If I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X and want to install it on my toaster, it should be okay to do so.
You seem to be littering quite a few threads with your own poorly thought out, twisted logic.
Quote:
Maybe Microsoft should make hardware too and make it illegal to install their OS on any other box.
Microsoft have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Doing what you suggest would invite REAL ant-trust action against them, and run their Windows business into the ground.
It's just a step up from the previous hair-brained scheme to only allow an OS to be installed on polka-dot computers.
Quote:
If Apple is successful in shutting down Psystar, the hacking WILL continue.
So what! How many times do you have to hear it? Apple doesn't care about the tiny minority of Hackintosh nerds who just live to solder.
As the end user, I don't agree with Apple's business model. Comcast is my #1 company to despise. Funny I compare Apple to them. It is the belief of Comcast to force people to use a converter for all channels above 34, when most new TV sets will pick them up in the digital cable format if they are not scrambled. Because Dish Network, Direct TV, AT&T, Verizon, etc., use a box, so can Comcast. They all but said that on their website. So Apple, like Comcast, doesn't want anyone but them to make a dime. I can think of numerous words that end in "ism" here. Apple will never change, and as a result, I will only give them the money they force me into. Too bad their business model makes some people angry. I will buy Mac hardware just so I can have the OS. Out of spite, I will never purchase anything else. Kind of like Hallmark Channel deciding to remove Matlock from the line-up. I do my best to avoid all things Hallmark. To a degree, I'm sorta normal. The sparks flew at ABC's Boston Legal forum when it looked like Denny Crane had voted for Obama when he is a died in the wool Republican. Some claimed they would never watch ABC again. Does Apple ever take these kinds of things into consideration?
You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but it?s always silly and short-sided.
You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but it?s always silly and short-sided.
If I want Mac OS, I am forced to buy a Mac. I will not hack, nor purchase a clone. I either buy a Mac with Mac OS, or anything else, but with Windows. You people make me crazy. Should I dare to voice an opinion against the all-mighty Apple, you guys are all over me like stink on poop. It is people like you who made it possible for the merger of Sirius and XM satellite radio. Now there is just one and it is trash. All the great XM talent is toast. Apple has a monopoly (exclusive) on their OS. Isn't that what this thread is about? I own a Mac and use Mac OS. That should allow me an opinion on any topic in this forum. I am not here to be popular. If Apple can "Think Different", why can't I???
Thinking different implies thinking. Saying that a company has a monopoly on their product isn?t thinking.
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
Like how Compaq has a monopoly on Presarios or how MS has a monopoly on MS Paint.
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly.
A company can (in most cases) have absolute control of their own products. It's when a company has control of the market, or "market power" that monopoly or anti-trust issues might occur.
Quote:
There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
Well that's the problem really isn't it? Not only are you disagreeing with the people here but with a federal judge and the law of the land.
If I want MS Paint I have to buy Windows to get since MS doesn?t sell MS Paint to run on any other OS. That is wrong?
That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to .
That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to .
Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The “stupid” argument I made is the same “stupid” argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The ?stupid? argument I made is the same ?stupid? argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly.
I always have Alex read my posts. Not really an option. Otherwise I will appear to have the IQ of a piece of celery. I'm sure that is what you people, some anyway, think. Guess I'm just a redneck in a rock and roll bar. Jerry Reed. There are some here that will agree with my ranting. I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS. I've already claimed I will not buy a machine to run OS X that isn't a Mac. I don't own a soldering iron. What else do you people want? If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.
I think perhaps the easiest way to understand this issue is to ask whether it should be legal for someone to obtain the parts which make up a copyrighted or patented product and then proceed to build and sell that product. I think the answer is obviously no.
This is precisely what Psystar is attempting to do. A Macintosh computer is a combination of the hardware and the operating system. Neither is functionally a Mac on its own. .
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS.
Is it fair for a company, not just Apple but any company, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and building an operating system to be used exclusively on their own computers?
Is it fair for another company, not just Psystar but any company, to build and sell computers running an operating system that they have neither a licence nor permission to use?
Quote:
If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.
If Psystar wasn't breaking the law Apple wouldn't have taken them to court. Apple's choice, or lack of choice, of computers has nothing to do with this argument.
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
I broke it down to make it clear. I broke it down because some still think it's about the EULA. It isn't about the EULA. I also don't think it's about pre-installation, although pre-installing does makes Psystar's intent extremely clear. Their intent it to sell Macintosh computers. It also has nothing to do with antitrust. The bundling is not trademarked or patented, it is the product which is. Again you can not break a product down to its constituent parts and then claim that since you can buy all of them individually, you now have the right to assemble and sell the product. That logic doesn't apply to any other product; it is entirely unclear to me why some think it applies to a Mac.
