Well, it's over. Not unexpected given the November ruling.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy? Granted, Psystar's arguments and behavior are annoying. But, there was a time here where the overall tone of these forums was anti-establishment and quite critical of Apple. Things like the DCMA and EULAs were a big deal...and not popular at all. Obviously things have changed.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
I think you're stressing over a EULA, when DMCA was the focus of the issue. This wasn't about some legally shaky text on a software package, it was about violating copyright. No where in the judges ruling does he even mention EULAs from what I saw.
Why are you surprised that the things you mention are illegal? They always were. They were illegal before the ruling. It wasn't 'maybe illegal', or 'possibly illegal', it was Illegal. If you do it, will you get caught? Extremely unlikely. This equates to tearing off the 'do not remove' stickers on a bed mattress. However, start selling the mattress without the tag and big brother will come knocking.
Want to mod your mac? Feel free, just don't try selling it for a business.
Well, it's over. Not unexpected given the November ruling.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy?
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Considering most of them download some hacked ISO for OS X off of a torrent, I wouldn't care if they got rid of OSX86 either.
Given those three, I really don't see how they could continue to sell the Rebel EFI. As to what affect this will have on OSX86?
I'd guess nothing for a number of reasons.
The website doesn't have to be hosted in the US, so actually killing it would require a lot of work and may not even be possible given the variety of copyright laws out there (for example, filesharing of copyrighted digital music is NOT ILLEGAL in Canada).
Psystar was monetizing OSX86 technology, which made them a super-easy target. Apple could have destroyed Psystar by going after OSX86 and they didn't.
Copyright law is sensitive to the context of the potential infraction. Profiting from copyrighted information is different than fair personal use of copyrighted information. As a simple example, ripping a copy of a CD that I own in order to listen to it on my iPod does not appear to be illegal. Providing this copy to others via filesharing seems to be illegal in the US. Trying to sell the copy is almost certainly illegal. Burning it to a "mix CD" (do people even do that anymore?) and giving it to my significant other is probably illegal, but who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
IMO, Apple will never go after individuals who do this simply because they would never be able to find them, and it's really not worth the bother.
And they could lose. And it could possibly turn out badly from the PR perspective, like the RIAA stuff has but much much worse, because the RIAA doesn't _really_ care since it doesn't directly sell anything. It can be the big bad wolf without sullying the constituent industry players directly.
And they could lose. And it could possibly turn out badly from the PR perspective, like the RIAA stuff has but much much worse, because the RIAA doesn't _really_ care since it doesn't directly sell anything. It can be the big bad wolf without sullying the constituent industry players directly.
That's a key part right there. Apple is all about PR. I just can't see them dropping to the extent that they go after end users. I know they did go after OSX86 when it was initially started because they were posting very specific information on how to crack OS X, but those days are long gone.
It's just a hobbyists page. I don't care one way or another as to whether they stay or go, although I'm sure the ruling makes them a bit nervous.
Considering most of them download some hacked ISO for OS X off of a torrent, I wouldn't care if they got rid of OSX86 either.
Is this true? How do you know?
Many of the current guides for hackintosh installations are based on the retail Snow Leopard DVD, which is technically an "upgrade" DVD so not exactly kosher, but certainly not "some hacked ISO." Even the installs for unsupported hardware like the Atom or AMD chips just replace the Darwin kernel, which is open source.
My impression overall is that a large percentage of hobbyists who build hackintoshes have apple hardware too, and would buy an apple version of their hackintosh if apple made one (netbook, or desktop with non-pathetic graphics card for PC gaming).
Clearly there will be some people out there just looking to save some money, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as your post makes it sound.
It's just a hobbyists page. I don't care one way or another as to whether they stay or go, although I'm sure the ruling makes them a bit nervous.
I doubt it. Most of the key players seem to be Russian, so they're unlikely to care very much. Plus, they mainly do it for fun, so if OSX86 actually went away it wouldn't effect them much, they'd just hang out on irc and chat and have their fun in a less visible way.
