Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled

[WriteDown]

Source: CNET

Apple's list of grievances against Mac clone maker Psystar spans 16 pages, but, in the end, its argument boils down to the one expected. Psystar, Apple says, had no right to do what it did, and should be stopped and forced to pay.

In its lawsuit, a copy of which was seen by CNET News courtesy of our colleagues at ZDNet, Apple alleges copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as a couple of other legal claims. It seeks any profits earned by Psystar from its Open Computer, triple damages for willful acts, a permanent injunction against the sale of the product, as well as recall of those units already sold.

"Apple licenses the use of its Macintosh operating system software for use only on Apple-labeled hardware," the Mac maker says in the suit (click here for PDF) adding that the only way to get a full version of the Mac OS is on a new machine. The boxed software product, it says, is only an upgrade version, valid only for upgrading an existing, Apple-branded Macintosh.

Apple argues that by selling the Open Computer in conjunction with a copy of the Mac OS, Psystar both infringed on Apple's copyright and induced purchasers to also violate Apple's copyright.....



Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9991779-56.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

---

Love their products, but this monopoly stuff has to go.

[Pavulon]

1. Best Design House in the world

other than that they are techno trash.

They use a pretty BSD kernel, which I will spend company money on to run tools specific to my job.

They are, and always have , sold overpriced shit to subsidize their OS.

They do have a pretty face though..

[PatGund]

73. Actually.....

Their hardware is priced about the same as a name-brand PC configured about the same.

Of course, if you compare it to something from Joe's bait, tackle, and PC shop, that's another matter.

[TommyO]

74. A Dell Precision dual, quad-core-processor box is pricier

Than a comparably equipped Mac Pro which can run Windows (whichever flavor you want) along with OS-X (that's something that no other name-brand machine can do).

[Renew Deal]

2. Apple does not have a monopoly on computers or computing.

They use proprietary software on proprietary hardware. You don't have to buy a mac.

[tridim]

4. And you don't have to buy a PC with Windows installed..

Yet Microsoft is and was universally considered a monopoly. What's the difference?

[WriteDown]

5. Excellent question...

I do not have a dog in this race, but I've often wondered about the absolute devotion to either side.

[alfredo]

23. Apple is a Blue company, and also they are one of the few tech

companies that really pushes the technology. USB wasn't catching on until Apple pushed it. They eliminated those damn floppies, and soon hard media like CD's and DVD could be fazed out. The Air is a first step in that direction.

Apple has changed the music industry, and working on the movie industry. Many of us have been watching this strategy since the mid to late 90's. The end game could come soon, Jobs didn't look too healthy at the last launch event. He's had a bout with Pancreatic cancer. He might want to see his vision realized before he takes the big nod.

[merwin]

24. Apple has not changed the music industry. They just made it cool.

MP3's came out in the mid 90's. CD Players that could play MP3 CD's came out somewhere in the late 90's, along with Napster, which was responsible for the boom in digital music, not Apple. The iPod came out in 2001, which put a pretty face on MP3 players that already existed and were far more capable than the iPod, which can play only a few audio formats, and oddly enough doesn't play WMA, which was a fairly established format when the iPod came out, and is most definitely an established format now. Seems pretty monopolistic to me :)

[WriteDown]

39. Geez..

I remember when Napster came out and MP3's caught fire. It was glorious. I still use Napster to this day. 12.95 for all the music you can listen to. I use itunes as well since they sometimes have exclusive music I can't find on napster, but I have friends who fork over 100$ a month on music. I've never understood that. I have a friend who just lost about 1000$ worth of music because he moved and tried to copy his tracks off of his roommates computer. There was some sort of syncing problem and the tracks were lost.

[alfredo]

49. Apple made it simple, cheap, and legal. They also got the big players

on board, and pushed them to a more reasonable price per song. You don't have to be the first to be the driving force for change. Jobs was able to drag them kicking and screaming into the new century. Napster couldn't do it.

Most people could care less about formats. They just want the songs to play on their iPods.

