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 381358
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Psystar is right
by haus on Sat 29th Aug 2009 01:06 UTC 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[3]: Psystar is right
by apoclypse on Sat 29th Aug 2009 02:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Its kind of flawed. A more apt analogy would be an OEM install of Windows. You can only install that particular version of Windows on the targeted machine. Some OEM discs even check to see if they are in fact running on the right hardware. Apple does, but they also don't include OEM discs with their machines (well they kind of do) the operating system install disc is the OEM disc. Unlike MS they do not limit the installer to any specific machine and choose to do that via the EULA instead of any DRM measures. Which is commendable, imo, and I don't think that any company that chooses to not hit their customers with drm should be penalized by opportunist who don't contribute a single red cent back to the company they are building their bank on.

At this point I'd rather see Psystar go away. They are leeches on the hackintosh community and are a shining example of why Apple users are Apple users.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by kaiwai on Sat 29th Aug 2009 06:23 in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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


So hang on, using that logic - if Apple included as part of purchasing an Apple computer that end users could get free operating system upgrades through the internet that it would some how be ok? How about this scenario, replace Apple with 'Vendor Y' and' Vendor Y' deciding to sell a firmware upgrade to customers through retail channels on a CD because it contains a whole host of improvements and is too large to 'send down an internet connection'.

You're splitting hairs over distribution - it means nothing in the end; whether it arrives electronically or via a download, free or purchased - something that is 'free' doesn't some how say, "well, you can restrict the user in anyway' but if acquired through a retail chain they can't impose the same restrictions? you're either consistently applying the principle to software upgrades both paid and free or you don't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Psystar is right
by Vargol on Sat 29th Aug 2009 09:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/SystemUpdates/PS3/PC_Update.h...

I'd call that direct of the shelf...

Edited 2009-08-29 09:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

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[3]: Psystar is right
by memson on Sat 29th Aug 2009 14:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Psystar is right"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

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


Modular? Yes. Open? No. Openness was forced upon IBM because they didn't do enough to protect their PC IPR back in the day. If IBM had done so, then yes, we'd be using a different computer architecture because the PC would have never made it past the starting blocks. In fact, you might be arguing about IBM having a closed platform and Apple dominating the computer industry - as this was entirely likely to happen if IBM hadn't floundered. Either than or we'd all be using Amiga :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

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