Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses

Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple 660

Posted by CmdrTaco
Daengbo writes "'A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple. He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.' Apple is currently suing Psystar over its sale of Mac clones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Psystar Wins a Round Against Apple

Comments Filter:
  • Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:22AM (#26783623)
    This is great news for everyone who believes in fair competition in the marketplace. Kudos to that judge, and I hope the countersuit goes well!
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ByOhTek (1181381) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:27AM (#26783703) Journal

    Much agreement. Additionally, I think the clone segment will actually help Apple. By making the OS more accessible, more people will use it, and there will be less inhibition for people to not get a Mac.

    Using the old logic - the per-unit profit on the OS is quite a bit, so they get a lot of money from the clones that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. I seriously doubt the clones will significantly (negatively) impact Apple's sales of hardware - more likely it'll draw on the PC crown mostly, and probably have some positive PC->Apple market change as well.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:31AM (#26783785)

    That's only if they had an illegal monopoly on the PC market as a whole. If Apple were the only maker of personal computers than you could have a case here.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 0racle (667029) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:34AM (#26783835)
    If Psystar want's to compete, let them compete. Apple competes by creating products, Psystar is simply riding their coat tails. The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.
  • Re:If they win... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:34AM (#26783843) Journal
    If Pystar can win on OSX, the same argument could, in principle, be made for other operating systems. I suspect, though, that the impact would be pretty minimal. HP-UX only runs on PA-RISC or Itanium, so the wild world of x86 whiteboxes isn't going to happen unless HP wants it to. Further, HP-UX is the sort of thing that(with the limited exceptions of a few hobbyists, and people looking for HP-UX experience on the cheap) would only be run by outfits that care about Big Serious Enterprise Features(tm) and support contracts and stuff. All HP has to do is say that HP-UX, and anything you run on it, is only supported on HP hardware and most of the value dries up. OSX, by contrast, is frequently run in the desktop area, where support is a fairly minimal consideration.
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pmontra (738736) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:36AM (#26783877) Homepage

    Actually I believe that it will damage Apple in the short and mid term. Apple will lose revenues for selling the hardware and the option of raising the price of the OS won't be welcomed by customers. I think that Apple doesn't care to have OSX on 20% of the pcs if that means gaining less money than they do now with a 9-10% share.

    If a market of clones will bring OSX on 80% of pcs then Apple will gain more than now, but that will change what Apple is. Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware, much like HP and Sun. They're very different from software companies like Microsoft which occasionally develop hardware (XBOX, Zune, etc) to sell the software (Windows, which in turn sells Office).

    Anyway, hell yes! As a consumer I'll be happy to see lower priced macs.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chyeld (713439) <chyeldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:39AM (#26783913)

    The government forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable is not fair competition in the marketplace.

    And while your statement is a tautalogical truth, it has nothing to do with the situation at hand, which is Apple putting the artificial restriction on their OS, indicating it can only be installed on machines they've built.

    No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.

    If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ByOhTek (1181381) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:40AM (#26783937) Journal

    The thing is, most Mac users I've seen are rabidly loyal to Apple. I don't think Apple will lose much in the way of hardware sales (and might gain some from the people who won't switch now due to some perceived inconvenience, but will also not switch to a clone due to the potential of an inferior product).

    Which is right? Only time and seeing the alternative will tell.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:41AM (#26783967) Journal
    How is Psystar buying copies of OSX that Apple is (voluntarily) selling "forcing a company to operate in areas they deem unprofitable"?

    The only thing at issue in this case is how much control a manufacturer should be able to exert over buyers through shrinkwrap "contracts".
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:42AM (#26783983)

    Basically they're an hardware company developing software to help selling the hardware...

    This doesn't hold water. If they were really a hardware company, then, like every hardware company in existence, they would put the focus on their hardware. But the reality is that they are pushing their software, not their hardware. Their actions speak louder than their words: they're a software company who is trying to abuse copyright law to force you to do what they want with their product.

  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:43AM (#26784001)
    Citation?

