mario a. spinthiras

Psystar is being sued by Apple Inc due to infringing the EULA agreement regarding MAC OS X. This is due to Psystar’s OpenComputer which comes preinstalled with MAC OS X and appeals since it is a cheap and stable version of a MAC. Apple is also buzzing “recall” which is quite an issue. Never the less Apple clearly states in their shrink-wrap license that you are not allowed to run Apple’s software on any computer system that is not made by Apple however Psystar is either extremely clever or incredibly stupid to make Mac clones. This is how I think Psystar can actually win this case.

Let’s talk a little bit about Psystar first. Originally the reports of a mac clone shocked a lot of people. That’s because we immediately knew that they were breaking the law. Psystar seemed like a ghost company and they were immediately tagged as “fraud”. This was not the case though. Psystar was indeed very real and it seems as though their internal workings went wrong and this is why the media could not locate them. However this cleared and we could see that they were very real making very real computers.

The computer in question is called the “OpenComputer” which is a desktop computer that runs MAC OS X. Disturbing as it may seem they also have updates available directly from Psystar and a whole lot of other stuff for the “OpenComputer” .

Naturally Apple powered up and is throwing a legal knife to Psystar’s throat. At a time when EVERYONE wants a mac Psystar came and threw mud in the plan. Early reports on the Internet show that Psystar is not hiding from commenting on the issue but what I am concerned is how they are going to go to court with Jobbs and his legal team and leave with a smile on their face.

Let’s face it , Psystar’s only chance of winning involves Ethics and consumer rights. Thats the only recepie that contains any bells of success in them. Psystar would have to challenge the shrink-wrap licensing , point out that apple is trespassing on consumer’s rights by allowing them to buy something but only use it in certain ways. That sounds much like buying anything really. Buy a car but don’t run down your next door neighbor , buy a knife but careful not to hold it close to your friend’s neck , buy a computer but don’t hack anything. The one in question here is “Buy an MAC computer but don’t mess with one specific component of the product with purpose to run it on another computer system”. All above examples contain laws which have consequential actions to breaking the rules. So does this one (shrink-wrap). Lawyers that have commented on this case elaborate on how shrink-wrap licenses have many complications and fine lines but this is one that requires an angle like no other to be able to walk away from Apple in a court room and shed no tears.

I have been skeptic about many angles to approach the shrink-wrap license that could possibly void it in court. In a court case like this , emotion has no role like other case therefore the only key player is ethics. To use ethics towards your side though you don’t have to prove that you are not doing something wrong (Psystar). On the contrary you have to prove is that Apple’s “product” is based of many individual products and not to be perceived of components to a complete system and that they are denying consumer’s of a very basic right. This does sound impossible and I have taken it from every single angle.

If OS X was something you could pop into your old Vaio and install out of the box , then maybe Psystar had a chance but the truth is that you have to modify certain aspects of OS X in order to be able to bypass checks that OS X does to make sure it is an authentic mac it is running on. This can easily bring the case to Apple’s side since it can be perceived as a component which someone else took and modified in order to make it work on their system and not Apple’s.

Then there is a comparative product. The Ferrari FXX. The Ferrari FXX is a car developed as part of an unusual development program by automobile manufacturer Ferrari in Maranello, Italy. Production of the FXX began in 2005. The car uses some technology developed from the Enzo and combines it with some all-new developments from Ferrari and some of the suppliers. However, the car is only a part of the overall program: customers pay £1.3 million ($2.5 million USD) but are only allowed to drive the car on special track days approved by Ferrari and after they drive the car they have to brief Ferrari on the car’s performance. As the vehicle is not street-legal, owners have the option of storing the car at Ferrari’s facilities. As part of the FXX program, the car is maintained by the Ferrari factory.

Ferrari sells you a membership to a project where you get an individual car per member. Much like going for a game of paintball with friends. Thats as close as you get to the same type of restriction imposed on a Mac.

Psystar commented on the case over the phone to the media and my eye caught a very interesting quote on the web.

“What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?”

“What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?”

Now when you buy a car you don’t see any shrink wrap licenses since Honda did not make the roads to drive on and the road is not a component relevant to the product (the car). The car and the roads are relevant to the public transport system which Honda did not contribute to design or production.

Never the less I feel that Psystar is (as I said above) incredibly clever or extremely stupid. Whichever it may be after the court case I feel that Steve is about to have another victory to protect the Apple empire. One thing I am sure that happened is the Microsoft grin and a quick laugh from Mark Shuttleworth since he doesn’t believe in the commercial operating system model. I too will join Shuttleworth in such laughter and sit back to see how Psystar is going to tackle Apple. Good luck to them.