Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Businesses OS X Operating Systems News Apple

Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement 242

Posted by Soulskill
from the when-life-hands-you-apples dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Psystar and Apple have agreed to alternative dispute resolution to keep the public eye away from their disagreements, and to reduce legal costs. This will eliminate any rulings that would set a precedent over Psystar's claim that Apple is violating anti-trust laws by tying Mac OS X to only their hardware and thus creating a monopoly. This could result in a profit for Psystar's business, but eliminate their line of open-computing Mac-compatible PCs. On the other hand, what's to stop a similar company from doing the same thing?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawsuit Between Apple and Psystar Moves Toward Settlement

Comments Filter:
  • It's nonbinding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HBI (604924) <kparadineNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:20PM (#25431693) Homepage Journal

    Apple can punt on this at any time and haul it back into court if it's not going their way. 'quietly squash' rather than 'publically squash' is the plan. If that doesn't work out, they'll publically squash, because the entire vitality of Apple as a corporation depends on this issue: control of their hardware platforms.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by catwh0re (540371)
      If the settlement with Apple music is anything to go by, then I doubt Pystar are going to be in a better position after all of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer [wikipedia.org]
    • by unassimilatible (225662) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @05:16PM (#25434355) Journal
      I am amazed how ill-informed this entire thread is. This case is STILL IN COURT. It never left court. This is a non-binding process to help move the case along. This is not some secret maneuver by Apple to pull the wool over all of your eyes. It is not settlement. Non-binding arbitration merely gives parties an idea about the merits of their cases by a neutral arbitrator. His opinion is advisory. They will report the findings to the trial judge in court. Then the case moves forward, unless there is settlement, but settlement can happen in any case.

      It's amazing how colossally wrong an entire news story, submission, and long list of threads can be on an issue. Remember this when you criticize some judge for not knowing Linux or the Internet as well as you guys do, because said judge would look at this thread and say, WTF are you all talking about?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The fact that they'll sue, and even if you eventually settle, you're probably going out of business?

  • That's a shame (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sakdoctor (1087155) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:20PM (#25431697) Homepage

    It would have been interesting to see the outcome in court, but like the rhetorical question at the end states, I doubt they'll be the last to try.

    • Re:That's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MathFox (686808) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:32PM (#25431805)
      I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X. Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA". The nice think of a settlement is that it does not bind Apple to make the same deal with another white box maker.

      I do think that the legal question "How much anti-competition is allowed in an EULA" is an interesting one, but that it is better fought between two well funded parties. It might end up in a Supreme Court appeal.

      • Re:That's a shame (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:44PM (#25431919)

        I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X. Apple does not want to litigate the "monopoly" argument; Psystar does not want to litigate "Breech of OS-X EULA". The nice think of a settlement is that it does not bind Apple to make the same deal with another white box maker.

        There is no way that Psystar will get a license to ship with MacOS X. They have been pissing on Apple's shoes; so there will be no business between them. Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".

        This arbitration is something that the court can force on the companies; it cannot force them to agree on anything in arbitration.

        • Re:That's a shame (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TeacherOfHeroes (892498) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:26PM (#25432803)

          Apple has already replied to Psystar's idiotic "monopoly" arguments, citing about a dozen cases that say absolutely clearly a single product of a company cannot possibly constitute a meaningful "market", and therefore Apple cannot have a meaningful monopoly in the non-existing market of "MacOS X compatible computers".

          What about computers that are able to run Mac OS X applications? Clearly, there is more than just the one of them, and Apple hardware is the only EULA compliant way to use any applications which are not open source or cross-platform.

          Can Apple have a meaningful monopoly in the market of "Mac OS X Application compatible computers"?

          • by Yvan256 (722131)

            The same arguments could be used against the consoles manufacturers.

            Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.

            • Wait for the verdict about Apple and Psystar then a couple of days later you'll see morons suing Sony and Microsoft because they want Halo for their PS3.

              But that isn't an analogous case. An analogous case to Psystar's actions would be if someone started making an "XBox 360 Compatible" console (ie roughly same hardware specs), and preloaded it with a copy of the XBox360 OS that you can buy separately in a retail store. The end result being that you can run XBox360 games on this clone-a-console machine.

