Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review

[pdjudd]

A mid-tower would not cannibalize iMac sales as they cater to and are two different markets.

It might if it were aimed at being targeted toward consumers and priced cheaper which is what I was imagining. I did not think about pricing in the iMac range probably because I figured it would make no sense to sell at that price range lacking a display and iSight camera.

And anyhow it's kinda silly to argue this point anyway - Ever since the iMac came around Apple's philosophy about computers has been about non expandability (outside of RAM and HD) with one sole exception - workstation models that you have to really pay for. I doubt it's about sales - they just don't see it worth expanding their lines like that.

 

[johnhope]

In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?

Wrong because Mac is not a case, it's a software. When Apple talks about desing, they mean engine design, concept design, NOT CASE DESIGN C'MON!!

 

[50548]

All one can say is: GOOD RIDDANCE!

 

[bottleneck]

.

I wonder who is in charge for the MacPro at Apple. Maybe it's a vacancy or somebody who hates the MacPro is in charge since a while. The graphic card drivers speak for themselves, as do the ****** Tunderbolt display panels. Macs are no longer intended to be used for work. And the iMac needs a proper panel aswell.

Thanks.

 

[KnightWRX]

Wrong because Mac is not a case, it's a software. When Apple talks about desing, they mean engine design, concept design, NOT CASE DESIGN C'MON!!

The first IBM clone, the compaq, looked nothing like the IBM desktop at all. It was a functional clone, not a design clone.

Not a hard concept.

 

[D.T.]

Wait a sec ... I’m having problems with my Psystar OpenMac ... so does this mean I can’t get tech support anymore?

 

[pdjudd]

The first IBM clone, the compaq, looked nothing like the IBM desktop at all. It was a functional clone, not a design clone.

Not a hard concept.

This - the term "clone" in computing refers to functional cloning - just like windows today.

 

[codeslinger]

But here is what the real scandal is - that americas legal system is designed to favor the big money, and that justice strongly depends on how deep your pockets are. If that does not work out then the only other explanation is a conspiracy of deeper pockets.

Psystar's persistence that saw the company press the issue with Apple as far as the courts would allow led Apple to suggest a potential conspiracy, questioning why a small company would be so bold in the face of Apple's legal action and how it could have financed the expensive court battles. No such conspiracy was ever revealed, however, with Psystar's financial backing remaining something of a mystery.

Article Link: Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review

 

[BaldiMac]

But here is what the real scandal is - that americas legal system is designed to favor the big money, and that justice strongly depends on how deep your pockets are. If that does not work out then the only other explanation is a conspiracy of deeper pockets.

No. The real scandal here was Psystar infringing on Apple's copyrights.

If you want to talk about unrelated social injustice, there are other forums for that.

 

[KnightWRX]

But here is what the real scandal is - that americas legal system is designed to favor the big money, and that justice strongly depends on how deep your pockets are. If that does not work out then the only other explanation is a conspiracy of deeper pockets.

Wait, why should Psystar be entitled to use the OS Apple spent tons of money on acquiring/making better ?

They can write their own OS on their own time with their own money.

 

[charlieegan3]

1) Who cares what the tower looks like on a desktop computer?
2) The Macbook Pro, iMac, and Macbook Air are great looking computers. the Mac pro is a tower workhorse, not good looking.

NOTE: the Mac pro is not a desktop computer, it the a midi tower.
NOTE: The iMac and Mac Mini are desktop Computers.

I the the Mac Pro looks very very good, and I also think that design is important in towers and in fact all computers, however design should never impact functionality.

Do you think the Mac pro is bad looking?

 

[sinser]

For half of a second, my brain saw a tower image as the page loaded. I was temporarily excited that we had some new Mac Pro news... and then, disappointment.

Same here. I thought it was the new Mac Pro

 

[pdjudd]

Same here. I thought it was the new Mac Pro

What would make you think that? The word Mac Pro Appeared nowhere in the headline and it looked nothing like the Pro ever did! If Apple were re-designing the system we would be hearing about it at a hardware keynote just like with every other re-design. Heck, it would be bolded on the front page of this website and we would know since Apple would have taken down the store!

 

[charlieegan3]

Never look at my computer under the desk.
Over the monitor is a "great looking" print by Giotto.

What about the people who have it on top of the desk?

