Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/18/judge-dismisses-psystars-anti-trust-counterclaim-against-apple/)

A California judge has dismissed (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/18/judge_grants_apples_motion_to_dismiss_psystars_counterclaims.html) a counterclaim (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/27/psystar-to-countersue-apple-for-anticompetitive-practices/) from Psystar which asserted that Apple was violating federal and state anti-trust laws in limiting the sale and use of Mac OS X on Apple branded computers.. But in a 19-page order passed down on Tuesday, Judge William Alsup largely reject Psystar's claims and granted Apple's motion to have the countersuit thrown out of court should the clone maker not better its argument through an amended complaint that can be filed no later than Monday December 8th. AppleInsider notes that Psytar attempted to define a "Mac OS market" in which Apple held a monopoly. Apple, of course, successfully disputed this definition of a "market" with which the judge agreed."Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."
Psystar is a small company which sells (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-but-not-from-apple/) a Mac clone using off-the-shelf PC parts and a modified version of Mac OS X Leopard. Apple sued Psystar (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/15/apple-sues-psystar-over-opencomputer/) over these products and that case is still pending.

Article Link: Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/18/judge-dismisses-psystars-anti-trust-counterclaim-against-apple/)

[Consultant]

Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic!

[GeekLawyer]

That was very predictable. And welcome.

[PlaceofDis]

i can't actually believe that they thought their shaky ground would last. be interesting to see what they come up with by next month.

[kjs862]

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

[~Shard~]

Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now... :cool:

[Blue Velvet]

Oh good. A new Psystar thread. :D

I'm not surprised by this decision; I wonder if they can or will appeal against this part of the case.

[The Tall One]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

[czachorski]

Makes perfectly good sense. The statement "it is certainly entitled to do so" will irritate many naysayers around here, but is absolutely correct.

[Twilight Elk]

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

PsyStar counter-sued Apple for restricting OS X to their own computers. Now that this particular case has been dismissed, Apple can, in fact, allow to keep their Macintosh operating system to their own products.

This does not, however, count for Apple's claim against Psystar for infringing on their rights and using the Macintosh OS on Psystar products, which is still going on.


(If there are inaccuracies in my summary, please point them out)

[czachorski]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

There's two sides to every transaction, and every single "ridiculous" price that Apple charges is countered by a customer on the other side of the transaction who saw value in conducting the transaction at that price.

[schneb]

Apple charges what the market will bear. That said, pricing too high brings alternatives that people will turn to for a second look. It would behoove Apple, this coming MacWorld, to introduce a Psystar-killer box that will silence these upstarts once and for all. This would be a far more lucrative response then going in to court every other month.

Psystar's complaint had nothing to stand on. The fact is that OSX being only able to run on Apple hardware is as legitimate as the Blackberry OS only able to run on its hardware.

[JML42691]

If they can appeal it, then I suspect that they will, but won't get far with that either. I kind of hope that this company gets completely shut down after all of this.

[plumbingandtech]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Apple has competition.

It's called _the rest of the computer industry_....

And that's just what the judge said today.

[paric]

It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Backfires? Oh, yeah. I'm sure Apple dreads the day that they have a greater than 50% market share, and Microsoft is the underdog. :rolleyes:

[Kwill]

Paystar's business model and legal defense appears to be contrived from the imagination of a hacker kid.

[Kilamite]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

[paric]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it.

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

[rjfiske]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

So who gets to define "ridiculous"? You? Me? A government agency? The open market? I don't think that Apple knows their prices are ridiculous. I think the extremely poor build of inexpensive PC's coupled with a frustratingly poor Windows operating system (which we're in agreement on) is what's ridiculous.

And I am not sure if we'll see Microsoft become the underdog in my lifetime, at least as it pertains to operating systems. If it does, I'm guessing the threat will come from Google, not Apple. I could be wrong. Just my opinion. :)

Having said all of that, I also think Apple needs the competition. I still believe that the competition currently exists and we don't need a government agency to define it.

[Consultant]

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

Judge said: the information shyster submitted included evidence that there IS competition (example is Apple running Ads to bring people in from the competition, if there is no competition, ads are a waste of money), and shyster suit is full of fail.

Thus it will be dropped unless they can provide any evidence to back up their countersuit.

[kamchadal]

It is better to stand up and lose, than never to stand up. I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

[Clive At Five]

Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.

[paric]

I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

They do.

You give them money, they give you a computer.

I like it too.

[Beric]

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

[bradl]

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

[howie78]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there. :-)

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.

[t0mat0]

Wasn't the thinking that the counterclaim had similar arguments as the main defense for Psystar in Apple's suit, so things are not looking good for Psystar

[BaldiMac]

Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.

Of course, to pursue "anticompetitive 'tying' arguments" you would need to prove that Apple is a monopoly. And that case was just dismissed. :rolleyes:

[organerito]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

I don't see that happening any time soon. Apple products are good and cute, but they have some deal breakers for many people. for example, an Apple computer with 1Gb Ram, Cd burner (Retrograde) and 120GB hard drive for 1000 dollars is outrageous for many people. Apple is growing a lot in North America, but it is still way far from Microsoft in the world.

[jessica.]

Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic!
LOL I was thinking the same thing.
That was very predictable. And welcome.It was predictable and welcome to a point, but I believe there should be competition.

If they can appeal it, then I suspect that they will, but won't get far with that either. I kind of hope that this company gets completely shut down after all of this.

Sorry but this is a total fan boy thing to say. I don't agree with certain tactics, but I do believe there should be a way for people to build home-grown Macs. We've been doing the whole IBM-Clone thing forever. I don't agree with how it all came to be, but competition would do Apple good.

[Consultant]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there. :-)

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.


Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's not competitive.

Hardware IS competitive, for a QUIET COMPUTER that doesn't need hours of time for support.

You do know there is the refurb store?

You do know that the Mac market share has been rising? Example:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/02/mac-browser-marketshare-continues-to-rise/

[billystlyes]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.
You wouldn't happen to be living on Mars? ;-)

http://forum.insanelymac.com

I hope Psytar wins. They may be our only option to get a Matteintosh soon.

[plumbingandtech]

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

None.

Which has nothing to do the point of today's thread other then the judge said there is nothing illegal about it.

:rolleyes:

[BaldiMac]

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

But Apple can't "smell of antitrust" if it is not considered a "trust." Psystar's attempt to define Apple as a trust was just thrown out.

[Consultant]

None.

Which has nothing to do the point of today's thread other then the judge said there is nothing illegal about it.

:rolleyes:

Judge said there is nothing illegal to offer OSX only on Macs.


But Apple can't "smell of antitrust" if it is not considered a "trust." Psystar's attempt to define Apple as a trust was just thrown out.

Exactly! Perhaps some people just can't read.


I hope Psytar wins. They may be our only option to get a Matteintosh soon.

You do realize they can't win because their countersuit is THROWN OUT?

[paric]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Not fanboi, just factual. There is nothing antitrust about Apple saying "You can't use our own product to compete with us."

Remember, Apple didn't sue people using OS X in their own home, for their own purposes. They sued a company who tried to "compete" with Apple using Apple's own product rather than their own.

Psystar did not sue in EU courts. The suit concerns US laws.

The MSIE case in the US does not correlate.

[bradl]

Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's not competitive.

Hardware IS competitive, for a QUIET COMPUTER that doesn't need hours of time for support.

You do know there is the refurb store?

You do know that the Mac market share has been rising? Example:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/02/mac-browser-marketshare-continues-to-rise/

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.

[tbluhp]

So does this mean that if someone wants to buy from Psystar and use OS X it's legal or not?

[BaldiMac]

So does this mean that if someone wants to buy from Psystar and use OS X it's legal or not?

The case against Psystar has not been decided yet. Their counterclaim against Apple was just thrown out. And it was pretty much their whole defense to Apple's suit.

[corinhorn]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

Agreed. Opening Mac OS X to be installed on every POS computer would not be a good thing.

[paric]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there. :-)

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.

Yes, each system has its ups and downs.

But in a free market society, if a person things a product costs too much, they don't have to buy it.

If they think the more expensive product is worth the price because of its overall superiority, then they can choose to buy that one.

Why would Apple lower prices $100 when people are willing to buy at the current price, and their market share is growing?

If people stop buying their products, and the #1 reason is price, trust me, they will lower their prices. Until then, there's no reason.

[Clive At Five]

Of course, to pursue "anticompetitive 'tying' arguments" you would need to prove that Apple is a monopoly. And that case was just dismissed. :rolleyes:

Not necessarily. You don't have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive practices.

[paric]

I don't agree with certain tactics, but I do believe there should be a way for people to build home-grown Macs. We've been doing the whole IBM-Clone thing forever. I don't agree with how it all came to be, but competition would do Apple good.

People can do exactly what Psystar does, and it is very, very unlikely that Apple would ever sue. Just don't try to make a business out of reselling the product.

Apple has plenty of competition.

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Hardware lock-in is a normal UNIX thing.

AIX on IBM systems
HPUX on HP systems
Solaris on Sun systems
IRIX on SGI systems

What is new?

Maybe if Apple had a 90% market share of PCs, then it may be forced to distribute to other hardware manufacturers. As there is zero monopoly here, Apple can carry on as normal.


But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

[bradl]

People can do exactly what Psystar does, and it is very, very unlikely that Apple would ever sue. Just don't try to make a business out of reselling the product.

Apple has plenty of competition.

Reselling OS X would be a problem. Offering it to other hardware outside of Macs would not be. Apple could do that for the same price and be none the worse for wear. Yes it puts them on the level with M$ in terms of selling it, and for now, M$ would win because it's cheaper. But in terms of quality vs. quantity, Apple would gain at every moment.

Hardware lock-in is a normal UNIX thing.

AIX on IBM systems
HPUX on HP systems
Solaris on Sun systems


All three can have Linux installed on their main processors. Sun has gone AMD, and Linux has supported SPARC processors for the past 10 years. HP has adopted Linux on some of their boxes, especially having acquired DEC through Compaq. IBM has support on all of their zSeries processors for either AIX or Linux.

You'd be right about 10 - 15 years ago about a hardware lock in on Unix, but that is no longer the case..

BL.

[NAG]

I'm curious as to what all the people who bemoan Apple's hardware think when reviewers as places like PCMag routinely rank Apple hardware pretty high. The only thing Apple has over charged for is their RAM and they seem to not be gouging people anymore.

[ucfgrad93]

Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic!

Agreed, it is outstanding! I'm glad to see Psystar lose this one.

[bitWrangler]

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.
No, none of that is relevant here. IBM made the hardware and Microsoft sold the software. In the early days you could not legally run PC-DOS on pc clones, but you COULD run MS-DOS which had no such licensing restriction. Therefore the early PC market is irrelevant in this case as the situation was completely different.

PC-DOS was LICENSED by IBM, not sold to IBM. DOS for the early Apple computers was a COMPLETELY different product than PC/MS DOS for the PC. Your history is completely wrong.

Macs being "overpriced" is a completely irrelevant statement and means nothing. If you do not perceive value given their price points, do not purchase the product. Simple. If you want to play in the OSX sandbox, then you have to pony up.

[corinhorn]

Their counterclaim against Apple was just thrown out. And it was pretty much their whole defense to Apple's suit.Psystar's arguments against Apple have seemed rather flaky to me. With this dismissal, my gut tells me that this stupid Psystar boner is coming to a timely end.

[macbookairapple]

Hehhehe, Psystar is going down, good thing that we can still rely on the American courts to deal with these kind of people.

[AppleMojo]

Nice! This was obvious and well overdue.

Now, lets see Apple carry through with their original suit and have them recall every single Psystar machine loaded with OS X.

[DigitalM]

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Those other operating systems choose their own licensing conditions. Suggesting that Apple be forced to license its software for use on any system would be as absurd as saying that all businesses be forced to run a franchise scheme whether they want to or not. If you're still not getting it, why don't we force TomTom to license their software to anyone who can't be bothered to code for GPS but can make some reasonable electronics, or perhaps it is unreasonable that Nikon's in-camera pro level DSLR OS can't be installed on your cheapo Fuji point-and-shoot. There isn't the remotest whiff of antitrust.

[BaldiMac]

Not necessarily. You don't have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive practices.

But my understanding is that you do have to have "market power." Which Apple does not.

[paric]

Reselling OS X would be a problem. Offering it to other hardware outside of Macs would not be. Apple could do that for the same price and be none the worse for wear. Yes it puts them on the level with M$ in terms of selling it, and for now, M$ would win because it's cheaper. But in terms of quality vs. quantity, Apple would gain at every moment.



In theory, Apple would need to raise the price of the OS in order to compensate for lower hardware sales, the massive increase in support calls that would be experienced, and increased advertising expenses needed to offset the newly found negative user experience of running the OS on various cheap hardware configurations.

Then again, you may be correct in theory. People predicted the demise of Apple if they switched to Intel. That certainly hasn't happened. So maybe it would be a workable business model.

Ultimately, Apple has a different business model from Microsoft, and that is their RIGHT. They also have the right to protect their business model. That is what this suit is about.

[AppleMojo]

LOL I was thinking the same thing.
Sorry but this is a total fan boy thing to say. I don't agree with certain tactics, but I do believe there should be a way for people to build home-grown Macs. We've been doing the whole IBM-Clone thing forever. I don't agree with how it all came to be, but competition would do Apple good.

You believe also that you should be able to build a home grown iPod? Go get the software and build it on your own hardware? geesh... the stupidity.

Come on!?! Enough with these lame arguments. I would LOVE to see you build up some software solution and have some punk run around selling your hard work for half the price. You'd change your tune in a second.

An argument for competition is valid, but you can't apply that to this situation. Apple created it, they have the right to determine its use. I am so tired of repeating this, but this liberal mentality is killing me.

I love how these "competition" guys choose which rules they play by, ignoring the ones that prevent them from getting what the want. Nice...


"I want a Mac at half the price!" <-- thats the real reason for the lame argument.

[bradl]

Those other operating systems choose their own licensing conditions. Suggesting that Apple be forced to license its software for use on any system would be as absurd as saying that all businesses be forced to run a franchise scheme whether they want to or not. If you're still not getting it, why don't we force TomTom to license their software to anyone who can't be bothered to code for GPS but can make some reasonable electronics, or perhaps it is unreasonable that Nikon's in-camera pro level DSLR OS can't be installed on your cheapo Fuji point-and-shoot. There isn't the remotest whiff of antitrust.

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware. Win-win on both sides. Psystar could then buy the OS, or better yet, get a discount by buying it in bulk from Apple, and then bundle it with their hardware (not installed).

That would work out the best giving Apple fair competition, part of Psystar's revenue, and still putting out quality hardware/software.

BL.

[coolfactor]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.
<clip>
Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.
BL.

How? Apple creates the hardware and the software. It's all theirs. Internet Explorer built into Windows is not even close to being the same situation. Windows runs on 3rd-party hardware. IE's tight integration and proprietary nature gives Microsoft an edge over competition way beyond their direct reach. And for very different reasons. Apple has their model to ensure a seamless user experience. Microsoft does it for marketshare. Big difference.

[haydn!]

Is this going to become another sixty pages of reasons why Apple lost and members attempting to convince people they know the law like they do the TV guide?

[howie78]

Yes, each system has its ups and downs.

But in a free market society, if a person things a product costs too much, they don't have to buy it.

If they think the more expensive product is worth the price because of its overall superiority, then they can choose to buy that one.

Why would Apple lower prices $100 when people are willing to buy at the current price, and their market share is growing?

If people stop buying their products, and the #1 reason is price, trust me, they will lower their prices. Until then, there's no reason.

Oh I agree..but in absent of fanboyism one can see that they're hardware offerings are of the 2007 level. I like Apple so don't burn me and the free market thing is such a cop-out by saying if you don't like don't buy it. I can afford apple products and like them (own'd a pro in the past as well a mb) but honestly they are falling behind hardware wise and not sure how any rationale hardware savvy person ignores that fact. Their market share is only growing due to visita primarily and not growing the business market which MS is releasing windows 7 that will most likely bring those masses back (not a MS fan) just stating its not a draw due to apple's enormous appeal just saying its due to average person having poor choices in the market currently. Given a better windoze version most hardware users will choose the cheaper more advanced alternative. Apple products are quality but far over priced for the hardware one receives. I do love the MB look though.

[sflocal]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Apple does have competition. Perhaps you're not aware that the playing field includes players like Microsoft Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.. ??

You don't like Apple's pricing? No one is forcing you to buy from Apple.

[SimonTheSoundMa]

All three can have Linux installed on their main processors. Sun has gone AMD, and Linux has supported SPARC processors for the past 10 years. HP has adopted Linux on some of their boxes, especially having acquired DEC through Compaq. IBM has support on all of their zSeries processors for either AIX or Linux.

You'd be right about 10 - 15 years ago about a hardware lock in on Unix, but that is no longer the case..

BL.
Yes, and you can put Linux on an Apple machine, but you can't put the operating systems I listed on others.

[corinhorn]

Is this going to become another sixty pages of reasons why Apple lost and members attempting to convince people they know the law like they do the TV guide?indubitably so.

[paric]

Regarding these Internet Explorer comparisons, remember what MS did.

It wasn't merely that they built IE into Windows, but they threatened the PC makers by telling them they would pull their license if they dared to ship their computers with Netscape installed.

That would have destroyed those companies over night.

