@zeromeus: Not as bad an idea as that initially sounds, but I think it would be too difficult for them to create a somewhat user-friendly way of doing it. Also, I can't help but think Psystar may have some money from other PC manufacturers behind them, using them as a guinea pig... if by some miracle Psystar wins and is allowed to manufacture Hackintoshes, you can bet all your Apple stock that Dell, HP, et. all will be right behind. And I believe that will _kill_ Apple, because Apple is entirely focused on creating a "closed garden". I'd rather not get into that in the middle of this discussion, though, so I'll stop my reasoning there.
Technically it's not the copyright that does this (not really), but the EULA. But even in that case, the EULA is a pile of smelly feces. You're telling me it's impossible to make money selling software without having ultimate control over how people use your product? I don't think Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun..... got the memo. At least not for many of their products, which employ a comparatively lax copyleft, or a permissive license. Imagine a world where you can sell an honest product, without force-feeding your customers and nailing them to your EULA...
I beg to differ. The sooner as I can stop selling my soul to "All rights reserved" documents, the better (and it's already pretty close... the BIOS, Flash, and NVIDIA are some of the few remaining blockers, for me at least).
Legal right, yes, moral right, hell no.
Hey, if they did, I'd celebrate (sadly, they will not). Copyright ("IntellectualProperty") was better in the beginning -- as limited incentive to promote business. Not as the 800-pound bloated gorilla used to exert complete control over the use of products.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business. "Nobody cares about moral rights, this is about legality!" you say... morality is the basis for all other regulation, or should be at least. I do NOT deny that Psystar is in the legal wrong, and I also don't particularly like Psystar. That said, me and Apple get along worse, and the more their walled garden crumbles, the better. And one other thing, because I know someone will bring it up: I DO believe that programmers should receive fair compensation for their work. Apple is, in this case. They just want to make sure they can lock MacOS to the Mac, and create greater vertical integration (Carnegie would be proud) -- incidentally, the same way they are trying to lock iTunes to the iPod. Bolting everything together.
Eh, I went off-topic partially... apologies.
@djsherley: Companies are trying to convert everything to licensing now, which is very sad... that way, they always get to claim: "You don't own OS X! You own a license to use it in the manner which we specify. Don't worry, we'll make sure that you can use it to full effect... say, with all our other products we happen to make! Just don't try putting this together with a *gasp* competitor's product." If the Information Age continues like this, we'll end up owning nothing but licenses that would take a platoon of lawyers years to decipher and formally conclude how little we actually own.
And on the innovation bit, that line is very true... when copyright used to be a very short time to encourage production of works, and now is anywhere between fifty and a hundred years. Have fun producing new and worthy products not based at all on anything in the last 50-100 years... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90621124054133
Remember, people! Copyright was created to incite business to work MORE, for YOU! It is NOT a God-given right of ownership over thoughts and other extra-physical concepts!
You cite Psystar has a moral right to do business, but a business doesn't have a God given right [a.k.a., the source of this moronic Moral Right clause] to defend it's business?
You cite Psystar has a moral right to do business, but a business doesn't have a God given right [a.k.a., the source of this moronic Moral Right clause] to defend it's business?
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
Apple already have competition, they are called Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, and the list go on. You don't have to sell computers with Mac OS to compete with Apple. Furthermore, unlike other computer manufacturer Apple is facing the most competition since they have to compete in both hardware and software.
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
Yes, competition is good but Apple already facing enough competition. Apple chose to compete in high end segment of market and everyone who switched to Mac knew that they have to stick to that segment if they want to continue using Mac OS. I don't want to go into what customers want and how the market should work. My point is Apple is competing and they choose to compete in specific market segment. The last time Apple licensed their OS they almost went bankrupt and it won't do us/consumers any good if we went back to Windows having +95% market share. If Apple decision to keep their hardware and software tied means healthy Mac then let it be.
Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again.
This is where it gets dangerous. Apple gets sort of a 'carte blanche' because people are happy with them. For now. This is <somewhat> O.K. while Apple is still a minority. However, as Apple gets bigger and more popular, they become the very Big Brother that they railed against back in 1984. They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated. This is where I think companies like Psystar are doing a good thing. They are kicking the giant's shins. I think they have a very good case that it's unfair to link the hardware with the software, just like Microsoft insisted it had the right to link its browser with its operating system. And in Microsoft's case, that didn't even involve hardware, it was only a software issue, and they lost.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
This is where you're getting into trouble Psystar 'tards. You "license" hundreds of copies. Those licenses in do not give you the right to do whatever you like with the software but are wholly determined by the license terms set by Apple.
