It's Apple's OS, they made it and they choose to do with it what they want. It's not the same business model as Microsoft...

Itsuru

I want Microsoft to try this...

jinsaotomex4

@ZombieRace:

as does psystar.

trekkie

I wish Apple would sell a reasonably priced mini tower. The iMac and Mac mini are worthless for expandability and performance. The only Mac that interests me is the Mac Pro. Unfortunately, the cheapest Mac Pro you can buy is the 1 CPU 4 core version for $2300. Way too much money IMHO.

mikemacman

@ferrdidly: LOL PWN'D to the max!

CrashOverride777

@ZombieRace: oh please explain to all of us?

djdare

Dudemeistrer is getting pwned!!

ferrdidly

@Dudemeister on the Run: OK so when Dudemeister OS 1 comes out, I'm free to distribute it at my liesure against your will. Sorry guy, you're not allowed to get all of the money for the product you sell. What's that? You're gonna sue? Haha check the Psystar v. Apple case. Can't touch me bitch!

Kaiser-Machead's Apostrophe's Power

@cptodd: You have a very poor understanding of intellectual property and property laws.

ZombieRace

@cptodd: Be careful you might be considered a fanboy, with that kind of talk.

CrashOverride777

@Dudemeister on the Run:

oh my god! Apple wants all the money!!! What is the world coming to when the company that developed, nurtured, marketed, supported, etc. their own intellectual property wanted all the remuneration from said intellectual property. Move over. I am coming over to live in your house. I think I will rent your bedroom and you can have the living room. see you soon!

cptodd

@Dudemeister on the Run: I understand where you coming from but Psystar is not doing it right they are clearly breaking the law, if Dell, HP, Toshiba and all the other PC manufactures got together and sued Apple for hording their OS then I see a case since they are not breaking the law by illegally putting Apple OS on their hardware. That's what I'm trying to say.

CrashOverride777

@CrashOverride777: Fanboy spotted!

ZombieRace

Go Psystar! I would consider buying a Mac if I didn't have to sell my soul to buy one!

gerrylum

"Your honor, Psystar clearly paid for all of those copies of OS X bundled with their machines."

"mmmhmmm, and what of the copy loaded onto each one?"

"I OBJECT!"

Kaiser-Machead's Apostrophe's Power

anti trust? its not a monopoly unless apple is the only place you can get an os or a computer...

urbanturban666

@CrashOverride777: problem is apple wants all the money.

And i am with psystar's argument. Apple is basically the sole proprietor of OS X, and they are the only ones that can sell, or supply it...thus anti-trust laws should kick in.

Dudemeister on the Run

I'm with Apple on this one Psystar must be destroyed for the good of the Empir... um company. Selling hacked version of OS X is clearly illegal that they should have been shutdown along time ago. If Apple wanted their OS on 3rd party hardware I doubt they would go to some no name company like Psystar instead Dell or and other big name PC manufactures.

CrashOverride777

not gonna lie, i'm rooting for the underdog (pystar) in this one. Apples hardware is pricy and although i dont like mac, i would probably try out osx if it were legally installed onto cheaper hardware.

Kartune

@vrdabomb5717: You clearly don't know what your talking about its illegal since they are selling hacked versions of the OS and under copy right laws thats breaking the law even if you get a free OS X disk with it, they are still using Apple's property to make a profit.

CrashOverride777

Next up Palm will be getting sued for its OS to be placed on non-Palm phones and devices. Oh wait...

suneohair

@urbanturban666: I understand what your saying, I was just say what the other side was thinking, I don't agree with it at all, but if you defend Apple your considered a fanboy. So I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt even tho they are clearly in the wrong. Hope that clears things up, I stand by my first post on Psystar breaking the law.

CrashOverride777

I'm rooting for Psystar on this one. I hate how Apple locked in all of its users onto its own hardware and forces people to pay exorbitant prices for their computers. Honestly, I don't know much about intellectual property disputes, but I think that if Microsoft had to open up their PC's due to antitrust rulings in the EU and Asia for silly reasons like embedding an internet browser or media player, Apple should be forced to open their software to work on other hardware. Microsoft had to stop chaining people to Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, and Apple should stop chaining people to their hardware.

The reasoning doesn't make much sense, but I'm of the school that if I pay for something, I should be able to do whatever I want to with my property, whether it be hardware or software. If Psystar paid for their copies of OSX, then they should be able to do what they want with it.

In the meantime, it's back to Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex for me.

vrdabomb5717

If this lawsuit wins, then the OS running on Canon cameras should be forced to run on Kodak cameras. Theres no way this suit is gonna win. Apple clearly has no interest in distributing their OS with other hardware manufacturers - theres no way that their policy falls into antitrust territory.

comfortablesofa

As much as I want to run OSX on my PC, if Psystar wins Apple will find another way to prevent it (ie its EMI requirement) or just close up PC's altogether, since if they have to support more hardware then their OS will experience problems similar to Microsoft (albeit without the registry errors)

robodomo

@CrashOverride777: @Dudemeister on the Run: @CrashOverride777:

osx is apples own product ppl!!! technically its not a monopoly... unless they are the only people you can get an os from. theres 1000 linux distros and windows if you dont like it. apples not hording anything... the same way you cant sue sony for hording mgs and gt5, because theres millions of other people that make video games (splinter cell, forza)...

the only thing that makes apple look bad is the fact that they took something free and open source (bsd) and made it proprietary and locked out non apple pcs...

urbanturban666

Aren't the copies they are putting on their computers paid for?

mykalt45

So let's just sue Microsoft for not allowing their Xbox OS to be run on anything other than an Xbox, or Sony for restricting the PSP OS to the PSP and so on and so forth.

Jasarien

@Dudemeister on the Run:

So the any company selling any copyright product is anti-trust?

Coke owning and only being the one company selling Coke is anti-trust? - Ditto for pepsi

Sony being able to only sell the PS3 is anti-trust? - ditto for Nintendo and Microsoft

Akiyia

It doesn't seem possible to me that this could be considered an antitrust issue. Apple make an operating system for only Apple computers-- so they've got a monopoly on computers that can run OS X? That's bizarre. If this half-assed lawsuit works, I'm going to sue Nintendo for having the only device I can play Super Smash Brothers on. They should be legally required to make it for the other consoles. Then I'm going to sue Sirius and XM for not making their exclusive content work on my normal car radio. Then I'm going to sue NBC for being the exclusive American broadcaster for the Olympics.

Where does the crap end?

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

@Ryan H: See that's what I wanted to get across without getting bashed and being called an Apple fanboy.

