11 Comments

Summary:

Now that Apple has gotten over the stress of selling the iPhone 3G, they have turned their attention to other matters that are not as pressing as the activation fiasco. Apple sued Psystar on July 3rd (when everyone was too busy worrying about the iPhone launch) […]

Now that Apple has gotten over the stress of selling the iPhone 3G, they have turned their attention to other matters that are not as pressing as the activation fiasco.

Apple sued Psystar on July 3rd (when everyone was too busy worrying about the iPhone launch) and asked that all the computers that Psystar has sold be recalled. It was not surprising to see Apple sue for damages from loss of sales, good name, etc., but it is surprising that they are requesting a recall of all computers sold.

Many people have pointed out that just because Apple’s EULA forbids putting OS X software on anything but an Apple, doesn’t mean that it is actually legally binding. This will be interesting to see if Apple’s EULA will stand up. They do lay out a pretty good claim in their filing. Apple claims that the success of their brand is largely due to the fact that they control everything. Yesterday Apple declined to have their case brought before a magistrate judge (a judge that helps and gets cases ready for a district judge) and requested that it be brought before a US District Judge.

Apple is intent on fighting their case. We’ll keep you updated as things progress.

By Jethro Jones

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. You’re missing a ton of information. Kinda seems like a sloppy post man.

    Share
  2. Whoa, wouldn’t want to be in Psystar’s shoes about now.

    Share
  3. Psystar not only sounds shady, but they have to be stupid to think they could ever get away with this. I’m shocked that Apple let it go this long.

    Share
  4. @ Frank T:
    Maybe the blogger just didn’t have enough time to write down everything? This news is already afew days old, and believe me, its incredibly hard to balance a healthy lifestyle with keeping tabs on all things Apple, without plagiarizing. At the end of the day, from my own perspective, I appreciate any news on blogs, but I wont take it be the final authoritative word on the matter, just their own subjective view on things.

    Share
  5. Ooh, Pystar will probably loose the case. Keep us updated!

    Share
  6. Apple MUST win the case.
    Or else it will be bad for ALL Apple users.

    Apple’s success is, in fact, the difference to the PC world: if you control the hardware, you can male better software.

    And you see what happens with – what so many whish for – a licenseable Mac OS:
    Crappy PC, cheap and with no support and no control over what hardware could be in.
    Welcome to hell.

    Share
  7. I hope Apple will lose this case, time to have OSX running on regular pc’s. What is wrong with that when the entire hardware is identical.

    Share
  8. Paul:

    I’m sorry you don’t see what would be wrong about it.
    It would be bad for customers, especially for the exisiting Apple user base.

    Apple being in control of the hardware, identical or not, is the reason for Mac OS to be the best OS. Although the hardware is identical, there only exist a small set of combinations and Apple knows what to expect. Mac OS can be very stable, because it’s not supposed to run of millions of possible configurations.

    Furthermore Apple has high quality standarts for the computers.
    Of course you pay a premium, but you get theb best products.
    Just look at the materials they use, I mean the 999$ iMac: Aluminum, Glass, thin: awesome. The only gripe you could POSSIBLY have is: uuhuhh, I can’t game: I’m sorry, the gaming argument is so invalid. I don’t even listen to that.
    All Apple computers are brilliant pieces of engineering, with awesome custom board designs and great case design, too.

    What you get on the open market is easy to see:
    Psystar offers CRAPPY computers, made out of the cheapest to get standard components and you don’t get the awesome service Apple provides, either.
    Yes, you pay for that, too.

    What happens to an OS that has to be targeted to such an open market you can see with Windows. Why do you think do they lag so much behind in usability?
    Just look at the rat tail of old stuff they have to drag along for compatibility and the huge clusterfu** of drivers and DLL they need so that Windows can run on any combination of hardware. This takes so many ressources away, I guess, that usability improvements are behind.
    Windows Vista, for example, is a joke:
    They made it look kinda more modern, but they didn’t change anything:
    IT still the old catastrof*** of the taskbar and start button. Stoneage concepts!
    And Flip 3D is just Alt-Tab with a 3D effect. IT’s so bloated and slow that it shut downs longer on a desktop than my MacBook Pro needs to boot, which I don’t have to do anyway … only for system updates.
    It’s like they, and a lot of Windows and Linux guys, don’t understand that Mac OS isn’t about eyecandy: Exposé isn’t eyecandy. It’s a brilliant function with nice looks as a bonus. And so on, and so on …

    What do you think is the reason that Linux will never be a real alternative as an end user OS, because it horror from the usability perspective?
    And Linux: please don’t start with Linux. One of the most wrong things being told to end users is that Linux is an alternative to anything. It’s not. It’s nice for developers, but that’s it.

    When I hear people wanting to install Mac OS on a custom PC, I know it’s almost certainly because of gaming: I want a cheap ass gaming machine, but I want Mac OS.
    Isn’t that what it’s all about in reallity? Gaming? Come on …

    Yes, it’s true: you have to pay for quality. And Psystar is a good example of what you get for cheap: cheap crap.

    Share
  9. If I were Psystar’s lawyers, then I would slap Apple with several antitrust lawsuits.

    Now, everyone except antitrust lawyers will howl, “But Apple does not have enough market share to be a monopolist.” Nice argument except it represents an outdated thinking thanks to the US Supreme Court’s decision in the Kodak case. Market share does not matter whit in antitrust lawsuits.

    Apple clearly behaves likes a monopolist. The EULA reflects a tying strategy where the user cannot purchase the hardware separately from the software. Thanks to the US government, which did not appeal the Court of Appeals’ tying decision in the Microsoft case, Jefferson Parish remains the standard. By the Jefferson Parish standard, Apple is engaged in tying (illegal) and not bundling (legal).

    Let’s not kid ourselves. Apple makes a great GUI OS based on UNIX. No company does it better. Apple also builds a great table top computer. I cannot think of any computer manufacturer that builds a better table top. Unfortunately for consumers, plenty of companies build great portable computers. None of those companies is named Apple.

    Thanks to Apple’s violation of Sherman Act 1, consumers remain harmed because we cannot run Mac OS on a great portable computer built by Dell, Lonovo, etc.

    Share
  10. [...] eager to order a new computer of questionable build quality from a bankrupt company engaged in an ongoing legal battle with Apple, especially with notebook price drops in place, and similar desktop discounts rumored to [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post