Apple's motion to include Snow Leopard in Psystar case denied
After Apple allegedly changed its mind on whether to include Snow Leopard in an ongoing suit with Psystar, a U.S. District Court judge has denied the Mac maker's request.
In a new ruling issued Thursday, Judge William Alsup denied Apple's motion to re-open the case's discovery period, which has concluded, to include Snow Leopard. Alsup said that Apple "fought hard" to keep Snow Leopard out of the trial at first, only to later change its mind.
"Some discovery was permitted on Snow Leopard by Apple, but it was adamant that Snow Leopard was not relevant (due to its status as an unreleased product)," he wrote.
But after the discovery period in the trial ended, Psystar sued Apple in a separate case, requesting that the clone Mac maker be granted the ability to buy copies of the new operating system to install on non-sanctioned computers. Psystar requested an injunction in a Florida U.S. District Court, along with damages, due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers." Alsup hypothesized in his ruling that Apple was caught by surprise by Psystar's separate suit.
After Psystar filed its suit, Apple requested, in the California case with Alsup, to re-open discovery and reset the summary judgment timeline, a reverse from its original stance. Such a move would have likely aided Apple in having the Florida case transferred to the California court. But with Alsup's decision Thursday, that will not happen.
"If Snow Leopard was within the scope of its own complaint herein, as it now suggests, then Apple should have welcomed discovery theron rather than, as it did, object to discovery directed at Snow Leopard and effectively taking Snow Leopard out of the case," Alsup wrote. "Apple even chose when to release Snow Leopard and it chose to do so after all opportunity to take discovery on it had ended. The problem is largely one of Apple's own making."
Trial between Psystar and Apple is set to start in January 2010. Alsup said it would be "too prejudicial and too disruptive to re-open the case on the theory" that the Florida suit could move to California.
During the discovery period, Psystar deposed numerous Apple executives for the coming trial. The Florida-based company later accused Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, of being unprepared for his deposition.
In a new ruling issued Thursday, Judge William Alsup denied Apple's motion to re-open the case's discovery period, which has concluded, to include Snow Leopard. Alsup said that Apple "fought hard" to keep Snow Leopard out of the trial at first, only to later change its mind.
"Some discovery was permitted on Snow Leopard by Apple, but it was adamant that Snow Leopard was not relevant (due to its status as an unreleased product)," he wrote.
But after the discovery period in the trial ended, Psystar sued Apple in a separate case, requesting that the clone Mac maker be granted the ability to buy copies of the new operating system to install on non-sanctioned computers. Psystar requested an injunction in a Florida U.S. District Court, along with damages, due to Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers." Alsup hypothesized in his ruling that Apple was caught by surprise by Psystar's separate suit.
After Psystar filed its suit, Apple requested, in the California case with Alsup, to re-open discovery and reset the summary judgment timeline, a reverse from its original stance. Such a move would have likely aided Apple in having the Florida case transferred to the California court. But with Alsup's decision Thursday, that will not happen.
"If Snow Leopard was within the scope of its own complaint herein, as it now suggests, then Apple should have welcomed discovery theron rather than, as it did, object to discovery directed at Snow Leopard and effectively taking Snow Leopard out of the case," Alsup wrote. "Apple even chose when to release Snow Leopard and it chose to do so after all opportunity to take discovery on it had ended. The problem is largely one of Apple's own making."
Trial between Psystar and Apple is set to start in January 2010. Alsup said it would be "too prejudicial and too disruptive to re-open the case on the theory" that the Florida suit could move to California.
During the discovery period, Psystar deposed numerous Apple executives for the coming trial. The Florida-based company later accused Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, of being unprepared for his deposition.
Comments
Pystar didn't win. Apple screwed up on this one, plain and simple.
Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.
Hip - Hip - Hoorah, for the good guys... and it ain't a fruit....
Its not really a win for Pystar, more of a moot point really.