CrashOverride777

I'm looking forward to Psystar getting their asses handed to them. This coming from a guy who uses both a PC (with Windows and Linux) and a Mac (also with Windows).

dead_red_eyes

I think thats good and bad at the same time. Mac's are so reliable because they're made by the people who should know the most about the OS. PsyStar isn't a Mac OS X expert they're just a small company that is trying to make a living and end the Mac software tie down to their hardware.
I understand their arguement but still Mac should have some rights.

SneakerFiend

@vrdabomb5717:
Look, every time there is a story about the piss poor service at some hardware or software vendor half the comments say that they deserve it for going with the cheapest option and the other half wish that some company would take advantage of the market segment willing to pay a small premium for better quality. Well, Apple is that company.

If you want the quality (and you obviously do or else you would not care if OSX was generally available or not) pay the premium. If you don't think it gives you good value for your money choose a cheaper alternative. But saying that you wish OSX was available for cheaper because it is so much nicer than the crappy software you can currently afford is kind of missing the point.

Ryan H

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: The arguments were fabulist for effect. Not flawed. But your take on the Wii one is interesting... so if, say, Microsoft had their Wii-like device (the 360) designed to emulate the software running the Wii, Nintendo would have no means of legal recourse? Is that what you're trying to say?

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

@Jasarien: Microsoft and Sony, just like Apple, is not required to make their software work with other devices. And taking an XBOX or a PSP os and installing that on another is prohibitively difficult, and quite frankly an unnecessary task, since there is really nothing to gain.

And dont forget, you cant sue Microsoft or Sony to allow you to do it. You have to do it first (which i think is impossible), let Microsoft or Sony sue you, then sue them back.

Psystar legally purchased a license to OSX, and when they sell you a PC, they sell you that license back. Whether their actions are legal or not, that is the question. If they are providing you unmodified Apple code, then i think it should be legal to distribute the OS. The thing that i don't agree with when it comes to this is that Apple requires you to install their software on their hardware, when the software has absolutely no issue being installed on generic hardware. Its like Ford suing you because you installed a Mustang 6 cylinder into a Fiero.

If you can buy the engine (or OS), and don't intrude on their copyrights, then you should be able to install it on anything it can be installed on.

But this should be one hell of a case.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@CrashOverride777: nothing wrong with being an apple fanboy.... osx is just unix with a fancy window and package manager... since im the computer guy for my large family and a bunch of relatives are getting macbooks ill prolly build a hackintosh just to brush up my osx knowledge....i mean ummm....ohhhh noooo!!!!!!

***apples lawyers break down my door and ream me with a broomstick***

urbanturban666

Assuming all copies of OSX were paid for, it comes down to is does the consumer have a right to do with that software whatever he/she wants.

IMO once you pay for it you should be able to do with it what you want. I don't know what the legal view of it is though.

Hardly an anti-trust issue unless you look at it as though Apple and the Mac is something separate from PC's.

DvBoard

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: Your argument is flawed; severely:

1. If someone were to make a Wii like device which does not step on any of Nintendos patents and copyrights and is able to play SSBB, then yes, you should be legally allowed to purchase that device and play SSBB on it.

2. Sirius XM is not responsible for making their feeds work on regular devices. If you pay for legally being able to receive Sirius XM feeds, then you are legally allowed to use any device you wish that can capture the said feed and play back the audio. There are many non Sirius XM devices that capture their feeds. Go ahead and build your own. If it is able to receive the feeds, Sirius XM will have no problem with you using your custom device. Good luck building it though. And make sure you dont step on any of their copyrights and patents (such as their cryptography).

3. The NBC one doesn't make any sense.

The thing Psystar is trying to do is use the fact that you can purchase the OS as a ticket to do with it what you will. Its similar to someone purchasing a Microsoft license, and then installing that on a custom PC and selling the package, which is completely legal. Psystar still purchased the license. What they want is the ability to do what is needed to get that software on a custom PC and sell that, factoring in the cost of the OS into the price of the PC. I still think Apple will win, but i think they have a pretty good argument.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@vrdabomb5717:

They force people to buy their computers? They strap you to a chair and threaten to kill your family if you don't?

Hm.

Jasarien

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: @wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: yeah the car analogy wont work since most car companies would be happy to sell you an engine sans car...its not really advertised but theyll do it...you just cant sue them if you damage or injure anyone/thing since you agree to it before you get the engine (unless its for a car that they make)... look at the mclaren f1... they were powered by bmw... or konigseggs with there ford engines....

urbanturban666

One big thing missing from this is the fact that Apple sells Computers not OSs. They just give you the OS that they programed to run best on their hardware. You are free to run any OS on your Apple computer. You are not chained to an OS.

@vrdabomb5717 - said that you are chained to their hardware, but your not. This because Apple does not sell an OS, just an upgrade to their existing hardware hardware.

@DvBoard - I don't argue that once you buy something you can do what you want with it. In fact I agree with this statement. But, what if you buy something, crack it, then sell it for profit (I doubt Psystar is a nonprofit co.)?

spjon

@CrashOverride777: You are walking on thin ice, my friend. Being a fanboy used to mean, you know, being an actual fan. Nowadays, a fanboy is anyone who doesn't link Apple to satan.

(Even if you have nothing vaguely insulting to say about Apple, you may want to end any Apple related comment by calling their customers smug, just to show you're capable of independent thinking. Remember, the word has to be "smug.")

frigg

I think it's an interesting question whether an EULA can really keep someone from installing the software on a computer of their choice.

That question is separate and distinct from the question of whether a third party--neither the vendor nor the consumer--can profit from it.

Also, if you're analogizing Apple to Microsoft you don't understand antitrust law. Everyone has a monopoly on their own product, so to speak. The law looks at if that monopoly exists in a certain market, not product, and if so whether it is being used in restraint of trade.

As such, I think PsyStar's anti-trust case is bullshit. However, I think there's a much better case to be made that EULAs can't unreasonably restrain the USER. An EULA, at least in California, is procedurally unconscionable because it involves no negotiation and is a take it or leave it from a billion dollar corporation.

Now. Is it substantively unconscionable with respect to what computers you can put it on? I don't know.

But the idea that you can't "modify" software that you have a "license" to stretches the non-technical definition of modify. Am I allowed to write my own kexts?

storm

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: thats a grey area...

1. with osx and macs you have to agree to the eula (which states you gotta use apple hardware) before you can start using it... when you buy a video game (for a console) there is no agreement before you play it (im not sure if the consoles os prompts you to agree to anything before hand since my 360 is 2nd hand)...

