It's perfectly understandable. Apple was originally asking for that and would have known that they'd have to show how they determined damages. They didn't withdraw that claim until after Psystar opening stated it was their intention to make public any data Apple was required to provide to them during discovery. Based on Psystar's previous behavior, even if the court told them they couldn't publicly release the information they obtained via discovery, I would not put it passed them to release it anyway. Maybe they'd claim that a hacker broke into their files and stole the information and released it on the internet or some other lame excuse (right up there with their "it's not our fault we can't produce those emails, our system occassionally and randomly deletes messages" excuse).
Since Psystar's operations were so small, I'm sure the damages would be equaly small (and difficult to quantify because Pystar also conveniently lost or didn't keep any financial records of their company's operations). With another company, Apple could reasonably expect that a court's order to protect their proprietary data would be respected by the other side. But the relatively small amount of money they'd recover wouldn't be worth the risk of letting Psystar have access to that data now that we've seen how childish and imature Psystar is acting.
I was thinking the same thing - that Apple initially wanted to claim monetary damages - but when the lawyers went down the path of give us all your private financial data and we'll give you ours - Apple decided there is no value in chasing after money from a bankrupt business if you have to divulge your own personal data to do so.
In any business it is generally a bad idea to let your customer's know how much of a profit margin you have on the products you resell - especially when you have to fund things like R&D and legal actions against people with more time on their hands than brains in their head.
In my line of work our primary vendor has explicitly instructed us not to let customers see what our profit margin is an in some cases of bundling - not to show line item discounts for various reasons - primarily so that the customers don't start thinking they can get x% off a given item if they by it outside of the bundle.
As with many of these things it is not unusual to start with many charges or allegations etc - and end up having only a couple make it to trial. the phase of the process right now is weeding out what parts of the case have enough merit to make it to a full courtroom proceeeding.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
Sad that you place a higher value on being ballsy than being creative or original.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
I can't recall a single instance of Apple taking a product that IBM sold, modifying it, and reselling it as their own. (sure they got ideas from Xerox etc). Apple did not bring cheaper IBM PCs to market - they developed an entirely new and different product to compete in the same market.
So if you worked hard to earn money to buy a nice TV for your living room - and the guy down the street decided to break into your house and steal it - and then sell it at his garage sale the next day - would you consider him ballsy?
For your analogy to be even close you would have to talk about the folks who reverse engineered the PC-BIOS from an IBM machine opening the market to a flood of PC clones - and to get the court to rule that IBM could not stop them from doing so. That was ballsy.
What Steve and Woz did was bold and perhaps even ballsy - but nothing at all even remotely like what Psystar is doing.
And while I am an avid fan of many Apple products - they sure have also done some phenomenally stupid things over the years as well.
While I would like to see less costly products from Apple - I would prefer to see them maintain the highest possible quality standards - in the compare to PC market - ignoring OS differences you have to spend the same $ on a PC as you do a Mac to get hardware that is as reliable and long lasting.
For your analogy to be even close you would have to talk about the folks who reverse engineered the PC-BIOS from an IBM machine opening the market to a flood of PC clones - and to get the court to rule that IBM could not stop them from doing so. That was ballsy. .
And the important part in that case is that the OS vendor was Microsoft and they signed a non-exclusive license for DOS to IBM which opened the doors for selling the OS to other clone makers. Apple has no interest and no desire to license mac OS to clone vendors.
While I'm not the poster you are questioning, I'll answer anyway.
They represent thieves who feel they are entitled to do as they wish with no consequences. They and their actions should be hated - IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
A lot of people who rely on the integrity of IP law to make a living have plenty of reason to hate what they represent.
For instance, NO ONE selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA, and that's only a small part of the issue.
I guess I look at this differently. They are going to lose. They aren't a threat, and they aren't going to get away with steeling without consequences. They're such a joke, in my eyes, that I can't bring myself to feel anything more than boredom with them, let alone hatred for them.