They basically shut down Netscape, not with the merits of IE, but with ubiquity of Windows.

[milo]

Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.

And they have no chance at all with a "tying" argument either since tying isn't inherently illegal - note the judge's comment: "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

Not only did the judge say that Apple isn't a monopoly, he said that the so called "tying" they're doing is perfectly legal as well.

The whole "apple is a monopoly" argument (along with similar "anticompetitive" arguments) has always been idiotic, and it just looks that much more idiotic now.

[sflocal]

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware.

You truly, honestly really don't get it do you? :confused:

[BaldiMac]

But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

Antitrust? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Apple is not a trust. Psystar's claims that Apple is a trust were just dismissed. You cannot violate antitrust laws if you are not a trust.

[zacman]

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.

[Barabas]

So some Microsoft execs eventually helped out SCO getting their funding and thus creating massive spread of FUD for a couple of years. Even though SCO was finally obliterated, the Linux market still took a hit. (Though one could argue that the Linux-community gained massive PR at the same time).

And here comes Psystar. A very small company realeasing a product that will bring them straight into the courtroom before they even the chance to make any money of their product.

Now who might be interested in funding that for a while I wonder...

[milo]

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

That's absolutely what they were trying to do. But it was an epic fail since MS had over 90% marketshare while Apple is under 10%.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

I guess you missed where the judge said "It is certainly entitled to do so."? Sure sounds like HE doesn't think it's anything remotely close to antitrust. And I'll bet a judge understands the law better than some anonymous random guy posting on the internet.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.
Yeah, except Apple makes all their money through hardware sales and profits would plummet if they ever did this. :rolleyes:

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware.

Really? You think that Psystar has any influence at all on Apple? You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

[Squozen]

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

Market share is all well and good, but Apple prefers money. Their business strategy seems to be doing them just fine so far, at least, if you consider having more cash in the bank than Microsoft 'doing well'.

[kockgunner]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

[sflocal]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Then why not complain about not running an XBOX game on a PS3? Why not complain about running the i5/OS on an x86 platform? There are many other examples of other companies doing the exact same thing - and legally. You explain that to me with a little bit of clarity and then maybe one may listen to you. Until then, you're just a supporter of IP theft.

[sushi]

Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic!
:D

Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now... :cool:
Yep, good news.

Apple charges what the market will bear.
Exactly

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.
Likewise.

Agreed. Opening Mac OS X to be installed on every POS computer would not be a good thing.
One reason that the Mac OS is good is that it runs and is supported on a limited number of platforms.

Agreed, it is outstanding! I'm glad to see Psystar lose this one.
:)

Apple does have competition. Perhaps you're not aware that the playing field includes players like Microsoft Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.. ??
Yep, plenty of competition out there.

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.
The case has been dismissed, if Psystar does nothing.

Psystar has the option of resubmitting by December 8th.

At least that is my understanding.

[BklynKid]

Go away Psystar, nobody likes you!

[corinhorn]

The whole "apple is a monopoly" argument (along with similar "anticompetitive" arguments) has always been idiotic, and it just looks that much more idiotic now.

It does and the arguments are getting tiresome. It seems that everyone and every organization that is successful (like Apple) gets vilified and accused of being greedy, evil, monopolistic, unethical, etc. Companies and organizations like Psystar just want to get a piece of the pie anyway imaginable and also have a few seconds in the "Look at me, I'm relevant" spotlight while they steal the pie.

[BaldiMac]

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.

The judge granted Apple's motion to dismiss the case. Psystar does have the opportunity to amend their complaint by Dec 8.

[milo]

It was predictable and welcome to a point, but I believe there should be competition.

Well, you should be glad to know that there IS competition. As evidenced by the 90% market share of Windows. And the judge said as much.

Not necessarily. You don't have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive practices.

Then give one example. One company with a market share under ten percent that was found guilty of anticompetitive practices.

Not to mention that the judge said specifically that apple is entitled to sell its OS only to be used on its hardware. That sure sounds like he doesn't consider it an anticompetitive practice.

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.

While that's true, is there ANY argument they could make that would convince the judge that Apple is a monopoly? The December 8 date just seems like a formality, this part of the case is dead.

[paric]

Oh I agree..but in absent of fanboyism one can see that they're hardware offerings are of the 2007 level. I like Apple so don't burn me and the free market thing is such a cop-out by saying if you don't like don't buy it. I can afford apple products and like them (own'd a pro in the past as well a mb) but honestly they are falling behind hardware wise and not sure how any rationale hardware savvy person ignores that fact. Their market share is only growing due to visita primarily and not growing the business market which MS is releasing windows 7 that will most likely bring those masses back (not a MS fan) just stating its not a draw due to apple's enormous appeal just saying its due to average person having poor choices in the market currently. Given a better windoze version most hardware users will choose the cheaper more advanced alternative. Apple products are quality but far over priced for the hardware one receives. I do love the MB look though.

Okay, so Apple does not have the latest greatest hardware. That's their right. You don't have to buy. By not buying, you are telling them that they are overpriced. When you buy, you equate the money you paid with the value of the product received. As long as people keep buying at the higher prices, there's no reason for them to lower.

We all want to pay less, but there would be ramifications if Apple were to lower their prices.

Lower prices = less margin/revenue = less motivation to risk and innovate = decreased quality = complaints about price.

[milo]

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

[corinhorn]

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

I for one don't want it to happen for a host of reasons.

[paric]

Antitrust? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


Excellent reference. Now I've got to watch that movie tonight. :)

[Winni]

"It is certainly entitled to do so."

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

[Consultant]

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

No.

Apple doesn't do the anit-competitive things that Micros0ft did and STILL DOES.

Apple does NOT tie the browser in with the OS. Apple web site works on all browsers.

Try visiting MS site (not like you want to or should), most of it STILL ONLY works with I.E.
Certain functions of wind0ws still are tied to I.E. which is ridiculous.

[Sun Baked]

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

Whatever the anticompetitive handcuffs that we placed on MS would be released if Apple became a viable competitor to MS, at 30-40% marketshare, can't remember the marketshare amount.

Which would make it a bit harder to gain 90% for Apple if MS can start fighting with all guns at 30-40%.

Doesn't mean MS can nuke Apple to zero, but just fight to slow them down and fight to maintain.

[digiguy23]

All is well and good. But why people have to take away from other companies and sell it. Geesh, Unix is open source. Instead of spending the money on lawyers and court, hire some good programmers and develop your own OS to compete with Apple and Microsoft. It's like MacOS is like a magic wand or something :p

[milo]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

Wrong.

In other words, THERE IS A LAW and APPLE HASN'T BROKEN THE LAW.

What kind of country do we live in where there are so many idiots who think that every time a big company does something they don't like, it should be illegal. It's even more ridiculous to think that things would be any different in Europe.

There IS an open market: you can buy a mac, you can buy windows, you can buy linux.

Seriously, when are people going to quit being whiny babies and get a clue about these things?

[AppleMojo]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

Yeah, we think they should leave the US to. We'll pay for their air fare! ;-)

[paric]

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

Well, it's more like Apple CAN'T be anti-competitive because of their small market share. They just don't have the influence.

But remember, even if a company has 99.999% market share, it is not a violation of antitrust laws until they misuse their market share (generally in an attempt to thwart even the possibility of competition emerging).

[DigitalM]

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

BL.

Point taken, I know what you mean. It is of course, as I'm sure you appreciate, one of the strengths of OSX that it isn't forced into supporting every hardware config under the sun. That marketing position is a major contributor to many of the more frustrating experiences in Windows. For that reason, for myself and I suspect many others, I don't ever want to see MacOS licensed freely to other hardware manufacturers.

[BRLawyer]

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

It means that those criminal hackers are on the way of the Dodo...their free-riding adventure ends right here...along with the customers that wanted it easy and cheap, at the expense of Apple's gigantic investments in R&D and IPR...just send them to the mudhole, Apple; they deserve it. BANZAI!

[yayaba]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

[corinhorn]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.No, in other words, the judge has common sense, an attribute that seems to be dying lately.

[milo]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

They CAN decide that. That's precisely what the judge said.

Meaning the rest of Psystar's case is likely in the toilet as well.

[zacman]

While that's true, is there ANY argument they could make that would convince the judge that Apple is a monopoly?

From what I can read in the Apple Insider article the judge says that there actually can be a case in which the relevant market consist of just one brand of a product. Psystar just didn't prove yet that this is also the case here with Apple. But Psystar still got the chance to make better arguments until December 8th. Time for a rabbit probably :D

[paric]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

So corporations shouldn't have rights? Without those rights, they wouldn't survive. (And you wouldn't have products like Mac OS X to complain about.)

Big corporations employ lots of people. We need them! How many jobs have you created in your lifetime?

[kamchadal]

Behind closed doors, We should be able to do whatever we want. If we want to run Apple Soft on non-Apple Hardware, we should be able to do so, if that is what we want. We should not force anyone to do it, though. I vote for freedom! We are a great country. The only one, it seems, which can put together an operating system. That must mean something...doesn't it? Or is Apple and Microsoft operating systems written by the Chinese? Now that I think of it, it could be the Chinese writing the software...

[bradl]

Then why not complain about not running an XBOX game on a PS3? Why not complain about running the i5/OS on an x86 platform? There are many other examples of other companies doing the exact same thing - and legally. You explain that to me with a little bit of clarity and then maybe one may listen to you.

Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on. I can run Linux on an XBox. I can run Linux on a PS2, and PS3. I can run Linux on a Symbian type device. As you said, I can run Linux on a Mac. I can bloody well run Linux on my Apple II. I can run another OS on another machine if I choose to - and legally. Can you run OS X on something else outside of a Mac?

I'm still waiting for an answer.


Until then, you're just a supporter of IP theft.

Nice way to take it to a personal level. :rolleyes:


Really? You think that Psystar has any influence at all on Apple? You have no idea what you're talking about do you?


Did I say this would be the end all/end all? No, but then again, nice way of overexaggerating what I was saying. It would be nice if Apple could sell OS X separately for those that would like to run it on non-Mac Hardware. That's it, that's all. Psystar could have brought attention to that in their counterclaim, but they didn't. Shame on them. BTW, you should read what I said again (as I said again above) instead of just going off.


That's absolutely what they were trying to do. But it was an epic fail since MS had over 90% marketshare while Apple is under 10%.

I guess you missed where the judge said "It is certainly entitled to do so."? Sure sounds like HE doesn't think it's anything remotely close to antitrust. And I'll bet a judge understands the law better than some anonymous random guy posting on the internet.


Yes, someone finally has the b***s to actually read a post instead of going fanboi. This is EXACTLY what I was thinking Psystar was trying to do. It failed, but this was their premise. And no, I didn't miss that the judge ruled against them. Frankly, I don't care about the judge's summary, but I did want to see how both sides argued the case.


You truly, honestly really don't get it do you?


If you'd actually read what I've been saying, you actually would get what I said, instead, you post useless drivel with no content towards the thread.

Maybe next time I'll follow Dilbert's advice[1].

BL.

[1] "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drop you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - Dogbert

[AppleMojo]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

You are correct and understand it well.

It's these whacko's that somehow think that they all deserve a free ride at the expense of Apple.

An interesting note, is that I have several colleagues that were on the "open" and "free software" kick, until they grew up, and started feeding a family as a software developer.

So until these guys experience what it is like to actually work hard and create something, they will continue to want everything for free.

[macbookairapple]

Wrong.

In other words, THERE IS A LAW and APPLE HASN'T BROKEN THE LAW.

What kind of country do we live in where there are so many idiots who think that every time a big company does something they don't like, it should be illegal. It's even more ridiculous to think that things would be any different in Europe.

There IS an open market: you can buy a mac, you can buy windows, you can buy linux.

Seriously, when are people going to quit being whiny babies and get a clue about these things?That's the problem, most of these dudes who were supporting Psystar, they don't want to pay Apple's prices so therefore what Apple is doing is illegal and they deserve to go down.

[Winni]

The fact is that OSX being only able to run on Apple hardware is as legitimate as the Blackberry OS only able to run on its hardware.

The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch (whose operating system also is not sold separately). Legally and technically, embedded devices are a completely different subject than Personal Computers - the software actually is an integrated part of the embedded device. In a PC, the operating system is not.

Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.

There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".

[babyj]

There is a contradiction in Apple's position on this, in that they encourage the installation of non-Apple OS's on their computers, they even created Boot Camp to make it easy. So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to install non-Apple OS's on their computers but on the other they don't want anyone to install their OS on a non-Apple computer.

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

How many people have complained about Apple protecting movies with HDCP so that you can only play them on certain hardware, saying that you should be able to do what you want with them once you have paid? How many of those same people are defending Apple doing the same thing with their OS in this thread? Probably a fair few.

I think both side are being pretty stupid about it all. Apple aren't going to lose much and if anything will end up gaining some new customers as people use it as an introduction to their products and then switch.

Psystar could of been a bit more clever about how they sold their computers - not pre-loading Mac OS, not modifying it and instead selling it as Mac OS compatible then pointing everyone at a 3rd party website which has the hacks to get it running. Or something like that.

[gehrbox]

The title for this story should have been "Judge kills the original MacRumors Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer thread."

"During an interview with Fox news it was reported that the goal of a 2000 message thread on the subject has been undermined by a new more worthy thread."

"Fox quoted inside sources who reported that the new thread is likely to generate a much higher volume of message posts from the "Open OS X" supporters. There is also expected to be a considerable volume of gloating Apple FanBoy message traffic."

[DigitalM]

There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".

I don't believe that's true, and challenge you to name a single similar case.

[AppleMojo]

Behind closed doors, We should be able to do whatever we want. If we want to run Apple Soft on non-Apple Hardware, we should be able to do so, if that is what we want. We should not force anyone to do it, though. I vote for freedom! We are a great country. The only one, it seems, which can put together an operating system. That must mean something...doesn't it? Or is Apple and Microsoft operating systems written by the Chinese? Now that I think of it, it could be the Chinese writing the software...

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

Remember this, who you are when nobody is looking, is truly who you are.

[corinhorn]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

They do. But nowadays, several people have an "entitlement" mentality.

[batchtaster]

Apple is the Mac market. Just as Nintendo is the Wii market.

My problem with Psystar is not that they want to compete with Apple, but that they are attempting to redefine a segment that is not theirs to redefine. If the Mac arena changes, it should (and could) only be done by Apple. This is not the same as Apple trying to "redefine" the phone/music player/whatever market, as nobody owns these segments.

It's like someone other than Nintendo trying to cut in on the Wii market and forcibly open it up to other vendors without Nintendo's approval. Is Nintendo anti-competitive because they don't offer the Wii OS for non-Wii hardware? Of course Psystar should be stopped.

And it's not as if Apple or Nintendo are without any competition. They own the widget, but they are in competition with other widget makers. You don't like the widget, buy someone else's.

Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.

The technological reason why you could or might want to is irrelevant. And whether you buy the OS separately or with a machine, the same EULA applies. So, claiming that the fact that they sell the OS separately makes a difference is nonsense - you agree to the same terms for the little (software) box or the big (hardware) box, or you breach the terms and place yourself in legal jeopardy.

I would have to agree with another poster that this seems to be all about "entitlement". "But, I should be able to..." is not a justification for breaching an EULA that you've agree to by proceeding to install/unpack/break-the-seal/whatever.

[milo]

Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on.

There are none (without hacking).

And that's perfectly legal for apple to do, as the judge explicitly said.

Frankly it doesn't matter if there are other machines that run OSX or not, apple is perfectly in their rights to only allow running it on their hardware.

The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch

But it is made clear to the consumer that OSX only runs on mac hardware. The judge said, flat out, that this is completely fine for apple to do - did you even read the article?

It doesn't matter that OSX is sold separately (since it says that it only runs on macs), and it doesn't matter that the mac isn't an embedded device.

It simply isn't illegal to sell an OS that only runs on hardware from one manufacturer. Period.

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.

Absolutely, it would be anticompetitive...but that's only because windows is a virtual monopoly since it has 90% market share.

[paric]

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.


That would be Microsoft's right, but it would be an unusual move since they would only be defying their own business model.

As it is, they would love to have their OS on 100% of Macs. They could then have near 100% market share, and still have competition from Apple to keep the anti-trust folks happy.

You're right. People would be upset and say foolish things like the things being stated in this thread. More than that, it would just be a really weird move for MS.

[paric]

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

Remember this, who you are when nobody is looking, is truly who you are.

I really don't think kamchadal had human sacrifice in mind. :rolleyes:

[jlubinsh]

That was very predictable. And welcome.

First I would like to clear one thing : I am a huge Apple fan!!! so all i tell now is not because I do not like Apple, but because I DO LOVE Apple!

It is all a bit complicated, but in short all of you who defend Apple are actually defending Apples blindness to YOUR REQUESTS!!!

for example who of Iphone 3G users would say that they do not need copy&past feature or flash in Iphones safari? HA! The only reason you do not have those loudly requested features is because Apple knows it have loyal user base so it does not have to hurry up! some guy could make copy&past feature by him self, and Adobe is SCREAMING that THEY ARE going to invest resources so you could use FULL browser on your iPhone (Not some baby internet without flash)
The problem is that Apple does not have to hurry to please your needs because they know that there is HUGE user base that WILL WAIT and that WILL GIVE money for not ready product!
So the bottom line is that Apple NEEDS some stimulation to get EVEN BETTER products for sale.