2. If a company emulates another companies hardware for profit then theyll get assraped... most ppl who make emulators (like snes) dont seem to get in trouble... probably cause they do it for free and so its even harder to bust them when they dont have a head office thats easy to find...and most of the coders go by obscure nicknames at no fixed address... "lets go sue uber_haxor_xxx_43517384 from the internet for making snes emulators"...

3. with emulators of more modern gear you usually get the software but you have to provide your own bios or firmware file so technically they are not really bootlegging anything...

urbanturban666

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: If Pontiac could purchase Ford engines and stuff it into their cars and sell it, then they should (and in fact are) legally allowed to do it. Companies do it all the time. GM purchased Honda engines and used those in one of their cars (i forget which one). They are the owners of the engine, and thus can do what they want with it. Honda collected the profit on the sale of the engines.

If i could go myself and purchase 100 ford engines and make my own car shell and sell it, then i am legally allowed to.

However, no company is dumb enough to give another company profit on a single expensive item when they can make the same component for much less money, and make the profits themselves.

Software is a much easier thing to distribute, and is something that costs a lot less money. But if any of the code (ie. the OS) provided by Psystar is modified, then i can see where Apple has a case. But if the code is unmodified, only that custom code is required on top of the OS code to make it install (which i think is the case), then i dont believe Apple should be allowed to require the OS be installed on only their devices, and thus Psystar is in the right here.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@Shub-Niggurath: OMG people are fucking dumb they are selling OS86X with their hardware and giving OS X disk for free they even stated that you can't use that disk to install it on your own cause its an illegal copy already installed. Its like me selling hacked version of Vista and giving a free copy of Vista that can't really be installed without hacking and crying foul that I'm being sued by Microsoft.

CrashOverride777

I think something that is overlooked by a lot of these arguments that try to say Microsoft, Sony, Cannon, etc. would have to make their OS's used in hardware (Xbox, ps3, cameras) available to run on other hardware as well is that these OS's are not available to purchase on their own, OSX is. If you couldn't go out and purchase OSX Psystar would have no way to purchase licenses, which they are.

The lawsuit states that the tying of OSX to Apple hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade", which is a monopolistic tactic and prohibited under anti-trust laws. Just because a company does not wield monopolistic influence mean that they are exempt from anti-trust laws, though they may be able to get away with it for a while. Apple did, and now they're getting called on it. If they did wield monopolistic influence then there would be no question, they'd loose just like Microsoft and Explorer.

BanMeAgainBrianLam

How can anyone say that Apple has a monopoly on operating systems when they have such a small market share? It's like saying Audi has a monopoly.

This all comes down to copyright and licensing. Clearly Apple owns the copyright to the software. They sell the software with a very restrictive license which is their prerogative.

If you don't like the license, you can choose to buy any number of other computers and run Windows or Linux.

ljj

People! They're not selling pirated copies of the OS. They bought the copies, and they're selling the copies. It's like if I bought a couch from some couch factory, reupholstered it, and resold it! Not illegal!

Shub-Niggurath

@wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!: Assuming you write your own hardware bios that does not interfere with any of Nintendo's trademarked software bios, or their OS, then yes, you should be legally allowed to make, sell, and distribute such a device.

Just remember, someone has to make it first. You cant just sue these companies because they make it difficult for you to do so. If you manage to make it without stealing any of their property, then forcing restrictions on your use of the software that you purchased and have a legal license to to be only used on the device it was designed to be used on is unethical and should not be allowed.

OSX can, quite easily, be installed on any generic PC, so Psystar should have the legal right to sell their own hardware with OSX installed on it. Apple has put restrictions on their OS that is far too prohibitive, and this is what this challenge is all about.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@urbanturban666: LOL If you try to make a company out of it then your breaking the law, but what you stated, I have no problem with. Since its for your personal use.

CrashOverride777

Fuck Psystar, they are nothing more then thieves making a buck off of someone else's work (see OS86X community and Apple). No, I'm not a fanboy I just don't like ppl who think they are being righteous in their cause when clearly they are wrong themselves. Sameway I thought it was really terrible for Microsoft to be forced to split their divisions cuz of antitrust, I would think the same if Apple lost this case.

Alex2643

You can make the same argument to a whole host of products, one that comes to mind is video games. It would be like Microsoft altering Gran Turismo to work on Xbox, even though Microsoft purchased the game legally.

OK, probably a poor example, but it's all I could come up with.

My point is, Apple wants to sell their product they way it is. Apple and OSX are not the only computer manufacturer and OS around, there are other choices out there, so there is no monopoly and no anti-trust.

So Psystar needs to go away, this is a huge waste of time.

jblaismacfan

These Psystar guys got some ballsy lawyers... I think this whole Psystar issue proves a market and only instigates 'Hackintoshes' and Apple is really loosing out in the end.

MagnoliaBoy

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: But they're not providing unmodified code. They're providing unopened copies of OS X and then also giving you a modified version of the software, which is running on the box. And the car comparison doesn't really work-- no one would sue a single user modifying his own goods (and Apple have left the OSX86 guys alone to have fun) but I think it's different when someone is making a business of it. Ford might not care if you stuffed a Mustang engine into your Fiero, but they might care if Pontiac started stuffing Mustang engines into all their Fieros and sold them like that.

wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!

@vrdabomb5717: "I hate how Apple locked in all of its users onto its own hardware and forces people to pay exorbitant prices for their computers."

You don't HAVE to buy an Apple/Mac. It's just more appealing to some people... like a Porsche. Why should it be legal to sue because something is too expensive when there are many other OS's you can get? They have a right to their own product and they have the right to not let other people sell their OS on a PC that they didn't/don't approve of.

ttech10

@ljj:Apple has designed an OS that runs on standard hardware and has basically crippled it so that it can only run on hardware they're also selling. Though their share of the market is small, they've developed a niche market catering to such segments as graphics, video, and audio prodcution. This in turn has fostered a community of third party applications that also cater to that market. In this way, it becomes preferable for anyone working in the creative arts using a computer to use soemthing that runs Apple's OS. As a result, Apple gets to charge a premium on the hardware since there's nowhere else to get the operating system that actually doens't need any special hardware. Boom - niche monopoly.

Zlevee

@BanMeAgainBrianLam: That is the one clause that Psystar is no doubt hanging on to. The individual availability of the OS.

And you are correct. Had OSX not been available on its own, i would also want to see Psystar go down in flames. But since it is, i think they have a case.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@urbanturban666: Correction: Less bitchy then A software maker.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@storm: The DOJ has some interesting comments on tying:

"Pure bundling necessarily involves a tie. Mixed bundling involves a tie when it is not possible to get one of the components"

The interesting stuff starts in section III:
[www.usdoj.gov]

I think Apple could be considered to be tying since OSX is available separate from an Apple computer, but an "apple" computer is not available without OSX, and Apple is trying to prevent OSX from being used on otherwise compatible hardware. If OSX were not a separate poduct there would be no question and Apple would be in the clear.