Many of the current guides for hackintosh installations are based on the retail Snow Leopard DVD, which is technically an "upgrade" DVD so not exactly kosher, but certainly not "some hacked ISO." Even the installs for unsupported hardware like the Atom or AMD chips just replace the Darwin kernel, which is open source.
My impression overall is that a large percentage of hobbyists who build hackintoshes have apple hardware too, and would buy an apple version of their hackintosh if apple made one (netbook, or desktop with non-pathetic graphics card for PC gaming).
Clearly there will be some people out there just looking to save some money, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as your post makes it sound.
And I could ask the same question. How do you know it's not? I can't see folks going out and buying OS X just to see if they could get it running, only to find out something doesn't work, and then be unable to return the software. I suspect it's more common to just download the ISO than to go and buy it considering no software store will take an opened package.
And I could ask the same question. How do you know it's not?
I don't. There's no way to know. That's my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I can't see folks going out and buying OS X just to see if they could get it running, only to find out something doesn't work, and then be unable to return the software.
Lots of people own an OSX DVD already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I suspect it's more common to just download the ISO than to go and buy it considering no software store will take an opened package.
That's certainly possible. If the SL upgrade DVD was more expensive I'd guess that this was the most probable path, as it appears to have been for 10.5.
That's certainly possible. If the SL upgrade DVD was more expensive I'd guess that this was the most probable path, as it appears to have been for 10.5.
The same gotcha applies. Unless they are Mac owners, I highly doubt they went out and tossed money for software that would probably not run %100 on their hardware, knowing they couldn't return it. Human nature. They would download the torrent.
The same gotcha applies. Unless they are Mac owners, I highly doubt they went out and tossed money for software that would probably not run %100 on their hardware, knowing they couldn't return it. Human nature. They would download the torrent.
Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..
Think Boot Camp for Windows. I personally didn't buy a Mac until it could run Windows. Why wouldn't MS want users to run OS X on a Dell if it can stunt AAPL's market share?
I don't claim to know who is behind Psystar. That's why I posed the question.
I think the assumption you're making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that folks would always buy Windows, and optionally pick up OS X, but I would think some folks would choose one or the other, and more options other than Windows is always bad in the MS point of view.
About the only plus I could see from Apple loosing this case is that operations like Psystar could damage Apples profits, and that is a good thing in MS's view.
Seems like a no-win. I'm not sure I buy into Psystar having backers. I think they were just morons.
Have you missed the entire court proceedings? The court ruled in no uncertain terms that Apple's business model is 100% legal.
Your silly anti-Apple rants are worthless.
Uh. I as referring to any NEW cases brought against Apple (In keeping on topic with the article you should have read before posting). And none of my comments were anti Apple. I guess without a /s you have zero english skills.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
This is where Psystar's public arguments have some merit and make some sense. Apple shouldn't be able to tell me what computer I can install OS X on for my own use any more than Toyota can tell me what roads to drive on. Apple shouldn't be able to prevent me from modifying my own machine to run OS X, nor prevent me from selling that machine without using their trademarks. Again though, I realize Psystar was in a different boat, so to speak.
Yes, it is a violation of your contract with Apple if you install OS X on a non-Apple computer. You haven't purchased anything. You have entered into a contract allowing you the use of the software with all of the conditions stipulated in that contract. If you don't like it, negotiate your own terms with Apple. If you can offer them enough money, perhaps they will grant you a less restrictive license. EULAs are sleezy, especially the provisions about fitness for a particular purpose, but they have not been shown to be illegal. Your confusing of the difference between purchasing and licensing doesn't change anything.
It would probably not be illegal in the criminal sense. I don't know enough about the DMCA to say.
To take your example, if you LEASE a car from Toyota, they certainly can tell you what roads to drive on. For example, they might say you may not take the car onto a race track. If you do, you will be liable for whatever is spelled out in the terms of that contract. Your insurance company or financing entity may also place restrictions on your use of the car.