[WriteDown]

55. I guess we are different...

I do not consider 1$ a song cheap. With napster, I can host a party with unlimited music for 12.95$ a month. Also, once I buy a song, its mine to do with as I wish. Apple will not allow ipods to function on napster and therefore my nano is useless on that service.

[alfredo]

57. Napster tunes are DRM protected, but you can make it work. Google

"ipod napster" to find out how.

I just downloaded and burned to a CD, Beck's "Modern Guilt" It's playing on our stereo system right now. Fuckin great!

[WriteDown]

59. I will do it.....

Sounds cool. Napster is no longer DRM though.

[alfredo]

62. That's good. DRM can be cracked, Jobs knew that when he agreed to

the record companies demands on copy protection.

[NashVegas]

67. If Apple Is Going to Change the Movie Industry, I Feel Bad For Those People Who Love Their Jobs

And who will lose them to soulless, ruthless efficiency.

[merwin]

6. Market share. Apple is considered the little guy fighting for a piece of the market that

Microsoft dominates.

In reality, Apple is more monopolistic than Microsoft, with their restrictive licensing and lack of support for formats other than their own. They remind me a lot of Sony, pushing their own technology without regard to the customer benefit. For example, the ipod. It supports very few formats, has a very restrictive licensing, and generally is more hype than anything else. They sell you the pretty interface hoping you won't realize (or care) about being able to actually make it work with anything other than iTunes

[WriteDown]

7. Interesting...

I do remember the frustration of Sony's monopolization of mini disk technology before recordable CD's became popular.

[Tesha]

70. Besides MP3 and AAC, who really gives a damn about any other formats?

Format converters exist.

Tesha

[merwin]

71. How about those of us who like to use high quality free codecs, like OGG?

Personally, I think OGG is a superior format, and don't want to convert my 100+ GB of music to a closed format.

[Tesha]

75. I wasn't aware that MP3 is a "closed" format. But keep grinding your axe. (NT)

[merwin]

78. Like AAC, it's got patent and licensing restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAME#Patents_and_legal_issues

Every time you use LAME or another free MP3 encoder, you're technically breaking the law and could be sued.
"The LAME developers state that since their code is only released in source code form, it should only be considered as a description of an MP3 encoder, and thus does not infringe any patent by itself when released as source code only"

[Tesha]

79. Oh poor you. Guess you should use an MP3 encoder that is licensed.

(And I'll assume that iTunes is licensed.)

Tesha

[merwin]

80. Other than the fact that I hate iTunes.

Not because it's Apple. Because I can't stand the interface and lack of features.

I would just rather go with a format that is open. Just like some people like Linux because it's free and open and community developed.

[Tesha]

81. Oh poor you. But I'll bet there are other *LICENSED* MP3 encoders besides iTunes.

But they probably cost money, ehh?

Tesha

[high density]

82. How is saying "I like Ogg Vorbis" grinding an ax?

:shrug:

What you said is just insane as somebody writing a website that thinks, "Who cares about anything else but Internet Explorer?"

[WriteDown]

72. Why won't Apple allow the use of Ipods on Napter?

To make obscene profits, that's why. I can fill up my Zen with 40GB of music and change every song the next day on Napster-To-Go. I like my Ipod Nano better, but all I can use it for is the MP3''s that I've ripped or ones I've bought. It serves as a paper weight many days.

[Tesha]

76. Does/Can Napster emit MP3s? If so, then you can use music from Napster. (NT)

[WriteDown]

77. It does.....

For 99 cents, you can "buy" the song as an MP3 and there is no limit to how many computers it can be on. But for the flat fee of 12.95, you can put 10,000 songs on a zen or iriver as long as you resync the songs in a specified period of time(i think its 30 days). If i've got to spend .99 for every legal download that i want to put on the ipod, then its essentially useless to me except for the music i've ripped from old CD's. Apple has developed a nice way to gouge its customers on music.

[harmonicon]

8. huh?

Microsoft, with the exception of the x-box, isn't and wasn't selling PCs, just an OS. They got into trouble for forcing things like web browsers and media players on people who purchased their OS.

