Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Apple Your Rights Online

Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Psystar 242

Posted by kdawson
from the not-much-wiggle-room-left dept.
AdmiralXyz writes "It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar, as a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company, banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products, following November's ruling that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Specifically, Judge William Alsup's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.' The ruling does not include Psystar's Rebel EFI software, which (in theory) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers, but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

Comments Filter:
  • Either Way (Score:2, Funny)

    by flyneye (84093)

    Injunction or not, it would still be shot at the Israel border as ''Not Kosher".

    • Best. Segue. Ever.

      You could write for Letterman.

  • Just for fun (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JohnFluxx (413620) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:27AM (#30456626)

    Just for fun..

    Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

    • Yes, They could go even further and say Windows could _only_ be run on One computer only. It is their product they can do what they want with it good or not for the company. What Microsoft probably couldn't do is say with the existing versions that are already sold change the agreement and AMD can no longer use this, after they released the software and said yes they did back then.

      • by timster (32400)

        May be obvious, but by far the majority of Windows licenses are sold exactly that way -- bound to a single piece of hardware. You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.

        • Of course, the definition of a "PC" is hardly fixed. What happens if you replace components? The CPU? The mommyboard? Replace the case? Is it still the same PC?

        • by Dare nMc (468959)

          You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.

          It would be a violation of the OEM license terms, it is quite possible that the provision is not legally binding to a end user, since the End user is not really presented with those terms... System builders/purchasers are, and would be bound. IE that is the issue decided here, is that the License applies to a "re-distributor", it may (or may not) apply legally to a end user. IE it may (or may not) still be a valid licensed legal version of MAC OS-X if a end user purchases OS-X and installs and uses it fo

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 644bd346996 (1012333)

      They wouldn't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.

      And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft, they'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD's lawyers could even mail their threats. (I'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh, but Neelie Kroes would be.)

    • by pizzach (1011925)
      Previously, only the $399 Ultimate edition of Vista could legally be run in a virtual machine. I don't think that is all that different.
    • Yes - but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:59AM (#30456968)

      Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

      Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.

      As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.

      However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.

      Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)

      • by tyrione (134248)

        Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

        Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.

        As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.

        However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.

        Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)

        Cry me a river about Microsoft being put upon while having a Monopoly. I just don't know what I will ever do knowing that Bill Gates won't always be the wealthiest man in the world.

    • Re:Just for fun (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:00AM (#30456974)

      Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

      There are different facets of the issue which are being largely missed or glossed over every time some brings up one of these hypotheticals: Copyright law, fair use, and first sale doctrine.

      First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought. Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways. Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material. The key word being 'and'. Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.

      For those that would bemoan how evil Apple is for protecting their copyrighted proprietary software, realize that Open Source software is based on copyright law. For example both BSD and GPL licenses extend this modification and redistribution clause by allowing it with conditions. In the case of MS (and SCO), they cannot ignore this clause if they wish to respect copyright law.

      The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights. If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks. It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.

      But to answer your question, nothing prevents MS from making Windows exclusive to Intel. MS is within their legal rights to do so. Many other companies make exclusive software. Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines? What about HP-UX on non HP machines? MS does not because it doesn't make sense to their business model. Since MS does not sell computer hardware, it would mean loss of sales of software if it did.

      That being said, nothing prevents you from buying a copy of AIX and installing it on a non-IBM machine. You could blog about it, rant about it on twitter. IBM has no rights to stop you. The minute you create a business to modify and resell IBM's copyrighted work, IBM would send the Nazgul against you.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by m.ducharme (1082683)

        "Meesa wansa cryptex!"

        "Jub-jub."

        Man, now that image is going to be stuck in my head aaaaaaalllllll day.

      • Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?

        Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Network_Server [wikipedia.org]

        • by mjpaci (33725) *

          Wow. Blast from the past. Nice catch.

