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.
then no one could
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.
You see, whether or not you agree or disagree with the legal standing of this EULA, or that EULA... whether or not you have a position on all this stuff, whether or not you agree that the law needs to be codified more properly for modern times, changed to fit the needs of the public... whatever you think there are just simply weaker cases which need to be tested first.
These guys marched straight into the castle stronghold without a hope in hell, and pissed on the kings chips.
We all stood back watching, saying to ourselves... well, this won't go anywhere. This was stupid. These guys are going to get slaughtered.
And lo! It was stupid, it didn't go anywhere, and they just got it handed to them.
and don't say linux, it's a shit desktop.
Except perhaps bad timing. Its probably not the best time to start a new business or look for employment.
Re:If these guys couldn't bounce back
- Raynet --> .
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
outside of being a spastic that doesnt know how not to get virus's, or needing to use final cut pro, what do we need a mac for? its not PPC anymore, so whats the diff? you want to run ubuntu on apple HW? buy an x86 box for a lot less than your crapple...Apple lovers, I dont give a shit about your mod points, mod me down, dont care...your a sucker that loves to get locked into suckage. If you really need to use final cut pro, I can understand that i suppose ;), im a musician who uses creative software...
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!
So Steve, how much does a judge cost these days?
Well you can get all the sources here:
http://www.macosforge.org/
And especially zfs and launchd could be interesting to Linux and BSD. But then the Linux community suffers heavily from Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
There is quite a bit of GPL licensed software in Mac OS X. Your can download the sources for that part of OS X here:
http://www.macosforge.org/
The sources to the BSD part of Mac OS X is there as well. And some of Apples own developments on top (launchd - Apples answer to init, cron and inetd - for example). launchd is pretty cool btw.
Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create. They might as well be Linspire, in that regard.
Well, if you're being intellectually consistent in your ethics, then you should be disgreeing with Red Hat, Canonical, TiVo, LinkSys, Microsoft (yes, Microsoft), Sun Microsystems, IBM, HP, and a bunch of other big-name industry companies.
All these companies -- and more -- have profitted (well, okay, Canonical hasn't made a dime, technically ;) from OSS which they did not initially create.
My blog
What everyone seems to be missing here is that it's not about whether Apple profits from FOSS or does good in the community, but it's using an illegal tying arragement on OSX. Does Apple have the right to tell me for what purpose I can and cannot use software that I purchase? What I got to the store and buy Clorox bleach, that bleach is mine and what I do with it is my business. It would have been nice to see a Dell or Eee out in time for the holidays running OSX.
An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
These could be considered as a form of echo question. Consider the example:
"I ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks."
"You ate an entire bowl of thumbtacks?"
"Yes."
Here the repair that's typically assumed to be part of echo questions is the entire sentence (which would likely be seen a semantically aberrant). There's no structural change to the sentence with the question mark (modulo some theory about hidden movement which I don't feel like working out). You'd probably hear an intonational change in speech.
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.
If Microsoft released Windows 7 and only allowed it to be installed and run on Microsoft branded machines, how long would that last? About ten seconds, yes? Then why the hell can Apple get away with it? Give them some competition. Maybe then we could have Macs that aren't overpriced, new hardware options, and case choices other than ugly grey and slightly rounded. Maybe then we'd have competition. You know, that thing our economy is based on.
n/t
you had me at #!
Is that the issue around which the 'Vista Capable' scandal revolves - 3D accelerated interface - has been part of OS X since 2002...
you had me at #!
Re: As much as I dislike Apple...?
-- I speak only for myself
From the Holloween documents to shill trolls like you, M$ deserves to be disssolved for their illegal monopoly. M$ has hired two people to pose as casexy, macthorpe, willyhill, jwilcox154, keith russel, and many others in the troll zoo who sucks Ballmer's dick. It is M$ who also sent death threats to any who oppose M$ and Windoze rather than embrace GNU/Linux and reject non-free software. M$ also bullying others into conforming to using M$ exclusively.
The only thing M$ deserves after their track record and their actions today is for the governments of the world to totally dissolve M$ and GPL all code and specs then arrest Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen, Jim Allchin, and any other executive(current and past), stock holders, and anyone else involved in the M$ monopoly.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in commiting suicide.
I agree, but it's somewhat off-topic ... and flamebait(I HATE ALL BIG BUSINESS!! oh well!). Ethically, I think Linspire is 'slightly' worse than Apple, which is why I mentioned them(they're also smaller). And I'm not sure if it's directed at me.... But I'm well aware of what a BSD license is. I don't take issue with that alone. It's the GPL(GNU) being married with BSD/Unix to produce the average Mac OS X desktop(the selling point) that I find unethical. Apple has substantial portions of software under GPL. If they stuck with a common license, either way, I'd have no argument.
GNU (is) NOT UNIX!
Enlightenment is the elimination of that which is unnecessary.
There is also this web site:
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/
Apple may not always be timely, but they do eventually get it out. Remember Although there is GPL stuff in there, there is also BSD stuff in there. With a BSD license they aren't required to give back, but Apple does. If you complain about Apple being late with the source, remember that in this regards their first priority is being a profitable business and the being a good open source citizen.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Psystar is not modifying the OS. Check the details! They are not running a cracked or modified version of OSX on their systems.
SOURCE: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Psystar-Xserve-Apple,5734.html
There are no retail full versions of OSX. None. None at all.
/.
You get a full version of OSX when you buy a Mac. And you can then buy an upgrade version at retail when a new version comes out. Upgrade. The only version available in a retail box. The only one.
The retail version is an upgrade only.
Clear now?
It's not as if this hasn't been pointed out countless times before on
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Uhh my first flamebait. And I did not even meat to.
As I can see from other posts zfs has indeed an incompatible licence. But that is not Apples fault.
Only my little rant was about launchd - a replacement for init, cron and inetd which is
a 100% Apple development and lincenced under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
Beside: launchd is a user land application so it does not matter. So my little rant holds true.
Note that I have used Linux and configured three: init, cron and inetd and they are a pain to use compared with launchd. And in the case of init & /etc/init.d bloody slow.
Martin
For a user land application it makes not difference at all.
But everybody things I have started a zfs flame - which is file system driver and has indeed an incompatible license.
But then: the zfs license has been set by Sun.
My question on the OEM version restriction is:
What is the definition of the "computer with which it was sold"? Is it the case which the original electronics were mounted in and the sticker is attached to? Is it the mainboard? The HDD? Some other combination?
The reason why I wonder about this is that it may make upgrading your machine a EULA violation - say your mobo dies and is no longer produced and must be replaced. Does this end your license?
PCs are modular units, not monolithic (except maybe for laptops). Components can be swapped in and out over time, either to upgrade or simply to repair the hardware.
Technically the legalese stated you could only run it on Apple-branded computers.
I would love to see a company get into this and argue the definition of Apple Branded as opposed to the legality of the EULA. If you buy a bunch of cases of old mac's that died and put your own hardware in them does that count as Apple branded. Or even better if you went to http://missingbite.com/ and purchased official Apple stickers and slapped them on the box would that count as branded.
That's the lawsuit I'd like to see.
Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
Copyright, copyright, copyright, copyright.
It's the RIGHT to make COPIES.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Adding a question mark to any sentence makes it a question?
Answering a question with a question makes it an answer?