I don't think Pystar are good guys either. They took from the OSX86 community and didn't give back, and continue to do so. OSX86 are the good guys. I would agree that the fruit aren't the good guys, but neither are Pystar. Now, if (and against what many would say here) Apple would open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer, then my tune would change. Till then, no money more of mine will go to support Apple (and same goes for MS, since they lock up their stuff good too, just in different ways)
Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.
Sure. That's just what Apple needs - some unethical, slimy garage shop who can't afford to pay its bills, support its product, or add anything of value associated with the Apple name. That would do wonders to increase Apple's profits.
Hip - Hip - Hoorah, for the good guys... and it ain't a fruit....
Hip - Hip - Hoorah, for the good guys... and it ain't a fruit....
This guys sounds like a typical thief, pirate, dishonest criminal type. Dont leave your wallet/car keys/kids around this guy.
Furthermore, this has always been Apple's business model. I don't know why some people just can't accept that.
Was there ever a movement to get System 7 or OS 8 or OS 9 off of Apple hardware to any computer? If not, why is OS X so different?
Furthermore, this has always been Apple's business model. I don't know why some people just can't accept that.
http://www.emulators.com/softmac.htm
http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/
Emulators, yes... but it does run on X86 hardware.
The main reason 6-10.3 wasn't an issue was because back then, Macs were totally different computers: The PowerPC/G3-5 chips and 680x0 chips were not compatable with x86 calls. Now, Macs ARE PCs, every last bit of them, same things HP and Dell and Acer and such are selling. Because the OS is written for the same processors and chipsets as a standard PC, that is why people are doing this.
EDIT: I think I didn't understand you. I think you meant: "Was there ever a movement to get System 7-9 off of an Apple computer BY APPLE"
To that I reply:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/powe...ac-clones.html
So, yes, they weren't Apple hardware.
Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.
If by 'work out a deal' you mean Apple should buy them... Pystar's hardware is nothing special. Their products are something any guy with a garage could make. What possible value would they represent to a Fortune 100 company? Apple has the resources to deliver something better for the same price. They just don't want to.
If by 'work out a deal' you mean license the use of OS X to Pystar... that would boost OS X market share but hurt Mac sales, which is where Apple makes their real money. Their software division exists primarily to drive hardware sales; they would lose money doing this. It would also probably hurt the general perception of OS X, as Apple would then be legitimately responsible for making sure OS X works properly on third party hardware that is built to a budget.
Either way that makes zero sense.
Was there ever a movement to get System 7 or OS 8 or OS 9 off of Apple hardware to any computer?
Was there ever a movement to get System 7 or OS 8 or OS 9 off of Apple hardware to any computer? If not, why is OS X so different?
Earlier Apple OS's were coded for PPC chips. Even though OSX has it's roots based on x86, it wasn't until OS10.3 that Apple included the X86 codes to run on Intel chips. But there was always a group of hobbyist that entertained themselves by trying to get a Mac OS on a PC. OS10.3 just made it so easy that you no longer need to be a hobbyist to want to do it.
At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.
So, people hate that Apple uses some proprietary hardware and now that they don't, people hate them because they tie their hardware to their software. They are not Microsoft and are out to write an operating system that works with all PC's and hardware. Almost a specific purpose OS whereas Windows, Linux, etc are general purpose OS.
I am pretty sure if they open it up to any craptastic PC, they will run into driver issues and viruses, the same as Windows and then there would be no real reason to use it over Windows especially now that Windows 7 is a pretty damn good OS.
Its not really a win for Pystar, more of a moot point really.
I don't think Pystar are good guys either. They took from the OSX86 community and didn't give back, and continue to do so. OSX86 are the good guys. I would agree that the fruit aren't the good guys, but neither are Pystar. Now, if (and against what many would say here) Apple would open up their OS to be used on any x86/x64 computer, then my tune would change. Till then, no money more of mine will go to support Apple (and same goes for MS, since they lock up their stuff good too, just in different ways)
OSX86 and Psystar both are the bad guys. What rational person would agree that violating the EULA to hack the system to work on non-Apple compliant hardware puts you in the position of good guy?