              My above example (which IMHO is more representative of the situation than yours was) sounds more like what Compaq did to IBM, resulting in the open IBM-Compati

      • by mollymoo (202721)
        Apple would be happy to litigate the monopoly argument because they do not have a monopoly in the operating system market. Apple having a monopoly in the market for their own branded products is a dumb argument, every company has that monopoly. Nike have a monopoly on Nike shoes, but not shoes in general. BMW have a monopoly on BMWs, but not cars in general. Apple have a monopoly on Mac OS X, but not on operating systems in general, so anti-trust laws do not apply.
        • by hedwards (940851)

          That's apples to oranges. Antitrust != monopoly, antitrust involves a number of anticompetitive or market manipulating strategies, and really only a couple of them are monopolies.

          Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd,

          • Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine. And that as such they can be authorized to do the work for them. The argument that copyright law or any other existing law allows for that is somewhat absurd, otherwise Apple would be litigating.

            Psystar could make that argument, but it would quite clearly be wrong. And Psystar might get authorisation to install MacOS X, but they better get that authorisation in written form. And somehow I doubt that a customer would be happy to be told "we can install MacOS X for you, but it is against Apple's EULA, so we have to get written authorisation from you, so if Apple tries to sue, it's you who is on the hook and not us".

          • by Khyber (864651)

            "Pystar could definitely make the argument that owners have the right to install the software on any machine that they like without regards to who built and sold the machine."

            Good luck suing to force Apple to write OSX for the Cell architecture or for the now gone DEC Alphas.

            Off-topic. Anyone else getting major slowdowns under FF3 when doing other surfing in tabs while waiting for the chance to post your slashdot comment? This is happening under both XP and Vista. Timer will skip a couple numbers, make your

      • I think that both parties will benefit by a quiet deal that allows Psystar to sell their boxes; paying Apple a nice "per copy" price for OS-X.

        You and I have very different understandings of Apple's business model. I'm certainly not an expert, but I don't see how this would benefit Apple.

        Apple has a strong reputation for their products "just working". They would have to either trust Psystar to do all of the necessary testing to ensure that they don't damage this reputation, or they'd have to trust the publ

  • by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:24PM (#25431719) Homepage Journal
    ...if Apple was the only company to make OSes and computers. As many around here are fond of pointing out, Apple doesn't even come close to having a majority in the market.
    • by fishthegeek (943099) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @12:35PM (#25431819) Journal
      Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile.... I'm just sayin.

      If Apple felt that there was no merit to Pystars claims then why obscure things? Does having a gentle legal dept. sound like Apple? It's far more likely that Apple is going to solve this problem with a check-book than with a lawsuit.
      • Lawsuits do cost a lot of money to deal with in court. It's in both company's interests to negotiate before it hits the court's docket.

        • by tftp (111690)
          Apple can afford the trial, but Psystar probably can't. So if Apple went with the settlement then Apple wanted to avoid trial - likely because Psystar promised to expose inconvenient facts and be generally a pain to deal with in front of the judge. A settlement will keep all that quiet, and if it fails the trial is still an option. If I were to guess, Apple may buy Psystar - for cheap from Apple's POV, but for a fortune from the POV of the Psystar owner. The trial would cost a $1M to Apple, easily, so why n
          • So if Apple went with the settlement then Apple wanted to avoid trial - likely because Psystar promised to expose inconvenient facts and be generally a pain to deal with in front of the judge.

            I suspect it's more because Apple doesn't want to take the very real risk of having its EULA invalidated for Florida and possibly the whole Eleventh Circuit.
          • But what would Apple WANT with Psystar? Psystar isn't doing anything interesting, it doesn't have any people doing anything spectacular. They assemble standard PC boxes with commodity hardware and figure out the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them.

            The only place for Psystar people at Apple would be in, like, their retail stores.

            • by tftp (111690)

              But what would Apple WANT with Psystar?

              "the minor tweaks needed to make OS X run on them" ? This is not supposed to be possible, AFAIK, but once it's possible Psystar may have a good defense. So Apple would stop Psystar's works, and at the same time get access to hacks to make sure they are no longer possible.

