I am not sure what to think, not sure who has the upper hand.

If Pystar has a winning hand then it behooves Apple to have a private settlement.

If Pystar knows that they could trounced then it behooves them to have a private settlement to keep legal expenses to a minimum.

Maybe a win-win situation would be for Pystar to stop selling MacClones, but be permitted to become an authorized Apple reseller.

I am not a lawyer, I am just thinking out loud.

Disclaimer: I hold a small amount of Apple stock that is not worth as much as it was earlier this year.

In other words, Apple will probably offer to Psystar something along the lines of: You take back all those hackintosh PCs you sold and refund the money and we let you continue to sell ordinary PCs with ordinary OS, and don't stomp you out of existence.

As a public company Apple can't completely hide the cost of this little escapade, but they should be able to bury it so it's extremely difficult to figure out.

Whether or not you think Psystar should be stomped out of existence like vasic does, you can't deny that Psystar wouldn't be in existence at all if Apple offered more choice in form factors and configurations. Tuesday's announcements make it obvious that Apple wants to offer us even fewer choices in the future than they already do and I consider that a very bad thing.

Apple will never license MacOS X to other manufacturers. Unless and until they replace Microsoft as the dominant provider of operating systems to 80% of the world, such a move would destroy the company faster than a hydrogen bomb going off in Cupertino.

The cost of this "escapade" is irrelevant in so far as Apple goes. Remember they have nearly 20 BILLION in the bank. If anyone should worry it's Psystar and this settlement, should it occur, will probably be in their interest in that I'm thinking it will be they who should be worried if this gets to trial.

Surely the only reason this is occuring is Apple wants to minimize publicity. They don't want more Psystars popping up. I bet Psystar gets paid some money to just go away and they do. Apple sweeps the whole thing quietly under the rug and life goes on as before.

And I wonder if all of the proceedings will be private? I bet they will be and we'll hardly hear of this again. That's what Apple wants. The more people know that OS X can be installed on PC hardware, the more the genie gets out of the bottle.

It took some time for the "guests" to comment on this post. Was Google Alerts down or something earlier today?

Anyway, if Pystar had something going in their favor then the big PC makers would have been selling MacClones months ago. However, like the article said, we don't know why this legal step has been taken and even trolls are entitled to their opinions, timely or not.

Whatever, I have a gill of beer remaining in this mug and then I am off to read some Shakespeare before getting some sleep. You all have a great night.

...Apple's lawyers found a vulnerability in their defenses and advised Steve Jobs to be "reasonable" and not rabid in his response.

Of course the vital bit of data is missing: who started the ADR?

If Apple then it's a clear signal Apple's worried. This is something Apple would NOT want anyone to learn. If Apple's case is air-tight then it would be in their best interest to nuke Psytar into a crater as a warning to other would-be cloners and they wouldn't agree to an ADR.

If Psytar initiated the ADR, then it's not really unexpected, and could be read either as Psystar getting cold feet or not really wanting an expensive fight (whether they could win or not).

If it was the judge (most likely) then neither Apple nor Psystar can refuse, since that would likely prejudice their case when it eventually ends up in front of the judge.

I'm betting it was the judge. Of course at the end of the day we'll *know* who won. If Psystar continues to sell clones, they won. If they don't, Apple won.

Merits are another matter all together...

Hmmm .... if Apple have what they consider to be a "slam dunk" case, then they would not bother with going to ADR. That just slows things down a bit and probably saves Psystar some money.

So, perhaps Apple's lawyers have explained to Jobs that Psystar has an "X" percent chance of prevailing on their antitrust (misuse) defense. Then downside is that Apple could end up with unenforceable intellectual property rights. Not a pretty picture. And if you are a CEO, do you bet the ranch even if X is only 25%? How do you feel if it is close to 50%?

So, what can Apple do? 1. Buy Psystar? But unless Psystar has some useful IP, what keeps Psystar II from emerging shortly thereafter? 2. Remove the restriction from the EULA and increase the price of standalone OSX to $250, but allow upgrades from prior versions of OSX for the present price, and require Psystar to provide user support?

"However, this was not because Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) blinked in its legal fight. CEO Steve Jobs is not known for backing down for much of anything, least of all protecting his turf. The two sides were pushed into mediation by the court because such attempts are standard practice, according to Colby Springer, the attorney representing Psystar with the firm of Carr & Ferrell, based in Palo Alto, Calif.

