News Judge rules against Psystar

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/11/16/judge-rules-against-psystar/1

Judge William Alsup has handed down a summary judgement in the case of Apple versus Psystar, upholding Apple's claims that Psystar's hackintosh machines are illegal.

 

I still dont understand how MS can get shafted at every turn on anti competitive grounds yet apple can seemingly do whatever they like and have no problems? Im not an MS fanboy nor a mac hater but i just cant see the sense in any of it!

 

I agree, if MS did something like this they'd likely be slammed for it, yet Apple get away with it.

Doesn't stop me installing the Mac OS on hackintoshes I make mind you.

 

Its about scale, MS control >90% of the market. Any action MS make can and does effect more or less every computer user on the planet, Apple on the other hand are a bit part player in the scheme of things.

 

As long as you don't grow to +50% market share you can do whatever you want....... "crush those little companies who resell my products ARRGGGGHHHH" - said the Apple monster

 

This guy should be Knighted instead of punished....

 

There should be no diffrence between the big and the small companies in terms of law, a good exsample is the IE case, why aren't microsoft allowed to include IE when Apple can include Safari ?

 

I think copyright is important. Apple made Mac OS X so they should have the right to say who can copy it or reproduce it. However, if it was the case that Psystar had legitimate licences then even if it goes against the EULA (which wont really hold up in court anyway) then why should they be able to dictate where and how you are allowed to use their software. If you have a licence then it's expected that you should be able to use that licence whenever and wherever you like.

The problem comes in when divorcing the operating system from a retail apple product. We know apple don't like people tampering with their code - putting out updates to brick jailbroken iPhones for example - whether they have that right (as it's not technically copyright, it's not being reproduced without authorisation, it is just being used in a different way as it stipulated in EULA and legally speaking the EULA won't tend to hold up in court as a binding document, it comes down to the judges agreement on 'reasonableness') and in this case I expect Apple had far more and far more expensive lawyers than Psystar.

 

I don't give a **** about if it were MS. I think it's a **** decision all round that harms the consumer and I'm angry about it.

 

Welcome to reality and capitalism. Enjoy your stay.

 

Because when Microsoft do it it's anti-competitive, whereas when apple do it it is not, because apple lack the power to seriously control the browser market, whereas Microsoft could very easily control the browser market.

Anti-monopoly practices are actually nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism DarkLord7875 - but rather are measures instituted by the state for the benefit of the consumer (at the cost of impacting upon the ability for any single corporate entity to fully maximise profits).

In fact it's much better for consumers, in general, to have this guarantee of anti-monopoly laws. Part of the purpose of a state is to maintain it's own monopoly on force and legislation, this is in order that corporate entities which are not designed to represent you, but rather designed to create or gain wealth for their shareholders, do not use their size and economic power to restrict the choices of the individual in society.

 

So where does the law stand if Psystar, supply the hardware with the option of including a retail copy of OSX for the end user to install?

Surely there cant be a problem with that? its just a company selling PCs that just so happen to be fully capable of running OSX

 

does that mean i should act quickly if i wanna get my psystar mac ^_^

 

As much as I hate Apple's business practices and attitude towards their customers, I think they're in the right here.

 

Yay for Lobby Groups and yay for winning through buying the best lawyers!!

Isn't America great?

 

Sure took long enough..

OSX is created as the software component to a Mac.
Its no different then palm, palm OS is only for palm devices.

Apple has always marketed OSX only to its Mac customers. When you buy a Mac you buy a hardware + software solution that provides a function.

Microsoft is Selling Software, period. Comparing OSX to Windows in this way is like trying to say that since the xbox360 OS runs on a PPC, then there shouldn't be any reason i can't buy a PS3 and install the 360 OS on it.

A Mac is NOT a PC.

 

Wikipedia disagrees

 

No it really is. Then again if you own a mac and are the kind of mindless sheep that fools for cheap marketing ploys and shows no signs of any self determination to find anything out for yourself other than what Steve Jobs tells you to do.... So pretty much the perfect Mac customer

 

10 years ago I might've agreed with your agruement. I mean, back then Macs were made with Mac hardware. Hardware actually built from scratch for the macs. Now you get Macs which are made of cheap commercial parts which any consumer can go pick up. The difference between regular PC's and a Mac is that the Mac has some kind of bios chip which is integrated into the O/S.

Macs can run on a standard PC, it's just there's a layer of driver/hardware integration that's slightly different to PC. I'm sure this has a valid design reason and isn't intentionally put in place to block running MacOS on PC, but it doesn't mean it'd be that difficult to release two installs of MacOS. Mac version and "Unsupported" PC version.

As far as I can tell, Apple are concerned about delivering a stable end product every time (even though they ****ed up on multiple accounts(here's look at you lying about your screens colour reproduction!)). Sort of why we want dedicated servers for MW2. When that mac comes out the box it works. If people got the idea that they could install MacOS on PC hardware and have it work perfectly then Apples reputation would start to crumble.

What they should do is have an install on the disc that is "unsupported" by Apple. I.e. install at your own risk. Hidden from the non-power users. To prevent...idiots.

I just don't wanna pay £2k for something I could get for £500.

 

second that, Apple is the real monopoly