...and (3) pay Psystar's attorneys' fees associated with Mr. Schiller's deposition, this brief, and any subsequent proceedings."
Maybe Apple should be stealing a play from Psystar's playbook and seek payment of attorney costs for this whole debacle. I can bet Apple's lawyers aren't cheap.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
I think I know what you mean, but the two are not really comparable. When Apple came into being, they were part of the computer homebrew culture that was formed as a reaction to the monolithic mainframe corporations, like IBM who had no interest in fostering the creation of personal computers. Psystar is more akin to a leech.
While I'm not the poster you are questioning, I'll answer anyway.
They represent thieves who feel they are entitled to do as they wish with no consequences. They and their actions should be hated - IMHO.
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? They are selling hardware that they have made themselves (having bought, not stolen the off the shelf parts) and have installed an operating system, which is an off the shelf part, which they had also purchased.
For me this comes down to a debate about how much legal power an EULA should have. Personally I lean towards the idea that if you have purchased something and it belongs to you, you should be allowed to do whatever you like with it. EULA's have become incredibly restrictive and anti-consumer, so I personally am in favour of people/companies that challenge them.
That said, I wouldn't buy a Psystar computer because I believe in the value add of Apples hardware design. If they stay ahead in that, they shouldn't need to worry.
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? ... For me this comes down to a debate about how much legal power an EULA should have. ... if you have purchased something and it belongs to you, you should be allowed to do whatever you like with it. ...
The error in logic you are making here is that there is a difference between personal freedoms, and business rights. You are equating one with the other when they aren't equal at all.
In terms of personal freedoms, anyone already *does* have the right to do whatever they want with the OS and Apple has never tried to stop anyone from making hackintoshes. Some of the internal Apple developers have even been involved in the "hackintosh community."
In terms of business, no one should have the right to profit off of work that isn't their own. Especially, when the owners of that work explicitly deny them the right to use their work. If you don't have that rule, then you have basically no copyright at all. It's the same as saying you should be allowed to make and sell a Archies porn movie just because there are a lot of people who would want to buy a movie of Betty making out with Veronica and that the creators of Archie have no right to stop you.
The right already exists to do exactly this as fan-fiction or slash-fiction, but only if you don't sell it. It's the commercial distribution of someone elses work that's the issue.
I'm not a fan of copyright in any sense other than the individual artist's right to manage their own work, but most people are. There is in fact a huge consensus on this at the moment. If Psystar wins this case, then copyrights might just as well not exist at all.
Even if like me, you actually believe that people *should* be allowed to use the work of others in their own work, you still have to ascribe to some kind of "altered use" doctrine if you are making any kind of sensible argument about it. Psystar's use would fail even that test, as they aren't significantly changing the work at all, just tweaking a few parameters.
They're not a producer and they are supposed to be coop - existing for the benefit of their owners which are their customers - at least that the theory.
In terms of the costs incurred for the value they add (distribution, retail, etc.) I don't think they are a cost+ business. I don't know what there margin is once you take out the costs of good purchased (what they sell). The cost + 15% in only on item they pass through. For margins to compare to Apple you need to compare that 15% to Costco's value added costs - stores, distribution, salaries, etc.
What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.
This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.
I'm am Apple Developer, so in effect, I "am" Apple - at least a small part of it.
"Hate" was probably a poor choice of words, and you are correct - they don't stand for a damned thing, but do seem to have a nice career going hiding behind their lawyers coattails.
Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!
Except that Apple tells everyone how much they make off of a Mac at least once per quarter.
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? They are selling hardware that they have made themselves (having bought, not stolen the off the shelf parts) and have installed an operating system, which is an off the shelf part, which they had also purchased.
I can see why people don't understand this. But consider this: It costs more than $129 per user to make MacOS X. Heck even Microsoft, with ten times the customers, charge more for Windows upgrades than this. So, how could Apple possibly sell MacOS X for $129 without taking a loss.