              But I agree, this is pure speculation - exactly why /. exists, now that we don't get much news here :-)

        • Curious (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Khyber (864651)

          Could a third party sue to force the case to be brought into a court of law, claiming public interest in the matter?

      • by Anonymous Coward

        A) Ford doesn't sell naked engines to car builders, pro or hobbyist. Apple doesn't sell their naked OS to computer builders, pro or hobbyist.

        B) Neither Apple nor Ford are legally compelled to sell their "parts" separate from the whole.

        C) Both Apple and Ford sell "upgrade parts" for existing owners of their products

        D) While they done ENCOURAGE IT - they also don't stop people from using those parts for "off script" use, except...

        They will stop ANYONE from using their company name or product names to sell a p

        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:02PM (#25432067)

          A. you can buy ford crate engines, you can buy boxed copies of OSX
          B. No, but preventing you from using the parts in something else is illegal.
          C. They both sell parts that can be used for any purpose. First sale prevents them from limiting the uses of the item.
          D. They can't stop you.

          • C. They both sell parts that can be used for any purpose. First sale prevents them from limiting the uses of the item.

            Nope. First sale prevents them from asserting a copyright claim for subsequent transfer of the unmodified items. That's all first sale prevents.

        • I think you are misunderstanding how trademarks work. I can use your trademark all I want, I just can't pretend to be you. Going back to the Ford analogy what PsyStar is doing is no different than companies who sell modified vehicles.
      • by lurch_mojoff (867210) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:08PM (#25432117)
        I think you are reading too much in this. I may be mistaken for I am not a lawyer, but I think there is a federal law mandating district courts to require the parties in civil lawsuits to try alternative dispute resolution before going to court. So this whole thing probably is nothing more than Psystar (and maybe Apple) buying themselves some time. Also, given Apple's motion for dismissal [zdnet.com] of Psystar's counterclaims, it seems Apple's attorneys are pretty confident Psystar doesn't have a leg to stand on.

        I don't think Apple are really interested in paying out Psystar. Unless the resolution send a clear message that Apple does not tolerate Mac clones and will pursue their manufacturers/sellers to the bitter and expensive end, nothing will prevent a "StarPsy" form popping up again in a few months, hoping to either make a mint selling "open computers", or at worst to get a cool few millions form the mothership.
      • by gnasher719 (869701) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:51PM (#25432483)

        Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile.... I'm just sayin.

        On what basis would that be illegal for Ford to do? They don't insist on these terms because they don't care much what you do with their engine, but if they did care, what would make it illegal? As a concrete example, Ferrari sells Formula I racing engine to the Scuderia Toro Rosso team. Now McLaren might be willing to pay a generous amount of money to lay their hands on a Ferrari engine, and Ferrari would be quite unhappy about it. If the contract between Ferrari and Toro Rosso says that the engines cannot be sold on, do you seriously suggest that would be illegal?

        • by i.r.id10t (595143)

          Nope, but Ferrari could lease the engines to STR, or sell them, but inform them that if the engine is not returned or proven destroyed at the end of its useful life then they'll not get any more engines from them.

      • by wvmarle (1070040)

        Apple is also fond of pointing out that Macs are not PCs. It is illegal for Ford to insist that it's engines can only be installed in a Ford manufactured automobile....

        It is not illegal for Ford to simply not sell their engines other than in the form of a complete Ford branded automobile or as replacement part for owners of Ford branded automobiles. Just like Apple can choose to not sell their OS to other computer makers, and sell it only as a package with Apple branded computers.

        It is theirs, and it is theirs to sell it to who they want.

        What happens after sales though is another matter: it is not illegal for someone to take apart his Ford, and sell all the parts to who

      • by alexhs (877055)

        Can you point me to a car brand powered by Ford engines without an agreement between Ford and that brand ?

        You can't ? Maybe there's a reason. Just sayin'.

