Psystar Will Countersue Apple 1084
An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."
In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
/popcorn.
I really hope Psystar wins this one. Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior. If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Psystar wins, it'll be a pyrrhic victory.
Apple will just kill retail sales of OS X upgrades, and do it all through the iTunes store. Won't prevent hackintoshes but it'll kill Psystar's ability to ride Apple's development efforts.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
By "ride Apple's development efforts", you mean "purchase an Apple product at retail and resell it", right?
Surely you don't think Apple is losing money on the deal or being taken advantage of in any way. If anyone knows how to set retail prices high enough to guarantee profit, it's Apple.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X. Much like how MS sells upgrades of Vista from XP for considerably less than the full retail version (at least they used to.) Were a company selling PCs that were installed from non-OEM upgrade copies of XP, MS would have their heads.
Of course, if Psystar won here you would probably see an explosion of PCs sold with upgrade versions of Windows instead of full retail copies. Apple will just kill off the retail channel for upgrades of OS X.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows PCs are sold with OEM copies of Windows, which are cheaper than retail upgrade disks. If Pystar won this suit, MS might just stop selling upgrade versions. Or not. They would still have their technical measures, and most people wouldn't know about this suit anyway. Apple might implement technical measures to prevent their upgrades from installing without a prior version.
Who are you and what did you do with the REAL /.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's business model is...
When the RIAA member companies have a business model based on selling plastic discs with a restrictive license to play the music encoded on that disc, we say, your business model isn't my problem. I want to shift my music to other formats, so I can play it without the plastic disc. Or I don't want all the music on the disc, I just want a few songs and I want to pay a fraction of the full price.
It's nice a company has a business model, but a business model is not a law any other entity need respect or follow. For any company other than Apple, what is the response when lawyers are brought in to enforce a business model? Scorn, ridicule, contempt.
If you don't like the way the market is responsing to your business model, bring in the MBAs and change that model. Don't bring in the JDs and sue your customers.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
A full OEM copy of Windows is actually cheaper than an upgrade copy, so MS provides no incentive to cheat the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X.
What's really funny, is that usually discussions about "buying OS X" are explaining how it's cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade".
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X.
What's really funny, is that usually discussions about "buying OS X" are explaining how it's cheaper than Windows because $129 gets you a "full version", rather than an "upgrade".
Actually, most people say that its cheaper than buying windows because $129 gets you the "full version" rather than the "Not-quite-Ultimate-non-business-but-still-better-than-basic 32-bit Vista Upgrade Edition".
Just for fun I checked on Newegg to see if it was still like this, and theres a Basic, Business, Premium, and Ultimate version, in both upgrade an non-upgrade variants, and in both 32-bit and 64-bit variants.
The "full version" of vista, Ultimate, is $169 on Newegg, which, if I need to remind you, is more expensive than the OS X "full version" upgrade.
not exactly right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple will just kill off the retail channel for upgrades of OS X.
Actually if psystar wins here, and Apple closes off the retail channel, then chances are a return lawsuit will follow and Apple will have more than it's wrist slapped... aka - they will be forced to offer OS/X to anyone that wants it...
Re:not exactly right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? You believe that a company be forced to support its product on hardware it was never intended to run on?
It might be some nerd's wet dream, but it's legal nonsense. Remember, you're calling for a legal judgement here, and I reckon that the law sees an "Apple branded computer" as different from a PC. That's the first hurdle to overcome, and then comes the biggie - forcing a company to modify its product to install on competing hardware.
Any company is perfectly within its rights to write a product that only functions on some machines and not others. Just like any customer has the right to *not* buy or use that product.
I will accept that I may be wrong on this, provided you can show a precedent. I would be frankly amazed to see it.
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please show exactly where in my post I wrote the word "support."
Re:not exactly right... (Score:5, Insightful)
What monopolistic practices? They're a monopoly because they only make Apple products? I get tired of hearing the same absurd nonsense from people whose knowledge of antitrust laws boils down to "houses are green and hotels are red."
I'd also defy you to find any statement from Apple about them being a hardware company - they sell the complete system, which apparently is a difficult concept for a lot of ./ readers to understand.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot install an upgrade copy of windows without an older copy to 'upgrade' from. It is a requirement.
AFAIK the OSX allows you to install it without that requirement.
Seems more like apple wants the best of both worlds and will soon be wondering how it all came to an end.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to the EULA, the retail boxed copies of OS X are meant as upgrades to prior versions of OS X
You can buy a retail OS X and install it onto a computer that has never had OS X on it. (ok, prior versions of OS X I mean, 10.2 and 10.3 for example, would work on a late os 9 shipped mac)
The actual wording says you can only install it on a macintosh computer. that's the catch.
Apple has never sold an upgrade for their os X. They've put out significant updates that required the prior version... 8.1, 8.5,
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, a Mac is a PC now.
PC is a term for a computer that descends from the IBM PC family and is destined for a single person to use in a home or office, which is basically an Intel/x86-based computer. It has nothing to do with the OS as Windows wasn't the only OS that ran on an IBM PC.
Macs are just PC's running some fancy bling software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, Apple could have used an Intel processor but tossed all the legacy crap, and made their own architecture. They have the money, connections and know-how...they just did not want to. The only thing that makes them "Apple" is the TPM chip (which most shipping PCs have, or will have) with Apple's secret sauce in it. Something that for all it's dread, is not all that difficult to work around.
It's really almost like Apple wanted this to happen, like they may not believe in the personal computing market a
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple has never actually used the TPM and it is not even on the newer boards.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm.
Intel x86 processor? Check.
Intel chipsets? Check.