This is where you're getting into trouble Psystar 'tards. You "license" hundreds of copies. Those licenses in do not give you the right to do whatever you like with the software but are wholly determined by the license terms set by Apple.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
To all those pro-Psystar folks, get off your high horses (or high chairs) and stop over-glorifying your cause.
Let's replace the word "Apple" with "Acme" will you? This is simply a case of an unapproved company stealing (or you would say "purchasing legally") another company's IP and selling / profiting from it.
Enough with the "Consumers want cheaper widgets" and "It's all about me" mentality.
I could care less if it's Apple or Microsoft or even Acme Toasters. You steal a product, repackage it and sell it as your own, you're going to get the hammer dropped right on the big, fat, ignorant head of yours. And a well deserved beating you should get too!
Psystar is not selling OSX as their own. They are selling you their computer with Apple's OSX installed on it. They haven't stolen it, they haven't rebranded it as their own. It's like buying a lawn mower with a Briggs and Stratton engine. Toro (or whoever) doesn't claim that the engine is theirs. They include a genuine Briggs and Stratton engine with their product, purchased legally from Briggs and Stratton. Psystar includes Apple OSX on their hardware, purchased legally from Apple. Same deal.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
If MS stopped at bundling IE with Windows then they wouldn't have faced those problems. MS didn't invent the internet browser, they simply saw how successful Netscape was and decided to strong arm themselves in the browser market. MS used their monopoly in the OS to force IE on users and make it hell for competitors browsers to work correctly. This is why MS facing all these problems and this is far from what is happening here because Apple does not have monopoly in neither computer hardware nor computer operating system.
If Mac OS have 90% market share in the OS market and suddenly Apple decided to stop licensing their OS and instead decided to bundle their dominant OS with their own hardware then it will become an antitrust issue. But this is not happening here.
If MS stopped at bundling IE with Windows then they wouldn't have faced those problems. MS didn't invent the internet browser, they simply saw how successful Netscape was and decided to strong arm themselves in the browser market. MS used their monopoly in the OS to force IE on users and make it hell for competitors browsers to work correctly. This is why MS facing all these problems and this is far from what is happening here. Read this.
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Psystar is not selling OSX as their own. They are selling you their computer with Apple's OSX installed on it. They haven't stolen it, they haven't rebranded it as their own. It's like buying a lawn mower with a Briggs and Stratton engine. Toro (or whoever) doesn't claim that the engine is theirs. They include a genuine Briggs and Stratton engine with their product, purchased legally from Briggs and Stratton. Psystar includes Apple OSX on their hardware, purchased legally from Apple. Same deal.
Nonsense. Your analogy is wrong. Period. These tired engine / auto / lawn-mower analogies just goes to show you psystar-lovers cannot come up with any kind of common-sense answers. Just cause Industry "A" does it one way, it obviously will work for Industry "B". Pure nonsense.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers. So you can walk into a store (or Amazon) and purchase OSX and think the world is a happy place? You want to hack it and get it to work on your own personal PC, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Apple does either. But the moment you take that CD, build a machine around it and set up a business to sell that PC, you just committed theft. Pure and simple.
Would you have a problem with it if upon ordering the OSX CD you were required to provide an official Apple hardware serial number in order to install it before the order is even placed? Apple may very well have to do that down the road.
"Apple Branded" does not mean sticking those included Apple logos in the box onto your build-to-order PC nor does it mean installing OSX on said build-to-order PC and making a business out of it depriving Apple of its hardware revenue.
Of course, you will continue to twist and warp the true meaning of "Apple Branded" or OSX "License vs. Ownership" and try to fabricate some kind of moral higher-ground crusade that Psystar is the David to Apple's Goliath.
All Psystar is doing is screwing the garage tinkerers (Hackintosh) if Psystar keeps this up.
It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.
They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.
It is a paid upgrade to and Apple system that you are getting and heavily subsidized price because you have purchased the computer that is being installed on from Apple the company the created the software. Now if you would like to pay $700 per copy for the unsubsidized version then lets do business.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
What? In the same way that those who buy tons of guns legally from a gun store then rob banks are doing the gun manufacturers a favour?
