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 381352
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Psystar is right
by shiva on Sat 29th Aug 2009 00:21 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

Psystar is right !

Imagine if Ford sold cars with Ford tires and its EULA prohibits buyers would put tires of other brands. It would be illegal, no ?!

In all engineering fields/industries there are common standards to let people exchange parts from various brands. Why not in computer industry ?

Companies like Apple and Microsoft do active and dirty actions to difficult interoperability, standardization and interchange of parts from different vendors. It is a crime and these companies should be punished !

Reply Score: 3

RE: Psystar is right
by ASDFer on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:01 in reply to "Psystar is right"
ASDFer Member since:
2009-08-29

Wrong analogy and Psystar is wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Psystar is right
by haus on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:06 in reply to "Psystar is right"
haus Member since:
2009-08-18

Your analogy is flawed in that cars were meant to have certain parts swapped out.

A better analogy is... what if somebody were to manage to copy out the software from an X Box or PS3 to make and then sell their own game console. This company then referenced the X Box or PS3 name to show that they are compatible.

It's not the same you say because neither company sells that software separately while Apple does.

Apple does not.

Their business model is the exact same... except Apple sells upgrades to their software as standalone software packages. You may not recognize it as an upgrade as It also works as a full install... but then this is a computer, not a console which sometimes requires a full install rather than an upgrade to to install on a blank disk Mac.

Make no mistake though, its the same business model.

Knowing the readers on this site though... some of you actually think that Microsoft and Sony don't have any right to tie their software to their hardware either. To you people I would just say you're a lost cause.

I just ask that you not try to project Microsoft's business model on Apple.

Edited 2009-08-29 01:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Psystar is right
by FredFlintStone on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:28 in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
FredFlintStone Member since:
2009-08-29

Your analogy is also flawed.
Xbox and PS3 dont sell the Operating system separate from the hardware as an upgrade. Snow Leapord is sold as a separate upgrate.
The Xbox and PS3 upgrades are free and directly pushed to the device and not available over the shelf

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Psystar is right
by Moulinneuf on Sat 29th Aug 2009 07:41 in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Your analogy is flawed in that cars were meant to have certain parts swapped out.


and Computer where also meant to have all their part swaped out ... Otherwise we would all use IBM computer with IBM OS.

some of you actually think that Microsoft and Sony don't have any right to tie their software to their hardware either.


No , The Laws , in most country , say so ...

But then Microsoft legal problem , in this example/case , is not on it's own console and hardware it's on other company computers blocking and breaking intentionally compatibility with the competition.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Psystar is right - more like
by jabbotts on Sat 29th Aug 2009 16:44 in reply to "RE: Psystar is right"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Someone baught the retail copy of XBox and PS3 OS off the shelf then sold it with compatible console hardware. There is no copying off of the OS nore is the original OS developer out the cost of the license as it was purchased from and at the developer's asking price.

Reply Parent Score: 2