BanMeAgainBrianLam

@CrashOverride777:

Their challenge is of that EULA specification. To bring situations like these to court, they have to first commit a wrong that they dont feel is a wrong, from which the judge will determine whether Apple is allowed to even put such a restriction on their software.

According to the EULA, Psystar committed a wrong. No one will argue with that. What Psystar is arguing is whether the wrong they committed is actually wrong, and whether Apple can restrict their software in such a way. Some people who just jump and say "oh its in the EULA, Psystar cant do this so they lose" don't understand why cases like these make it to court.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: car sompanies seem happy to let other manufacturers use there components.....for them its win win if they sell more stuff...theres car companies that take other cars, mod them and sell em as ther own... mines skyline, spoon s2000...

point is...enough car analogy... car makers are less bitchy than software makers...

urbanturban666

@urbanturban666: But there isnt a PC software company that gives a rats ass which piece of hardware you manage to get your purchased software running on, or whether you redistribute that software on any other piece of hardware, as long as you own a license to that software, except one. Thats why the car engine analogy works. All car engine manufacturers dont care what you do with their engines once you purchased one, or whether you install it on your own car and sell it. Its as if a car engine vendor sold you an engine, but restricted you to only installing and selling it on their bodies, and then suing you when you didnt do so. Would that be right?

diabolusunknownTheSecond

Gee, maybe the commenters with the law degrees knew what the f&$k they were talking about when they framed the argument this way in all the past Psystar posts, huh? You know, the ones where everyone else was stabbing in the dark about copyrights and the validity of EULAs?

@urbanturban666: Actually it's totally possible to have a monopoly within a niche market, which is what Apple has.

Zlevee

lol Its just funny I keep on saying this over and over. Under Apples copyright you can't install OS X on non Apple hardware. Also it is a well known fact that Psystar is using OS86X to make a profit that is illegal. If they made a pc that had no OS and you can install it without hacking or gave you the instruction on how to do it I wouldn't see anything wrong with it end of story.

CrashOverride777

@BanMeAgainBrianLam:
"Just because a company does not wield monopolistic influence mean that they are exempt from anti-trust laws"

That's correct-but it changes WHICH of the anti-trust laws apply to them, or at least what remedies may be used against them. They still can't advertise falsely or loss-lead competitors (in some states) and so forth and so on.

I also don't think it qualifies as tying or anything else that non-monopolies can get snipped for. But, anyway, that would be my attack....

.... and I would have sued them under California's baby sherman act, which is way stronger.

storm

@spjon: I"But, what if you buy something, crack it, then sell it for profit (I doubt Psystar is a nonprofit co.)?"

How can you determine that the profit comes from marking up the software instead of the hardware?

BanMeAgainBrianLam

@CrashOverride777: The OSX disk is to signify that Psystar legally purchased a license of OSX, and that you are now the holder of that license when you purchase a Psystar PC. You are paying for that license which is part of the PC cost. Psystar is giving you a legal license to OSX. What they are doing is forcing the installation on hardware that wasn't originally designed to use that software, but that still makes it right.

Ill take your Vista example and run with it. Say i were selling PowerPC machines, and i tweaked the Vista OS so it can be installed and run on the machine, by only providing my own custom code to assure the OS is emulated to run on the device, and i leave all the original code in tact. As long as i include a legally obtained license of Vista with the device im selling, then nothing should stop me from selling it.

This is the same thing Psystar is arguing. And i agree with it.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@jblaismacfan: "It would be like Microsoft altering Gran Turismo to work on Xbox, even though Microsoft purchased the game legally."

I'm sure you meant this to be sardonic but, yes that's exactly the point. The only thing that Psystar is doing to the software is removing the check that would make it run on otherwise compatible hardware. If Microsoft built a PS3 clone and the only thing that kept the games from working was a little flag that said "sony made this hardware" then why shouldn't they be able to use other PS3 software legally paid for?

BanMeAgainBrianLam

@comfortablesofa:
and @wild homes loves you but chooses darkness!:
and @Jasarien:
These examples are inapplicable, as each involves very specific software for a very specific hardware configuration. The fact that Apple is able to install its OS on wildly different pieces of hardware demonstrates that your reasoning is flawed.

Zlevee

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: only if the car company was run by a self worshipping nazi hippy dictator that claims to be an "artist" that made you agree to not using it on any gear but there own, then yes...

but that dosent happen to often... i mean the film cos make you sign agreements (if you bought any of the batmobiles) that say you cant use it as a grocery getter and that you have to maintain the asthetics of the car (no busted redneck batmobile with odd coloured panels and random hubcaps)...

urbanturban666

Go psystar!

vasha

@urbanturban666: see this comment further down, which it looks like you didn't get to yet: Zlevee

Zlevee

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: lol i stand corrected...but the big makers of software all seem to be run by bitchy nerdy geeks or bitchy nazi hippy dictators that take all the credit for steve wozniaks work...

urbanturban666

No matter what, there is not a better looking computer than a Mac.

mykalt45

@Zlevee: its only a monopoly if theres no alternatives... apple sells computers, pmps and software... can you not find alternatives?...if apple was the only company in the country selling that stuff then its a monopoly...

aslong as an alternative is available its not a monopoly... i mean fine the alternatives to osx wont run your osx software (easily) but there is alternatives to that software so it isnt monopolised...

if your country only has apple computers and monopolies are illegal aswell then you might have a case. theres allot of countries where the only ppl you can buy gas from is the government... or the only tv channels you get are government run... or there is only 1 model of car available in your country...

if you dont like what apples doing you dont have to buy there gear and alternatives are available so they have no monopoly on computers or software...

urbanturban666

I believe Pystar has the upper hand. How do I know this? I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

mykalt45

Antitrust laws kept IBM from bundling hardware with an OS in the 80's, putting Microsoft in business. Why should Apple be allowed to do it now?

SwapnaWachter

@urbanturban666: Didn't MS get slammed for Explorer? There are MANY alternatives, yet because people were not swift enough to make three mouse clicks to change the browser they were declared a monopoly.

Your same argument can be used for MS....there are alternatives for them also...no one is forcing PC users to buy overpriced hardware.

