<![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @winexprt:
"on a single Apple-labeled computer"

so stick an apple label on it and they're solid gold. one could argue that having the os on the computer labels it. when you boot it up, what do you see? An apple. it's an apple-labeled computer.

"Why is this so hard an issue for people to grasp?"

because the very idea of owning something is distorted by EULAs.

"reselling copies os OS X (which is a another violation in itself)"

im sorry, but violation or not, the whole idea of a free market is perverted when people cannot buy something and then sell it, and the whole while they have it they don't really own it.

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "Well, until Apple went bust and there were no more OS X updates. Because right now, OS X development is in large part funded by Apple's hardware sales."

If apple sold their software to run on any PC they would grab a massive market share overnight and bring in far greater revenue. And people would still buy apple hardware. They don't actually make their own hardware, other companies do it for them.

People say how apple almost went under during the clone days, but it was a very different era then. Not a good time for clones. And the Mac OS was horrible then. Today is a very different story.

archer75

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> The PC fanboy in me doesn't know what to think. On one side, Apple gets screwed. On the other hand, expansion of Mac OS can give Windows run for their money.

If this is considered a monopoly practice, then how the hell come no one else thought of it? If bigger companies like Sony, Dell, etc, were didn't challenge Apple, then they must have a reason.

Desipride

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nutbastard: "If they buy licensed copies of OS X and resell them, how are they doing anything wrong?"

This is how:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

Read it for youself. I don't know how Apple could possibly any clearer...
[images.apple.com]

Because Psystar is not JUST simply just reselling copies os OS X (which is a another violation in itself), but are installing them on NON-APPLE machines (see above)...and then selling THAT too.

Why is this so hard an issue for people to grasp???????

winexprt

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I just read through the first page of comments, so someone might have made this point better, but if there was a standalone licensed version of OSX in the $200-300 range (that I could install on my hand built sustem) I would buy it.
I've played with HACKintosh, and I like it. A lot. But I'm not buying a Mac Pro when I don't need one.

Apple could have some of my money for doing NOTHING but sticking a DVD in a box (which they already do for updates). Instead they get nothing.

I'm no business genious (like many esteemed Giz commenters apparently), but I'll take some money to no money any day.


SomeAudioGuy

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @pete: The issue is whether they have a right to sell an OS as a separate purchase but then obligate the consmer to only use it on specific hardware. The DMCA argument isn't relevant until you get past that hurdle.

This is also what makes comparing this to a video game console (whichever commenter that was) an inapplicable comparison.

To all here, as an IP attorney, I agree with catalyst that while people without at least a law degree if not a license should feel free to voice their feelings, they should also refrain from speculating on the merits of the case if they don't know what they're talking about.

Zlevee

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @pete:
"OSX has code (technology) in it that only allows it to install and run on Apple hardware."

geez, that's weird, because i could swear people are already running OS X on a variety of non-apple computers...

[lifehacker.com]

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @kevman90: i think it has more to do with their desire to avoid supporting legacy products or 3rd party add-on hardware. An added benefit to them as a result of this is that this makes their OS appear to be more stable than the competition.

Zlevee

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @pete: You have no idea what you are talking about. You think they would let MS write up an EULA that said "this can only run on Dell hardware?" The DMCA is a copyright provision first of all, this is a Sherman Act issue. If they don't sell copies of OSX, this argument is moot. They aren't violating anything, the end-user is. I guess Apple could attempt to sue the people who bought this hardware and put the OS on it, but that's not likely.

This is not anywhere close to some cut-and-dry definition of monopoly. It would be an interesting case, but not anywhere near the realm of summary judgment. Anti-trust matters are very complicated, and I don't expect the amateur lawyer Apple fanboys on here to agree with it, but you could at least attempt to learn something from those of us that went to law school.

Catalyst

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @odnet: I think this will really push other vendors(microsoft) to innovate, in fears of loosing market share like they have with IE.

xxenclavexx

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @GrandGizmo: Vista sucks, yet OS X was hacked in 2 minutes and then it took a whole day to hack the shitty OS no one likes.

WD40

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> This is bad on many levels because maybe, and just maybe, opening Leopard for the world will proof that in fact it does have more vulnerabilities and security risks than Windows. Anyone else thought about THAT being the reason why Apple is being stingy with it?

If it does get released, I have a 300MHz Intel Celeron laptop collecting dust that might be worth using on this fine OS, now my Core2Duo only runs WindowsXP Hacked edition.

WD40

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @coketown: That's not true. I'm a Mac user, and I bought it because Mac is just better. It's more productive. It runs better. The OS is a UNIX based OS and gives you a choice in all software. It's just head and shoulders above Windows platforms. And why on a PC Clone if you can run Windows on a Mac? I feel sorry for the PC user. They don't have know what they're missing out on - which is A LOT!

GrandGizmo

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Yeahhhhhhh! Apple is the best, and the PC clone companies are jealous and wanting OS X on their generic hardware. Sorry boys! You went with the big boys and lost! Ten years I see Apple #1.

GrandGizmo

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Now that Vista sucks, they're pissed. Everyone's starting to realize that OS X is the better operating system, and now they are trying to install it on generic hardware. Sounds like a sea of PC users caught in a sea of useless PCs to me. Man, my dreams have already come true. I love you Apple!

GrandGizmo

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @winexprt:
"Poor analogy because a steering wheel, seats, pedals etc. are just small components of a much larger, complex whole."

no, perfect analogy because we're talking about user interface. the OS is just a small component of a much larger, complex whole.

"They're taking out the WHOLE entire OS, throwing it into a different box, then labeling it and selling it as their own product."

No, because they aren't going to claim it's THEIR OS - if they went through and replaced "Apple" with their company name in every instance and claimed it's not OS X, that would be "labeling it and selling it as their own product."