The answer is they subsidize the development of the OS from the profits they make from hardware. So if you take the hardware sales away (i.e. give them to Psystar) Apple is now losing money on MacOS - this is one of the reasons Steve Jobs did away with Mac clones in the late '90s - Apple was losing money.
Support Psystar wins the case and is allowed to sell Mac clones. Well, what do you think Apple will do?
They'll have to raise the price. MacOS X will cost a lot more, negating the advantage of buying a clone. Apple can even offer cheap upgrades to Mac users, buy putting coupons in the box. Apple may also put activation into the OS.
This is a game Psystar can't win. Even if they win their case, they'll lose. All this case is doing is rattling cages.
A lot of people who rely on the integrity of IP law to make a living have plenty of reason to hate what they represent.
For instance, NO ONE selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA, and that's only a small part of the issue.
Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.
GO PSYSTAR!
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Heck even Microsoft, with ten times the customers, charge more for Windows upgrades than this.
I don't know if that's quite right. The estimates I've seen as to what MS gets per computer from a large OEM is something like $40 per computer for the "Home" version of their OS, though there is a devil's bargain going on, the OEM is required to handle all support. Buying the retail box copy (or a corporate deal) is what you need to get support from Microsoft.
The error in logic you are making here is that there is a difference between personal freedoms, and business rights. You are equating one with the other when they aren't equal at all.
In terms of personal freedoms, anyone already *does* have the right to do whatever they want with the OS and Apple has never tried to stop anyone from making hackintoshes. Some of the internal Apple developers have even been involved in the "hackintosh community."
In terms of business, no one should have the right to profit off of work that isn't their own. Especially, when the owners of that work explicitly deny them the right to use their work. If you don't have that rule, then you have basically no copyright at all.
That's not true - this doesn't equate to having no copyright. The copyright laws are to prevent people stealing your work. I still maintain there is no stealing going on at all.
In terms of business, everyone profits off work that is not their own. Psystar will be marking up the price of the hardware from what they pay for it and making some (although small) profit on it. Why should they be allowed to do that with what is in fact Intel's work designing and manufacturing the processor?
If people have the right to do whatever they want with what belongs to them, do you think what Psystar would be doing was fine if they just included a copy of Mac OS along with the hardware and made it simple for the user to install it themselves when they first switch on the computer?
I'm a big fan of Apple products, my house is full of them, but they do behave a lot of the time in a manner I as a consumer find unacceptable.
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Because it includes info on things other than the Macs. Psystar doesn't need to know how much profit was made from the ipod touch, know what I mean? It makes no sense to hand over all their profit info if Apple doesn't want to.
Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.
GO PSYSTAR!
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Listen, people can run their business as they see fit, if you don't like it, buy somebody else's product. As an example, there are plenty of Ferrari style chasis's that you can stick on an old VW bug...and thats totally cool....but if you brand it with the Ferrari logo thats a real big problem...you have now degraded the Ferrari brand name..not cool. So, once you install the Apple brand OS onto Pystar built hardware (which may be good) you have now degraded the Apple brand...why you may ask?...because, the first time someone has a bad experience, possibly due to hardware problems, the Apple OS experience is ruined...Apple has a right to protect that experience and their brand.
As far as Apple disclosing profit margins.....people have a right to privacy in this country....you may not have a problem telling your in-laws that you make 5 bucks an hour, but others have a right not to disclose such information.
Comments
It's perfectly understandable. Apple was originally asking for that and would have known that they'd have to show how they determined damages. They didn't withdraw that claim until after Psystar opening stated it was their intention to make public any data Apple was required to provide to them during discovery. Based on Psystar's previous behavior, even if the court told them they couldn't publicly release the information they obtained via discovery, I would not put it passed them to release it anyway. Maybe they'd claim that a hacker broke into their files and stole the information and released it on the internet or some other lame excuse (right up there with their "it's not our fault we can't produce those emails, our system occassionally and randomly deletes messages" excuse).