Face it if MS was in this title they would be crucified.

max11221

@Zlevee: fine its a niche market...but theres still alternatives so theres no monopoly

final cut = adobe permiere
logic = reason, flstudio, cubace, protools, sonar
garage band = a turd
photoshop (cross platform anyways) = gimp

you can still edit your videos on a pc (might be a learning curve) so theres no monopoly on a niche market either...

psystar might win if they were cloning powerpc computers without the software on it or kits to crack apples software...

apple had other companies making and selling there stuff back in the day... but that killed there shares and i doubt theyll make that mistake again and they are legally free to do so...

i still think theyre kinda lame assed since they used open source code to make osx and they dont contribute to a more "open" computing market. but there free to do that too (gnu eula)...

urbanturban666

@mrHiDefinition: OMG you are teh fanboiz. j/k

CrashOverride777

Good luck Pystar. You'll definitely need it...

mrHiDefinition

@urbanturban666: Which is kind of a hard case to defend, considering Apple openly promotes itself as the only true source of non-pc computers. They're pretty much saying themselves that they're not the same thing and shouldn't be considered as such.

justhesh

And who said Psystar purchased all those copies of OSX? all you need is one Retail OSX Disc which you can use to install on all. There's no serial number that you need to add when installing. It's not like OSX Server. The most Psystar spent on OSX was $129 if they didn't download from some Torrent site. I don't know why people cry so much about Mac's being so expensive, get a Mac Mini if you can't afford a better Mac. They're not that expensive, go to Ebay, better than spending your money on Pisstar. They will never win that case.

alexpr

Having a monopoly is not illegal. You can have a monopoly just by having an overwhelmingly popular product. There's nothing wrong with that. What is illegal is using the power that comes with a monopoly to unfairly shut out competition. Is Apple doing this? It depends how you define the competition, doesn't it? If you say they are unfairly shutting out competitors who want to sell personal computers, you will be laughed at for the rest of your life. But if you say they are unfairly shutting out competitors who want to sell computers that run OS X, you're changing the ballgame. It's not a clean break, though, and at the bottom line, the government's interest is in leaving markets open to competition. So the decision has to be made, which hurts the market more: letting Apple control OS X, or letting other people have access to it and thereby crippling Apple? I'd say crippling Apple would far and away make the personal computer market less open to competition. Of course, the legality of the EULA is a different matter. I'd love to see those things go down in flames just so that I didn't have to feel guilty about checking the box that says I read it, when in fact I really didn't.

SadgatiTurkey

Whoo! go Psystar. Finally someone to stand up to apple's crap and take a chunk of change out of their pocket.

-good luck guys

cskelldog

@justhesh: its not a matter of pc or mac...its still a computer and does the same things that any other computer does (and, if, or). the os and apps might be different but you still have a choice.... apple computers are more pc than theyve ever been... pc is just an old buzzword to describe x86 based systems, but non x86 computers are still computers. apple is not the only non x86 maker either (sun microsystems spark based workstations and thin clients). if you dont know how to edit on non macs then ur stupid or inept and you should broaden your fanboy horizons... apple can promote themselves whatever way they want (with that smug fuker that you want to kick in the face). that dosent really mean shit or make em what they claim they are, thats just what they want you to think of them as. they are still in biz of selling computers along with 873294734 other companies so there is no monopoly... if you choose not to learn how to edit on non macs thats ur own fault and dosent make em a monopoly just because they are easier to use than alternatives...

@max11221: yes they got slammed... but no one thinks of that anymore because people realise how ignorant the europeans actions were... fine your os came with some built in software but you were still free to replace that stuff with firefox (netscape at the time) and winamp... mentioning that is stupid considering most os makers bundle random software with there distros anyways, they dont get sued because the ms case already discredited bundled software as some form of starting a monopoly... those cases against ms are pretty much fossils now...

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: if you are a car manufacturer and you sell cars with 3rd party engines even though you were not supposed to then yes. if you are a hobbyist and you do it then you are violating civil law (breech of contract)... the thing is that most people that do stuff like that arent going to get arrested by the nearest police officer since cops only enforce criminal law and not civil law... if the makers of the engine caught on they can sue you... so if it is stated in the agreement at purchase that you cant do that and you still do then you are violating the law either way. if a cop sees you using osx on a dell laptop at a coffee shop they cant haul you away, but if he told apple what you are doing and they decide to sue you they legally can...but since there isnt any well known case of car parts makers suing people for running gear against the agreements then the analogy is still flawed... the only real agreement they have is "if you fuk with it, anything that happens aint our fault" or "if you dont use it in our gear or you arent a certified mechanic and you fuk with it and fail then too bad for you"... look at benz, rolse royce or bmw... you can still fuk with there gear, but they wont honor warranties because its in the agreement if techs that they didnt approve of worked on it...

the point is if you dont like the agreements that manufacturers make then disagree and get something elce and quit being a whiny bitch.... or violate the agreements under the table and avoid making a profit... aslong as there is an alternative there is no monopoly... dont feed me shit about a niche market, you chose to get stuck in a niche not them... apple wont sue you if you are sick of there niche and install windows on a macbook... its there property and there call... if you decide to make a profit against there eula thats your own fault...

theres something i say to my neighbors when they whine about me not cutting my lawn or playing music loudly in the middle of the day (which is allowed till 11pm):
"if you dont like it, you can move"

urbanturban666

OK, If I want to go 200 mph, I have to pay the premium and buy a Lambo or the likes.

The OSX bundle is sold as an upgrade/update.

Apple makes an effort to streamline their hardware to work seamlessly with their software and hence the lack of installing all of those drivers, incompatibility issues, and general poor performance. This equals superior reliability.

You have a choice as to what computer you use, if by chance you wish to use OSX operating system, then you must buy a Mac.

What's all the whining about?? You wanna get sum OSX? (sarc) Save your freaking money and buy an Apple. Their not THAT expansive to a comparable Windows based computer and then you will have one.

I have a lot of respect for my dad. He took the time to learn about and use my old iBook, asked a lot of questions, then about two weeks later kindly handed it back to me and said, 'no thanks'. No slamming OS's, no Windows dance around the living room, he just didn't like it.

Psystar should be doomed, however, if they survive this then I am hacking the PS3 and building my own console to sell.

Kevin

@urbanturban666: "its not a matter of pc or mac...its still a computer and does the same things that any other computer does (and, if, or). the os and apps might be different but you still have a choice.... apple computers are more pc than theyve ever been... pc is just an old buzzword"

Ah, but therein lies the problem. They've positioned themselves in the market in such a way as to deny these basic facts; that Macs are no different, better, or worse than "PCs". But in order to truly fight the claims made against them, they're going to have to take off the mask and admit what they truly are.

