Psystar, Apple both look to avoid 2010 trial
This week Apple and clone Mac maker Psystar both asked for a summary judgment in their ongoing lawsuit before the trial can officially start in January 2010.
On Thursday, both Apple and Psystar filed separate motions, with their respective supporting evidence, requesting a summary judgment from Judge William Alsup in a San Francisco court. Two hearings have been set for Nov. 12, and the outcome could determine whether the trial will take place in January.
Apple has requested that Alsup rule that Psystar infringed on its copyrights and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in its sale of unofficial third-party machines running Mac OS X. Apple has asserted that Psystar's circumvention of its disc protection methods for its operating system is in violation of the law.
Meanwhile, Psystar has asked the judge to consider a list of evidence submitted in its own request for a summary judgment. The evidence includes the end user license agreements for both Mac OS X 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.6, as well as excerpts from depositions from numerous Apple executives, including Senior Vice President of Worldwide Produt Marketing Phil Schiller.
It was Schiller that Psystar previously alleged was unprepared for his testimony. Apple responded that the proceedings were just an "effort to harass" one of the company's senior executives.
Last week, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.
The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- made a bold move earlier this week, when it announced it will license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
On Thursday, both Apple and Psystar filed separate motions, with their respective supporting evidence, requesting a summary judgment from Judge William Alsup in a San Francisco court. Two hearings have been set for Nov. 12, and the outcome could determine whether the trial will take place in January.
Apple has requested that Alsup rule that Psystar infringed on its copyrights and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in its sale of unofficial third-party machines running Mac OS X. Apple has asserted that Psystar's circumvention of its disc protection methods for its operating system is in violation of the law.
Meanwhile, Psystar has asked the judge to consider a list of evidence submitted in its own request for a summary judgment. The evidence includes the end user license agreements for both Mac OS X 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.6, as well as excerpts from depositions from numerous Apple executives, including Senior Vice President of Worldwide Produt Marketing Phil Schiller.
It was Schiller that Psystar previously alleged was unprepared for his testimony. Apple responded that the proceedings were just an "effort to harass" one of the company's senior executives.
Last week, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.
The company -- which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled -- made a bold move earlier this week, when it announced it will license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
Comments
if that is all they have, I have a feeling that this is all Psystar will get out of the Judge
Bring back PPC!!!! funny how nobody cared when it was ppc. Burn psytar burn...
People cared, they just couldn't do anything about it because PPC processors, motherboards, etc. weren't widely available.
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
You DO have options. They're called "Wndows, Linux, and OSX". Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp?!
You don't hear about people complaining that their XBOX's wanting to run PS3 games do you? Gee, why can't I load just the iPhone O/S on an Android phone?
Sheesh!!
Three words "Cease and Decease".
I think you mean: cease and desist
By licensing the OS, as Apple did in the 90's, it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Microsoft makes money on selling it's operating system because it is pre installed on virtually every computer sold that isn't a Mac. All the hardware companies pay big bucks to Microsoft. This compensates from the large amount of piracy going on.
A non-update version of Windows cost much more then an update version of OSX, which Apple doesn't offer. Further, by offering OSX to everybody it would have to take on support cost for other manufacturers' hardware.
Second, why in America, the land of the free, should Apple be forced to sell it's operating system in a manner that it doesn't want? The OS is clearly sold as an update for pre-existing Mac owners. That is no secret. It is priced as such. Accordingly, consumers are free to accept what Apple offers or buy something else from Dell or the likes.
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
I think you mean: cease and desist
I don't think he did. (I think it's called a "joke")
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
The confusion lies in the belief that Apple is in the software business, it's not it's in the hardware business. To use their wonderful and inventive
hardware, you have to use their (OS) software to run it. DUHHH.
I think you mean: cease and desist
I like it better his way!
Also, Apple created OSX to sell Macs, not any old computer. They shouldn't be required to allow it to run on any PC just because they managed to create an outstanding OS that is the envy of the desktop computing world.
You may not like it but you know what? Saying OSX should be made to run on any standard PC is equivalent to saying a top brand auto manufacturer is required to make their technologies available to all other brands.
I don't know why this concept is so hard to grasp. There has always been Mac only (or more so, Windows only) software and nobody has ever considered suing these software developers because their software isn't available on both platforms.
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who would want that? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.
This "free OS X" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.
Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.
Frankly, the last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.
I like it better his way!
Well, certainly makes ya think...
I do not know about you but before i bought my iMac i would have loved to install MAC-OSX on my home pc (actually i did but it did not work as expected... )
Anyway what i want to say is that i think that people should be provided with more options... I never understood why on earth doesn't Apple do something about the OSX so that it can be installed on a regular PC...
If someone wants fancy they can go with Apple products if you are looking only for a good OS than you take only the OSX.
just my 2 cent
Think of Halo 3. If Microsoft port it to PlayStation, it will most likely be the best selling game on both platform. But Microsoft rather you buy an Xbox if you want to play Halo 3 .
But unlike Apple, Microsoft loses (or make very little) on the sale of their hardware. But that's Microsoft for you.
I think you mean: cease and desist
No, I think he wants them to stop and die.
nice pun.
The confusion lies in the belief that Apple is in the software business, it's not it's in the hardware business. To use their wonderful and inventive
hardware, you have to use their (OS) software to run it. DUHHH.
Actually, I can buy an Apple computer:
1. Install a fresh version of Windows (XP, Vista, 7) directly to the HDD without OSX.
2. Install iTunes on the aforementioned Windows OS.
3. Transfer my music/videos to my Apple iPod.
I have used all the Apple hardware without using their OS in any way.
Actually, I can buy an Apple computer:
1. Install a fresh version of Windows (XP, Vista, 7) directly to the HDD without OSX.
2. Install iTunes on the aforementioned Windows OS.
3. Transfer my music/videos to my Apple iPod.
I have used all the Apple hardware without using their OS in any way.
He said HARDWARE, genius not software. iTunes is software. Sheesh.