"When the OS is not thiers to sell in the first place"

Funny you should say that since you said "And when you buy a car (used or new), you don't then agree not to resell it...do you?"

If they buy licensed copies of OS X and resell them, how are they doing anything wrong?

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nutbastard:

Poor analogy because a steering wheel, seats, pedals etc. are just small components of a much larger, complex whole. And when you buy a car (used or new), you don't then agree not to resell it...do you?

If we go by your auto parts analogy that would equate to Psystar simply taking the OS X menubar & dock for example (similarly small components of a greater whole, like seats, pedals, etc.) , and installing those seperate elements on another computer.

But they're not doing that.

They're taking out the WHOLE entire OS, throwing it into a different box, then labeling it and selling it as their own product.

When the OS is not thiers to sell in the first place (according to Apple, at least).

winexprt

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @pete: Really? Are you that sure that the DMCA absolutely preempts the antitrust tying doctrine? Because that would be quite the legal revolution, where you could tie any product by wrapping it with a nominal copyright protection system.

Lexmark tried a similar stunt, but it's never been tested in court and they've buckled every time it's come close.

Pender

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nutbastard: The EULA doesn't necessarily restrict you from doing certain things so long as it's not accompanied by a line of code that enforces it.

For example, it's against the EULA to install a single-user copy of OS X on multiple Macs, yet retail copies of OS X have no restrictions in the software that prevent it from installing on multiple systems, or even restrict it from updating, and doesn't force you to register either. It's amazing that ANYONE buys the Family Pack at all.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> They have no chance in court.
Why? Four little letters - DMCA.
The EULA does not matter. OSX has code (technology) in it that only allows it to install and run on Apple hardware.
The DMCA makes circumventing this technology illegal.
If Psystar even gets their day in court, it will be just that - a single day. Apple's lawyers will invoke the DMCA, and possibly have claim to damages as well.
Either way, bye-bye Psystar.

pete

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nutbastard: My sentiments exactly.

Personally, I hope Psystar wins. More openness in platforms is always a good thing, and the precedents set here would definitely bode well for the console emulation scene, as well. Alas, poor Bleem and Connectix, we hardly knew ye...

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I personally disagree with the whole idea of EULAs. If i buy it, IT'S MINE, and if it's mine, I'LL DO WHAT I DAMN WELL PLEASE WITH IT.

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @sgodun:

"Well, uh, they DO say that. If you drive a Honda automobile on, say, a path in an undeveloped forest and it breaks down, Honda isn't gonna help you."

not necessarily true - in many cases, warranty is warranty, and furthermore, an ACCURATE analogy would be if by taking your Honda off-road, Honda sued you.

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @KRingg:
"Whether this law suit is valid or not, it would be DISASTROUS for Apple if OS X was required to be installable on non-Apple branded hardware."

well, yeah... but requiring is different than allowing - Microsoft doesn't go around fixing peoples Dells, so I would assume Apple wouldn't have to touch these things.

@pardyhardy:

"I don't think this is breaking a monopoly law.... It would only be a monopoly if..."

As someone pointed out, you need not have a monopoly to break anti-monopoly laws. You need not have a vehicle to break the Vehicle code etc..

@winexprt:

"ome for profit company takes another company's OS that its makers SPECIFICALLY told you that if you bought it, it was only to be installed on their (Apple) hardware, and then takes that OS and installs it on one of THEIR machines, and then sells that machine back to the public."

Hey wanna buy this car? It's yours for $3,000.

But if you ever put the steering wheel, seats and/or pedals in another car, (The user interface, as it were) I will sue you.

...???

nutbastard

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @sgodun: That's not so much an artificial restriction as it is a limitation on design. You can't take your Honda CBR supercross racing either, but if you break it because you were an ass and thought you could, why should they help?

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @madog: Most recent? Tiger maybe, but that still sucks on the 1999 iMac. I happen to own one (dual FW cobalt and DVD drive), and it's slow enough with just Panther. Add something like Tiger with Dashboard and everything, and you have sludge.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Apple has a small percentage of the market, so normal laws do not apply to them.

Now, if they could only repeal the laws of space and time as well, then we'd see some really insanely great products!

SalParadise

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Well, back when the MS trials, they argued that there were alternative OSes out there, including MacOS. The judge ruled that Macs comprised a different market than PCs, so, yes apple DOES have a monopoly.

In fact, the iPod/iTunes lockin is no different than Windows/IE. In fact, it's probably worse - You could always go put Netscape on. You have no other choices for Hardware when you use iTunes. If MS had anything resembling the itunes/ipod market position, you can bet they'd be in more bundling troubles.

asten77

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nojo: EXACTLY!

Joseph

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Kyoseki: It would be horrible because OSX is only designed with kernels for a limited number of platforms. That is where most of the "weaknesses" in Windows lie, having to make it compatible with every combination of hardware and software on the planet. If OSX was asked to do that it would cripple them.

The only thing this would gain you is that you could go out and build the same Wintel box that apple sells for less.

archercc

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

Well, uh, they DO say that. If you drive a Honda automobile on, say, a path in an undeveloped forest and it breaks down, Honda isn't gonna help you.

sgodun

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Fuck OSX & Windows - fly Linux for free!

Maksimir

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> 1) there really does need to be something between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro... that *isn't* an AIO like the iMac. something just about like this. mini-tower with on-board graphics... but slots for expansion. using regular sized hard drives and a few RAM slots.

2) the mac mini needs to be selling for the price it did when it was a G4. the current prices are inane.

3) i actually like this Psystar machine and would consider it if it just ran regular Leopard and could regularly run updates with out waiting for hacks/patches. as it is... it's up there with running hacked XP off some shady patched together .iso you torrented.

3) jackasses like Psystar is what brings about crap like Windows Genuine Advantage. screw that.