[frylock]

9. forced?!

i somehow managed to install mozilla and winamp without issue. i don't recall a gun to my head FORCING me to use IE or WMP.

[harmonicon]

13. forced in that it couldn't be uninstalled

MS claimed that explorer was integral to their operating system, and it made it so that it couldn't be uninstalled. They also refused to sell a version of their OS without such components. Along with this, it was demonstrated that through these practices, they increased their share of the web browser market while decreasing netscape's.

[merwin]

27. Many of their core components rely on Internet Explorer. If they had sold a version

with IE removed, then things like CHM help files would no longer work, along with Windows Update and some popular programs, such as Quicken would stop working.

Like it or not, they built it into Windows. While it could be removed, there were side effects that would prevent them from selling a version with it removed.

[harmonicon]

38. and they did that on purpose

and got smacked down for doing so. Unfortunately, we still have to deal with a majority of people catering to their clunky web browser.

[Occulus]

43. Smacked down!!?!?

:wtf:

They still do it!! In what way were they "smacked down"? A "cost of doing business" fine or two?

Just for fun, I just tried the Windows Update link in Firefox. Of course, it doesn't work the way it ought to; Micro$oft tells me that I have to be running IE5 or later. However, I can download my updates manually... if I want to sift through an unsorted list of more than 3500+ updates.

I can also turn on auto updates, but that's merely an interface convenience for the user. In no way did Micro$oft get "smacked down". The case they faced barely got their attention, and it's at the moment the same as it ever was.

Cute fact: in Micro$oft Window$ Vi$ta, some 3D applications actually suffer a performance hit with Aero turned off. Blender (a powerful 3D modeler, which I used to make the DUzy Award image) is a perfect example: the 3D interface suffers a hit of tens of frames per second (that's a lot, by the way) when Aero is deactivated. I suspect other 3D apps suffer the same thing.

Oh, and what about DirectX 10? As a gamer, I feel like I'm being extorted; I have to get Micro$oft Window$ Vi$ta if I want the DX10/shader model 4.0 visual effects the non-Micro$oft hardware I bought and paid for supports. The funny part is, for at least one game (Crysis), a simple text file hack enables the DX10 effects in DirectX 9.0c, which runs in XP.

Thus, Micro$oft is lying when they say that DX10 effects can only show up in Vi$ta, and they are lying when they say they couldn't possibly ever under any circumstances write DX10 for Window$ XP.

In no way was Micro$oft "smacked down". They didn't learn their lesson, and they deserve to be schooled again.

[Indenturedebtor]

11. That was just an argument by the EU so they could steal some money

You've always been able to install other media players and whatnot. Microsoft was just kind enough to include em for your use.

These Euro companies wanted to force people to buy their products, and the EU jumped all over it. Not that I have an issue with that. We should pillage and tarriff their multinationals as well.

Apple and sony disgust me. I bought a PSP, hacked it, and now if I buy any games for it I buy them at the used bookstore heh. FU Sony.

[jmowreader]

14. Microsoft was kind enough to weld them in...

I only want ONE web browser on my computer, and if I'm running a PC I don't want it to be Microsoft's virus-attractor.

Yeah, I got 500GB of disk. I also got 1.3GB files. Lots of 'em. That take triple that much disk to process.

[joshcryer]

21. The *actual* lawsuit was because MS wouldn't let BeOS be installed alongside OEMs.

In other words, MSs contract for OEMs was that *no other competing OS could be installed* along side Windows. BeOS was trying to give away their OS for free to expand its marketshare and MS did not want any of that. Unfortunately the *real* reason for the lawsuit got swept under the rug and it became something that MS could remedy (simply make IE "uninstallable").

Apple is behaving *exactly* like MS did back when it was disallowing OEMs from installing BeOS, by stopping people from building OSX compatible PCs and marketing them as such, they are creating an unnatural monopoly.

[Regret My New Name]

30. You'd think apple would have learned their lesson by now....

Hasn't this pretty much always been their problem, aye?