    Some hardware manufacturers don't employ devs who code for Linux. It's a shame, but hey, that's an extra cost. Linux doesn't yet have the market share to warrant employing dedicated devs to write drivers for Linux (please bare in mind the many, many distros, dependencies, package types, kernel revisions which drivers would need to be developed for. Source code is great, but I don't want the hassle of compiling it thanks).

    It's an infinite regression paradox. Devs need to code for existing hardware to increase uptake, which then need support from vendors with newer versions. More uptake is needed to increase the viability of dev time... The trouble is nobody wants to go first.
  • Re:Hooray!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jo_ham (604554) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .999mahoj.> on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:49AM (#26784121)

    Not all Mac users "have more money than tech sense" y'know.

    I use Macs because they are the best fit for the job I use them for - internet, email, word processing, video editing, photo editing.

    There is no possible Windows solution that is better for the tasks I use my computers for.

    In terms of usability, the Mac does "just work" - this doesn't mean it never crashes or has problems (that would just be silly). But for the 95% of the rest of the time where it's working fine, Mac OS X works for me.

    I have Ubuntu installs too, on the older machines in collection that I still use (you know, Apple hardware ages pretty well, and Ubuntu runs pretty well on it).

    You'll counter my argument by telling me that I could just use Ubuntu full time and it would be cheaper and better, but until I can run Photoshop (yes I do have a fully paid for copy of CS), Final Cut Pro and other commercial apps, I'll stick with OS X as my main OS. For all the ancillary stuff that works just as well on Ubuntu as it does on OS X, since my main machine is OS X, I don't really see the need to explicitly use something else - there's no problems with spyware, viruses, malware and other junk to worry about, so it's win-win.

    Your arrogance that you automatically assume that you know more than all Mac users is unbecoming. Grow up.

  • by javacowboy (222023) on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:56AM (#26784243)

    Disclaimer: My primary home computer is a Mac (which you probably guessed from my sig).

    If Pystar wins their lawsuit, it will be terrible for not just Apple, but OS X users too.

    Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.

    One of the reasons Microsoft has so many problems is that Windows needs to support every hardware configuration imaginable. If Windows fails to do so, as it did with Vista, Microsoft bears the brunt of the criticism (not the hardware or driver maker), and essentially has to take the lead in solving the problem.

    If OS X has to support every hardware imaginable, OS X releases will be delayed further and the end products will no longer be as stable. Look at what support for both Intel and PowerPC did to Leopard, and its associated QA and development process. The end product was not as stable or reliable as quickly as previous OS X releases.

    What's more, Apple nearly went bankrupt after licensing Mac OS to third party clone makers. Clone sales undercut Mac sales far more than Apple received licensing fees for Mac OS.

    For OS X to continue as a high quality operating system, Pystar must lose.

         

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @10:57AM (#26784269)

    Apple is neither a hardware nor a software company. They are a total solutions company. They focus on providing vertically integrated products that meet the customer's needs from the hardware all the way up to the software. That's why Mac laptops have incredible hardware features like magnetic clasps, incredible software features like appfolders, AND incredible features like instant sleep on close/hibernate on low power that require support from both software and hardware.

  • by javacowboy (222023) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:01AM (#26784341)

    If Pystar wins, OS X will no longer be sold retail. New versions will only be available via a paid online update.

    Apple will then assert that it's impossible to install it on commodity hardware without stealing the source code outright.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by goombah99 (560566) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:02AM (#26784353)

    No one forced Apple to sell their OS divorced of their machines. They decided to do that to cash in on the lucrative market of OS upgrades.

    If they don't want people installing their OS on 'unapproved' machines, they have a simple and clear course to follow, don't sell the OS without a machine.

    well that's what they are trying to do with the lic. So how exactly would they enforce what you reccomend any other way? Put hardware DRM in the machines or something? Why make it more complicated if the net outcome is supposed to be the same: Apple software is to be run on apple machines only.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dwarg (1352059) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:03AM (#26784377)

    The kind of company they are is based on where they make their money. Apple makes some money selling high-end video software, but that's about it. iLife comes free with new macs. iWork doesn't have any copy protection on it. Steve Jobs has openly stated he doesn't care if you pirate OS X (he was assuming it would be used on Apple hardware at the time). iTunes barely breaks even, but it helps them sell iPods.