4) they'd be in a much better position if they didn't have the BTO option of Leopard pre-installed. this isn't a machine for your grandma anyway... so i'm sure anyone who was interested in the first place could figure out the steps to do it with their own copy of Leopard.

5) i had several Power Computing machines the last time *legitimate* cloning existed. they were leagues better than the Apple hardware at the time. their contracts ended with the premature release of "OS 9" (contracts only good for OS8) and Apple hardware actually got much better in the next year or so. no big loss really. there would have been a big loss if cloning continued though.

6) don't all current Apple Intel machines have an (unused?) TPM chip onboard? anything preventing them from starting to authenticate against it with some system update?

x23

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> The best part is, if I ever have a problem with my Psystar I can just run down to my local mall to the award-winning Psystar retail store to get it fixed. It's not like they're a fly-by-night company that will be gone in a few months or anything like that.

----------
Now for serious, Apple will not let this company go unchecked. They killed off the authorized cloners when they realized that they make more $$$ selling their own hardware than they do by licensing their OS to other manufacturers.

Matlock

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I think the people determining Apple has a monopoly read this word after it was translated from English directly into Farsi, then back to Urdu, and then finally into Cantonese.

-Perhaps this little gnat that has Apple's lawyers firing up the barbecue grills will spur them to finally make the xMac; -which will Never sell for less than half a base MacPro if it ever launches.

And as far as Licensing goes (on an ultimately duplicable thing like software, btw), I see there are ~100 Gil Amelios in the house! ==Awesomest puhtz-job of a CEO in all history, besides Terry Semel!!!
++The people arguing for Psystar are mostly broke-ass consumer-side entitlement-issue Ubuntu LAMP-wankers who are a ~bit less intelligent than The Steve and the rest of the people at Apple. If it were feasible, they'd ~probably have done it.

I'm as much in favor of Fair Prices that keep the software devs we Love in business as most reasonable ppl., but I guarantee you the more stuff you get for free, the more trouble it will be and the less value your own work time will have in the future. (besides, Linux and MySQL are only free if your time is worth nothing). -NOBODY on the Producer side of ANY good/service transaction is in favor of free shit, aside from cheap marketing swag. If you like working 9-5 for free, keep whining about 'free' (disguised however you like) software, etc.. -Then whine some more later when you're asked to donate your 40hrs/week as a grant to 'the state', take a ~50% pay cut, or see your job go abroad. -Best of luck with that.

Love the 'Ma Bell' comparisons here, like more than ~3 people here have Any exposure to corporate antitrust history in any educational sense!!! LOL. -Why not just cite "Standard Oil" for chrissakes! Heheheh! Steve Jobs is Calvin Coolidge. -Sure. ...

wonkydonky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @themclush:

Theres many reasons why apple wants to control their products. It easy to believe that they do it for ovious financial benefits but there is also a lot of truth that apple wants to keep its quality control high and would not be able to if their software is in other peoples machine.

kevman90

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> if this actually happens this would totally suck. Apple would lose some of its reputation because for its beautiful software because it will be run on cheapo computers like these.

I really hope this doesnt happen and this Psystar guy has to pay a huge amount of money if he ever goes through with this.

kevman90

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> CODIFEROUS

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> It's an interesting development. If this goes in favour of Psystar then Apple's OSX system becomes fair game for every computer user whose machine can run an EFI emulator. This will boost OSX sales but inevitably harm Apple hardware sales and, given Apple's reliance on product development to maintain revenue, that could hurt them very, very badly indeed.

Sleeper_Service

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Thank you Mr. Chen. This is a ray of sunshine compared to Mr. Diaz previous strangle negative slant on the subject. Open platforms only help the consumer!

PJK

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @coketown:

what does apple love to do? make money. if apple could make more money letting anyone install OSX as opposed to building pretty boxes would they? hell yes. does anyone really honestly believe apple hasn't run those numbers? no. does apple care about you, me, and the rest of the middle class? hell no, they target alpha 1 consumers.

zamafir

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Kyoseki: typical mac upgrades.. ;)

akmarksman

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> And how will this play out - Apple's next OS release renders these systems useless.

Discofunk

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Hello what the trash is this.
I can't post....
Ticked off

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I can't post this forum sucks...

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> What the crap...

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> This is no more a monopoly than Nintendo only selling games that can be played on a nintendo system.

It didn't stop sony from making the ps.

The people who state apple is just like MS are quite foolish. Apple has no history of Monopoly behavior, MS does, and has been convicted of such.

To have a monopoly case you must use anti competitive tactics to prevent others from creating/distributing a product.

iTunes is not stopping sony from making a good player and a good store to buy stuff from. Apple just keeps releasing superior products that people want more than, oh I don't know... Zunes? It would be anti competitive, and dumb, to say you can only play music purchased on iTunes on your iPod.

The problem is that the analogy is all wrong.

Its more like people whining because they can't get a BMW motor in their Toyota.

To ask BMW to make motors for all other vendors is plain dumb, Just like this fables apple is more monoplistic than microsoft crap.

Look at history, here is the DOJ's findings on microsoft.
[www.usdoj.gov]

I dare you, try to find a case where apple pushed a competitor out of the market by stealing or lying or just plain breaking a contract like microsoft did.

If you find one I would love to know about it.

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Pender:
from a legal standpoint you are all way off.
2 conditions must apply for someone to be granted a win in a monopoly case.
#1 - majority maketshare in the industry,
#2 - preventing competition either because of or to get to the majority marketshare.

Apple's current business model violates neither
#1 is quite obvious %15 is not majority.
#2 apple has done nothing other manufactures to stop bundling software with hardware.

The problem is his analogy is all wrong. Its more like saying a BMW engine should work in Honda. Which is absurd to make one car manufacture make engines for another.

