I wonder if they're going to appeal? On appeal, the facts are not in question. They're accepted, it's just the judges opinion that's questioned.
actually they already have a chance to appeal, sort of. The judge has given them a limited time to rewrite their claim better or to just take the opinion given.
Seriously? I see that you have lots and lots of posts, so obviously you just like to type, but you might want to slow down just a tad and think about what you're saying before doing so.
1) No, monopolies do not generally have competition. That makes no sense.
2) Your comment about Psystar appealing makes even less sense. The judge here found that, as a matter of law, Psystar has no case. There was no trial and hence no facts were yet established. The appeals court, therefore, will be looking at the law, just as this judge did. They will conclude, as this judge did, that Psystar has no claim on which relief can be granted; legally, they lose.
Why don't you look up the term monopoly to make sure you know what it means. MS has a monopoly in OS's, but it has competition from Apple, and many Linux distro's. It even has competition from old, classic OS's such as the Amiga, and others, though they're so small as to hardly matter.
You're saying that OS X isn't competition to Windows?
As far as appeal goes, this could be appealed, in part,or in the whole, it depends.
Since you are just saying what you feel should be true, you should go back a step and do some reading.
My mother uses our blender to blend paper... never food. That wasn't its purpose, and the blender wasn't built for paper. If it breaks, she fixes it herself knowing there is no service for using a blender for paper. Same should be for Apple. Use OS X how you want, where you want. But use it incorrectly, and you get no support at all.
Just my thoughts. Have at them.
I don't particularly disagree with the thought behind what you're saying. But the law does say that the license holder determines the uses the product may be put to.
It's so very different with software than hardware.
I totally agree with you. My point was that what you do in the privacy of your own home is no one's business but your own. It won't go beyond that. If I wanted to smoke pot in my own house, legal or not I would do it since it does not hurt anyone else and no one else would know. I could care less about the licensing.
That's different. If you don't mind being in violation, and aren't afraid of being caught, and sued, then go for it.
actually they already have a chance to appeal, sort of. The judge has given them a limited time to rewrite their claim better or to just take the opinion given.
That's different. If you don't mind being in violation, and aren't afraid of being caught, and sued, then go for it.
Apple would not care that I built a PC for myself and managed to shoehorn OSX to run on it. They do not care about individuals doing it for their own personal pleasure. To Apple, those people are just a bunch of garage tinkerers.
But the moment I take it outside my house and stick a "for sale" sign on it with the intent of making more of them to generate even more revenue, then I of course Apple should go after them with a vengeance.
No love lost on Psystar. It still amazes me that Psystar thought they had a chance to get away with it.
Music to my ears, yes, DIE PSYCRAP, you illegal business cheapskate. I can make a better hackintosh then you guys and I don't need to steal people code and commercialize it!.
And yeah, a cheaper OS X on cheaper hardware sounds nice but I won't want it because it will compromise Apple hardware and software quality. If you want Apple to stay making quality products, pay for its PC don't resort to Psycrap, if you still want a cheaper one, make your own Hackintosh, don't pay a cent of your hard earned money to these cheap skate b**tards.
Apple would not care that I built a PC for myself and managed to shoehorn OSX to run on it. They do not care about individuals doing it for their own personal pleasure. To Apple, those people are just a bunch of garage tinkerers.
But the moment I take it outside my house and stick a "for sale" sign on it with the intent of making more of them to generate even more revenue, then I of course Apple should go after them with a vengeance.
No love lost on Psystar. It still amazes me that Psystar thought they had a chance to get away with it.
Well, they would care. But they won't care enough to want to be bothered to do something about it.
They still want you to buy one of their machines since that's what their business is. Their business is not selling packages of OS X. As they say, the retail boxes are upgrades for people who have a Mac. According to them, they ONLY sell upgrades to the OS in retail.
An upgrade require a prior purchase of the software. And where is that sold? Inside the computer hardware.
So if I am reading this correctly, does this mean that this judge has officially slotted OS X as a competitor for other operating systems, including Windows? If so, doesn't this blow any current and future suits concerning Microsoft monopolies out the ... window? (sorry for the unintentional bad pun)
Won't make a difference because there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Microsoft was charged with acting in such a way as to prevent folk from entering the market. Their position in the market enabled them to do so.