Since Psystar's operations were so small, I'm sure the damages would be equaly small (and difficult to quantify because Pystar also conveniently lost or didn't keep any financial records of their company's operations). With another company, Apple could reasonably expect that a court's order to protect their proprietary data would be respected by the other side. But the relatively small amount of money they'd recover wouldn't be worth the risk of letting Psystar have access to that data now that we've seen how childish and imature Psystar is acting.
I was thinking the same thing - that Apple initially wanted to claim monetary damages - but when the lawyers went down the path of give us all your private financial data and we'll give you ours - Apple decided there is no value in chasing after money from a bankrupt business if you have to divulge your own personal data to do so.
In any business it is generally a bad idea to let your customer's know how much of a profit margin you have on the products you resell - especially when you have to fund things like R&D and legal actions against people with more time on their hands than brains in their head.
In my line of work our primary vendor has explicitly instructed us not to let customers see what our profit margin is an in some cases of bundling - not to show line item discounts for various reasons - primarily so that the customers don't start thinking they can get x% off a given item if they by it outside of the bundle.
As with many of these things it is not unusual to start with many charges or allegations etc - and end up having only a couple make it to trial. the phase of the process right now is weeding out what parts of the case have enough merit to make it to a full courtroom proceeeding.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
Sad that you place a higher value on being ballsy than being creative or original.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
I can't recall a single instance of Apple taking a product that IBM sold, modifying it, and reselling it as their own. (sure they got ideas from Xerox etc). Apple did not bring cheaper IBM PCs to market - they developed an entirely new and different product to compete in the same market.
So if you worked hard to earn money to buy a nice TV for your living room - and the guy down the street decided to break into your house and steal it - and then sell it at his garage sale the next day - would you consider him ballsy?
For your analogy to be even close you would have to talk about the folks who reverse engineered the PC-BIOS from an IBM machine opening the market to a flood of PC clones - and to get the court to rule that IBM could not stop them from doing so. That was ballsy.
What Steve and Woz did was bold and perhaps even ballsy - but nothing at all even remotely like what Psystar is doing.
And while I am an avid fan of many Apple products - they sure have also done some phenomenally stupid things over the years as well.
While I would like to see less costly products from Apple - I would prefer to see them maintain the highest possible quality standards - in the compare to PC market - ignoring OS differences you have to spend the same $ on a PC as you do a Mac to get hardware that is as reliable and long lasting.
For your analogy to be even close you would have to talk about the folks who reverse engineered the PC-BIOS from an IBM machine opening the market to a flood of PC clones - and to get the court to rule that IBM could not stop them from doing so. That was ballsy. .
And the important part in that case is that the OS vendor was Microsoft and they signed a non-exclusive license for DOS to IBM which opened the doors for selling the OS to other clone makers. Apple has no interest and no desire to license mac OS to clone vendors.
While I'm not the poster you are questioning, I'll answer anyway.
They represent thieves who feel they are entitled to do as they wish with no consequences. They and their actions should be hated - IMHO.
A lot of people who rely on the integrity of IP law to make a living have plenty of reason to hate what they represent.
For instance, NO ONE selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA, and that's only a small part of the issue.
I guess I look at this differently. They are going to lose. They aren't a threat, and they aren't going to get away with steeling without consequences. They're such a joke, in my eyes, that I can't bring myself to feel anything more than boredom with them, let alone hatred for them.
...and (3) pay Psystar's attorneys' fees associated with Mr. Schiller's deposition, this brief, and any subsequent proceedings."
Maybe Apple should be stealing a play from Psystar's playbook and seek payment of attorney costs for this whole debacle. I can bet Apple's lawyers aren't cheap.
Not that I care much one way or the other (my caring would be pretty baseless) but I can see a reason to like Psystar - if you jump back in time and change the names from Psystar to Apple and Apple to IBM you might see a David v Goliath battle with heroic and ballsy Jobs at the helm. Sure, Psystar is not a company that exudes originality nor creative vision, on the contrary. But they bring cheaper macs to the market (do they? I really have no idea about their products) and they don't let themselves get bullied. So I give them 10 out of ten for ballsy.