DDR2 ram in SODIMM and DIMM format? Check.
SATA hard drives using standard interfaces? Check.
Please explain to me where the fucking wiggle room is for these things to be considered anything other than Apple branded, x86 machines, using commodity parts, that happen to be running an OS other than Windows.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, and Gateway has made EFI boxes in the past.
Oh, and every Intel mainboard with a 945 chipset apparently runs their Framework, but the only thing enabled is the CSM for bios compatibility.
And in any case the difference is almost irrelevant. If you provide OS X with some basic EFI structures and tables at boot time, it runs on x86 hardware. EFI is cool but it is still mostly filling the role of BIOS now, that is to say it is a bootloader for the real OS. Sure EFI does some fancy tricks but as for differentiating the hardware to the point of saying mac vs. PC, EFI doesn't cut it.
Re:Sure you can... (Score:4, Interesting)
...all it requires is that you throw out 12 USC 1201.
No, I don't think the DMCA would apply.
Remember, Lexmark [arstechnica.com] was smacked down for trying to claim that their bundling arrangement between printers and toner constituted a DMCA-protected "access control" for the software inside the printer. The court found that, since the software in the printer was available in the clear to anyone who owned the printer, the "access" was granted by purchasing the printer, not by installing an authorized toner cartridge.
Likewise, once you buy a disc containing OS X, you have access to all the code stored on that disc. The access control is your purchase of the disc, not the interaction between the disc an an Apple-branded computer.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple was a software company, then they wouldn't be losing money.
Then explain to me why Apple is making iLife, OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes, etc.
it could spell the end of Apple. Without Apple, no more OS X development. Parasites are never beneficial to anything but themselves.
Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.
Apple can live on the iPod, iPhone, and the Macs. Sure, some people will go buy OS X and install it on a normal computer, that still makes money for Apple you act as if OS X is somehow some radically new OS. It isn't. It is BSD with a nice GUI and Coco, etc. All the various versions of OS X do is change up the GUI, fix so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of those come free with Apple hardware (and one, iTunes, is free to everyone with no strings attached). They add value to the integrated products Apple offers; you can't assume their development would be sustainable if they were all that was on sale.
Microsoft can get away with being an OS- and office-only company because they have 20 times more customers buying Windows. You can bet they don't spend 20 times as much developin
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then explain to me why Apple is making iLife, OS X, iPhone OS, iTunes, etc.
In order to sell their hardware. I mean, come on-- you listed iTunes, which they don't even sell in any form. It's completely free, which should make it obvious that it's 100% to sell iPods.
But all of their software is aimed at selling hardware. Even iWork and their Pro apps (which don't come free with their hardware) are clearly aimed at making OSX a viable platform in various professional environments. It's all about selling their hardware.
Riiiight, like you know how MS managed to go bankrupt after IBM PC compatible clones came on the market.
Yeah, and just look at IBM's thriving PC sales!
All the various versions of OS X do is change up the GUI, fix some bugs and add in a couple of new features.
Isn't that sort of what software upgrades do? The update the GUI, fix bugs, and add new features.
Charging $100 for an OS is enough money to keep development of it going. You act as if Apple sells OS X as a loss, which they clearly don't.
Microsoft charges more than $400 for Vista ultimate, and Apple doesn't move the volume that Microsoft does. How do you know that $100 is enough to support OSX's development. Do you have access to Apple's budget?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason Apple does not like Mac clones is not because they make profit selling OS X as much, but they make profit selling Macs.
Apple has been burned with Mac clones before, in the days of Power Computing and such, where one of the things they did when turning around the company in the mid to late 1990s was eventually buy them up.
I don't think Apple will ever allow legit licensed Mac clones ever again, regardless of percentage of royalties they get.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This "Mac clones nearly killed Apple" is always brought up as some sort of gospel proof that open hardware is bad for Apple.
Every time I see someone use the "Mac clones will kill Apple" argument (usually an Apple fanboy) I immediately think how pathetic it is that a company which claims to be the best is so afraid of competition, and that their followers never realise this.
R&D (Score:3, Insightful)
That the clone Mac were competitive is really more an indicator of Apple's mid 90s lack on innovation.
Not exactly. But you aren't totally out in left field either. The clones were supposedly free-riding on Apple's R&D for mother board designs etc. Apple later figured out they weren't recouping the costs from licensing and the clone makers sold cheaper/faster hardware than Apple because they didn't have to reinvent the wheel. (Remember, this was when Apple was the holy grail of "Not Invented Here")
Read up some more on "Mac clones nearly killed Apple" at wikipedia.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Interesting)
OS X is subsidized by hardware sales. The last time they sold an OS that wasn't subsized by hardware sales, it was OpenStep, and it sold for ~$800. ~$1600 if you wanted the development version.
Court might require unbundling... (Score:3, Informative)
OS X is subsidized by hardware sales.
Presuming this is true: The court remedy might require unbundling the hardware and software sales.
Apple could set the cost of each wherever it wants. But it will need to keep the sum affordable to keep selling the "out of the box experience".
- If it sets the SW price so high that the HW is underpriced you'll see people buying bare Apple machines and loading other OSes on them. This also leads to people being used to running other OSes on Apple hardware.
citation: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why is the comparison invalid? You are free to install OS X on your own machine as long as you do not distribute the code! This is not because the license allows it, but because you are not commiting copyright infringement.
In this case PsyStar is both installing OS X AND distributing the copy they installed.
So the comparison is valid: distribution of copyrighted code is copyright infringement and is the power that allows copyleft to exist. And, incidentally, allows Apple to argue copyright infringement.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
The doctrine of first sale [wikipedia.org] comes into play here. Right now the courts have issued contradictory rulings on it. But if it's eventually decided that software is sold, not licensed, then PsyStar would be in the clear. They are simply reselling a copy of OS X which they legally bought and paid for.
