or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit

post #1 of 132
Thread Starter 
Thursday Psystar officially filed a notice of appeal regarding the permanent injunction against the company prohibiting it from selling hardware with Apple's operating system.

According to official court documents, Psystar filed a appeal on Friday regarding the permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Alsup which prohibited the company from selling hardware able to run the Mac OS X operating system.

The injunction was issued following a lawsuit leveled at Psystar by Apple on grounds of copyright infringement in July of 2008. Psystar unsuccessfully countersued, accusing Apple of using anti-competitive tactics to unfairly squeeze out possible rivals.

In early December of 2009, Psystar had agreed to pay Apple a $2.7 million partial settlement. The injunction soon followed, effectively ending Psystar's business.

Despite claims that the company was giving up and closing its doors, Psystar's lawyers reiterated the fact that it would remain a company and would continue to fight. The company currently still has a website, although the only product offered is a t-shirt with the slogan "I sued Psystar and all I got was a lousy injunction" written on it. Donations are also encouraged in the amounts of $20, $50, or $100.

Since Dec. 22, Psystar had "temporarily" halted sales of its Rebel EFI software, an application that allows Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, due to the fact that the original ruling was not clear about the legality of the software.

On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.

"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."
post #2 of 132
Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit. And to solicit donations from the public to help them mount a defense for this appeal, just plain ridiculous.
post #3 of 132
Go Psystar!!!
post #4 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit. And to solicit donations from the public to help them mount a defense for this appeal, just plain ridiculous.

yep. the laws are pretty clear. Apple is NOT a monopoly and regardless of an EULA etc, has the right to tie their software. Psystar needs to get over it.

but this is my fav part

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Since Dec. 22, Psystar had "temporarily" halted sales of its Rebel EFI software, an application that allows Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, due to the fact that the original ruling was not clear about the legality of the software.


The injunction clearly states that Psystar can not give away or sell anything that allows or assists in the unapproved installation of the Mac OS software.

so how is the legality of Rebel EFI unclear, given that that is exactly what it does.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #5 of 132
Want the OS X look without OS X?

Install Ubuntu Linux and the Mac4lin theme.


http://images.howtoforge.com/images/..._m2ad3b0cf.jpg


There is even a OS X theme for Firefox, for Windows.


Several minutes and your done.


If you want OS X on your PC and don't have RebelEFI, get the original open source EmpireEFI.


But fair warning, OS X on a Mac is a much nicer experience.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #6 of 132
Who is (are) funding this company? Where does the money come from because from sales, I doubt they had earned enough to pay the lawyers. Specially that this kind of litigations are super expensive so, I guess they have a "dark angel" pushing for this.
post #7 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiJAG View Post

Who is (are) funding this company? Where does the money come from because from sales, I doubt they had earned enough to pay the lawyers. Specially that this kind of litigations are super expensive so, I guess they have a "dark angel" pushing for this.

This will go no where. I don't think any judge will be invalidating software licenses any time soon. Psystar seems to lack the basic understanding that they don't 'own' OS X. They own a license.

Now they are just wasting more tax payer money.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #8 of 132
Hobbyists have been bending rules for forever. For cars it is put someone else's engine in someone else's chassis (ie. VW engine into a Porche chassis.)
But I don't know anyone who makes a business out of it with todays models.
post #9 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

..."A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."

(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.

Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."
post #10 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.

Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."

Well put!!!
post #11 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

On the front page of its website, Psystar writes: "We respectfully disagree with courts notion that we are 'hardcore copyright infringers.' Psystar has never, and will never, condone software piracy. It's your software, you should be able to use it where you want to. If you purchase an off-the-shelf copy of OS X Snow Leopard, its your right to use that software.

"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."

Um no, it's not your right to "Use that software as you see fit," technically, you DO NOT OWN that software, you are paying for the right to use that software as the publisher see's fit..

And they are right.. Apple cannot forbid the user from using their software in a bathroom if you're using it on and Apple system, but they can (and they have) forbid you to use that software in the bathroom if it was installed on someone else's system (Psystar) who is trying to make a profit off of Apple's intellectual property.. Big difference..
post #12 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.

Also, there is a big difference between "sold" and "licensed."


Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...


Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.

Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.

Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.

Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".

Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.

Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.

But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.

Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.

So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.

Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #13 of 132
Psystar.....what a bunch of losers. Trying ride the coat-tails of Apple. Just swallow some rat poison and go away! You guys aren't contributing anything to the computer marketplace.
post #14 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It's your software

Those three words pretty much sum up how ignorant Psystar and their lawyers truly are.

Actually, I'm sure their lawyers already know how stupid and fruitless their argument is, but they must have some reason for agreeing to continue representing them... money (from where), fame (infamy)?
post #15 of 132
Psystar are freedom fighters. I bow my head before them. I think you should consider donating to their cause instead of donating to Red Cross for Haiti.
post #16 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.

