Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[NT1440]

do you not see some people cant afford/dont need a new computer but would be willing to spend 300ish to put osx on their existing one, which they can upgrade themselves?

the way i see it, apple does what apple does, if you REALLY like OSX then youll do what it takes to get a mac, it also happens to be the reason many apple fans are so loyal, it takes commitment to get a mac (if you arent rich)

 

[dukebound85]

the way i see it, apple does what apple does, if you REALLY like OSX then youll do what it takes to get a mac, it also happens to be the reason many apple fans are so loyal, it takes commitment to get a mac (if you arent rich)

i really like osx and i have a mb AND a hackintosh

 

[drmario]

Here's a better analogy that I used today to think this through myself.

Let's say I purchased a book written by Steven King. Now let me ask a series of questions.

1) Does it violate copyright for me to sell the book? No.
2) What if I wrote some notes in the margin and my name on the inside front cover? No, still ok to sell it.
3) What if I draw lines through the last page, write my own ending on the backside of the page, and slap a sticky on the front of the book saying "includes the 'saltyzoo' ending!"? Probably still ok, if it's one copy.
4) What if I do #3 and begin mass production? I'd probably be sued to the stone-ages and lose badly.

So then, I asked myself these questions.

1) Forget the law, does it *harm* Steven King for me to sell the book as described in #1 above? No, he sold one book, and there is still only one book out there that has been paid for.
2) Does it *harm* Steven King for me to do #2? Nope
3) Does it *harm* Steven King for me to do #3? Nope, he was paid for the copy of the book, he is getting full credit for writing the book, the changes I made are clear to anyone that can see well enough to read, and they know exactly what they are buying, my work cannot be confused for his, and vice-versa.
4) Mass production of #3. Here's where it gets sticky. Deep down, I don't feel that he would be harmed. But the problem is that he *may* be harmed by what I'm doing. So it's difficult to take that away from him.

I really want OS X to be opened up. But when I look at it objectively I cannot argue with the fact that it is violating Apple to allow this to happen. I really, really want to be wrong, but sadly, I'm not. If only they would do it themselves. 🙁

I agree with this. It would be like taking some popular song, changing a minor part of it then selling it as your own song.

 

[r.j.s]

<rant>

I haven't outright stated it, yet, but I don't want Apple to open up OS X to other vendors for a very big reason. Drivers.

I would not be willing to pay $300 for OS X, just to have to make sure that it works with my hardware, and make sure my drivers are up to date.

I bought a Mac so I don't have to worry about that. Apple does it for me, I no longer have to rollback drivers because a newly updated one broke something else, or didn't work right.

I know ... people will say "Apple just needs to limit the hardware," But how? All that will do is cause more people to cry because the graphics card that has been on the market for 2 days hasn't been tested yet, and doesn't work at all with their system. It won't work.

I want the Apple that makes sure my computer works, with as little tinkering as possible on my part, not the one that caters to everyone who can't afford/ won't spend the money on a Mac. Not everyone can own a BMW.

</rant>

 

[Sun Baked]

If people think Psystar is right, put you money where your mouth is...

Anybody contributed to Psystar's legal defense fund?

Has a free legal team come to aid them?

Is there a PayPal donation line set up?

Edit: Wonder what the Electronic Frontier Foundation is going to do with Apple trampling another innocent small guy trying to make a living. Laugh or help.

 

[NT1440]

If people think Psystar is right, put you money where your mouth is...

Anybody contributed to Psystar's legal defense fund?

Has a free legal team come to aid them?

Is there a PayPal donation line set up?

count me in, for NOT helping out psystar

 

[CWallace]

some people cant afford/dont need a new computer but would be willing to spend 300ish to put osx on their existing one, which they can upgrade themselves?

But that is one of the advantages we have now. How many people on this forum are using G4s and even G3s productively today? We have members who say "my PowerMac G4 is five/six/seven years old and it's long in the tooth, but it's getting me by comfortably until Nehalem / Grand Central ships".