It's like how the Bush administration has denied that Bush had anything to do with the politic-based firings within the justice department, and uses the excuse of executive privilege to prevent congress from questioning certain people involved. But the problem there is that if Bush had nothing to do with it, then there IS no executive privilege, and thus Congress can question the people they wish to question. And thus his administration is forced to either allow the questioning, or admit that he had more to do with it than he let on.

justhesh

@urbanturban666: hmmm, so why did microsoft got sued by anti-trust laws then?

SewerShark

I should note that I'm sincerely hoping Apple annihilates Psystar. Steve Jobs eliminated Mac clones in one merciless blow for a reason.

DisposableInterloper

@SewerShark:
Microsoft was taking measures to prevent software competetors from gaining market share on the Windows platform. Apple has no such restrictions on OS X; rather, they merely bundle it with their own hardware. If you want their hardware but prefer a different OS, you're free to do so by all means.

I don't see how the reverse applies. Apple isn't obligated to supply its OS to anyone that asks for it, and it shouldn't be. If indeed Apple is obligated, then console manufacturers have been breaking the law as well. Why aren't we seeing Wii clones, or Xbox clones?

DisposableInterloper

Retarded. You can't be sued for being the sole distributor of your own product. This is like me trying to sue Pepsi Co. because they won't let me rebottle and turn a profit on Mountain Dew.

Spanbauer

The argument is simple. If I purchase OSX, then I should be able to run it on whatever I want. Apple is preventing me from purchasing their product and using it on anything but their hardware. A company cannot sell a product to consumers and not allow them to use it.

Apple's only argument would be that Psystar is selling OSX to consumers. However, there is no evidence that Psystar is making profit solely off of the software. If Apple wins this suit, then that would technically make selling any used Apple software illegal, because you wouldn't be buying it directly from them. Psystar is simply selling used/opened software on new hardware.

Psystar is not modifying Apple's code, they are not making copies of the software, and they are not demanding profit from the software. As long as they continue to sell their hardware with legally purchased discs, they should be allowed to continue.

YourHero

Imagine my suprise to read a new post with the use of "Hackintosh"...

Hackintosh

I'm 100% with Apple on this one, if apple sells a product they should be 100% allowed to limit how you use that product in any situation. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

MonroeTrout

@mikemacman:

and for like 600.00 more get the 2.8GHz anyway. it's spendy, but If you do video, graphic design etc. it really is nice to have, VERY Nice!!!

I can't upgrade for another 5 years because I'm broke, but it'll be awhile before I need to. ;-)

Some_F-in-ShiT_Ass

Go Apple, smash-em like grapes! but Sell us the Wine!!!

Some_F-in-ShiT_Ass

Yeah, mmmkay, pirating OS's is bad umkay.

Some_F-in-ShiT_Ass

Looks like this Pystar totally violated Apple's Terms and Conditions of use for Mac OS X... they are going to lose this battle... tisk tisk... dumb people these days.

mario.guzman

@DisposableInterloper: well said... you cant go around forcing companies to sell you products that they dont wanna sell you... they dont wanna sell you osx unless you have there hardware so be it... just get iatkos, osx86 or kalyway and call it even...

urbanturban666

@SewerShark: ignorance thats why... microsoft was shipping windows media player and integrating IE into windows explorer and people stupidly cried foul. there reasoning was that they are "forcing" this on people... its just a case of bashing a company for being too successful. do apple customers sue apple for "forcing" there software suite on anyone? the easiest way for people to install a web browser is to first have something to browse the web with to get another browser...

That case was in 2000 and is a total crock of shit if you mention it now... especially since there was alternatives back then. that case is old out of date news...

urbanturban666

@ljj:

If MS decided to say that xp/Vista will be installed only on machines that are made by Dell. The only way to purchase any windows os is to buy a dell. And btw. Dell computers is not 3x the cost cause they do not have to compete with anyone else for your business. If you really want windows youll pay the 2700$... you think they would get away with it?

sinfuly Delicious

@urbanturban666: I guess you don't remember that MS threatened companies that wanted to install any browser but IE? That is anti-competitive behavior and that's what got MS into hot water.

james-42

SadgatiTurkey and DisposableInterloper are correct, no one else has any idea what they are talking about.

james-42

I really hope Psystar wins. Apples situation is ridiculous. Microsoft isn't allowed to even include a DVD decoder in Windows due to antitrust laws yet Apple can restrict its entire operating system to only hardware it makes? It's complete bullshit and something needs to be done.

Luziphir

@Luziphir: It's not bullshit that Apple restricts its hardware and software. Its' bullshit that Microsoft got slapped for including certain pieces. Whomever makes software should be able to lock it to whatever they want to lock it to. Its their business.

imTheKing

@DisposableInterloper: The reason why we don't see Xbox clones and Wii clones is because you cannot legally buy their operating systems. You CAN buy Apple's OSX. Just because Apple designed their OSX to work best with their hardware does not mean someone is not allowed to run it on different hardware. Apple has no authority over a consumer's legally purchased software beyond their EULA agreements. I'm not familiar with Apple's agreements, but so far I have not heard anything about them stating that you can't resell their software. If they do indeed state that, then I'm sure they can find many more people to sue through craigslist/ebay.

If Psystar legally purchased the software, then there shouldn't be an argument. Apple just should not have sold it to them in the first place. If I bought a truck from Ford and they found out that I was taking it off some jumps and tried to sue me because that's not what they intended it for, I would counter-sue the crap out of them. Once the product is sold then naturally the rights to said product are sold as well.

The way I see it, if Apple wins this battle, then they are just one step closer to world domination. I can already see those flying robots from the Matrix with Apple logos on the front.

YourHero

comfortablesofa: If this lawsuit wins, then the OS running on Canon cameras should be forced to run on Kodak cameras.

This isn't about forcing the creator of software X to make it run on hardware Y.

It's about the creator of software X trying to prevent people from modifying it so that it runs on hardware Y.

/people would have a fit if MS started selling hardware and required windows to run on said hardware. So I don't see why it's considered acceptable behavior from Apple.

/This would be like linksys coming out and saying "you can't install dd-wrt on our routers". (But they didn't do that, instead, they re-introduced one of the most hackable versions of their router under a different part number, and I'm sure they sell a buttload of them because I have three).

lordargent

It's about damn time someone challenged Apple for doing all the same crap no one else would be allowed to do!

JEmlay

@SewerShark: Because Microsoft threatened Netscape into selling their web browser for an extremely low price when they refused they said they were gonna make sure they are not going to stay in the computer business for very long. Then they came out with IE for free with all of Netscape's ideas and bundled it for free and taking all of Netscape's web browsers shares and threaten computer companies who wanted Netscape on their hardware. They had a documentary on the Sci Channel and Discovery Channel.