With the iPhone this Was just example!

Getting back to Mac:

Today are so many people that really DO NOT CARE HOW THIN iMAC IS!!! Just Because it is real marketing ********.
I have the last edition of white iMac's and it is actually the same in term of thin that the "thinnest" iMac we ever shipped!!! Why? Because if you put you iMac on the table it thinness is not the side off it's body, but it is actually the distance from the front off body till the end of the iMac's leg!!!
For my iMac it is 15 centimeters that is 5.9 inch.
When I am sitting in front of my iMac - I don't care how thick it is - or HOW THICK IT'S BODY IS!!! I just DO NOT SEE IT!

Knowing that you can easily put regular DESKTOP CLASS COMPONENTS - CPU, GPU in BOX THAT IS 57 cm wide x46 hight x15 depth for the same price that Apple charges for iMac and get MUCH MUCH BETTER performance!!! it REALY HURT'S

I even CAN NOT use Apples OWN product's properly because I can not afford the MAC PRO!

For example Time machine - it is perfect when you have 2 internal hard drives! but the only mac that allows it is MAC PRO!

I often use final cut studio, BUT NOT so often and not for business so it is not O.K. for me to bye MAC PRO!
But I know that today's intel technology (not even i7) allows to get MUCH MUCH greater computing power from machine that is built for $2,599.00 USD (the price for best iMac you can bye)

I know I have written much, but the button line is:

I love Apple! Today I am using ONLY Apple computers (I have 3 of them)
But I clearly know that Apple is NOT HONEST to all of it customers, because they are NOT DOING BEST THEY CAN! (one of the parts is that they do not offer desktop class products (imac is notebook class product in terms of PRICE&PERFORMANCE)

this hurt's me!
I really hoped that Psystar WILL GIVE APPLE a lesson, and that Apple would just show that they can make BETTER offer to they LOYAL customers! What would be SUPERB for All of US!!! (You All are writing in you comment's regarding some rumors that this is exactly what you want! and now you are stating that Psystar is Bad! - SOME ONE NEEDS TO SHAKE APPLE so it START'S to listen to it's customers even more!!!

Sorry for my bad english (I was writing this post for few hours because I needed to use online dictionaries)
But the button line is that I love Apple, and I am suer that they can do Better that Just earning money - I believe that Apple should learn something from Google - first do good to lot of people by giving them great value and then thing of revenues!
Got luck to all of you!!!

[ditzy]

How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts? Everyone would be screaming blue murder, anti-trust, anti-competitive and everything else they can think of.




Actually that is completly different, What apple is doing is saying you can only use their OS on their computers.
Microsoft would not be saying that they would be saying that you can't use their OS on Apple computers.
If Microsoft started making PC's then said that windows could only be used on the PC's they made I'd say fair enough.
But that is not their model of business, and if they did as you suggested they would be singleing out apple. Which is different to what apple are doing as they are excluding everyone else from using their OS.

[Winni]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

[bitWrangler]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

How is that strange? That would be a bad marketing move and that's why most "Apple zealots" would find it unfathomable. Plus you and others are again missing the bigger picture. Apple has never gone after an individual for running a hackintosh, this is all about a companies right to protect itself against other companies.

[bitWrangler]

Actually that is completly different, What apple is doing is saying you can only use their OS on their computers.
Microsoft would not be saying that they would be saying that you can't use their OS on Apple computers.
If Microsoft started making PC's then said that windows could only be used on the PC's they made I'd say fair enough.
But that is not their model of business, and if they did as you suggested they would be singleing out apple. Which is different to what apple are doing as they are excluding everyone else from using their OS.

And taking this full circle, because of Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace, they would likely face stiff regulatory opposition to selling M$ branded PC's. This is on top of the massive backlash that is likely from other OEM's

[Sun Baked]

How is that strange? That would be a bad marketing move and that's why most "Apple zealots" would find it unfathomable. Plus you and others are again missing the bigger picture. Apple has never gone after an individual for running a hackintosh, this is all about a companies right to protect itself against other companies.

Yep, the EULA is used more as a tool for managing licenses at a company level and whacking the cloners and pirates on the head.

If an individual makes an ass of himself, he may get spanked. But it is usually cheaper to simply let the criminal courts have him. aka, bye bye pirate.

[bradl]

And taking this full circle, because of Microsoft's dominant position in the marketplace, they would likely face stiff regulatory opposition to selling M$ branded PC's. This is on top of the massive backlash that is likely from other OEM's

And if I'm reading this case right, this cements the fact that there will be no OEMs as far as any MacOS is concerned..?

BL.

[krimsen]

amazing how many people are flaming psystar on this...

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair? Without the open source community, OS X would not be what it is today, yet Apple only used the community for as much as they could without opening the OS.

Legally, Apple has done nothing wrong, yet their business practices are nothing better than those of, say, MS.

[ditzy]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

You right it would be the same thing. However it makes no sense to apple to do what you suggested as that would turn a lot of people away from using macs. I certainly wouldn't use one if I could not use windows.
However I wouldn't think that they were morally wrong not to allow it. I'd just think that they were stupid.
With not allowing OSX to be used on PC's they are neither wrong or stupid.

[paric]

yap yap yap

It is not Apple's responsibility to make you able to afford their products. That is your responsibility. If you want it, you need to earn it.

If Apple is really as cruel and lazy as you suggest, you really shouldn't support them by purchasing and using their products. Go buy something from Bill Gates, patron saint of business ethics.

[kjs862]

Man I really hope we see a desktop class mac on MWSF this year and put an end to all of this.

[NAG]

I am continually amazed at this warped view of what Microsoft got nailed for. Here is a hint, they didn't get nailed for not allowing their OS to run on any hardware under the sun.

This is insane circular reasoning. You can't just say "Apple is anticompetitive because they don't license their OS which means I can't do something I want to do which means they're anticompetitive." They haven't extorted other companies or used their position to gain an unfair advantage.

I mean, the only thing that comes remotely close to anticompetitive is Apple's dealing with the music and movie industry with respect to the iTunes Music Store. Unfortunately, for the Anti-Apple folks even that falls through because you can play MP3s, aiffs, and un-DRMed aac files on the iPod (they just aren't licensing WMA so you can't play that). If it came to light that Apple was threatening the music industry with decreased royalty rates or something then yeah that would be anticompetitive (I have no idea how Apple could threaten the music industry as they are in no position, just look at NBC leaving iTunes as an example).

[Jeff Hall]

Why is it so many of you think there should be a distinction between hardware and software when both are bundled into a widget made by THE SAME company?

Where is it written in the law that if I put some software that *I* wrote on hardware that *I* designed that I'm obligated to sell *either* of these components separately to you, the consumer?

I think the problem here is consumers have been used to an Operating System being sold by one vendor for use on hardware made by another.

I am *very* against any ruling that would dictate Apple has to make its OS available apart from its hardware. That just does not make any sense to me.

For all those who complain Apple hardware is underpowered and overpriced, you are obviously placing a lot more value on the hardware of a computer than the software that runs it. Stop making this distinction, you cannot compare it to a vanilla flavored box with some other OS on it. It's just not a fair comparison. The hardware and the software are an atomic unit of value. Period. Stop thinking you're entitled to one without the other when it comes to an Apple product. Why? Because they make the WHOLE DAMN THING. IT'S THEIR PRODUCT.

Those that say Apple isn't competitive ought to look at their skyrocketing year over year growth. No one else in PC land is even close.

Just my opinion (like every other post on this forum).

[corinhorn]

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair?Screw "fair." If Psystar really wants to be competitive and actually make a difference, they should get off their lazy asses and develop something worthwhile rather than stealing a slice of a pie that someone else created and earned success from.

[Clive At Five]

@Milo, I don't know of any non-monopoly anti-competitive cases in particular. I'm not taking sides in the case until there's a verdict. It just seems a bit of a double standard to nail big guys for tying and not small guys. What do we do if Apple grow to 80% market share... when does it become wrong?

Again, not sticking up for either side, just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument. If anticompetitive laws apply to all companies (as I think they should) they could *feasibly* argue that Apple's hardware is basically equivalent to generic hardware, and therefore tying OS X to it is functionally irrelevant and therefore, falls under the definition of anticompetitive Tying.

Not making that case myself, just laying out the only possibly way Psystar could win.

NO! Don't you dare compare selfish behavior to freedom! What on earth!? Your type is exactly what is wrong with this world. You believe that you can do whatever it is you want, whenever and however... now you just do it in your own home with the blinds shut. Sickens me, as I imagine the majority of the world.

What you do behind closed doors? Are you kidding me? I can think of lots of things that shouldn't be done regardless of whether a door is open or closed.

Because it is out of sight does not make it legal!

And something "illegal" does not make it ethically wrong. Just because our government/justice system declares it to be "right" doesn't make it right. There are a lot of government practices that I find extremely unethical, for example, taking $700 billion in tax-payer money to save corporations that are suffering because of greedy and corrupt practices, instead of letting them die as they should. But since it was agreed upon by our entire legislative system it's okay?

Regardless, moving on.

I have a pile of hardware, I bought this piece of software in the Apple store, legally. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install it on the pile of hardware I have? Because it doesn't have an Apple sticker?

And performing such an installation would make me a moral heathen?

I don't think Psystar has a right to sell faux Macs, but I don't think Apple has a right to micromanage where I install software I legally purchased.

[NAG]

If you made a cake and someone came in with a judge and demanded you just give them the frosting and throw rest of the cake that took you so long to make out would that be fair? The metaphor is just as ridiculous as a court forcing a company to sell something separately.

[websyndicate]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Business market or consumer market? The problem with Mac in the business environment is that they don't have something like Active Directory that is comparable. At a admin level its a lot of work cause sometimes to enable a policy you have to hunt down each mac; some stuff cant be done by the admin remotely. When Windows 2000 was released it changed the game for admins. Super simple to enable policies and change stuff in a mass.

Apple will have to cater a business customer and come out with some business tools which I dont think its being pushed that much.

Now the iPhone has some great tools for admins and it has been done right I think but it will be a longtime if ever that in the business world that Windows will become the underdog. I agree times are changing but I know my network wont be changing anytime soon it would be a nightmare for me (where I work).

As long as people use Windows at work they will most likely buy Windows systems for home. I personally don't use windows at home its a mac only network but its what they know and Apple is a nitch market. Another reason you don't see a $599 notebook I think.

[ditzy]

amazing how many people are flaming psystar on this...

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair? Without the open source community, OS X would not be what it is today, yet Apple only used the community for as much as they could without opening the OS.

Legally, Apple has done nothing wrong, yet their business practices are nothing better than those of, say, MS.

Not true M$ went out of their way to stop you from using other companies products. Apple are restricting you to using their OS on their computers. They are not stopping you from using other products.

[bitWrangler]

And if I'm reading this case right, this cements the fact that there will be no OEMs as far as any MacOS is concerned..?

BL.

First of all, I fail to understand why this matters in the least?

Second, how can a statement by me "cement" any "fact" about what Apple may or may not do in the future? That being said, here is what I think. Apple tried the clone thing once and realized that their marketshare was too small to support a bevy of clone makers and themselves esp. at a time when the overall Mac market share was shrinking. I think that once/if Mac market share reaches some critical mass that they will be compelled by the feds to support other hardware manufacturers. Now exactly what that number is, I have no idea (though I think it's less than the 90% others have stated).

Until then your insistence on pushing this point is rather meaningless.

[krimsen]

Screw "fair." If Psystar really wants to be competitive and actually make a difference, they should get off their lazy asses and develop something worthwhile rather than stealing a slice of a pie that someone else created and earned success from.

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.

[bitWrangler]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.

How is it morally wrong again? They've met the licensing conditions of the OSS they use (including contributing all modifications back to the OSS project). How are they on moral shaky ground here? The writers of FOSS know perfectly well that these types of scenarios exist and they choose to still participate.

[macbookairapple]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.
You can't say that you don't value fairness, since you argue the same way: You think it's fair for Apple to dictate the means by which OS X can be used, which is true (legally) but imho wrong (morally). I was really surprised how few people took psystar's side and even resorted to flaming and getting personal.
But OSX is not open source.

[krimsen]

Not true M$ went out of their way to stop you from using other companies products. Apple are restricting you to using their OS on their computers. They are not stopping you from using other products.

but Apple locks in customers the same way MS did: Once you bought a Mac, you'll buy software for OS X. Once you did that, you're not likely to switch back to another platform, even if your needs aren't met hardware-wise or budget-wise. Again, perfectly legal, morally questionable. I'm with Clive At Five on this.

[SnowLeopard2008]

Quick! Buy an OpenComputer before Psystar shuts down!

Just kidding...

Seriously, Psystar's "claim" is totally inaccurate. I'm not surprised that the Judge dismissed it. I can't wait to see what they will come up with next.

[jlubinsh]

It is not Apple's responsibility to make you able to afford their products. That is your responsibility. If you want it, you need to earn it.

If Apple is really as cruel and lazy as you suggest, you really shouldn't support them by purchasing and using their products. Go buy something from Bill Gates, patron saint of business ethics.

:-)
I understand what you are talking about!
I can afford Apples products - I have ben able to afford them in last 5 years.

My point is that Apple is not giving BEST they can give for DESKTOP products! realy
You should admit that MAC pro is not the question of affording - only FEW can afford MAC pro for home usage - basically it is for PRO users!
but the thing is that todays technology - intel desktop processors - two or more hard disk option in desktop computer is REALITY that is usual for PC users but NOT for MAC users and not because Apple CANT'T do this - BUT BECAUSE THEY CAN EARN MORE on selling notebook components!

I would Gladly bye something that is from Apple that competes with psystars PC for + 20% or eve 30% premium if it would have the Apple style in it.

So I can have my home computer that is capable of using Apple time machine without external firewire 800 drive or some Apple desktop class (it can be iMac style but fatter and with desktop class internals in it FOR PERFORMANCE not for price! So I can use Apple's OWN SOFTWARE with more fun!!!

I have bought Final cut Studio legaly, but it is actualyu very hard to use with iMac 1 hard disk system and performance iMac offers today.

And what I mean by "it hurts" is that TODAY technology alows to offer MUCH BETTER DESKTOP CLASS (not PRO) system for the SAME PRICE as iMac cost!
Yes Apple should the scarifies thickness of the product but thickness for iMac i myth! Because your iMac actually end's where it's leg ends! (try to put it directly to wall and you will get huge space that SREAMS IN YOUR FACE -
WHEN APPLE WAS STATING - THIS IS THE THICKEST iMAC - IT IS MARKETING ********!

Because thickness is important for notebooks but for desktop iMac is still 15 cm thick - that is HUGE!!!

You DO NOT GET ANYTHING except payed EXTRA PRICE for notebook components when you payed for iMAC!!!
So as I see today Apple have BEST notebooks, Best PRO desktop Class systems BUT!!! No Consumer class desktop system!

iMac is almost the same as macbok air - mac book air is pefrect for those who need to move they notebook a lot and who do not use cd drive or usb ports a lot!

The iMac is for those who do not need much power, but who need's just style (this is the keyword for iMac) and are ready to change the style instead of performance!!! ( desktop for secretary who uses word - this is just example)

I am sure that there are VERY MUCH of people around that could easily sacrifice iMacs super thickness and style and would pay the same price for much fatter computer that can fit two or more hard drives, one quad core processor, 4 or 8 gigs of ram, NORMAL UPDATED GPU carD!!!

The same all in one computer with the BEST operating system in the world, but with the up to day desktop class performance!!! that is what I need and I am willing to pay!




Again sorry for bad english :-(

[bradl]

But OSX is not open source.

Are any of the other components (compiler, libraries, etc.) created by anything that is GPL/LGPL? if so, there could be conflict there. Also, What is the core of the OS? I doubt it's Mach.


but Apple locks in customers the same way MS did: Once you bought a Mac, you'll buy software for OS X. Once you did that, you're not likely to switch back to another platform, even if your needs aren't met hardware-wise or budget-wise. Again, perfectly legal, morally questionable. I'm with Clive At Five on this.


this is exactly it. In fact, even with the pricing.. better yet, let's say that Psystar was able to bundle OS X with their hardware. If they did so, would not Apple be in violation of Section 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act?

BL.

[krimsen]

How is it morally wrong again? They've met the licensing conditions of the OSS they use (including contributing all modifications back to the OSS project). How are they on moral shaky ground here? The writers of FOSS know perfectly well that these types of scenarios exist and they choose to still participate.

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Apart from a few projects like WebKit, there's not much that Apple contributes to OSS. Apple takes the updates the community produces and mainly develops the proprietary parts of OS X. While this scenario is covered by most licenses, it does not match with my perception of fairness.

[albusseverus]

"Psystar failed to provide sufficient legal support for its assertion that the Mac OS itself constitutes a market."

That will never stand.

Wasn't there that MICROSOFT thing a couple of years ago? Where all the governments and all the judges ganged up on Microsoft? There is a preponderance of material to support that particular assertion. Didn't see Microsoft trotting Apple out to show they didn't have a monopoly.

Apple must have found the only judge in America who wasn't against Microsoft.

As for the other nonsense about advertising, maybe this judge has never heard of Coca Cola either.

