As I understand it, Psystar uses legal copies of OS X. Apple does get their profits from their OS just like MS does.
No, Psystar buys retail copies of Mac OS X intended for Mac upgrades. Do you really think Apple would selling their OS for $29 when a retail version of Windows 7 Ultimate goes for hundreds? Psytar cannot be the end user and the reseller at the same time for the same product. Psystar can?t make itself a reseller without permission from the seller. Check MS? site they have a licensee program site. Copy the files from the optical disc to the HDD is an illegal copy because they are not the end user and they are not licensed to sell Mac OS X from Apple. They also can?t alter the code without permission.
You know, iPhone OS X and the PS3 OS are all online and FREE and legal to download. Are you saying that you are free to design a business around those OSes simply because they are easy to obtain. I could undercut Apple and Sony simply by building cheaper HW and hacking their OSes to work my HW. But I?m guessing you wouldn?t think that is legal, so why does Psystar doing the same thing for Mac OS X make it legal in your eyes. It shouldn?t. The cost of the OS is for Macs and that low cost is factored into the price of the HW, just as the free OS upgrades for the iPhone and PS3 are factored into the price of the device.
Quote:
The point about Sony is that when you buy a Sony movie (software), you can play it in a non-Sony hardware (Toshiba, Phillips, Denon, etc)
Sony has no monopoly so they are free to do that, but they?d likely not get very far if they did.
Isn't that much like how video game consoles work? Halo is only available on the XBox. "Premium" titles are specifically tied to certain platforms. And what about mobile phones tied to certain carriers?
Some business models work this way because the product is so special/unique that the creator chooses to keep it tied to their own company or specified partners. In Apple's case, when they experimented with clones, they didn't just let any company produce clones. This turned out to be a flop for the company and when SJ returned to Apple, the cloning licenses were yanked.
You may not like it because you want to use OS X on cheaper hardware. However, it is Apple's right keep OS X tied to their own hardware. By doing so, they limit their ability to expand into certain markets but this is their compromise and this business model has been successful for Apple. Let Microsoft do what they will with Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by browardfl
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
I would think Apple would want to demand that there be a full trial for damages that would totally gut Psystar. It sounds like nothing is going to happen to Psystar and they will be able to continue what they are doing now. They have no money they say, so they can't pay damages. There seems to be nothing to stop Psystar from continuing their business. Apple has spent lots of money on attorneys, and I would think they want something to show for it.
to what end. they have the judgement. which includes all tech that allows OS X to be installed (so sorry Psystar just putting Rebel on there but not installing OSX is not allowed. under DMCA if you need a reference for more info). A full trial would just cost Apple legal fees they won't recover cause Psystar has no money. They got what they needed with the validation that the tying is legal etc.
My guess is that Apple would be willing to drop all the other charges if they got a binding judgement that Psystar can not sell any machine set up to be OS ready, any tech to make a machine such etc for all current and future versions of Apple's computer software regardless of name or version. Because in the end, that's what they really want. Any money is just icing -- if they can collect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
Now future versions of Rebel EFI, that could continue as a business model while Apple and Pystar hack it out in court all over again.
it's been hacked out in court. Rebel EFI is a violation of DCMA and thus is a huge no-no. to sell, give away etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara
Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
this collection of lawsuits is actually a lot more powerful than some folks think. if Apple gets the injunction, on their terms, they will have it in the books that a Federal judge has deemed that their tying is legal, that they can restrict Mac OSX to whatever machines they want, that even 'Apple doesn't make this exact configuration' isn't a defense for going around that restriction, that programs like Rebel EFI are a violation of DMCA and so on. AND that all of this holds no matter what version of the software you are talking about.
and then when someone else is stupid enough to try it, Apple files a lawsuit and then a motion for Summary Judgement. much easier win with the precedent set by the whole Psystar thing. and then they can move on to international concerns and examine what laws are in place in each country (because under Berne it is local law that is the issue, not US)
Comments
As I understand it, Psystar uses legal copies of OS X. Apple does get their profits from their OS just like MS does.