Its like Nintendo games (software) can only be played on Nintendo's(hardware). When Nintendo had the monopoly it didn't stop Sony from making The PS and then it gained the Monopoly, now it could go back to Nintendo.

The computer market right now is very competitive and apple is doing nothing to stop a new competitor from entering the arena. The guy here has no case, he will lose.

Tthe whole iTunes thing is a mute point, apple won that. Apple said they want to offer DRM free music, but the labels force them to use DRM. It would be a monopolistic tactic to say that you have to purchase all the music you want on your ipod from the iTunes store. But apple doesn't care, in fact if you look at apples financials you will find that apple makes next to nothing off the iTunes store. Why? They make their money off the iPods not iTunes. iTunes is just there to make it easy for consumers with iPods to get music. Again nothing is preventing sony from make a music player with an easy to navigate store.

Whoever said apple is more like a monopoly than Microsoft is severely mislead, and simply does not know anything about the history of computing.

For starters, Microsoft has been convicted multiple times in court for monopolistic behavior. Apple has not.

Apple does not have a history of lying to and stealing from its partners, Microsoft does.

Microsoft stole dos,
Microsoft violated its partnership/contract with apple to not release a window based computer until 5 years after apple did - started windows.
Microsoft told all of its partners it was going to use OS/2 for its future development, then released windows 95 and left all the software makers struggling to catch up. - MS Office gain control before any other software could catch up.
Do I have to mention Netscape?

The list goes on and on, look at the anti trust case, almost every manufacture filed a grievance against Microsoft. Look here:
[www.usdoj.gov]

Apple has no history of violating its partners or competitors like microsoft.

If you don't like their business model that is fine, but it is perfectly legal.
But to call them a Monopoly is simply uninformed, or quite foolish.

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> from a legal standpoint you are all way off.
2 conditions must apply for someone to be granted a win in a monopoly case.
#1 - majority maketshare in the industry,
#2 - preventing competition either because of or to get to the majority marketshare.

Apple's current business model violates neither
#1 is quite obvious %15 is not majority.
#2 apple has done nothing other manufactures to stop bundling software with hardware.

The problem is his analogy is all wrong. Its more like saying a BMW engine should work in Honda. Which is absurd to make one car manufacture make engines for another.

Its like Nintendo games (software) can only be played on Nintendo's(hardware). When Nintendo had the monopoly it didn't stop Sony from making The PS and then it gained the Monopoly, now it could go back to Nintendo.

The computer market right now is very competitive and apple is doing nothing to stop a new competitor from entering the arena. The guy here has no case, he will lose.

Tthe whole iTunes thing is a mute point, apple won that. Apple said they want to offer DRM free music, but the labels force them to use DRM. It would be a monopolistic tactic to say that you have to purchase all the music you want on your ipod from the iTunes store. But apple doesn't care, in fact if you look at apples financials you will find that apple makes next to nothing off the iTunes store. Why? They make their money off the iPods not iTunes. iTunes is just there to make it easy for consumers with iPods to get music. Again nothing is preventing sony from make a music player with an easy to navigate store.

Whoever said apple is more like a monopoly than Microsoft is severely mislead, and simply does not know anything about the history of computing.

For starters, Microsoft has been convicted multiple times in court for monopolistic behavior. Apple has not.

Apple does not have a history of lying to and stealing from its partners, Microsoft does.

Microsoft stole dos,
Microsoft violated its partnership/contract with apple to not release a window based computer until 5 years after apple did - started windows.
Microsoft told all of its partners it was going to use OS/2 for its future development, then released windows 95 and left all the software makers struggling to catch up. - MS Office gain control before any other software could catch up.
Do I have to mention Netscape?

The list goes on and on, look at the anti trust case, almost every manufacture filed a grievance against Microsoft. Look here:
[www.usdoj.gov]

Apple has no history of violating its partners or competitors like microsoft.

If you don't like their business model that is fine, but it is perfectly legal.
But to call them a Monopoly is simply uninformed, or quite foolish.

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> from a legal standpoint you are all way off.
2 conditions must apply for someone to be granted a win in a monopoly case.
#1 - majority maketshare in the industry,
#2 - preventing competition either because of or to get to the majority marketshare.

Apple's current business model violates neither
#1 is quite obvious %15 is not majority.
#2 apple has done nothing other manufactures to stop bundling software with hardware.

The problem is his analogy is all wrong. Its more like saying a BMW engine should work in Honda. Which is absurd to make one car manufacture make engines for another.

Its like Nintendo games (software) can only be played on Nintendo's(hardware). When Nintendo had the monopoly it didn't stop Sony from making The PS and then it gained the Monopoly, now it could go back to Nintendo.

The computer market right now is very competitive and apple is doing nothing to stop a new competitor from entering the arena. The guy here has no case, he will lose.

Tthe whole iTunes thing is a mute point, apple won that. Apple said they want to offer DRM free music, but the labels force them to use DRM. It would be a monopolistic tactic to say that you have to purchase all the music you want on your ipod from the iTunes store. But apple doesn't care, in fact if you look at apples financials you will find that apple makes next to nothing off the iTunes store. Why? They make their money off the iPods not iTunes. iTunes is just there to make it easy for consumers with iPods to get music. Again nothing is preventing sony from make a music player with an easy to navigate store.

Whoever said apple is more like a monopoly than Microsoft is severely mislead, and simply does not know anything about the history of computing.

For starters, Microsoft has been convicted multiple times in court for monopolistic behavior. Apple has not.

Apple does not have a history of lying to and stealing from its partners, Microsoft does.

Microsoft stole dos,
Microsoft violated its partnership/contract with apple to not release a window based computer until 5 years after apple did - started windows.
Microsoft told all of its partners it was going to use OS/2 for its future development, then released windows 95 and left all the software makers struggling to catch up. - MS Office gain control before any other software could catch up.
Do I have to mention Netscape?