We have three year old Dells with 3.0 GHz P4s at work that can barely boot Windows XP even with 1GB of RAM in them. They spin their 5400RPM hard drives for four minutes straight loading the OS and maybe one or two Office applications.

Businesses swap out their PCs every three years for two reasons - one is the warranty runs out and two is after three years the hardware is not up to the task to effectively and efficiently run the current OS and applications of the day. And Vista and Office 2007 are only going to accelerate this trend. Our newest machines are being customized with 7200RPM HDDs, 4GB of RAM and mid-range video cards in the desperate hope that they'll somehow be able to boot Windows 7 and load Office 2010 in three years time.

And yet, somehow I feel confident my current 2.4GHz 4GB MacBook Pro will happily load OS 10.8, Creative Suite 5, and iWorks '10 and remain productive doing so.

 

[CWallace]

<rant>

I haven't outright stated it, yet, but I don't want Apple to open up OS X to other vendors for a very big reason. Drivers.

I would not be willing to pay $300 for OS X, just to have to make sure that it works with my hardware, and make sure my drivers are up to date.

I bought a Mac so I don't have to worry about that. Apple does it for me, I no longer have to rollback drivers because a newly updated one broke something else, or didn't work right...

</rant>

Hear! Hear!

Again, I don't begrudge those who want to experiment or seek the OS X experience in a way Apple doesn't offer via building their own Hackintoshes.

But I certainly don't want Apple fiscally weakened by rampant cloning to the point they can't continue to offer me the positive user experience I enjoy today. Or worse, having them subsumed by some larger corporation looking to make a fast buck off the name-recognition Apple has in the industry and dilute it into a pale shadow of what it once was.

I lived through it with the Amiga (on which I actually used to run the Mac OS thanks to hardware emulation via the system ROMs) and I don't want to live it again with the Macintosh...

 

[G58]

I don't think the suction would be as good on a matt screen, and the suckers might leave marks that can't be removed.

If you don't know about the need for suckers, look for the case screws on a current iMac!

dude do you know anything about marketing?
I think they care so much about which makes more money, that is way they are making iPhone, iPod, etc.

Don't get me wrong ... I love apple, and OS X, but I hate how their products are limited. You don't even have an option to order a non-glossy iMac.(I think if you want you have to go ahead and order a Mac Pro + cinema display and spend over 3000 bucks!) This is insane !!

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Ultimately, this entire thread is coming down to two sides that are either for or against the right of the CONSUMER to CHOOSE what operating system (bought and paid for) goes on the hardware they buy. If I want to go to a junkyard and buy a Ford radio and go home and stick it into a Chevy, that is my RIGHT to do so. If I can BUY it, I can install it on whatever I want to install it on, including a boat or even above the kitchen sink if I want to. What RIGHT does ANYONE have to tell me where I can install a car radio after I buy it? So why SHOULD it be any different with a piece of software?

If it's against the law, the laws are stupid and need to be changed. EVERYTHING in this country should be about protecting the greater good, not special interests. People on the news shout about this all the time and yet the politicians keep doing whatever they feel like when they get into office. THAT is reason enough alone for me to ignore bad laws. Some people think the courts don't give a crap about morality or ethics? Well, they SHOULD because any law that is not moral or ethical should be struck DOWN by the courts the same way they strike down laws that violate a person's privacy, right to exist, right to equality, etc. Morality and ethics are EVERYTHING. If a country is unethical, the people should revolt and change it if needed. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says so point blank in it:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

All these people that go on and on about laws yet give no thought to ethics and morality prove they don't deserve to live in a country like the US, which is founded on the principles of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no freedom of choice with OSX to pick anything but Apple Hardware. There is no equality of hardware or hardware opportunities with other clone makers products as Apple lacks several distinct comparable models, including the mythical mid-range tower. And their decision to limit those choices and take an active role in preventing others from delivering for them is definitely affecting my pursuit of happiness in computing. I therefore declare Apple unethical and demand that their 'vertically integrated' (or dare I say monopolistic?) business model be overthrown! 😀