Your interpretation falls under the alternative opinion that software is licensed, not sold. Under your interpretation, Microsoft can prohibit you from selling your unused copy of Windows, you can't sell your copy of Oblivion or Halo 3. Heck, even book, music, and movie publishers could claim they're simply licensing their product to you, so you can't resell it if you don't want it anymore.
Personally I wouldn't want to live in a world which works the way you want it to. IMHO if it sat in a box on a store shelf and I made a one-time payment for perpetual rights to use it, I've bought it. If I enter into a contractual agreement for recurring fees and my right to use it ends when I stop paying (e.g. World of Warcraft), then I've licensed it.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
In this case PsyStar is both installing OS X AND distributing the copy they installed.
You seem to be confused about what distribution actually means.
If I buy a copy of a particular program, install it on my computer, and then sell that computer to someone else, that is perfectly legal under copyright law. The only problem arises if I try to install the same purchased copy on another computer, because then I am making a copy that falls under the restrictions of copyright law.
You see, copyright law covers only the right to make copies. It does not cover the right to distribute (or redistribute) copies that were legally made. I don't understand why that's so hard for people to understand. I mean, it's right there in the name: "copy right".
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Insightful)
What immorality are we talking about here? What illegality here?
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit, just like everyone else who owns IP. They license to those who happen to own Apple branded machines, just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute unmodified software, requiring modifications to be available in source form.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.
Both extend logically from copyright.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple licenses their IP as they see fit,
No, they don't. They try to use a subversion of copyright law to force licensing on people. If they want licensing, they should do it properly with signed contracts, and etc. If they want to avoid the hassle and use the pre-packaged version provded by the government known as "copyright", then that's fine too. What they shouldn't do is try to turn one in to the other on the cheap.
just like the GPL licenses to those who distribute
You see that word "distribute"? That's what copyright is about. That's all the GPL addresses. Other than distribution (what copyright is about), the GPL makes no extra demands. None. And neither should it. You can also read about this on the FSF webpage, which includes a section about why it is not an EULA and why users should not be required to agree.
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code. Both extend logically from copyright.
I disagree with your assertion that EULAs logically extend from copyright.
It is a big stretch to argue that copying from the OS disc to the computer does not fall under fair use, since it's required to use the product. You may as well argue that the image of a book projected on your retina is copying.
Consider another example. Remember those old computers, where programs could run directly from punched film and werre not loaded in to a program store? They apparently could not be subject to EULA's because they are not copied in order to run them. That seems like a perverse and illogical split to me.
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer
Not so. Read USC 17, Section 117:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.â" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The first condition states that the copyright owner cannot restrict you from making copies of their software if this is an essential step in using the software (eg, copying from CD to hard disk and then from hard disk to RAM).
The second condition is also important but for a different reason (the right to make an archival copy).
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right about being able to install the OS, but 17 USC 117 won't save Psystar. Forget, for the moment, the EULA.
Note that last bit. Psystar is selling systems with OS X pre-installed. Because the pre-installed copy is NOT an exact copy, it is an adaptation, and that section is quite clear that transferring adaptations authorized by 17 USC 117(a) requires consent of the copyright holder.
So it's copyright violation, plain and simple, no need for any licensing theories.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try fanboi, you actually put a little effort into it unlike your fellows, but still no cigar. An adaptation isn't preinstalling software on a machine. An adaptation is translating a work into another language, reediting it (like that operation that tried selling 'cleaned up' DVDs) and such.
You mean like selling a copy with an altered kernel to allow it to run on non-Apple hardware?
Yeah, see, even if we accept your interpretation of that legal language, the argument still doesn't work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Violation of either license restricts what you can do with the product. In Apple's case, you aren't allowed to copy the OS from disc to computer, and in the GPL's case you aren't allowed to distribute your code.
Both extend logically from copyright.
Wrong.
Copyright is not the right to control what anyone does with your product. Copyright is the right to dictate who is allowed to (a) create derivative works, (b) create copies and (c) distribute copies they created.
Nothing more.
If the copyright holder makes a copy and then gives or sells it to someone, the recipient can do what they like with it, including selling it to others under any terms they wish.
A lot of people mistakenly believe that copyright also prevents unauthorized installing of sof
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't trying to sell Apple's OS as they're own, they're trying to stand up to Apple's bullying that immorally
This is what's so laughable about the whole thing: OS X costs $129 and Windows $299 not because Apple is less greedy than Microsoft, but because the customers for whom it is intended have already invested in the platform R&D.
The only logical result is the discontinuation of the favorable pricing given to Apple customers. Take a look at any tying case that talks about the theory--promotional tying is not barred, nor is tying per se illegal. It shouldn't be. Favorable pricing for prior customers is on
Re:In a word... (Score:4, Informative)
Damn Nissan for not letting me put a Ford engine in my Bluebird!
Way to miss the point.
Let's say you could, mechanically, put your Ford engine in your Bluebird. Would Nissan or Ford sue you for doing so?
Your modified Bluebird actually turns out pretty well, and you decide to call it a Ostrich (it's a bird that doesn't fly) and sell it. You buy some Nissan Bluebirds and some Fords, and move the engines over. Would Nissan or Ford sue you for doing so?
The point isn't that Psystar wants to make Apple make OS X so you can run it on their computers, the point is that you already can run it on their computers and Apple is suing to prevent them from carrying out that distribution. (And Psystar is suing back saying that Apple's requirement that you use OS X only on their hardware -- roughly equivalent to Nissan saying that you can't mod their car -- is illegal.) I have pretty conservative (with respect to current laws) opinions on IP, but even I think that Apple is in the wrong here.