Apple's position in the market is not preventing Pystar from entering the market, because (I guess) they can still make machines that run Windows and Linux if they want to.
I have nothing at all against Pystar, but I think they should really think very carefully about taking this any further. The question that they should ask themselves is:
Does the Mac community really want anyone making machines other than Apple?
Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," the judge wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so.""
End of case.
Pretty convincing statement.
Seems to me that Apple should sell the OSX disks as upgrade-only disks.
That would make it hard for a third party to get off the ground since you'd always need a genuine Mac at some point.
Think game consoles. You can't legally run Halo 3 on a PS3. You can't legally run Mac OS X on a PC.It's simple. If there were ever really a case here, then you'd be able to play any video game on any console.
I think a better analogy is the actual OS which runs on the PS3. Sony develops both the hardware (PS3) and the OS (SonyOS?) and bundles them together. The Psystar countersuit is equivalent to someone suing Sony because the OS that runs on the PS3 can't also be used on competitive gaming hardware such as the Xbox.
Won't make a difference because there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Microsoft was charged with acting in such a way as to prevent folk from entering the market. Their position in the market enabled them to do so.
Yes, that's the key difference. MS Windows has always been a product which is separate from any particular PC hardware, and thus in a separate market. So by them strong-arming PC manufacturers to bundle MS Windows with their hardware, they're intentionally excluding others (such as Linux) from being able to compete in the same market.
However, with Apple/Mac OS, the hardware and software have always been bundled together. There've never been separate markets for their software and hardware. So Psystar is trying to create a market (hardware designed to run Mac OS) which never existed in the first place.
ok, maybe such a market did exist back when Apple briefly flirted with clone manufacturers in the late 1990s, but that wasn't for very long. And I believe the clone manufacturers at the time had to build their computers to a particular specification defined by Apple.
That might be the only leg Psystar has to stand on -- if they use the example of Apple opening the market to clones. But I think it's a pretty weak leg...
Not really. MS is considered a monopoly because they have such high market share, not because no alternatives exist.
MS also programmed their software to cripple other web browsers and force the consumer running Windows to only use Internet Explorer, without the option of uninstalling it. That is mainly why MS got in trouble with being a monopoly.
Market share has nothing to do with it, as the example with Kodak mentioned in the article.
The judge noted that Apple made it very clear that if the consumer wanted to use Mac OS X, it could only be done with Apple-branded hardware. No one bought a copy of Mac OS X expecting to to run on a generic PC box. There was no deception involved.
You're not actually allowed to do that either. Whatever the license says you're allowed to do, you're allowed to do. Whatever it says you're not allowed to do, you're not allowed to do.
If the games you buy don't have something in the license saying that you can't run this on other systems, can't modify it, etc., then you can do so. but if it does say something like that, then you can't.
It doesn't matter if you are doing it for yourself.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
Apple has never tested the very strict conditions it put in the OS-X EULA. Apple is going after Psystar on copyright and trademark violation grounds not on breach-of-contract grounds. In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
Seems to me that Apple should sell the OSX disks as upgrade-only disks.
That would make it hard for a third party to get off the ground since you'd always need a genuine Mac at some point.
?
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
My mother uses our blender to blend paper... never food. That wasn't its purpose, and the blender wasn't built for paper. If it breaks, she fixes it herself knowing there is no service for using a blender for paper. Same should be for Apple. Use OS X how you want, where you want. But use it incorrectly, and you get no support at all.
You miss the finer points of the problem. You can install OS X on a hackintosh if you so choose. Just like you mother uses the blender to shred paper.
Lets say your mothers blender is made by Acme Blender. She is free to use her Acme Blender in any way she chooses. She is not free to open a business selling Acme branded blenders as paper shredders. People may not fully realize or understand they are buying blenders to use as paper shredders that Acme will not support. This could threaten Acme's brand name and reputation. This is more akin to what Psystar was doing.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
A EULA is an binding contract you agree to when you buy a Mac. It is lawful to be sued for breaking a contract you agreed to abide by.
There's still a market for this sort of Mac, a screenless iMac with the option to upgrade the storage a graphics without the size all all of the power of a Mac Pro... I'd buy one.