The list goes on and on, look at the anti trust case, almost every company in the IT buisness filed a grievance against Microsoft.
Look here:
[www.usdoj.gov]

Apple has no history of violating its partners or competitors like microsoft. If you can find a case where they tried to stop a competing product or lied about their future to get ahead please post I would love to know about it. I currently don't know of any.

If you don't like their business model thats fine, but it is perfectly legal.
But to call them monopolistic is either uninformed, or quite foolish.

Nathan005

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I don't think this is breaking a monopoly law.... It would only be a monopoly if Apple restricted companies from using any other OS systems than Mac.

Besides, this stupid company will get no business.

pardyhardy

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "I don't recall Mr. Gates ever selling a single piece of hardware, but he seems to have done OK for himself." - themclush

Welcome to the Social.

LagunaSol

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "Why would it be a good idea to run OSX on any random computer and have the potential for tons of problems when their business plan is working completely fine right now?" - redkamel

Because Windows users believe that endless, agonizing software/hardware conflicts build character? That fighting technology is somehow more important than using it? That every man should be willing to endure years of torment just to save a few hundred bucks on generic hardware with sour milk from Redmond running through its pipes? That true freedom lies in the burning streets of computing anarchy?

Alas, no one can understand the logic of a Vista-tormented soul...

Not for me, my friends. Not for me.

LagunaSol

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @winexprt:
So, how in the world is Apple forcing you to use their hardware!?

Whoops! "hardware" should've read "OS".

winexprt

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "Even if Psystar's machines aren't anything spectacular, if they can set a legal precedent for third-party manufacturers selling OS X-bundled machines, that would be a win for everybody."

Well, until Apple went bust and there were no more OS X updates. Because right now, OS X development is in large part funded by Apple's hardware sales.

mathew

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Gofastmazda: Ok ok, I'll take the bait.

I don't drink coffee, but on the off chance I do drink it I absolutely despise SB.

Oh yeah, and I've got an overpriced Mac. I paid just over $2000 for it sometime in high school [including some later upgrades] in 1999. Oh, and I still use it everyday and I have the most recent operating system running on it. How many 9 year old PC's can run Vista?

Also, who's more of an idiot? Me for paying $2k for a computer that has lasted nine years, or the people that buy a corporate PC every two? Heck, even if you build a completely new one for $500 [which is a low estimate] every two years to play them fancy games you'd still lose.

I may be one of the lucky Mac users, but that doesn't mean I'm automatically some smug prick, like your trollish post. Congratulations.

madog

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @One2ManyCords wrote:
"that's why they are suing and this is why Ma Bell was broken up and why energy was deregulated....."

FYI, Ma Bell was broken up (and rightly so) due to the fact that if you wanted to communicate with someone via the Telephone, you had no other choice than to use their service.

NOT Fair, and an Obvious and clear Monopoly.

Energy was similarly deregulated (or regulated, depending on which side you stood on) because if you wanted the benefit of a certain type of energy, you had no other choice than to use that one provider.

Another Obvious Monopoly, patently unfair to the consumer.

To say those two examples of egregious monopolistic behavior has ANY remote bearing to this Psystar case stretches the limits of imagination to the breaking point.

So, how in the world is Apple forcing you to use their hardware!? Because it's bundled with their hardwae you say? Well, so what I say. In the world of computing, is Apple and its OS X (with its corresponding hardware) your ONLY choice? If the answer is no, then out the window your claim of an unfair monopoly flies. For you have many choices of OS's to choose from, as well as hardware. No one really "Needs" to use an Apple OS. It's your choice. You are free to go on your merry way if you choose not to get a well designed laptop or desktop along with a great OS: OS X. And I totally back Apple's right to do that.

Please tell me: What "Rights" or claims does one have to OS X apart from what Apple gives you? Is there some god-given right to do as you please with OS X inscribed somewhere in the Bill Of Rights that I don't know about?

Now let me see if I get this Pro-Psystar stance straight: some for profit company takes another company's OS that its makers SPECIFICALLY told you that if you bought it, it was only to be installed on their (Apple) hardware, and then takes that OS and installs it on one of THEIR machines, and then sells that machine back to the public.

And Apple's supposed to have no problem with that!!!???

Wow.

winexprt

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nojo: you don't have to have a monopoly to break anti-monopoly laws necessarily... also, apple *does* have a monopoly on apple computers now don't they? so in that sense it also depends on how you define their market... it's a complicated issue

oldmanstan

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @LagunaSol: I'll add to that and help kill the Monopoly theory_ Apple built Bootcamp which allows Winodws to run on their very own hardware_ Kinda deflates the Monopoly theory - not to mention how pretty much many forms of Linux have been able to run on a Mac since the beginning of time_

uberfu

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Hardy Heron drops in less than two weeks. Just get that.

TomHayden

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Oh this just gets better and better_ Waiting for Apple to pounce this mouse!!

uberfu

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> The Honda analogy is strained, it would however be pretty close if Honda rebranded Chevron gasoline at a significant markup and voided your warranty if you used the Chevron gas instead of their own.

The only reason anyone's bitching and moaning about this is because OS X is actually a great piece of software, but most of us don't like having terms dictated to us when all we want to do is buy the thing and use it how we see fit.

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Waaaaahhh, Honda is a monopoly because they only put Honda motors in their cars!!!

Give me a break.

You people who think Apple is a monopoly just because they put their own software on their own hardware need to crack open a dictionary and look up the word.

You can't monopolize your own business, morons.

Your desperate attempts to make Apple look as pathetic as Microsoft fail.

LagunaSol

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Catalyst: Apple has already faced suits claiming a vertical monopoly over the ipod and itunes, so how is this any different?

Market share.