        • Didn't know about that one. My point was IBM dictates the exclusivity of AIX on hardware. In this case, I would think Apple got permission from IBM before they sold this server.
          • by Gilmoure (18428)

            I installed a copy on my Quadra 650 back in 99. Good thing I didn't try to sell it.

      • The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights. If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks. It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.

        What is wrong with republishing a work with a better ending? [howitshouldhaveended.com]

      • by Dare nMc (468959)

        The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights.

        that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X". Open source already had a similar ruling, IE your allowed to copy, and modify the firefox software all you want but you must not call it firefox (or use their logos) you have to have your own name like say iceweasel [wikipedia.org] and simply give credit, and share changes. I suspect the thing that upset Apple the most (legiti

        • that may not be entirely correct with that argument, Pystar was paying Apple for a license for every copy of their product that they made, and giving Apple full credit, selling it as "Apple OS-X".

          It doesn't matter if Psystar paid for every copy. Copyright law is clear on this US Title Code 117b:

          (b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy

    • Re:Just for fun (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dissy (172727) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:24AM (#30458004)

      Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

      They already do, just not exactly as you stated.

      It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.
      In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.

      It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by uglyduckling (103926)

      *sigh*

      This ruling is about Psystar making unauthorised derivative copies of OS X on their servers, imaging them onto machines which they sold to consumers, then chucking a retail copy of OS X in the box with the machine and presuming that would be OK. That's all. Yes, Apple doesn't want you to run OS X on machines they haven't supplied, but this lawsuit was about illegally making derivative works.

      The hypothetical situation you described isn't parallel to this. What would be parallel would be for Dell to

  • x86 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:30AM (#30456656)
    Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.
    • Re:x86 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:08AM (#30457056)
      There is a difference in creating a clone and copyright infringement. Compaq created the first IBM clones by reverse engineering IBM machines. That is, the machine functioned like an IBM machine but the machine was designed and made by Compaq. It used some of the same chips as IBM but it was a Compaq creation (different MB, case, power, etc). What Psystar did would be analogous if Compaq bought an IBM PC, changed a few chips, put it in a new case, and resold it as Compaq's IBM PC.
      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        And if something went wrong, most people would have called IBM for technical support.

        • And if something went wrong, most people would have called IBM for technical support.

          Why? Would they have not called the manufacturer or the seller of the equipment instead? And as these were business machines, they would have had a support contract in place. Why call IBM?

      • by idontgno (624372)

        That's the problem with analogies; you can pick your analogs to prove anything.

        This situation would be almost precisely analogous to Compaq cloning an IBM PC, putting it into a new case, installing IBM PC-DOS instead of MS-DOS, and reselling it as Compaq's IBM PC clone.

        Which, other than the PC-DOS part, is precisely what they did. Installing PC-DOS would have changed NOTHING, except the branding on the software.

        However, even this analogy is flawed too, even if it's structurally closer to the Psystar thing.

      • by SharpFang (651121)

        That's not what changed the market.
        Also, if Compaq -bought- IBM PC, what's wrong about doing what you said?
        AFAIK, the Psystar design was a pretty generic PC hacked to work with OS X (without copying anything of Apple design, but buying some stuff Apple bought from outside suppliers), and the only thing in the setup Apple owns is OS X, which they purchase rightfully.

        It's like you build PCs from 3rd party parts (high-level, no soldering involved), pick a set of parts and copyright it, despite not owning copyr

        • Also, if Compaq -bought- IBM PC, what's wrong about doing what you said?

          Depends if Compaq got permission from IBM. And Compaq did not. If they did not it is copyright and trademark infringement and possibly trade secret violations. Other than those intellectual property violations, nothing else. Think about that: Can you take someone else's work and include it with your own without their permission? Even in the case of open source, the permission is explicitly granted in the license provided you follo

      • What Psystar did would be analogous if Compaq bought an IBM PC, changed a few chips, put it in a new case, and resold it as Compaq's IBM PC.

