Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 13th Jun 2009 11:13 UTC
Legal We've got some news in the Apple vs. Psystar tragedy that's been unfolding before our eyes for months now. We all know the gist: Psystar sells machines with Mac OS X pre-installed, while the EULA states that's not allowed. Apple then took this stuff to court, and in the meantime, Psystar went into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. The news today is that Apple has filed a complaint stating that this Chapter 11 thing is just a shield that allows Psystar to continue its business practices, which Apple deems as illegal.
Thread beginning with comment 368409
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple's EULA is illegal
by shiva on Sat 13th Jun 2009 14:48 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

I don't understand the american legal system. In my country and many others which used the roman legal system as base it is illegal to force a person buy a product to acquire another product of the same company.

Apple should be forced to sell MacOS X and its other software products to any company which want to put it on their computers. The Aple computers of today are merely PC computers artificially modified to try to justify the fact of Apple doesn't sell MacOS to competitors.

Apple is a bad company and consummers should boycott its products. I don't buy any Apple product.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Apple's EULA is illegal
by stooovie on Sat 13th Jun 2009 14:52 in reply to "Apple's EULA is illegal"
stooovie Member since:
2006-01-25

Apple has freedom to choose to deliver a closed system, period. It doesn`t harm anyone by selling closed system.

Anyone knows how much OSX computers could Psystar actually sell?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple's EULA is illegal
by tupp on Sat 13th Jun 2009 17:23 in reply to "RE: Apple's EULA is illegal"
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Apple has freedom to choose to deliver a closed system, period.

And any entity (Psystar) buying parts of a closed system has the freedom to resell those parts... period.

In addition, any purchaser of software (the end user) has the right to hire a third party (Psystar) to install the software, and the third party is not responsible for any agreement (real or imagined) between the software manufacturer and the purchaser .................. period.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Apple's EULA is illegal
by tyrione on Sat 13th Jun 2009 19:58 in reply to "Apple's EULA is illegal"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Great! One down, over 6 and one half billion left.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Apple's EULA is illegal
by macUser on Sun 14th Jun 2009 02:10 in reply to "Apple's EULA is illegal"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

I don't understand the american legal system. In my country and many others which used the roman legal system as base it is illegal to force a person buy a product to acquire another product of the same company.

Apple should be forced to sell MacOS X and its other software products to any company which want to put it on their computers. The Aple computers of today are merely PC computers artificially modified to try to justify the fact of Apple doesn't sell MacOS to competitors.

Apple is a bad company and consummers should boycott its products. I don't buy any Apple product.

You can buy engines from many car manufacturers separately from the car. Does this mean it is illegal for them to sell you a car with the engine in it already?

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Since Apple is not in a monopoly position (95% of market share or more), they have the legal freedom to pursue whichever business model they choose. The are actually more of a hardware manufacturer. Think of them like Dell or HP but producing there own embedded OS rather than purchasing bulk Windows licenses for there hardware. Palm makes a PDA and uses it's own embedded OS. Apple makes a computer and uses it's own embedded OS.

Now, if Apple was in a monopoly position then things like the drama over the app store would probably have them in court. They would have the influence to truly harm the software market with arbitrary banning of software and denying third party repositories as they do.

The irony is that they don't even artificially modify the hardware. They simply use a different industry standard BIOS. It's not Apple specific, simply not what the bulk of computers use for the BIOS and boot process. One can even buy a USB dongle that has the applicable BIOS on it; osX loads natively and your off.

I do agree that Apple and consumers could benefit from a boycott. My problems with Apple tend toward the company more than the product (with MS, I have issues with products and company). Improve the company and consumers would win. This brings up another thing though; we are geeks. People who read OSNews are the computer educated anomaly not the consumer norm. Consumers are so used to being hosed in the computer market that they generally have little idea there is any choice and no interest in voting with there wallet. It's more important to be cool in the local coffee shop than to exercise consumer power over the market.

For me, bunging up the Newton product line was the end of my brand loyalty. That was the one that really showed me what a PDA could be. I'm still not able to replace some of the functionality it provided.

In the end, I think they should be happy to have had an osX license or iPhone sale rather than intentionally breaking jail-broken devices or hunting down anyone who dares install osX without paying the premium for Apple hardware. I'd love to have osX along side the rest of the OS in my VM collection. They are not a monopoly position in the OS market though so they have more freedom and less ability to harm the market in general.

Reply Parent Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

In the EU a monopoly is defined as 25% or more of the applicable market.

Not 95%.

Reply Parent Score: 2