Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352324
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

"Because Apple did all of the hard work and all of the engineering and especially all of the marketing and as such they deserve all of the profits on their SW."

Psystar is buying their copies of OSX. Apple is getting profit from their hard SW work.

What is also happening, is Apple is not making a profit from their crappy (many dead ibooks) hardware because of tying SW to HW.

----------------------------------
"It may be reasonable, for example, for a vendor of gas tanks to be able to forbid, by a contract entered into at the time of sale, anyone but an authorized agent from recharging the tank."

I don't like that idea exactly, Ford gas stations? Nope. If there were a open or government standard, that a vendor had to meet then make that a law.
-----------------------------------

Can I install OSX on an Asus motherboard installed in a Mac pro case? How about an apple motherboard (http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Apple-Motherboard-c-245.html) in a HP case? Does it matter who made the hard drive? Does an "Apple labeld computer" mean the logo when it boots up?


Anything Apple can do, Microsoft should be able to do? I await the days of the Microsoft PC which only works on "Microsoft labeld computers." Ask yourself, why limit this to software. Maybe your next dictionary will only be legal to read under Merriam-Webster lights.

Reply Parent Score: 1