Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]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!!![/citation]

It doesn't matter if Apple has a monopoly or not. When they made Mac OS function on Intel processors they opened up the tying issue. By stating that Mac OS can only run on Apple hardware, even though the hardware can be bought by anyone from any computer equipment reseller, that are breaching anti-trust. Why can't you people defending Apple understand this? Monopoly doesn't matter, breaching anti-trust, specifically in tying one product to another, is the real issue at hand. Apple is breaching anti-trust, it's that simple and it's a losing situation for the consumer when this is allowed (the whole reason there's a law about it). If Apple wants to go back to only allowing Mac OS to run on very, very specific hardware that the general public cannot get their hands on (as the old Macs were), then Apple can continue to state that you can only run Mac OS on the hardware that they sell. Apple opened Pandora's box when they made Mac OS function on x86/EMT64 and Apple now has to deal with those repurcutions.
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]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.[/citation]

Strawman arguement. People aren't hacking OS X to function on x86/EMT64 processors, Apple did that themselves when they wrote OS X. This is not taking something that is written for one platform and hacking it to work on a different platform, this is taking something that is written for one platform (x86/EMT64) and putting is on the same platform (x86/EMT64). Apple is breaching anti-trust (tying), it's that simple.
 
balister.....

First of all this is not Tying...Tying is when a company MAKES you buy A product that you dont want first BEFORE you buy the product you don't want. Apple does not prevent you from buying any product they make....it just wont work with your hardware out the box. Also, Under what law does it state that just because it runs on Intel processor they have to make it work with all Hardware made?
That inane argument you are trying to make would not only apply to Apple but ANY other company that makes product designed to work exclusively with their products ( take XBox and Halo). I mean really did you read what i said? Nvidia would have to make their GPU cards work with ATI in SLI mode. Game makers would have to support not only consoles but PC's, Mac, Lunix ( all flavors and Kernels) and so on.
Don't confuse your perceived your right of choice as something mandated by Law that companies have to adhere too just so you have the Luxury of installing an OS on anything you choose.
Flexibility is merely a choice made by companies for the purpose of profit and perceived openness.
 
REVISED

balister......

First of all this is not Tying...Tying is when a company MAKES you buy A product that you dont want first BEFORE you buy the product you do want. Apple does not prevent you from buying any product they make....it just wont work with your hardware out the box. Also, Under what law does it state that just because it runs on Intel processor they have to make it work with all Hardware made?
That inane argument you are trying to make would not only apply to Apple but ANY other company that makes product designed to work exclusively with their products ( take XBox and Halo). I mean really did you read what i said? Nvidia would have to make their GPU cards work with ATI in SLI mode. Game makers would have to support not only consoles but PC's, Mac, Lunix ( all flavors and Kernels) and so on.
Don't confuse your perceived your right of choice as something mandated by Law that companies have to adhere too just so you have the Luxury of installing an OS on anything you choose.
Flexibility is merely a choice made by companies for the purpose of profit and perceived openness.
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]REVISEDbalister......First of all this is not Tying...Tying is when a company MAKES you buy A product that you dont want first BEFORE you buy the product you do want. Apple does not prevent you from buying any product they make....it just wont work with your hardware out the box. Also, Under what law does it state that just because it runs on Intel processor they have to make it work with all Hardware made? That inane argument you are trying to make would not only apply to Apple but ANY other company that makes product designed to work exclusively with their products ( take XBox and Halo). I mean really did you read what i said? Nvidia would have to make their GPU cards work with ATI in SLI mode. Game makers would have to support not only consoles but PC's, Mac, Lunix ( all flavors and Kernels) and so on. Don't confuse your perceived your right of choice as something mandated by Law that companies have to adhere too just so you have the Luxury of installing an OS on anything you choose. Flexibility is merely a choice made by companies for the purpose of profit and perceived openness.[/citation]

This is exactly tying. To get the full version of OSX you *must* buy a Mac. Get it through your head, you have to buy a Mac to get the full version of OSX. Mac hardware is *exactly* the same as PC hardware that you can get from other sources.

OTOH, Halo is designed to run on the hardware that Microsoft used in the XBox 360 which is *completely different* than the hardware Sony used in producing the PS 3 and Nintendo used in making the Wii.

You're trying to compare oranges and pineapples to show why this isn't tying when in fact this *is* tying.

Tying is when you have to buy an additional product from a company to get the actual product you want even though another company produces a similar product that will function with the product you want, but the product you want will not be sold to you because you will not buy the other product of the company selling the product you want. This is *exactly* what Apple is doing and this is tying, a breach of anti-trust laws.
 