There's a saying in legal circles - if you want justice, don't go to court.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I love Apple, but they need a shake-up. How could they make iPhone without copy & paste? This is a company desperately in need of competition. It's happened before & they sacked Steve. I don't want Steve to go, but he needs a reality check.

Apple makes a big deal about running Windows on their hardware, but nobody can run OS X on someone else's hardware. Seriously?

There's nothing wrong with other manufacturers selling OS X for them. Apple is under no obligation to support crappy hardware, so it might even improve the PC market if they want to make machines that are Mac OS compatible.

People who want a nice quiet, all in one machine will still buy Apple and people who don't mind a leaf-blower on their desk, will still buy whatever they buy... Why shouldn't a clear thinking Apple want in on that market?

[Atomike]

So, Psystar can't sue Apple. Big deal. Apple will still lose its case against Pystar.
Only a an blind fanboy can't see how outrageously monopolistic Apple is.
I'd say likely it is the MOST monopolistic company in existence right now. It's too bad - especially for their public relations - just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all). Lately, among a growing number of folks, Apple has quite the reputation. And I must say, it's well deserved.

[macbookairapple]

So, Psystar can't sue Apple. Big deal. Apple will still lose its case against Pystar.
Only a an blind fanboy can't see how outrageously monopolistic Apple is.
I'd say likely it is the MOST monopolistic company in existence right now. It's too bad - especially for their public relations - just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all). Lately, among a growing number of folks, Apple has quite the reputation. And I must say, it's well deserved.

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

[bitWrangler]

:-)
I understand what you are talking about!
I can afford Apples products - I have ben able to afford them in last 5 years.

My point is that Apple is not giving BEST they can give for DESKTOP products! realy
You should admit that MAC pro is not the question of affording - only FEW can afford MAC pro for home usage - basically it is for PRO users!
but the thing is that todays technology - intel desktop processors - two or more hard disk option in desktop computer is REALITY that is usual for PC users but NOT for MAC users and not because Apple CANT'T do this - BUT BECAUSE THEY CAN EARN MORE on selling notebook components!


Apple not doing the "best" they can on the desktop has nothing to do with this. Apple has decided on a particular course of action for their desktop products, bifurcated Pro/Consumer, one basic product for each market. They've decided that for the consumer market, simplicity is a major design goal. The consumer market will decide if their particular direction is correct (and right now it's certainly looking that way). Apple has to make these kinds of decisions all the time about any number of markets (look at Jobs' comments about netbooks). Generally Apple is very conservative, focusing on markets (or market segments) that they know that can effectively compete in and they decided long ago that competing in the "beige box" space is not where they wanted to be. The bottom line is, how much more could Apple grow their desktop market share by introducing a MacPro light that is expandable? You'll likely find the majority of users have no problems with hanging a usb/FW drive for their time machine backups (and this is actually a better idea anyway) and again the majority will only likely want to upgrade their RAM and not much (if anything else). Sure there are gamers out there who would love to upgrade their video cards, but Apple has deemed that group too small to warrant an entire new product. So if a new product is not going to significantly grow their share, how is it worthwhile regardless of what they are technically capable of producing?

[krimsen]

just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all)

I don't think you would find too many companies that value anything but $$$. btw, there were news a while ago that Apple does have more cash than Microsoft. I don't know if that still applies, but either way Apple is anything but poor, which is an important factor in this discussion, I think.

[chris200x9]

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

.....linux is free.....must be terrible :p

[krimsen]

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

If you want to contribute, please include arguments in your posts and do not insult people.

[bitWrangler]

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Apart from a few projects like WebKit, there's not much that Apple contributes to OSS. Apple takes the updates the community produces and mainly develops the proprietary parts of OS X. While this scenario is covered by most licenses, it does not match with my perception of fairness.

There is Darwin, a small part of the OS.

[bitWrangler]

.....linux is free.....must be terrible :p

Linux is only free if you don't value your time :D

[macbookairapple]

If you want to contribute, please include arguments in your posts and do not insult people.

It's not an insult, he doesn't know what a monoply is and is just overstating this same old tireless rant, Apple is the new Microsoft, like who cares. :rolleyes:

[chris200x9]

Linux is only free if you don't value your time :D

care to explain :confused:

[domain]

Like, use OpenDarwin and develop an Aqua-compatible GUI? I'd love that.

While I admire the enthusiasm, if you really support this whole "open" model then why haven't you written it yet? To put it another way... if it were that simple, someone would have already done it... how long have some of us waited for a replacement to that crufty X server (decades?).


Seriously, that was exactly my point: Apple's use of open source software for OS X jeopardizes locking in the OS. Do they really "earn" to close a system that's based on open source? Sure, they developed quite a bit on top, and they deserve to get paid for their work. But I say to be fair, they shold be more open.

Apple uses "open source" under the guidelines set forth by the original creators... so long as they follow those guidelines they are free to continue (legally)... the "moral" aspect is some sort of GNU/fabrication...

And really, most of these arguments come from the whole GNU/freewilly camp... what people have to realize is... it took individuals with enough foresight to recognize the value that the "underpinnings" of Mac OSX had, and it took talented individuals to make those ideals a reality. Those type of things generally fall into APPLE/notfree camp.

But again... all the naysayers are welcome to fire up vim, start writing code to change the situation, and do so on their own dime. Until then I will let my wallet speak for me...

[nuthinlikerubbi]

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?


You are mistaken, Apple hardware is expensive, but not overpriced. You may think it’s the same thing but they are not.
An example of an overpriced product would be a ferrari – why? Because I can get similar levels of performance from a Porsche for much less money. In that case, a ferrari is overpriced.

But you cannot call apple hardware overpriced. If Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc. were to make computers using high grade aluminum, scratch resistant glass and fantastic details and finish and offer it at the price they currently offer their pc’s, then I would agree with you that Apple hardware is overpriced. But the fact remains that no other computer maker can make computers with level of quality that Apple does; so you cannot call them overpriced. Apple hardware is expensive though which is fair enough.

And I totally support Apple in this lawsuit. Not because I am a fanboi but because I think the US legal system is stupid. If I create a product using my ingenuity and hardwork, I should be in a position to decide how it should be and in what form factor. If I do not want to see my product being used in a way that does not fit the corporate image, I should have every right to restrict that. Apple should have complete rights to decide how their own product is being used and distributed.
I say this not as an Apple fanboi though; I completely supported MS during their trial of Internet explorer and Windows media player as well. I felt they should have been allowed to decide how they want to package their software as long they did not restrict other browsers or players from being installed on the pc.

[krimsen]

There is Darwin, a small part of the OS.

I know :D
How many changes Apple contributes are included in other BSD systems? How many people use Darwin without Aqua?
I'd guess (as in: I do not know for a fact) that Apple's contribution to OSS is minimal in terms of code that is actually used somewhere else.

[markm49uk]

Another dude who doesn't know what monoply means.

It's unbelievable isn't it ?

I mean they cannot grasp that Apple has every right to say that their OS can only be used on their hardware - this does not consitute a monopoly or breach antitrust legislation.

Jeez - it's as bad as the idiots who say Apple should just licence the OS to the wider market - they just do not get it.

Sigh.

[bitWrangler]

"Psystar failed to provide sufficient legal support for its assertion that the Mac OS itself constitutes a market."

That will never stand.

Wasn't there that MICROSOFT thing a couple of years ago? Where all the governments and all the judges ganged up on Microsoft? There is a preponderance of material to support that particular assertion. Didn't see Microsoft trotting Apple out to show they didn't have a monopoly.

Apple must have found the only judge in America who wasn't against Microsoft.

As for the other nonsense about advertising, maybe this judge has never heard of Coca Cola either.

There's a saying in legal circles - if you want justice, don't go to court.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again - I love Apple, but they need a shake-up. How could they make iPhone without copy & paste? This is a company desperately in need of competition. It's happened before & they sacked Steve. I don't want Steve to go, but he needs a reality check.

Apple makes a big deal about running Windows on their hardware, but nobody can run OS X on someone else's hardware. Seriously?

There's nothing wrong with other manufacturers selling OS X for them. Apple is under no obligation to support crappy hardware, so it might even improve the PC market if they want to make machines that are Mac OS compatible.

People who want a nice quiet, all in one machine will still buy Apple and people who don't mind a leaf-blower on their desk, will still buy whatever they buy... Why shouldn't a clear thinking Apple want in on that market?

The first half of this makes no sense? Microsoft thing? Coca Cola?

Being able to run Windows on Mac hardware is a non issue. Windows has no hardware license restrictions.

Why is there is myth that Apple could just throw OSX out there for every clone maker to use and not have this substantially negatively impact Apple? Have any of these folks bothered to look at Apple's 10Q/K's to see where they make the majority of their money?

[macbookairapple]

Nothing in this world is overpriced, you sell at the price you can make the most money and people way pay to buy your product. If Apple's products were "overpriced", no one would be buying them and they would be out of business.

[mccldwll]

Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on. I can run Linux on an XBox. I can run Linux on a PS2, and PS3. I can run Linux on a Symbian type device. As you said, I can run Linux on a Mac. I can bloody well run Linux on my Apple II. I can run another OS on another machine if I choose to - and legally. Can you run OS X on something else outside of a Mac?

I'm still waiting for an answer.


t

Keep waiting. It's irrelevant. If you understood the issue, you would understand that.

[bradl]

It's not an insult, he doesn't know what a monoply is and is just overstating this same old tireless rant, Apple is the new Microsoft, like who cares. :rolleyes:

It may be the same old rant, but it doesn't make it any less important to people than it already is, especially with cases like this.

Granted, this case won't mean a damn thing to the dumbed down general public, emo kids, and fanbois, but what they're doing may be legal, but morally is turning out to be less than par. I don't think this is the road Apple wants to go down.

Keep waiting. It's irrelevant. If you understood the issue, you would understand that.

It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that. heh.. keyword fail.

BL.

[bitWrangler]

I know :D
How many changes Apple contributes are included in other BSD systems? How many people use Darwin without Aqua?
I'd guess (as in: I do not know for a fact) that Apple's contribution to OSS is minimal in terms of code that is actually used somewhere else.

That others choose not to utilize Darwin is not Apple's issue. It's there. If you wanted to take it and produce and sell a product that is based on it, you are free to do so. If Dell wanted to come up with their own tweaked version and stick it free on every PC they sell they can. How much more open would you like them to be on this? I guess other little used FOSS should be morally subjugated due to their lack of use?

[jlubinsh]

Apple not doing the "best" they can on the desktop has nothing to do with this. Apple has decided on a particular course of action for their desktop products, bifurcated Pro/Consumer, one basic product for each market. They've decided that for the consumer market, simplicity is a major design goal. The consumer market will decide if their particular direction is correct (and right now it's certainly looking that way). Apple has to make these kinds of decisions all the time about any number of markets (look at Jobs' comments about netbooks). Generally Apple is very conservative, focusing on markets (or market segments) that they know that can effectively compete in and they decided long ago that competing in the "beige box" space is not where they wanted to be. The bottom line is, how much more could Apple grow their desktop market share by introducing a MacPro light that is expandable? You'll likely find the majority of users have no problems with hanging a usb/FW drive for their time machine backups (and this is actually a better idea anyway) and again the majority will only likely want to upgrade their RAM and not much (if anything else). Sure there are gamers out there who would love to upgrade their video cards, but Apple has deemed that group too small to warrant an entire new product. So if a new product is not going to significantly grow their share, how is it worthwhile regardless of what they are technically capable of producing?

This is exactly what I was saying - Apple is focusing ONLY on money making!
As I see it they should be more like Google!!!
I am not saying that Apple do not need to make revenu no not at all!!!
I am glad that they do, but last two years show that what is revenue for Apple is not always best for consumer (even if he is paying PREMIUM)
Apple have BEST OS, but have NO DESKTOP computers for it!

And actually if Apple will continue like this then they will turn in to the same GREY POWER that their best ad was against of!!! (in 80's)
Because if Apple will continue this way and will get for example 50% of market share then all of the 50% mac users will use the same computers in the same black an white colors, with the exact same features!

I Just want Mac OS in DESKTOP class computer so I can better use Apples SUPER soft for VIDEO editing for my little daughter home movies (imovie is way too limited for me, and i have bought final cut and I know how to use it)

I really do not believe that there is little market for desktop class computers that can run Apple Mac OS X legally - with support! I am sure there are MANY MANY people that can give away of their some 10 cm of their iMacs thickness so they get DESKTOP class components for the same Apple premium price!

[bradl]

That others choose not to utilize Darwin is not Apple's issue. It's there. If you wanted to take it and produce and sell a product that is based on it, you are free to do so. If Dell wanted to come up with their own tweaked version and stick it free on every PC they sell they can. How much more open would you like them to be on this? I guess other little used FOSS should be morally subjugated due to their lack of use?

Well here is another question.. Can you buy a piece of Mac hardware barebones?

Keep in mind, the last Apple hardware I had before the iPhone was a IIe back in '81. It was about as bare as it could be: no disk in the drive, no running computer.

BL.

[bitWrangler]

This is exactly what I was saying - Apple is focusing ONLY on money making!
As I see it they should be more like Google!!!

Now that is the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread. You honestly believe that Google believes in anything other than pimping more ads? I guess you've bought into their "do no evil" mantra? I could blabber endlessly about google but suffice it to say, you really need to find another role model, google does not fit the bill here.

[macbookairapple]

It may be the same old rant, but it doesn't make it any less important to people than it already is, especially with cases like this.

Granted, this case won't mean a damn thing to the dumbed down general public, emo kids, and fanbois, but what they're doing may be legal, but morally is turning out to be less than par. I don't think this is the road Apple wants to go down.


The problem with many of you is feel that if a company doesn't do what you want them to it makes what they are doing illegal or not right and therefore you want to find anyway to force them to do what you want them to do.

There is nothing morally wrong with what Apple is doing. They are going after people who are using their product and name to sell their computers. What if you were in Apple's shoes and someone was doing that to you, how would you feel, I have a feeling you wouldn't be son friendly, and you want to talk about morals, please.

[macbookairapple]

Now that is the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread. You honestly believe that Google believes in anything other than pimping more ads? I guess you've bought into their "do no evil" mantra? I could blabber endlessly about google but suffice it to say, you really need to find another role model, google does not fit the bill here.Like Google doesn't care about money. :D

[jlubinsh]

Nothing in this world is overpriced, you sell at the price you can make the most money and people way pay to buy your product. If Apple's products were "overpriced", no one would be buying them and they would be out of business.

Yes!!! I am not talking about pricing lower, but about changing one feature (thickness of desktop computer) to another (desktop class components - GPU, CPU, HDD count, RAM)

Who of you of iMac owners would not be willing to give away some 10 cm of your iMac thickness for exchange of DESKTOP class video card radeon 4850 for example, and abilities to get 2 or 4 hard drives in your Mac?
The reason I am SCREAMING is that the price for the "thickest iMac we ever shipped is the SAME as for above mentioned features (Faster CPU, NORMAL GPU, Two or more HDD's)

[bitWrangler]

Well here is another question.. Can you buy a piece of Mac hardware barebones?

Keep in mind, the last Apple hardware I had before the iPhone was a IIe back in '81. It was about as bare as it could be: no disk in the drive, no running computer.

BL.

Uh again, how is this relevant? An IBM PC of that era would boot BASIC with no disk (as would a Commodore or any number of other computers), so what? How is this germane?

[mccldwll]

It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that.

BL.

Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.

[bradl]

The problem with many of you is feel that if a company doesn't do what you want them to it makes what they are doing illegal or not right and therefore you want to find anyway to force them to do what you want them to do.

There is nothing morally wrong with what Apple is doing. They are going after people who are using their product and name to sell their computers. What if you were in Apple's shoes and someone was doing that to you, how would you feel, I have a feeling you wouldn't be son friendly, and you want to talk about morals, please.

Like I already said, if Psystar is wanting OS X with intention to sell it at a cheaper price, that is a problem. However, I can see where they are coming from and what they could have done instead of what they did. I was just simply pointing that out to everyone, and in return fanbois came out of the woordwork. Like I said, I don't care either way on what happens in this case, but did have ideas on what Apple could do to make a win-win situation with companies that want to make Mac Clones.

But apparently some people in these forums can't be objective enough stomach that thought. :rolleyes:

Not attacking you, but just trying to say.. I'll exit this thread now, since with those same people, it would would be easier to clap with one hand than to talk/argue/debate with them.


Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.


Thank you for proving my point.

BL.

[mccldwll]

Guess the court failed to realize that too. Sometimes facts and a legal education just get in the way. Too bad Karras didn't have you to advise him.

Make that Alsup. I was thinking about Papermaster.

[bitWrangler]

Yes!!! I am not talking about pricing lower, but about changing one feature (thickness of desktop computer) to another (desktop class components - GPU, CPU, HDD count, RAM)

Who of you of iMac owners would not be willing to give away some 10 cm of your iMac thickness for exchange of DESKTOP class video card radeon 4850 for example, and abilities to get 2 or 4 hard drives in your Mac?
The reason I am SCREAMING is that the price for the "thickest iMac we ever shipped is the SAME as for above mentioned features (Faster CPU, NORMAL GPU, Two or more HDD's)

You're missing the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are a fair number of folks out there who would love to have something in between an imac/mini and a macpro. Apple certainly knows this. They've decided that there isn't enough of a market to warrant creating a product for this segment (at least up to now). Apple is a company, not a computer charity. They go after markets that they feel are worth going after. No one is served if Apple tries to make everybody happy and fails as a company doing it (as they nearly did several years ago).

