Psystar to Pay Apple $2.7 Million in Settlement

[Guest]

Isn't OSX based on Unix. The same architecture that Linus is based on, (hence the name). Also isn't Apple using Intel Chips and ATI/NVIDIA Cards to go along with them for hardware. I'd hate to use an Apple and be stuck with out of date hardware. If I want a Unix platform I use Linux which is free and can run on any hardware. Other times I use Windows which can be run on any hardware. Do you notice the trend. I can use any hardware combination I choose.

 

[Socnom]

[citation][nom]accolite[/nom]Kinda sounds like Communism, You don't own jack the state does. In this case it's Apple. This theme is going on a lot in the States and also the world. You buy software but it's not yours, it's just on lease to you?Kind of sounds like we are going backwards instead of forward in society.[/citation]

It has been like this since Terms of Use agreements have been tied with software. If you have ever read the entire ToU with a legal dictionary, you will understand that you have never "owned" the software. You have only bought the right to use said software in compliance with the terms. If you buy a game, do you think you now own the game engine used with the game? The characters the game company have created? Of course not, if that were the case, no company would ever sell their game.

ToU agreements were crated to protect the companies intellectual property. The code is the company. Without x code for x software, the company would not exist. Now, If Apple had infringed on any Anti Trust Laws, then Psystar has every right to sue. But to think that Not actually owning the software when you buy it is something new is simply dumbfounding to me. How long have some of you been using software?

 

[necronic]

No surprise and nothing new here. Psystar clearly broke the law on this one, and not just subtly, they were like a bull in an EULA china shop.

I also have to back up that there is nothing wrong with how Apple licenses its OS. For most high end software what you purchase is a license to use that software, not the software itself. Like, I want to buy a copy of JMP for work, and what I end up buying is a license, a "right" to use it.

Windows actually does the same thing, just more open. I can grab an OEM copy of windows 7, but if I want to change my motherboard I can't transfer that license, I have to buy a new one.

 

[specialk90]

People, when are you going to realize that Apple's 'branded' hardware is NOT theirs to begin with. If Apple made the hardware themselves, then maybe I would have sympathy for them. Just think what would happen here in the US and especially bass-ackwards EU if Microsoft made a special OS that could only run on 'their' hardware - Billions in fines.

I'm surprised HP and Dell haven't released their own operating systems since they can control the hardware that is used.

For those that support Apple's use of EULA. Software is the only industry that forces people to 'sign' or 'commit' to an agreement post-sale. I am not a lawyer but there must be a law in the US that bans forcing someone to agree to use something AFTER they paid for it. Just think of everything you buy that requires an 'agreement to terms' PRIOR to purchase.