        Actually, that would be totally legal, because you're talking about a physical object being bought, modified and resold.

        Psystar modified and resold copyrighted works without obtaining a license to do so. That's the problem.

      • by Cyberax (705495)

        How is installing a legally bought copy consitutes a copyright infringement?

        Imagine that IBM had specified that all x86 software could be run only on IBM-branded computers.

        • by Gilmoure (18428)

          1. They changed libraries on their OS X disk imaged machines and thereby created a derivative work.

          2. MicroSoft (thanks to advice of IP lawyer dad Bill Senior) got a contract with IBM where MicroSoft retained distribution rights to DOS. D'oh!

    • Re:x86 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:18AM (#30457156)

      Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.

      ...and probably a lot more healthy than the PC monoculture, with a diversity of different platforms and applications which (by necessity) exchanged data in standardized formats. The big snag of the IBM PC "standard" was that it wasn't really a standard - just a closed proprietary system that got cloned.

      Anyway, the PC clone makers did face legal challenges - but unlike Psystar they were able to prove that they'd produced a work-alike version of IBM's ROMs without infringing copyright (by using a scurpulous "clean-room" programming process). Also, Microsoft was more than happy to license them MSDOS (which always had been available as a standalone product - there were many non-PC MSDOS machines around at the time).

  • Apple is within their rights to do this. If consumers thought it was a problem then it would impact Mac sales for Apple. Based on those sales, it does not appear consumers care. So it goes.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The vast majority of consumers do not buy Apple machines so perhaps it does have an impact.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @08:37AM (#30456732)

    Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home. When the envelope is opened, it provides a series of restrictions on the person's use and re-sale of the product, not made known to them at the point of purchase.

    Because I have copyright to the designs in the product, I am (apparently) allowed to define how the product is used and sold, not just how it is copied.

    EULA ahoy!

    • Live with it... (Score:3, Informative)

      by itsdapead (734413)

      Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home.

      That's already the case with virtually any product more technically sophisticated than a bunch of banannas. Come to think of it, when I buy a bunch of bannanas and pay with my debit card, the checkout flashes up the mystic runes "Refer to terms." :-(

      Apple is just playing the game by the rules in force. Every other non-FOSS software house tells you what you can and can't do with "your" copy, too.

      Oh, and to be fair, the outside of the box for OS X does say quite clearly that you need a Macintosh computer

  • first sale (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Weezul (52464)

    Sad, the whole case should have hinged upon whether Psystar was buying their copies of Mac OS X.

    The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale. In response, Apple should have then changed their upgrade path to "free for people with genuine Apple hardware", sued psystar a second time. Apple should have then won easily once their upgrade path no longer required a "sale".

    Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate

    • Re:first sale (Score:4, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:14AM (#30457116)

      The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale.

      First Sale doctrine does not allow anyone to modify and redistribute someone else's copyrighted work without permission. If Psystar sold boxes of unopened OS X and a computer with no OS and a copy of their software to install OS X onto the blank computer, it would be another matter. The fact they modified OS X to run on a generic PC means they have to get permission of the original copyright owner (Apple) before they make it a business to resell it.

      • by couchslug (175151)

        "If Psystar sold boxes of unopened OS X and a computer with no OS and a copy of their software to install OS X onto the blank computer, it would be another matter."

        If they sold their clone with two DVD drives and set it to boot one with a Linux live CD , they might be able to modify the installation on the fly instead of requiring a modified OS X image.

        Psystar wouldn't be producing a modified product because the customer could perform the actual installation. The boot DVD could include various other options

      • by Herkum01 (592704)

        First Sale doctrine does not allow anyone to modify and redistribute someone else's copyrighted work without permission.

        This is the part that annoys me, Did Apple include the source code to OS X? If not, how could they have committed copyright infringement? They did not copy ANYTHING, they modified a program(s)?

