Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 22:50 UTC
Remember the motions for a summary judgement filed by Apple and Psystar earlier this week? Large parts of them were censored per Apple's request. These censored parts detailed the protection measures Apple put in place in Leopard to prevent it from being installed on non-Apple labelled computers. Psystar filed a motion a few days ago asking the judge to uncensor the information.
Thread beginning with comment 389962
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-07-30
Apple originally sued Pystar because Pystar illegally modified OS X to run on their computers. Even Pystar doesn't deny this.
And I said anyone specifically - meaning any individual. It is within Apple's right to sue a company that is out to make a profit at Apple's expense, just like it would be Apple's right to sue an individual if that person sold illegally modified copies of OS X.
No precedent has been set here. This isn't a big corporation vs a small business. It's a small business violating the law at the expense of a big business. Apple hasn't sued a single individual.
The only reason that Pystar is being "singled out" is that Pystar is the only company that did it.
RE[3]: Interesting. . .
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Oct 2009 21:32
in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting. . ."
Member since:2005-06-29
Apple originally sued Pystar because Pystar illegally modified OS X to run on their computers. Even Pystar doesn't deny this.
The "illegally" is what is at stake here. It is specifically allowed by US law to circumvent protections for the sake of getting software to work. This is what Psystar is betting on.. Judge Alsup will have to make a ruling on this first before you can declare it illegal.
It's a small business violating the law at the expense of a big business.
Which law? As far as I know, the trial hasn't even started yet, so saying they broke the law is very, very premature.
The only reason that Pystar is being "singled out" is that Pystar is the only company that did it.
Wrong again. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Thre is Quo in California, PearC in The Netherlands/Belgium/Luxembourg/France/Germany, and there are cloners in the UK and Russia.
Member since:
2006-01-27
I haven't gotten that feeling at all from reading OSNews' members comments. Apple doesn't need to offer special licenses for their software if OEMs are willing to pay full retail for it.
The primary reason why the old clones were driven out of business, Apple refused to release hardware specs for their newest computers. That's no longer critical since Apple has moved to common PC components.
Not at all. I happen to have a genuine Apple computer running OSX.
Apple hasn't sued anybody for posting hacked copies of OS X that will run on just about any PC, and they haven't sued OS News for posting a guide on how to get OS X running on your PC without hacking anything!
They're suing Psystar - how does that translate into not suing ANYONE?!? Why is Psystar being singled out? And if they win against Psystar, what's to stop them from suing individual users from doing the same thing?
Generally the vitriol is immediately following posts like your's.
And this certainly can't be about "defending the public's right to install OS X on whatever computer they want since they purchased it." While a noble idea, Apple's continued sales growth every single quarter (except one) suggests that the vast majority of people who really want to run OS X will simply go out and purchase a Mac. The remainder of the people, the hobbyists, can already install OS X on a PC without breaking any laws as demonstrated by this very website.
So, everyone who wants to run OS X can already do so, and spend as little or as much as they want.
Yeah, everyone except Psystar. Why is that?
I'm mad about the way that Psystar is being singled out by Apple, an obvious attempt by a large mega-corporation to drive a small company out of business.
Psystar isn't asking for any favors or help from Apple, like OEM licensing price breaks, hardware specs, or anything else. But yet Psystar has found themselves in the cross hairs of the Apple legal department.