Apple Scores Big in Case Against Psystar

[p05esto]

I really don't like Apple. I used to be a fan of theirs (80s through the 90s)....not so much now. Not at all actually.

 

[croc]

Psystar should move their HQ to EU. Then they can complain to the EC about restraint of trade, and the EC can get a shirtful off of crapple. I'm sure that Kroes would love to pursue crapple....

 

[dirtykid]

[citation][nom]reddragon72[/nom]Apple is based on FreeBSD and netBSD which is derived from Unix not Linux. OSX and Linux came from the same tree, neither one came from one or the other. Get your facts straight before you bag on stuff![/citation]

Their main source was NeXTSTEP (something Steve Jobs kept himself busy with while Apple was busy bankrupting itself during his forced retirement).

While OSX does have some contributions from FreeBSD and NetBSD, NeXTSTEP itself was sourced from BSD 4.3 before all of the open sourced variants, and before Linux 0.0.1. The GPL may not cover that much of OSX's codebase.

 

[srhelicity]

If you rent a movie, do you keep it too since you paid money for it? When you rent a car, do you just not return it since you spent some money on it? When you buy a piece of software, you implicitly agree to the EULA. Inside that EULA, you'll note that it allows you to do certain things, and it makes it "illegal" to do others. By buying and installing the software, you are agreeing to their terms. If you don't like the terms, then don't use the product.

Now, this isn't to say that I think EULAs are "fair" for most consumers, and I think many manufacturers should change them. However, they are what they are. You agreed to them when you bought and installed the program, so live up to your end up the agreement. I don't see why spending money on something guarantees that you can do whatever the heck you want with it without any repercussions.

 

[mrmez]

I like what Psystar is trying to do.
There is obviously a massive market to bring OSX to the 'people'.

However nobel their intentions might be, they are breaking the law. Yes the wheels of justice turn slowly, but once they start, they cannot be stopped.

 

[doc70]

[citation][nom]srhelicity[/nom]If you rent a movie, do you keep it too since you paid money for it? When you rent a car, do you just not return it since you spent some money on it? When you buy a piece of software, you implicitly agree to the EULA. Inside that EULA, you'll note that it allows you to do certain things, and it makes it "illegal" to do others. By buying and installing the software, you are agreeing to their terms. If you don't like the terms, then don't use the product. [/citation]

I don't think your comparison holds water. You explicitly mention renting and leasing, but they are different from buying. If you buy something, and you paid for it in full, you own that something and yes, you should be able to do whatever the heck you want with it.
If I rent a car I pay for the privilege of using it for a limited time, but if I bought it I can set it on fire if I want to. Why? Because it's mine!
Also, the way that EULAs are presented to the consumer makes it ridiculously hard to acknowledge their terms unless you open the package and start the installation process. Try to return an opened software package and see what happens... I know, there are ways of looking that info up online but be honest, do you actually believe that people do that? Not to mention that if you want to try the software you must install it, there is no other way. What if you decide you don't like it? Same problem as above.
My point is, this whole EULA stuff is specifically designed to screw the customer over and they are one of the biggest scam ever invented by greedy MF-ers.

 

[Glorian]

You want to know why apple has a crap share of the market, because Windows can be installed on ANY hardware buy ANYBODY, because of this companies like Dell, HP, Acer, ASUS, MSI, etc, have made a presence in the computer world, you wouldn't have the ability to build you own systems either.

Companies like Apple are the ones destroying the economy, instead of offering a less expensive product for all people they instead only offer an expensive product for people who have the money.

My dad wants his own laptop just to web browse and play online pool, but guess what apple won't get his business cause he doesn't have 1000 bucks for a laptop.

 

[city_zen]

I wonder if they (Apple's lawyers) are planning to go after Germany's PearC now. Probably not. BTW, apparently PearC ships to many other countries in Europe so if you live there you can still get your Hackintosh for Christmas

 

[powerbaselx]

I believe the objective of Psystar was to be bought by Apple just like other known cases recently...

 

[back_by_demand]

The company also alleges breach of contract and trademark infringement

What contract? Did Psystar have some sort of contract with Apple?
And trademark infringement? That's pretty fucking cheeky coming from Apple, since they stole the Apple logo from the Beatles. The only reason they were allowed to keep it was the out of court settlement and the promise never to enter the music business. They broke that promise too.

If Psystar breaks the law they should be treated the same as everyone else, so I think an out of court settlement to Apple, followed by reneging on the terms of the agreement should do it.

Paybacks a bitch aint it Apple?

 

[christopherknapp]

I wonder if we would still have these issues if we were living without this ridiculous monetary system?

 

[starryman]

Lets get rid of the courts. Let the CEO's duke it out. 10 rounds. I'd pay 10 bucks to see the match.

 

[STravis]

[citation][nom]SAL-e[/nom]Is that true? What license the hackintosh software is made available? If it is GNU GPL is not only ok, but it is encouraged to charge for providing service that compiles the software for users who don't know or don't want to compile the software them self. Only requirement is to provide access to source if the user requires. From GPL FAQs:[/citation]

There is no such thing as a hackintosh license, so there's not point in trying to be funny. However if we quote your statement, they provided binaries (and encrypted ones at that) and did not provide the source. Thus they are violating the GPL. End of that story.

Since then, the author(s) of the bootloader have modified the license to indicate that it is NOT to be used for commercial purposes.

You can try to spin this anyway you like..the fact is that Psystar took other people's work, and tried to pass it off as their own.

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]There is no such thing as a hackintosh license, so there's not point in trying to be funny. [/citation]
No. I don't try to be funny at all. I asked what is the license that governs the software used to build a hackintosh.
[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]However if we quote your statement, they provided binaries (and encrypted ones at that) and did not provide the source. Thus they are violating the GPL. End of that story.[/citation]
Yes. It is a violation of the GPL and many other open source licenses.
[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]Since then, the author(s) of the bootloader have modified the license to indicate that it is NOT to be used for commercial purposes.[/citation]It is his right to do so, but I think it is mistake. I believe if more companies find way to charge for FOSS more open source programmers will find job doing things they like to do and get payed for it.
[citation][nom]stravis[/nom]You can try to spin this anyway you like..the fact is that Psystar took other people's work, and tried to pass it off as their own.[/citation]
I did not address Psystar in my comment at all. I just don't what anybody to think that charging for providing FOSS is bad. That is all. Sorry if I offended you in any way.