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
The only difference between an "upgrade" disk and a "full" install disk is the need to prove a previous OSX license with the upgrade version. Otherwise both version contain the whole OSX. With an upgrade OSX disk, it will install on to a blank drive if it detects a previous version on any other drive connected to the computer. Even if it's connected by Firewire.
This is how I have to load my upgrade version of Panther or Tiger on to a blank drive. I have an external Firewire drive which has a partition with OSX.2 (Jaguar) on it. I plug the Firewire drive into the computer that I need to load Panther or Tiger on. Reformat the internal drive and then the upgrade disk will see the previous license on the Firewire drive and I can select the blank drive to load it on.
Apple stopped selling an "uprgrade" version of OSX with Leopard. Leopard only requires that you load it on a Mac. Never the less, Leopard is still considered an "upgrade" and when Apple was selling both versions, they were both still consider "upgrades". That's because both versions still required a Mac and all Macs had a previous license. Plus you can not install a lower version of OSX than what originally came with the Mac. Not even if with the "full" version. Another words you can not install Panther on to a Mac that originally came with Tiger (Hardware support is also an issue). And the other thing is that you can not install a lower version of OSX on a drive if the install disk detects a higher version on any of the drives. And the price difference between the "uprgade" version and "full" version of OSX was only like $50.00. Not the $150 to $200 difference we see between an upgrade version and full version of MS Windows. The "full" version of OSX was really meant for the people that bought used Macs and didn't get the recovery disk with their purchase, some one that lost or damaged their recovery disk or for the people that likes to start with a clean blank drive and don't want to go through the hassle of having to load a previous version of OSX on it.
Comments
I wonder if they're going to appeal? On appeal, the facts are not in question. They're accepted, it's just the judges opinion that's questioned.
actually they already have a chance to appeal, sort of. The judge has given them a limited time to rewrite their claim better or to just take the opinion given.
You are thinking of an appeal of a trial verdict. This is a judge throwing out one sides argument before the trial even begins.
That's true, but sometimes some, or all of it is subject to appeal as well. I haven't read the entire opinion yet.
Seriously? I see that you have lots and lots of posts, so obviously you just like to type, but you might want to slow down just a tad and think about what you're saying before doing so.
1) No, monopolies do not generally have competition. That makes no sense.
2) Your comment about Psystar appealing makes even less sense. The judge here found that, as a matter of law, Psystar has no case. There was no trial and hence no facts were yet established. The appeals court, therefore, will be looking at the law, just as this judge did. They will conclude, as this judge did, that Psystar has no claim on which relief can be granted; legally, they lose.
Why don't you look up the term monopoly to make sure you know what it means. MS has a monopoly in OS's, but it has competition from Apple, and many Linux distro's. It even has competition from old, classic OS's such as the Amiga, and others, though they're so small as to hardly matter.
You're saying that OS X isn't competition to Windows?
As far as appeal goes, this could be appealed, in part,or in the whole, it depends.
Since you are just saying what you feel should be true, you should go back a step and do some reading.
My mother uses our blender to blend paper... never food. That wasn't its purpose, and the blender wasn't built for paper. If it breaks, she fixes it herself knowing there is no service for using a blender for paper. Same should be for Apple. Use OS X how you want, where you want. But use it incorrectly, and you get no support at all.
Just my thoughts. Have at them.
I don't particularly disagree with the thought behind what you're saying. But the law does say that the license holder determines the uses the product may be put to.
It's so very different with software than hardware.
I totally agree with you. My point was that what you do in the privacy of your own home is no one's business but your own. It won't go beyond that. If I wanted to smoke pot in my own house, legal or not I would do it since it does not hurt anyone else and no one else would know. I could care less about the licensing.
That's different. If you don't mind being in violation, and aren't afraid of being caught, and sued, then go for it.
actually they already have a chance to appeal, sort of. The judge has given them a limited time to rewrite their claim better or to just take the opinion given.
Yes. I forgot about that one.
That's different. If you don't mind being in violation, and aren't afraid of being caught, and sued, then go for it.
