Apple Throws Ball Back to Psystar, Asks Judge to Throw Out Anti-Trust Suit

[JMcEntegart]

The legal volleyball between Mac clone maker, Psystar and Apple continues as it emerges that the latter has asked a court to throw away the antitrust lawsuit Psystar filed towards the end of the summer.

Apple Throws Ball Back to Psystar, Asks Judge to Throw Out Anti-Trust Suit : Read more

 

[starhoof]

I think that apple should stop doing what they are doing with their OS.
OSX is based on Linux which is free of course, means part for OSX been built already and they didn't pay for it, all they did is just modified and rewrote parts of it. Then apple made it possible to run Windows on macs, Microsoft didn't do nothing (i believe they should had done something, now that i see what apple doing to Psystar)
And at the same time trying to stop people from buying PCs and throwing stupid Commercials (get a mac campaign) As much as I like PCs i find it very annoying.

 

[ravenware]

I don't know man. Psystar knew damn well this was going to be a problem.
Apple has always charged royalty fees for selling machines with apple os/name. This is what put the freely licensed IBM based PC ahead of apple in the personal computer market.

 

[rocky1234]

No what put Apple so far behind was their attitude about everything they are all high & mighty about everything. The normal computer user see's this & just shakes their head & keeps walking on by the big wind bag of a company Apple really is. I still say if they got rid of stave jobs & got someone less annoying in to run that company Apple would do alot better in the PC business & yes Apple computers are just PC's but with higher price tags & a more limited OS as in not as many programs for it & a lot less hardware devices.

End of rant

 

[Guest]

Apple isnt anything without Steve Jobs. When he dies of cancer by the end of the year or early next year, apple stocks will crumble, and MSFT will have to give apple another 150mil to stay afloat so MSFT isnt deemed a monopoly (which I believe should be legal for MSFT) Jobs is viewed as a 'God' by die-hard apple users, they will go into denial when he dies

 

[smalltime0]

[citation][nom]Ag3nt Smith[/nom]Apple isnt anything without Steve Jobs. When he dies of cancer by the end of the year or early next year, apple stocks will crumble, and MSFT will have to give apple another 150mil to stay afloat so MSFT isnt deemed a monopoly (which I believe should be legal for MSFT) Jobs is viewed as a 'God' by die-hard apple users, they will go into denial when he dies[/citation]
Hopefully linux will rise just a bit so Microsoft doesn't have to bail Apple out... again

 

[Ryun]

[citation][nom]Starhoof[/nom] I think that apple should stop doing what they are doing with their OS.OSX is based on Linux which is free of course, means part for OSX been built already and they didn't pay for it, all they did is just modified and rewrote parts of it.[/citation]

I just want to point out that you're half right, OSX is built on code that Apple didn't have to pay for but OS X is not based on the Linux kernel.

 

[biometriccoder]

While I don't think Psystar as any chance of taking down a giant like apple, I do think that they have a completely valid case. I think apple's EULA has "anti-trust" written all over it. It amazes me that it was ever deemed legal in the first place. It basically states that apple owns control of all hardware, software & brainless user that it comes in contact with.

 

[Guest]

I agree that Apple's EULA is too strict; maybe even to the point of monopolistic dealings, but I also think that if we're going to crack down on Apple, flags must be raised about all software EULA (i.e. "Your software purchase is good for use on one computer, no copies of the discs may be made legally). However, any business that Psystar has done until their EULA was ruled illegal should be considered damages.
I know that OSX was built off of code that wasn't originally Apple's, but it's more than just an OS clone. If Linux was that easy and pleasant to use, people would be using it. Apple has refined OSX to perform well and it is a great example of what a modern day OS should be. It doesn't hang up or bog down just because you asked it to multitask, and it is extremely stable. Anyone that uses OSX with any frequency would admit, we cannot let Apple go unpaid for their efforts. Part of the beauty of Apple's products is that their software and hardware pair together seamlessly if not beautifully.
That being said, I still feel that Apples EULA is too limiting and strict, but the choice we must make is do we want to shred an innovative company who has done great things for the industry over this? I say no, but I do think some reform in in need across the board.

 

[Maxor127]

OS X was based off Nextstep which was based off Unix. As for anti-trust, I don't see how it's illegal to make software and hardware and not want other people profit from it. OS X was written for Macintosh computers and they can't be expected to support unofficial systems. It's not like OS X is the only operating system around. There is still Windows or Linux. I'm all for being able to run OS X on whatever hardware you want, but I don't think what Apple is doing is wrong.

 

[Guest]

Well, the only valid reason people with macs use it is because of the software seeing as the hardware is now common to pc and mac, as where before you did have differences. Now Apple should be clever and let the people sell pc's that can run OSX and just come to an agreement with venders like Psystar to give them a percentage of the takings. That's how more people will use OSX and then if they are convinced they will later buy an apple when they have more budget. I've worked for advertising agency and the creative people are MAC crazy. So for these companies to get better spec machines doing the same job for cheaper will give them more proffits and on the other hand Apple will gain way more market share. They will have more exposure to their "perfect" OS.

 

[iwasakabukiman]

I think that Apple has a right to protect their investment, but Darwin is an open source OS, so it should at least be required to release the source code of the OS if it's not willing to license it to other people. It's like the situation with Tivo, they did the same thing.

But Psystar did violate the EULA terms, which are binding unless a judge rules otherwise, so Apple does have a right to sue.

 

[WheelsOfConfusion]

Darwin is still open source, but OSX isn't just Darwin.

 

[amonymous]

[citation][nom]starhoof[/nom] I think that apple should stop doing what they are doing with their OS.OSX is based on Linux which is free of course, means part for OSX been built already and they didn't pay for it, all they did is just modified and rewrote parts of it. Then apple made it possible to run Windows on macs, Microsoft didn't do nothing (i believe they should had done something, now that i see what apple doing to Psystar)And at the same time trying to stop people from buying PCs and throwing stupid Commercials (get a mac campaign) As much as I like PCs i find it very annoying.[/citation]
Why would Microsoft stop Mac users from buying a copy of their OS? The fact is that with the Boot Camp going on both sides are winning because Microsoft doesn't have their heads up their asses making computers and focuses on software. On reflection though they need to get their shit together with Windows 7 if they want to hold the market.

 

[martel80]

[citation][nom]starhoof[/nom]I think that apple should stop doing what they are doing with their OS. OSX is based on Linux which is free of course, means part for OSX been built already and they didn't pay for it, all they did is just modified and rewrote parts of it.[/citation]
OSX is based on BSD, not Linux. So it does not have to deal with restrictions coming from GPL. BSD license is much more tolerant than GPL, it allows ripping-off with few obligations.