I think I know what you mean, but the two are not really comparable. When Apple came into being, they were part of the computer homebrew culture that was formed as a reaction to the monolithic mainframe corporations, like IBM who had no interest in fostering the creation of personal computers. Psystar is more akin to a leech.
While I'm not the poster you are questioning, I'll answer anyway.
They represent thieves who feel they are entitled to do as they wish with no consequences. They and their actions should be hated - IMHO.
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? They are selling hardware that they have made themselves (having bought, not stolen the off the shelf parts) and have installed an operating system, which is an off the shelf part, which they had also purchased.
For me this comes down to a debate about how much legal power an EULA should have. Personally I lean towards the idea that if you have purchased something and it belongs to you, you should be allowed to do whatever you like with it. EULA's have become incredibly restrictive and anti-consumer, so I personally am in favour of people/companies that challenge them.
That said, I wouldn't buy a Psystar computer because I believe in the value add of Apples hardware design. If they stay ahead in that, they shouldn't need to worry.
Apple doesn't want (nor should they) to sell products at cost+. This never make for a great business.
Costco sells at "cost+" 15%
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? ... For me this comes down to a debate about how much legal power an EULA should have. ... if you have purchased something and it belongs to you, you should be allowed to do whatever you like with it. ...
The error in logic you are making here is that there is a difference between personal freedoms, and business rights. You are equating one with the other when they aren't equal at all.
In terms of personal freedoms, anyone already *does* have the right to do whatever they want with the OS and Apple has never tried to stop anyone from making hackintoshes. Some of the internal Apple developers have even been involved in the "hackintosh community."
In terms of business, no one should have the right to profit off of work that isn't their own. Especially, when the owners of that work explicitly deny them the right to use their work. If you don't have that rule, then you have basically no copyright at all. It's the same as saying you should be allowed to make and sell a Archies porn movie just because there are a lot of people who would want to buy a movie of Betty making out with Veronica and that the creators of Archie have no right to stop you.
The right already exists to do exactly this as fan-fiction or slash-fiction, but only if you don't sell it. It's the commercial distribution of someone elses work that's the issue.
I'm not a fan of copyright in any sense other than the individual artist's right to manage their own work, but most people are. There is in fact a huge consensus on this at the moment. If Psystar wins this case, then copyrights might just as well not exist at all.
Even if like me, you actually believe that people *should* be allowed to use the work of others in their own work, you still have to ascribe to some kind of "altered use" doctrine if you are making any kind of sensible argument about it. Psystar's use would fail even that test, as they aren't significantly changing the work at all, just tweaking a few parameters.
Costco sells at "cost+" 15%
They're not a producer and they are supposed to be coop - existing for the benefit of their owners which are their customers - at least that the theory.
In terms of the costs incurred for the value they add (distribution, retail, etc.) I don't think they are a cost+ business. I don't know what there margin is once you take out the costs of good purchased (what they sell). The cost + 15% in only on item they pass through. For margins to compare to Apple you need to compare that 15% to Costco's value added costs - stores, distribution, salaries, etc.
What do they represent? I mean, it's one thing to get bored with this whole thing and look down at them, but to hate them for what they "represent" just means you're investing too much emotion into this. I can't think of any reasons to like Psystar per say, but at the same time, no real reason to hate them unless you're Apple lol.
This whole thing just shows how silly our legal process can be. If you're a lawyer who knows the law well enough, it's like playing a big game.
I'm am Apple Developer, so in effect, I "am" Apple - at least a small part of it.
"Hate" was probably a poor choice of words, and you are correct - they don't stand for a damned thing, but do seem to have a nice career going hiding behind their lawyers coattails.
Even on an pro Apple blog I would have thought there would have been more response to Apple suddenly saying uh, we don't care about getting any of Psystar's profit, just please don't make us show how much we make off everyone who buys a Mac!!!!
Except that Apple tells everyone how much they make off of a Mac at least once per quarter.
Shoo..Bad doggy!!
Seriously!