Apple owns less than 10 percent of the "operating system" market. (Thanks, Kaiser.) But Apple rules in the MP3 player market (especially a few years ago), and for a time iTunes was the only game in town for legitimate music downloads -- which could only play on iPods because of FairPlay.

A "monopoly" exists (or doesn't) in the context of its market. One reason Microsoft invested $200 million in Apple when Jobs returned was because it needed a OS "competitor" to fend off the Feds.

nojo

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Mac don't want to offer low end systems, the R&D cost is too great for a relatively small company to make it's money back, and I'm ok with that.

Cheap shit doesn't work very well, Mac want to limit themselves to quality hardware, ok, I can buy that, but why is it only the quality hardware that has their label on it?

The reason I want Mac to be less restrictive about OS X is not because I want to run it more cheaply, but because I want more flexibility in the system I build - and I don't want to upgrade it by throwing it out and buying another one.

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I just checked the PsyStar website. They're located in Miami. Based on the fact they are already open to selling the Open Computer, expect a lawsuit to be filed by Apple in federal court by the end of the week (at the latest), with some pleading for injunctive relief to prevent sales from continuing.

Samifumi

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> who runs Pystar? eleven year olds? did they even think this thing through?

Apple has no monoply. People can buy a comparable product to any Apple product. Apple also doesnt use its products in ways that are non-competetive...that is pricing things lower to screw other companies/ make their software difficult to uninstall. Their selling point is that you pay more so everything works together.

None of the analogies people are using are even apt. Nintendo, Sony, Sega, Jordans as a fad? They are still around and kicking. Companies required to use Apple? uh the only proprietary software Apple has is iLife, Aperture, and FCP...all of which have PC versions.

This is not the same as Microsofts Anti Trust suit...Explorer can be bundled with Windows (and still is I believe), just not in a way that is purposely difficult to uninstall for no reason other than to gain browser market share.

and why would opening OSX to run on any computer be a good thing? do you guys even know anything about how the company works? Why would it be a good idea to run OSX on any random computer and have the potential for tons of problems when their business plan is working completely fine right now?

redkamel

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I have no problem with them doing this if they want to go ahead they may fill in a void for cheap computers and imac and mac pros.

I'd rather like to see apple release a cheap computer system and dont say a mac mini im talking about a full system with monitor etc what you would expect with any other 500 dollar system for the simple fact that some may not be able to afford 1000+ for a complete desktop or notebook.

and before the mac mini have they had any thing with a cheap price no, i could see them winning this if it was before the introduction of the mac mini because they just go on with the elitist approach and saying how there discriminating segments of the market buy using there software to make users pay 1000s for there brand of computers when they could offer the software to be used on other cheaper computers or offer something in that price range.

Whom ever says cost is not an issue is wrong get a group of average people no geeks, nerds or tech junkies and let them pick what they would buy a dell with monitor etc. or a mac mini both at 500 dollars which will they choose the will choose the dell because it has the monitor

utube2007

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Kyoseki: lol

alphanuderek1980

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> greenwald3132: dells xps one is NOT cheaper than an iMac. If your gonna try to make an argument atleast have the decency to NOT make up "facts".

mybeyotchhaysoos

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Why the hell would I buy one of those machines? If I wanted a mediocre attempt at a headless machine that ran OS X I'd buy a Mac Mini :)

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Honestly I dislike Macs but what I dislike more are people that would force a companys hand by hiding behind lawsuits. I think that apple could have a potential to open a new market. But its apple's choice to do what they want with their software. If they dont want to its their choice. They have constructed a business model that I disagree with but it seems to work in their favor and no one has the right to force them to change it. Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.

heavyhands

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Can I get a show of hands of people that have actually bit the bullet and bought one of these machines? Just reply to this comment with the word "hand". I'm just curious.

alphanuderek1980

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> mybeyotchhaysoos

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @One2ManyCords: You dont read. You jump to conclusions based on what you THINK I'm saying.

No where in my posting did I suggest that "licensing" was bad OR good for Apple. What I did suggest was that PsyStar would be putting itself in a poor strategic position if this escalated into a lawsuit.

Let's recap where I was at this morning, and what materialized later in the day.

[gizmodo.com]

Read the posting I made at 11:06 AM this morning.

Subsequently, Mr Chen then posted the following at 8:41 PM: Psystar is going to fight by claiming a monopoly. Wow. Imagine that.

If PsyStar is stupid enough to release these computers with OS X PREINSTALLED, they'll lose immediately on a summary judgment after the suit is filed by Apple and their product will never see the light of day. Why? Because it's a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Distribution is one of the exclusive rights that are afforded copyright holders. Now, if they set the machine to give the consumer a choice and install Leopard on their own, Apple has a tougher legal battle on their hands because its a secondary liability theory, a much more difficult theory for Apple to premise their copyright infringement claim.

Samifumi

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @ZeroCorpse:

As I'm sure many of Apple's components come from places like China...other companies can put together a similar set of hardware to meet the Mac's specs in say, a different case, smaller form-factor etc. These machines will be able to complete tasks just as quickly as their official counterparts only without the excessive premiums put on top.

legacye

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> The lulz, THE LULZ, make them stop I'm dying.

alphanuderek1980

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Wow. I never noticed that. But no matter what size the company, if they violate monopoly or anti-trust laws, they're screwed.

Megan Fox Iz Hot! ^-^ - ph15h

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @mcg1969: Agreed. If they were all the brilliant billion dollar computer marketing strategists they think they are, they would have 7 figure income and not have time to comentard on Giz.

nightsky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nightsky: I have no trouble beef with the Hackintosh crowd. Hell, I think it's cool. And I too run all three OS's, out of sheer necessity. I'm just finding all of this amateur legal speculation and business consulting on this forum to be rather funny. Me? I have no idea what Apple can do to make more money than it does now, to best advance the interests of its shareholders. But I sure as heck know that nobody posting here has enough knowledge of their internals to make the call, either.