[tomhayes]

35. What's Apple PROBLEM??? Please define their "problem."

Do tell. They seem to make products people like, they are profitable, and what's the problem??

What else do you need ?

[tomhayes]

34. There's a difference

>Apple is behaving *exactly* like MS did back when it was disallowing OEMs from installing BeOS, by stopping people from building OSX compatible PCs and marketing them as such, they are creating an unnatural monopoly.

The DIFFERENCE is that Apple does NOT have a MONOPOLY on the PC market.

There is nothing ILLEGAL about Apple's restrictions on software - it'd only be illegal if they help a monopoly in the industry AND THEN used that monopoly UNFAIRLY. Since they aren't a monopoly (unless you think Jaguar Motors has a MONOPOLY on Jaguar XK8 automobiles) it's not illegal. And it's not the same as a computer with a monopoly doing it.

(further BE OS was suing because of behavior an OEM seller of Windows was not allowed to install beOs. Pystar is doing the OPPOSITE and trying to install an Apple operating system on a PC box, and their not doing it for any other reason then to try to make a quick buck. Be OS *PRODUCED* something new, Pystar is assembling things that other people make and then selling it)

Pystar is just assembling Chinese made PC parts into a computer case and modifying Apple software to run on it. Apple has a right to sue - and Pystar will CERTAINLY lose in court.

[tomhayes]

29. I guess people here are too stupid to know what a MONOPOLY means??

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
The term monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) can bear two main definitions:

In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure oligopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. <1> Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. <2> Alternatively (a modern and less common usage), it may be used as a verb or adjective to refer to the process (see Monopolism) by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition. The latter usage of the term is invoked in the theory of monopolistic competition.

In political discourse, the term monopoly is frequently invoked as a blanket generalization in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition. <3>

Why not read the Microsoft monopoly decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

(Let's hope people know the difference between a democracy and capitalism??)

[Regret My New Name]

31. BS! monopoly is a board game....

[SlipperySlope]

3. N/T

N/T

[Regret My New Name]

33. you're wrong!

:P

[IDemo]

10. Google 'hackintosh'

[TroubleMan]

12. NOOOO!!!!

I was thinking about getting one. If I had one, I definitely wouldn't let it be recalled.

[DRoseDARs]

15. Instead of screwing the consumers, how about stopping new ones from being built and...

...forcing Psystar to pay full price for the ones already made? Why fuck over the people who've already bought these illicit computers? If Apple gave a shit about the poeple that got caught up in this, they'd offer them a means to keep their computers or make it easier to get approved ones.

I'm not holding my breath.

[Xithras]

18. Well, they can't actually take them back in a recall anyway.

They just have to be willing to do so. Customers, as always, are free to ignore the recall notices.

[bitchkitty]

16. I love my Mac OS -

and I love my Mac mini. I don't blame them for not wanting their OS to run on a cheap imitation.

If $1200 ever falls into my lap, I'll get an iMac - both a workstation and fine art for my living room desk...

[merwin]

25. *psst*... The Mac Mini is in no way superior to "cheap imitation" computers.

It uses onboard components for pretty much everything including video, just like any motherboard you would buy at a computer store, except smaller.

[bitchkitty]

28. Of course it's superior -

it doesn't run Windows.

[merwin]

37. Yes it does. It just doesn't come with windows pre-installed

:)

My Mac Mini is running Vista as a media center, attached to a Mirrored NAS storage device. Works beautifully, takes up almost no room.

[bitchkitty]

42. Now you've got Windows cooties! lol

I did have Parallels installed with Windows XP, for testing and for a software application, but I stopped using the software, and I can always look at what I do at http://browsershots.org, so I uninstalled it. The mini thanked me. ;)

I have to admit to a big bias - I like for things to be pretty - to be sleek, well-designed, and a pleasure to look at. The iMac is all that and I LONG for one!