Apple would not care that I built a PC for myself and managed to shoehorn OSX to run on it. They do not care about individuals doing it for their own personal pleasure. To Apple, those people are just a bunch of garage tinkerers.
But the moment I take it outside my house and stick a "for sale" sign on it with the intent of making more of them to generate even more revenue, then I of course Apple should go after them with a vengeance.
No love lost on Psystar. It still amazes me that Psystar thought they had a chance to get away with it.
And yeah, a cheaper OS X on cheaper hardware sounds nice but I won't want it because it will compromise Apple hardware and software quality. If you want Apple to stay making quality products, pay for its PC don't resort to Psycrap, if you still want a cheaper one, make your own Hackintosh, don't pay a cent of your hard earned money to these cheap skate b**tards.
Apple would not care that I built a PC for myself and managed to shoehorn OSX to run on it. They do not care about individuals doing it for their own personal pleasure. To Apple, those people are just a bunch of garage tinkerers.
But the moment I take it outside my house and stick a "for sale" sign on it with the intent of making more of them to generate even more revenue, then I of course Apple should go after them with a vengeance.
No love lost on Psystar. It still amazes me that Psystar thought they had a chance to get away with it.
Well, they would care. But they won't care enough to want to be bothered to do something about it.
They still want you to buy one of their machines since that's what their business is. Their business is not selling packages of OS X. As they say, the retail boxes are upgrades for people who have a Mac. According to them, they ONLY sell upgrades to the OS in retail.
An upgrade require a prior purchase of the software. And where is that sold? Inside the computer hardware.
But, no one is going to hunt you down.
So if I am reading this correctly, does this mean that this judge has officially slotted OS X as a competitor for other operating systems, including Windows? If so, doesn't this blow any current and future suits concerning Microsoft monopolies out the ... window? (sorry for the unintentional bad pun)
Won't make a difference because there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Microsoft was charged with acting in such a way as to prevent folk from entering the market. Their position in the market enabled them to do so.
Apple's position in the market is not preventing Pystar from entering the market, because (I guess) they can still make machines that run Windows and Linux if they want to.
I have nothing at all against Pystar, but I think they should really think very carefully about taking this any further. The question that they should ask themselves is:
Does the Mac community really want anyone making machines other than Apple?
Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," the judge wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so.""
End of case.
Pretty convincing statement.
Seems to me that Apple should sell the OSX disks as upgrade-only disks.
That would make it hard for a third party to get off the ground since you'd always need a genuine Mac at some point.
?
Think game consoles. You can't legally run Halo 3 on a PS3. You can't legally run Mac OS X on a PC.It's simple. If there were ever really a case here, then you'd be able to play any video game on any console.
I think a better analogy is the actual OS which runs on the PS3. Sony develops both the hardware (PS3) and the OS (SonyOS?) and bundles them together. The Psystar countersuit is equivalent to someone suing Sony because the OS that runs on the PS3 can't also be used on competitive gaming hardware such as the Xbox.
Won't make a difference because there is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Microsoft was charged with acting in such a way as to prevent folk from entering the market. Their position in the market enabled them to do so.
Yes, that's the key difference. MS Windows has always been a product which is separate from any particular PC hardware, and thus in a separate market. So by them strong-arming PC manufacturers to bundle MS Windows with their hardware, they're intentionally excluding others (such as Linux) from being able to compete in the same market.
However, with Apple/Mac OS, the hardware and software have always been bundled together. There've never been separate markets for their software and hardware. So Psystar is trying to create a market (hardware designed to run Mac OS) which never existed in the first place.
ok, maybe such a market did exist back when Apple briefly flirted with clone manufacturers in the late 1990s, but that wasn't for very long. And I believe the clone manufacturers at the time had to build their computers to a particular specification defined by Apple.
That might be the only leg Psystar has to stand on -- if they use the example of Apple opening the market to clones. But I think it's a pretty weak leg...
Not really. MS is considered a monopoly because they have such high market share, not because no alternatives exist.
MS also programmed their software to cripple other web browsers and force the consumer running Windows to only use Internet Explorer, without the option of uninstalling it. That is mainly why MS got in trouble with being a monopoly.
Market share has nothing to do with it, as the example with Kodak mentioned in the article.
