Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th Aug 2009 22:05 UTC
Legal 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 381342
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: ...
by umccullough on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.


I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by haus on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:50 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
haus Member since:
2009-08-18

"I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X."

Then it has nothing to do with a double standard then. It just has to do with how they want to protect their own resources.

Apple isn't obligated to help their competitors. On that note, they're not obligated to hurt them either. Because they're a business, they're going to go after those that utilized their property to make money. There is little motivation to go after those that utilized their property... just so they can show it off to their dorm room friends.

Edited 2009-08-28 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by umccullough on Fri 28th Aug 2009 23:58 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Apple isn't obligated to help their competitors. But they're not obligated to hurt them either. because they're a business, they're going to go after those that utilized their property to make money.


I suspect it would still be their property if they hadn't sold it retail...

Reminds me of the days when satellite TV providers allowed you to purchase a receiver, and then demanded you weren't allowed to modify the equipment and/or re-sell it. These days, most satellite TV equipment is "leased" (in the U.S.) so they can at least claim it isn't your property now.

Apple has stepped in the same mess.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:39 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.


I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X.
"

But Pystar weren't selling unmodified versions; they were selling hacked up versions of Mac OS X preinstalled on their computers and redistributing hacked up updates directly downloadable off their websites. Lets not try to make out that Pystar is some sort of modern day Robin Hood.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by RogerBryce on Sat 29th Aug 2009 11:29 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
RogerBryce Member since:
2008-07-07

It's debatable whether they were selling a hacked version of OS X. In fact, what Psystar ultimately says is Apple artificially and arbitrarily restricts the use of their OS on common x86 hardware. It remains to be seen if removing some artificial hinderance can be considered a hack. Personally, in the case of OS X, I don't, because it proves what was already known, that is most of the code in OS X was written to be run on x86 hardware. And there's a large amount of code that originally doesn't even come from Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by umccullough on Sat 29th Aug 2009 17:27 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Lets not try to make out that Pystar is some sort of modern day Robin Hood.


You make it sound like they've stole something...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by Phloptical on Sat 29th Aug 2009 13:08 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

"It's not so much a double standard as they are profiting on it. You wouldn't be doing it yourself. Sell it and you're inviting a lawsuit.
I'm pretty certain the EULA doesn't say anything about making a profit by re-selling OS X. "

I'm fairly certain it does, actually.

Reply Parent Score: 2