Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 15th Jul 2008 17:45 UTC, submitted by Thom_Holwerda
Legal Apple has filed a suit (more details) on July 3rd against Psystar in the northern district of California. Psystar dubbed its cheap Mac Clone as Open Computer and started shipping them around April of this year.
Thread beginning with comment 323052
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by satan666
by Kroc on Tue 15th Jul 2008 20:23 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

(edit: I should add that this isn't aimed directly at you, merely an in-general statement brought about by your comment)

If you don't agree with Apple's practices and terms, don't buy their stuff.

Seriously, is this really, really hard for people to grasp or something?

It feels like people have this misconception that "voting with your wallet" means buying a companies stuff even though they disagree with them, and then complaining about it endlessly.

Apple can tell people what to do with their hardware and software as long as people keep buying it, regardless of "come see the violence inherit in the system!" complaints.

Edited 2008-07-15 20:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Tue 15th Jul 2008 20:34 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

I wouldn't buy anything from Apple, not even an iPod.
Not giving their blessing to Psystar is one thing. Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)?
This is a regrettable decision for the consumers (less choice) and for Apple (this is how you get more market share). Whatever, I don't give a flying shit actually.
I won't buy a Mac or a Mac clone in a thousand years.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by raver31 on Tue 15th Jul 2008 20:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)?


This is a very bad move. I mean, the latest Apples are just dual core pentiums with intel gfx. Pretty much standard on dirt cheap PC's

Are we mow going to see Apple sue every PC manufacturer becuse someone "might" be able to install OSX on their white box ?

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by TLZ_ on Tue 15th Jul 2008 21:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Mac tried to licence it's OS to ther hardware makers. There where problems, and it didn't help them get more market share either.

In short: it was a experience for Apple. They probably don't want to repeat that mistake. (+ Jobs is a crazy controlfreak.)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by Mage66 on Wed 16th Jul 2008 14:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

>> Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)? <<

Apple isn't suing Psystar for selling "MacOS X Compatible Hardware", because they aren't. Nobody can. Apple puts stuff on the boards and in the BIOS that MacOS X looks for, and that nobody else can legally replicate. Plus, it wouldn't be financially sound for someone to keep re-engineering boards to be MacOS X compatible.

Apple is suing Psystar for selling systems pre-loaded with MacOS X and modifying MacOS X to work on otherwise incompatible boards.

Apple is claiming that Psystar is selling a derivative and unlicensed version of MacOS X. Which is based on the Retail MacOS X, but is altered in contravention of the license.

Whether that will hold up in court is interesting.

In any event, Apple makes more money from iPods and iPhones and the iTunes Music Store.

If they lose this suit and tons of Apple Clones start being marketed by Dell and Gateway... It won't hurt them all that much.

It might hurt us if Apple decides not to continue making computers or slows down the development on MacOS X.

We might lose, even if we "win".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by MacTO on Tue 15th Jul 2008 23:31 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

If you don't agree with Apple's practices and terms, don't buy their stuff.


In most cases, I would say that is true. As for PsyStar itself, their actions may be construed as an act of civil disobedience. This was not under the table stuff. It was done in plain view. Unfortunately, there was monetary gain. But it could be argued that Apple would not have launced a credible lawsuit based upon the EULA otherwise.

It feels like people have this misconception that "voting with your wallet" means buying a companies stuff even though they disagree with them, and then complaining about it endlessly.


Some people have this misconception that businesses are democratic, and that buying stuff is a means of giving them a vote. This is completely untrue, which is one reason why transactions with businesses are subject to a lot of regulation.

Some of those regulations concern the ownership of property. This entails rights which pretty much every EULA argues that you do not have. The sad fact is, too much of our computer use is governed by EULAs. Even open source software presents an EULA to the user, even though those are much more balanced than their commercial counterparts.

So if someone wants to take on a company like Apple to try to invalidate, or at least limit the use of, EULAs, I congratulate them. And I sincerely hope that is what Psystar was trying to do when coming out in such a public manner.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by apoclypse on Wed 16th Jul 2008 16:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

How is it civil disobedience to steal someone else's hard work and try to make cash out of it. Don't make them into a martyr, they are far from it. The author of the OSX86 project clearly denounced the project as he didn't intend his work to be used commercially, yet Psystar went ahead and did it anyway. Civil disobedience my ass, they are plain crooks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 16th Jul 2008 00:21 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

If you don't agree with Apple's practices and terms, don't buy their stuff.


You seem to have misspelled "love it or leave it!"

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by CrazyDude1 on Wed 16th Jul 2008 00:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
CrazyDude1 Member since:
2007-09-17

But we have right to criticize what Apple does right? This is about freedom of speech.

Apple IMO is worst company. One that itself [ab]uses open source and on top of that doesn't even let users decide what hardware they want to run their OS on.

Rotten Apple!

Edited 2008-07-16 00:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Jon Dough on Wed 16th Jul 2008 09:05 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

If you don't agree with Apple's practices and terms, don't buy their stuff.

Seriously, is this really, really hard for people to grasp or something?

It feels like people have this misconception that "voting with your wallet" means buying a companies stuff even though they disagree with them, and then complaining about it endlessly.


Indeed. Complaints about the business practices of a large mass-merchandiser and the way they undercut the "Mom & Pop" stores abound, but these same people shop there because it's cheaper than anywhere else! Can't have it both ways....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Soulbender on Wed 16th Jul 2008 10:17 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Apple can tell people what to do with their hardware and software as long as people keep buying it, regardless of "come see the violence inherit in the system!" complaints.


Well, sure, they can tell people that but that doesn't mean people have an obligation to follow. That's what we call consumer law.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by RRepster on Wed 16th Jul 2008 17:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
RRepster Member since:
2008-06-18

who died and made you boss of people's opinions? Complaining about a licensing practice or product is just as much a way of "wallet voting" as anything else. Besides, when it comes to large companies as well as monopolies "wallet voting" does NOT work which is the whole point of anti-trust.

I'm not saying that Apple is a monopoly at all btw I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument satan666.

Reply Parent Score: 1