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.
What's the problem with Apple making money using FOSS? Its not like they don't write their own code or contribute very strongly back to the community?
Though I disagree with Apple profiting off OSS which they did not initially create
Why not? Most tech companies do this in some way.
They're not profiting off the Free & Open Source Software that they did not initially create. You can download that bit for free, no profit for Apple. Free of charge, completely.
What they're profiting from is the non-OSS part that they did create (or bought the rights to, in the case of the NeXT created segment) and the integration of the F/OSS that they use with their OS. That's their work and not covered by F/OSS licenses.
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.
So when it sends reports following crashes where do they go? Apple.
When someone files feedback or some such where does that go? Apple.
When something doesn't work as expected who gets the blame? Apple.
Apple gets bad rep and no financial recompense from Psystar's business model. Why is this something that should be allowed?
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
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.
So, rather like the terms under which the vast majority of Windows licenses are sold, then?
Most new PCs come with an OEM version of Windows with a license that specifically restricts its use to the computer with which it was sold. Most "boxed" versions of Windows sold to consumers are "upgrades" which require that you have an existing copy. My employer has a Windows "site license" which entitles it to install any version of windows on its PCs but (last time I looked) only if they originally came with OEM Windows.
The only "get out" is that Microsoft will sell you a "Full Retail" version for 2-3 times the price of the OEM/Upgrade versions which most customers buy. If Apple do lose the court case (flap, oink), one work-around might be to hike the price of OSX to, say, $500-$1000 (not without precedent for certified Unix with a full dev kit) and offer an "upgrade" to existing OS X license holders (i.e. anyone with a Mac) for $130. If someone challenges that it would set some interesting precedents for Microsoft...
We should be allowed a choice!
Remember that when you go to buy a netbook (like the EEE) or OLPC and find that the Borg have been round and now, somehow, the Linux versions are now (a) more expensive and (b) not in stock. Funny that. Now if Apple tried that, everybody would flame them...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.