"It's a standard requirement, we have to do it," Springer told InternetNews.com. "What the parties think doesn't matter, it's up to the judge." He can order both parties to talk until he or she feels things are not progressing. A mediator informs the judge of progress, or any lack thereof."

Per InternetNews.com.

1) Psystar has the same lawyer who has beat apple before.
2) Apple paid extra to have the same hardware people use to run windows be restrictive, that act right there is a big nono. It is kind of like what happened with Microsoft and their battle against Digital Research and DR-DOS, and microsoft lost that battle and so would Apple. If you don't know the history, microsoft, put in their code to restrict some of their software to look to see if it was running on MS-DOS, if it wasn't it would error out. So what Apple has done is the hardware/software equivalent.

Just check out EFi-X this is a piece of hardware that will allow someone to install MacOS X on a PC without cracking anything.

Let's face it, Apple is looking at an Anti-trust lawsuit down the road. So to delay that, they want to have this private, so they can buy Psystar and close up shop.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
1) Psystar has the same lawyer who has beat apple before.
2) Apple paid extra to have the same hardware people use to run windows be restrictive, that act right there is a big nono. It is kind of like what happened with Microsoft and their battle against Digital Research and DR-DOS, and microsoft lost that battle and so would Apple. If you don't know the history, microsoft, put in their code to restrict some of their software to look to see if it was running on MS-DOS, if it wasn't it would error out. So what Apple has done is the hardware/software equivalent.

Just check out EFi-X this is a piece of hardware that will allow someone to install MacOS X on a PC without cracking anything.

Let's face it, Apple is looking at an Anti-trust lawsuit down the road. So to delay that, they want to have this private, so they can buy Psystar and close up shop.

You obviously didn't read the post above you. Apple didn't choose arbitration. It was imposed by court order.

And Apple does NOT have a monopoly. Any more than Sony has a monopoly on game consoles. Being the only one to produce your product does not mean you have a monopoly. Monopolies concern markets, not individual items. Otherwise everybody pretty much has a monopoly on whatever they produce, which is silly.

I don't understand all the comments about mac clones... Psystar builds computers with standard parts and installs a Mac OS. Apple does the exact same thing; standard parts with their OS installed.

The reason that it is considered to be an anti trust case is that Apple is limiting competition by locking their OS (which is the only thing Apple makes for their Macs) to machines they build. They are effectively killing off any competition from any PC builders and controlling the entire market, when the actual product they sell, and have intellectual property rights to, is only the OS.

It is Apple's intellectual property. Where is there a law that requires Apple to license their OS to third parties?

Just because one wishes it to be true does not make it so. Until the courts decide otherwise, Apple is under no obligation to allow the OS to be installed on other computers by a commercial entity.

Quote

They are effectively killing off any competition from any PC builders and controlling the entire market

Those PC builders can make PCs to their heart's content and install a multitude of OS's on them, from Windows to BeOS to one of a variety of Linux builds.

They are "controlling the entire market" just like Sony is controlling the entire market of PS3s. There is nothing special about the hardware in a PS3. Is anybody suing them for anti-trust? Nope.

Folks always try to define the market so narrowly (in order for Psystar to actually have a case), that the definition of monopoly would cover every single product manufactured by one company. Ford would have a monopoly on Mustangs. Sony would have a monopoly on PS3s, etc... The market that is defined in the Psystar case is personal computers. Any narrower definition is bogus. And Apple certainly does NOT have a monopoly on personal computers, nor OS's that can be installed on them. Psystar has plenty of options regarding OS for their offerings. The fact that they want to install OS X but can't because of licensing restrictions, while unfortunate for them, in no way restricts them from selling their wares.

QUOTE:

There is nothing special about the hardware in a PS3

Actually there is, it's called the cell processor and was developed jointly by Sony, Toshiba, and IBM over a 4 year period at a cost of approximately $400 million. The console market is vastly different than the pc market. Console makers spend huge amounts of money on the hardware and then patent this hardware.

And even if Sony didn't patent this hardware no clone makers would want to jump into a market where Sony was losing money for every PS3 they sold and are only now breaking even.

As for the OS, Apple is intentionally crippling it from running on hardware that meets their own specifications, forcing consumers to buy macs thereby controlling this market exclusively. As a consumer if I purchase OSX I should be able to use it without having to purchase a second Apple computer with identical specs to my own.

