[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple and Psystar agree on trade secret confidentiality here

[bgrieco]

Could we have some un-biased for a change PLEEEASE !
[quote]
In what may be the second-most ridiculous current tech-related intellectual property case—after, of course, The Pirate Bay trial in Stockholm—
[quote]
[quote]
...and continues to flagrantly sell...
[quote]
How about waiting for the November trial to determine if they are flagrantly selling or legitimely selling...

[hillstones]

[quote name='bgrieco']
Could we have some un-biased for a change PLEEEASE !

[quote]
In what may be the second-most ridiculous current tech-related intellectual property case—after, of course, The Pirate Bay trial in Stockholm—
[quote]

[quote]
...and continues to flagrantly sell...

Quote

How about waiting for the November trial to determine if they are flagrantly selling or legitimely selling...

Can I steal your intellectual property and sell it without your permission and claim it is just as good as the real thing? If you think Pystar is not breaking any laws, then buy one of their computers and tell us how great they are.

[rsfinn]

bgrieco said:

Could we have some un-biased for a change PLEEEASE !

See up there, next to the MacUser logo, where it says "News, info, and opinion by Mac users, for Mac users"?

That means you're going to get some (biased) opinion along with the news and info.

If you don't like it, maybe you should stick to the front page.

[jman3001]

As long as you pay me my licensing fee, I could give a Rats Arse what you do with my intellectual property. It's only software and you've paid for the right to use it.
If it becomes such an issue for Apple to be shown up in the computer market, maybe they should stick to making iPhones or iPods.
BTW, even if Apple says Psystar can't install their intellectual property, there's nothing to stop individuals from doing it.
This topic is soooooo played on this website.

[phuney]

I thought Psystar paid full retail for the software. I wouldn't have thought that is stealing. Isn't stealing when you don't pay for it.

After that it's up to the court to decide how you can use something you have paid for.

[cphoffman42]

Not sure that the imposition of a protective order is really news - this is pretty much standard form for litigations involving competitors, as neither side wants their sensitive business data released (a) to their competitor involved in the suit or (b) to the broader world of competitors not involved in the suit.

As for the actual worthiness of the suit, I know there has been a lot written about the overreaching of software developers in their EULAs. Insofar as Psystar is claiming Apple can't prevent them from installing OS X on a computer so long as they have paid for it, their claim seems non-trivial (i.e., it might not win, but it passes the smell test). The antitrust claims seem a bit more out there, though - unless the relevant product market is computers running OS X (and it's not), Apple does not have the market power necessary for a monopolization or tied sales claim. Of course, I don't have all the information available to Psystar, so I might be missing something.

Long story short - if Psystar somehow wins, everyone in the industry will have to rethink how they handle EULAs and software licensing in general. If Psystar loses, it means EULAs will likely get even more oppressive than they are now. In that context, I really don't know who to root for.

[Wondercow]

jman3001 said:

As long as you pay me my licensing fee, I could give a Rats Arse what you do with my intellectual property.

And that's your right to licence your IP under your terms. Apple also has the right to license their IP under their terms.
>It's only software and you've paid for the right to use it.
Right, one has paid for the right to use it.... under the terms of the agreement as set out by the licensor

Quote

BTW, even if Apple says Psystar can't install their intellectual property, there's nothing to stop individuals from doing it.

There certainly is but Apple has so far not shown interest in prosecuting such individuals.

[tvon]

This has already been discussed to death all over the internet, but I'll throw in my opinion anyway ...
1- The issue isn't Psystar installing OSX on non-Apple machines, it's that Psystar is selling non-Apple machines with OSX installed.
2- I don't know if it's technically legal what Psystar is doing, but in my opinion it will be very bad news for OSX if Psystar wins. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe if Psystar wins OSX will grow in popularity and Apple will lose very little money in hardware sales (or the software sales will counter-balance it), but I have a very had time seeing how that would happen.
3- While I don't know if it's technically illegal what The Pirate Bay is doing, it's pretty hard to argue that the site serves any purpose other than freely distributing msuic/movies/games/apps/books/whatever that you would otherwise have to pay for. It's also pretty hard to argue that this doesn't hurt the people who produce these things.

[Wondercow]

phuney said:

I thought Psystar paid full retail for the software. I wouldn't have thought that is stealing. Isn't stealing when you don't pay for it.

"Stealing" is taking something to which one has no right. By using the software in a way not allowed by the licensor it invalidates said licence which, in turn, means that one has no right to use the software.

Of course that doesn't really matter since Psystar has no right to sell Apple's property to begin with.

Quote

After that it's up to the court to decide how you can use something you have paid for.

Really? So it's not illegal for me to drop an anvil on your head since 1) I paid for the anvil and 2) no court has decided "one may not drop an anvil on another person"?

Putting aside the silliness "you" haven't paid for the software; "you" have paid for the right to use the software under the licensing terms as dictated by the software's owner.

[yourboyvic]

I see this as a win for
the hackintosh community
v
mac zealots
v
wider general pc-using audience
v
apple, inc.
an apple is an apple, and a hackintosh is a hackintosh
they are two different things, the more this is realized the more this litigation becomes irrelevant.
I found out, from the sources I've read, a mac is the fastest windows Xp computer... but I've also learned that a hackintosh, basically a PC is the fastest OS X computer. bait and switch?
In the end if more people, at the whim of the PC elite, or the hackintosh-curious, even try it out; it seems like a win for Apple. OSx86 is the best way to get hardcore PC users to look at OS X.

[tvon]

Wondercow said:

Really? So it's not illegal for me to drop an anvil on your head since 1) I paid for the anvil and 2) no court has decided "one may not drop an anvil on another person"?

Actually, I don't think the anvil company could sue you for that, though you would have more pressing issues to deal with anyway...

[Wondercow]

cphoffman42 said:

>The antitrust claims seem a bit more out there, though - unless the relevant product market is computers running OS X (and it's not), Apple does not have the market power necessary for a monopolization or tied sales claim.
Which is why the antitrust argument was thrown out.
> Insofar as Psystar is claiming Apple can't prevent them from installing OS X on a computer so long as they have paid for it, their claim seems non-trivial (i.e., it might not win, but it passes the smell test).
Which is why judge Alsup allowed it to proceed :-)

[spiderbat]

I don't know about the legal issues involved but certainly, if Apple keeps negating me the choice of a laptop that costs less than 2500 $ and does not jeopardize my eyesight with a hyper-reflective display, I'll feel morally justified to install Mac OS X on a computer by another manufacturer.