The judge noted that Apple made it very clear that if the consumer wanted to use Mac OS X, it could only be done with Apple-branded hardware. No one bought a copy of Mac OS X expecting to to run on a generic PC box. There was no deception involved.
You're not actually allowed to do that either. Whatever the license says you're allowed to do, you're allowed to do. Whatever it says you're not allowed to do, you're not allowed to do.
If the games you buy don't have something in the license saying that you can't run this on other systems, can't modify it, etc., then you can do so. but if it does say something like that, then you can't.
It doesn't matter if you are doing it for yourself.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
Apple has never tested the very strict conditions it put in the OS-X EULA. Apple is going after Psystar on copyright and trademark violation grounds not on breach-of-contract grounds. In fact Apple probably does not want to test the restrictions on the personal use of OS-X (i.e. installing it on a hackintosh for personal non-commercial use) because they just might lose that one.
Pretty convincing statement.
Seems to me that Apple should sell the OSX disks as upgrade-only disks.
That would make it hard for a third party to get off the ground since you'd always need a genuine Mac at some point.
?
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
My mother uses our blender to blend paper... never food. That wasn't its purpose, and the blender wasn't built for paper. If it breaks, she fixes it herself knowing there is no service for using a blender for paper. Same should be for Apple. Use OS X how you want, where you want. But use it incorrectly, and you get no support at all.
You miss the finer points of the problem. You can install OS X on a hackintosh if you so choose. Just like you mother uses the blender to shred paper.
Lets say your mothers blender is made by Acme Blender. She is free to use her Acme Blender in any way she chooses. She is not free to open a business selling Acme branded blenders as paper shredders. People may not fully realize or understand they are buying blenders to use as paper shredders that Acme will not support. This could threaten Acme's brand name and reputation. This is more akin to what Psystar was doing.
An EULA is a contract between Apple and its customer. It is not the law. You don't break the law when you violate an EULA. Also, just because something is written and agreed to in an EULA doesn't mean government and the courts are required to enforce that EULA. Someone can file suit that an EULA has illegal provisions and if the courts agree then that part of the EULA will be deemed void.
A EULA is an binding contract you agree to when you buy a Mac. It is lawful to be sued for breaking a contract you agreed to abide by.
Nope. An OS disk needs to be able to be re-installed if there's a hard rive loss. An upgrade would not allow that, unless, like Adobe does, each disk was serial numbered, and contained the entire program. Then, one could load the entire OS, using the original OS serial number that qualifies the upgrade disk to be loaded. We could forget Adobe's stupid 2 activations limit, if Apple wanted to do this, which I sincerely doubt.
The only difference between an "upgrade" disk and a "full" install disk is the need to prove a previous OSX license with the upgrade version. Otherwise both version contain the whole OSX. With an upgrade OSX disk, it will install on to a blank drive if it detects a previous version on any other drive connected to the computer. Even if it's connected by Firewire.
This is how I have to load my upgrade version of Panther or Tiger on to a blank drive. I have an external Firewire drive which has a partition with OSX.2 (Jaguar) on it. I plug the Firewire drive into the computer that I need to load Panther or Tiger on. Reformat the internal drive and then the upgrade disk will see the previous license on the Firewire drive and I can select the blank drive to load it on.
Apple stopped selling an "uprgrade" version of OSX with Leopard. Leopard only requires that you load it on a Mac. Never the less, Leopard is still considered an "upgrade" and when Apple was selling both versions, they were both still consider "upgrades". That's because both versions still required a Mac and all Macs had a previous license. Plus you can not install a lower version of OSX than what originally came with the Mac. Not even if with the "full" version. Another words you can not install Panther on to a Mac that originally came with Tiger (Hardware support is also an issue). And the other thing is that you can not install a lower version of OSX on a drive if the install disk detects a higher version on any of the drives. And the price difference between the "uprgade" version and "full" version of OSX was only like $50.00. Not the $150 to $200 difference we see between an upgrade version and full version of MS Windows. The "full" version of OSX was really meant for the people that bought used Macs and didn't get the recovery disk with their purchase, some one that lost or damaged their recovery disk or for the people that likes to start with a clean blank drive and don't want to go through the hassle of having to load a previous version of OSX on it.