You can stick your engine (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy a Ford engine. Put in in your Bluebird. No lawsuit from Nissan. No lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic will likely sue for mental anguish.)
Sell your Nissan/Ford unholy monster for profit. Still no lawsuit from Nissan, no lawsuit from Ford. (The mechanic's psychiatrist may sue you for reckless endangerment.)
Sell dozens, hundreds and eventually thousands of Fluebirds. Not only will Nissan and Ford stubbornly persist in their selfish refusal to sue you, they might even offer to make you a retailer or give you wholesale purchase prices. (The mechanics' labor union may come round to visit with torches and pitchforks.)
If you try to sell Bluebirds with Ford engines, representing yourself as a retailer for Nissan, then you will taste the awful wrath of a swarm of lawyers. Only then do you have an accurate analogy of the issue at hand. Apple can claim that Psystar is selling a product as an Apple product, thus infringing on their right to protect their goo*cough*
that is to say slandering their guugh*choke*
their good *spasm* *sputter* *wheeze* name.
Of course, Psystar can retort that they are in fact selling Psystar computers designed to be capable of running OSX and are even installing OSX, legally purchased, on their computers for a reasonable fee. Apple may then point out that "you can't buy our software to do that" in which case Psystar can retort that "already did" and they can then commence with the slap fest. A cool headed judge could gently dissuade the two from arguing with a fire hose and explain that that forbidding people to use a product they legally purchase in such a way as to prevent competition might be considered "anticompetitive practices" and point out an interesting statute or two to the dripping Apple lawyer swarm. I'm sure the Apple lawyer swarm will accept this with the same good grace you'd expect from a bull rhino with a terrible case of hemorrhoids who was just dumped by his rhino girlfriend for a larger meaner bull rhino who has decided to make it a threesome. (This is known as the no bloody way triple analogy.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AFAIK it's still a copyright violation to install software contrary to the explicit licensing terms.
Really ? You think you'll get picked up for copyright infringement if you violate an EULA that says you're only allowed to use OS X if you're wearing blue shorts ?
They're completely unambiguous about the fact that the retail package is only to be installed on Apple computers, meaning it's a essentially firmware upgrade.
The actual term is "Apple labelled", which in no way explicitly states the software i
Re:If they win (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple may not be allowed that option. Remember they are challenging Apple on Monopoly grounds. If they win Apple can be mandated to do or not do certain things that wouldn't apply to normal companies.
Except that the product that is supposed to be a "monopoly" is an operating system, and Psystar has at least two other choices of operating systems: The one from the market leader, Microsoft, with 90 percent or more market share, and the other one Linux, which they can even distribute without license fees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The law says monopolies are legal, so therefore monopolistic behavior is legal.
What is illegal is anti-competitive behavior.
And... we have this construct called intellectual property and laws that tell us what we can and cannot do with intellectual property. It powers copyright, which gives the GPL it's ability to provide copyleft (if you violate copyleft, you have also broken copyright for example).
In this case Apple is using a specific IP to it's advantage; copyright means Apple specifically limits what c
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
> ..we have this construct called intellectual property..
Never use that phrase around here, we know better. Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks exist. None of those permit a EULA and with out the Apple EULA being an enforcable contract there is no grounds to stop what Pystar is doing.
> copyright means Apple specifically limits what copies an end user can make
Correct. But Pystar is buying retail boxed copies of OS X. Were they making illegal copies the case would have been over before it started with everyone involved snatched up in an FBI raid.
> In this case Psystar does not have the license from Apple to distribute copies.
Of course they do. One is free to resell an item they bought legally.
> The EULA is very clear that the distribution license for OS X only allows for a single copy on an Apple
> branded machine, and OpenPCs are not Apple branded. To use the GPL as an example, it would be the same
> case if OpenPC preinstalled a modified Linux kernel without providing the source.
First off the acronym itself gives the game away. An "End User License Agreement", even if they were legal, would only be binding on the end user. Pystar isn't.
As for your stupid (sorry, this one gets batted down weekly, use Google before opening your piehole on a GPL FAQ issue) argument trying to make an equivelence with the GPL it just doesn't track. The GPL is a grant of rights above and beyond what normal copyright grants while a EULA is a subtraction without any consideration. So I can toss Apple's EULA into the nearest bin and still have all of the rights under law I had before. I have the right to own the copy I bought, use it, etc. I don't have the right to reproduce it (outside of working copies made as typical use of the material) or publicaly perform it (not very applicable to most software) but there is no legal question whether I lawfully own a copy.
Now consider your hypothetical. If I give you a copy of Linux you lawfully posses that copy of Linux in exactly the same way I would own my copy of OS X sans EULA. You could do anything copyright law permitted, including sell it. You could sell/give away the ONE copy I gave to you. To do anything else with it, like preload it onto a line of computers, you would be required either to lawfully obtain a copy for each machine from a source licensed to reproduce that Linux distro OR to agree to abide by the terms of the license agreement and thus become a licensed source yourself. See the difference now? Read the GPL.
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Informative)
First sale doctrine allows PsyStar to resell copies of OS X, but not install it on their PCs!
MS vs Zamos is of interest ONLY if PsyStar was strictly reselling OS X. More interesting is Jacobsen vs Katzer, where the Artistic License is an enforceable copyright restriction. In this case the issue is whether the OS X EULA contains an enforceable copyright restrictions:
1) "Single Use and Family Pack License for use on Apple-labeled Systems"
2) "General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the âoeApple Softwareâ) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (âoeAppleâ) for use only under the
terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."