As far as the 3rd party licensing goes, well I'm not an intellectual copyright lawyer so I'll leave that one up to the courts.

Got news for you: The cell processor is based on the Power series of processors, which was developed jointly between Apple, IBM and Motorola.

There is nothing preventing anybody else from purchasing cell processors from IBM and building a gaming console. IBM already uses the processor in some of their mainframes. Mercury Computer Systems already uses cell processors in some of their hardware. It's kinda like purchasing Intel chips. Whether or not it is financially feasible to do it is a different question, but there is no technical reason preventing it.

Again, you don't purchase OS X. You purchase a LICENSE TO USE OS X. Just like Windows and any other piece of software. What you think you should be able to do with it and what you currently can legally do with it are two different things. Until the legal validity of software licenses is overturned in court you are legally bound by the agreement.

And Apple is not forcing anybody to do anything. As the legions of Windows users point out on a daily basis "There is nothing that you can do on a Mac that I cannot do on a Windows machine." If that is a true statement, then there is nothing preventing somebody from installing Windows (or Linux, since the same claims are made by Linux fans) and happily computing along.

There is precedent for OS's tied to hardware. IRIX was tied to SGI machines. Amiga OS tied to the Amiga machines.I believe HP-UX also falls into this category.

Well I think maybe Apple really is trying to keep things quiet by settling this out of court so more people will not have knowledge of how you can install Mac OS X on a regular PC.

But what I think Apple should do is take advantage of this. If they want to take an even more piece of the OS market they should let Psystar operate but indicating that Apple will not support this Mac Clone. This way it gives more people a hands-on experience of Mac OS X for a cheaper price which will convince more people to switch. Also it will not be a true Mac so if you really want the reliability and quality of a Mac then you will just go out and buy one. I think this way Apple can really gain more market share.

Read the thread!!!!

Apple did not opt for arbitration. Nor did Psystar. It was mandated by the court.

People are saying that apple is nor a monopoly is. I mean i find it a little biased. Its just the same for me. I use linux and windows and like the fact that linux runs on almost all platforms. I dislike the fact that windows does not run anymore on powerpc and alpha. I wish it did run on all the platforms. If you are using all the standard parts and then using the OS to sell the part its Monopoly to me. The same way people will start saying that microsoft is bad for stopping production of Office for mac, and they want people to use windows by such means.
Hah I just wish my flying saucer takes me away ... far away from these double standards.

Seems like to the main problem with Psystar's business model is pre-installing OS X. Why not sell consumers the intel system, and sell them the off-the-shelf version of OS X... and then let the consumer install it themselves? I'm pretty sure the people who would be likely to buy one of these "clones" are not your average dumb users. Most have probably installed an operating system or two. It's a standard PC folks! Psystar can't be stopped from selling them. They could however possibly be stopped from bundling OS X pre-installed with them. That's where the legal debate lies.

Just to clarify, the Cell processor was based on Power Architecture which was developed by IBM. The Power PC was also based on this architecture but the Power Pc and Cell processor are two different beasts.

I also realize that you license the software, as with all OS's and that yes you can install windows or linux (both of which I have) to do what you can on a Mac, but the Mac can also be installed on the exact same machines as well. What Psystar is claiming is that the software license is unduly restrictive. Apple obviously wants to continue to flog their OS on their own machines and avoid the fiasco of the Mac clones back in the mid 90's when the clone makers were providing less expensive yet better machines. Back then I had a power mac 7100 and then upgraded to a Power tower pro, but this was before the OS would run on intel chips.

Now I would like to try the OS again, as I always liked it, but there is no compelling reason to buy a whole new computer to do this. The restrictive part is that Apple will not let me use their software... it's kind of like wanting to purchase gas for my car, but if I want to fill up at the Apple station I also have to buy a car from them. I know if I could obtain a pirated version of the software to run on my machine but my morals won't allow me to do this. I'm sure though that others have no problems with this and will get the OS without giving Apple any money.

Apple has done nothing to prevent individuals from installing a purchased copy onto a non-Apple machine (yes, it violates the EULA, but they have not gone after individuals). What is bothering Apple in this case, it seems, is a business advertising and selling machines with the OS pre-installed, in violation of the EULA. A business doing it is vastly different from an individual. A business is trying to profit from it. An individual (usually) is not.

The fact that Cell and PowerPC are different does not alter the fact that they could be purchased if one wished to. Oddly, they haven't taken off like people initially thought.

