Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

[JMcEntegart]

Apple has been granted a permanent injunction against Mac clone-maker Psystar.

Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar : Read more

 

[sliem]

Apple sucks. Apple is expensive. Apple is not worth it.
Apple is a good healthy fruit.

 

[overclockingrocks]

Freaking FAIL! Apple's EULA was illegal with that non Apple hardware clause in the first place. One a piece of software is purchased the maker CAN'T tell the purchaser what they can or can not install it on. They paid for software and a license to use it. Deal is done at that point in terms of legalities of buying and installing is concerned. I hope Psystar appeals this on the grounds of an illegal EULA in OS X Leopard

 

[Socnom]

If Apple really believed its own marketing, they would have gladly sold their OS to be used on other 'PCs'. They should be sued for false advertising their product. You cannot compare an Open Market PC to a Closed Market PC. They should be forced to market their products as a bigger, more glorified iPod. By securing the rights to be a closed system, as of this ruling, they are essentially telling people their PCs are iPods with word processing and a smaller appstore.

 

[Abrahm]

Apple wins, consumers lose. What else is new?

 

[Guest]

Apple's Operating Systems could very well be considered a Monopoly.

The way this can be done is Apple is deliberately chaining it to hardware that Only they manufacture and market for their Operating systems. They are refusing to allow it to be run on any other platform.

Where as if you look at other operating systems, you do not see this happening so much.

MS Windows, Linux, and a host of other operating systems are designed to run on multiple platforms.

Granted, very few of them run on multiple platforms natively, but most of them come in more than one flavour so that they can run on what ever platform they are needed on.

So in a world where Monopolies are supposed to be illegal, how does Apple get away this or does the legal system think it's Ok because of all the computing platforms and Operating systems which are already present in the world?

Yet Apple allows Windows and MS Office to run on their systems on top of OS-X?

Go Figure!

 

[cyberkuberiah]

apple's OS is less open than Windows , any flavor . if that os was great , why not sell retail off the shelf copies for everyone to buy and use ? i liked the ipod , but iphone sucks , plain and simple . one can get rather better features for less money in other true Smartphones .

 

[Guest]

Of course it is closed to only their systems. This way they can design the operating system without doing 100X the work. They don't have to make it compatible with thousands of devices, and they can make fun of Windows or Linux if there are any problems. On top of that, they can charge more for mainstream hardware than the other OS users pay for top of the line! Also, how about the Apple Homeland Security Moles....paranoid are we?

 

[balister]

What I don't understand is why no one is trying to hit Apple from the anti-trust tying side of things or atleast making convincing arguements to show that Apple is breaching anti-trust. Tying, by the anti-trust definition, is requiring a consumer that wants to use one product produced by a company to also purchase another product from the company, in essence tying the two products together. Under anti-trust, this is not allowed, yet the judges involved are either ignoring the portion of the law or the lawyers attacking Apple are not pointing it out strongly enough. Tying does not require you to have a monopoly to be used against you, it requires that you make it so people *must* buy an addtional product from you to use the product that they really want to use (in this case Apple is forcing people to buy their hardware in order to use their OS, which is tying and illegal).

 

[wildwell]

It's not a monopoly when there are alternative computing platforms. Apple's just a closed system, closed and locked.

 

[rooket]

[citation][nom]sliem[/nom]Apple sucks. Apple is expensive. Apple is not worth it.Apple is a good healthy fruit.[/citation]

Agreed. however, why would someone build a company to make Apple clones? I'd be bored to death out of my mind every day with that kind of job.

I installed osx86 on a couple machines before. It is, in a word, filth. If you want something Unix based, just get a port of Linux and not worry about some stupid proprietary o/s created under steve jobbs. just sounds yucky.

 

[Yoder54]

"Court documents stipulate Psystar must comply with the ruling by December 31, 2009."

What is Apple going to do if they don't? Sue them? Go for it baby.

 

[doc70]

An Apple a day
Keeps the doc (me) away...

Ha!

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]wildwell[/nom]It's not a monopoly when there are alternative computing platforms. Apple's just a closed system, closed and locked.[/citation]

You don't have to have a monopoly to breach anti-trust. Apple is doing it, and has been doing it, for a long time and no one has gone after them for it (even though there's a case for it).

 

[doc70]

An Apple a day
Keeps the doc (me )away....

Ha!

 

[doc70]

Sorry for double post.

 

[mj4358]

Apple is not a monopoly. The OS was developed by Apple along with the Hardware. There is NO law that says all OS's will support third part hardware or be available for third part vendors( Dell, Gateway..etc) to bundle. Apple in no way limits the consumer to just their products. They have every right to dictate how the product is used and defend ( at their discretion) the right to enforce the EULA which everyone agrees to when they install the OS.
Microsoft on the other hand has a 95% market share and was found guilty of prevent Netscape from installing as the default web browser in both the EU and US. Microsoft was also found guilty of forcing manufactures ( Dell, Gateway....etc) of strong arming if they wanted to offer another OS (Linux) by raising the per copy cost of the OS.
Apple like any company wants you to use as many of their products as possible. Just like Dell, Panasonic, Sony with ATRAC and Memory sticks. I mean really ...why don't you get mad when Nvidia makes you buy two of their cards for SLI. Why not use ATI with Nvidia so that you can have SLI. Why do you have games made for just Xbox or PS3 . why not buy one console made by whom ever you choose and play any game on any console. Where is that anger with that lack of flexibility? I have yet to hear anyone complain about there not being as many games for Linux or why Microsoft doesn't make Linux programs work on their OS. Or why the so many companies make software for Microsoft only and not lunix. This bias anger is pathetic! If you don't like a product DONT BUY IT! There is your CONSUMER CHOICE and with that I say the CONSUMER ultimately WINS!!!