  • It amazes me. Every time Google breaths funny, there are instantly tons of comments on how evil Google is. The tags on the articles say things like "DoNoEvil", "Evil Inc" ect. When Microsoft makes a stupid move we all groan and say that it is "Just like them." Yet, when Apple articles come in, you don't see the derogatory tags. The comments don't reflect the "evil" practices that Apple engages in on a daily basis. Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practi
    • Because they've convinced many their customers - through marketing and cost - that somehow they're "better" or "superior" as people by buying an Apple product. Because, you know, we all should build our self-image around the consumption of mass-market products. Anyway, if you're self-image is tied up in identifying with an image, and a particular line of products are part of that, you tend to defend it, or at least not criticize it. It's actually kind of pathetic - "hey, I'm a better person because I bough

      • Don't hate me because I'm beau^H^H^H^H^H^H^H can afford a Mac.

        If you work hard, someday - soon - you'll be able to afford one, too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Trust me, affording it isn't a problem. I just find Apple products uninteresting and many of the fanboyish customers irritating. Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it. As if that establishes some common ground or the basis for a conversation. The fact that two people buy the same crap does not actually make them part of a "community" that has any value. Perhaps if people didn't actually build their sense of s

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by GrahamCox (741991)
            Actually having a Macbook somewhere in public and running the risk of some Apple-loving jackass try to talk to me about it isn't worth it.

            Don't flatter yourself. Even if I am a Mac user seeing another one in the street doesn't automatically mean I expect to have anything else in common. This whole "Mac fanboy" stereotype is a myth, I'm pretty sure. And it's getting very, very old to boot.
    • The comments don't reflect the "evil" practices that Apple engages in on a daily basis. Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?

      What's so "evil" about Apple's business model, which is what is being disputed in the lawsuit between Apple and Psystar?

    • by Alrescha (50745) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:59PM (#25432559)

      "Why is Apple immune from the righteous wrath that they deserve for their business practices?"

      I'd like you to point out an instance of their business practices that deserves "righteous wrath", as I can't think of one.

      They don't get the same amount of crap that Microsoft does because on the evil scale Apple is '-1, A cursed ring that you cannot remove', whereas Microsoft is '-1000, Obliterates all life on the planet which it occupies'.

      A.

    • Couple of reasons: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by itsdapead (734413) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:48PM (#25433019)

      1. Because Google set themselves up for criticism by having a much-publicised motto of Don't be evil [google.com].

      2. Because the idea that even Mac-fans regard Apple as saints is a total straw man. Mac fans love the products (provided they have Firewire and matte screens) - but only the most deluded would deny Apple's well-established record of playing hardball and looking after number one (go ask Apple corp, Microsoft, the firms which licensed Mac OS 9, would-be producers of Apple II clones etc.) Heck, nobody can progress beyond Junior Acolyte in the Church of Jobs unless their blog has been anointed by a DMCA takedown from the Holy One. Go look on a Mac fan site like macrumors.com sometime (they even have a convenient front-page tally of how many negative comments have been made about each posting, so you won't have to read endless speculation about what colour the jack plug on the next iPod is going to be).

      3. Because Apple doesn't have a monopoly - if Steve Jobs screws your pooch, you are free to walk out of the Apple store and buy a Windows or Linux machine. If he screws too many pooches, Apple will go bust. OTOH, lots of people find themselves forced to use or upgrade Microsoft products because of their market dominance, and Microsoft can sell products like Vista and Office 07 that nobody actually wants.

      4. Finally, just some of the recent articles from /. that seem to have escaped your notice:
      Users Rage Over Missing FireWire On New MacBooks
      iPhone Antitrust and Computer Fraud Claims Upheld
      iPhone Tethering App Released, Killed In 2 Hours
      Inside Apple's iPhone SDK Gag Order
      iPhone SDK and Free Software Don't Match
      Woz Dumps on MacBook Air, iPhone, AppleTV
      Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app
      Apple Laptop Upgrades Costing 200% More Than Dells

      Now, is it just me, but could some of those be regarded as just a teeny bit crictical of Apple?