The illegal use of legitimate products is still an illegal use of a legitimate product.
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Because MS Windows is an operating system. An OS function is to accept and run other third party software. When Windows was release it accepted third party applications and one of those applications was Netscape. Netscape was available on Windows before IE was even developed. You can't decide to exclude software from running on your OS because you want people to use yours. It is illegal to use your monopoly in one product to gain monopoly in another product. There is no law to forbid anyone from bundling two products together as long as the previous rule is not broken.
Apple, since their first computer, have alway sold their hardware and OS together. When Apple decided to kill the clones around 10 years ago they were on the edge of bankruptcy with 1% OS market share.
Please read my previous post again specially the last paragraph. I don't think it is hard to comprehend and I really can't make it any simpler than that.
Oh, and the judge don't agree with you about Apple having monopoly on Mac OS X because you can't have a monopoly on your own product. Even Psystar and their lawyers couldn't prove that point.
And the copy of OS X they include with their PC's does absolutely NOTHING! It is only useful after you sign away all your rights against the company, and they send you their special CD that hacks the OS to allow an installation (that was buried in their fine print).
One of their biggest customers? Now that is the funniest thing I have ever heard! Millions of Macs sold compared to the handfuls of piece of shit PC's they sold? I don't think Apple is really concerned about losing them as a customer.
Now close to once again fighting Apple in court, Mac clone maker Psystar has brought on a new legal team and has even begun steps to publish much of its knowledge about Mac OS X clones.
The small PC builder on Monday was granted permission in a Northern District of California civil court to replace its existing legal team with the law firm of Camara & Sibley, a normally Houston-based team that required a pro hac vice order to operate outside of its normal jurisdiction.
Why it's choosing new lawyers at this stage isn't fully evident. When it first mounted its defense, Psystar had gone out of its way to seek a legal team that had previously defeated Apple and which was an expert in intellectual property. Since then, however, the attorneys have had their counterclaims against Apple dismissed and were left in limbo when Psystar went into bankruptcy, putting a hold on the case until Apple had a stay on the case dismissed. Whether or not Psystar's previously non-payable debt contributed to the switch in lawyers is equally uncertain.
Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
If the legal system is sensible enough - it should simply expose the culprits behind this company - those financially support it. How can they use proprietary software that belongs to apple on any other platform? This company is doing more than just daylight robbery of Apple's property. Apple's shareholders (big and small) should each claim a damage from this company for illegally copying the Mac OSX SW.
Apple should change the licensing policy - to add additional conditions on the box (to print in BLOCK letters) before they could install it. Once it is done the CEO of this company will do enough crime to be in Jail - by installing the OS X on a platform that it is not intended for. SJ must exercise some trickster approach for crooks like this -just send some thugs to beat up the CEO of this company.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
As Apple makes almost all of its sales from hardware, and most of its profit as well, how would losing a substantial portion of that "help"?
I'm anxiously waiting for the day when these crooks will pay for their crimes. May be a few years in the slammer.
If this was in Russia, Pystar operators would have met some unfortunate car accidents by now. I can't believe how long this cat and mouse game has been allowed to go on.
Comments
@zeromeus: Not as bad an idea as that initially sounds, but I think it would be too difficult for them to create a somewhat user-friendly way of doing it. Also, I can't help but think Psystar may have some money from other PC manufacturers behind them, using them as a guinea pig... if by some miracle Psystar wins and is allowed to manufacture Hackintoshes, you can bet all your Apple stock that Dell, HP, et. all will be right behind. And I believe that will _kill_ Apple, because Apple is entirely focused on creating a "closed garden". I'd rather not get into that in the middle of this discussion, though, so I'll stop my reasoning there.
Technically it's not the copyright that does this (not really), but the EULA. But even in that case, the EULA is a pile of smelly feces. You're telling me it's impossible to make money selling software without having ultimate control over how people use your product? I don't think Google, Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun..... got the memo. At least not for many of their products, which employ a comparatively lax copyleft, or a permissive license. Imagine a world where you can sell an honest product, without force-feeding your customers and nailing them to your EULA...
