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 381429
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: ...
by RogerBryce on Sat 29th Aug 2009 11:29 UTC 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[7]: ...
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Aug 2009 11:53 in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


What is there to debate? they modified version of Mac OS X and resold it. They provided a modified version of Mac OS X updates via their website. There is no debate - these things have actually occurred; the only question is whether this amounts to copyright violation, EULA violation or a violation of a reselling agreement if they ever had one in the first place with Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 2