    And that's the point, Apple uses their software to get you to buy their absurdly overpriced hardware.

    The software IS the "Apple tax" and I think it's worth it when I use an Apple product and I think it isn't when it comes time to buy one. But the only way they offset the development costs is when you buy one of their machines because they just don't sell a lot of software.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Duradin (1261418) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:09AM (#26784469)
    And as a consumer I don't want to see OS X on a Dell. OS X works so well because it doesn't have the problem of supporting every crappy piece of hardware known to man like Windows has.
  • Re:apple club (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Belial6 (794905) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:09AM (#26784501)
    You are confused. Apple is trying to get the government to meddle in the market by getting the government to stop Psystar from reselling their OS. If the government were to keep it's fingers out of the 'free market'. Psystar would get to continue as it is doing now.
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MasterOfMagic (151058) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:10AM (#26784519) Journal

    The parent's point is that if Apple wants to sell their OS without the hardware, they should not be allowed to put in the license for that software that you can only use it on Apple hardware. Their remedy, if they don't want their OS being used on non-Apple hardware, is to not sell OS X separately from the hardware.

    When you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray from Sony, do you have to agree to a license that says you can only play it back on a Sony player on a Sony television? Why should it be any different with Apple?

  • It should be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mlwmohawk (801821) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:10AM (#26784523)

    When you copyright something and make it available to the public, in exchange for the protection of copyright, you loose some control over your work.

    If I read a newspaper, when I am done, I can pass it to someone else if I wish. That is legal and there's nothing a newspaper can do about it. Even if the newspaper says "non-transferable," they may wish that to be true, but it is not. We have rights and we need to fight back and challenge entities that make claims that are not true.

    The argument that it "belongs to them" doesn't work because they are making it public under copyright law. Copyright law protects their content AND allows fair use of it.

    Software is copyrighted. A license agreement does not limit your rights under "copyright law," it enhances your rights beyond copyright law. Software vendors will argue otherwise, but more and more court cases are upholding copyright over EULAs.

    If I purchase software, the ISV can not control what I do with it. I have a valid right to use the material, obtained legally and under the financial terms agreed upon by the copyright owner. When I am finished with it, I have a court confirmed right of first sale. I'm sure the court will confirm what we all know, that I can do with it as I please. As long as I do not make and distribute copies of it, I'm legit.

    For instance, I can buy a painting from a painter. He may say, "under no circumstances are you to destroy this paining or sell it to anyone else," but once he sells it to me, I can do with it as I please. I can spray paint it, burn it, or sell it.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arkham (10779) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:12AM (#26784563)

    Apple is a hardware company. If they cease to make money on hardware, the will exit the market. Legalizing clones would cause the Mac to disappear, and Mac OS X with it. The OS is not profitable by itself and never will be. The market is just too small.

    They tried it once before, for those who do not know. Clones nearly killed Apple.

    The notion that a judge would rule that Apple doesn't have the right to restrict what computers can run the software that they create is ridiculous. If this succeeds, the next step will be Apple having to add ROMs back into their machines to prevent this sort of crap.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@ ... o.ca minus punct> on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:12AM (#26784577)

    no apple pushes both to create the Apple experience. Thus if they loose the ability to push hardware the apple experience will go down.

    Look at the iPod or iPhone. It is because you have the hardware with the software (iTunes Appstore) that competitors cannot match.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:13AM (#26784593) Journal

    No one is forcing Apple to do anything. If they don't want to sell it for $130, they don't have to. They just can't control what I do with it once they sell it to me.

    Apple has no right to a return on their investment. If their business model depends on selling me an item, and then controlling what I can do with it after they sold it to me, they should have picked a better business model.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:17AM (#26784675)

    This is not the same thing, at least from a moral point of view. When playing WoW, not only are you using Blizzard's software, you are also accessing Blizzard servers constantly. Also, the actions a bot takes potentially affect other players in a negative fashion.

    Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware generally just affects you and your own system. Even if Psystar wins, Apple is not obligated to support this configuration.

    From a legal standpoint, well, IANAL. Who knows?

  • possible result (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hedrick (701605) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:21AM (#26784747)
    It seems like Apple is subsidizing OS X development from hardware. The obvious thing would be to lower hardware price to competitive, increase the cost of OS X to compensate, separate OS X into upgrade and new machine, bundle the new machine version with their hardware, and hack the software to make sure you can't install an upgrade on an unlicensed machine. The results would be a lot less friendly for users.
  • by xouumalperxe (815707) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:23AM (#26784767)
    The Sherman Act is meant "to limit cartels and monopolies". Now, Apple sells PC-compatible computers, a position in which they do not hold a monopoly, and sell an operating system as a tie-in product. Unless you define the applicable market as Apple's own computers, there's no case whatsoever that they hold a monopoly in the operating system market either.
  • Re:If they win... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly (148874) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:27AM (#26784847)

    Oh God why would you want to? The abomination which is HP-UX must be expunged from the Earth. Kill it with fire!

  • by itomato (91092) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:29AM (#26784883)

    I doubt HP really has any interest in expanding their H-pux market.

    I think they are counting the days until their longest-term support contract is satisfied.

    Apple is looking at what they've been through to get through the hurdles of Intel > PPC > Intel, and the changes in hardware along the way.

    Looking at Dell's experiment with Ubuntu, and what they had to do to provide support, I have to wonder how much easier something like Apple's Driver Kit (is that what it's called these days?) would make the Linux desktop effort, and that Apple hasn't really pushed Darwin as a way to work on creating and supporting the hardware layer.

    If Apple opened up a hardware SDK with a few vendors (Toshiba? HP?) to handle select devices, and there was support "Per Platform" provided by the vendor and the community in a joint effort. Apple could back away, keep up the API, and continually sell OS licenses.

    If Apple could sell their Server product on a wider variety of platforms, they might actually make use of all their R&D in that area. (Sun? Bull?)

  • Apple is still a small company with limited programming resources. One of the reasons OS X evolved so quickly is that Apple could channel its limited programming and QA resources into improving the features and stability of the operating system, while supporting only a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market.

    Another reason that the megacorporation in Cupertino made it so quickly is that the BSD folks graciously provided them with the OS to build upon, so Apple could concentrate on the nice things that make OS X pleasant to use.

    Also, what world to you live in where Intel+NVidia is a very small limited subset of the available hardware in the PC market? Once you move past the motherboard and attendant components (which are pretty well standardized), you get into odd USB peripherals that wouldn't be any easier to support if they were plugged into an official Apple Mac.

  • by BSDimwit (583028) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:34AM (#26784985)
    Apple does NOT have a monopoly. Saying that Apple has a monopoly on selling Macs is like saying Ford has a monopoly on selling Mustangs. The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.
  • by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:36AM (#26785013)

    That BeOS, OS/2, and NEXTSTEP enjoyed. The fate of technically superior, generically compatible, for-profit alternative operating systems is pretty well established.

    There are three ways to build a successful OS:
    - Legacy monopoly position
    - Free (libre)
    - Make your money on hardware

    Selling a "premium" OS for generic hardware is a surefire path to irrellevance.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @11:54AM (#26785323)

    Apple is not a solutions company, they are a lifestyle company. Magnetic clasps and Appfolders are not "incredible", they are trendy......just like that $6 caramel mochachino that Starbucks sells.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:06PM (#26785539)
    Wow. I was certainly impressed with those industry buzzwords. When is your infomercial coming out?
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kannibal_klown (531544) on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:10PM (#26785613)

    The parent's point is that if Apple wants to sell their OS without the hardware, they should not be allowed to put in the license for that software that you can only use it on Apple hardware. Their remedy, if they don't want their OS being used on non-Apple hardware, is to not sell OS X separately from the hardware.

