Apple's motion to include Snow Leopard in Psystar case denied

[AppleInsider]

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.

[kresh]

Hip - Hip - Hoorah, for the good guys... and it ain't a fruit....

[iphonedeveloperthailand]

Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.

[canucklehead]

And thus reward a dirtbag company that exists only because of its parasitic business model? I think NOT.

Pystar didn't win. Apple screwed up on this one, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by iphonedeveloperthailand

Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by kresh

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)

[jragosta]

Originally Posted by iphonedeveloperthailand

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.

[canucklehead]

I can only assume that you are not in a position where your income depends on the value of YOUR intellectual property. Otherwise, I would think you'd be whistling a different tune.

Originally Posted by kresh

Hip - Hip - Hoorah, for the good guys... and it ain't a fruit....

[irnchriz]

Originally Posted by kresh

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.

[webpoet73]

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.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

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.

[Zweben]

Originally Posted by iphonedeveloperthailand

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.

[Amorya]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

Was there ever a movement to get System 7 or OS 8 or OS 9 off of Apple hardware to any computer?

[DavidW]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

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.

[Zweben]

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.

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.

[webpoet73]

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.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

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?

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by Amorya

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.

[clickmyface]

The judge is an idiot. Snow Leopard was excluded from the discovery period because it was an unreleased version of Mac OS X that Pystar was NOT shipping. There was nothing to discover.

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.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

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.

[Zweben]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

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.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

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!).

[Foo2]

Apple is the inventor and that makes them the "good guys" by default.

Florida stands to make a bundle from this case.

Apple should have released Snow Leopard before it was ready--not.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by Zweben

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.

Is it bad that I see your conclusions as a good thing? And the only way to truely lock down the software, is to use hardware in your computers that no one else can replicate. Hmmm... PA Semi?
But they aren't doing that yet... and I don't know why! If they had some special hardware that increased performance, but they had the patent to so no one else could replicate, then I'd consider an Apple again.

[webpoet73]

When Apple decided to switch to the Intel CPU platform... did they not see this coming? Surely, they had more foresight than this.

I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.

But I also understand and accept their business model.

[DESuserIGN]

I was initially confused by this headline. I thought it said,

"Apple's Motion to include Snow Leopard in a Psystar case, denied!"

My initial irrational thought was, " There's a rumor that Motion is now going to be sold bundled with the OS loaded on a clone box, and it's been proven false? No big surprise! Who comes up with these rumors?"

[bwik]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

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?

I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...

Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.

As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...

Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.

[justflybob]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

When Apple decided to switch to the Intel CPU platform... did they not see this coming? Surely, they had more foresight than this.

I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.

But I also understand and accept their business model.

I believe that you may think this is true due to the CPU's Apple was using at the time were lower clock speeds than those of the Intel line.

Apple's contention was always that the real speed came from the considerably shorter "data pipe" that the G3/G4 PPC chips used more than made up the difference. But this argument has been bandied about for a long, long time.

But, then again, having some experience in developing 3rd party accelerator boards, I tend to believe Apple's position in that argument.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by bwik

I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products. ...

This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.

The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.

[lkrupp]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.

The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.

Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".

[fmaxwell]

Originally Posted by canucklehead

I can only assume that you are not in a position where your income depends on the value of YOUR intellectual property.

Tying his income to the value of his intellectual output would be like paying a blind man based on how many miles he drives each year.

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

PSST! Intel demonstration running OS X on a HACKINTOSH!! Does this mean Apple may be releasing OS X separate from hardware soon?

This was posted in another thread but sure seems like it could be of interest here as well..

Link: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/

Did Apple revise the EULA to specifically exclude Intel and perhaps nobody spotted it?

And if Apple doesn't actively pursue Intel for their blatant disregard of the EULA then why the double standard with Psystar?

Dave

[technohermit]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".

Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?

[fmaxwell]

Originally Posted by technohermit

My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions.

That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)

Originally Posted by technohermit

I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?

Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?

Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.

[Quadra 610]

It makes no difference. It's a technicality. Things will get sorted out at the trial, at which time Psystar will lose. I'd love to see them try to come up with payment of costs, never mind any damages.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by technohermit

Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?

Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.

So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.

Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.

[kresh]

Originally Posted by irnchriz

This guys sounds like a typical thief, pirate, dishonest criminal type. Dont leave your wallet/car keys/kids around this guy.

Wow, talk about a leap in logic

It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.

Oh I can hear you say that Apple defrays the cost of OS X in the selling price of the hardware. If that is the case, then Apple is just gouging customers for something that was paid for when they bought the equipment, they should just give all OS X versions away to everyone that owns a Mac. Of course that whole argument is ridiculous because Apple charges what OS X is worth in order to cover the cost of development.

Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.

[Maximara]

Originally Posted by Zweben

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.

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.

I don't think Apple will lose the case though i do think they dropped the ball on the legal handling of Snow Leopard. Remember that in Dec 2008 Apple charged Psystar with violation of the DMCA and that charge is still on the docket. Also Psystar has made statements that put the in serious trouble with the IRS.

As for cheap hardware the old adage of getting what you pay for applies. Part of the stability of MacOS X is dependent on a limited set of hardware. Getting it to run on Frankenstein computer is one think but to keep it stable is another issue.

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by kresh

Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.

"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.

This is simple.

Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.

That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.

Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.

Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.

[bwik]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place.

In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

(...) Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.

They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.

As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.

[NasserAE]

I can't help it but to think that Apple intentionally did that. Wouldn't the Florida case be dismissed if Psystar lose the California case because they are both based on the same reasoning and logic?