am i the only one who wants Psystar to win? it's not just that i want a huge corporation like Apple to bend on its knees, but i think it's ridiculous how they limit the ways you can use their product.

Old news.

 

 

 

Also, edit in a link for those who don't know this case.

 

I hope Apple wins, there's too much stealing and copying between companies.

 

Apple clearly states in their EULA that you are not allowed to use OSX in anything but a Mac.

Read about this on El Reg ages ago. As much as I dislike Apple stuff, Psystar really screwed up by trying to copy the os and sell it.

FYI guys, just because the suit was filed a while back doesn't mean the whole thing is done ;) I know, news is weird

 

 

 

Here's the latest http://computerworld.com/action/article ... rc=hm_list

 

[hide=]Mac clone maker wins legal round against Apple

 

Psystar can argue Apple abused copyright laws, judge rules

 

Gregg Keizer

 

 

 

 

 

February 8, 2009 (Computerworld) A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple.

 

 

 

He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed.

 

 

 

In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware.

 

 

 

Alsup had tossed Psystar's antitrust charges in November 2008 but left the door open to a modified complaint. Psystar took advantage of the opportunity and filed a revised lawsuit in mid-December. Apple, however, had hoped to quash Psystar's revision, saying that the Miami-based company "attempts to repackage its dismissed antitrust allegations under the guise of copyright misuse."

 

 

 

On Friday, Alsup said that Psystar could continue to press its once-dismissed case. "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop," Alsup said in his ruling.

 

 

 

Apple started the legal wrangling in July when it said Psystar broke copyright and software-licensing laws by selling Intel-based computers with Mac OS X 10.5 preinstalled. Psystar has been selling machines equipped with Apple's operating system since April 2008.

 

 

 

Alsup also said that if Psystar proves that Apple abused copyright laws, some of Apple's charges against the company would be moot. He also seemed to say that that others would then be free to follow in Psystar's footsteps. "Moreover, if established, misuse would bar enforcement (for the period of misuse) not only as to defendants who are actually party to the challenged license but also as to potential defendants not themselves injured by the misuse who may have similar interests," said Alsup in his ruling.

 

 

 

The judge did not name the "potential defendants," but in previous filings, Apple has claimed that Psystar was not acting alone. "Persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this amended complaint," said Apple in a November filing. At the time, Apple only referred to those individuals or corporations as John Does 1 through 10.

 

 

 

Apple said it would reveal the names when it uncovered them.

 

 

 

Alsup also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used, but said that that would have to be decided as the case plays out. He did reject Psystar's attempt to include state unfair-competition charges in its countersuit, however.

 

 

 

Psystar has a week to submit its altered counterclaims, after which Apple must answer within 20 days. Alsup also told the two parties to get to work. "Both sides should be taking discovery and preparing themselves for trial and/or summary judgment," the judge concluded.

 

 

 

The case is currently scheduled to begin trial on Nov. 9.[/hide]

I think that any company who wants to build a computer that runs the Mac OS should be able to. I don't think that apple should be the only choice. I like choices and it give people more options then either going Apple, or hackintosh. So I hope Psystar doesn't lose.

I think that any company who wants to build a computer that runs the Mac OS should be able to. I don't think that apple should be the only choice. I like choices and it give people more options then either going Apple, or hackintosh. So I hope Psystar doesn't lose.

But Apple has clearly stated that no authorized computer can run Mac OS X (they are currently in the process of patenting "OS X" without "Mac" in front of it). The reason Apple can, and has continued to grow is their monopolization of their own market. They've specified that Snow Leopard will not run on a PowerPC CPU, nor AMD's CPU line (obviously). But why? It's actually an excellent marketing advantage. Let's face it, everyone in the modern day that can sustain a decent monthly income has a computer. The problem though, it that computers can last for as long as you need them, usually (we still have a Macintosh 128k in the attic :P ). Windows isn't pulling in many new users, certainly not many from the Linux or Mac community. Apple, on the other hand, can always reel in new users with its largely successful marketing campaign; Vista certainly wasn't as expected for anyone. Another issue faced is that Apple doesn't make the majority of its money through software. That said, you can't give an operating system to other manufactures and hope to make money selling your current product line. Apple is seen as luxury, or quality company to some, doing so would severely hurt their image. I'm all for getting a cheap quality company, certainly one that doesn't run Windows, but you get what you pay for. Apple doesn't have to rely on the death of the previous computers, it only has to reel in Windows users.