[jlubinsh]

Like Google doesn't care about money. :D

Yes Google DOES Care about making money, but the model of that is the most honest to USERS!!!

Google first INVEST IN PRODUCT so THAT USERS LIKE IT and ONLY THEN they are searching for BEST revenue model!

Apple in other hand are FIRST SEARCHING FOR REVENUE model and then they are thinking what features can we give to get THAT revenue.

Again, I AM APPLE PRODUCT'S FAN, and today I am using only Apple computer products (last time I used windows was 5 years ago) And I look at Mac OS as on only serious OS around (I hope that windows 7 will give Apple a shake, because I know that competition is GOOD FOR ENDUSER and that LACK of competition is BAD FOR ENDUSER and that TODAY APPLE is in situation where every ENDUSER who is EDUCATED enough so he know the features of both OS MAC and WIN Will chose MAC so as I (Apple fun-boy) see it Apple today have complete monopoly on BEST OS around, and are limiting this BEST OS to only Notebooks and PRO users - NO DESKTOP USERS!

[mccldwll]

I can see where they are coming from and what they could have done instead of what they did.
BL.

No. They couldn't have done that either. You don't understand the legal issues.

[bradl]

Uh again, how is this relevant? An IBM PC of that era would boot BASIC with no disk (as would a Commodore or any number of other computers), so what? How is this germane?

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

[bitWrangler]

... Like I said, I don't care either way on what happens in this case, but did have ideas on what Apple could do to make a win-win situation with companies that want to make Mac Clones.

But apparently some people in these forums can't be objective enough stomach that thought. :rolleyes:

Not attacking you, but just trying to say.. I'll exit this thread now, since with those same people, it would would be easier to clap with one hand than to talk/argue/debate with them.


Again you're ignoring history and current market realities. Apple already tried to play the clone game and it didn't work out. The good thing is that they learned some serious lessons. You believe that there can be a scenario where Apple can benefit from clones, some of us here (and Apple themselves) do not happen to agree (that and I don't think I've seen where you've actually stated what your idea is).

And who is not being objective? I think for all the arguments you've made others have come up with logical counter arguments. It's seems like it's you who can't stomach the thought that some folks simply believe that your argument does not have validity.

[Sun Baked]

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

But as people would point out in this situation, if the Mac with OS are vastly more expensive than the competition ... removing the OS from the machine would make little difference in the price of the machine (aka, $50-80 for OEM), and do nothing to improve competition for a competing OS -- since alternatives are available for both the OS and the HW.

[bitWrangler]

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

No, I understand that. My question is why does this matter? What is the relevancy of this particular point? Most folks agree that you pay a premium for Apple hardware, who would want to purchase Apple hardware to run say Linux on when you can purchase the equiv. hardware for less?

[jlubinsh]

You're missing the point. I don't think anyone disagrees that there are a fair number of folks out there who would love to have something in between an imac/mini and a macpro. Apple certainly knows this. They've decided that there isn't enough of a market to warrant creating a product for this segment (at least up to now). Apple is a company, not a computer charity. They go after markets that they feel are worth going after. No one is served if Apple tries to make everybody happy and fails as a company doing it (as they nearly did several years ago).

But they CAN BE MORE FLEXIBLE!
They do not need to be "computer charity"!
They Can EARN MONEY by selling their OS for computers that are made by LICENSED & APPLE APPROVED 3'rd party producers of desktop class (or any other class (like tablet) computers.

I understand that all of this is actually the ******** because Apple is share holder company, and they do not care HOW MUCH MONEY they make in revenue, but how much PROFIT they make on every $!!! THIS IS THE MANE MOTIVATION FOR APPLE!!!

We all know that Apple today have huge cash reserves.
And all that share holders wand is not the revenue, but the percentage of revenue.
It is better for them that some cash is just sitting in bank account and doing nothing, but some is making 30% or even more revenue.

If the invested cash is making less they do not care how much ACTUAL MONEY THEY MAKE!!!
But the problem is that company CAN NOT ALWAYS GROW with 2 digit figures!

Someday they will need to focus no on revenue %, but on actual money they make!

The problem is that till then, loyal Apple customers will not get best they can get!

[domain]

Well here is another question.. Can you buy a piece of Mac hardware barebones?


"Piece of Mac hardware" is way too broad... yes I have a professional sound card sitting next to me that can be used in a Mac... but I don't think that is what you are driving at...

Whatever the case... it is the same argument again and again... Apple sells a "package deal". They market/advertise that way, and they sell that way... it is their choice. I personally haven't seen a single statement from Apple claiming otherwise.

As for the hardware/architecture argument earlier... the previous poster is correct... it is ultimately irrelevant. Linux can run on everything? Great... that is their "choice"... which is often the selling point behind Linux. Apple never claimed OSX would run on your Commodore 64, Network Appliance, PDA, or even your toaster (though I'm sure iToast would cook your toast in style).

[rjfiske]

Because like someone already posted, you can buy a PC barebones, whereas with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine. Yes, you can take off OS X when you get it and put something else on, but that means you already have OS X whether you wanted it or not..

BL.

Except, like many have already posted, that is irrelevant. Listen, does it suck that OS X is only available on machines that come from Apple? Maybe. But this is Apple's business model, which a court of law (and not a small amount of common sense) has determined is a-ok.

Me, I'm fine with Apple requiring their hardware to run their operating software. In fact I prefer it. But much more to the point, there's nothing wrong with them doing this.

[markm49uk]

It may be the same old rant, but it doesn't make it any less important to people than it already is, especially with cases like this.

Granted, this case won't mean a damn thing to the dumbed down general public, emo kids, and fanbois, but what they're doing may be legal, but morally is turning out to be less than par. I don't think this is the road Apple wants to go down.



It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that. heh.. keyword fail.

BL.

Seriously you are wrong as pointed out numerous times including by the judge in this case - what is this moral argument you appear to be trying to make ?

You have dodged every single point made in response to your questions and keep trying to change your angle of attack on each occasion ?
:confused:

[bitWrangler]

Yes Google DOES Care about making money, but the model of that is the most honest to USERS!!!

Google first INVEST IN PRODUCT so THAT USERS LIKE IT and ONLY THEN they are searching for BEST revenue model!

Apple in other hand are FIRST SEARCHING FOR REVENUE model and then they are thinking what features can we give to get THAT revenue.


If you think that's the way that google works then Sergy's RDF is every bit as powerful as Steve's :rolleyes:

If not more :eek:

Gosh, my search experience is so much better now than five years ago! I love getting all those aggregation sites and portals for every search I do, it's wonderful. I'm so happy that google is able to utilize all that money and the best programmers in the world to my benefit. :p

[mccldwll]

But they CAN BE MORE FLEXIBLE!
They do not need to be "computer charity"!
They Can EARN MONEY by selling their OS for computers that are made by LICENSED & APPLE APPROVED 3'rd party producers of desktop class (or any other class (like tablet) computers.

I understand that all of this is actually the ******** because Apple is share holder company, and they do not care HOW MUCH MONEY they make in revenue, but how much PROFIT they make on every $!!! THIS IS THE MANE MOTIVATION FOR APPLE!!!

We all know that Apple today have huge cash reserves.
And all that share holders wand is not the revenue, but the percentage of revenue.
It is better for them that some cash is just sitting in bank account and doing nothing, but some is making 30% or even more revenue.

If the invested cash is making less they do not care how much ACTUAL MONEY THEY MAKE!!!
But the problem is that company CAN NOT ALWAYS GROW with 2 digit figures!

Someday they will need to focus no on revenue %, but on actual money they make!

The problem is that till then, loyal Apple customers will not get best they can get!

Huh???? All of that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[thomahawk]

i hope that Mac OS will only be put on Apple made computers ONLY and lets keep it that way!

[bitWrangler]

But they CAN BE MORE FLEXIBLE!
They do not need to be "computer charity"!
They Can EARN MONEY by selling their OS for computers that are made by LICENSED & APPLE APPROVED 3'rd party producers of desktop class (or any other class (like tablet) computers.

I understand that all of this is actually the ******** because Apple is share holder company, and they do not care HOW MUCH MONEY they make in revenue, but how much PROFIT they make on every $!!! THIS IS THE MANE MOTIVATION FOR APPLE!!!


Look at Apples 10K (annual report). Find out how much revenue and profit they make on hardware vs software. This will give you a big clue as to why they DON'T do what you mention. Simple as that.

ALL companies care about profit. GM makes a buttload in revenue, but if you're not making a profit then hello banckruptcy court. Business 101 here. Now there is some interesting arguments about what Apple can be doing with that cash horde, but willy nilly spending it "for the good of the people" is not one of them.

[bradl]

Seriously you are wrong as pointed out numerous times including by the judge in this case - what is this moral argument you appear to be trying to make ?

You have dodged every single point made in response to your questions and keep trying to change your angle of attack on each occasion ?
:confused:

Damn it.

I said I was getting out of this, but here I am again. :rolleyes:

All I said was that I can see where Apple is coming from, I agree with what the judge said, and Psystar's approach to this was wrong. What is there to NOT understand about that?!?!? :confused:

What I also said is that I can see situations that are win-win for Apple and any clone-type producer. Whether Apple agrees with that or not is their decision, not mine. All I said is that I can see where they could gain from it. What is there to NOT understand about that?

I also said that I can see where they could gain from selling OS X separately, and was leading to where they could sell a Mac barebones. If other PC Clones could do that, Apple could do that as well.

I also said that most other companies making enterprise-wide Unix boxes aren't tied to a single OS anymore. What is there to NOT understand about that?

In the end, this is the judge's decision, which they made. Do I care either way about the summary? No. What Psystar did in asking for OS X so they could sell it again was wrong, and I've said that many times in this thread. there is nothing to misunderstand about that.

If there's anything else you don't understand, PM me, and we'll talk. I'm out.

BL.

[sharp65]

I'm sure the will appeal and drag this out.

[skipjakk]

So, Psystar can't sue Apple. Big deal. Apple will still lose its case against Pystar.
Only a an blind fanboy can't see how outrageously monopolistic Apple is.
I'd say likely it is the MOST monopolistic company in existence right now. It's too bad - especially for their public relations - just look at the huge number of people that now see Apple as downright evil. It's officially replaced Microsoft - in reputation that is - financially they're not comparable at all). Lately, among a growing number of folks, Apple has quite the reputation. And I must say, it's well deserved.

So your saying that Apple is the dominant company within their market, and there's no other significant competition? Sorry to jump on the "monopoly" using bandwagon here but most statistics I've seen on the market Apple is in list them as a pretty small player.....


And before you bash me for being an Apple fanboy, I am typing this on a PC.....

[lkrupp]

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

It means that all the screwballs who posted in these forums about how Psystar had a case and how Apple was a monopoly unto itself (go figure) and how they wished Psystar would win... it means that all these "experts" now have so much egg on their faces that they look like omlets.:D:p;)

[dernhelm]

Oh good. A new Psystar thread. :D

I'm not surprised by this decision; I wonder if they can or will appeal against this part of the case.

I kinda like Psystar but their legal council needs some real help. It was pure lunacy to try to define a "Mac OS" market and claim Apple has a monopoly there. By that definition, every company holds a monopoly on everything it creates. I hope Psystar didn't spend too much money on those idiotic claims.

But maybe that's just it, if they lose here, they probably won't have long to live anyway...

[jlubinsh]

If you think that's the way that google works then Sergy's RDF is every bit as powerful as Steve's :rolleyes:

If not more :eek:

Gosh, my search experience is so much better now than five years ago! I love getting all those aggregation sites and portals for every search I do, it's wonderful. I'm so happy that google is able to utilize all that money and the best programmers in the world to my benefit. :p

Yes you search experience is so much better, but your MAC OSX DESKTOP experience is NOT AS GOOD AS Today's TECHNOLOGY ALOWES it to BE!
That's my point - thickness of your desktop computer is NOT the measure for DESKTOP experience.

I am not arguing against Apple products (theya re making SUPER BEST NOTEBOOK Macs, and SUPER BEST pro MAcs BUT for desktop they left just style with no performance)

[Blue Velvet]

I kinda like Psystar but their legal council needs some real help. It was pure lunacy to try to define a "Mac OS" market and claim Apple has a monopoly there. By that definition, every company holds a monopoly on everything it creates. I hope Psystar didn't spend too much money on those idiotic claims.


I don't have much sympathy with Psystar. If you're serious about business, you take proper legal advice before embarking on a venture such as this, especially when it concerns the business of a multi-billion company like Apple, which already has a substantial legal history of protecting its interests.

Sure, I would like much cheaper Macs. If I had the patience and knowledge, I'd be tempted to run OS X on a little machine I could run as a server. But I also know that Apple are not interested in chasing down small fry; they're after those who want to appropriate their legally-owned property for their own commercial ends.

[lkrupp]

I kinda like Psystar but their legal council needs some real help. It was pure lunacy to try to define a "Mac OS" market and claim Apple has a monopoly there. By that definition, every company holds a monopoly on everything it creates. I hope Psystar didn't spend too much money on those idiotic claims.

But maybe that's just it, if they lose here, they probably won't have long to live anyway...

But remember Psystar also sells computers with other operating systems installed. If they are such a good value then losing the OS X market won't really matter to them will it. But I have suspected all along that Psystar was a front for someone else with an agenda. They deliberately tweaked Apple's nose in order to get a lawsuit filed so they could argue their legal theory in front of a judge. Now that that legal gambit has been played I would not be surprised to see Psystar close up shop sooner rather than later. If it quacks like a duck. It would also not surprise me to find out that somebody like Dell was behind this. If they could get Apple's EULA tossed they could start selling OS X Dells and force Apple to support them.

[matticus008]

Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.
They did. That was this case. Their argument as to monopoly status and as to market power (a prerequisite for tying) was dismissed this morning. As a result, the tying claim was dismissed.

The entire counterclaim was based on the Sherman Act's tying provisions and has been discussed ad nauseum for months, each time with people not understanding the law grossly misapplying snippets and phrases to reach untenable positions.

As the experts have said from the beginning, there wasn't much hope for Psystar.

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?
Yes, but the question is irrelevant.
Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?
PC clones didn't use stolen IBM parts. The question is irrelevant.
If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer.
Of course there is. That's the whole point. The processor architecture does not make a platform alone. More to the point, though, the creator of a work gets to decide how and when they will sell it, and to whom. This is painfully basic, and hundreds of posters on this forum and others simply can't get it through their heads.
Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on.
None. The question is, like the others, irrelevant. It may be capable of running on every electronic device created since the beginning of time, but it does not matter.
It would be nice if Apple could sell OS X separately for those that would like to run it on non-Mac Hardware.
They can. They choose not to, as is their right.
The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch (whose operating system also is not sold separately). Legally and technically, embedded devices are a completely different subject than Personal Computers
No. You're mixing different concepts together. Being an embedded device has no legal relevance on distribution of copyrighted works.
Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.
And only the sales terms of a painting restricts the choice of which walls it can be hung from. Your point?
There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".
Not really. Countries with more expansive competition law are also usually offset by more expansive and creator-oriented copyright law. Certainly in all Western legal systems, the right to create a software product and make it available only for your own customers is well established.
There is a contradiction in Apple's position on this, in that they encourage the installation of non-Apple OS's on their computers, they even created Boot Camp to make it easy.
There is no contradiction. Microsoft sells Windows to everyone and is eager to sell copies to Mac users as well. Linux is available to everyone. Apple hardware is compatible and vendors of those other products want to sell/distribute for it.
How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts?
They could not, because that would be selective non-inclusion and because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Apple aren't going to lose much and if anything will end up gaining some new customers
Lose much? The ability to control the reproduction and distribution of their work is the most valuable element of OS X.

Psystar could of been a bit more clever about how they sold their computers - not pre-loading Mac OS, not modifying it and instead selling it as Mac OS compatible then pointing everyone at a 3rd party website which has the hacks to get it running. Or something like that.
They'd still be on the hook for inducement, contributory infringement, and trademark misappropriation.
Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".
Alsup would not have done so, and Apple would not be able to do so. Apple controls the distribution of OS X, not Windows.
Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.
Not at all. Apple is free to sell whatever it chooses, so long as it belongs to Apple. Placing a "EULA" on the hardware would only occur if Apple retained some interest in the hardware, which it does not. On the other hand, Apple retains most of the rights and all of the ownership of OS X. If Apple did license certain rights to you as to the hardware, they could dictate terms, but unlike with software, the retail consumer has no need for access to hardware IP.
I'm not taking sides in the case until there's a verdict.
There won't be one.
It just seems a bit of a double standard to nail big guys for tying and not small guys.
Why? Tying is not illegal, just like being a monopoly is not illegal. Only when you use it to control prices of unrelated products or specifically to damage competitors trying to sell their own products has the market been harmed. A small player doesn't have the ability to do that. Apple does not control the pricing of either Windows or HP computers.
when does it become wrong?
When Apple directly dictates the pricing of competitors' own products, and not simply through price leadership.
Again, not sticking up for either side, just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument.
And again, they did. It was dismissed this morning for failure to establish market power through failure to define the market. They tried to artificially create market power for Apple by ill-defining a market that only included Apple.
falls under the definition of anticompetitive Tying.
It falls under the definition of tying. It does not fall under the definition of anticompetitive tying.
Not making that case myself, just laying out the only possibly way Psystar could win.
Yes. And they lost, with a chance to amend their complaint with a proper definition of a market. Unfortunately, by doing so, they essentially preclude a finding of market power, and will simply be dismissed again.
I have a pile of hardware, I bought this piece of software in the Apple store, legally.
And Apple allowed it to be sold, legally, in full contemplation of what Apple chose to sell you, and nothing more.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to install it on the pile of hardware I have?
Because you didn't pay for that right. Like all products, there is a spectrum of rights. A purchase of some does not imply a purchase of all, and it never has. Since you don't have any rights to the product at all to begin with, you only get what they're willing to sell, subject to a few caveats for the seller.

