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.
Thread beginning with comment 352324
To view parent comment, click here.
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

kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Well that is odd because I do not seem to be suggesting anything remotely extreme or unreasonable. The Mac OS comes at a deep subsidy without a lot of hassles about what you can install it on. I do not think that it phones home invades my privacy or even requires a serial number. Heck I _could_ install it on every Mac and PC in the house for the same $129. I do not even want to think what Microsoft would give me for the same 129 U.S.Dollars.

Software is vastly different than a book. When I have a book I generally have one copy - I cannot give one away (or sell or transfer it) and then go to the library grab one of the shelf and say 'see-ya' I own this.

I am speaking more to the lines of Apple HW. YOU can install whatever you buy on whatever you want. That if I was a lawyer (my dad is) I know that I would not even send a paralegal or even a legal secretary to think about telling you what to do with a copy that you bought.

HOWEVER when a company starts a business model on the back of the RD that comes from another company, well that is just bad ethics. No Apple does not own the x86 reference instruction set but they do own the OS you buy a license.

This is real simple a company or a copyright holder has the right to protect their copyright or trademark. McD could sell a whopper and BK can sell a big mac, but I cannot open a McG and sell both the Whopper and the Big Mac. Well I could but it is not a sustainable business model. Psystar can do what they want but Apple likely has better paid lawyers and also has the law on their side. What would you do if it was your copyright.

Reply Parent Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Its not really about Apple or Psystar. The particular case is, but the fundamental issue is not. The issue comes up, as Thom says, in clear form in the question: should MS, having decided to sell retail copies of Office, be able to stop you installing them under Wine?

As to making money from Apple's efforts, objections to this are pure nonsense. Every Mac retailer, every Mac software developer does this. It is true that Jobs always had problems with this, always felt that there was something not quite right about Mac developers. But this was pure nuttery on his part.

Apple is not obliged to sell OSX at all, or for any particular price, or adopt any particular method of distribution, or release developer SDKs. It makes a commercial choice on what to do in all these respects, so do others in the surrounding parts of the industry. If it doesn't like the opportunities it is creating for them, it can always change how it sells. As an example, it does not sell Filemaker for Linux. No-one thinks it has to.

The issue is solely this: having decided to sell OSX at retail, for reasons best known to itself, what limits can it place, and what limits should we want it to be able to place, on what we install it on?

Reply Parent Score: 3