I beg to differ. The sooner as I can stop selling my soul to "All rights reserved" documents, the better (and it's already pretty close... the BIOS, Flash, and NVIDIA are some of the few remaining blockers, for me at least).
Legal right, yes, moral right, hell no.
Hey, if they did, I'd celebrate (sadly, they will not). Copyright ("Intellectual Property") was better in the beginning -- as limited incentive to promote business. Not as the 800-pound bloated gorilla used to exert complete control over the use of products.
To re-clarify my position, I DO believe Psystar has a moral right to their business. "Nobody cares about moral rights, this is about legality!" you say... morality is the basis for all other regulation, or should be at least. I do NOT deny that Psystar is in the legal wrong, and I also don't particularly like Psystar. That said, me and Apple get along worse, and the more their walled garden crumbles, the better. And one other thing, because I know someone will bring it up: I DO believe that programmers should receive fair compensation for their work. Apple is, in this case. They just want to make sure they can lock MacOS to the Mac, and create greater vertical integration (Carnegie would be proud) -- incidentally, the same way they are trying to lock iTunes to the iPod. Bolting everything together.
Eh, I went off-topic partially... apologies.
@djsherley: Companies are trying to convert everything to licensing now, which is very sad... that way, they always get to claim: "You don't own OS X! You own a license to use it in the manner which we specify. Don't worry, we'll make sure that you can use it to full effect... say, with all our other products we happen to make! Just don't try putting this together with a *gasp* competitor's product." If the Information Age continues like this, we'll end up owning nothing but licenses that would take a platoon of lawyers years to decipher and formally conclude how little we actually own.
And on the innovation bit, that line is very true... when copyright used to be a very short time to encourage production of works, and now is anywhere between fifty and a hundred years. Have fun producing new and worthy products not based at all on anything in the last 50-100 years... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...90621124054133
Just to cite that bit of the Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
Remember, people! Copyright was created to incite business to work MORE, for YOU! It is NOT a God-given right of ownership over thoughts and other extra-physical concepts!
You cite Psystar has a moral right to do business, but a business doesn't have a God given right [a.k.a., the source of this moronic Moral Right clause] to defend it's business?
You cite Psystar has a moral right to do business, but a business doesn't have a God given right [a.k.a., the source of this moronic Moral Right clause] to defend it's business?
Companies have a right to defend their business, within reason. Nothing can be unlimited -- defending business is not a Holy Crusade. In this case, I believe Psystar to be in the right and Apple to be in the wrong, morally. That's all.
Apple already have competition, they are called Dell, HP, Sony, Microsoft, and the list go on. You don't have to sell computers with Mac OS to compete with Apple. Furthermore, unlike other computer manufacturer Apple is facing the most competition since they have to compete in both hardware and software.
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
Heh. No. For average Mac users (read: the 90+% that don't care enough to troll these kinds of message boards), they wouldn't turn to a windows-based system as an alternative. Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again. And for the majority of those people installing OSX on a PC is just way over their heads. What Psystar is doing is offering an alternative to Apple's systems, with the same software experience.
If they turn out systems with the same specs, at a lower price, that will provide people with a viable choice. And Apple's response would have to be either lowering the price, or innovating new features that justify the price.
EITHER WAY, WE THE CONSUMERS, WIN.
- Xid
Yes, competition is good but Apple already facing enough competition. Apple chose to compete in high end segment of market and everyone who switched to Mac knew that they have to stick to that segment if they want to continue using Mac OS. I don't want to go into what customers want and how the market should work. My point is Apple is competing and they choose to compete in specific market segment. The last time Apple licensed their OS they almost went bankrupt and it won't do us/consumers any good if we went back to Windows having +95% market share. If Apple decision to keep their hardware and software tied means healthy Mac then let it be.
Every mac user I've ever met (and I worked for Apple for several years) who used the system by choice, has essentially vowed never to return to a Windows OS again.
This is where it gets dangerous. Apple gets sort of a 'carte blanche' because people are happy with them. For now. This is <somewhat> O.K. while Apple is still a minority. However, as Apple gets bigger and more popular, they become the very Big Brother that they railed against back in 1984. They make the rules. We, the minions, must walk in lockstep with them. They determine what a 'proper' computing experience should be, both in hardware and software, integrated. This is where I think companies like Psystar are doing a good thing. They are kicking the giant's shins. I think they have a very good case that it's unfair to link the hardware with the software, just like Microsoft insisted it had the right to link its browser with its operating system. And in Microsoft's case, that didn't even involve hardware, it was only a software issue, and they lost.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
This is where you're getting into trouble Psystar 'tards. You "license" hundreds of copies. Those licenses in do not give you the right to do whatever you like with the software but are wholly determined by the license terms set by Apple.