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @One2ManyCords: My point, which you've actually added evidence to, is this: what makes a few Gizmodo commenters so sure that they know how to increase Apple's bottom line? No, your financial status doesn't have much if anything to do with it---but that fact that you're not in the business sure as heck does. Apple will license their OS when and only when they see a clear benefit to their bottom line doing so. I'm not an Apple fanboy so much as I am a profit fanboy. I am certain that the corporate bigwigs at Apple are driven not by some magical devotion to the Apple brand but by money.
That is not to say that they could be wrong in their estimation of their best business strategy moving forward. Heaven knows Apple has made its poor chioces in the past (G4 Cube anyone?) And you and others might very well be right! Hell, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. But given your lack of exposure to their business, who do you think I should put my bettin' money on?

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @ZeroCorpse: so if MS did this...then Vista would actually kick OSX's ass.....just a question, no fanboism

Cordfucious

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @ZeroCorpse: Ok, but what about if we're using practically the same hardware Apple are using? The hardware NVidia and Intel make for Apple isn't magically better than the rest of the stuff they make.

Apple don't need to support no name hardware manufacturers to keep people happy.

I have a system that is entirely Intel/NVidia, it runs OS X perfectly well once you trick it into installing and performance wise it embarrasses everything in the Apple line up except the Mac Pro, what's more is it costs a grand less than the top of the line iMac and even has on board RAID which is an $800 option on the Mac Pro, it's even in a case that will take a hell of a lot more abuse than a Mac Pro's tower.

The only reason Apple don't allow me to run OS X on this box is because they want me to buy an inferior and more expensive system just to run it.

I'd be perfectly happy spending $500 on an OS X license for this machine, it would be nice to have the choice, but then Apple aren't big on choice.

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I wonder how they got around the EFI...
Those motherboards aren't too common, aren't they? If their hacking involved any Apple code, would that be grounds for copyright violation?


18daves

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> ZeroCorpse

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Samifumi: Assclown.... how original.. I applaud you for your use of the words ass and clown in harmonious union......

I think you NEED TO READ about the anti-trust law suit against MS and the whole IE fiasco and how the EU (thats assclown speak for European Union)frowns upon propietary-ness. Thats why your windows has that little blue E on it, and apple/netscape/aol fought to the bitter end...ok stay with me now sport. and to quote you "give the consumer a choice". What exactly do you think PsyStar is trying to do...that's why they are suing and this is why Ma Bell was broken up and why energy was deregulated.....

Was that simple enough for you....
[en.wikipedia.org]

yours truly

one2manyassclowns

"now imma add a muthafucka so you ignant ******'s hear me"

MUTHAFUCKA

Cordfucious

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> ZeroCorpse

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> RobotVampire

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> "Even if Psystar's machines aren't anything spectacular, if they can set a legal precedent for third-party manufacturers selling OS X-bundled machines, that would be a win for everybody."

Particularly Microsoft.

There are reasons that Apple hasn't licensed the OS (and based on their success since Jobs took over, they've got some history to justify them).

First, as people have said, it makes the OS development far more simple if you control the hardware. And no, it's not on the consumer if they install OS X on a computer that supposedly runs Leopard and there are problems. You get customers saying "Oh, yeah, I was running OS X, what a pile of junk".

Second, when something is needed for the software, it appears in the hardware. USB and Firewire appeared across all the lines because they saw opportunities that used them. If they want to feature wireless networking, the laptops all get WiFi added to them.

Third, the research and development isn't cheap. Hardware sales bring the money in to justify it. OS sales are only a fraction. And because the OS sales are going to be even more important, the issue of someone installing the same copy on several computers (or even piracy) is a lot more important.

Fourth, and biggest...as makers of a different platform, Microsoft is a business partner, making software that runs on Macs. As OS sellers, Microsoft is a direct competitor. And I'm sure the file of "dirty tricks to bury a competing OS" hasn't been lost. The history of computing is littered with companies that saw gold in taking on Microsoft in the OS market, and they're pretty much gone. One of those companies was NeXT, and Jobs rarely makes the same mistake twice.

So no, Apple isn't going to accept being turned from a hardware manufacturer into a software manufacturer. And I'm really glad I don't work for Pystar tonight.

Gadgetdon

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @mcg1969: I think this is cool. Frankly, I use as much free and open source as I can. I use Linux for quite a bit of my computing and only use Apple because I love Keynote and a few other apps. I also have Windows XP on this machine because I like Word on Windows better, (experimenting with open office) and I like certain aspects of Windows better than Mac. So with three operating systems on my laptop, all with linked partitions, I can use the best of them all. I am no fanboy of any one system, but I would probably use Linux more if I could.

nightsky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> where do I send my donation to the "Prystar defense fund"? Can't wait for someone to stick it to Stevo. Boom this! :D

froggy

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Hilarious to see the obsessive apple fan boys pissing themselves at the thought their precious apple computers may become worthless overnight. What? You could potentially buy an apple OS installed computer for a fraction of the price of the overpriced crap apple sells?

What will you smug mofos sipping lattes at starbucks with your macbooks do? How will you be able to express your douchebaggery now?!?

To the article, how is apple forcing OSX to be sold with apple computers any different from how Microsoft used to so aggressive bundle windows media explorer and internet explorer with windows, and how it was next to impossible to integrate with another browser or media player? Remember the monopoly lawsuits MS faced? This is the same thing.

I'm pretty sure this will be a win for Psystar.

Gofastmazda

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> But apple could argue that if a software e made exclusive to windows, that's a monopoly too.

I don't knw man just a tough just too wasted to read the enteri discusion here

Jeremias

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @mcg1969: Physical impracticality may stop you, I'm doubting Microsoft care one way or the other.