3)"Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
/popcorn.
I really hope Psystar wins this one. Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior. If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
How is Apple monopolistic? Is Microsoft & Linux not competition? Apple only owns 8% of the market, hardly monopolistic.. They can charge whatever they like if people pay for it. And if you don't like that, go buy a Dell.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How can you say Apple is "Monopolistic" ? And what gives you, or I, the right to tell Apple how they can engineer their equipment? Apple is not a monopoly - if you don't like Apple hardware go buy your own and put Linux or Windows on it.
Pystar is trying to ride the coattails of Apple's marketing department and the brand they have created. Does it make any more sense to sue GE for the software/operating system to any of the Nuclear Reactors they design? Pystar is playing off of the emotions of the uneduc
Apple's behavior is not monopolistic (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, people say this, but don't appear to understand what that means, with respect to the legal ramifications.
Apple doesn't have a dominant position in its market. In terms of computer sales in Q2 08, they're 3-4 times smaller than HP or Dell. In terms of OS sales they're way behind Microsoft. In terms of monopolistic behavior, there's no evidence of predatory pricing, limiting supply, or price gouging. They are tying their OS to the hardware, but that's not illegal nor can it be called monopolistic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You forget something...Apple still makes money on just OS X. and if this goes through, Dell, HP, etc. will probably be buying up licenses to sell to consumers (after some driver R&D and tech support training). Apple can continue without its computer hardware sales, no problem. It may have to tweak the price of OS X a bit to compensate, but I think it will be just fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing about that is, Apple designs almost all components of all of its software. They design very little of their hardware (except the outside/case). They leave most of that to other companies. I really don't think that calling them a hardware company is really valid. They sell hardware, software, and consumer electronics now. Computer hardware is not even a majority of their business anymore. Software+iPhone/iPod/iTunes outweighs their hardware sales.
And yes, I actually would like to put so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I thought Psystar was going to get crushed, and then suddenly I see their angle. They might have a case here.
Bloody nonsense. Psystar claims that Apple prevents them from selling computers. Reality is that Dell, HP, and all the other companies are quite successfully selling computers without MacOS X, and if Psystar wants to sell the computer, they can just do the same as Dell, HP and everyone else in that business and install OEM copies of Windows, or Linux, or whatever other operating system they can find where the copyright holder is willing to give them a license, or write their own OS like Apple did.
Don't y
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is making it impossible for anyone else to sell a computer that is compatible with OS X. The Microsoft anti-trust rulings these days all seem to stem from interoperability. There are existing rulings that suggest if you refuse to play well with others, you can be found guilty of antitrust violations.
Heck, if Microsoft is going to be found guilty by bundling Media Player with Windows, I think Apple does far worse things when it comes to bundling, such as forcing me to purchase Apple hardware to run Apple software.
That is what this new counter-suit will be about. Based on previous Microsoft rulings, I think Psystar has an argument. What may kill their case is the psuedo-legality of their current business practices. Will a court give Psystar a fair shake if they pre-judge them to be criminals trying to illegally profit off someone else's product?
Re:In a word... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a blatant lie. A BLATANT LIE.
THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING ANYONE FROM MAKING A MAC OS X COMPATIBLE COMPUTER. NOT EVEN APPLE COULD SUE YOU IF IT WERE COMPATIBLE, EVEN IF YOU INCLUDED EFI.
Because the last time Microsoft was caught bundling they were threatening their OEM licensees with termination of their contracts if they allowed a competitor to be so much as VISIBLE on the desktop. Monopolies are not illegal. Abusing them to destroy competition is.
Apple not licensing to Psystar in no way inhibits their ability to sell PCs, not even ones that would otherwise be Mac compatible (which is OSX86 + a fairly common set of existing hardware.)
How dare they subsidize their software development using revenues from their hardware divisions. HOW DARE THEY.
Man, I thought Slashdot was anti-Microsoft, but goddamn I have never seen such vicious attacks. If Slashdot has ever hated a company for being successful, it's Apple.
I've always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
They are able to survive because they are filling a niche market, leading me to believe that they will not be a serious competitor to MS anytime soon.
In the meantime I await the continual improvement of linux to cause a critical mass of marketshare so that vendors will finally start giving it proper support....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the whole control-freak attitude is in every apple product. I'll never buy another thing from apple, and feel incredibly stupid and regretful for
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I agree. Apple's tactics are pretty horrid, yet they seem to get a pass from the fan-boys for some reason just because their products are shiny.
That is not true! In fact, some of us have been very critical of Apple, for example, when ...O MY GOD IS THAT THE NEW iPHONE? Let me hold it!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple throws lawsuits around left and right. They attack fans for blogging about their products. I remember reading in Wired about a twelve-year old girl who offered a product suggestion to improve her iPod. Apple sent a threatening legal letter in response, demanding that she not offer suggestions.
If Microsoft is evil for bundling software, then Apple is far more evil in the same regard.
Steve Jobs said from day 1 he hated DRM, yet Apple products have pushed DRM far more than any company I've seen on the
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse Apple with its lawyers. Apple gets sued regularly over frivolous bullshit like Paystar's, so the the company's legal team is a ravenous bunch of sharks.
The Wired sensationalism about lawyers' overstated legalese asking not to get unsolicited idea submissions outside of the "sign away your rights" web form for feedback is to prevent a case where somebody sends in an idea Apple is already working on, sort of like sending the violated IP to a clean room team. Of course they don't want to get sued, and lawyers overreact to protect their assets.
