Pystar vs Apple Inc

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Feb 21, 2009.

  1. macrumors bot

  2. macrumors regular


    If Macs are so great Apple should welcome this - go Pystar :D
  3. macrumors 6502

    I think Psystar know that they loose. They probably hoping sell as much their products as possible during that time and they won't have to recall every machine after. Unless its true that someone else is behind that case.

  4. macrumors 6502a

    Apple makes the OS. Apple decides how the OS can be used. It's very simple.
  5. macrumors regular

    How many times are you people going to misspell Psystar? I swear you spell it differently for every story that you post on this topic.
  6. macrumors demi-god


    I want to know where this company is getting all this money for all the lawyers.
  7. macrumors 65816


    Agreed. Apple needs to and should have full control of their OS.

    If there is trouble going on that involves how it can be used, Apple should work on getting their copyright updated.
  8. macrumors 68040

    If only it where that simple.

    Unfortunately it really isn't that simple, if it was the issue would not have made it to court. The biggest problem for Apple that I can see is that Mac OS is a product in it's own right, freely sold in Apple stores even, thus people have the right to make hardware that is interoperable with it.

    As to all the wonder about who is behind Psystar, last I knew the law firm took the case for free. Probably because they believe there is a very high probability of winning on enough points to get sizeable legal fees from Apple. While I've actually have forgotten the firms name they do have a history that indicates that they know what they are doing here and have potential for success.

    One big issue in my mind is this does Apple have rights beyond first sale. Recent rulings against record companies would say they don't. That is one thing, another would be blatant anti-competitive practices if their installer specifically craps out because it thinks a piece of hardware is not Apple hardware.

    Obviously Psystar winning will not be good for Apple. Honestly I'm wondering if they think they will loose and thus need to implement different technology to control where the OS can run. I'm actually wondering if the hold up on the Mini, iMac and other Apple computers is due to the law suit. One way Apple could deal with this is to implement a complex non trivial ROM like in the old days of the MAC. Another would be to introduce custom execution units that the likes of Psystar could not reproduce.

    One approach here would be a fully custom vector unit designed by Apple to use in conjunction with OpenCL. Now many here think that Apple will focus on the use of the GPU for acceleration, but having their own vector hardware does have significant advantages one being uniqueness. Another would be uniformity from machine to machine without consideration of the GPU. Finally a well designed vector unit could end up being an even better platform for scientific computing when up against a processor that still has a primary goal of accelerating video.

    Ok so maybe the above is wishful thinking but it is one way for Apple to solve the clone issue. What I'm imagining here is an extension in the North bridge that looks like a cross between an old Alt-Vec processor and the vector units in the Cell processor. Ideally full floating point support for both short (Alt-Vec) and much longer vectors similar to a Cray. If Apple could do vectors that are say 64, 64 bit floats at a time, per computation unit, people would take notice Crazy you might say! Not really as it would certainly produce the machines that nobody else can touch that has been alluded to. It would also be a much better use of the enginnering talents at PA Semi. OpenCL would also make this facility transparent to the user and would not exclude GPU acceleration too.

    OK so I just woke up and this might be a dream. What I do know is that we have been lead to believe that Apple is coming out with machines that others can not compete against. To me this implies hardware others can't get. Combine those statements with the new threat from Psystar and custom hardware becomes even more inviting. Of course that custom hardware could simply be something to lock Psystsr out of the game and offer the user nothing. Frankly if Apple goes that route it will be a very sad reflection on the state of American business. It would also be a sad reflection upon Apple ability to protect itself through innovation.

  9. macrumors regular


    its simple = Mac good everyone else bad. George W took that approach (your either for us or against us) and we all know how that worked out... please Apple don't use your know how
    to put hooks in the OS & or firmware thus copy protecting it, build a better mousetrap and price it right, thats your protection :)
  10. macrumors 68030


    No. It's up to the customer to decide how to use a product that he purchased. I don't need a corporation to tell me what I can do or not do. It's okay that they don't "guarantee that a product is fit for a specific purpose", but it certainly is not okay if they want to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I make it work, it's none of their business.

    Imagine Dunlop telling you that you can use their tires only on Ford. Imagine Ford at the same time telling you that you are only allowed to drive Michelin. Get the idea? The world doesn't work like that.
  11. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    In these thread we always hear from people who believe that all intellectual property laws are evil, probably because they've never created anything themselves.
  12. macrumors 6502a

    They are selling the OS for their machines only. They make it and they should have the full right to do decide how the users can use it.

    If you don't want to use the OS under the manufacture's machine, then don't use it at all.
  13. macrumors 68040

    It isn't clear that Psystar is doing anything wrong based on todays law.

    There is nothing at all evil about the law, it just isn't clear that Apple has the rights some here thinks it has. For one thing the concept of right to first sale has been around for ages. IP laws do provide for certain exceptions to azure interoperability also. Beyond all of that Apple is not even the copyright holder on a vast portion of Mac OS, read through Apples own licensing statement to understand that.

    One thing that will come out of this law suit is a better understanding of just what is legal. Especially with respect to eula and an individuals right to resell software legally purchased by him. Expect Apple to get a lot of software companies to support them in court if it looks like they are loosing.

  14. macrumors 68040

    What an irrational position.

    Imagine if Nikon or Cannon took that position with their cameras and they only allowed you to use YOUR camera in the way they wanted. Would you accept that and if so why?