It amazes me how many pc users out there cry foul because Apple won't sell their OS to other pc makers. Usually these are the people that like to build their own boxes. There is nothing wrong with that. I have two custom boxes at home. The point is, their missing the entire point. The number 1 reason Apple doesn't sell their OS to other pc vendors(and custom box builders), is so they(Apple) can be assured their OS will run with no hiccups. It goes along with the saying "if you want something done right, do it yourself". If Apple did sell their OS to other pc vendors, they would be in the same instability boat Microsoft is in. Apple would suddenly have to support an innumerable amount of variations of hardware. By making the hardware themselves they've shrunk the number of variations. Plus, those are variations they are familiar with.

Since Windows NT, Microsoft platforms do not have any more stability issues than Apple has had since they released Jaguar. Actually, this gives Microsoft a much longer track record of stable systems than Apple.

OS X would not face stability issues from being opend license-wise to "regular" PCs, and Apple would certainly not have to support zillions of different hardware configurations. Linux runs on many more hardware configurations than Windows and OS X together, and nobody can claim that Linux suffers from stability problems.

Apple would only have to support systems that are defined in their hardware compatibility list. If you like it or not - they're doing nothing else at the moment, only that they call them "Apple labeled computers", where in fact they should say "a PC with an Intel Core CPU, an nVidia Chipset and graphics card and an EFI BIOS".

Like Microsoft, Apple could sell "Certified for OS X" labels to other vendors if their machines match the Hardware Compatibility List. So people would not have to buy an Apple branded machine to run OS X, but could also choose from a variety of "certified" computers.

The actual point is that Apple is preventing its paying customers from using their purchased software - purchased in a retail software like Amazon - on a computer of their choice. And this restriction is of almost no technical foundation (which by the way can be "fixed" with the EFiX dongle), it is a restriction within Apple's EULA --ONLY--.

And that EULA might not hold up in court, and certainly not in every country on this planet. Microsoft lost a similar case here in Germany (where I live), and since then System Builder licenses can bought and RE-SOLD by everybody - including the transfer of the license to another user if you don't want it anymore.

If Psystar were a German company and if those computers would be sold here, I'm sure that Apple's legal department would have some very cold sweat on their brows by now.

The Apple fans should not forget one thing: It would be the best for us Apple customers if Apple lost this lawsuit. Competition is always great for the consumer.

Would Apple run into an economic suicide with that approach? No. Microsoft never sold PCs and they're healthier than any hardware vendor ever could be. Apple is as much a software company as Microsoft is, only that they are selling their software to a very small customer base only.

Apple is making their money with the iTunes store and related products. They have nothing to lose if they open OS X for everybody, but a lot to gain. With the 25 billion USD that they supposedly have in their bank right now, they could easily push OS X to a very significant market share in the consumer market. (I don't think they would have much chance in the business sector at this point in time.)

I don't think there is much rationale behind Apple's current business model, and there never has been. This anti-competitive behavior almost killed Apple in the 90s, and only the iPod (and 100 million USD from Microsoft) saved them from otherwise certain bankruptcy.

If they want to increase their market share, they -have to- open OS X for everybody. The world is not going to buy their equipment from just one vendor. It's simply not going to happen.

The idea that Apple is a monopoly is ludicrous. MS was determined to violate anti-trust laws because their market share of OS's was, indeed, large enough to leverage the market of web browsers. So they were told to knock it off. There are two items to look at when talking about Apple selling their computers with their own OS. Look at the hardware, and they have a certain share of the overall market - a share that is definitely not large enough to be used as leverage to force a greater share. Look at the OS and their market share is also way too small to be used as leverage.

People seem to be ignoring that Apple is a HARDWARE company. The idea is not to increase the numbers of people who use OS X, but rather increase the number of people who purchase Apple produced computers.

Apple's approach has been the same since the inception of the Macintosh: offer something different than the rest of the computing industry. Other computer makers, from Dell to Compaq to Toshiba to Acer to eMachines etc. offer computers with the same basic systems, and compete with each other on pricing and features. Apple took a different approach by offering a different operating system, being the first to apply a GUI as the main user interface. That is competing, not suppression of competition.

And they have been doing the same since. They sell hardware. They make their hardware attractive by offering something significantly different than other hardware sellers. If other hardware sellers want to take that approach, let them invent their own OS.