Microsoft isn't "evil" for bundling software, it violated its consent decree (its agreement with the judge in a legal case) in order to destroy competition. Apple has no consent decree to violate, and has not been charged by the US with anti-competitive behaviors. So you're grasping at straws.
Jobs does not own the RIAA's music, so he can only do what they allow him to do. He replaced strong Windows Media DRM from Microsoft with FairPlay DRM that end users can strip off themselves using iTunes burn function. So again, you are being ridiculous.
Apple does not have a moral obligation to hand its IP over to Microsoft just because it did once already in the mid 80s. The "little guy" you are rooting for here is a convicted monopolist. It's like you're complaining about Bernhard Goetz being criminal.
Apple never "forced the installation of Safari," it presented it as a software update. Microsoft presents new versions of its own browser as a software update, on both the Mac (when it did) and Windows. Again, you are being wildly disingenuous.
Linking to Leander Kahney's wildly problematic rant/ad for his book doesn't help your case, because Kahney has a loose grasp of reality and contradicts himself repeatedly.
As John Gruber noted (and thank God, as it spared me from explaining exactly why Kahney is so full of himself):
"Kahney's central premise, insofar as there is a premise, is that Apple has succeeded either despite or because it operates in ways that are contrary to conventional wisdom. [... Kahney says Apple is] "Irredeemably evilâ. Because they're secretive and develop closed platforms. Think about that."
[...]
"One can argue (as I would) that Apple's product secrecy is worth tens of millions of dollars in publicity every year. Or, one can argue that Apple spitefully pissed away even more valuable publicity by shutting down Think Secret. (You'd be wrong, but you can reasonably argue that.) But Kahney, in the course of seven paragraphs in a single article, argues both."
[...]
"So this is the sort of logic, research, and insight that passes for a Wired cover story today. Does anyone at Wired even read this shit before publishing it?"
Perhaps you should base your world view on facts rather than emotional tirades from Apple's critics to somehow defend why it is that Apple owes you its technology in a subsidized PC in addition to the subsidized iPhone you can already get.
How Leander Kahney Got Everything Wrong by Being an Irredeemable Jackass [daringfireball.net]
Is Apple's MobileMe Secure? [roughlydrafted.com]
Re:I've always wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure you can blast a company for doing something and be OK with another company doing it. If you sign up with company A because they promise to keep your data private and then find them selling your data you are mad at them. If you sign up with company B under the understanding that they resell customer information as part of their business you are going to get a lot of funny looks if you rail against their violation of your privacy.
Apple escapes a lot of the bashing because they are upfront about what they are doing. You buy an Apple you know (or at least should) what to expect, both good and bad. That is not to say that everything they do is sunshine and rainbows, but that is a known part of doing business with them and as such a cost already accepted.
When a company sells you something on the condition that it only be installed on their hardware it is hard for mot people to work up much sympathy when you complain that they will only let you install it on their hardware. The fact that other businesses do it differently does not matter. You were free to buy from them instead.
In this same situation Microsoft would catch a lot of flack because they explicitly sell their product to run on anything that meets the hardware requirements. People have entered into a different contract with them and thus have different expectations and different reactions to the same actions.
Everyone was pissed off at Sony because they broke the social contract. People were sold a CD with the reasonable expectation that it would NOT install a virus on their computer. Fewer people complain about Apple's iTunes DRM because it is an upfront part of the purchase. You know what you are getting and can purchase appropriately to your own tastes.
Raminfications (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.
Appliance != Software Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
So they are not a monopoly by any means but they cannot argue that a third party cannot support that software as long as it does not imply support or cause any damage to existing company.
Anticompetitive practice != Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the argument is that Apple is a monopoly, but rather that they're engaging in anticompetitive behavior - tying the purchase of one product (the OS) to another (the computer).
I don't see how Apple could ever be compelled to provide support on any hardware it doesn't deem acceptable. If they were to lose, maybe the outcome will be that if you sell an OS, you don't have the right to restrict its use to particular hardware.
Re:Anticompetitive practice != Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
One of PsyStar's claims is Restraint of Trade. It is easy to see how that would apply if Apple merely had sole control of the distribution channel for a certain title of software, but where *Apple is the creator / author* of the software I think we have a different situation. The creator / author, it would seem, can create and sell only as many copies as it wishes, and in fact can probably sell only to those it wishes to sell to. PsyStar (regrettably) is going to lose big here, but maybe not before it makes a bundle prior to Apple's changing how it sells or licenses its OS.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if PsyStar has been planned as a time-limited venture to make the biggest possible pile before the loopholes are plugged. Most likely, their analyses tell them their profits will exceed their legal fees + settlement payments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, a KitchenAide mixer is an appliance and it can be end user upgraded into a blender, mixer, chopper, grinder, etc.
Tilting at windmills..... (Score:4, Funny)
Who's Paying the Legal Bill at Psystar? (Score:5, Interesting)
These events alone will generate $1MM+ (million??) in legal bills. We all know Apple won't stop until psystar is closed and will use it as an example to every american with a similar idea. You know, heads on a stick at the city gates and all that.
So, where's psystar's money coming from?
If Apple wins... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will it be because they're right, or becuse they're rich?
An interesting potential precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
If this works, then people could make clone Nintendo game units, Sony game units and the like, opening the door for a new level of "fair use" doctrine.
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
You can install Windows on a Mac. And that's fine. But install OSX on a PC and Apple throws a hissy fit... Am I missing something here?
Yes. If you want to install Windows on a Mac, you need to ask Microsoft (can I install your OS on a Mac) who says "yes", and you need to ask Apple (can I install Windows on your computer), who also says "yes". Apple says "yes" because they try to be nice to customers who bought expensive Apple hardware.