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
Now I remember you Sigh!
You're the guy that keeps ranting about anti-trust and bundling and monopoly ... even after the judge had dismissed that argument.
You're the guy that said Apple don't have a case and will bribe Psystar to just go away.
You're the guy that said that, somehow "Apple have to prove" that their business model is different from Microsoft's. (?)
You're the guy that either doesn't understand intellectual property or simply doesn't respect it.
You're the guy that said that lawyers wearing Armani suits was an example of profiting from other people's copyrights.
You're the guy that thought that the government would probably end up breaking Apple into smaller parts.
Well, I find the "prevent consumers from using their own licensed products" kick to be just one big prima donna act. Consumers have a wide legal berth. There has been a lot of push and pull between the MPAA, RIAA, SPA regarding rights, and the various consumers (including the use of bundled products). A lot of their talking points are nothing more than baseless, industrial messaging designed to expand their profit base and scare people. TV could argue you can't TiVo their programs. Music makers could argue you can't record a cassette tape. And on and on. It is their job to try to make assertions because sometimes they get lucky. But the opinion of IP holders is not a holy thing. Society as a whole balances their rights against the freedoms of fair use, privacy and many other issues relating to this case. Perhaps it is none of Apple's business what Psystar is doing with these OS copies. For example.
Again, you're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong perspective. Consumers do have alot of rights, but forcing a company to change its business strategy simply because they disagree with it isn't one of those rights.
The sense of entitlement some of you people have is entirely unjustifiable. Those bodies have every right to want to protect their profits and, yes, looking around some college campuses, it's not hard to see why (more stolen movies than the eye can see). That's not to say they don't sometimes overdo it, but one can at least understand why.
I'm sure businesses would be alot more open to allowing things like Blu-Ray's "Managed Copy" were, again, there not a generation full of kids with not respect for IP law walking around. Hell, one of my friends has a netflix account solely for the purpose of ripping the movies he rents from it. People simply can't be trusted. I was reading a forum just the other day complaining about Palm not licensing WebOS out (ostensibly because they wanted it on a Blackberry). Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you the right to change it by force.
Are an IP holder's rights a holy grail? No, but neither are those of a consumer in that same vein. I can bitch and moan all day long that I can't buy Tommy Hilfiger's clothes at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean Tommy has to submit to my demands. I can also bitch about how Tommy doesn't make a certain kind of shirt I like, but that doesn't give me the right to make one myself and put his logo on it (I believe Lil' Wayne is actually being sued by Louis Vuitton for wearing knock-off sunglasses on a magazine cover). I may feel his conditions are unfair, but that doesn't give me a right to change them.
Just cause I can see it, doesn't make it mine. More parents should teach their children that concept.
Comments
If I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X and want to install it on my toaster, it should be okay to do so.
You seem to be littering quite a few threads with your own poorly thought out, twisted logic.
Maybe Microsoft should make hardware too and make it illegal to install their OS on any other box.
Microsoft have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. Doing what you suggest would invite REAL ant-trust action against them, and run their Windows business into the ground.
It's just a step up from the previous hair-brained scheme to only allow an OS to be installed on polka-dot computers.
If Apple is successful in shutting down Psystar, the hacking WILL continue.
So what! How many times do you have to hear it? Apple doesn't care about the tiny minority of Hackintosh nerds who just live to solder.
Trust me.
No!
As the end user, I don't agree with Apple's business model. Comcast is my #1 company to despise. Funny I compare Apple to them. It is the belief of Comcast to force people to use a converter for all channels above 34, when most new TV sets will pick them up in the digital cable format if they are not scrambled. Because Dish Network, Direct TV, AT&T, Verizon, etc., use a box, so can Comcast. They all but said that on their website. So Apple, like Comcast, doesn't want anyone but them to make a dime. I can think of numerous words that end in "ism" here. Apple will never change, and as a result, I will only give them the money they force me into. Too bad their business model makes some people angry. I will buy Mac hardware just so I can have the OS. Out of spite, I will never purchase anything else. Kind of like Hallmark Channel deciding to remove Matlock from the line-up. I do my best to avoid all things Hallmark. To a degree, I'm sorta normal. The sparks flew at ABC's Boston Legal forum when it looked like Denny Crane had voted for Obama when he is a died in the wool Republican. Some claimed they would never watch ABC again. Does Apple ever take these kinds of things into consideration?