I'm not telling you what to do, that's your own business. It should be clear though that 1,000 people installing OS X on their own Hacintoshes has nearly the same effect on Apple as 1,000 people buying Psystar systems. In both cases, Apple is deprived of the hardware sales that are the basis of their business model.
I am not apologizing for Apple, as I don't think they need to apologize in this matter. I also don't have any particular venom for Psystar, no more than I do for the guys selling fake Rolex watches on street corners.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I hadn't thought of that. By buying it, you would always technically be buying an upgrade. Good point.
That is an actual good guess. Disgraced CFO Fred Anderson is at the helm. He can't have a lot of love for APple. Yet, I am not sure how it would make money, and whether Bono would want to be tied to such efforts especially when Apple has made him a lot of money.
Further, Microsoft is a horrible guess. Why would Microsoft want PC companies like Dell or Sony to be able to buy copies of OSX from Apple instead of Windows from Microsoft? If Psystar wins, that is exactly what would be able to happen. Microsoft like having a monopoly on the commercially supplied OS.
Comments
They must have forgot Apple still are the Pirates of Silicon Valley
Well, it's over. Not unexpected given the November ruling.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy? Granted, Psystar's arguments and behavior are annoying. But, there was a time here where the overall tone of these forums was anti-establishment and quite critical of Apple. Things like the DCMA and EULAs were a big deal...and not popular at all. Obviously things have changed.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
I think you're stressing over a EULA, when DMCA was the focus of the issue. This wasn't about some legally shaky text on a software package, it was about violating copyright. No where in the judges ruling does he even mention EULAs from what I saw.
Why are you surprised that the things you mention are illegal? They always were. They were illegal before the ruling. It wasn't 'maybe illegal', or 'possibly illegal', it was Illegal. If you do it, will you get caught? Extremely unlikely. This equates to tearing off the 'do not remove' stickers on a bed mattress. However, start selling the mattress without the tag and big brother will come knocking.
Want to mod your mac? Feel free, just don't try selling it for a business.
Well, it's over. Not unexpected given the November ruling.
That said, I have to express bewilderment at some of the sentiments expressed here. It seems to me we have a lot of Apple Apologists and hardcore anti-Psystar sentiment. Really....you're "celebrating" and expressing joy?
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Maybe they own significant amounts of Apple stock. I agree with you though, some people root for Apple like a sports fan roots for his hometown team.
I think it's illegal for the people who furnish you with the means to install OS-X on non-Apple hardware. It's a fine distinction, but crucial nonetheless. That said, Apple will in all likelihood not waste resources going after the hobbyists who build the hackintosh tools as long as 1) they don't try to make a business out of it, and 2) they don't scale up their operations to Linux like levels. Or perhaps even Handbrake levels.
Considering most of them download some hacked ISO for OS X off of a torrent, I wouldn't care if they got rid of OSX86 either.
Given those three, I really don't see how they could continue to sell the Rebel EFI. As to what affect this will have on OSX86?
I'd guess nothing for a number of reasons.
The website doesn't have to be hosted in the US, so actually killing it would require a lot of work and may not even be possible given the variety of copyright laws out there (for example, filesharing of copyrighted digital music is NOT ILLEGAL in Canada).
Psystar was monetizing OSX86 technology, which made them a super-easy target. Apple could have destroyed Psystar by going after OSX86 and they didn't.
Copyright law is sensitive to the context of the potential infraction. Profiting from copyrighted information is different than fair personal use of copyrighted information. As a simple example, ripping a copy of a CD that I own in order to listen to it on my iPod does not appear to be illegal. Providing this copy to others via filesharing seems to be illegal in the US. Trying to sell the copy is almost certainly illegal. Burning it to a "mix CD" (do people even do that anymore?) and giving it to my significant other is probably illegal, but who knows.