Ah, that explains everything!
post #17 of 132
You can't fix Stupid.
post #18 of 132
Even though I'm happy with my MBP, I applaud Psystar. You can't just put what you like in an EULA and assume that that makes it legal. What if Microsoft had stated in their EULA that you had to accept IE as the default browser? They're making the product -- they have the right to determine what's in it and control the experience. You have the option to buy it and agree to the EULA, or not buy it and go get something else.
post #19 of 132
Vampires - zombies - Psystar. Now we have the digital undead.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #20 of 132
I don't know why some people still defend Psystar. The court ruling is clear and Psystar cannot do what they've been doing.
post #21 of 132
So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
post #22 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?

No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.
post #23 of 132
For those interested, the source code for the recent IE zero day is available for research purposes only.

http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?...230d0f&type=js


Works best with XP and IE 6.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #24 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.

So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
post #25 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.

I suggest you go read some history.
post #26 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?

No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.

Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".

Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously

OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.

I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.

Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #27 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Y
Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".

With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.

So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.

Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.
post #28 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.

Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".

Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously

OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.

I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.

Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.

Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat. But Apple is violating, on a smaller scale, the principle that MS was not allowed to get away with.
post #29 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat.

No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #30 of 132
These people remind me what it's like to step on a dog turd. No matter how hard you try, you just can't seem to get that smell off your shoes..
post #31 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.

You're actually looking at it backwards. MS, because of it's market dominance, is barred from various activities which would normally be acceptable.
post #32 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

You're actually looking at it backwards. MS, because of it's market dominance, is barred from various activities which would normally be acceptable.

Microsoft anti-trust case had nothing to do with licensing at all. I don't know why he seems to think it's even relevant.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #33 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?

I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.

The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.

But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
post #34 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit.

Their theme song must be that of the movie "Rocky"!

Stupid is as Stupid does!!

Psystar is about as useful as a one tit "Octomom" at feeding time!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #35 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.

Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?

It's no different than Verizon locking out the phone manufacturer's code so they could install their crippled store to the phone. You wanted a phone on Verizon, so you dealt with it. You want to run OS X, then you deal with it. Or you hack a junk box and run OS X on it. Apple will not sue you. Just don't f-ing sell it and throw it in their faces. They started out as hackers, they get it.
post #36 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.

The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.

But it only comes down to size.

Again, what does bundling IE have to do with a EULA? Have you even read the anti-trust case against Microsoft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Microsoft's anti-trust case had nothing to do with licensing at all. I don't know why you seem to think it's even relevant. ANY company that is found to be anti-competitive would be exposed to legal action. Apple is no exception. It requires two things. One has to do with market dominance, and the other involves using that dominance to unfair advantage. If Apple was the defacto PC maker, and they sent out the OS with Safari bunled as they do now, they could potentially be caught in the same trap except for the fact that browsers are easily available with the advent of broadband, and the simply fact that if you didn't like Safari, you simply drag it to the trash. MS claimed you couldn't uninstall IE or it would make the OS unstable and slow, which was proved to be false after they were caught submitting false evidence. MS later dropped that claim as a result.

The catch is there is nothing Apple is doing that is anti-competitive. Apple can't be forced to sell their software to competitors. There's a line between day to day business, and helping your competitors put you out of business. Since Apple does not have a market majority AND they are not using that majority to unfairly compete with competitors, there is no anti-competitive action and no valid comparison between the two.

All of which is irrelevant. This is strictly about licensing and copyright. Psystar claimed that they 'owned' their copy of OS X and as such, under copyright law, they could use it without license from Apple (very much legal for something that you purchase and own). However, they failed to realize (or refuse to acknowledge...I'm not sure which), that they do not own OS X. They own a proprietary license, which basically says that Apple retains all ownership, and that blows a huge hole in Psystar's case.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #37 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?

MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
post #38 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.

Maybe you should tell the courts your argument. Would have saved Microsoft millions

Your lack of understanding in regards to anti-trust is amusing.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #39 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.

The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.

But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.

It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.

There are plenty of OS choices. Apple even let's you use other OS's on their hardware if you don't want to use OS X. Just don't steal their software and put it on a non-Apple branded machine. Apple is putting in their EULA that you must use OS X on their hardware, not to stop you from using another OS on their hardware, but to stop you from using their software on a non-branded machine.

Their software is tied to their hardware, but their hardware is not tied to their software. You don't have to use OS X at all. But if you want to, it must be used on an Apple machine. It's not the same thing.
post #40 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.

The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.

But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.

I told you to read the history first. MS case has nothing to do with EULA. Just like LTMP said you are getting it backward. It is perfectly legal to bundle your products together. For example, MS has been bundling Word, Excel, Power Point into Office for years. It becomes illegal when you start to abuse your monopoly and engage in anticompetitive behavior.

By the way, I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy a Mac, do you?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar appeals Apple lawsuit