Sales and licenses of IP have been going on for centuries, and it's really only recently that the laity has been exposed to it. You tend not to think of the restrictions on most of the things you buy, even though they're there. Even walking into the store involves license. The less tangible the action, the more express the terms surrounding it.
That will never stand.
It will. The copious caselaw on what constitutes a market is quite conclusive. This was a fast and loose ploy to try to confuse a judge with technology and not the law, and he saw through it.
Didn't see Microsoft trotting Apple out to show they didn't have a monopoly.
As a matter of fact, they did. They had whole sections of their briefs devoted to their competition with Apple.

The idea that this case has anything to do with Microsoft's practices is simply absurd. Simply put, Microsoft acted to expand their level of power and control; Apple, on the other hand, is quite clearly harming their opportunity to expand to its full potential, as so many of you have argued. They have no desire to control anything but their own products.
Apple must have found the only judge in America who wasn't against Microsoft.
Clearly you don't know anything about the judge. He's blocked mergers (of defense contractors, no less) and has done huge amounts of work in securities, before being appointed by Clinton. He's no lackey, and he knows the law.

[plokoonpma]

It is better to stand up and lose, than never to stand up. I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

You can't force a company to share their products & earnings with others, it is their call. At this time Apple wont.

I think it was a good call from the judge, can't think a world that alouds other to profit of some other works and products without pay for it.

[AtariKee]

It is more than relevant, as other people have noted and posted. Too bad you fail to realize that. heh.. keyword fail.

It IS relevant.... to those who want a cheapass Mac. Too bad. Get a real job.

[rjfiske]

...

+1. They should put your reply as a sticky on the first page to save readers 8 pages of dribble.

[AtariKee]

<snip>

Just scroll up and read this post. Bravo for explaining, clearly and concisely, every point that the mouth-breathing armchair judges and lawyers here have gotten wrong time and time again since this case started. Excellent post. :apple:

[nuthinlikerubbi]

One last thought on this:

Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".

Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.

But strangely enough, a ruling like this would seem unfathomable even to the greatest Apple zealot.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Microsoft primarily sells their software as a standalone product (in other words they are not packaging this with any hardware themselves). They license their software to pc makers such as HP and Dell who then use the software on their machines and sell them. So for Microsoft to sell/license to every pc manufacturer (even that guy who builds computers in his garage) but not to Apple is illegal.

But what Apple is doing is different. They are not being biased against any single manufacturer; they do not want their os on ANY computer other than an Apple computer (they are not saying it’s ok for HP to use their os but not Psystar, in which case it would be illegal again).

Please do not confuse the issue and say that it is the same as Microsoft not allowing apple to use their os. If Microsoft were to tell apple that they cannot install their os on apple computers, then they would also have to do the same to HP, Dell, etc.

[minik]

Shut up, cloner(s). The judge got it right this time. On the hand, the Hackintosh community is still at large.

[mccldwll]

....and he knows the law.

As always, I appreciate the patience and clarity. Thanks for showing up. What kept you?

[rhpenguin]

Shut up, cloner(s). The judge got it right this time. On the hand, the Hackintosh community is still at large.

And will continue to be. After my seventh logicboard replacement in my iBook and having three logicboard replacements in my Powermac, I vowed never to own another Apple computer again. Their OS is pretty good though, so I took the middleground. Built my own rig and bought the OS. Everything works fine and I'm my own support. This machine has actually been running overclocked for more than a year now and will blow the doors off of any of the Apple consumer grade offerings in performance. Costs less too. There's also other perks like being able to use two matched displays and have 8GB of RAM without dropping a minimum of $3K for a machine.

Why hate on the Hacintosh community though? I see not liking a company that is taking the Hacintosh communities hard work and making a buck off of it because the community itself doesn't like that all too much, but why hate the community at large?

[jaminthejar]

Sounds like the right decision, although, I do think it's kind of unfortunate that Apple had to come down on them, because I support little endeavors like the one Psystar was doing.

I mean, wouldn't this kind of be like, if someone was making home made XBox 360s that could play XBox 360 games? Or a home made Wii that could play Wii games? It just doesn't sound quite right.

[Sun Baked]

I don't have much sympathy with Psystar. If you're serious about business, you take proper legal advice before embarking on a venture such as this, especially when it concerns the business of a multi-billion company like Apple, which already has a substantial legal history of protecting its interests.

I thought one of the comments from Psystar was that they did have legal advice prior to starting this mess.

Might have been free from the same people who were for their defense, but with free legal advice, you do get what you pay for.

Unless it comes directly from a lawyer in their office, which clouds the issue ...

[piot]

There won't be one. (verdict)


Can you explain why?

[twoodcc]

great news for apple. let's hope this whole thing gets worked out soon

[oldwatery]

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

If its such a dream, have you bought a Pystar yet?
Of course not.

My dream would be to no longer have to read posts by people who hate the Apple platform so badly.

And who is opening it's OS fair to, you?
Don't Apple have any say in this?

[matticus008]

with a Mac, you buy the OS with the machine, leaving you no other choice of what OS you want to initially put on your machine.
Except that the point of buying a Mac is to get OS X. There are manufacturers of specialty computers geared toward aesthetic appeal if you want an attractive machine, and if you don't want to use OS X but do want a Mac specifically, you can sell your copy of OS X to a Mac user who needs the restore disc (or keep it for when you resell the Mac, as it will increase resale value).

There's some merit to having Apple make Macs available without an OS installed, but it wouldn't reduce the retail price and there's no significant demand for it, so there's little point.
As always, I appreciate the patience and clarity. Thanks for showing up. What kept you?
Court, actually. It's been busy lately as the end of the year approaches and everyone tries to clear their pending calendars.
Can you explain why?
Because the case was dismissed.

While Psystar has 20 days to try again, revising their definition of market to get past the dismissal would basically eliminate the possibility of establishing market power. They can come up with a second, shall we say "creative", definition, but it will cost them thousands and gain them nothing when they're dismissed again, having wasted the court's time twice in the process. They could then file an appeal, but it won't be taken. There is effectively no chance of this case being litigated to a verdict.

[piot]

Because the case was dismissed.

Yes. But what of Apple's case against Psystar? What actually happens next? Is that case heard? Does the judge make a ruling? Arbitration? Or settle out of court?

[m1stake]

Unfortunately I don't have an armchair lawyer's degree, but it seems that Apple is entirely within their rights to bar other companies from profiting with Apple's product.

That's Microsoft's business model; Microsoft chose to do it that way, and they are also totally within their rights.

When you create a product, you can do stuff like that. When you don't create a product a la Psystar, you can't say that not being allowed to profit from someone else' product is anti-competitive.

[pdjudd]

Yes. But what of Apple's case against Psystar? What actually happens next? Is that case heard? Does the judge make a ruling? Arbitration? Or settle out of court?

Unless there is a settlement, the case will go on as it normally would. This dismissal was a separate matter that Psystar brought against Apple in hopes of creating a valid defense. Apple basically said "No, that argument is not valid" and responded to the suit by pointing out that the suit has no basis in fact and should be dismissed. It has no real bearing on the status of Apple's case since its a separate legal matter. The only difference is that now, Psystar is not going to be able to legitimately argue that Apple's OS is being illegally sold.

[IJ Reilly]

Unless there is a settlement, the case will go on as it normally would. This dismissal was a separate matter that Psystar brought against Apple in hopes of creating a valid defense. Apple basically said "No, that argument is not valid" and responded to the suit by pointing out that the suit has no basis in fact and should be dismissed. It has no real bearing on the status of Apple's case since its a separate legal matter. The only difference is that now, Psystar is not going to be able to legitimately argue that Apple's OS is being illegally sold.

I'd expect Apple to ask for a summary judgement, since Psystar's defense has already been effectively demolished.

[BlueRevolution]

I'm surprised so many people voted positive. I just don't see that we're all better off with the pants sued off Psystar. It all seems rather immature and frivolous. Worst case scenario is they fade into oblivion all on their own, best case scenario they bring more people into the Mac fold.

However, if Apple no longer had a monopoly on hardware, their software prices would go way up. At the moment, the software is way cheaper than anything decent you'd get for PC. Jobs' math is stretching it, but it's still true to some extent. That's because Apple makes its ridiculous profits (which I would have hoped would have been passed along to the consumer in lower prices) off hardware sales. That, and sales of their $30 earphones when a shuffle with earphones costs $55. I'm sorry, there's no way those cost $30 to make. Apple is probably looking at at least a 1000% profit margin on those. Same goes for the adapters and so forth.

That's Microsoft's business model; Microsoft chose to do it that way, and they are also totally within their rights.

How so? Their operating system runs natively on every computer out there, except for PowerPC Macs and some specialized hardware like routers and so forth that run stripped-down Linux distros. Even PowerPC Macs can emulate Intel/Windows with no legal repercussions from Microsoft. Yes Vista is 5x the price, but it comes with no strings attached.

[robbyx]

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

If I hear the term "activist judge" one more time, I'm going to puke.

[AppleMojo]

Regardless, moving on.

I have a pile of hardware, I bought this piece of software in the Apple store, legally. Why shouldn't I be allowed to install it on the pile of hardware I have? Because it doesn't have an Apple sticker?

And performing such an installation would make me a moral heathen?

I don't think Psystar has a right to sell faux Macs, but I don't think Apple has a right to micromanage where I install software I legally purchased.

Nope, never said anything about morals... It is against the law. Fact. Done. End.

Oh, and when you bought the software -- you forget to mention that actually, if you intended to install it on non-Apple hardware, then NO you didn't buy it legally. As Apple has already stated that is for upgrade and / or replacement purposes only.

If you want to break the law, that is who you are. Good luck with that. Some of us have a greater respect for democracy than to just live by the laws we agree with and screw the others... This goes back to my original point, it is very selfish of you to pick and choose your laws, while the rest of us support the rights and decisions of others and the governments that protect them.

Since you bought it, you can do with it as you please?

Hmmmm, Suck on an aerosol can and when you wake up -- let me know if that breaks the law... After all, how can they micromanage how you use a product you bought and paid for.

Go buy the ingredients for meth-amphetamines, high yield explosives or anything else illicit and let us know if that's okay... because it's behind closed doors in the privacy of your home.

Just because the product is digital and it doesn't feel wrong, doesn't make it right.

Another example if you still don't get it.

Go buy some blank DVD's and duplicate a movie a few hundred times (in the privacy of your home). Hmmm... yeah, maybe you are right, nobody would care about that... lol

[elgruga]

Is this going to become another sixty pages of reasons why Apple lost and members attempting to convince people they know the law like they do the TV guide?

Sadly, the answer is yes.

[Clive At Five]

Oh, Matticus. How you love to not read entire sentences before commenting on them.

Once again, I said: if Apple was subject to anti-competition laws and Psystar was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance. I wasn't implying that there was any reliable probability of this happening, simply making a statement.

And regarding the legal implications of installing OS X on generic hardware in my own home, not being sold to anyone else, not damaging the Apple brand... it was an illustration of how "legal boundaries" set controversial standards for what is "right" and "wrong."

We've talked about this before. I know you're well-acquainted with the justice system... do you agree with every law and legal decision as ethically right?

Of course I'm aware that I'm violating the license agreement. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything ethically wrong. You may disagree and you have every right to consider me to be the scum of the Earth. Just see my point. I don't think I'm an unreasonable guy.

Apple's software impresses me, their hardware does not. I bought the software because Apple earned that sale. I bought the 3rd party hardware I did because those individual vendors deserved their sales. I believe this is the way a free market should work. The legal hoopla that you and your kind defend restrict genuine free markets and preserve entities and products that don't cater best to the customers' interests... just like these federal bail-outs preserve companies who can't survive and compete with the thriving companies who better address the markets' needs.

-Clive

[robbyx]

Lower prices = less margin/revenue = less motivation to risk and innovate = decreased quality = complaints about price.

And let's not forget that tons of new customers at lower prices means much higher support costs which will only further erode margins. With higher margins and slow/steady customer growth, Apple can afford to offer better support. I'd much rather deal with AppleCare or the Apple Store any day over the support department at Best Buy or some ghastly PC telephone support outsourced to who the heck knows where. If Apple suddenly came out with a dirt cheap Mac aimed purely at gaining market share, it would prove a costly - and stupid - move.

I also said that I can see where they could gain from selling OS X separately, and was leading to where they could sell a Mac barebones. If other PC Clones could do that, Apple could do that as well.

I also said that I can see where they could gain from selling OS X separately, and was leading to where they could sell a Mac barebones. If other PC Clones could do that, Apple could do that as well.

Apple will NOT gain.

Apple makes money selling hardware. Clones = fewer hardware sales. You might argue that these clones will bring new customers to Apple. But just who do you think is going to SUPPORT the MacOS running on these machines? The clone makers? Yeah right. And what happens when the clone buyers come to the Apple Store for help? Is Apple obligated to assist them despite their not having purchased an Apple computer?

Apple doesn't want to sell a barebones product. Geez. They are BMW, not Tata. What incentive could Apple possibly have for selling a no-margin product? Grow market share for the sake of growing it? Again, it goes back to SUPPORT. A good customer experience is all part of the package. Apple does a great job, all things considered, with their stores. A barebones Mac would only deplete resources. There's no win in it for Apple. Never will be.

Get over it. You want a Mac, PAY FOR A MAC. Or got the Hackintosh route. Apple couldn't care less about homebrew Macs, so long as you're not making a business out of it.

[Clive At Five]

Nope, never said anything about morals... It is against the law. Fact. Done. End.

Oh, and when you bought the software -- you forget to mention that actually, if you intended to install it on non-Apple hardware, then NO you didn't buy it legally. As Apple has already stated that is for upgrade and / or replacement purposes only.

If you want to break the law, that is who you are. Good luck with that. Some of us have a greater respect for democracy than to just live by the laws we agree with and screw the others... This goes back to my original point, it is very selfish of you to pick and choose your laws, while the rest of us support the rights and decisions of others and the governments that protect them.

Since you bought it, you can do with it as you please?

Hmmmm, Suck on an aerosol can and when you wake up -- let me know if that breaks the law... After all, how can they micromanage how you use a product you bought and paid for.

Go buy the ingredients for meth-amphetamines, high yield explosives or anything else illicit and let us know if that's okay... because it's behind closed doors in the privacy of your home.

Just because the product is digital and it doesn't feel wrong, doesn't make it right.

Another example if you still don't get it.

Go buy some blank DVD's and duplicate a movie a few hundred times (in the privacy of your home). Hmmm... yeah, maybe you are right, nobody would care about that... lol

There's a difference between building a weapon and using it... There's a difference between making drugs and using/selling drugs... There's a difference between duplicating a DVD once for personal use, and multiple times to sell them on eBay.

By the way, duplicating DVDs for personal backups has been deemed LEGAL under fair use so long as all duplicate copies are destroyed if the original disc is ever transferred to a new owner. The illegality is breaking the encryption found on movies. Copying the data that the encryption protects is legal, however. Screwiest system ever...

Anyway, so long as you fail to see the point I'm trying to raise, there's no purpose in me arguing. In your world, as long as something is a law, it's ethically right, and if it's not, it's wrong. I suppose that means if you had lived before the US Civil War you would've thought owning slaves was ethically right too... Alas, these are the side-effects of always agreeing with what "law" dictates.

So which is it? Do you believe that slavery was at one point ethically right, or is there the slightest possibility that there might be some errors in our current system?

Building a hackintosh might not be legal, but that doesn't make it ethically wrong, which your original rant was implying.

-Clive

[faroukabad]

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

This is not true, especially if you build your own system, you can get high quality parts and build a nice mid to high range Windows system. I am a lifelong Mac head, but I have also built my own PC for gaming, and I know that you can build yourself a very nice system. Windows itself, on the other hand, can be difficult to use.

[elgruga]

....just look at the VARIETY of Mac users we have posting here!

Some comments, if I may:

Psystar might be a front - but if so, they shoulda hired a better legal team.

If a guy or gal wants to buy OSX and install it quietly, in his/her own home, on a stack of PC parts, should we really be offended?
It might be 'illegal', but its hardly immoral. He/she might come up with a new hybrid system that could change the world - Darwin rules on this one, I feel.

Overpriced is a nonsense - everybody knows that. The market, warts and all, rules this one.

Do Apple need a 'shake-up'? Sure they do - we ALL do.
Just dont hold your breath waiting for it to actually happen...

If you think Apple are too pricey, get a Mac mini, or buy a used box, and quit yer whinin'.
Or join the OS X hacker crowd, if you can stand the pressure of being an OUTLAW. Gasp!

An entertaining thread.
Post of the day was obviously Matticus008's legal slash job.