IMO, Apple will never go after individuals who do this simply because they would never be able to find them, and it's really not worth the bother.
And they could lose. And it could possibly turn out badly from the PR perspective, like the RIAA stuff has but much much worse, because the RIAA doesn't _really_ care since it doesn't directly sell anything. It can be the big bad wolf without sullying the constituent industry players directly.
And they could lose. And it could possibly turn out badly from the PR perspective, like the RIAA stuff has but much much worse, because the RIAA doesn't _really_ care since it doesn't directly sell anything. It can be the big bad wolf without sullying the constituent industry players directly.
That's a key part right there. Apple is all about PR. I just can't see them dropping to the extent that they go after end users. I know they did go after OSX86 when it was initially started because they were posting very specific information on how to crack OS X, but those days are long gone.
It's just a hobbyists page. I don't care one way or another as to whether they stay or go, although I'm sure the ruling makes them a bit nervous.
Considering most of them download some hacked ISO for OS X off of a torrent, I wouldn't care if they got rid of OSX86 either.
Is this true? How do you know?
Many of the current guides for hackintosh installations are based on the retail Snow Leopard DVD, which is technically an "upgrade" DVD so not exactly kosher, but certainly not "some hacked ISO." Even the installs for unsupported hardware like the Atom or AMD chips just replace the Darwin kernel, which is open source.
My impression overall is that a large percentage of hobbyists who build hackintoshes have apple hardware too, and would buy an apple version of their hackintosh if apple made one (netbook, or desktop with non-pathetic graphics card for PC gaming).
Clearly there will be some people out there just looking to save some money, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as your post makes it sound.
It's just a hobbyists page. I don't care one way or another as to whether they stay or go, although I'm sure the ruling makes them a bit nervous.
I doubt it. Most of the key players seem to be Russian, so they're unlikely to care very much. Plus, they mainly do it for fun, so if OSX86 actually went away it wouldn't effect them much, they'd just hang out on irc and chat and have their fun in a less visible way.
Is this true? How do you know?
Many of the current guides for hackintosh installations are based on the retail Snow Leopard DVD, which is technically an "upgrade" DVD so not exactly kosher, but certainly not "some hacked ISO." Even the installs for unsupported hardware like the Atom or AMD chips just replace the Darwin kernel, which is open source.
My impression overall is that a large percentage of hobbyists who build hackintoshes have apple hardware too, and would buy an apple version of their hackintosh if apple made one (netbook, or desktop with non-pathetic graphics card for PC gaming).
Clearly there will be some people out there just looking to save some money, but I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as your post makes it sound.
And I could ask the same question. How do you know it's not? I can't see folks going out and buying OS X just to see if they could get it running, only to find out something doesn't work, and then be unable to return the software. I suspect it's more common to just download the ISO than to go and buy it considering no software store will take an opened package.
And I could ask the same question. How do you know it's not?
I don't. There's no way to know. That's my point.
I can't see folks going out and buying OS X just to see if they could get it running, only to find out something doesn't work, and then be unable to return the software.
Lots of people own an OSX DVD already.
I suspect it's more common to just download the ISO than to go and buy it considering no software store will take an opened package.
That's certainly possible. If the SL upgrade DVD was more expensive I'd guess that this was the most probable path, as it appears to have been for 10.5.
I don't. There's no way to know. That's my point.
Lots of people own an OSX DVD already.
That's certainly possible. If the SL upgrade DVD was more expensive I'd guess that this was the most probable path, as it appears to have been for 10.5.
The same gotcha applies. Unless they are Mac owners, I highly doubt they went out and tossed money for software that would probably not run %100 on their hardware, knowing they couldn't return it. Human nature. They would download the torrent.
The same gotcha applies. Unless they are Mac owners, I highly doubt they went out and tossed money for software that would probably not run %100 on their hardware, knowing they couldn't return it. Human nature. They would download the torrent.
whatever you say
Lots of people own an OSX DVD already.