What! That's ridiculous? And this thread isn't getting ridiculous? I suggest neither side will EVER agree with each other so the arguments are all becoming trite. I'm therefore bailing out of them with this final post on the matter. It actually represents my ethical and moral feelings on the matter. Bad laws should not be followed, but rather struck down. Feel free to tear it and each others posts apart until you're blue in the face. I've got better things to do like finish Throne of Bhaal on my PC (sadly the Mac version seems to cost a lot more than on a PC, despite its age, so I went with the PC version, which is yet another reason gaming on OSX isn't great; there's no economies of scale or apparently even retail shelf life to the games).

 

[G58]

I Agree, this is another example of where big government attitudes towards civil liberties has warped peoples' perception of their rights.

I think Apple is on shaky legal ground here. Psystar's biggest problem is with it's name! How do you pronounce it? Sistar? Systar? Shyster? 😱

*chokes*

You're kiding me right now......... right?

Most people confuse things and say installing OS X on generic hardware is a copyright violation (which it isn't) but I've never seen anyone confuse it with PIRACY, lol.

The only thing installing OS X on generic hardware does is break the EULA. What does that mean? Well, according to the EULA itself that failure to comply absolves Apple from supporting your copy of the software. Oooooh, really scary. I'll take that risk.

"Why" you might ask? Because I refuse to use Windows, but I also refuse to allow Apple to bully me into buying hardware that doesn't fit my needs as a user. If that means I surrender support of the product, fine. I should (and do) have that choice.

You make excersizing consumer choice against a corporation's will sound like the 8th deadly sin or something.

-Clive

 

[G58]

Bad law never stopped anyone from doing something even worse, whilst pretending to do good! Governments do it all the time. Possession of a mandate is too often considered to be a right, not the temporary privilege it actually is. Apple are now acting like big gov, and that's bad.

From the very few comments I've read form Psystar [some bloke called 'Robert' I think] they aren't really that smart. But it isn't wrong either.

What they are doing is actually potentially a bigger copyright infringement of the work carried out by the open source project that created the capability to run OS X on PCs in the first place.

But that's yet another story...

And that was an atrociously bad decision too, albeit an unsurprising one in today's world. I imagine it cost the Copyright Barons a lot of "donations" (or "free speech" I believe you Americans like to call it).

What Psystar is doing is no different to the aftermarket car modification shops who take a brand new card, soup up the engine, add body kits, install a new stereo, etc, then resell it. No different. They are not pretending they wrote OS X. They are not providing you with a copy of OS X that hasn't been paid for. They are not misrepresenting what they are doing.

No-one has a problem with such aftermarket car modifiers. Indeed, if anyone suggested what they were doing was even remotely "wrong" - let alone illegal - they'd be laughed out of the room.

The very fact that Apple can even bring this lawsuit, demonstrates how broken copyright is and how misleading the term "intellectual property" is.

Psystar are doing nothing wrong. That they could be considered to be breaking the law, simply highlights how bad the law is.

 

[leekohler]

Anybody actually have one of these? I honestly have been thinking about getting one to compliment my dual core G5. It's better than shelling out the ridiculous amount of cash for a Mac Pro. Apple needs to sell a mid-range tower. This thing with Psystar has really illuminated that hole in their line up. I'd love to have one of these if it really works.

 

[xbjllb]

Bottom line for Apple... do it or lose it

Before I plunk down $10,000 for a fully tricked out Mac Pro including their overpriced drives and memory to have an out of the box solution, I'm going to do the due diligence, download what I have to, research the forums I have to, to build a PC THAT WILL DO WHAT I NEED IT TO DO if APPLE DOESN'T. And save myself $5000 in the process.