I would be happy if they made it legal to use it on another computer than a Mac, but it won't happen. Atleast not in the next 10 years, as they would probably not sell much hardware then.

 

And if such a case would occur, that they released it for all, and you wouldn't be able to use AMD. Then, i would be pissed off as hell and not use it.

I think this marks the fine line between Apple fanboys and OS X fanboys. Apple fanboys are the people that actually *care* about the corporation. OS X fanboys are just guys who feel that their OS is better than say Windows or Linux.

I think that any company who wants to build a computer that runs the Mac OS should be able to. I don't think that apple should be the only choice. I like choices and it give people more options then either going Apple, or hackintosh. So I hope Psystar doesn't lose.

But Apple has clearly stated that no authorized computer can run Mac OS X (they are currently in the process of patenting "OS X" without "Mac" in front of it). The reason Apple can, and has continued to grow is their monopolization of their own market. They've specified that Snow Leopard will not run on a PowerPC CPU, nor AMD's CPU line (obviously). But why? It's actually an excellent marketing advantage. Let's face it, everyone in the modern day that can sustain a decent monthly income has a computer. The problem though, it that computers can last for as long as you need them, usually (we still have a Macintosh 128k in the attic :P ). Windows isn't pulling in many new users, certainly not many from the Linux or Mac community. Apple, on the other hand, can always reel in new users with its largely successful marketing campaign; Vista certainly wasn't as expected for anyone. Another issue faced is that Apple doesn't make the majority of its money through software. That said, you can't give an operating system to other manufactures and hope to make money selling your current product line. Apple is seen as luxury, or quality company to some, doing so would severely hurt their image. I'm all for getting a cheap quality company, certainly one that doesn't run Windows, but you get what you pay for. Apple doesn't have to rely on the death of the previous computers, it only has to reel in Windows users.

 

 

 

Windows isn't pulling any new users? Hello, what OS did your elementary school use?

I think that any company who wants to build a computer that runs the Mac OS should be able to. I don't think that apple should be the only choice. I like choices and it give people more options then either going Apple, or hackintosh. So I hope Psystar doesn't lose.

But Apple has clearly stated that no authorized computer can run Mac OS X (they are currently in the process of patenting "OS X" without "Mac" in front of it). The reason Apple can, and has continued to grow is their monopolization of their own market. They've specified that Snow Leopard will not run on a PowerPC CPU, nor AMD's CPU line (obviously). But why? It's actually an excellent marketing advantage. Let's face it, everyone in the modern day that can sustain a decent monthly income has a computer. The problem though, it that computers can last for as long as you need them, usually (we still have a Macintosh 128k in the attic :P ). Windows isn't pulling in many new users, certainly not many from the Linux or Mac community. Apple, on the other hand, can always reel in new users with its largely successful marketing campaign; Vista certainly wasn't as expected for anyone. Another issue faced is that Apple doesn't make the majority of its money through software. That said, you can't give an operating system to other manufactures and hope to make money selling your current product line. Apple is seen as luxury, or quality company to some, doing so would severely hurt their image. I'm all for getting a cheap quality company, certainly one that doesn't run Windows, but you get what you pay for. Apple doesn't have to rely on the death of the previous computers, it only has to reel in Windows users.

 

 

 

Windows isn't pulling any new users? Hello, what OS did your elementary school use?

Macs actually. :|

your school is an exception then. most (at least public) schools run Windows. we had a mac dept in my high school but only people who use them were the ones who took graphic design as a course.

The problem with your logic is that more and more people are using Windows, especially those who have never used a computer before. Why? Because as much as some people may people may dislike it, Windows is considered the standard operating system by most people, and the same goes IE and Ms Office. Most software targeted at people running at home will only run on Windows, and pretty much all major release games are the same. That doesn't necessary mean it's the best, just what 'most' people consider normal. Even so, Vista may not have had the best reviews, but Windows 7 looks to be quite a bit better.

