PS3 software, except for a couple of snags.
1- The PS3 is highly proprietary hardware, so you’d have to license that, assuming it would even be available for licensing.
2- That you could license the PS3 OS.
I’m not familiar with the Psystar case, but I do know that OS X can be made to run on standard Intel hardware, less successfully on AMD, with some slight munging of the OS’s bits. That, alone, is probably enough to violate the OS X license. Still, I personally think it would be just dandy if that license was challenged on terms of something like fair use. When the hardware was actually different it made sense. Now the hardware is simply altered to accommodate a policy, so I feel that it makes less sense.
i think that the judge may take a more narrow approach and would invalidate OSX’s license agreement allowing for OSX clones far and wide. As for subsequent Mac OS versions or Playstation’s OS copyrights, these may be better protected after this case with more convoluted user agreements. This will lead to further lawsuits unless the legal system answers these questions once and for all.
WTF? It is Apple’s OS. They created it. Like it or not, I feel they should retain the rights to it and regarding their EULA users can choose to “like it or lump it”.
Sounds to me like Psystar is stealing the fruits of Apple’s efforts.
D.
It would be an interesting an call if psystar but that would not be good for apple developers and it guys, because now they would have to support more than their macs
I personally think it would mean far more than just that. Consider that a company cannot any longer tell a consumer or business to use specific hardware / software combination. This now could begin to apply to hardware tools, DRM components (HD ring a bell), use your imagination. There would all of a sudden be a whole can of unanswered questions
But as you said, good for the consumer and may help start the ball rolling in fixing the poorly constructed rules and regulations for software. Maybe companies will have to build software on its merits alone?? That would be the day…
I seriously doubt that Apple will “support” their OS on any hardware but their own. So what if you can install it and it will mostly run but parts of it won’t?
Allowing you to install their OS on 3rd party hardware would crater their high high high-margin hardware sales.
Apple could decide to stop selling shrink wrap OS and only provide it with their systems. It is their option to do what they want and it is your option to agree (or not) with the terms of their license agreement. If you agree, then you are expected to abide.
…they could also decide to “adjust” the price of their OS upwards for non-apple systems to the point that it would become not feasible to go that route. The point here is that they use cheap software (their own) to enable sales of high-priced hardware (their own). This is their business model, like it or not.
I think of Pystar vs Apple like I think about car parts. What would happen if an EULA on a car engine from GM stated that it could only be put in a GM body? That would be pretty silly and I am sure would be thrown out of court.
I think EULAs and the whole notion of “leasing” software the worst idea ever hoisted on consumers and businesses! I wonder what would happen if book publishers would only lease us books.