    When you buy a DVD or Blu-Ray from Sony, do you have to agree to a license that says you can only play it back on a Sony player on a Sony television? Why should it be any different with Apple?

    A more apt analogy would be...

    When you buy a PS3 game you can only legally play it on a PS3. When you buy an XBox 360 game I can only play it on an XBox 360.

    Now we're closer to comparing apples to apples. Maybe red apples to golden-delicious. Here are are comparing a piece of software written for a specific piece/brand of hardware. You want the game/software? Then you have to get the unit.

  • by yabos (719499) on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:10PM (#26785619)
    Apple's business model is hardly failing. They're doing incredibly well in fact. Trying to force them to sell their product to work on every generic PC is what is going to cause them to fail.
  • by Tetsujin (103070) on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:16PM (#26785719) Homepage Journal

    Ok, that's fine. Why doesn't Apple just do that instead of trying to abuse copyright law?

    Apple's retail presence has been rather strong for the last several years. Not being able to sell OS updates in their own retail stores would somewhat limit their ability to get people to buy those updates... Plus not everyone has a good internet connection.

  • Dangerous suit (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:16PM (#26785723)

    I don't think most folks grasp the big picture here. This is one of the most dangerous lawsuits in history. This attacks any company's right to develop products as they see fit.

    If Psystar were to win, the gates would be open for the destruction of the entire embedded device market. No company would be able to differentiate any of their products ever again. This is not a world I care to see.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:17PM (#26785735)
    they absolutely monopolize every aspect of the mac, software And hardware.

    quit drinking the steve jobs jizz-aide.
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chyeld (713439) <chyeldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:26PM (#26785911)

    The reason you can only play a PS3 game on a PS3 is not because they've legally tied the game to the PS3, it's because currently the only hardware capable of playing it.

    If another machine were to be able to play it, the only illegality involved would be if they stole copyrighted code from Sony (i.e. Sony's BIOS for the PS3) or violated Sony's patents in implementing their machine.

    The parent's analogy is far more appropriate and closer to the truth than yours. Apple had their "PS3" moment when they were producing specialized hardware to run the Mac OS on. But today they sell Intel machines, ones that are completely capable of being built independently of Apple. If this were a video game console analogy, it'd be the Atari 2600 vs. the Coleco Gemini [retrothing.com] and Coleco won that one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:34PM (#26786033)

    Mustangs don't typically require buying a specific brand of gasoline that won't work with the Chevy Malibu. Using a Mac requires buying different software. The scope of the investment is not directly comparable to any other device except possibly the iPod and iTunes Store music compatibility.

    The purpose for antitrust laws is protecting consumers, not protecting businesses. The same problems occur whether someone is locked in because no competitors exist or because they merely can't buy a competitor's product for compatibility reasons. That's why certain types of tying are violation of antitrust laws in spite of competition existing.

    Is tying Mac OS X to Mac hardware a clear antitrust violation? No. Is it clearly not an antitrust violation? Also no. There are plenty of case law precedents on either side of this issue, and the way a court rules is likely to depend more on how the argument is worded and which judge hears the case than on its fundamental merits. It's a very grey area.

  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, 2009 @12:47PM (#26786247)

    It went badly for Apple because Apple went into it with a fundamentally flawed business plan. The original concept was that clone makers would fill in the bottom of the product line. Instead, they attacked the top end, building better, faster, cheaper products. This was possible in large part because Apple was running a very high markup on the hardware compared with today, and thus could be undercut easily.

    It also went badly for Apple because they underestimated how much money they would lose from hardware sales, and thus undervalued the price they charged for the OS.

    It also went badly for Apple because Apple was designing the machines for the clone manufacturers to a large degree. All the platform R&D costs were on Apple's shoulders. The clone makers just slapped on a few extra components, found places to cut costs, and slapped together a revised board layout. They were starting from an Apple reference design, though, and Apple paid for the costs of creating that reference design.