You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but it?s always silly and short-sided.
You are not forced to buy anything from Apple as you claim. You are not being forced to buy your TV subscription from Comcast, you can go any other provider that services your area. This entitlement to have Apple bend to your particular will and needs is not uncommon on these forums but it?s always silly and short-sided.
If I want Mac OS, I am forced to buy a Mac. I will not hack, nor purchase a clone. I either buy a Mac with Mac OS, or anything else, but with Windows. You people make me crazy. Should I dare to voice an opinion against the all-mighty Apple, you guys are all over me like stink on poop. It is people like you who made it possible for the merger of Sirius and XM satellite radio. Now there is just one and it is trash. All the great XM talent is toast. Apple has a monopoly (exclusive) on their OS. Isn't that what this thread is about? I own a Mac and use Mac OS. That should allow me an opinion on any topic in this forum. I am not here to be popular. If Apple can "Think Different", why can't I???
If Apple can "Think Different", why can't I???
Thinking different implies thinking. Saying that a company has a monopoly on their product isn?t thinking.
Thinking different implies thinking. Saying that a company has a monopoly on their product isn?t thinking.
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly. I use to be employed in cable TV years ago, and listened to the word monopoly all day long. Yes, there are plenty of other entertainment choices a person can make, but we as the cable company had an exclusive franchise. The people who did not like us, called us a monopoly. Now that I don't work there, I have to agree. There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
Like how Compaq has a monopoly on Presarios or how MS has a monopoly on MS Paint.
Like how Compaq has a monopoly on Presarios or how MS has a monopoly on MS Paint.
I had Alex read this to me, and he doesn't get it either. If I had a dog, he would be looking at you with a tilted head.
I had Alex read this to me, and he doesn't get it either. If I had a dog, he would be looking at you with a tilted head.
If I want MS Paint I have to buy Windows to get since MS doesn’t sell MS Paint to run on any other OS. That is wrong?
If by product, you mean Mac OS, then yes. If a company has absolute control, I consider them a monopoly.
A company can (in most cases) have absolute control of their own products. It's when a company has control of the market, or "market power" that monopoly or anti-trust issues might occur.
There is just one legal choice for Mac OS, mono=one, so Apple holds a monopoly. I really don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.
Well that's the problem really isn't it? Not only are you disagreeing with the people here but with a federal judge and the law of the land.
If I want MS Paint I have to buy Windows to get since MS doesn?t sell MS Paint to run on any other OS. That is wrong?
That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to
That is the same stupid argument I used when I worked for Viacom Cablevision in 1992. On my Mac is a free program called Paintbrush, and it works just like MS Paint. Mac OS is the operating system. It can only be licensed to run on Mac hardware. If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do. If either of you two guys of recent disagree, I suggest you take back everything you just wrote. And for some of you, I can teach you how to use Alex to your benefit. As someone with dyslexia, it helps to makes sure you have all your words on the page and they are correct. My turn to
Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The “stupid” argument I made is the same “stupid” argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.
Then I suggest you have Alex read back what you wrote before you submit it. And I suggest you re-read what what was already pointed out to you. The ?stupid? argument I made is the same ?stupid? argument that you are making about Mac OS X being a monopoly.
I always have Alex read my posts. Not really an option. Otherwise I will appear to have the IQ of a piece of celery. I'm sure that is what you people, some anyway, think. Guess I'm just a redneck in a rock and roll bar. Jerry Reed. There are some here that will agree with my ranting. I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS. I've already claimed I will not buy a machine to run OS X that isn't a Mac. I don't own a soldering iron. What else do you people want? If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.
If Apple does not employ a monopoly, then Microsoft doesn't either. I don't believe they do.
Microsoft 'owns' 90% of the desktop OS market. That gives them "market power". or "monopoly", if you like.
Microsoft was convicted of abusing that monopoly power in the USA...
... and, once again, in Europe
Alex, can you ask WPL, on what basis does he believe that Microsoft is not a monopoly?
Me, possibly.
\\
I think perhaps the easiest way to understand this issue is to ask whether it should be legal for someone to obtain the parts which make up a copyrighted or patented product and then proceed to build and sell that product. I think the answer is obviously no.
This is precisely what Psystar is attempting to do. A Macintosh computer is a combination of the hardware and the operating system. Neither is functionally a Mac on its own. .
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
I am not making reference to the law of the land or a federal judge. This is about whether or not it is fair for Apple to prevent other companies from installing their OS.