CrashOverride777

You can pay out your hard earned cash to buy OSX in a store. Nice shiny legitimate copy in a big box with a big X on it.
It is yours, you own it completely, you may do as you will with it, oh wait you can not.

You can not put it on any computer you wish, darn small print.
No other operating system has this restriction

mgason

@urbanturban666:

hmm neither was Microsoft..and they got the hammer.

mricyfire

@spjon:

"One big thing missing from this is the fact that Apple sells Computers not OSs. They just give you the OS that they programed to run best on their hardware."

Look I can buy it right here
[store.apple.com]

mricyfire

@YourHero:
You cannot legally use Apple's OS for any purpose but to install on authorized Apple hardware, much in the way you cannot legally use the Media Center Extender kit for the Xbox unless to install on an Xbox. Your argument holds no water. Just because it's packaged in a box for sale doesn't mean it's fair game to apply to any hardware you want. You don't own the software, you're under a license agreement to use that software.

For what it's worth, I'd have no problem with Microsoft deciding to preclude anyone from installing the next version of Windows on any hardware but its own. It would be corporate suicide, but it's not the same thing as giving 3rd party manufacturers conditions to preclude competing software to succeed. The difference is that in the former case, the market is hardware, and the OS as intellectual property is a means to add value to said hardware, whereas in the latter case, the market is the software itself, and using underhanded means to prevent competetors from getting a leg up on you would constitute anticompetetive behavior.

It's like apples (no pun intended) to oranges. They're both fruit, but they're by far not the same thing.

@lordargent:
You have it backwards. Linksys telling people that they're not allowed to install a 3rd-party firmware on Linksys hardware would be tantamount to Apple saying that nothing but OS X is permitted to run on Apple hardware.

That's not the case here. Apple isn't telling you that you can't take a 3rd party OS and put it on their hardware. Apple is saying you can't take a portion of their own product to graft onto a competetor's hardware.

DisposableInterloper

@Me:
I would like to note that it's not the emulators themselves that are illegal, and it's perfectly fine to run homebrew on them. What is illegal, however, is running commercial games on said emulator.

DisposableInterloper

@mricyfire:
You can buy the disk, but you don't own the software. You're under an agreement to use the software as Apple dictates.

Apple isn't locking out any potential competitors - you can still install whatever software you like over OS X, and you can still install whatever OS you prefer besides OS X.

Mac OS X is exclusively in the domain of Mac hardware. Apple is not in the operating system business, and is by no means obligated to sell its operating system independent of its hardware if it prefers not to.

So again, just because it's on a disk doesn't mean it belongs anywhere that disk fits. It's for that very same reason that gaming console emulators are illegal, as they run licensed software on unauthorized hardware.

If you want to own your software, just roll with Linux or one of the BSD forks, because in the case of proprietary software, you're leasing the right to use the software.

I hope that's simple enough for you to grasp.

DisposableInterloper

*now

mricyfire

@DisposableInterloper:

Yes you are right I buy a license to use the software...but for example i walk into an apple store and buy Mac OS X v10.5.4 Leopard for $129.00. Now lets say I dont have a Mac...I cannot use this software that I BOUGHT a license for unless I shell out money to get a whole new computer.

Now that isnt fair at all.

If I pay for any other OS I can use it on whatever computer I may have...even a Mac...no tell me why doesnt this work both ways.

mricyfire

@DisposableInterloper: I understand what you are saying. However, since Apple does indeed make and sell an operating system, they are in the OS business. You cannot make a product and claim that you aren't in that very market. So why should a company that makes a product not have to follow the same rules as everyone else? Apple is definitely not above anyone else.

Since anyone can simply walk into an Apple store and purchase a copy, then why can't they use it? If the intent of Apple is to have it only be used with their hardware, then they should a) only sell it with their hardware, or b) only sell it after the purchaser has proven that they already own their hardware. This in turn forces you to spend more money on something that you possibly do not need. If they did have those requirements then I would have no gripes about this, but selling a product to ANYONE and not letting them use it is very unfair and should be illegal, which is what this whole suit is about.

YourHero

@mricyfire:
Actually, it's absolutely fair. How about an analogy? Let's say you buy a spark plug that doesn't work on your lawn mower. Tough shit for not doing your research.

Now, if you've read that that spark plug offers better performance and burns your gas more cleanly, by all means, you're going to have to shell out money for a new mower that could use that spark plug.

You can't afford it? The new mower doesn't appeal to you? Some other dealbreaker tossed in? Tough shit again - you can't dictate what others want to make available. Sit down and shut up.

@YourHero:
No, it's not in the OS business, as it's not selling its OS. They're selling hardware, and the OS is merely a complement to said hardware. Releasing a new version in a box is tantamount to releasing a hardware upgrade exclusive to the Mac platform.

DisposableInterloper

@DisposableInterloper: Everything about OSX makes it an operating system. Apple even markets it as an OS, look at all those Mac vs PC ads. An upgrade requires you to already have prior products to make it work. I personally do not own any Mac PCs, but that's not going to stop them from selling me Leopard, and it's definitely not going to stop me from figuring out how to make it work. Making one thing but calling it something else does not make that product any different.

Here's a scenario for you: If Microsoft were to get in a battle with AMD, and they decided that they required all of their new OS's to not be installed on any hardware utilizing AMD's components. How do you think that would go? Microsoft Execs would say "We no longer support AMD and will not tolerate any consumers installing our product on their hardware. Not because it won't work, but because we don't want you to. Oh, and we're going to get away with this by calling all of our OS's 'Upgrades' from now on." Better yet, what if Microsoft decided to not allow Windows to be run on Mac PCs?

Psystar has proven that you do not need Mac hardware to use Mac software, all of which was legally purchased from Apple themselves; and yet now they can't defend themselves? Why is Apple so great that they can tell you a complete lie, in this case that you ABSOLUTELY NEED a Mac PC to run OSX, when Psystar has just proven them wrong?

This argument is not about the price of Mac computers, it's about a small company legitimately figuring something out, and a much larger company having a fit because they were proven wrong. If you can't see that by now, then you really need to open your eyes a bit more.

YourHero

@YourHero:
"How do you think that would go?"

Exactly!

and I repeat:
"It's about damn time someone challenged Apple for doing all the same crap no one else would be allowed to do!"

JEmlay

I've also forgotten to note that you're free to buy the box. Nobody cares if you do. What you're not free to do is hack it to run on non-Apple hardware. Installing it on non-Apple hardware voids your license, and any support from Apple. You are, in effect, pirating the software. The reason Apple isn't going after you is because you're not selling pirate goods the way Psystar is.