The problem with your logic is that more and more people are using Windows, especially those who have never used a computer before. Why? Because as much as some people may people may dislike it, Windows is considered the standard operating system by most people, and the same goes IE and Ms Office. Most software targeted at people running at home will only run on Windows, and pretty much all major release games are the same. That doesn't necessary mean it's the best, just what 'most' people consider normal. Even so, Vista may not have had the best reviews, but Windows 7 looks to be quite a bit better.

They're still losing, what they would consider a dramatic market share. Vista trashed Microsoft's reputation and they have given no hint for anyone to upgrade. If you can run Vista, great, but most hardware will run better on XP. They made the "perfect" OS with a great UI, but with a small footprint so most people this day in age were able to use it. Windows 7, eh, it might be better than Vista, perhaps even XP. And I know I, and maybe others, are discouraged by the "flavors" of Windows. How much was Ultimate when it came out? $400? That' more expensive than a computer! The point is, they've been losing market share to OS X and Linux for awhile now.

The main problem that most laptop manufacturers bind the drivers exclusively to the shipped OS, so either you use that OS or you can start writing your own drivers by stealing various data from part manufacturers.

 

 

 

The fact Vista sucks (constant 50% CPU usage explorer[Caution: Executable File] bug that doesn't have a fix) makes me want to cry when I think that 101% HP will NOT allow to upgrade to Windows 7 (naturally, they will never, ever, ever allow to downgrade to XP) without a full loss of customer support. That means no drivers either.

 

 

 

OT: apple has it's marketing strategy and will not change it, that's why such companies as Psystar will be always prosecuted by law to the end.

The main problem that most laptop manufacturers bind the drivers exclusively to the shipped OS, so either you use that OS or you can start writing your own drivers by stealing various data from part manufacturers.

 

 

 

The fact Vista sucks (constant 50% CPU usage explorer[Caution: Executable File] bug that doesn't have a fix) makes me want to cry when I think that 101% HP will NOT allow to upgrade to Windows 7 (naturally, they will never, ever, ever allow to downgrade to XP) without a full loss of customer support. That means no drivers either.

 

 

 

OT: apple has it's marketing strategy and will not change it, that's why such companies as Psystar will be always prosecuted by law to the end.

 

Lol I think you have a problem with your computer. My dual core AMD CPU is constantly at 0% usage on Vista and I have no explorer[Caution: Executable File] bug. Guess what? My computer is an HP that had XP at the begining and that now has Vista and Win7 in dual boot, so I can kind of dismiss what you said here (except for the apple part, that I find true).

They're still losing, what they would consider a dramatic market share. Vista trashed Microsoft's reputation and they have given no hint for anyone to upgrade. If you can run Vista, great, but most hardware will run better on XP. They made the "perfect" OS with a great UI, but with a small footprint so most people this day in age were able to use it. Windows 7, eh, it might be better than Vista, perhaps even XP. And I know I, and maybe others, are discouraged by the "flavors" of Windows. How much was Ultimate when it came out? $400? That' more expensive than a computer! The point is, they've been losing market share to OS X and Linux for awhile now.

 

 

 

I agree that Vista was a step back, but stop acting as if it's the first time Microsoft messed up. Take a look at Windows Me.

 

 

 

It's impossible for Microsoft for to keep their market share forever, but I don't see a reason why you're so dramatic about it Well over half of the computers around the world run Windows. And even for people who buy Macs, they dual boot some version of Windows.

They're still losing, what they would consider a dramatic market share. Vista trashed Microsoft's reputation and they have given no hint for anyone to upgrade. If you can run Vista, great, but most hardware will run better on XP. They made the "perfect" OS with a great UI, but with a small footprint so most people this day in age were able to use it. Windows 7, eh, it might be better than Vista, perhaps even XP. And I know I, and maybe others, are discouraged by the "flavors" of Windows. How much was Ultimate when it came out? $400? That' more expensive than a computer! The point is, they've been losing market share to OS X and Linux for awhile now.

 

 

 

I agree that Vista was a step back, but stop acting as if it's the first time Microsoft messed up. Take a look at Windows Me.

 

 

 

It's impossible for Microsoft for to keep their market share forever, but I don't see a reason why you're so dramatic about it Well over half of the computers around the world run Windows. And even for people who buy Macs, they dual boot some version of Windows.

I wasn't. I was explaining the long term faults about licensing an OS like Windows did, and why Apple's marketing will not change; why they're charging Psystar. Someone else brought up Windows.