This is where you're getting into trouble Psystar 'tards. You "license" hundreds of copies. Those licenses in do not give you the right to do whatever you like with the software but are wholly determined by the license terms set by Apple.
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
Let's replace the word "Apple" with "Acme" will you? This is simply a case of an unapproved company stealing (or you would say "purchasing legally") another company's IP and selling / profiting from it.
Enough with the "Consumers want cheaper widgets" and "It's all about me" mentality.
I could care less if it's Apple or Microsoft or even Acme Toasters. You steal a product, repackage it and sell it as your own, you're going to get the hammer dropped right on the big, fat, ignorant head of yours. And a well deserved beating you should get too!
Then why did Microsoft get shot down when they insisted they had a right to tie their browser with their OS? Didn't they have that 'right'? They determine where and how their own software should run. No?
If MS stopped at bundling IE with Windows then they wouldn't have faced those problems. MS didn't invent the internet browser, they simply saw how successful Netscape was and decided to strong arm themselves in the browser market. MS used their monopoly in the OS to force IE on users and make it hell for competitors browsers to work correctly. This is why MS facing all these problems and this is far from what is happening here because Apple does not have monopoly in neither computer hardware nor computer operating system.
If Mac OS have 90% market share in the OS market and suddenly Apple decided to stop licensing their OS and instead decided to bundle their dominant OS with their own hardware then it will become an antitrust issue. But this is not happening here.
Read this.
If MS stopped at bundling IE with Windows then they wouldn't have faced those problems. MS didn't invent the internet browser, they simply saw how successful Netscape was and decided to strong arm themselves in the browser market. MS used their monopoly in the OS to force IE on users and make it hell for competitors browsers to work correctly. This is why MS facing all these problems and this is far from what is happening here. Read this.
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Psystar is not selling OSX as their own. They are selling you their computer with Apple's OSX installed on it. They haven't stolen it, they haven't rebranded it as their own. It's like buying a lawn mower with a Briggs and Stratton engine. Toro (or whoever) doesn't claim that the engine is theirs. They include a genuine Briggs and Stratton engine with their product, purchased legally from Briggs and Stratton. Psystar includes Apple OSX on their hardware, purchased legally from Apple. Same deal.
Nonsense. Your analogy is wrong. Period. These tired engine / auto / lawn-mower analogies just goes to show you psystar-lovers cannot come up with any kind of common-sense answers. Just cause Industry "A" does it one way, it obviously will work for Industry "B". Pure nonsense.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers. So you can walk into a store (or Amazon) and purchase OSX and think the world is a happy place? You want to hack it and get it to work on your own personal PC, go right ahead. I don't have a problem with it and I don't think Apple does either. But the moment you take that CD, build a machine around it and set up a business to sell that PC, you just committed theft. Pure and simple.
Would you have a problem with it if upon ordering the OSX CD you were required to provide an official Apple hardware serial number in order to install it before the order is even placed? Apple may very well have to do that down the road.
"Apple Branded" does not mean sticking those included Apple logos in the box onto your build-to-order PC nor does it mean installing OSX on said build-to-order PC and making a business out of it depriving Apple of its hardware revenue.
Of course, you will continue to twist and warp the true meaning of "Apple Branded" or OSX "License vs. Ownership" and try to fabricate some kind of moral higher-ground crusade that Psystar is the David to Apple's Goliath.
All Psystar is doing is screwing the garage tinkerers (Hackintosh) if Psystar keeps this up.
It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.
They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.
It is a paid upgrade to and Apple system that you are getting and heavily subsidized price because you have purchased the computer that is being installed on from Apple the company the created the software. Now if you would like to pay $700 per copy for the unsubsidized version then lets do business.
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that OSX is a separate product to be sold separately. Apple sells hardware and includes OSX to run on their hardware. Those OSX retail boxes as it is clearly stated is only for upgrading Apple-branded computers.