As I've stated, you don't own OS X, or Windows for that matter. You're leasing it from the publisher. If you want ownership, roll with the likes of Richard Stallman and his Free Software Movement compatriots.

DisposableInterloper

@YourHero:
Do you even fucking know what an operating system is? I never said OS X wasn't an operating system, and I never said it wasn't a selling point. You're still missing the point here. You're fucking missing it by an astronomical unit. Mac OS X is not being sold on the OS market, and Apple has no obligation to sell it as such. Apple is in the hardware business, and OS X is a selling point of that hardware.

As for Psystar, they haven't proven anyone wrong. It's common knowledge that Apple's hardware is now built on the x86 platform using Intel components. Where the hell did you pull the idea that Apple somehow lied from? The issue here is that OS X is not permitted to go on any hardware besides Apple's own; Apple even has security measures to prevent that from happening. Psystar violates that on two counts: first, they're circumventing that restriction, which violates the license agreement, and second, they're installing that software on unauthorized hardware, again in violation of the license agreement.

As I've stated numerous times, just because you can walk into a store and buy the OS X box does not entitle you to run it on non-Apple hardware. You can't just run it on any old thrown-together hardware without applying a third-party hack, which goes against Apple's terms. It is a component exclusive to Apple's products, and unless Apple decides to license it to third parties, there's no forcing it.

Furthermore, Microsoft telling everyone that they're limiting themselves to anything but AMD hardware is not the same thing as Microsoft manufacturing their own hardware (which could be built on anyone's hardware, for all anyone cares) and limiting Windows to that. In the former case, that's in violation of antitrust laws, because it specifically targeting AMD's to the benefit of its competitors. In the latter case, it's withdrawing from a particular market and adopting a different business model.

Here's what Apple says: "We make our own hardware, and we supply our own brand of software on it. We're self-sufficient on the software front, and we're not interested in licensing our product to any third party." If Microsoft went there, it's be perfectly legitimate. The antitrust violation would be, "Oh, here's a company we don't like, so we're going to prevent our third party customers from using that company's products."

I've posed a rhetorical question that I'll pose again: why aren't we seeing console clones? It's precisely the same issue. Just because Psystar can buy the box does not mean they have the license. They are, in effect, pirating OS X.

Please, do yourself a fucking favor and read up a little bit on law before you vomit shit onto your keyboard again.

DisposableInterloper

@DisposableInterloper: Is it really necessary to curse as much as you have? I'm simply just trying to get my viewpoint across.

That aside, you are correct and have convinced me to actually research the topic a bit more. Through a simple search of Google you can find some information about Apple's EULA that does indeed validate my prior argument.

Here is a small blog about Apple's EULA flaw:

[soldnotlicensed.blogspot.com]

In brief, it explains that Apple's EULA specifically states that the purchaser does own a copy of the media on which the software is recorded but does not own the software itself. However, according to 17 USC Sec. 101, "Copies" are material objects and include anything on them. This would mean that since Bob purchased a copy of the media, he also purchased and owns anything on said media. You can find this here: [law2.house.gov])%20%20AND%20((17)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w%2F10%20(101))%3ACITE

Here is a quote directly from the my first link above: "By admitting that they are selling the media right there in their "license agreement", they are admitting that Apple end-users own copies of the software. For purposes of interpreting section 117, the end-user is the owner of the copy. This defeats the whole purpose of claiming that Apple is licensing the software, not selling it."

I'm no longer arguing that Psystar didn't violate the INTENT of Apple's EULA, because obviously they did. I'm arguing that Apple's EULA is flawed and therefore does not hold the authority you believe it does. This was what I was going for in the first place, but now I have some proof. Unfortunately for Apple, their lawyers didn't write their EULA correctly, and Psystar is taking advantage of it.

If you are going to respond to this than I ask you to show at least a little of the respect I have shown you. Sadly, I don't think either of us will be proven wrong until the Apple vs Psystar suit if completed, but I'm still open to your input.

YourHero

I fucking curse a fucking lot. I find the very fucking concept of a curse word total fucking shitstain bullshit, as it stems from a fucking time when fucking superstitious cuntwipe asshole acutally believed certain fucking words carried certain fucking curses, and I'll fucking curse as much as I fucking please, because it's my fucking goddamned right to fucking curse my fucking ass off. If you're offended, tough shit, because curse words are fucking words and by their nature are fucking benign when not used with fucking ill intent.

Now, I hope you're aware that shrinkwrap licenses are typically viewed favorably in court. If Apple doesn't mention on the box that there's a license enclosed in the box, or if it doesn't require the user to agree to an EULA prior to installation, then it might be in trouble. Otherwise, Psystar is toast.

And let's also not forget that little act we all know and love, the DCMA. Please, read up on its anti-circumvention provisions. Apple is perfectly well entitled to grant ownership of the physical media while restricting the intellectual property contained therein to their own terms.

Actually, let's read a copypasta, shall we?

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.-
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
...
(3) As used in this subsection-
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work

I think it's clear as day that Apple has a strong case, and Psystar has a flimsy one at best. I'll go so far as to predict that unless the two companies settle out of court, this is merely going to be an open-and-shut case.

DisposableInterloper

I'm not offended, I curse all the fucking time, see? But I understand that cursing tends to be counterproductive and degrading, which is not what I'm going for in this argument. If that were my intent, I'm sure I could find tons of other forums with a bunch of little kids arguing shit that only makes sense to them because they are too narrow minded to think otherwise.

That said, you do have a very valid argument, and I agree that Psystar has a very small chance in winning. That's not to say that I don't hope they win, because I also believe that if Apple were the ones violating a Psystar copyright, their massive amounts of lawyers and money would win it for them.

YourHero

An army of lawyers in no match against a solid case, which usually ends in a settlement out of court. If Apple were the violator here, Psystar would get a pretty penny as part of a settlement deal.

DisposableInterloper

I'm a newb with IP and correct me if i am wrong... PSYSTAR did not hack or modify any code of OSX to run on their PCs. with that said, that would mean PSYSTAR did not infringe on software copyrights. And if people are posting

"its not a monopoly unless apple is the only place you can get an os or a computer..."

Why the hell did MS get sued for being a monopoly?.. people had a choice to buy a MAC if they did not Windows/IE/or WMP.

"well its because 90% of the world uses MS OFFICE" the same can be said with APPPLE...

"well 90% of the graphics/media/digital entertainment industry use MACs as a standard"

I don't get it... someone enlighten m