        A program is compiled set instructions, it is a machine, a machine does not have copyrights they use patents. If we were talking about a car you don't see GM out there declaring custom parts as

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Weezul (52464)

        First sale clearly should allow modification of copyrighted works though. If you mod a bike, you can resell it. If you mod a MacBook, you can resell it. etc.

        You don't seem to understand that this case will be used by all manor of assholes to attack all sorts of legitimate mods, possibly even classical first sale situations like cars.

        Apple should have won the case eventually, but *only* by modifying their business practice to thoroughly avoid "selling" the OS alone. Apple cannot be compelled to sell the

        • Tangible goods aren't subject to copyright. The design might be.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool (672806)

          The problem with your bike analogy is that the bike is not copyrighted. Fair use allows you to modify a copyrighted work in certain ways. First sale allows you to sell copyrighted work "as-is". Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and re-sell a copyrighted work. Copyright law specifically says only the copyright owner can allow modification and redistribution. Can you take a copyrighted song from an artist, remix it, and then re-sell it? Not without the copyright owner's permissio

      • There are several ways to avoid the restriction on reselling modified works. Generally speaking, you have to sell the work to the end user before any modification occurs. Once the user owns a copy of the software, you *can* legitimately make modifications on his or her behalf such that the copy can be utilized on a single machine. When the end user takes physical possession is irrelevant. cf. 17 USC 117(a) [bitlaw.com].

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Yvan256 (722131)

      There is no doctrine of first sale since software is usually licensed. Two different things.

      • So they say. In reality, a retail EULA is mostly an exercise in wishful thinking.

        At least half of the courts that have addressed the question in the United States have held that retail end user license agreements are legal fictions, because the copy is indeed actually owned by the buyer, and as such a license to use that which you already own is unnecessary (and hence superfluous). See here [cyberlawcases.com], for example.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "Sad."

      Not really.

      If people want software freedom they should use Free and Open software, and every
      attempt by Apple and Microsoft to micromanage their products is good news.

      I'm fine with Apple blocking clone makers. It doesn't inconvenience me in the least since I don't
      use Apple products or crave their operating system, however good they may be.

      • by Weezul (52464)

        Fair enough, but the legal precedent against the doctrine of first sale is still bad news. As I said, Apple should have won eventually, just not this easily.

    • Re:first sale (Score:5, Informative)

      by Theaetetus (590071) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .todhsals.suteteaeht.> on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:53AM (#30457518) Homepage Journal

      The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale.

      Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.

      Well, no, the case hinged on the fact that Psystar loaded an image of OSX (permissible format shifting), modified the image (permissible fair use), and then copied that image (impermissible reproduction), and sold the modified image (impermissible creation and distribution of a derivative work). But sure, go on believing that the judge is a moron who doesn't understand network installs, in spite of the fact that he's expressly referred to them twice in his decisions. I'm sure you know better.

    • I think you'll find the doctrine of first sale applies to retail sales to private individuals. This is about one company purchasing another companies goods, which is a contract to which any terms can be applied (within the limits of applicable law). Plus, even if Psystar bought OSX, they still have to license to modify that copyright work and resell it. If this case had been the purchase, modification and reselling of a motion picture or music track, would you think that was OK?
  • There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things the right way that may take longer (as they will not use a image) but is in the law.

    • by compro01 (777531)

      Or do it the same way and open up shop outside the US where the DMCA doesn't exist.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dbet (1607261)
      Right. Their mistake was modifying OSX. I don't see what would prevent them from selling a computer, a sealed retail copy of OSX, and a short explanation of how to install it.
      • by rgviza (1303161)

        They aren't authorized to sell OSX at all, shrink wrapped or not, and the judge put an injunction on them to prevent them from doing so.

        What they can do is offer a patch on their site. Users can buy OSX at the crapple store, download their patch, patch the OS and do what they want with their copy.

        That's all they need to do to get around the DMCA. Good luck going after users...

