Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed
CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar and the dueling lawsuits since the beginning.
This is probably the proper legal ruling.
Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.
Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
They took a gamble on how a very vague law would be interpreted by a judge. If they won, then they would have been sitting on a goldmine, having lost they will still have the paycheques they they took home each month. There was a lot of upside for hardly any downside.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
wtf!!! stop using subject as part of the post. you see, there is the subject, which is, you know, the subject, as in "what you are going to talk about", and then the post, the place to write down your idea. stop fucking with data and metadata.
I hope they find an angle that works.
Really it is amazing how people will come out of the woodwork to support Apple in this. Sorry, I own multiple Apple products but I do not see how in the hell it is justified they can tell me or anyone else how to use their product once I buy it. This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA. How far would have that gone?
Apple isn't denying Pystar business by suing them on grounds of copyright violation, they are denying you the right to purchase hardware supported by another vendor to run an operating system of your choosing. If other companies could produce configurations they could legally back as running OS X it would give some of us the machines we can't get from Apple.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This would be akin to Microsoft having said Windows only on Intel, using another processor violates the EULA
Except that Microsoft does say that with the Xbox and Xbox 360. They have 2 different platforms with 2 different lisencing strategies for their hardware. Windows is lisenced to anyone and everyone for an exorbinant fee, while the Xbox OS is not lisenced to anyone and used only for running hardware assembled and sold by Microsoft. Apple doesn't have any obligation to market it's computer OS the same way that MS does, and unless you have a problem with MS, Sony, or Nintendo marketing their OS the same way Apple does I fail to see validity of the "Apple is the next MS" argument you are using here unless you plan to apply it to the other game station manufacturers as well.
Your whole second paragraph is self contradictory. Apple is suing Pystar for selling hardware with a "Hacked version of Apples OS" they are not suing Pystar for the computers they've sold with windows or linux installed, only those with OS X. If you want to go take the open source compnents of Apple's OS and recreate the closed source code yourself, and then sell computers with it you are free to do so. However, you'll quickly find that even with mooching Apple contributions to open source you won't be able to maintain profitability sell this OS for the same price Apple does their updates. They are a way to generate some income off of major OS updates from people that have already purchased Apple hardware. They are not sold at a profit by themselves, so Apple is free to restrict the sales to whomever they want in the EULA.
Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Psystar is not modifying the OS. Check the details! They are not running a cracked or modified version of OSX on their systems. What they have done is created the EFI backbone so that will allow the OS will install run nativly on it. This is no different from when IBM made their machines, and people reverse-engineered the bios to make clones.
All apple has to get them on is that the OSX license stipulates that it MUST BE INSTALLED ON APPLE HARDWARE. This is EXACTLY the same if Microsoft turned around and said that windows can only be used on specific intel motherboard and cpu, and that only microsoft can decree what hardware is allowed to be used with it.
These guys are going to have a rough time of it, but I home that they succeed. Apple should not be the only hardware manufacturer allowed to run OS-X, no more than microsoft should be allowed to decree that windows is not allowed to run on AMD and Gigabyte.
We should be allowed a choice!
Apple's hardware is fairly priced, so even if you want to install Linux, you are no worse off than buying x other brand.
Go match a Dell to a Mac Pro, or a Sony Vaio laptop to a MacBook, you will see they are all competitive.
I expected them to get the beat-down in court as well, but I'm left hoping this case doesn't set too much of a precedent.
Apple sells good hardware; they also sell a good OS.
It really is a shame that those two products can't be treated separately and mixed with other products on the market.
Yes, you can run a different OS on the hardware; yes, you can run the OS on different hardware (with as-yet-to-be-determined legal work-around).
Can someone bundle such a package to sell to consumers? Many mightn't want to spend their time on an OS install - that could be perceived as added value.
Perhaps someone will come up with a better car analogy - here's mine: wouldn't you be peeved if you weren't allowed to resell your car after you replaced its engine (and it passed all safety requirements, etc)? Whether it's one car (yours), or a company offering an "upgrade service" (Ruf Porsche caters to the high end) - it's a benefit for consumers to have those options.
Why make software so different?
Because you don't buy the XBox OS but you DO buy the Apple Mac OS X OS.
You don't need a license to install and use software when it is required for the use of said materiel. So that's not the problem.
Apple could just not sell Mac OS X the same way as MS don't sell XBox OS. They don't. So live with the consequences.
This is hilarious and yet I feel the same as AC. I'm so conflicted.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
That is because the morons are aiming at the wrong target. The issue they should have brought up was first sale,which has a lot of precedent behind it and which a judge isn't nearly as liable to shoot down. To use a slashdot car analogy,it is like I buy a Ford motor and then build my own kind of car around it to sell. What I do with that motor is out of Ford's hands once they took my money. I bought,I own it,if I wanted to flush it down the toilet or paint it Chevy red is no business of Ford once the money has changed hands. And I doubt any judge is going to say a shrink wrap EULA is able to defeat first sale,because if he does he has single handedly destroyed first sale for everyone,as every asshole company out there will be putting "first sale killers" in their EULAs the very next day. IMHO THAT is what they need to bring before the judge.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.