I'm sorry, I don't understand in what way they are thieves? They are selling hardware that they have made themselves (having bought, not stolen the off the shelf parts) and have installed an operating system, which is an off the shelf part, which they had also purchased.
I can see why people don't understand this. But consider this: It costs more than $129 per user to make MacOS X. Heck even Microsoft, with ten times the customers, charge more for Windows upgrades than this. So, how could Apple possibly sell MacOS X for $129 without taking a loss.
The answer is they subsidize the development of the OS from the profits they make from hardware. So if you take the hardware sales away (i.e. give them to Psystar) Apple is now losing money on MacOS - this is one of the reasons Steve Jobs did away with Mac clones in the late '90s - Apple was losing money.
Support Psystar wins the case and is allowed to sell Mac clones. Well, what do you think Apple will do?
They'll have to raise the price. MacOS X will cost a lot more, negating the advantage of buying a clone. Apple can even offer cheap upgrades to Mac users, buy putting coupons in the box. Apple may also put activation into the OS.
This is a game Psystar can't win. Even if they win their case, they'll lose. All this case is doing is rattling cages.
A lot of people who rely on the integrity of IP law to make a living have plenty of reason to hate what they represent.
For instance, NO ONE selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA, and that's only a small part of the issue.
Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.
GO PSYSTAR!
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Heck even Microsoft, with ten times the customers, charge more for Windows upgrades than this.
I don't know if that's quite right. The estimates I've seen as to what MS gets per computer from a large OEM is something like $40 per computer for the "Home" version of their OS, though there is a devil's bargain going on, the OEM is required to handle all support. Buying the retail box copy (or a corporate deal) is what you need to get support from Microsoft.
The error in logic you are making here is that there is a difference between personal freedoms, and business rights. You are equating one with the other when they aren't equal at all.
In terms of personal freedoms, anyone already *does* have the right to do whatever they want with the OS and Apple has never tried to stop anyone from making hackintoshes. Some of the internal Apple developers have even been involved in the "hackintosh community."
In terms of business, no one should have the right to profit off of work that isn't their own. Especially, when the owners of that work explicitly deny them the right to use their work. If you don't have that rule, then you have basically no copyright at all.
That's not true - this doesn't equate to having no copyright. The copyright laws are to prevent people stealing your work. I still maintain there is no stealing going on at all.
In terms of business, everyone profits off work that is not their own. Psystar will be marking up the price of the hardware from what they pay for it and making some (although small) profit on it. Why should they be allowed to do that with what is in fact Intel's work designing and manufacturing the processor?
If people have the right to do whatever they want with what belongs to them, do you think what Psystar would be doing was fine if they just included a copy of Mac OS along with the hardware and made it simple for the user to install it themselves when they first switch on the computer?
I'm a big fan of Apple products, my house is full of them, but they do behave a lot of the time in a manner I as a consumer find unacceptable.
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Because it includes info on things other than the Macs. Psystar doesn't need to know how much profit was made from the ipod touch, know what I mean? It makes no sense to hand over all their profit info if Apple doesn't want to.
Whu is there an outcry in so many quarters against eula's the way they are now written? I for one say that the way most eula's are written these days are about as unethical as what you are accusing Psystar of.
GO PSYSTAR!
Why is apple afraid to diclose some of their profit information?
Listen, people can run their business as they see fit, if you don't like it, buy somebody else's product. As an example, there are plenty of Ferrari style chasis's that you can stick on an old VW bug...and thats totally cool....but if you brand it with the Ferrari logo thats a real big problem...you have now degraded the Ferrari brand name..not cool. So, once you install the Apple brand OS onto Pystar built hardware (which may be good) you have now degraded the Apple brand...why you may ask?...because, the first time someone has a bad experience, possibly due to hardware problems, the Apple OS experience is ruined...Apple has a right to protect that experience and their brand.
As far as Apple disclosing profit margins.....people have a right to privacy in this country....you may not have a problem telling your in-laws that you make 5 bucks an hour, but others have a right not to disclose such information.