'Great looking' is largely person dependant, personally i think the mac pro is more pleasing to look at than your 'Giotto'. The world world needs to move on from thinking old = classy...

we get Giotto cards at christmas and quite frankly I find them all rather bland and uninteresting, as far as 'art' goes.

 

[charlituna]

IIRC, when Psystar asked to produce receipts to demonstrate that it had purchase boxed OS X copies, it claimed it had lost the receipts… a bold legal move that didn’t pan out.

They weren't suit down over that issue however. But over the whole violating DMCA etc stuff. Even if they had the receipts for their copies of the software they would have been dinged for the rest.

----------

the problem I have with apples model
for sales is they simply don't offer enough choice in systems.

That you don't like the choices, or lack thereof, doesn't negate Apple's legal right to set the choices or give you or anyone else the legal right to 'fill in the gaps'.

 

[codo]

I still to this day think someone was bankrolling Psystar! Would love to know who.

 

[charlituna]

If you buy software and install it on your machine, how is that copyright infringement?

It might be against the EULA, but nobody's infringing on any copyrights...

Not true. Under US law, Apple can restrict their software to whatever hardware they want. There is no Mac Computer Market that requires competition. Under US law, Apple can include whatever software keys etc they want to ensure that their software only goes on the hardware they choose. And under US laws, you can't legally modify those keys to use the software in a way that isn't approved by Apple.

All of this was backed up by the court cases and now in effect backed up by the Supreme Courts refusal to review the case and render a judgment. That refusal is their way of saying that the appeals court was correct in their decision.

 

[BaldiMac]

however design should never impact functionality.

That's something that only sounds good if you don't understand what good industrial design is. Form and functionality are integral to design. The form of a laptop is part of the functionality. It's all about compromises.

 

[charlituna]

Proves nothing. They had neither the apple name

As I recall at one point they were also in trouble for trademark violations for calling their computers Macs.

 

[gnasher729]

Wait a sec ... I’m having problems with my Psystar OpenMac ... so does this mean I can’t get tech support anymore?

The court case means nothing. The fact that Psystar went bankrupt years ago meant that yes, you are not going to get any tech support from them.

The whole thing was ridiculous in the first place. If you want to run MacOS X and not buy a Macintosh, there are plenty of computers from reputable companies that you can buy that can be convinced to run MacOS X. And if the computer breaks, you re-install Windows, return it to the retailer, and it will be fixed (at least I assume it will be). Paying money to a company like Psystar for third-rate hardware, considering that their demise was inevitable, never made any sense.

Wait, why should Psystar be entitled to use the OS Apple spent tons of money on acquiring/making better ?

They can write their own OS on their own time with their own money.

Anyone who wants to sell their own computer brand, Microsoft will willingly sell them operating systems, they can get Linux for free, and there are probably other choices.

 

[charlituna]

Apple is smart enough to realize that if they license their OS, their hardware will be next to impossible to sell - and that stuff is what drives their OS.

More to the point they would have to service that hardware with their software. Having to create unlimited drivers etc and deal with the fallout when folks blame the software for what is actually hardware failings was deemed not worth it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Anyone who wants to sell their own computer brand, Microsoft will willingly sell them operating systems, they can get Linux for free, and there are probably other choices.

Exactly. Boggles the mind why they would choose an OS they have no rights to for which the vendor does not want to provide them legitimate licenses for when they had so many other choices (roll their own, Microsoft, the BSDs, a Linux distribution).

 

[charlituna]

Shame about Psystar. Apple need some competition in order to motivate them into lowering their prices.

It's called Linux and Windows.

Now they have a billion squillion in cold hard cash couldn't they ease up on their prices a little?

they are a business not a charity. they have no legal or moral mandate to be cheaper.

 

[pdjudd]

More to the point they would have to service that hardware with their software. Having to create unlimited drivers etc and deal with the fallout when folks blame the software for what is actually hardware failings was deemed not worth it.

Well presumably the third party would cover most support, but that's an ideal - people would be targeting Apple.

The whole idea is presumed on the basis that Apple would desire to cede control of their IP. I laugh at that idea these days.

 

[charlieegan3]

That's something that only sounds good if you don't understand what good industrial design is. Form and functionality are integral to design. The form of a laptop is part of the functionality. It's all about compromises.

ohh i'm I used all the wrong terminology, he just pissed me off with his pretentious painting comment