Strawman arguement. People aren't hacking OS X to function on x86/EMT64 processors, Apple did that themselves when they wrote OS X. This is not taking something that is written for one platform and hacking it to work on a different platform, this is taking something that is written for one platform (x86/EMT64) and putting is on the same platform (x86/EMT64). Apple is breaching anti-trust (tying), it's that simple.



In the context of the article that we are commenting on .....Yeah it does apply!! Think before you speak! Pystar Hacked, Modified the OS to work on their hardware. Then sold the OS bundled with their hardware.
 
Dude you are clearly confused....You the clueless, can today right now go to a Apple store and BUY the FULL VERSION of OSX. And since you bring up XBOX and PS3 ....they both run a version on PowerPC and so they could make HALO for BOTH consoles.
Read .......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Strawman arguement. People aren't hacking OS X to function on x86/EMT64 processors, Apple did that themselves when they wrote OS X. This is not taking something that is written for one platform and hacking it to work on a different platform, this is taking something that is written for one platform (x86/EMT64) and putting is on the same platform (x86/EMT64). Apple is breaching anti-trust (tying), it's that simple.In the context of the article that we are commenting on .....Yeah it does apply!! Think before you speak! Pystar Hacked, Modified the OS to work on their hardware. Then sold the OS bundled with their hardware.[/citation]

Ok, last time because it's clear that you don't understand anti-trust laws. Macs use hardware that can be purchased from retailiers like Zippy Zoomfly, Tiger Direct, Newegg, and a whole host of other retailers. *If* you could get a full version of OS X and purchase the hardware through any computer retailer you *could* install OS X on the hardware you purchased and *run* OS X without flaw (so long as you bought the same type of hardware Apple uses). Because Apple refuses to sell a full version of OS X (they only sell the upgrades from prior version so of OS X) you cannot install a full version of OS X on a system *with* the exact same hardware as Apple uses. Because Apple requires you to purchase the hardware through them in order to get the full version of OS X *even though* you can buy the same hardware somewhere else and *could* install OS X on that hardware and have it function the same, Apple is breaching anti-trust laws on tying. Get that through your head. What Apple is doing, ever since they moved to using Intel processors, is tying OS X to systems that only they sell even though you can get the same type of system elsewhere.
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom] Pystar Hacked, Modified the OS to work on their hardware. Then sold the OS bundled with their hardware.[/citation]

Nono, Pystar modified the OS to work without Apple's approval. The hardware is the same, in both cases.
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Dude you are clearly confused....You the clueless, can today right now go to a Apple store and BUY the FULL VERSION of OSX. And since you bring up XBOX and PS3 ....they both run a version on PowerPC and so they could make HALO for BOTH consoles. Read .......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)[/citation]

The one here that is confused is you.

XBox 360 and PS 3 do *not* use the same hardware. Last time I looked, PS 3 was using the Cell processor while the XBox 360 was using Xenos processor (while both use PowerPC, the architecture, the big stumbling block, is different). That is why you cannot take a 360 game *made* specifically for 360 hardware and put it in a PS 3 and expect to play it.

Apple is using the same type of hardware that someone can purchase from a computer parts retailer and you can install OS X on parts you assemble from a retailer if you buy the same parts (which are completely available at various computer retailers). Because anyone can purchase the same type of equipment as is located in a Mac, they could install OS X on their hardware, but because Apple refuses to sell the full version of OS X without first purchasing Mac hardware, people cannot install OS X full on their systems because Apple has *tied* the full version of OS X to their branded hardware (even though it's now different!). Go back and re-read that article again that you linked. What I've just explained is exactly the definition of tying, disallowing the purchase of a product to use with a competing product and requiring the consumer to purchase the product along with another product (and while the article talks about tying having to be involved with an inferior product, I think everyone here will agree that spending $500 to double the price on the tied product would qualify as being inferior).
 
Ok, last time because it's clear that you don't understand anti-trust laws. Macs use hardware that can be purchased from retailiers like Zippy Zoomfly, Tiger Direct, Newegg, and a whole host of other retailers. *If* you could get a full version of OS X and purchase the hardware through any computer retailer you *could* install OS X on the hardware you purchased and *run* OS X without flaw (so long as you bought the same type of hardware Apple uses). Because Apple refuses to sell a full version of OS X (they only sell the upgrades from prior version so of OS X) you cannot install a full version of OS X on a system *with* the exact same hardware as Apple uses. Because Apple requires you to purchase the hardware through them in order to get the full version of OS X *even though* you can buy the same hardware somewhere else and *could* install OS X on that hardware and have it function the same, Apple is breaching anti-trust laws on tying. Get that through your head. What Apple is doing, ever since they moved to using Intel processors, is tying OS X to systems that only they sell even though you can get the same type of system elsewhere.