    • by Almahtar (991773)
      1. The world isn't fair.
      2. Tech nerds have been given far less headaches by Apple's products than Microsoft's. We're bitter.
      3. Evil or not, many people are wishing Apple luck - the moment Microsoft doesn't have such huge market share it won't have as much power to abuse and will have to be a better "citizen". This includes better quality control and actual innovation. If Apple gets a significant portion of the market from MS we all win(except MS). Two competing evils are a lot less scary than one tyrannical
  • Look. You make Apple look bad by selling a PC for fraction of a Mac's price that run's OSX. You aren't making diddly on each PC you ship. Then Apple sues you for $50,000,000.00. Fine you say, make it $50,000,000,000.00, because we don't have it and you keep selling them. Finally Apple says they'll give you $100,000,000.00 if you quietly stop making them. VOILA! You're rich!
  • by fermion (181285) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @01:21PM (#25432223) Homepage Journal
    If Psystar had a case, they would go to court. They may be a way to win, if there was a way to get around the Apple license that says that the software can be run only on apple branded machines. At this point, MS would no longer be able to limit OEM copies to the machines they shipped on, DVD could no longer use their copy protection to limit legitimate copies, and the shrink wrap license would in general be history.

    The ridiculous thing is that building a mac clone would be about half as hard as building the IBM clone. No one needs to work under clean room condition to make sure that the multiple phalanxes of IBM lawyers do not win the first born child of the cloners. No one needs to write a OS from scratch. All that is needed is an appropriate *nix subsystem, with a virtual machine that can run either windows and a Mac OS UI clone simultaneously. The technology is out there, all we need is some innovative company to do it.

    Instead what we get is some kids hacking and selling POS hardware hoping they can get a little more than the razor thin margins currently awarded to the PC OEM. The reason we have not seen an innovative PC in 10 years is that there is no money in it. MS virtually destroyed the system builder, and now they are the only ones making money. The only hope for an innovative PC, besides Apple, is the market of competing virtual machine on top of commodity hardware. Whatever OS can run on top of it. This will break the cycle of single vendor malaise that lead to the crap Vista.

    I am all for Apple to lose it's 'monopoly' of Mac OS X on Apple hardware. I am all for MS to be forced to stop 'illegally' tying an OS to a certain machine. But this is not going happen by putting out crappy machines running the same old crappy software. It will happen by a system builder designing a new kind of GPC. of course, the problem is will the market want it. Such a machine would require a significant amount of engineering, which would have to be recouped by a higher margin, which means a PC that costs more than $500, without a high level OS.

  • This could result in a profit for Psystar's business

    How exactly? Reading the article links doesn't make that apparent.

    This, btw, is exactly the reason Apple won't displace Microsoft and remain the niche player they are now. A lot more people might run OS-X if they could run it on the hardware of their choice. It hardly requires Apple hardware to run OS-X any more than it requires a given brand of PC to run Linux. If Apple is happy with their second tier status and falling behind as developers put mor

    • If Apple is happy with their second tier status and falling behind as developers put more advanced products out for Windows (e.g. Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit) more power to them.

      We can argue whether Apple are "second tier" and "falling behind", but I'd rather point out that your example with the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 is really not a good one. This is not Adobe laying their wrath upon Apple or ditching the Mac for the more prospective Windows platform. It's a combination of Adobe's lack of foresight and Apple

    • by westlake (615356)
      This, btw, is exactly the reason Apple won't displace Microsoft and remain the niche player they are now. A lot more people might run OS-X if they could run it on the hardware of their choice.
      .

      You buy a Mac because you are trying to simplify your life.

      There aren't 1,000 configuration options in hardware or software.

      That is a geek thing - something that appeals to the technical hobbyist or the pro - and one of the fundamental reasons why Linux on the desktop has less than a 1% share.

  • There is at least one other company selling NonMac hardware [gvs9000.com] with OSX. This machine is nothing like what Pystar sells and prolly has a price tag much higher than a MacPro. Personally I wants one.
  • by qazwart (261667) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @02:00PM (#25432573) Homepage

    Apple has strong controls over their OS because they remember what happened the last time they allowed clones. The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.

    Psystar doesn't have a right to modify Mac OS X and put it on their machines. Apple has full rights to stop them. Psystar could make a machine that could take a modified version of Mac OS X. They just wouldn't be allowed to put this modified version on their machine.

    My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them. Apple really doesn't care too much about the small market share they might lose to Psystar. Most likely, the people buying these clones wouldn't have bought a Mac anyway. If these people then want to spend $125 and get Mac OS X to work on Psystar, that's their prerogative and Apple won't stop them.

