Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Dec 2008 22:42 UTC, submitted by anon
Legal The legal back-and-forth between Apple and clone-maker PsyStar continues to develop, with the latest news being a move by Apple - the Cupertino company has invoked something with many already predicted Apple would call upon: the DMCA, or the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This was done in an amendment to the original suit, filed in July this year.
Thread beginning with comment 338991
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why are people so oblivious to the fact...
by Hussein on Wed 3rd Dec 2008 02:46 UTC
Hussein
Member since:
2008-11-22

Apple doesn't want its software on anything but its hardware. Do you really believe the true cost of OS X is $129? The cost of the upgrade copies is subsidized by the cost of Macs (hardware).

"If I buy a car can the manufacturer sue me for putting it on the roof of my house? or for selling that car to someone who wants to use it in his garage? No I think not. Why the hell should PC software be different to a car?"

Buying a Mac (hardware) and putting it on your house's roof or selling it to your friend would be a similar analogy. Apple wont mind you doing that.


"Psystar is essentially selling an extremely modded car with custom bits, and are saying this works how we've modded it, if you make new mods you're on your own."

No that's not it! Not even close! Psystar aren't selling modded Macs. They are selling illegal clones (fake Macs). There are plenty of modded G4 Cubes on eBay, there is nothing illegal about that.

If you want OS X get a Mac. You are not forced to use it. Is OS X so great, and the others are so aweful, that Psystar's only chance of competing is selling Mac clones? I personally don't think so. Windows is the near perfect OS for everyone, so why do people go through the trouble of pirating/hacking OS X, an OS that doesn't have as much useful apps as Windows?
If Psystar really wanted to, they can use BSD or GNU and develop there OS around it. No one is stopping them! They can go further than that and base there OS on Darwin (Mac OS X kernel), the source code is freely avaiable on Apple's website.

Reply Score: -8

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Do you really believe the true cost of OS X is $129?
Yes I do, and with ~plenty~ of profit too.

That's the same price as, or more than, all major competing operating systems.

Reply Parent Score: 8

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

[quote]No that's not it! Not even close! Psystar aren't selling modded Macs. They are selling illegal clones (fake Macs).[/quote]

That's a load of horse crap. They are selling regular PCs that have hardware that is picked to work with Mac OS X along with a legally purchased copy of it.

Sadly, not only Apple wants them to go away, but I bet Microsoft would love to see them go away as well.

Come on, when Steve Jobs thought it through to port the Mac OS to x86 hardware, he should have known that this very thing would eventually happen.

The 'Clone' was what really made Windows successful in the first place. Remember the days when they weren't called 'PC' but called "IBM PC Compatible'? If IBM hadn't allowed the cloning of it's x86 hardware back then, we'd have a lot more choices in our platform than we do now. Whether that would be a good thing or bad thing, is debatable. I think it would be a good thing (competition feeds innovation and all that jazz.)

I say bring on the clones!

Reply Parent Score: 7

Hussein Member since:
2008-11-22

Remember what happened to the IBM PC, it was killed by its own clones.

Reply Parent Score: 0

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Yeah that worked great for IBM, since it practically killed them off. Besides, they did not "allow the clones" at all, they had no choice, because of the way the BIOS was "copied".

And if you recall, Apple did allow clones back in the late 90's and we know how great that worked.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RRepster Member since:
2008-06-18

actually from what I recall IBM was against the clones, what the clone makers did was reverse-engineer the hardware and that's what made it legal.

Reply Parent Score: 1

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

They are only making fake Macs if they copy the design & call them Macs. Otherwise they are just building PCs capable of running the same software as a Mac, and offering a customized software installation service.

Every step of the way, no law is broken. Indeed, most of what they have done is explicitly protected by law.

Go Psystar - I'd never buy one of your machines, but I'm in your corner on this one - all the way!

--The loon


(stupid commas)

Edited 2008-12-03 05:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RRepster Member since:
2008-06-18

exactly right. If the DMCA existed back when the clone makers reverse-engineered the IBM PC we'd all still be using IBM branded machines - or ironically Apple ones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple doesn't want its software on anything but its hardware.


Then maybe they shouldn't have ported to a generic commodity hardware platform.

Do you really believe the true cost of OS X is $129? The cost of the upgrade copies is subsidized by the cost of Macs (hardware).


...which is the exact same rationale that Lexmark used a few years back, when they tried to use the DMCA to prevent "illegal" refills of print cartridges.

I'll ask the same question now that I did back then: if a company (be it Lexmark or Apple) chooses to depend on such a fragile and poorly-conceived business model, then why should they be propped-up? That's like giving out awards for lack of foresight and basic business acumen.

Psystar aren't selling modded Macs. They are selling illegal clones (fake Macs).


So in other words, they're selling PC clones? Because that's effectively what Macs are these days.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They are selling illegal clones (fake Macs).


No they're not, they're selling commodity hardware with a perfectly kosher copy of OSX pre-installed. It's not the same as a clone.
Just because there's a clause in a EULA saying "you cant do X" that doesn't mean it's a valid contract clause. What if it said that you have to give your first-born child to medical research? This is why we have contract law.
It is also worth noting that violating an EULA is not illegal, it's a contract violation.

Reply Parent Score: 4