No, Psystar buys retail copies of Mac OS X intended for Mac upgrades. Do you really think Apple would selling their OS for $29 when a retail version of Windows 7 Ultimate goes for hundreds? Psytar cannot be the end user and the reseller at the same time for the same product. Psystar can?t make itself a reseller without permission from the seller. Check MS? site they have a licensee program site. Copy the files from the optical disc to the HDD is an illegal copy because they are not the end user and they are not licensed to sell Mac OS X from Apple. They also can?t alter the code without permission.
You know, iPhone OS X and the PS3 OS are all online and FREE and legal to download. Are you saying that you are free to design a business around those OSes simply because they are easy to obtain. I could undercut Apple and Sony simply by building cheaper HW and hacking their OSes to work my HW. But I?m guessing you wouldn?t think that is legal, so why does Psystar doing the same thing for Mac OS X make it legal in your eyes. It shouldn?t. The cost of the OS is for Macs and that low cost is factored into the price of the HW, just as the free OS upgrades for the iPhone and PS3 are factored into the price of the device.
The point about Sony is that when you buy a Sony movie (software), you can play it in a non-Sony hardware (Toshiba, Phillips, Denon, etc)
Sony has no monopoly so they are free to do that, but they?d likely not get very far if they did.
Some business models work this way because the product is so special/unique that the creator chooses to keep it tied to their own company or specified partners. In Apple's case, when they experimented with clones, they didn't just let any company produce clones. This turned out to be a flop for the company and when SJ returned to Apple, the cloning licenses were yanked.
You may not like it because you want to use OS X on cheaper hardware. However, it is Apple's right keep OS X tied to their own hardware. By doing so, they limit their ability to expand into certain markets but this is their compromise and this business model has been successful for Apple. Let Microsoft do what they will with Windows.
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
Some business models work this way...
The vast majority do. Windows is a notable exception.
Apple doesn't want to compete with itself. It would be very strange indeed if they did. It was a proven bad idea that they even tried it once.
I would think Apple would want to demand that there be a full trial for damages that would totally gut Psystar. It sounds like nothing is going to happen to Psystar and they will be able to continue what they are doing now. They have no money they say, so they can't pay damages. There seems to be nothing to stop Psystar from continuing their business. Apple has spent lots of money on attorneys, and I would think they want something to show for it.
to what end. they have the judgement. which includes all tech that allows OS X to be installed (so sorry Psystar just putting Rebel on there but not installing OSX is not allowed. under DMCA if you need a reference for more info). A full trial would just cost Apple legal fees they won't recover cause Psystar has no money. They got what they needed with the validation that the tying is legal etc.
My guess is that Apple would be willing to drop all the other charges if they got a binding judgement that Psystar can not sell any machine set up to be OS ready, any tech to make a machine such etc for all current and future versions of Apple's computer software regardless of name or version. Because in the end, that's what they really want. Any money is just icing -- if they can collect.
Now future versions of Rebel EFI, that could continue as a business model while Apple and Pystar hack it out in court all over again.
it's been hacked out in court. Rebel EFI is a violation of DCMA and thus is a huge no-no. to sell, give away etc.
Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
this collection of lawsuits is actually a lot more powerful than some folks think. if Apple gets the injunction, on their terms, they will have it in the books that a Federal judge has deemed that their tying is legal, that they can restrict Mac OSX to whatever machines they want, that even 'Apple doesn't make this exact configuration' isn't a defense for going around that restriction, that programs like Rebel EFI are a violation of DMCA and so on. AND that all of this holds no matter what version of the software you are talking about.
and then when someone else is stupid enough to try it, Apple files a lawsuit and then a motion for Summary Judgement. much easier win with the precedent set by the whole Psystar thing. and then they can move on to international concerns and examine what laws are in place in each country (because under Berne it is local law that is the issue, not US)