Wouldn't that have come with the Macs they're using already?
Why would Microsoft want people to install or buy generic PC's with OSX installed?? I can't see any reason why Microsoft would be backing Psystar..
Think Boot Camp for Windows. I personally didn't buy a Mac until it could run Windows. Why wouldn't MS want users to run OS X on a Dell if it can stunt AAPL's market share?
I don't claim to know who is behind Psystar. That's why I posed the question.
About the only plus I could see from Apple loosing this case is that operations like Psystar could damage Apples profits, and that is a good thing in MS's view.
Seems like a no-win. I'm not sure I buy into Psystar having backers. I think they were just morons.
Have you missed the entire court proceedings? The court ruled in no uncertain terms that Apple's business model is 100% legal.
Your silly anti-Apple rants are worthless.
Uh. I as referring to any NEW cases brought against Apple (In keeping on topic with the article you should have read before posting). And none of my comments were anti Apple. I guess without a /s you have zero english skills.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
This is where Psystar's public arguments have some merit and make some sense. Apple shouldn't be able to tell me what computer I can install OS X on for my own use any more than Toyota can tell me what roads to drive on. Apple shouldn't be able to prevent me from modifying my own machine to run OS X, nor prevent me from selling that machine without using their trademarks. Again though, I realize Psystar was in a different boat, so to speak.
Yes, it is a violation of your contract with Apple if you install OS X on a non-Apple computer. You haven't purchased anything. You have entered into a contract allowing you the use of the software with all of the conditions stipulated in that contract. If you don't like it, negotiate your own terms with Apple. If you can offer them enough money, perhaps they will grant you a less restrictive license. EULAs are sleezy, especially the provisions about fitness for a particular purpose, but they have not been shown to be illegal. Your confusing of the difference between purchasing and licensing doesn't change anything.
It would probably not be illegal in the criminal sense. I don't know enough about the DMCA to say.
To take your example, if you LEASE a car from Toyota, they certainly can tell you what roads to drive on. For example, they might say you may not take the car onto a race track. If you do, you will be liable for whatever is spelled out in the terms of that contract. Your insurance company or financing entity may also place restrictions on your use of the car.
I'm not telling you what to do, that's your own business. It should be clear though that 1,000 people installing OS X on their own Hacintoshes has nearly the same effect on Apple as 1,000 people buying Psystar systems. In both cases, Apple is deprived of the hardware sales that are the basis of their business model.
I am not apologizing for Apple, as I don't think they need to apologize in this matter. I also don't have any particular venom for Psystar, no more than I do for the guys selling fake Rolex watches on street corners.
This ruling actually concerns me though, because IMO it strengthens EULAs (dangerously so). From what I understand, it is clearly illegal for me to take a purchased copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware. It's illegal for me to fit my machine with a chip that enables OS X to run. It's certainly illegal to sell that machine, with or without OS X. Frankly, I see a problem there.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
But you're not buying a full copy of OS X, you're buying an upgrade only. The Mac OS X Snow Leopard DVDs are only licensed for installation on a Mac, ie. a machine which already came with a license to run Mac OS X.
What Psystar were doing was the equivalent of buying an upgrade copy of Photoshop or MS Office, ripping out the part of the code that checked for an existing license, then reselling it as a full copy.
Justifying that by saying "yeah, but I legally bought a copy of the [upgrade] disks, and I should have the right to run the software on any machine I choose [even if it doesn't have an original license]" doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I hadn't thought of that. By buying it, you would always technically be buying an upgrade. Good point.
Further, Microsoft is a horrible guess. Why would Microsoft want PC companies like Dell or Sony to be able to buy copies of OSX from Apple instead of Windows from Microsoft? If Psystar wins, that is exactly what would be able to happen. Microsoft like having a monopoly on the commercially supplied OS.
Stab in the dark . . . Elevation Partners.