There's a difference between building a weapon and using it... There's a difference between making drugs and using/selling drugs... There's a difference between duplicating a DVD once for personal use, and multiple times to sell them on eBay.

By the way, duplicating DVDs for personal backups has been deemed LEGAL under fair use so long as all duplicate copies are destroyed if the original disc is ever transferred to a new owner. The illegality is breaking the encryption found on movies. Copying the data that the encryption protects is legal, however. Screwiest system ever...

Anyway, so long as you fail to see the point I'm trying to raise, there's no purpose in me arguing. In your world, as long as something is a law, it's ethically right, and if it's not, it's wrong. I suppose that means if you had lived before the US Civil War you would've thought owning slaves was ethically right too... Alas, these are the side-effects of always agreeing with what "law" dictates.

So which is it? Do you believe that slavery was at one point ethically right, or is there the slightest possibility that there might be some errors in our current system?

Building a hackintosh might not be legal, but that doesn't make it ethically wrong, which your original rant was implying.

-Clive

Agreed. The Law is NOT moral or ethical, its mostly there to protect property.

I cant see Apple being bothered about a few guys building a Hackintosh.
They just didnt like a company setting up to make a profit from it.

[sflocal]

Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on. I can run Linux on an XBox. I can run Linux on a PS2, and PS3. I can run Linux on a Symbian type device. As you said, I can run Linux on a Mac. I can bloody well run Linux on my Apple II. I can run another OS on another machine if I choose to - and legally. Can you run OS X on something else outside of a Mac?

I'm still waiting for an answer.



XBOX/OS is a proprietary OS. PS3 /OS is a proprietary OS. i5/OS is a proprietary OS. This is not about installing Linux which is not proprietary IP. My point is that if you believe you should be able to install OSX on any hardware you want, then you should then be venting anger at the other packaged-system vendors I just mentioned above that tie their OS to their hardware. For some reason, everyone considers Apple a separate player than everyone else.

Go ahead and install the XBOX/OS on commodity hardware, open a business to sell that machine and see if Microsoft doesn't drop a hammer right on your shop. It's not any different.

My apologies though for implying a personal attack on your opinion. No disrespect was intended.

[matticus008]

Yes. But what of Apple's case against Psystar? What actually happens next? Is that case heard? Does the judge make a ruling? Arbitration? Or settle out of court?
As someone else said, it continues. Settlement at this point would not be characteristic of Apple, especially given how uppity Psystar has been about the whole thing.
I'd expect Apple to ask for a summary judgement, since Psystar's defense has already been effectively demolished.
Not yet. Procedurally, given the more complex and extensive nature of Apple's direct and contributory claims, summary judgment is premature. PSJ is an option, but Apple's case does not end here if they want to prevail on all claims. I have no doubt that Apple will eventually file an MSJ, but the next move is probably some post-decision discovery.
Oh, Matticus. How you love to not read entire sentences before commenting on them.
On the contrary: "Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments."

How is it misdirected of them to have pursued the very strategy you suggest? Your "entire sentences" are mutually exclusive. You then move on with the faulty premise that antitrust laws don't apply to Apple, and to say "just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument"--which is exactly what they did.
And regarding the legal implications of installing OS X on generic hardware in my own home, not being sold to anyone else, not damaging the Apple brand... it was an illustration of how "legal boundaries" set controversial standards for what is "right" and "wrong."
No it isn't. It's an example of someone disregarding the limits of their rights in favor of what they'd rather do and are willing to do because they can rely on not getting caught. What's right is respecting the limits of a work that does not belong to you, even though you don't approve of the limits.

Anything else is simply rationalizing.
do you agree with every law and legal decision as ethically right?
Yes. By definition. That is not to say there aren't cases where the alternative is also ethically right, because there are always competing ethical interests, or that there aren't bad decisions made by judges. What you're talking about, though, is morality, and it's a pointless quagmire because it's entirely individual.

It simply does not matter what you personally believe to be morally justifying your actions. You have no right to OS X, moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise.
Of course I'm aware that I'm violating the license agreement. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything ethically wrong.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not possible. Do you place value on the integrity of your word as a person? On the rule of law? Do you expect to be able to control that which is yours and not to have it taken by someone not entitled to it who thinks they could make better use of it? You are doing many things ethically wrong. It's wrong and you know it's wrong. I'd have more respect if you simply admitted it.

People do things they know are wrong. I don't personally have a problem with the homebrew community, but people who claim they aren't doing anything wrong are simply liars. I exceed the speed limit on a daily basis. I fully admit that it is wrong to do so, and if I get pulled over, I accept the consequences. I don't pretend otherwise or claim that my right to do as I please in my vehicle is being taken. I have no such right on public roads or on private roads belonging to someone else.

It is not yours to take. Period.
Just see my point. I don't think I'm an unreasonable guy.
I see your point. It's just utterly bogus. You have the audacity to claim you're taking the "high road" in a situation involving a consumer product, of all things. It's obscene.
The legal hoopla that you and your kind defend restrict genuine free markets
That's the craziest part of your argument right there. The free market requires that sellers have complete control of what they choose to sell. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite--the non-market-based acquisition of rights and artificial restrictions on the freedom to contract and on the autonomy of ownership.

Edit: For the record, I don't believe the mythical "free market" is a virtue unto itself. But you seem to, all while asking to regulate and restrict a "genuine free market".

[AppleMojo]

And regarding the legal implications of installing OS X on generic hardware in my own home, not being sold to anyone else, not damaging the Apple brand... it was an illustration of how "legal boundaries" set controversial standards for what is "right" and "wrong."

We've talked about this before. I know you're well-acquainted with the justice system... do you agree with every law and legal decision as ethically right?

Of course I'm aware that I'm violating the license agreement. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything ethically wrong. You may disagree and you have every right to consider me to be the scum of the Earth. Just see my point. I don't think I'm an unreasonable guy.
-Clive

But you are harming someone. That someone is Apple. You are STEALING from Apple when you install OS X on another system other than an Apple branded machine. Why? Because you didn't buy their hardware, which is a requirement - thus you are a thief and stole anywhere from ~$500 to $5000 or more (I'll let you choose the model you are stealing!).

Again, it doesn't matter if you think the law is ethical or not, it is the law of the land and you abide by it or do something to change it. Breaking the law for what ever reason, is still just that - breaking the law.

If you truly have a problem with the law, jump on Facebook with as many of your kind as you can wrangle up, set a date, grab a picket sign and run around Cupertino...

We don't have to see your point, just like I could care less why some thief steals cars or some scum sells drugs or some suit embezzles a few million.

I personally think there is way too much tolerance in this world. I'd love to go back 25 years when we didn't have to be so sensitive to all of these whiners.

Software pirates always have some lame reason and they just miff me off to no end. Mostly cause they are just cheap little rats grabbing at anything they can get their little mitts on.

[AppleMojo]

There's a difference between building a weapon and using it... There's a difference between making drugs and using/selling drugs... There's a difference between duplicating a DVD once for personal use, and multiple times to sell them on eBay.

I suppose that means if you had lived before the US Civil War you would've thought owning slaves was ethically right too... Alas, these are the side-effects of always agreeing with what "law" dictates.

So which is it? Do you believe that slavery was at one point ethically right, or is there the slightest possibility that there might be some errors in our current system?

-Clive

I just get a kick out of the spin... it's great!

I never said anything about selling, distributing or using those items. The simple fact was that your little comment on doing things in the privacy of your own home is completely absurd.

Oh my friend, you are so out of touch here. Last time I grabbed a history book, it wasn't a requirement or a law enforcing me to own a slave.

a) I wouldn't have owned a slave.
b) I would have been proud to stand against the idea of slavery.
c) There are errors in our current system, and there are ways to change them -- other than just selfishly breaking them.
d) You can hardly compare the era of slavery to our "current system"

I (not sure where everyone else is) live in a democracy where people have the right to be stupid, and I see Psystar as being a bunch of rather silly people for even attempting this craziness. They've learned their lesson.

[gnasher729]

The whole "apple is a monopoly" argument (along with similar "anticompetitive" arguments) has always been idiotic, and it just looks that much more idiotic now.

What was even more idiotic was how Psystar tried to support its "apple is a monopoly" argument. They claimed that Apple's huge advertising campaign proves that Apple is a monopoly. Judge Alsup noted that if Apple were actually a monopoly, then such an advertising campaign would be wasted money, and it smelled more like an attempt to "lure customers away from competitors" :rolleyes:

So Psystar was even beaten by their own arguments. And since this all happened before any discovery in the court case, there are very few factual arguments that the judge can use, but he _can_ use anything the lawyers claim, like this gem.

Once again, I said: if Apple was subject to anti-competition laws and Psystar was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance. I wasn't implying that there was any reliable probability of this happening, simply making a statement.

The fact that Apple's hardware is reasonably compatible to a generic PC works actually against Psystar. If Psystar had a computer that could _only_ run MacOS X and nothing else, they could have tried to make claims similar to the Digidyne case (although I think it wouldn't fly anymore; today a judge would likely rule that building a computer that needs a competitor's OS that the competitor doesn't want to sell is just a stupid thing to do), but since those Psystar machines can run Windows or Linux or could be made to run them, that point is lost.

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

Not sure. In one of its filings Apple quoted a case against Xerox that Xerox won. Xerox invented the xerox photocopying process (there's a proper name for it, but you know what I mean) and patented it, and that process did beat everything else in the market, turning Xerox into a monopoly in the photocopier market. A company sued to force Xerox to license its patents. The court decided that it was up to Xerox to license or not license their patents, even though those patents helped them to uphold a monopoly. And in the Xerox case we are not talking about just 50%.

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

Please check out the article about "Vertragsfreiheit" on the german wikipedia. What you claim is a nasty american streak protecting big corporations is a central point in German contract law as well. The same case in Germany would have ended up in exactly the same way. Relevant here is "Abschlussfreiheit" (the right to decide whether to enter into a contract or not) and "Partnerwahlfreiheit" (the right to decide with which partner to enter a contract). So not only could Apple not be forced to license MacOS X to anyone, they could most definitely not be forced to license it to Psystar in particular.

In addition, how many "gebührenpflichtige Abmahnungen" at 100 Euro a shot do you think Psystar would have received in Germany?

There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".

Tell me one such country.

In Germany, for example, Psystar would have long been closed down because what it does constitutes "unfair competition" (unlauterer Wettbewerb).

There is a contradiction in Apple's position on this, in that they encourage the installation of non-Apple OS's on their computers, they even created Boot Camp to make it easy. So on the one hand they want everyone to be able to install non-Apple OS's on their computers but on the other they don't want anyone to install their OS on a non-Apple computer.

Apple came to the conclusion (and you would come to the same conclusion if you thought about it for a bit), that allowing other operating systems to be installed on Macs is beneficial for Apple's business, while allowing MacOS X to be installed on computers that are not Macs is bad for Apple's business. So Apple chose what is most profitable for the company, as one would expect. And unless you can point out that Microsoft or the various Linux distributors don't want you to install their software on a Macintosh, there is nothing wrong with this.

it may be perfectly legal for Apple to tie OS X to its hardware, but is it fair? Without the open source community, OS X would not be what it is today, yet Apple only used the community for as much as they could without opening the OS.

What has open source got to do with this? Psystar is even ripping off the x86 community by illegally using their EFI emulation. MacOS X is the result of paying $400,000,000 for NeXT and seven years of massive software development inside Apple.

The biggest example how "open source" Apple is is the fact that Nokia uses huge amounts of Apple-written source code for the mobile phone browsers, available under an open source license. So Apple is actually supporting direct competitors because sometimes that is what "open source" implies.

I can't understand how you can throw a bunch of rip-off merchants and the open source community into one pot. The Open Source community takes copyright laws very serious; that is what Open Source is based on.

[AlexisV]

Of course I'm aware that I'm violating the license agreement. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything ethically wrong.




I'm sorry, but that's simply not possible. Do you place value on the integrity of your word as a person? On the rule of law? Do you expect to be able to control that which is yours and not to have it taken by someone not entitled to it who thinks they could make better use of it? You are doing many things ethically wrong. It's wrong and you know it's wrong. I'd have more respect if you simply admitted it.

People do things they know are wrong. I don't personally have a problem with the homebrew community, but people who claim they aren't doing anything wrong are simply liars. I exceed the speed limit on a daily basis. I fully admit that it is wrong to do so, and if I get pulled over, I accept the consequences. I don't pretend otherwise or claim that my right to do as I please in my vehicle is being taken. I have no such right on public roads or on private roads belonging to someone else.

It is not yours to take. Period.

It seems to me that you have no problem with people doing 'wrong' e.g. your speeding, but that it's ok if the person admits that it's wrong / not moral.

Which is a bit of a paradox - you're saying it's ok to do wrong, AS LONG as you realise you are doing so, and are happy to be punished for it.

But the point here is that the OP doesn't think he's doing wrong, but you're looking at it in a black and white "It's the law so it MUST be wrong and you MUST admit it or you're a liar and I have no respect for you".

Not every law is a good law or right or wrong because it is the law.

Having said that, I'm personally happy that Psystar are struggling because I personally like things how they are - OS X on nothing but nice shiny Apple hardware.

This argument always seems to come back to price, but different brands charge different prices and always will do. I don't expect Louis Vitton to start selling cheap clothes just because I can get a similar garmant for a quarter of the price elsewhere.

[gnasher729]

It means that all the screwballs who posted in these forums about how Psystar had a case and how Apple was a monopoly unto itself (go figure) and how they wished Psystar would win... it means that all these "experts" now have so much egg on their faces that they look like omlets.:D:p;)

I think one thing that Apple might ask for in discovery would be a complete list of all Psystar employees who have accounts on sites like MacRumors and a complete list of the screen names being used. Obviously the same thing for Apple employees, to be fair.

[krimsen]

What has open source got to do with this?

Mac OS X is heavily based on BSD, namely OpenDarwin. Google it :rolleyes:

[mccldwll]

I think one thing that Apple might ask for in discovery would be a complete list of all Psystar employees who have accounts on sites like MacRumors and a complete list of the screen names being used. Obviously the same thing for Apple employees, to be fair.

It would be interesting to find out who/what was really behind Pystar, because I seriously doubt the undercapitalized pizza delivery boys and their ambulance chasers decided to go up against aapl for the fun of it. And there really was no way for Pystar to "win"--if they prevailed, bigger fish would do the same thing and Pystar would go belly up. Pystar added nothing of value. I doubt we'll ever find out --probably too many layers removed and done through their attorneys from day 1. This was not the David versus Goliath story that too many here have swallowed, of that I'm sure.

[mccldwll]

Many here seem to think it's extremely unfair that they can't put OSX on whatever they please, since they "own" it. Those "individuals" might want to wade into some Ayn Rand--"Fountain Head" or "Atlas Shrugged." Very two dimensional, cartoonish characters presenting her black and white views on society and "individualism", but her views do seem relevant in the intellectual property arena. [I'm not a Rand proponent, but it's a bit scary that so many today have so little respect for the intellectual property creations of others.]

[i.mac]

monopoly has to do with choices from the customer's vantage point of view and the provider's practices to limit these choices.

- from the customer's view: Apple products are far from a monopoly
- from Apple's point of view: their practices are limited to their products and others can add value to these products in a rather fair and lucrative way (think mac OS + iPone apps)

Py* definition of monopoly implies that just about every one that has any product would then have an exclusive market, and therefore be a 'monopoly', etc... As someone pointed out earlier: sophomoriuc way of thinking.

Py* could still sell hardware that is 'Mac OS capable', and let the user purchase the OS of their choice to install in this hardware. This OS could be Mac OS. This would be fair for both parties: Py* and Apple.

[sushi]

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?
I would think they would have to have a much larger share than 50% to be considered a monopoly.

[zacman]

Tell me one such country.

In Germany, for example, Psystar would have long been closed down because what it does constitutes "unfair competition" (unlauterer Wettbewerb).

Hardware clauses in EULAs are illegal in Germany (and probably in most other EU countries too). HP (I think it was HP) has been successfully sued because of that back in the 1990s.

[domain]

Mac OS X is heavily based on BSD, namely OpenDarwin. Google it :rolleyes:

I'd have to agree with the other poster... really this entire thing has little to do with open source, though i'll bite (please read the following):

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Now please point out which section of this license contains the "Sharing is Caring" clause...

[stanton]

IMHO, I think what Apple does actually hurts us the Apple consumers. By locking us into Apple branded hardware, we have very limited options. The OSx86 community has already shown that Leopard works fine on netbooks, tablets, and a variety of other hardware, that Apple refuses to produce. I don't have too much pity for Psystar, but I would like them to force Apple to allow for some sort new products. I've owned quite a few Apple's since they came out with OSX, so I'm obviously not anti-Apple. The fact is people want BluRay, Netbooks, Tablets, TouchScreens, and various other products that Apple isn't making. And from my experience, if people desire something it will create a market for that product, so Apple has created some of this problem themselves.

[r.j.s]

Hardware clauses in EULAs are illegal in Germany (and probably in most other EU countries too). HP (I think it was HP) has been successfully sued because of that back in the 1990s.

The problem for Germans is that if someone were to take Apple to court on that, and Apple loses - they would merely stop selling Apple computers in Germany.