        • by butlerm (3112)

          That is the point of "Psystar 2". What is to stop the owners from forming a new corporation, acquiring the operations of the original Psystar, and proceeding on a more cautious basis, with the legal ability to sell unmodified copies of Mac OS X?

        • What PsyStar was doing (modifying, copying, and selling copyrighted software in quantity) is illegal under pretty much any interpretation of copyright law, so they'd only be successful in places without copyright enforcement. It would be illegal to ship their machines to most countries where people might actually be interested in a MacOSX machine.

          Selling a computer with the express purpose of having MacOSX installed on it might well constitute contributory infringement, and PsyStar can expect to be unde

    • There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things the right way that may take longer (as they will not use a image) but is in the law.

      There is no way to get around contributory copyright infringement (because the SLA makes installation of MacOS X on a non-Apple computer copyright infringement), and DMCA violation (because there is some rather rubbish DRM in MacOS X that prevents it from being installed on a non-Apple computer unless you do something to get around the DRM).

  • Backwards.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Viewsonic (584922) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @09:28AM (#30457258)
    Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

    What?

    • Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

      What?

      Companies that have been convicted of anti-trust violations have different laws applied to them. This is a newsflash from 1930.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fracai (796392)

      Because Apple didn't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they didn't sell Windows or Linux machines as well. They just said, "You can't sell OS X machines."

      This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.

    • Re:Backwards.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnasher719 (869701) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:19AM (#30457926)

      Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

      Basic copyright law. Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with _your_ software. Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux. Linux is not Microsoft software. Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software. Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X, which is Apple's software. Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software. And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers.

  • by C_Kode (102755) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:03AM (#30457690) Journal

    Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp. So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @#$%ing thing!

    I think Apple makes some nice products, but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0. I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
      Apple is the most evil, anti-competitive company in the industry. If the company went under today, it would only be a good thing for the world.
      • by Gilmoure (18428)

        They stomp around with their 5% market share size boots and simply crush competing personal computer vendors like Dell and HP!

    • by King_TJ (85913) on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:57AM (#30458568) Journal

      I guess I don't follow your "logic" here?

      Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way *all* personal computer businesses did back in the 1980's, before the "PC clone" became the de-facto standard machine. Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world. They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft's OS and flagship applications (like Office), or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community (like Linux or BSD). These people LIKE Apple because they're the last holdout of the "old way" of selling computers, where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the "best way" to use a computer. They're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes "toe to toe" with them, claiming they offer an "easy to use" solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the "average Joe" can view and purchase their offerings locally (since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere).

      In my mind, Apple is *far* from becoming "Microsoft 2.0". For starters, Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share. He's not interested in playing the "grow as fast as possible, as large as possible" game. Sure, he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow ... but if being the "biggest" was his true goal, why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger? Additionally, he's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X. There's not even so much as a CD key to be entered. It simply verifies you're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose, and installs with no hassles. Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems, unlike Microsoft. (Hey, another difference!)

      I'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level. I get the idea that like many successful CEO types, he's arrogant, demanding, and tends to be rude and judgmental. (I'd also question his claimed religious beliefs, given the realities of his lifestyle and character ... but maybe that's a bit unfair, since religion is such a personal thing to begin with.) But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he's running his company well. I think without Steve Jobs stepping in, Apple would be dead or at best, completely irrelevant today.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by OrangeTide (124937)

      How do you think Unix vendors in the 70s to 90s operated? Do you think it HP, IBM, DEC/Compaq, SGI or Sun would let some unlicensed company buy copies of their operating system and put it on cheap machines and call it a HP-UX/AIX/Digital/Irix/SunOS system? No, it's their software and they can choose how it is redistributed. The end user has a lot more leeway than a reseller.

      (actually for some of those old Unix vendors a lot of it isn't their software, it is merely licensed to them, and they may not have had

  • Psystar could have the last laugh by open-sourcing their technology before going belly-up. Or, if there is an injuction against that, there's always "leaking" it to the torrent sites.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...