    Finally, it went badly for Apple because Apple was financially incapable of handling more than a few months of weak sales. They didn't have enough cash on hand to handle that.

    None of these things would be true in today's market. Apple is not a dramatically higher-markup product than the rest of the PC market. Apple hopefully would not undervalue the OS so dramatically. Apple does much, much less R&D in the hardware designs than back in the 80s. Apple has billions of cash and securities in the bank.

    In short, it's a completely different world, and none of the same rules apply. There's no way to know what would happen if Apple licensed the OS, but if such a plan failed, it definitely would not be for the same reasons.

  • by remmelt (837671) on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:01PM (#26786515) Homepage

    I'll turn your argument around: let's say I am a car manufacturer, new to the market. I sell the RemmeltCar and have exclusive contracts with dealerships. Spare parts can only be had through them or directly from me.

    Would you buy my car based on this information?

    Judging buy your post, you probably wouldn't. If you still would want to drive a car, would there be anywhere else you could go for buying one?

    My point: Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers. They have a monopoly (if you want to call it that) on their parts, but so do Dell, Compaq, Acer, Asus, etc. If you want to buy a computer, there are lots of places you can go.

    If your argument is that you want to buy a computer with OSX on it, well, I'd have to let a judge decide that one. Which is how we come back to the topic at hand ;)

  • Re:apple club (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Androclese (627848) on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:04PM (#26786571)
    Psystar is not reselling the OS. If they were simply reselling the packaged Mac OS, then there would not be (much?) of an issue. Where Apple has them is because they are modifying the OS and kernel to run on non-Apple hardware, and *then* selling it.
  • Re:Hell yes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk@gmai l . com> on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:07PM (#26786627)
    Apple's apparently weak business model is not a valid legal defense.
  • by aspie31 (1045116) on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:28PM (#26787001)

    The market in question is personal computers, not Personal computers that run OS X software.

    I'm sorry, but in this instance, it very much is personal computers that run OS X. The whole point of all this is because Apple want to be the only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. Let me run that by you one more time. The only company that supplies computers with OS X preinstalled. If that isn't the definition of a monopoly, please do tell me what is.

  • Re:Dangerous suit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by shentino (1139071) on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:49PM (#26787393)

    All it does is open the doors of competition and keep apple from putting a chokehold on end users who, through the first sale doctrine, ought to be able to put their bought and paid for copy of OSX on any damned device they see fit.

    Apple still has a right to develop its equipment as it sees fit, as well as specializing in synergy between apple hardware and apple software (as long as it doesn't run afoul of the same tying that got MS in trouble with IE), and even voiding warranties if end users don't play by apple's rules.

    If I buy a car, it's not illegal for me to do what I want with the parts. I own them, and if I want to cobble together a hot rod out of parts from a Model T, that is my right. Now, mind you, there's an unapplicable aspect about safety regulations that doesn't apply to computers, but as long as I paid for the car, I own it, as well as the parts.

    Similiarly, when I buy a computer, I own all of it. The code (just the code, not the IP rights in it), AND the hardware.

  • by PasteEater (590893) on Monday February 09, 2009 @02:56PM (#26788703)

    Monopoly - a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service

    In this case, Apple have neither control of a commodity (the actual PC hardware, virtually interchangeable with other PC parts) nor a service (running software).

    Apple developed their software to work exclusively with their hardware, which is their right. They could develop software for toasters, and they would have the right to copyright that software as well. But you can't then turn around and say that their software should have to run on your toaster. That's the whole point of being in the business of innovation: having something that you can sell that no one else has. In this case, that's the ability to run OS X.

    I'm not making the case one way or the other whether this is right or wrong, but that is well within their rights (under current laws) to operate as they have been. The parent's argument does not negate this.

  • by Freultwah (739055) on Monday February 09, 2009 @03:09PM (#26788961) Homepage
    Name those non-standard connectors, please.
  • By that argument, Nestle has a monopoly on blue containers with Oreos inside.

This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does something child-like. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS 454, University of Washington

Working...