Mac Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 11/12/2009 1:41:18 PM PST by Swordmaker
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Sometimes the acorn doesn't all far from the tree...
KEWL! ! !
More power to ‘em.
If Microsoft can’t be a monopolistic dog in the manger, why should Apple be allowed to so do?
I don't see them doing anyting illegal. They are simply allowing the software to run on other hardware. The "rebel" product seems to be a stand alone program that lets OS 10 run on any PC.
Since they are not modifying the Apple code, or even copying it, then what they are doing is fine.
But in the end the judges will decide. (I bet and hope they win though)
Apple has right around 10% market share. That isn’t much of a monopoly.
You’re right, it’s not illegal (so far, I suppose.)
But perhaps they should use their talents to build a legal OS for the Mac. OS X is based on open source, if I recall correctly.
btt
I guess Windows 7 will destroy thay argument.
:-)
I fall on the side of Apple here. Apple’s development costs would sky rocket, and the reputation of the operating system would suffer, if they had to supply drivers that worked on all the bits of hardware in existence in the PC world (and we aren’t even talking about the special hardware like webcams, but just “simple” stuff like SATA controllers and accelerators). Ie., they’d be like MS.
Ie., if the court makes Apple sell their OS to work on any HW, then court must provide some mechanism for Apple to protect its reputation from the damage that will be incurred by forcing Apple to support machines they don’t have the resources to support. Honestly, I don’t see how it is possible.
It’s like telling Chrysler that their engine control software for a turbo 2.5L engine must be 100% compatible, 100% emissions compliant, and 100% reliable if a user happens to want to install said software on a GM Chevrolet Corvette engine management computer. It’s ridiculous.
But I also wanted to note that I don’t think Psystar making a legal OS for Mac is really worth it. They are currently selling machines because they are selling a cheaper Macintosh. A outside-of-Apple sourced operating system for high dollar Apple hardware is not even in the realm of reasonable. Apple will always support their own hardware the best, and they will always have the most innovative interface (unless you fall into the MS fanboy camp :)).
Personally, I don’t have any problem with Pystar. As long as they are selling legitimate copies of the OS, they are free and clear as far as I’m concerned.
Because Apple has not been adjudicated to be a monopoly player as Microsoft has. In addition, the courts have ruled that a company cannot be an illegal monopoly in its own products. Psystar has been shot down on BOTH arguments. There are numerous examples of case law supporting the licensing model for software... and that will also stand.
They are installing OS X in contravention of the license. They don't own the software and cannot decide how it is to be used, only the owner can do that. All they own is a license to use it in accordance with the terms of that license.
Since they are not modifying the Apple code, or even copying it, then what they are doing is fine.
They ARE modifying the Apple code and have admitted to doing so in the California case... and have even told Judge Alsup they'd be willing to accept a "nominal fine" for doing so. They have also agreed to accept an injunction against selling OS X Leopard... because, they say, they are now modifying and selling OS X Snow Leopard instead.
Personally, I don’t have any problem with Pystar. As long as they are selling legitimate copies of the OS, they are free and clear as far as I’m concerned.
Microsoft's business model is to sell licensed copies of software for use on "IBM compatible" PCs. Apple's business model is to sell computer systems - software license and hardware, as a package deal. The Apple model allows the company to profit from its development of software without having to charge big bucks for upgrades. In the present instance, only $29 for Snow Leopard as an upgrade from Leopard (tho Apple makes no provision for preventing SL from loading on an old Mac without Leopard on it).You want Psystar to succeed in destroying Apple's business model, forcing Apple (so you think) into the Microsoft model of software license sales, with Apple's Mac line of hardware becoming uncompetitive and falling by the wayside. Well, yes, it would do that - but there is no necessary reason why Apple must remain in the personal computer operating system business at all. Apple is making big bucks on smart phones and iPods - and would quickly start losing money on developing OS X under the Microsoft model rather than its own model. The probable result of what you are wishing for is not more competition for Microsoft, but the end of aggressive development of OS X.
Wow - playing the same "evil greedy corporation" game that the 0bama administration and the Democrat party as a whole have been playing to punish those who actually hire, pay wages, and pay the bulk of taxes already... No bias here, just move on...
So - I have a question. How would MS react if... say... a creative type busted the code to run all the X-box stuff, then built econo-box machines that could play all those X-Box games, but without MS getting their cut? In the process, this crafty soul had to reverse engineer, then re-engineer this set-top box to fool the x-box code into believing it was a real X-box.
"By tying its operating system to Apple-branded hardware, Apple restrains trade in personal computers that run Mac OS X, collects monopoly rents on its Macintoshes, and monopolizes the market for 'premium computers,'" Psystar argues....as opposed to the non-profit public service work he and his brother have been doing. :')
Flawed logic throughout the piece and the author presents it without blushing.
Oh well, there’s always room for a judge to wiggle out a ruling in favor of Psystar, no matter how nonsensical such a ruling may be to most of us. But if there is a ruling in favor of Psystar it’ll be a big surprise to everyone, and probably to the judge as well since he hasn’t appeared too sympathetic so far.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re-peat af-ter - me... "Mi-cro-soft -is- -not- mon-op-o-lis-tic."
I’d really have no problem with it. However, given that MS doesn’t sell the XBox OS sans the hardware, it’s a slightly different situation. One would think MS would be happy with a setup like this, as they are selling the XBoxes at a loss, and it’s the games they make the money on. However, there is no logic or reason in the law today, so I’m sure they are able to sick FedGov on anyone who would do such a thing.
I simply don't see a legal or moral problem with them taking software they've bought and loading it up on whatever hardware they want. I'm absolutely opposed to the concept of these companies claiming (when it is convienient to them) that you are actually licensing rather than buying it. The entire idea flies in the face of the doctrine of first sale, which was thankfully fully adjudicated when the US was a Republic was goverened by reason and rule of law and prior to the US becoming a corporatist state where copyright has essentially become eternal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.