If you want to install MacOS X on a PC, you need to ask the PC maker (no idea what they think about it), and you have to ask Apple (can I install MacOS X on my Dell?) who says "no". Apple says "no" because they don't want anyone but customers who bought expensive Apple hardware to use their OS.
Apple's brand. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok. Let me get this straight. Apple makes an operating system and the license agreement that comes with it states that you have to run it on Apple branded hardware. When you get an Apple labeled computer and run the Apple labeled operating system on it, it works like a mortal luser would expect it to. For damn nearly the entire population of Apple computer users, it does what they need it to do and they run around spouting, "Macs rock! PCs suck!"
Ok, now imagine what would happen if every computer company out there decided to provide Mac OS X with their computers instead of Windoze Vista or whatever they're installing on garbage prebuilt computers nowadays. Suddenly OS X won't be quite as great anymore because it will have all kinds of subtle failures and stuff. First, the hardware can induce failures that are no fault of the software. Further, if the hardware is fine but operates somehow differently from Apple hardware, bugs in OS X which don't manifest themselves on a Mac will crop up. Some would argue that this is good as it helps to find and fix those bugs. But do you honestly think Apple will achieve what it does if its engineers suddenly spend their time making OS X work around the characteristics of hardware they have no control over? Do you think Apple has the time to go testing OS X on every five dollar garbage motherboard that some cheapskate company decided to put in a computer?
What will happen to Apple's brand if that happened? Oh! Suddenly people will go around saying how much OS X is the suxx0rz because it crashes and it deletes data and it locks up and all this shit, EVEN IF IT'S NO FAULT OF THE SOFTWARE! Because the lusers don't know what comes from software and what comes from hardware. Hey, it locked up, OS X is the suxx0rz. And Apple's brand is down the tubes.
It is Apple's right and responsibility as a business to protect its brand by making sure its products are high quality and by making sure that others, for any reason, don't tarnish that brand.
Psystar wants to make a Mac clone? Fine! Download Darwin. Download Afterstep. Download every graphics toolkit out there. Start modifying. Apple worked hard and invested tremendous amounts to make their software.
You want a computer that works? Either get a Mac or build a *BSD or Linux box yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, now imagine what would happen if every computer company out there decided to provide Mac OS X with their computers instead of Windoze Vista or whatever they're installing on garbage prebuilt computers nowadays. Suddenly OS X won't be quite as great anymore because it will have all kinds of subtle failures and stuff. First, the hardware can induce failures that are no fault of the software.
True to a point, but Linux pulls it off just fine. I'd imagine a lot of that is due to its open source driver model, which results in better quality drivers that people actually care to maintain, and also keeps truly "crap" hardware from ever being plugged in at all. In any case, it's fairly clear that a good and stable OS can be supported across a huge, diverse, and often buggy set of hardware.
plan from the beginning? (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks this was their plan to begin with (counter sue). I can't imagine they just "happened" to come up with this defense and lawfirm all of a sudden.
PsyStar S*** Is Crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Those who forget history (Score:4, Interesting)
That was before they were really running on commodity hardware. When an Mac was a physically different piece of hardware from an abstract perspective (different processor, running a different instruction set) they could more easily make the case, since they've flipped to the 86 platform, I don't think their case will be as strong.
Re:Those who forget history (Score:5, Informative)
You've got the right idea, but you're applying it backwards.
Because it is now an open and popular platform, the existence of substantially similar and functionally equivalent alternatives actually makes a stronger case for Apple.
Consider Data General. The linchpin of the decision was that the CPU was useless without the OS--that without the tied product, the tying product had no utility. Without that detail, the decision does not work. It's very different from the case of a bundle of an x86 computer system and an x86 OS. There are dozens of compatible operating systems and dozens of compatible hardware manufacturers. You don't have a paperweight when you buy any kind of computer, because you don't need a specialized OS to run it. Apple and Psystar are missing the critical element of Data General and Digidyne.
Attempts to reverse it, such that the tying product is the OS are amateur at best. The OS does not come with a computer attached. It is sold as an accessory and upgrade by a company to existing users of that same company's products. There's no requirement of a purchase when you buy the OS--it's not being tied. The sale is premised on the existing possession of a Mac, but this is nothing new. Upgrades are always sold in this manner; it's not unique to software, either.
It's promotional availability: buy one, get one free. You can't say that you can't get the tied product (the free item) unless you buy the non-free one. Promotional tying is also quite common in bundle packages, e.g., toothpaste with a toothbrush for $5, while the toothpaste alone is $4 and the toothbrush alone is not available for sale. You can't demand the toothbrush for $1. There are thousands of examples of favorable pricing or special product availability based on a prior purchase.
That Apple chooses to sell OS X at a particular price, for its existing customers only, simply does not require that that price be made available to anyone else. The same can be said of Microsoft and its OEM and upgrade pricing policies, and the same can be said for companies who condition the sale of accessories, add-ons, upgrades, etc. on the prior purchase of the underlying product.
It is not immoral or illegal to set the terms under which you will or will not sell something. It further is not incumbent on that party to devise a foolproof system--the argument that an individual can buy one off the shelf and finagle an installation out of the disc is not convincing. It's an argument that seems to be begging for invasive sales procedures and DRM. Apple offers owners of its computers a good product at a low price and trusts consumers to honor that.
Showing up to say that Apple is getting what it "deserves" by having a desirable product at a below-cost price, sold over the counter without restriction or complication, and that Apple's business model is not their concern is exactly why corporations hate consumers, especially the kind that often populate this forum.
Re:Yeah, let's tell Apple how to do business (Score:5, Insightful)
If I have a restaurant, I have the right to REFUSE TO SERVE you. If I make a product, I have the right to refuse to allow you to sell it at your store.
