Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
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".
Thread beginning with comment 381334
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Alternative Course of Action
by Stephen! on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:33
in reply to "Alternative Course of Action"
Member since:2007-11-24
If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they?
Probably not. There's been similar things in the past such as Executor, which had some degree of MacOS compatibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executor_%28software%29
RE: Alternative Course of Action
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:32
in reply to "Alternative Course of Action"
Member since:2005-07-06
If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they? Now, I don't like that OS X is tied to Apple hardware, but that's what the license agreement says; until it's determined if that clause is legal or not, we should respect it. I certainly would pay for an original OS compatible with OS X though. I'd actually be interested to see what innovations they could make that would make someone choose their implementation over the official OS X based on software quality alone (price not withstanding).
Why even do that? why not just make their hardware 100% compatible? what is so hard with talking to a motherboard company, create a customised EFI that happens to be compatible with Mac OS X - and leave it up to the customer to put in the CD themselves to install? they would be selling a machine that just so happened to be compatible with Mac OS X but their primary focus was selling machines with Linux or Windows. It would be the easiest way to address the Hackintosh demand without actually having to directly enter the market.
What would Apple do? they would have no case because it would be all circumstantial - "oh, but they made it compatible with Mac OS X from the ground up" to which they could easily reply and state, "we don't sell or condone the use of Mac OS X on our machines; our machines are designed to work flawlessly with Windows and Linux. What someone does in the privacy of their own home with it is none of our business". Had they done that, we wouldn't be having the conversation. Quite honestly, if their managers aren't getting sued by Apple, someone should sue them for incompetent business management.
Edited 2009-08-29 06:32 UTC
RE: Alternative Course of Action
by broken_symlink on Sat 29th Aug 2009 17:51
in reply to "Alternative Course of Action"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[2]: Alternative Course of Action
by tyrione on Sun 30th Aug 2009 20:25
in reply to "RE: Alternative Course of Action"
Member since:2005-11-21
Member since:
2008-04-10
If Psystar want do so something of less questionable legality, they could probably try making something OS X compatible. Take Darwin, or an up to date BSD or Linux kernel and create their own userland tools compatible with OS X software - I'm not saying that would be easy, far from it in fact, but if it's not actually OS X, Apple can't really do anything about it can they? Now, I don't like that OS X is tied to Apple hardware, but that's what the license agreement says; until it's determined if that clause is legal or not, we should respect it. I certainly would pay for an original OS compatible with OS X though. I'd actually be interested to see what innovations they could make that would make someone choose their implementation over the official OS X based on software quality alone (price not withstanding).
Edited 2009-08-28 22:56 UTC