    What Apple wants to avoid is the average user saying "Why should I spend $1200 on a iMac when I can by a Psystar for only $500?". Even worse, Apple doesn't want these same users saying, "Man, I bought this Psystar system, and Mac OX sucks! It keep crashing, and it is slow. I don't know why people think Apple is so hot. Their stuff stinks!".

    Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light. Apple chose the premium market because they rather make $200 on each sale rather than sell five times as many machines, but only make $40 on each one.

    Apple doesn't want some clone coming along and ruining their reputation. As far as Apple is concerned, Psystar can live as long as they don't mess with Apple's reputation.

    • The clones were poorly made and executed the old Mac OS rather poorly. This hurt Apple's overall reputation.

      I don't think Apple's biggest problem with the Mac clones of the mid '90s was the tarnished reputation of Mac OS. A much, much bigger problem was something that you also point out in your comment - most people chose cheaper, not better. The prices of the clones did severely undercut the prices of "genuine" Macs and as result Apple's sales practically disappeared. And you are correct - the same would

    • Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware

      High-quality? It's been my experience that Apple's hardware is of no higher quality than any other builder's. I can give you a laundry list of busted Macs that I have personal experience with, while my Frankenbox built from off-the-shelf parts that has evolved over the past several years has had exactly zero hardware problems.
      • High-quality? It's been my experience that Apple's hardware is of no higher quality than any other builder's. I can give you a laundry list of busted Macs that I have personal experience with, while my Frankenbox built from off-the-shelf parts that has evolved over the past several years has had exactly zero hardware problems.

        Same boat here. My current PC was ~$700 at time of purchase.
        Antec Sonata III Chassis
        ASUS M2N-E
        AMD X2 5200+
        4GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 RAM
        Seagate 500GB HDD
        nVidia 8600 GTS
        Gentoo Linux

        I've ha

    • Always remember: Apple is a hardware company that builds high quality hardware. They only make software in order to sell that hardware in the best light.

      No, Apple sells complete systems, not hardware. This seems to be a common misunderstanding. Just like the old UNIX workstation manufacturers they're not selling part of the solution, they're constructing the entire solution to ensure that the parts work together in a satisfactory fashion.

      /Mikael

    • My feeling is that Apple will allow Psystar to live as long as they stop selling machines with Mac OS X on them.

      That is like saying, Generic Car company will allow Tesla Motors to live as long as they stop selling electric cars. Psystar is a company that sells computers with Mac OS X. If they no longer sell computers with Mac OS X on them, they will not survive.

  • With the mac book backlash. The lack of mini updates and other stuff is there stuff going on at apple that we don't know about. Pystar laptop plans blow apple away? Mac OS 10.6 for all? A real desktop system? with a super high end mac pro in the works mac pro now at $2500 and up? and apple wants to get pystar out of the way so they can have a real desktop?

    Also if apple buy Pystar and lets them make clones apple will forced to Support them? or at least that there os update will not mess the systems up.

    Does P

  • lexmak tried to use the dmca / EULA to lock out 3rd party ink and they lost in court apple is trying to do the same type of thing. Garage door makes try to use the DMCA to lock out 3rd party so apples dmca / eula clams may not hold up court and they are staying out of it.

  • by ral8158 (947954)

    You guys realize, if Apple loses, they'll lock down their OS much more than it is already, and use the DMCA to shut down hobbyists who try to circumvent it?

    Here's hoping Psystar loses so we don't have to deal with shitty macs out in the wild and so that we don't have to get into fisticuffs with Apple over DRM.

  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Sunday October 19, 2008 @09:20PM (#25436201)
    Many of you would rush condemn GPL violators but some of those same people do not seem to have a problem with Psystar violating the license agreement for OS X. Hypocrites! The fact that Apple is a company rather than an independent developer should not make a bloody difference. Copyright and license agreement violations are serious issues regardless of the parties involved.

    When you purchase or download software you are bound by the license agreement regardless of whether that license is GPL or some other license. The ELUA for OS X is readily available outside of the packaging online for anyone to read prior to purchasing an OS X "upgrade" box. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous install is irrelevant.

    If the GPL is to be considered a defendable in court, then so must the ELUA of OS X or windows. Nobody is forcing you to use a particular OS and nobody is entitled to software on their own terms.

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...