Ok as a Mac user I have bought and installed the MAC OSX without any prior OS installed.
Also, just because they have the exact same specs doesn't mean that whatever system you are looking at mean that its the same on a Mac. Otherwise why do you need to hack the OS to get it to work? The sole reason Pystar has to hack or provide Work arounds is to bypass the Bios (EFI) MAC OS X needs to boot up.
And Please show me a precedent in court of Law that proves this inane argument you are trying to make? Because Clearly your a Lawyer and should have defended Pystar in court. I mean the case they Just lost. LOL
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Ok, last time because it's clear that you don't understand anti-trust laws. Macs use hardware that can be purchased from retailiers like Zippy Zoomfly, Tiger Direct, Newegg, and a whole host of other retailers. *If* you could get a full version of OS X and purchase the hardware through any computer retailer you *could* install OS X on the hardware you purchased and *run* OS X without flaw (so long as you bought the same type of hardware Apple uses). Because Apple refuses to sell a full version of OS X (they only sell the upgrades from prior version so of OS X) you cannot install a full version of OS X on a system *with* the exact same hardware as Apple uses. Because Apple requires you to purchase the hardware through them in order to get the full version of OS X *even though* you can buy the same hardware somewhere else and *could* install OS X on that hardware and have it function the same, Apple is breaching anti-trust laws on tying. Get that through your head. What Apple is doing, ever since they moved to using Intel processors, is tying OS X to systems that only they sell even though you can get the same type of system elsewhere.Ok as a Mac user I have bought and installed the MAC OSX without any prior OS installed. Also, just because they have the exact same specs doesn't mean that whatever system you are looking at mean that its the same on a Mac. Otherwise why do you need to hack the OS to get it to work? The sole reason Pystar has to hack or provide Work arounds is to bypass the Bios (EFI) MAC OS X needs to boot up. And Please show me a precedent in court of Law that proves this inane argument you are trying to make? Because Clearly your a Lawyer and should have defended Pystar in court. I mean the case they Just lost. LOL[/citation]

It's clear you don't understand logic. As I said before, if you buy a Mac from Apple they send along with *FULL* version of OS X. When you go into the Apple store to buy the *UPGRADE* (going from leopard to snow leopard as an example) you a s'posed to have the *FULL* version of OS X already installed on your system. What people are doing with the Hackintoshes is to go buy an *UPGRADE* version at the Apple store and then trick the *UPGRADE* version to think it is installing on a system that already has the *FULL* version of OS X installed. Do you understand now?

You *CANNNOT BUY* a full version of OS X from Apple without first buying a Mac. Apple refuses to sell a *FULL* version of OS X without you first buying *their* hardware. This is the very essence of anti-trust tying. You *must* buy Apple hardware if you want to get the *FULL* version of OS X.
 
Ok just to unserstand your Logic.....What version of OSX are you refering to?
And Just so you know ..I have installed OSX Snow Leopard with out a previous version installed. Also please tell me what the full version of OSX is? Because I have not been promoted at any point during the installation of SL for Leopard when i did a clean install. That is without previous OS installed on the hardrive.
 
You know i bet Pystar has allot of Mac computers somewhere in a storage room according to you statement.

"You *CANNNOT BUY* a full version of OS X from Apple without first buying a Mac"
Apple must be serially tracking people who buy macs so they know If you are a mac Hardware Owner right?
I mean thats the only what to get a full version right?

Hell I should have 5 macs since I have upgraded with every version. I mean really Think about the LOGIC in your argument.
 
"You *CANNNOT BUY* a full version of OS X from Apple without first buying a Mac."

You're a liar.
 
Why is it that when Microsoft includes its own web browser with its own operating system it gets hammered by the EU, but apple can pull off this crap?
 
