Star Psystar Sues Apple, Demands Apple Stops Tying Snow Leopard
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
Law and Order The week isn't even over yet, and we already have another instalment in the Apple-Psystar soap opera. Psystar has filed a new lawsuit in the Florida Southern District Court in Miami, asking for an injunction and damages because of Apple's "anticompetitive attempts to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to its Macintosh line of computers".
E-mail Print r 3   · Read More · 118 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/h1a
Permalink for comment 381964
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I'm confused...
by Morgan on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'm confused..."
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

You can't say "EULAs aside" because that's exactly the point of the matter: Psystar broke Apple's EULA and is trying to justify it in very creative ways.


Yes I can. I can say anything I damn well please. Or am I suddenly not allowed (by whom??) to be able to discuss the hardware aspects of this case, or the marketing aspects?

The EULA is a set of terms set by the creator of the software. Apple made some hardware, and made some software, and said "here's the package, take it or leave it."


But, as others here have said, it's not quite that simple. Apple sells OS X in a retail box as well as bundling it with the hardware they sell; it's not just a package deal. Given that, it is no more logical for them to restrict me from installing it on my generic box I bought from Psystar or whomever, than it is for Microsoft to tell me I can't install Windows on my toaster. Fact is, Microsoft has never said you can only install Windows on a certain brand or even type of computer; if they did that they wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't be an OS developer for long.


If you don't like the EULA terms fine, don't buy, or return what you bought and you'll be reimbursed. Because the EULA is the only thing giving you a license to do anything with Mac OS X, and if you don't agree to it you have no rights over it, period.


That's another huge debate in itself, which is why I said "EULAs aside"; I wasn't focusing on EULA validity. That has been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere for years. My point was and still is that Apple is being mighty hypocritical about it. To avoid looking the fool, they should either allow OS X to be installed on any compatible hardware (with no expectation of support if it's not an Apple machine) or they should not sell it as a retail OS.


Comparison with Windows is null, because it's apples and oranges. Microsoft have a licensing model which allows a hardware-maker to pair Windows with their own hardware, in fact it's their main bread winner. As far as the Windows terms of use are concerned, Apple is just another OEM, and perfectly within its rights to offer people methods of installing Windows on its hardware.


A computer is a computer is a computer. Apple is indeed just another OEM, which is why it is so hypocritical for them to try to restrict OS X to only one brand of computer.

Don't get me wrong; I know exactly why Apple won't open up licensing for their OS. For one thing, they would stand to lose a lot of money as they have double digit profit margins on their computers. Apart from the Mac mini, their hardware is quite expensive compared to even high-end generic kit. Also, support calls for non-Apple hardware would go through the roof and quickly overwhelm their support base, never mind that they don't even have to offer support in the first place if they don't want to. The calls will come regardless.

I'm sorry you missed my point entirely and chose to rant about EULAs. While license agreements are a big part in this debate, it's not what I was talking about at all. Perhaps I've clarified enough so you can understand what I'm talking about.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2