Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
11/30/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Valid point. Not why I hate Pystar. They knowingly rip off consumers. They sell systems they can't hope to support once they fail.
11/28/09
11/28/09
It's the same on the Microsoft side. You aren't actually buying Windows, you're buying a license to use Windows, again, within certain parameters. The only difference is that the Microsoft License is less restrictive.
A custom brew of Linux is pretty much the only "mainstream" OS you can actually own, and even then there are conditions of ownership.
Is it deceptive? No doubt, but that's how the entire software industry works these days (not just OSs) so the government and the courts aren't going to touch it.
With hardware it's a physical thing, in order to copy it you need to build a whole new one, from scratch. If you want to modify it you have to change the thing you bought, which involves risk because if you screw it up you have to buy a new one. With software, it's data, a couple keystrokes and you have another, for free, that you can give to a friend or modify with impunity. Which is why they don't sell software, they sell software licenses which are "physical".
11/29/09
Consider this: you buy 1 copy of an os for your own use on 1 machine. you buy 1 machine. you pay someone to install the software on the 1 machine. that is what psystar does. they are not selling illegal copies of osx. they buy a copy of osx for each customer from apple. then they install it on the computer their customer has purchased. whether it is illegal or not is up to the courts to decide, but legality can also be influenced by everyone.
I'm not actually saying who is right and who is wrong, or what is legal and what isn't (both being only loosely related). what I'm saying is that me personally, I would rather purchase to own than to license.
When you allow someone to tell you that you have no rights and you believe them, then you have no rights. Rights don't come for free and no one will give them to you. Rights are what we, collectively, say they are. If you give up so easy you won't have much.
11/29/09
But Apple doesn't sell a standalone OS license (and hence Pystar can't buy one). What you get when you buy OSX is an upgrade license, meaning in order for you to legally install it you have to have an existing full license to a previous version... and the only way you can get one of those is with a Mac.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Apple could just make a "hi Im a mac. and Im a fake mac" commercial. LOL!
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
I know these aren't exactly counterfeits in physical terms as they don't look like Macs but they are counterfeiting the computer which has happened before. When Franklin was cloning Apple II's Franklin was found guilty of pirating the Apple II ROM. The court then gave Apple the right to hold on to the ROM and choose who it could be licensed to and that case is not but a stones throw from the likes of this one.
Apple has a bad history with letting things go in court. Lets not forget that the reason Windows is so big now is simply because Apple let Microsoft off the hook, only paying a small settlement, for taking parts of the Lisa OS and use it for Windows. If Apple had pursued that to the full extent the market share for desktop OSes would be very different now. That may have been a bad thing since Apple would have stagnated much more and OS X probably would have been much worse but you know what I bet each Linux distro would be like Mac OS today in terms of market share.
Rant mode off...
11/28/09
@deliciousburglar:
@quayzar:
I just dont see Psystar as a big threat since they only sold 800 units.
Why should Apple be bothered with them if consumers themselves dont even bother with them? lol!
IMO if I had a multi-billion dollar company I would not see the point in drawing attention to companies that are failures at stealing my customers away. YES I know that Apple has to make examples of someone but why bother with such a pathetic company?
They should focus more on the companies selling thousands of knock off iphones and ipods.
11/28/09
To rephrase, it is not Psystar's size or relevance or threat factor. It's not even about making an example. It is the fact that doing nothing sets a bad legal precedent for Apple. Let's say Apple ignores Psystar, and next year Asus starts to make mac knockoffs (I know, it's not gonna happen, but it's the point of the thing). Asus, being a big company, would have a lot more ability to hurt Apple's bottom line. Do you understand now?
11/28/09
EDIT: I just seems like Apples legal team is a little too fussy. Remember that Australian grocery store that got sued? [gizmodo.com]
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Pystar is shady and wrong. It doesn't matter how much Apple wants to sell their products for, you'll either pay them and like it or not use Macs at all. Nobody has the right to use OS X, its a privilege, and if you can't attain it the way Apple requires you to then you don't deserve to use it at all.
11/28/09
11/28/09
But probably those balls were placed where their brains should be.
11/28/09
11/28/09
But they didn't dream big. Before they even got started they had to know it wouldn't work because the first step in an enterprise like this is to talk to lawyers and investment advisors and all of them should have said it was a failed illegal venture. They knew from the beginning it was crap and from there it was a rip off for everyone who bought their computers. Think about support, think about everything that should warn you a purchase from this company was a terrible idea ... They're criminals and that was the way it was from the beginning.
11/28/09
This was just an investment scam.
11/28/09
The funniest part from the ComputerWorld source article is that they claim they also make servers and were working on a laptop. With only 800 desktop sales, who the heck bought a server from them?
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
The irony is that they probably could have made a successful company if they had just focused on the software emulation Rebel EFI side of their business... assuming that they weren't violating any GNU licenses on that product as well, which is actually probably a pretty big assumption.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
@BobotheTeddy:
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/25/09