What do I need it to do? HAVE FULL AUTHORING/WRITING/BURNING/PLAYING SUPPORT OF BLU-RAY.

Until the Mac Pro can do this WHILE PC'S CAN, it's just a pile of overpriced JUNK. WAY overpriced.

And I'm not the only content producer/provider that feels this way. Apple made FCP and bought Logic and touted the MacPro as the cutting edge audio and video editing solution; WELL IT'S NOT AND IT HASN'T BEEN FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW. TWO YEARS without a cinema display update. Laughable video card support for pro apps; a year old card becomes available and we do cartwheels. Pathetic.

Apple, your last warning: get with the program, deliver on your hype, and work the damn bugs out of Leopard you put there for iCandy wowie zowie and iCrap support, OR I WILL GO ELSEWHERE and I'm just the loudmouthed vocal tip of the iceberg.

Building my own hackintosh is looking better and better all the time.

And if Apple has some sort of fanboi boiler room attack squad set up as you would think from some of these hysterical posts lauding Apple like its the Obama of the computer world, they'd be far better off beta testing Os releases and doing market research on FOLKS WITH REAL MONEY.

People are ALREADY editing video with FCP AND authoring blu-ray discs (on the Windows side anyway) and making music with Logic on HACKINTOSHES.

😡😱

 

[dukebound85]

Anybody actually have one of these? I honestly have been thinking about getting one to compliment my dual core G5. It's better than shelling out the ridiculous amount of cash for a Mac Pro. Apple needs to sell a mid-range tower. This thing with Psystar has really illuminated that hole in their line up. I'd love to have one of these if it really works.

how about building your own?

here is pretty much what i have except i have the 2.4 core2quad chip instead and 4 gigs of ram (not the 2gigs in the spreadsheet). geekbench is ~6300 with the quad in mine. i am currently running 10.5.4 too with no problems beside sleep (shuts it down instead)

prices on spreadsheet are from 3 weeks ago

 

[Rhalliwell1]

Difference between radios and software

If I want to go to a junkyard and buy a Ford radio and go home and stick it into a Chevy, that is my RIGHT to do so.

When you buy software you buy a right to the software, you don't own the software. You run it under certain condition (EULA) and in the example of OS X you run it on 'apple' hardware.

 

[jbernie]

Businesses swap out their PCs every three years for two reasons - one is the warranty runs out and two is after three years the hardware is not up to the task to effectively and efficiently run the current OS and applications of the day. And Vista and Office 2007 are only going to accelerate this trend. Our newest machines are being customized with 7200RPM HDDs, 4GB of RAM and mid-range video cards in the desperate hope that they'll somehow be able to boot Windows 7 and load Office 2010 in three years time.

And yet, somehow I feel confident my current 2.4GHz 4GB MacBook Pro will happily load OS 10.8, Creative Suite 5, and iWorks '10 and remain productive doing so.

The Windows side seems to be a bit of a stretch, not sure what sort of work your company is doing, am guessing not graphics given the "mid range" graphics card but regardless the suggestion that you require this high level setup to run the Windows OS & Office in 3 years seems a bit unrealistic. We are running quite a lot on 1.5GB ram without any performance hit (i run a minimum of 6 all day).

Users tend to have many apps open but few actually actively processing all the time.

 

[Patriiick]

Before I plunk down $10,000 for a fully tricked out Mac Pro including their overpriced drives and memory to have an out of the box solution, I'm going to do the due diligence, download what I have to, research the forums I have to, to build a PC THAT WILL DO WHAT I NEED IT TO DO if APPLE DOESN'T. And save myself $5000 in the process.

What do I need it to do? HAVE FULL AUTHORING/WRITING/BURNING/PLAYING SUPPORT OF BLU-RAY.

Until the Mac Pro can do this WHILE PC'S CAN, it's just a pile of overpriced JUNK. WAY overpriced.