[Xithras]

17. What monopoly?

People tend to forget nowadays that the PC was developed as an open alternative to the classic computer model. In the old days, the people who built the computer also built their own operating systems for them. If you bought an HP, it came with an HP operating system (I think you can still buy HP-UX today). If you bought an IBM, it came with their OS. If you bought an Atari or Commodore, it came with their OS. The first computer I ever owned was a Tandy TRS-80. Want to guess what operating system it ran? Tandy Basic Level 1. There was nothing illegal or monopolizing about any of that. Would you argue that Panasonic is using monopoly tactics because you can install Sony firmware in them? Similarly, would you argue that Panasonic would be wrong to sue Sony if they stole Panny's firmware and tried to sell it? Of course not, they are manufacturing closed hardware, and the closed software is just a part of the product.

The PC was actually developed SPECIFICALLY to provide an alternative to the closed architecture, and became dominant because people preferred its flexibility. I think it's unfortunate that Apple still clings to its closed model, but it's not a monopoly if they do it. They sell their software to run on their hardware. You cannot buy one without the other. The model is archaic, but it's not illegal.

[Heywood J]

19. Except when the courts forced Kodak to stop bundling processing with the film.

It's really not that different, if you're forced to buy Apple hardware to get the OS.

[Xithras]

53. There's one big difference between the cases.

With Kodak, processing could be provided by anybody, and Kodak processing services were provided for non-Kodak films. You could purchase the service from any photo store, but Kodak was forcing its buyers to buy THEIR service.

The story is different with Apple. First, the Mac doesn't natively support PC operating systems. While the hardware is very similar, Apple has chosen to use EMI for booting, while all PC operating systems require BIOS. As I understand it, the Mac hardware doesn't support PC operating systems without modification. Likewise, the Mac operating system will not run on non-Mac hardware without modification.

Kodak was rightly sued because they had two freestanding products that they were bundling simply to exploit buyers. Apple cannot be sued for the same thing because their products are not freestanding.

[Frank Booth]

20. How can we stop these evil behemoth corporations??

Exxon, Wal-Mart, Apple. Their main objective has become crushing the little guy.

[Regret My New Name]

32. building our own companies and products in our garages using plywood and off the shelf compontents.

so that we can become evil behemoth corporations that need to be crushed by the people we once were...

[Indydem]

47. Bwa ha ha... how true :) n/t

[alfredo]

22. Defend your Copyright or lose it. Apple had to sue.

Apple is a hardware company, the OS adds value to the hardware.


At 8% market share, they are not a monopoly in the computer field.

[merwin]

26. I call bullshit on that. They are a hardware/software company.

Without the OS, nobody would buy their hardware. If anything, I would call them a software company. They are selling you their software, bundled in a sexy package that adds to the hype. The hardware part of their business could not exist without Apple's OS, as nobody would buy hardware that cost 25% more when it wouldn't do anything better than any other computer. Why do you think they put so much money into developing OS X if the OS is just added value?

On another note, the core of their hardware is basically a collection of other company's components. They just assemble them in a pretty package.

[tidy_bowl]

40. Exactly, I have a Leopard Hackintosh...

....a Dell Inspiron 6400 running Mac OSX and I dare Apple to come after me. They can't legally enforce that I can only use their software on their hardware. Stuff it Jobs.

[alfredo]

48. You just lent support to my assertion that they are a hardware company.

You said nobody would buy their hardware without the OS, doesn't that mean the OS adds value (gives incentive to buy the computer)? Even Jobs has referred to Apple as a hardware company.

It's more than pretty, look inside and see how they put it together.

Open your computer case and compare.

BTW, the screws you see will not fall out and get lodged somewhere deep in your computer. Attention to detail is a selling point.

[WriteDown]

50. So will the EU be suing them?

Sounds eerily similar to Microsoft's practices, possibly worse. I am not a fan of MS, but I do not understand the absolute devotion people have to Apple. How much market share of the MP3 player/MP3 market do they have? I use itunes for some things such as podcasts, but I refuse to be absolutely locked to it. 99 cents a song is such a waste of money.

[alfredo]

54. Not sure the market share of the iPod, but it is the big player, but not the

only player in the market. They have not, like Microsoft, put up barriers to others desiring to enter the market. They also don't buy up technology to destroy it.