Incorrect. They were licensed vendors.
The OP was talking about illegal reverse engineering portions of the OS to get the OS to run on non-sanctioned systems.
Previously, for every version of OS X that Pystar has shipped, Apple has amended its complaint to include that version without issue. Now that the discovery period is over, Apple is not allowed to add Snow Leopard to that list? Snow Leopard doesnt count as "Mac OS" or "Mac OS X" as are also is listed in the complaint?
Pystar also tried to claim that Snow Leopard wasnt copyrighted, and thus fail to understand even the most basic sense of the law.
So now we have duplicate trials in two different states. What a wonderful use of tax dollars, brilliant.
I understand that Apple allowed clones for a period of years, but they were just as expensive as Apple hardware... (not during any of the Jobs years).
So, people hate that Apple uses some proprietary hardware and now that they don't, people hate them because they tie their hardware to their software. They are not Microsoft and are out to write an operating system that works with all PC's and hardware. Almost a specific purpose OS whereas Windows, Linux, etc are general purpose OS.
I am pretty sure if they open it up to any craptastic PC, they will run into driver issues and viruses, the same as Windows and then there would be no real reason to use it over Windows especially now that Windows 7 is a pretty damn good OS.
I actually didn't mind when Apple was on their own processors. I liked the fact that there was something more definite as a difference between Apples and PCs. I felt that the price difference was justified, and to be honest, I thought their OS was more stable on the PowerPC architecture than it is now.
Now, since Apple uses the SAME parts as the other PC vendors, I don't feel they are worth the higher price, which is why I won't buy from them any more.
If they open it up to any PC (careful about craptastic, because Apple hardware is the same hardware as the "craptastic" PCs!) then yes, you will have driver issues. I am fine with that. Have the different hardware companies write their own drivers... like they already do for OS X. Apple doesn't have to support any hardware, but I feel they are wrong in cutting hardware off that is identical to their own. Viruses will only become an issue if the Mac becomes more of a lead in the business area, where it isn't. I'd like to see more Macs out there, but only if Apple gets its head out of its ... mud pile in the backyard.
I understand that Apple allowed clones for a period of years, but they were just as expensive as Apple hardware... (not during any of the Jobs years).
So, people hate that Apple uses some proprietary hardware and now that they don't, people hate them because they tie their hardware to their software. They are not Microsoft and are out to write an operating system that works with all PC's and hardware. Almost a specific purpose OS whereas Windows, Linux, etc are general purpose OS.
I am pretty sure if they open it up to any craptastic PC, they will run into driver issues and viruses, the same as Windows and then there would be no real reason to use it over Windows especially now that Windows 7 is a pretty damn good OS.
There is zero chance Apple will open up OS X unless they are forced to by a court, which is extremely unlikely, so that's not even really an issue. The only possibility is that Apple would be rendered powerless to stop companies from selling computers running OS X on unsupported hardware. Apple would almost certainly not be forced to provide support for those computers, meaning driver issues would be working against Pystar, not Apple. That plus fact that the computers are running hacked OSes will probably limit their appeal significantly, so OS X market share wouldn't change much, limiting any changes in the number of viruses on the OS. The only significant effect it would have on Apple would be to hurt their sales and possibly force them to start selling some low priced hardware to compete, or to spend more time locking down OS X to foil Pystar's efforts.
OSX86 and Psystar both are the bad guys. What rational person would agree that violating the EULA to hack the system to work on non-Apple compliant hardware puts you in the position of good guy?
But its the company that wrote the horribly constrictive and anti-competitive EULA that is bad to begin with. That EULA should be thrown out! OSX86 isn't stealing their software. They never have, never will, and never condone such actions (look at their boards!).