Is it fair for a company, not just Apple but any company, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and building an operating system to be used exclusively on their own computers?
Is it fair for another company, not just Psystar but any company, to build and sell computers running an operating system that they have neither a licence nor permission to use?
If Apple made some more choices available, perhaps Psystar wouldn't be doing this.
If Psystar wasn't breaking the law Apple wouldn't have taken them to court. Apple's choice, or lack of choice, of computers has nothing to do with this argument.
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
I broke it down to make it clear. I broke it down because some still think it's about the EULA. It isn't about the EULA. I also don't think it's about pre-installation, although pre-installing does makes Psystar's intent extremely clear. Their intent it to sell Macintosh computers. It also has nothing to do with antitrust. The bundling is not trademarked or patented, it is the product which is. Again you can not break a product down to its constituent parts and then claim that since you can buy all of them individually, you now have the right to assemble and sell the product. That logic doesn't apply to any other product; it is entirely unclear to me why some think it applies to a Mac.
Thank you for trying to break down the issue, but I am a big boy now. I can start a company tomorrow to build Apple clones. I probably would not crack open the OS and pre-install it. I would probably let the end user install it. But to agonize over this so, strikes me as a red herring, practically speaking. Who cares if the OS is pre-installed.
In a store display for example (imagine the Psystar Store), it would be fine to display a machine running Mac OS X, assuming they bought the copy. Apple really has no control over what end users do. I do tend to agree that pre-installing would require Apple's permission. But I am not fully certain that Apple would enjoy the right to refuse such permission, at least not to all comers. This is again because of anti-trust. The government would not agree that Apple owns a hardware monopoly, even if Apple wishes (as you do) to conveniently trademark the very bundling of software and hardware. If Microsoft tried to do that, the EU court would probably laugh as well. Just because you would like to trademark your monopolization does not mean you are free from DOJ scrutiny.
Now I remember you Sigh!
You're the guy that keeps ranting about anti-trust and bundling and monopoly ... even after the judge had dismissed that argument.
You're the guy that said Apple don't have a case and will bribe Psystar to just go away.
You're the guy that said that, somehow "Apple have to prove" that their business model is different from Microsoft's. (?)
You're the guy that either doesn't understand intellectual property or simply doesn't respect it.
You're the guy that said that lawyers wearing Armani suits was an example of profiting from other people's copyrights.
You're the guy that thought that the government would probably end up breaking Apple into smaller parts.
Yeah you're the guy!
Well, I find the "prevent consumers from using their own licensed products" kick to be just one big prima donna act. Consumers have a wide legal berth. There has been a lot of push and pull between the MPAA, RIAA, SPA regarding rights, and the various consumers (including the use of bundled products). A lot of their talking points are nothing more than baseless, industrial messaging designed to expand their profit base and scare people. TV could argue you can't TiVo their programs. Music makers could argue you can't record a cassette tape. And on and on. It is their job to try to make assertions because sometimes they get lucky. But the opinion of IP holders is not a holy thing. Society as a whole balances their rights against the freedoms of fair use, privacy and many other issues relating to this case. Perhaps it is none of Apple's business what Psystar is doing with these OS copies. For example.
Again, you're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong perspective. Consumers do have alot of rights, but forcing a company to change its business strategy simply because they disagree with it isn't one of those rights.
The sense of entitlement some of you people have is entirely unjustifiable. Those bodies have every right to want to protect their profits and, yes, looking around some college campuses, it's not hard to see why (more stolen movies than the eye can see). That's not to say they don't sometimes overdo it, but one can at least understand why.
I'm sure businesses would be alot more open to allowing things like Blu-Ray's "Managed Copy" were, again, there not a generation full of kids with not respect for IP law walking around. Hell, one of my friends has a netflix account solely for the purpose of ripping the movies he rents from it. People simply can't be trusted. I was reading a forum just the other day complaining about Palm not licensing WebOS out (ostensibly because they wanted it on a Blackberry). Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you the right to change it by force.
Are an IP holder's rights a holy grail? No, but neither are those of a consumer in that same vein. I can bitch and moan all day long that I can't buy Tommy Hilfiger's clothes at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean Tommy has to submit to my demands. I can also bitch about how Tommy doesn't make a certain kind of shirt I like, but that doesn't give me the right to make one myself and put his logo on it (I believe Lil' Wayne is actually being sued by Louis Vuitton for wearing knock-off sunglasses on a magazine cover). I may feel his conditions are unfair, but that doesn't give me a right to change them.
Just cause I can see it, doesn't make it mine. More parents should teach their children that concept.