I'm an Apple fan because they are interesting to watch. Even if I didn't own their products, I'd still be watching them. They have pushed design as important in consumer electronics, and that the OS has to get out of the way of creativity. You don't get nagged constantly by the OS.

The way they did an end run around MS was a thing of beauty. They thought like insurgents. They did not take on MS under MS's terms. They didn't try to compete in enterprise directly. They went after the living room. From there they are starting to slowly but surely work their way into enterprise. The iPhone and MobileMe play a big part in this move. You don't have to like Apple to appreciate how well they play the game.

It wasn't too long ago that the Bush bot Michael Dell advised Jobs to shut down Apple and return the money to investors. He's now eating his words.

[WriteDown]

56. Apple does not buy up smaller companies?

I suggest you research that a little more. I never appreciate monopolistic practices. Whether its Apple forcing me to use itunes or MS forcing me to use their browser. 6 of 1, half dozen of another.

[alfredo]

60. Apple does buy smaller companies, but not to prevent a competing

product from entering the market. They just bought a chip company for the mobile platforms.

I have several media players on my computer, I am not forced to use iTunes.

[alfredo]

64. Read this from Slashdot

http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/16/1330221

[merwin]

65. OSX is more than just added value. It is a huge part of their selling point.

They are as much of a software company as they are a hardware company. Look at their selling point:

http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/

[ForrestGump]

36. Didn't know there were any clones left. My first desktop computer was a Power Computing one.

This was back in the mid-'90s, when Apple granted licenses to other manufacturers to make Mac platforms and Power Computing (more so than some other great clone makers) really took the Mac world by storm. This was when that Emilio dude (idiot, more like it) was still in charge of Apple, before Steve Jobs came back and before the iMac really finally increased Apple's market share, and Power Computing really pushed the envelope in terms of processor speed. The hardware was PC-like, not as well built as Apples (I believe the company was made up of ex-Dell workers, and was based in the same part of Texas), but they were priced well, much cheaper than any Apple machines, and way far ahead of even Apple's BEST offerings in terms of raw power (you could also 'build your own computer,' in terms of deciding what kind of drives, etc, you wanted).

Someone must have resented their success, I guess, because Apple suddenly pulled the plug on the clones. Power Computing was brash, aggressive, and bold and Apple was then still mired in a pretty bad phase of their corporate existence...they were the PC guy in these new Mac commercials, with Power Computing as the Mac hipster. I am and probably always will be a Mac proponent, but I detested teh newly re-Jobsed Apple shutting down Power Computing. Those guys were on fire, for a while, and better prepared to take on PC makers than Mac was (at that time). They were like guerrilla computer geeks, complete with really cool T-shirts and ads. Think Different, my ass.

[fascisthunter]

41. monopoly? lolololol

what is Apple's share of the computer market world wide?

[WriteDown]

44. What is....

Apples share of the MP3 market? :evilgrin:

[Occulus]

45. True, but where can I buy a copy of the Mac OS?

I don't want the hardware; I already have a PC with Window$ XP and I'd like to install OSX on a quadruple boot configuration (I also have Vi$ta and Fedora Core 8 installed). I'd prefer an OEM copy, if you can find one.

...I can do that, can't I?

[fascisthunter]

46. Well, I guess not

but then again, if you wanted one of my illustrations you'd be paying me for it so I guess I too have a monopoly on my style of illustration. Oh well.... very small market you are nitpicking on.

I remember when people laughed at OS X and Apple in general, now folks want it to run it on thier PC's and are so mad that they now label it a monopoly. Hopefully they will one day change, but being a niche market as they are in, and because of such a small market share, I'm not sure it's going to ever happen. More of a reason to preserve their business than actually being a monopoly.

[brooklynite]

51. Buy the software? Yes.

Waltz into any Apple Store and pick up a box for $129. However, I believe it won't generally install on a non-Apple machine (how PsyStar got around this, I don't know). My recollection from the 90's was that the licenesed clones had a ROM chip that allowed the Mac OS to work.