    Same thing goes for a dirt bike. Shuold the manufacture have a say in where and how you ride it?

    If you are into music, should the manufacture of the quitar have any say in what music you play on it. More so if you create an entirely new style of music should the manufacture be able to stop you from playing that genre?

    Coming around to software Apple often suggest minimal machines for it's software should that prevent you from installing on older hardware if you are willing to take the speed or feature hit? This is somthing that requires that you yourself evaluate the value in the arrangement. If you can make a decision here can't you also evaluate the suitability of the OS, you legally purchased, running on another hardware platform?
    You are simply giving away rights to something you legally purchased. With your attitude we are likely to revert to the days where everybody had a proprietary interface to each and every component of a PC. I don't think anybody wants to revert to those days.

  15. macrumors 68030


    And those who think only Apple has rights and the users and developers who have invested their own time and money in the platform have none at all. This isn't about whether some crackpot PC assembler in a basement can make Macs, this is about whether Apple is afforded despotism.
  16. macrumors 6502

    I really hope Psystar wins this one, which will make more possibilities for us to build our own least more easily.
  17. macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Mmm... not really. It'd be harder if they won.

    If they win, all that that means is that it isn't illegal to install OS X on a PC.

    That doesn't mean that Apple can't hardcode the OS to ONLY run on the hardware configurations in Macs.
  18. macrumors 6502

    Unless Apple gets a wake up call, and realizes that this all happens because they overprice, so I'd hope they'd either let us be and install os x on pc's or reduce the costs of Apple computers.

    Knowing Apple, both are very unlikely to occur though.
  19. macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    No, they don't.

    Overpriced implies that people don't buy them.

    They've posted record sales every quarter for years. They have no need to reduce the price.
  20. macrumors 65816

    No it is not that simple Apple can do what they want with the part of the OS X system they wrote the rest is under the BSD and GPL licenses probably others as well that have their own terms and conditions that Apple has to abide by to use...
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Some people think the laws protecting IP are evil. You hear it in threads about this and other related topics all the time.

    I wouldn't count on this lawsuit clarifying much. As the article says, the case is very specific to the individual facts.

    Another thing the pie-in-the-sky crowd doesn't seem to understand is that if by some fluke Psystar managed to win this case or any significant part of it, Apple needs only to change the way they sell OSX -- because we can be 100% certain that they will not give up the right to sell Macintosh computers in the way they choose. The irony is the methods they will use to make certain that copies of OSX can't be legally purchased, installed on non-Apple computers and resold, will make every Mac owner unhappy. Psystar will still be out of business, and the world will not have become a better place for their having been here.

    No, it's about whether Apple has the right to decide who can make and sell Macintosh computers. The only despotism that might result from the lawsuit is if the courts tell Apple that they no longer have that right.
  22. macrumors member

    Never go to court

    I agree that under current intellectual property rights, Apple is the clear winner. On the other hand, I kind of want Pystar to win. I think that if the law suit looks that Pystar will come out ahead, Apple will announce a new way to allow clones, probably with a lot more control then back in the messed up 90s. However, I think it would be a major mistake for Apple to hardware tie to the software.
  23. macrumors regular


    I simply must intervene on this. I used to work with attorneys and have done extensive work on this subject.

    First the statement you made is not correct but totally flawed. When you purchase the software you have to agree to the terms of use to install it. Your have the obligation to read and accept the agreement of free will. If you do not accept the agreement then you do not have the rights to use the software by any means.

    That agreement does not state in any way shape or form that you are allowed to redistribute their work in a profitable basis to any other individual or entity. If that was the case then one person could purchase the software and distribute anyway he or she see's fit and you would be S.O.L.!


  24. macrumors 65816

    OK, some of you think Apple can't tie their software to their hardware? So that means I can get the Navigation software from say a Mercedes and load it on a Dodge? Also, look back to the 90's when Apple did license out it's OS, the company almost went out of business.

    If Apple were forced to license out their OS, guess what, they're going to operate just like Microsoft and sell 6 different versions for $400+. I HOPE Psystar loses. Apple does retain the right to determine if their IP, i.e. Mac OSX should only run on they're hardware. It's also clearly printed on the box the requirements to install said OS. If you don't like, you don't buy it.

    This will most assuredly hurt the hackintosh community more than anything else. For those that still think Mac's are too expensive; so the world should change everything so that you can afford something nice? Why are you not crying that a Bugatti sells for 2+ million when you can only afford a $30K car. Should Bugatti be forced to sell there cars for less so you can afford them?

    Another thing that will be hurt is Apple's quality hardware. They will not put the R&D in to developing new systems. The reason Apple has done so well in the past several years is there time-tested way of doing business.

    I wish Apple luck, and I hope they prevail. I also hope the backers of these guys are brought into the open and Apple takes measures against them.
  25. macrumors newbie

    I disagree. It only went to court because someone had enough money to take it there.

    Realistically, can Apple guarantee that OS X will run on any computer and still maintain the high level of reliability that we've come to expect? Of course not. OS X is engineered, tested, and licensed for specific hardware. As a result, it's more reliable than anything out there. That's why people are willing to pay so much more for the OS and computers it's designed to run on.

    Psystar will argue that OS X can run well on a wide variety of computers and they're obviously willing to support it. Either way, they're just trying to ride the coattails of Apple's success.

Share This Page