And I'm not the only content producer/provider that feels this way. Apple made FCP and bought Logic and touted the MacPro as the cutting edge audio and video editing solution; WELL IT'S NOT AND IT HASN'T BEEN FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW. TWO YEARS without a cinema display update. Laughable video card support for pro apps; a year old card becomes available and we do cartwheels. Pathetic.

Apple, your last warning: get with the program, deliver on your hype, and work the damn bugs out of Leopard you put there for iCandy wowie zowie and iCrap support, OR I WILL GO ELSEWHERE and I'm just the loudmouthed vocal tip of the iceberg.

Building my own hackintosh is looking better and better all the time.

And if Apple has some sort of fanboi boiler room attack squad set up as you would think from some of these hysterical posts lauding Apple like its the Obama of the computer world, they'd be far better off beta testing Os releases and doing market research on FOLKS WITH REAL MONEY.

People are ALREADY editing video with FCP AND authoring blu-ray discs (on the Windows side anyway) and making music with Logic on HACKINTOSHES.

😡😱

Maybe you should go ahead and buy a PC.
You seem to be on the market exactly for that since the current apple product offers dont suit you.

Buy why come do a long tirade here ?

 

[Blue Velvet]

EVERYTHING in this country should be about protecting the greater good, not special interests.

Explain to me how abandoning copyright law and the protection it offers serves the greater good. Explain to us how the moral rights of the creator and owner represent special interests. You confuse your own greed with the greater good and place your own needs at centre stage; where are the protections for the owner and creator of the work?

You are entirely welcome to use open-source software that places little restriction on its use. Yet, this isn't good enough for you. You want a product that's cost millions to research, develop and market to be available to you all and sundry on your own terms, not those of the owner. Do you think that OSX would even exist in the first place, if those were the terms of its license? Apple would have no incentive at all to release and support a product like this.

The day you actually create something of value that others want to buy, is the day you'll understand why things are like the way they are. In the meantime, you are free to use different computers and different OSs.

Funny how we didn't see this level of hand-wringing and hysteria with OS9. Give Apple a shot at comparative success with an attractive product and people like you want to bring it down in favour of some two-bit crummy little hardware manufacturer that has borne nothing of the cost and risk of bringing this product to market, profiting entirely off the work of others.

And yet you have the gall to come here and accuse others of not having ethics?

 

[englishman]

Explain to me how abandoning copyright law and the protection it offers serves the greater good. Explain to us how the moral rights of the creator and owner represent special interests. You confuse your own greed with the greater good and place your own needs at centre stage; where are the protections for the owner and creator of the work?

You are entirely welcome to use open-source software that places little restriction on its use. Yet, this isn't good enough for you. You want a product that's cost millions to research, develop and market to be available to you all and sundry on your own terms, not those of the owner. Do you think that OSX would even exist in the first place, if those were the terms of its license? Apple would have no incentive at all to release and support a product like this.

The day you actually create something of value that others want to buy, is the day you'll understand why things are like the way they are. In the meantime, you are free to use different computers and different OSs.

Funny how we didn't see this level of hand-wringing and hysteria with OS9. Give Apple a shot at comparative success with an attractive product and people like you want to bring it down in favour of some two-bit crummy little hardware manufacturer that has borne nothing of the cost and risk of bringing this product to market, profiting entirely off the work of others.

And yet you have the gall to come here and accuse others of not having ethics?

Once a company gets to the size of Apple it bears certain additional responsibilities. This is established and accepted (although hard fought for ) with patents on drugs say. Likewise with a product like OSX that runs people's businesses - Apple are putting unreasonable restrictions on its use. I like the analogy of the hammer only being able to be used with certain nails.

As someone said above - if this is the law - the law is an ass. We are not advocating not paying for OSX.