[brooklynite]

52. FWIW, PsyStar's website appears to be off-line

[tidy_bowl]

61. As I said earlier....

...I have bought the license for Leopard 10.5.2 but have installed a version of the OS install that has been 'configured' to run on Intel/AMD machines like my Dell Inspiron 6400. I need only the license, not necessarily what is on the CD to run MACOSX. My assertion is the same, I need only a valid Apple license, period, not their hardware or necessarily their software. I am typing on it right now and works fine, thank you very much. To try yourself, type into Google: OSX86.



:toast:

[brooklynite]

63. THAT you can't buy...

You can, as I said, buy a software box which comes with a license, but I suspect if you READ the license, you'll see that it doesn't extend to the use on the software on computer system of your choice, and is limited to Apple-branded equipment. The only legal way would probably be to obtain a license previously issued to a licensed cloner (e.g. PowerComputing, Motorola or UMAX), which wouldn't apply however to the current version.

[ikri]

68. There's another element to this

I believe (I'd have to check the EULA on OS X to confirm) that Apple's boxed versions of OS X are upgrade licenses. To use the boxed version without breaking the EULA you have to install it on a machine that has OS X already installed on it (basically a computer bought from Apple).

Part of the problem with a vanilla copy of OS X is that it will check for specific chips and hardware configurations that you only find on a genuine Apple computer. There are versions of OSX86 floating around (if you're a paid-up Apple developer, the Apple version of MSDN you can download it) that should allow you to install OS X on any x86 hardware.

Psystar appear to either have been installing OSX86 on their computers or they've managed to kluge a normal version of OS X to install bypassing the hardware check.

EULAs have been dismissed by courts in the past so Apple might be on shaky ground. Their best option would seem to be to attempt to use the DCMA to suggest that Psystar have illegally broken their encryption to install OS X, but there has already been a case where a printer manufacturer put "encryption" chips on their toner cartridges to prevent companies from selling cheaper toner, that case failed and you can still buy cheap toner.

This case will probably come down to how the judge reads the license agreement.

[Orsino]

58. It comes down to whether you believe...

...that Apple can restrict second-party sales of their OS, or dictate on which devices users may install it. In the DMCA Age, don't write off Apple's chances, but this sounds like the very definition of "restraint of trade." IBM is probably chuckling now, remembering how they tried and failed to prevent others from selling compatible products.

[suston96]

66. Check it out......

When Steve Jobs introduced the Macintosh in 1984 there was little or no software available for it. Guess who came out for the first Mac software?

You got it. Bill Gates........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Macintosh_software_published_by_Microsoft

Microsoft Multiplan, Excel, Works, Flight Simulator, etc.

My first Apple computer? A Franklin Ace 1000. Yeah, Franklin - sued by Apple in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

http://oldcomputers.net/ace1000.html

[and-justice-for-all]

69. This is like if INTEL pounced on AMD...

AMD took the processor apart and then improved upon it.

[phrenzy]

83. Apple Haters...

It's shocking, but I guess not surprising that the Apple haters are coming out of the woodwork now that they are successful again.

Anybody who followed Apple in the 90s remembers all too well the gleeful predictions of PC users that the "beleaguered Apple is on deathwatch" and happily anticipated Apples collapse. It's funny that those same people give Apple no credit for taking their money from their 'archaic' hardware+software model to re-invest into R&D and create the UI and design innovations that PCs (and other industries) so commonly copy.

I love how some on this thread dismiss "design" as if it were frivolous and of no value. I guess you all build your own TVs out of components and drive musclecars with hand built engines? After all, why allow some big corporation to dictate what parts go into your car? Who cares if BMW builds a high quality car?? It's got less "features" than your Pontiac Aztec!

Apple is the underdog in just about every aspect of the computer industry and will be for the foreseeable future. So, they figured out how to design a consumer electronic device that people prefer to the "zune" - deal with it. Design is important to some people - and design is what makes their products a pleasure to use rather than a chore.

It's like PC users forgot where they'd be without Apple's willingness to think out of the box...

C:\>