 

[marokero]

mj4358 has got the most sensible and objective post I've seen on Tom's in a long time.

 

[NuclearShadow]

As much as I disagree with it I do understand that Apple has to do this. If they allowed a open market that didn't limit their OS to their computers competitors would have computers that cost far less and likely outperform what Apple offers. The only thing Apple would have going for them is their sleek look but even that could eventually be imitated or even out done.

Apple simply has to fight this otherwise they will be reduced to making the OS and that's all. While this may actually boost the popularity and sales of such it would never make up for selling the overpriced hardware with it. Are what they doing wrong? Sure. Is it illegal? Maybe. But from a business standpoint its the best route they can go.

Also its no secret that courts today favor big business over smaller ones and even more so the consumer. This decision is no surprise at all to me.

 

[mj4358]

REVISED

Apple is not a monopoly. The OS was developed by Apple along with the Hardware. There is NO law that says all OS's will support third part hardware or be available for third part vendors( Dell, Gateway..etc) to bundle. Apple in no way limits the consumer to just their products. They have every right to dictate how the product is used and defend ( at their discretion) the right to enforce the EULA which everyone agrees to when they install the OS.
Microsoft on the other hand has a 95% market share and was found guilty of prevent Netscape from installing as the default web browser in both the EU and US. Microsoft was also found guilty of strong arming manufactures ( Dell, Gateway....etc) if they wanted to offer another OS (Linux) by raising the per copy cost of the Windows OS.
Apple like any company wants you to use as many of their products as possible. Just like Dell, Panasonic, Sony with ATRAC and Memory sticks. I mean really ...why don't you get mad when Nvidia makes you buy two of their cards for SLI. Why not use ATI with Nvidia so that you can have SLI. Why do you have games made for just Xbox or PS3 . why not buy one console made by whom ever you choose and play any game on any console. Where is that anger with that lack of flexibility? I have yet to hear anyone complain about there not being as many games for Linux or why Microsoft doesn't make Linux programs work on their OS. Or why there are so many companies make software for Microsoft only and not lunix. This bias anger is pathetic! If you don't like a product DONT BUY IT! So there's your CONSUMER CHOICE and with that I say the CONSUMER ultimately WINS!!!

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]marokero[/nom]mj4358 has got the most sensible and objective post I've seen on Tom's in a long time.[/citation]
Agreed. People are too lazy to think long term any more. They look for a short term benefit, and figure they'll get Government to "fix" it if, long term, it was an "oops" on their part. Witness the screwing M$ is getting for having defined "the product" as including IE (| some other particular feature that someone else might want to sell separately).

 

[pocketdrummer]

The ONLY REASON OSX is any good is because it's tied to a VERY specific set of hardware. Apple, as glorious as they want to think they are, could not handle the PC world's seemingly infinite amount of hardware. This is where linux and windows takes the cake.

Still, it sucks that people can't even try.

 

[Vestin]

[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Why do you have games made for just Xbox or PS3 . why not buy one console made by whom ever you choose and play any game on any console.[/citation]
NO ONE is going to stop you from buying games for the 360 when you DON'T HAVE a 360.
It doesn't matter that they won't work - you can still buy them...
...while you CAN'T simply buy Mac OS by itself. Even if it wouldn't be compatible with any damn piece of hardware you own - you still should have the right to buy it as a separate product.

Is the concept of tying any clearer to you now ?

 

[mj4358]

NO ONE is going to stop you from buying games for the 360 when you DON'T HAVE a 360.
It doesn't matter that they won't work - you can still buy them...
...while you CAN'T simply buy Mac OS by itself. Even if it wouldn't be compatible with any damn piece of hardware you own - you still should have the right to buy it as a separate product.

Is the concept of tying any clearer to you now ?


Well why don't you Hack Halo to play on PS3 then sell PS3 with HALO bundled and see what happens. Thats point you fail to see. And just like games for the 360...you can buy Mac OSX all you want. I don't know where and in what store do they prohibit you from buying Mac OSX buy it self.

 

[rocky1234]

Yep Apple has a closed mind oops I mean closed system policy. They like to have total control over everything they make next step is to install camera's in Apples users homes so they can make sure the Apple users are staying in line with Apple policy lol.

I have one question if Apple hardware & software is so special why is it that 90% of their users install windows by running a bootcamp setup. Apple does not see anything wrong with this type of setup since it gains them new users without having to provide tech support for the windows side of it so it is a win win for them. I personally think Microsoft should change their policy as well & only allow Windows & windows vewrions of their software only to be installed on a Windows certified PC which a Mac is not according to Apple since they don't think of their hardware as a PC. In the short term it may lower sales for microsoft provided that these Apple users are buying the windows they are installing on their over priced PC's I mean Mac's but in the longer term it will be a good thing for Microsoft with a lot less lost PC users because lets face those Mac ad's are total BS but a lot of people fall for them & Microsoft needs to nip this in the bud before it gets out of control. You either want a Mac or a PC dont try to make a Hybrid the auto industry has done this enough already lol. just my thoughts & I am sure most will disagree with me