1) It IS a separate product to be sold separately. Apple provides them that way, believe it or not. Psystar just buys the OSX CD, not a whole Apple computer. You can actually buy the OSX that way yourself, sans computer.
2) Just because a company prints a restriction on the box doesn't necessarily make it legal. That is what Psystar is challenging. That's why we have laws about anti-competitive practices.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
What? In the same way that those who buy tons of guns legally from a gun store then rob banks are doing the gun manufacturers a favour?
The illegal use of legitimate products is still an illegal use of a legitimate product.
But why did MS have to allow other browsers at all? It's their OS, they can do what they like, can't they? That's the question. Why should MS be forced to accept competitors' browsers? If MS has to accept other competitors' browsers, why is it O.K. for Apple to have a monopoly that insists that their OS cannot be run on competitors' hardware?
It's a double standard. People want to force MS to be competitive, but for some reason Apple gets to keep their monopoly?
Because MS Windows is an operating system. An OS function is to accept and run other third party software. When Windows was release it accepted third party applications and one of those applications was Netscape. Netscape was available on Windows before IE was even developed. You can't decide to exclude software from running on your OS because you want people to use yours. It is illegal to use your monopoly in one product to gain monopoly in another product. There is no law to forbid anyone from bundling two products together as long as the previous rule is not broken.
Apple, since their first computer, have alway sold their hardware and OS together. When Apple decided to kill the clones around 10 years ago they were on the edge of bankruptcy with 1% OS market share.
Please read my previous post again specially the last paragraph. I don't think it is hard to comprehend and I really can't make it any simpler than that.
Oh, and the judge don't agree with you about Apple having monopoly on Mac OS X because you can't have a monopoly on your own product. Even Psystar and their lawyers couldn't prove that point.
One of their biggest customers? Now that is the funniest thing I have ever heard! Millions of Macs sold compared to the handfuls of piece of shit PC's they sold? I don't think Apple is really concerned about losing them as a customer.
Now close to once again fighting Apple in court, Mac clone maker Psystar has brought on a new legal team and has even begun steps to publish much of its knowledge about Mac OS X clones.
The small PC builder on Monday was granted permission in a Northern District of California civil court to replace its existing legal team with the law firm of Camara & Sibley, a normally Houston-based team that required a pro hac vice order to operate outside of its normal jurisdiction.
Why it's choosing new lawyers at this stage isn't fully evident. When it first mounted its defense, Psystar had gone out of its way to seek a legal team that had previously defeated Apple and which was an expert in intellectual property. Since then, however, the attorneys have had their counterclaims against Apple dismissed and were left in limbo when Psystar went into bankruptcy, putting a hold on the case until Apple had a stay on the case dismissed. Whether or not Psystar's previously non-payable debt contributed to the switch in lawyers is equally uncertain.
Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
If the legal system is sensible enough - it should simply expose the culprits behind this company - those financially support it. How can they use proprietary software that belongs to apple on any other platform? This company is doing more than just daylight robbery of Apple's property. Apple's shareholders (big and small) should each claim a damage from this company for illegally copying the Mac OSX SW.
Apple should change the licensing policy - to add additional conditions on the box (to print in BLOCK letters) before they could install it. Once it is done the CEO of this company will do enough crime to be in Jail - by installing the OS X on a platform that it is not intended for. SJ must exercise some trickster approach for crooks like this -just send some thugs to beat up the CEO of this company.
I love Apple to death, and would never dream of buying non-apple branded hardware.
... but ....
I'm really hoping Psystar wins. For us, the consumers, only good would come from it. It would force Apple to upgrade their systems faster, because if they don't people will have the choice to go elsewhere. Currently that choice simply doesn't exist.
I mean hell, they had a system available LAST YEAR with a blu-ray drive installed. Where is apple's blu-ray option? Granted, you can't watch them (unless you use bootcamp, which is fine) until Apple decides to license the software, but it's still a great example.
The only people who should be rooting against them are Apple Employees and people who have the majority of their assets invested in AAPL stock. Likely less than 1% of Appleinsider's userbase.
- Xid
As Apple makes almost all of its sales from hardware, and most of its profit as well, how would losing a substantial portion of that "help"?
If this was in Russia, Pystar operators would have met some unfortunate car accidents by now. I can't believe how long this cat and mouse game has been allowed to go on.