This isn't Apple refusing a customer in your restaurant, this is Apple saying that once you've bought the food from the restaurant you can't then go outside and sell it to someone you meet on the street. It's completely different, and the first sale doctrine gives Psystar the ability to do this.
Re:Yeah, let's tell Apple how to do business (Score:5, Informative)
No, sorry, you do not. You have the right to refuse to sell the product to me - which to an extent prevents me from selling it. However, you have no legal or moral right to force me to not sell your product after I have legally purchased it from you, or someone you have authorized to sell it.
Once you put an item on the market, your control of it is gone. If you do not like that, do not sell it.
"The EULA is intended for individuals, and while they might strike parts of it down, the judge should side with Apple's right not to allow a 3rd party to manufacture a product containing Apples' products."
The right of first sale arguably trumps Apple's EULA. Quite a few states do not even allow EULAs to remove certain rights of the user/middle man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I would be Awesome for people to tell me how to run my company even thought I am not a monopoly.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of what makes OS X a great OS is that Apple controls the hardware side. "Everything just works" is a broad overstatement, but it mostly applies to Apple hardware and OS X. Being able to buy a boxed copy of OS X for any generic x86 PC would lead to a lot of Linux-type scenarios: *most everything* just works, but a patch here, or a trip to apt-get there, and a little bit of geeky knowledge is needed to get things working.
Most of us here at Slashdot, myself included, would be fine with that. But OS X would not be the roaring success it is if people said things like "you may need to download fwcutter to get your WiFi card working" or "you need that SSE2 emulation BIOS patch to get it to boot." It is a success because Apple--for better or worse--has tightly intertwined the hardware and software experience so that the geeky *nix parts are only there if you want to play with it, not because you have to.
The only way Apple could reasonably sell OS X for generic x86 or x86_64 hardware is to have a huge list of requirements similar to the "Vista Capable" debacle. And it would cost a lot more than the $129 it costs now. Prices would be similar to what you pay for the latest boxed version of Windows, because currently OS X is subsidized by the premium you paid on Apple's hardware to run it in the first place.
I love Macs, I love OS X, and I love Linux. I think all this effort to get OS X running on generic hardware would be better spent on getting Ubuntu (or some other distro) up to the same level of reliability and usability of OS X on Apple hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it also means the GLP can be dismissed by any corporation who doesn't want to follow it because they think they can make more profits ignoring it.
No that's not true.
If a company decides to ignore the GPL, their legal problems aren't really from violation of the license, but from violation of copyright.
Remember, by DEFAULT Tivo, Linksys, etc have no right to redistribute GPL code. The GPL is what grants them the right. So if they decide to redistribute without adhering to the GPL they are violating copyright
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that Paystar is modifying and reselling software it has neither a license nor any copyright to modify and resell. It also lacks any right to even to distribute Apple's software against the terms of its license.
You don't normally need one. If I buy a Harry Potter book, and then resell it, I don't need a license to do this.
If I buy a Harry Potter book, write my name on it, and then resell it (modified by me), I don't need a license to do that either.
It's no different than selling software that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The big question here is what kind of product the boxed version of Mac OS X really is.
That question is really easy to answer by looking at the license, and all your three answer were wrong. The license allows you to install one copy of the software on one Apple-labeled computer. It doesn't have to be an upgrade, so it is fine if you deleted your old copy of MacOS X, or if you install it on an Apple-labeled computer that never had MacOS X installed (or never had any MacOS version installed). In practice, it will usually be purchased by people who would otherwise buy an upgrade version.
worst analogy ever (Score:3)
That analogy fell apart and collapsed onto the floor into a million pieces. Psystar is claiming Apple is breaking the law and interfering with a legitimate business practice, not that Apple owes them anything for actual work done on OSX. This isn't anything like SCO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much do you want to bet Paystar has the same "donation"?
Erm, a million, billion dollars ?
You are smoking crack. Apple is not the same threat to MS that Linux is. MS profits from Apple!
MS's margins on (legitimate) sales to Mac users have higher average margins than average sales to typical PC users:
Firstly, there's no such thing as an OEM version of XP or Vista for Mac. Most OS sales in the PC world are low margin OEM bundles with HW.
A Mac user must purchase a full retail price version of Windows
The cable company is a local monopoly. (Score:3, Informative)
The cable company is a local monopoly. If they weren't, they wouldn't be forced to do anything.
Apple has at most 7.5% of PART of the market.
It's not any kind of monopoly.
Next?
Conventional Wi...Stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Mac user, I've had my share of "Road Apples" over the years, and I say the conventional wisdom that Apple makes "great" hardware is pure and unadulterated horse exhaust.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are missing my point: This is not theft.
Apple does not even sell Mac OS X "at a full retail price," it licenses it as an upgrade for running on (and only on) Mac hardware. It's find if you don't like that, but that doesn't give you commercial rights to pirate it.
The selling as an upgrade is a dubious claim since it works on its own. This is also not the commercial piracy of selling a bunch of copies: Apple get paid retail price for every single copy sold.
You can't buy a Madonna CD, remix it, burn it to
Re:About time folks (Score:4, Insightful)
"Its about time someone counter-sued Apple for this monopolistic behavior."
Monopolistic behaviour isn't illegal unless one happens to be a monopoly.
"When Microsoft does it, everyone jumps up their seat"
Because Microsoft has been adjudged to be a monopoly by at least three different legal entities (the US, the EU, and S. Korea), whereas Apple with their 4% or so of the world PC market are obviously not a monopoly. Monopolies are bound by laws that don't apply to other companies.