[Clive At Five]

Yes. By definition. That is not to say there aren't cases where the alternative is also ethically right, because there are always competing ethical interests, or that there aren't bad decisions made by judges. What you're talking about, though, is morality, and it's a pointless quagmire because it's entirely individual.

"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.

This is why it is terrible to argue philosophical things with lawyers.

It simply does not matter what you personally believe to be morally justifying your actions. You have no right to OS X, moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise.

With my $129, Apple granted me the right to install and use OS X on a genuine Macintosh. I knowingly installed it on a computer that was 95% equivalent to a Macintosh. Did I break the license agreement? Yes. Do I have the legal right to do so? No. Do I find my actions to be unethical? No. Like I said, Apple earned the software sale but not the hardware sale. It's as simple as that. They should not get my money for something they did not earn my sale.

You are doing many things ethically wrong. It's wrong and you know it's wrong. I'd have more respect if you simply admitted it.

No, absolutely not. I'll admit it's illegal, but I will not admit it is wrong.

That's the craziest part of your argument right there. The free market requires that sellers have complete control of what they choose to sell. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite--the non-market-based acquisition of rights and artificial restrictions on the freedom to contract and on the autonomy of ownership.

Edit: For the record, I don't believe the mythical "free market" is a virtue unto itself. But you seem to, all while asking to regulate and restrict a "genuine free market".

I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.

But you are harming someone. That someone is Apple. You are STEALING from Apple when you install OS X on another system other than an Apple branded machine. Why? Because you didn't buy their hardware, which is a requirement - thus you are a thief and stole anywhere from ~$500 to $5000 or more (I'll let you choose the model you are stealing!).

Nay, I argue. By allowing Apple to bundle the unrelated products which are its hardware and software, you are allowing Apple to steal $500 to $5000 or more from me. Apple's hardware has not earned my sale. Why should I be forced to buy it? That is the antithesis of the free market.

Again, it doesn't matter if you think the law is ethical or not, it is the law of the land and you abide by it or do something to change it. Breaking the law for what ever reason, is still just that - breaking the law.

I never denied breaking the law. I denied wrongdoing.

I personally think there is way too much tolerance in this world. I'd love to go back 25 years when we didn't have to be so sensitive to all of these whiners.

I was like you once. Then I discovered the Nolan Chart. I decided that I wanted to support not only economic freedom but ALSO personal freedom.

I acknowledge that there is delicate balance in what we can and cannot dictate by law, but the more laws we sign, the fewer freedoms we have. I said this above and I will say it again:

I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.

Software pirates always have some lame reason and they just miff me off to no end. Mostly cause they are just cheap little rats grabbing at anything they can get their little mitts on.

Well then it's a good thing I didn't pirate the software. Apple is sitting on my $129 dollars right now. The exact amount they earned.

I just get a kick out of the spin... it's great!

I never said anything about selling, distributing or using those items. The simple fact was that your little comment on doing things in the privacy of your own home is completely absurd.

Oh my friend, you are so out of touch here. Last time I grabbed a history book, it wasn't a requirement or a law enforcing me to own a slave.

a) I wouldn't have owned a slave.
b) I would have been proud to stand against the idea of slavery.
c) There are errors in our current system, and there are ways to change them -- other than just selfishly breaking them.
d) You can hardly compare the era of slavery to our "current system"

One wasn't required by law to own a slave, but it would've been within one's rights to do so. Just because it's a right, doesn't make it right. It's not spin, my friend, just a comparison that works unfavorably for your argument.

Of course the scope of the injustice of slavery is many magnitudes larger than that of the injustice of not protecting the freedom of consumers to do with a legally-purchased product what he or she chooses, so long as it harms no one else.

I (not sure where everyone else is) live in a democracy where people have the right to be stupid, and I see Psystar as being a bunch of rather silly people for even attempting this craziness. They've learned their lesson.

People *should* have a right to be stupid and fail for their stupid actions. That's how free markets work. I happen to see Psystar as pretty brilliant for their idea, but stupid on their execution. They used without permission the technology to hack their toshes, and they sold OS X pre-installed without permission. These are two big no-nos. They should've sold computers that were install-ready via the retail DVD and told the people to go buy the software themselves. Then their business would've been air-tight and, in my opinion, genius.

By the way, I can tell you're a conservative, which is what I used to be until recently, so let me ask you a question: How do you justify to yourself triumphing free markets but not consumer rights? The two go hand-in-hand. Free markets work so long as corporate greed doesn't abuse the system. Bundling these two unrelated products with no alternative but to submit or break EULA is about greed, not product performance. Anyone who knows anything about computers should be able to tell you that.

There's a delicate balance we must maintain between corporate power and consumer power. In this case, I firmly believe that we are currently favoring corporations over consumers.

-Clive

[r.j.s]

Py* could still sell hardware that is 'Mac OS capable', and let the user purchase the OS of their choice to install in this hardware. This OS could be Mac OS. This would be fair for both parties: Py* and Apple.

If they were to do this, I think they would be fine - however, even Psystar says the retail DVD of Leopard will not install on their computers - you must get it preinstalled and use their restore DVD to reinstall it.

[Voltaic]

Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now... :cool:

Good news for whom exactly? Maybe for you if you like to be told what and what not to do:

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/18/apple-incorporates-hdcp-copy-protection-in-new-laptops/

[Clive At Five]

If they were to do this, I think they would be fine - however, even Psystar says the retail DVD of Leopard will not install on their computers - you must get it preinstalled and use their restore DVD to reinstall it.

There are ways to prep a computer for retail DVD installation... Want to start a business, rjs? ;)

[gnasher729]

By the way, the court decision is now available at www.groklaw.net . (PJ says: Told you so! )

With my $129, Apple granted me the right to install and use OS X on a genuine Macintosh. I knowingly installed it on a computer that was 95% equivalent to a Macintosh. Did I break the license agreement? Yes. Do I have the legal right to do so? No. Do I find my actions to be unethical? No. Like I said, Apple earned the software sale but not the hardware sale. It's as simple as that. They should not get my money for something they did not earn my sale.

Well then it's a good thing I didn't pirate the software. Apple is sitting on my $129 dollars right now. The exact amount they earned.

You are absolutely wrong there. People who pay $129, get Leopard, and install it according to the license, are all people who previously bought a Macintosh (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that each $129 Leopard sale is directly linked to a previous profitable hardware sale), and have a valid license to a previous operating system (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that this is actually an update, which always sells for less than a complete new software package).

Let's assume hypothetically that Apple started selling a range of Windows PCs; basically Macintosh hardware like an iMac but with a Windows license and Windows installed instead of MacOS X license and MacOS X installed. If that happened, I would assume that Apple would change its Leopard license and offer two products: An "upgrade" license for $129 for use on Apple computers with a MacOS X license, and a "full Apple" license for $229 or something like that for users of Apple computers without a MacOS X license.

Same if Apple offered Leopard for installation on _any_ computer: I would expect a different, higher price. And fair is fair, once you paid for the MacOS X license, your next OS (Snow Leopard or whatever) would be the plain "upgrade" license. But your assumption that a license for MacOS X on non-Macs would be the same $129 is clearly wrong.

[m1stake]

How so? Their operating system runs natively on every computer out there, except for PowerPC Macs and some specialized hardware like routers and so forth that run stripped-down Linux distros. Even PowerPC Macs can emulate Intel/Windows with no legal repercussions from Microsoft. Yes Vista is 5x the price, but it comes with no strings attached.

Looks like I got a bit ahead of myself, but that's what happens when I post at 1AM. :o Anyway, as you said, Microsoft will let you install Windows on anything. They don't care, it's all the same money. They have nothing to do with hardware that other companies make, and they're OK with that.

My point being that Microsoft chose to let anyone and everyone (HP, Dell, etc) install Windows on a PC they built and sell it to an end user. They've allowed companies to do that because that's how they've decided to make their money.

Apple chose to not allow third parties from installing and selling their software. Both companies can make these choices because they created the product.

That's Microsoft's business model; Microsoft chose to do it that way, and they are also totally within their rights.

[IJ Reilly]

Once again, I said: if Apple was subject to anti-competition laws and Psystar was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance. I wasn't implying that there was any reliable probability of this happening, simply making a statement.

You are making the same mistake repeatedly. The ease with which a copyright, trademark or patent can be violated in no way affects the legality of doing so. Even if Apple's hardware was seen to be "generic" the product known as a Macintosh is not just hardware, it's the combination of the hardware and the operating system. A book may be just "generic" paper and ink, but the combination of the paper, ink and words creates a work which is owned by its creator. A book is not a book unless it contains a combination of paper, ink and words. They cannot be arbitrarily deconstructed.

Agreed. The Law is NOT moral or ethical, its mostly there to protect property.

The law certainly is moral and ethical, if you happen to own the property protected by the law.

I would think they would have to have a much larger share than 50% to be considered a monopoly.

Antitrust has more to do with the abuse of market power than monopoly. I think this concept has already been explained pretty thoroughly. The important point is that any patent or copyright is in reality a government-protected monopoly. Monopolies are not illegal -- abuse of market power to restrain competition is. There's no magic market share threshold for when this can occur.

[Clive At Five]

<snip>

The box doesn't say upgrade, store.apple.com doesn't mention upgrade, and in his keynotes, Steve pitches it as the "full version of OS X."

A technicality, yes, but true, nonetheless. There's no reason for a consumer to assume otherwise.

That said, only Apple can be blamed for being so vague.

If it makes you feel any better, I've been using genuine Apple products for over 20 years. After all these years, they've managed to alienate a faithful customer like me with terrible hardware offerings and cheap lock-in/lock-out tactics.

Enter consumer revolt.

[Clive At Five]

You are making the same mistake repeatedly. The ease with which a copyright, trademark or patent can be violated in no way affects the legality of doing so. Even if Apple's hardware was seen to be "generic" the product known as a Macintosh is not just hardware, it's the combination of the hardware and the operating system. A book may be just "generic" paper and ink, but the combination of the paper, ink and words creates a work which is owned by its creator. A book is not a book unless it contains a combination of paper, ink and words. They cannot be arbitrarily deconstructed.

I made no such mention of "ease" of breaking copyright, trademark, whatever. Neither did I make any mention of Psystar selling Macintoshes! They are selling OS X-equipped computers. Macintoshes are OS X + "Apple-labeled" hardware by Apple's own definition.

The reason I hate arguing with you, IJ Reilly, is because you create arguments out of nothing to make yourself look spectacular. Why don't you respond to the content of my posts instead of tackling arguments you manifest in your own responses?

[IJ Reilly]

I made no such mention of "ease" of breaking copyright, trademark, whatever. Neither did I make any mention of Psystar selling Macintoshes! They are selling OS X-equipped computers. Macintoshes are OS X + "Apple-labeled" hardware by Apple's own definition.

Yes, you did. You suggested that if Apple's hardware could be defined as "generic" that maybe Psystar had an argument in its own defense. This is not the case. If they sell a computer with OSX installed, they are selling a Macintosh computer, no matter how you believe Apple has "defined" it.

[Vulpinemac]

I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.

-Clive

I'm clipping this piece out because this is your most pertinent point. Keep in mind that--as yet--Apple has not litigated against any single individual doing what you have done and they seem to consider what you have done as perfectly legitimate--for yourself.

On the other hand, Psystar attempted to not only do what you are doing for yourself, but exacerbated it by then reselling the end product as a retailer without explicit permission from Apple. The resale of Apple's software is regulated and only sold by Apple Authorized dealers, who happen to be scattered all across the country frequently in places where Apple has yet to install one of their own stores. This one thing alone violates the Apple copyright as well as the EULA which prohibits resale of the software unless completely removed from the hardware upon which it was installed. In other words, Psystar is neither an End User nor an Authorized Reseller.

As far as your putting OS X onto the hardware of your personal choice, I have no problem with that; but when you consider the poor quality of the majority of the non-Apple-branded hardware on the market, you should easily understand why Apple does not wish to dilute their Brand Identification by letting OS X become commercially available on otherwise generic hardware. If you buy a PC at about the same price range of an Apple, the hardware is frequently at the same quality as Apple's hardware and not the mass-produced entry-level junk frequently purchased from Dell or WalMart*.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm clipping this piece out because this is your most pertinent point. Keep in mind that--as yet--Apple has not litigated against any single individual doing what you have done and they seem to consider what you have done as perfectly legitimate--for yourself.

Exactly. I'd expect Apple to remain silent on this issue, if only because they'd have so little to gain by trying to find and sue customers who violate the EULA in this way. An individual purchasing a retail copy of OSX could quite easily install it on generic PC hardware for their own use, or on multiple Macs that they own. The fact that Apple hasn't made any effort to stop this practice does not mean it's not a violation of the EULA, though. The big difference with Psystar is that they are trading on Apple's copyrights, patents and trademarks. They are selling the final product. This Pandora's box must be kept closed, or Apple risks losing control of their intellectual property.

[Clive At Five]

Yes, you did. You suggested that if Apple's hardware could be defined as "generic" that maybe Psystar had an argument in its own defense. This is not the case. If they sell a computer with OSX installed, they are selling a Macintosh computer, no matter how you believe Apple has "defined" it.

Again, a fabricated argument. Ease of the hack/violation/what-have-you has no relation to whether or not the hardware is generic. Congrats, IJ, you won your own argument. Again.

And how can you say that "Macintosh" isn't defined by Apple??! They created it! They own the trademark! They define it in their EULAs!

Your mentally rigidity is inconceivably frustrating.

I'm clipping this piece out because this is your most pertinent point. Keep in mind that--as yet--Apple has not litigated against any single individual doing what you have done and they seem to consider what you have done as perfectly legitimate--for yourself.

On the other hand, Psystar attempted to not only do what you are doing for yourself, but exacerbated it by then reselling the end product as a retailer without explicit permission from Apple. The resale of Apple's software is regulated and only sold by Apple Authorized dealers, who happen to be scattered all across the country frequently in places where Apple has yet to install one of their own stores. This one thing alone violates the Apple copyright as well as the EULA which prohibits resale of the software unless completely removed from the hardware upon which it was installed. In other words, Psystar is neither an End User nor an Authorized Reseller.

As far as your putting OS X onto the hardware of your personal choice, I have no problem with that; but when you consider the poor quality of the majority of the non-Apple-branded hardware on the market, you should easily understand why Apple does not wish to dilute their Brand Identification by letting OS X become commercially available on otherwise generic hardware. If you buy a PC at about the same price range of an Apple, the hardware is frequently at the same quality as Apple's hardware and not the mass-produced entry-level junk frequently purchased from Dell or WalMart*.

I don't disagree. In fact, I've stated so in this very thread. What Psystar is doing is plainly illegal. I understand Apple's obsession with closed architecture and why they chose it over an open platform. The average consumer is in many cases not capable of selecting decent hardware. But Apple fails to pick hardware that is best for me, a prosumer. I am informed enough to know what hardware is good, as are 90% of hackintosh builders. Apple knows this. I don't think they've become a completely heartless company as their entire entity was birthed out of our type of mentality. This is why I don't think they will pursue legal action against Hackintosh builders, nor take drastic steps to stop us.

The fact remains, however, that US law prohibits what we do. I think that it oversteps its bounds in favor of corporations. That would be the main thesis of my standpoint.

[IJ Reilly]

Again, a fabricated argument. Ease of the hack/violation/what-have-you has no relation to whether or not the hardware is generic. Congrats, IJ, you won your own argument. Again.

And how can you say that "Macintosh" isn't defined by Apple??! They created it! They own the trademark! They define it in their EULAs!

Your mentally rigidity is inconceivably frustrating.

You simply can't accept that you are wrong, even when the courts rule on the matter. Call that what you will, you're the one who seems to be good at it.

[Joe The Dragon]

By the way, the court decision is now available at www.groklaw.net . (PJ says: Told you so! )



You are absolutely wrong there. People who pay $129, get Leopard, and install it according to the license, are all people who previously bought a Macintosh (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that each $129 Leopard sale is directly linked to a previous profitable hardware sale), and have a valid license to a previous operating system (so whoever decides on the pricing takes into account that this is actually an update, which always sells for less than a complete new software package).

Let's assume hypothetically that Apple started selling a range of Windows PCs; basically Macintosh hardware like an iMac but with a Windows license and Windows installed instead of MacOS X license and MacOS X installed. If that happened, I would assume that Apple would change its Leopard license and offer two products: An "upgrade" license for $129 for use on Apple computers with a MacOS X license, and a "full Apple" license for $229 or something like that for users of Apple computers without a MacOS X license.

Same if Apple offered Leopard for installation on _any_ computer: I would expect a different, higher price. And fair is fair, once you paid for the MacOS X license, your next OS (Snow Leopard or whatever) would be the plain "upgrade" license. But your assumption that a license for MacOS X on non-Macs would be the same $129 is clearly wrong.

vista home premium full oem is $109
vista ultimate full oem is $180 - $200

[Clive At Five]

You simply can't accept that you are wrong, even when the courts rule on the matter. Call that what you will, you're the one who seems to be good at it.

I understand that the original counterclaim was that Apple held a monopoly over the "OS X market" and abused that market. I understand how this is a flawed claim, which I stated in my very first post.

The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.

Never did I mention the "ease" of breaking copyright or licenses, or any of the other stuff you invented. In fact, I've stated point-blank in other posts that what Psystar is doing is illegal.

So where exactly is your argument -- other than in your head?