Nobody gave a damn about this when Apple was using PowerPC based systems, because they were fundamentally different architectures, but the only difference between Macs and PC's hardware wise these days is a little piece of firmware that says "I'm a Mac" as evidenced by the fact that you can run OS X on generic PC hardware with minimal trickery.

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @One2ManyCords: Look assclown: go back to the post and read it before you start spouting off. If they sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed, they've violated Apple's copyright distribution rights, and they'll lose easy. Give the consumer a choice, PsyStar will potentially face a secondary liability copyright infringement claim (ie PsyStar facilitates copyright infringement), but they would have the Fair Use defense of the consumer to rely upon, and then turn the monopoly/antitrust argument against Apple.

Read next time.

Samifumi

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @mcg1969: and this is why most big business fail. What in the hell does my financial status have to do with my ability to to discern good business sense. I am a small business owner my self and in the industry in which I do business (Catering and Foodservice) it would be foolish of me to distance myself of knowledge because of ones financial prowess. But last time I checked the goal of a business and capitalisim is to make as much money as possible and when you have reached that....start over and try to make more. This is why business change their model.... its called innovation and reorganization if I'm not mistaken. Ask IBM. This is why "consulting firms" exist.... a bunch of poor asses who BILK the stupidly rich for COMMON SENSE "poor mans" answers.

Cordfucious

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Good point, themclush. I guess I'll buy an Xbox 360 and install Vista on it then, I mean, Microsoft won't stop me, right?

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Ungh, fail :)

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @jnriga: It usually amazes me how much it ends up costing, I'll give you that :)

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> href="#c5191168">jnriga: It usually amazes me how much it costs, I'll give you that :)@

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Fascinating question: Does copyright trump monopoly law? Is the Apple EULA an illegal tie-in sale?

More difficult question - Why is Apple so obsessed with control? I don't recall Mr. Gates ever selling a single piece of hardware, but he seems to have done OK for himself.

themclush

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @rfaulder: Thank jesus. Someone that 'gets' it. Part of Apple's strength is the wonderful combination of hardware and software making a package that seldom disappoints, and usually amazes.

This is the 1st I've heard of the company called Psystar, and after this, I imagine the last. Won't see me crying.

jnriga

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Depends. Are they as clueless as you about the law?

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Don't let your lack of knowledge of the subject stop you Apple fanbois from spouting off. Apple has already faced suits claiming a vertical monopoly over the ipod and itunes, so how is this any different?

If I run a business that requires me to run OSX, I have to buy my hardware from them at ridiculously inflated prices. To get the Apple OS, I have to have Apple hardware. They will not work seperately. Exclusive dealing and product trying, both considered as anti-competitive practices.

You think a jury couldn't be convinced of that?

Catalyst

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Momopoly, monopoly, whatever. I'm still chuckling over the idea that it's a monopoly because Apple has "100% of the Apple market." And the Wii has 100% of the Wii market, too! And Dell has 100% of the Dell market! Lawsuits lawsuits everywhere!

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Yes folks, momopoly. The new game from Miltan Brawdly.

nightsky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @nightsky: Where can I buy a Wii OS disc? Or a 360 OS disc? Or one for a PS3?

OS'es on games consoles are firmware, the comparison isn't valid,

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @greenwald3132: From what I've seen on Dell's site, none of the XPS one systems are much cheaper, if at all.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> oops

bought not brought... lol

dOk

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Somebody get out the kiddy pool, the lawn chairs and pass me a PBR, it looks like we're in for a....

FANBOY FIGHT!!

yooper1019

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @someToast

well yes thats also because those machines were actually superior to what Apple was building at the time...

Check my earlier post in the 1st article about this and you will see where I stated that Apple brought those 2 companies and integrated their technology into its Macs. ( Classic Borg maneuver )

dOk

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Kyoseki: The Wii has had OS update several times since it's release.

nightsky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Sturm Truppen: It is. It only is suposed to run on Apple machines, nothing else. That is 100% of the Apple market. Momopoly.

nightsky

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> Yeah, I remember the last time they did that. That worked out well.

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> oops, misplaced apostrophe there

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> No-one (sane) is suggesting Apple adopt the Microsoft licensing scheme of trying to please everyone, they can still control the drivers and only allow Apple certification on certain devices, namely the ones they're already using.

This isn't even a cost thing, there are a number of reasons I don't own an iMac, but cost is not one of them.

Kyoseki

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @One2ManyCords: Well, I sure am glad you have more money than Steve Jobs. Wait, what's that... you don't? You don't even have as much money as Steve Job's labrador retriever? Well then, who the heck are you telling us how Apple could make more money than they do now? Seems to me the billions in cash they have sitting around are evidence they might know a bit better than you how their business model works.

I shouldn't just pick on you, of course; coketown and others seem to think they know more about Apple's business than Apple does, too. But let's get serious here: saying that licensing is the way to go doesn't make it so. There's not a company on the planet that wouldn't axe half its staff and eliminate entire operations if doing so would boost their quarterly profits. But it's gonna take more than a couple of web commenters to actually convince them that's worth doing.

mcg1969

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> @Kyoseki: AMEN

Cordfucious

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]>

@dOk: "Don't even think for 5 seconds the the fanboy base would buy anything other than an Apple built Mac."

Ask all the fanboys around in the late 90s with Power Computing or UMAX hardware if they felt that they were any less of a Mac user. The OS is more important than the box (especially then).

Now notebooks... they're a different story.

someToast

]]> <![CDATA[Mac Clone Maker Psystar Says Apple's EULA Violates Monopoly Laws, Wants to Challenge it in Court]]> I'd be surprised if it was possible to force Apple to do anything with OS X, it's their software, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

... however, when people see it running just as well on a machine that costs half as much (not in this instance, but there are other perfectly valid and far more powerful configurations out there), they just might start wondering what the hell they're spending all that money on.

Kyoseki

]]>