 

[saltyzoo]

If it's against the law, the laws are stupid and need to be changed. EVERYTHING in this country should be about protecting the greater good, not special interests. People on the news shout about this all the time and yet the politicians keep doing whatever they feel like when they get into office. THAT is reason enough alone for me to ignore bad laws. Some people think the courts don't give a crap about morality or ethics? Well, they SHOULD because any law that is not moral or ethical should be struck DOWN by the courts the same way they strike down laws that violate a person's privacy, right to exist, right to equality, etc. Morality and ethics are EVERYTHING. If a country is unethical, the people should revolt and change it if needed. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says so point blank in it:

I think you need to read the constitution (after you're done re-reading the Declaration), which is actually the legal document that is important. It spends a whole lot of words making darn well sure collective desires NEVER override the basic rights of the individual.

The courts have to apply the laws, not their personal morals or ethics. It is up to the lawmakers to create laws that cover our societies morals, not judges. That is the whole reason we have 3 branches of government. To prevent giving one person the power to create, decide, and execute their personal "morality" unchecked.

The constitution says very clearly that we cannot take away the rights of one for the "good of the rest".

If you invent a car that runs on water, it is not moral or ethical for everyone else to steal your design and use it without compensating you - even though it would result in faster energy independence and a stronger national economy. You have an individual right to that intellectual property. And our laws protect that right, as they should - even if it isn't what some could argue is "best for the common good". The common good is irrelevant when compared to your individual right.

Once a company gets to the size of Apple it bears certain additional responsibilities. This is established and accepted (although hard fought for ) with patents on drugs say. Likewise with a product like OSX that runs people's businesses - Apple are putting unreasonable restrictions on its use. I like the analogy of the hammer only being able to be used with certain nails.

Just because we really want something, doesn't make it unreasonable if the other person won't give it to us. I want there to be the same number of hotdogs as there are buns, but the bun company doesn't have a "responsibility" to be sure I get what I want.

I've tried everything to justify to myself forcing Apple to do what I want. But the reality is it is their property and their decision.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Once a company gets to the size of Apple it bears certain additional responsibilities. This is established and accepted (although hard fought for ) with patents on drugs say. Likewise with a product like OSX that runs people's businesses - Apple are putting unreasonable restrictions on its use.

Those restrictions are entirely legitimate to protect their own business interests as Apple makes the bulk of its income from hardware, not software.

Apple doesn't hold sole responsibility on computers and software. You are free to choose others, businesses in particular often do. Besides, comparing drug patents for products that save people's lives to a computer operating system that corners about 10% of the market seems to be a stretch at best.

 

[AJ's Apple]

I hope the other company wins. It' about time Apple had a bit of competition with their own platform. They have quite the monopoly on their hardware with respect to software. I should be able to build my own computer, or use someone else's hardware packaged for me. No doubt, Apple has great products. But, it's monopolized it's software from non-Apple machines. Take Microsoft, or even Adobe, for example. If they can build a software that an Apple OS can run, someone should be a ble to build a computer that Apple's OS will run.



This is why I won't buy an iPhone... Apple limits me to one carrier.

 

[lifeinhd]

These are the points that always baffle me: OS X is so good I'm willing to pay more for it, but not so great that I am willing to get a Mac. It is a quite a balancing act, isn't it?

Absolutely. But considering you can build (or buy) a decent computer for as little as $500 these days, so even if OS X cost $500, you'd still be coming out ahead (when compared to, say, the low end iMac). I haven't actually done the research, but I'm willing to bet that the same would apply if you wished to build a Mac pro-class computer.

 

[saltyzoo]

These are the points that always baffle me: OS X is so good I'm willing to pay more for it, but not so great that I am willing to get a Mac. It is a quite a balancing act, isn't it?

They aren't so baffling if you happen to have need for a computer that doesn't fit into Apple's narrow product line. I'm willing to get a Mac (hell, I have 3 already), but there isn't one that meets my needs and I still want to run OS X. 🙁