[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Ok, last time because it's clear that you don't understand anti-trust laws. Macs use hardware that can be purchased from retailiers like Zippy Zoomfly, Tiger Direct, Newegg, and a whole host of other retailers. *If* you could get a full version of OS X and purchase the hardware through any computer retailer you *could* install OS X on the hardware you purchased and *run* OS X without flaw (so long as you bought the same type of hardware Apple uses). Because Apple refuses to sell a full version of OS X (they only sell the upgrades from prior version so of OS X) you cannot install a full version of OS X on a system *with* the exact same hardware as Apple uses. Because Apple requires you to purchase the hardware through them in order to get the full version of OS X *even though* you can buy the same hardware somewhere else and *could* install OS X on that hardware and have it function the same, Apple is breaching anti-trust laws on tying. Get that through your head. What Apple is doing, ever since they moved to using Intel processors, is tying OS X to systems that only they sell even though you can get the same type of system elsewhere.Ok as a Mac user I have bought and installed the MAC OSX without any prior OS installed. Also, just because they have the exact same specs doesn't mean that whatever system you are looking at mean that its the same on a Mac. Otherwise why do you need to hack the OS to get it to work? The sole reason Pystar has to hack or provide Work arounds is to bypass the Bios (EFI) MAC OS X needs to boot up. And Please show me a precedent in court of Law that proves this inane argument you are trying to make? Because Clearly your a Lawyer and should have defended Pystar in court. I mean the case they Just lost. LOL[/citation]

While you were trashing pystar's modification of OSX you "forgot" to mention they paid for it.
 
Cnor:
Psystar buying MAC OSX did not get them in court, modifying and reselling the OS with UnAuthorized hardware did.
Me , you and anyone on this mud ball we call earth can buy as many copies as we like. We just can resell modified version of the OS or bundle it with Non Apple hardware. Thats what this whole thing is about.
As for Microsoft they were caught preventing Netscape ( now FireFox) from being the default browser and didnt allow the browser to function correctly. Microsoft at the time did not allow any other browser to work on their OS correctly. Thats what put them in court .
 
[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]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.[/citation]

People can try and have done so and Apple is not gone after them (there are sites dedicated to doing this with lots of help and assistance). In this case Psystar was trying to make money off Apple's work.
 
[citation][nom]balister[/nom]It's clear you don't understand logic. As I said before, if you buy a Mac from Apple they send along with *FULL* version of OS X. When you go into the Apple store to buy the *UPGRADE* (going from leopard to snow leopard as an example) you a s'posed to have the *FULL* version of OS X already installed on your system. What people are doing with the Hackintoshes is to go buy an *UPGRADE* version at the Apple store and then trick the *UPGRADE* version to think it is installing on a system that already has the *FULL* version of OS X installed. Do you understand now?You *CANNNOT BUY* a full version of OS X from Apple without first buying a Mac. Apple refuses to sell a *FULL* version of OS X without you first buying *their* hardware. This is the very essence of anti-trust tying. You *must* buy Apple hardware if you want to get the *FULL* version of OS X.[/citation]

You're wrong. You can go into any Apple store and buy a full version of Snow Leopard. You can keep saying that you can't but you would be wrong.
 
If an upgrade version of an OS can be made to do a full installation, then isn't it still a full version, deliberately hobbled by the vendor to enforce an overpriced hardware purchase?

Best thing Psystar ever did was help the world to learn that OSX is a pretty good OS and you dont have to spend over $2000 to find out.
 
It's clear you don't understand logic. As I said before, if you buy a Mac from Apple they send along with *FULL* version of OS X. When you go into the Apple store to buy the *UPGRADE* (going from leopard to snow leopard as an example) you a s'posed to have the *FULL* version of OS X already installed on your system. What people are doing with the Hackintoshes is to go buy an *UPGRADE* version at the Apple store and then trick the *UPGRADE* version to think it is installing on a system that already has the *FULL* version of OS X installed. Do you understand now?You *CANNNOT BUY* a full version of OS X from Apple without first buying a Mac. Apple refuses to sell a *FULL* version of OS X without you first buying *their* hardware. This is the very essence of anti-trust tying. You *must* buy Apple hardware if you want to get the *FULL* version of OS X.
Click to expand...

Answer me one question. If I accidentally format an existing Mac, buy a copy of Snow Leopard from the Mac store. Will it still install.

If the answer is yes, despite the old OS having been wiped then it is a clean install and you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG
 
I don't think that supporting all hardware vendors in the x86 space is the greatest of challenges for Microsoft. They don't have to write all the drivers, the vendors usually do it.
But on the other side, Apple has to make some efforts to specifically limit their support for a limited list of hardware devices (such as not allowing Atom support).
This is an urban myth, limiting your hardware support is not equal to higher quality. It's a two-edges sword anyway, if you want to make changes yourself, it's going to cost a lot more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom