[Macworld]

Post your comments for Apple sues Mac clone maker Psystar for copyright infringement here

[luomat]

My guess is that no one wanted to be the one to bring it to S. Jobs' attention until after the iPhone 3G launch ;-)

[decondo]

Big Bullies! Why don't they just compete with Psystar rather then turn the big battleship guns on the Psystar rowboat. It isn't as if Psystar is doing anything wrong other than violate Apple's Law. Just because they offer something Apple won't.
Once Apple sells us the OS, it should be our business what we do with it (other than copy and sell). If the OS is purchased, how is using it "Stealing Intellectual Property". How much is this different than using 3rd party patches to make an OS run on on an unqualified Mac?
Good luck Psystar! You'll probably need to be more than right to win this one. Apple has a lot of money which probably will make them right!

[TheUpbeatPenguin]

I believe this actually only occurred after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the 10.5.4 update. Modifying Apple's copyrighted code = no.

[MacNano]

It's about time!
Having said that, Psystar has really made the point that there is a gaping hole in Apple's current product line. That hole would be an expandable mini-tower (or smaller) for around $1000. I just looked at what it would take to configure an Mac for my needs. I do not want an iMac for several reasons, so I can either mod-up a relatively slow MacMini until its bursting at the seams and has USB and/or Firewire add ons, or spend >$2800 for a MacPro!

[TheUpbeatPenguin]

I think the licensing agreement is irrelevant here ... if Psystar is selling modded versions of OS X on their machines, then Apple definitely has grounds for a copyright infringement suit.

[flybynight]

> said that Apple grossly overcharges for its hardware.
[/quote]
I call BS. This has been refuted not only by Apple, but several PC-centric publications.
I do agree with the sentiment that a mini tower would be a great thing for pro photographers, print shops and many others that don't need/want the glossy iMac screen, but also don't need all that expandability. Just make a really fast box that supports 8 or 16Gb of RAM, 2 HDs and 2 card slots and they'd sell a ton of them. Might eat into the Mac Pro sales a little, but the video pros will still buy those.

[Speed_Racer]

They screwed up. They should have used Boot-132 or one of the other ways that allows the buyer to install the retail version of OS X. Then have the buyer buy OS X themselves. Apple wouldn't be able to do anything against Psystar in that case.

[dreyfus]

This will be interesting... Unless they really modified Apple code for the "update service", I do not see how an "end user license" would be valid for an OEM not being the end user. And this does not even take into account that several lawyers in the past have questioned the sustainability of EULAs in the first place.
On the other side this is a problem home-made by Apple. They prefer to maintain their marketing stance that OS X is "only 129", where in fact it only is an upgrade, as every machine licensed to run it does ship with it (or a previous version) anyhow. Simply print "OS X Update" on every shipping box of Leopard and we have a clear case of theft/fraud which does not rely on expensive lawyers and bending terminology.

[Gorthaur42]

After so much time playing an undeserving second fiddle to Microsoft because of previous issues with Mac clone, I can imagine how Apple might be a little upset about this.

[adobephile]

Maybe we'll find out some day why Pisstar even bothered. Did anyone seriously not see this coming?

[n8mac]

adobephile said:

Maybe we'll find out some day why Pisstar even bothered. Did anyone seriously not see this coming?

Apple has had a pack of lawyers huddled around the red button since the day psystar opened shop.

[MylesTaylor]

I'm rooting for Apple. I buy and use Macs because of the what the Mac experience is, and that's not just the OS: it's the whole package. While I'm knowledgeable enough to know that these Mac Clones aren't true Macs, most of the public isn't. Even if Psystar does manage to keep the quality high, if they aren't taken down, then another company will pop up and another after that. In their attempts to beat out their competitors with lower prices, their quality will drop and we'll have a bunch of crappy computers out there claiming to be Macs. Even if Psystar does have a good legal cause, they'll soon crumble under the financial and legal power of Apple, and I for one won't be sorry to see them go.

[decondo]

It sounds like what you're saying is that Apple can't handle the competition and the public is too stupid to know what is a Mac. I could agree with you on the second point, but I don't feel the need to protect the public from itself.
I think Apple can handle the competition. Competition is good for motivating better product at better prices. What this is all about is Apple wanting to make the rules to the game - that's a monopolistic or very large corporation endeavor. I think they can take care of themselves without our (legal) help in this case. If Psystar is doing something fundamentally wrong, make them stop. At least don't kill them until they absolutely refuse to behave.
I wish Apple would rather concentrate on making good product rather than releasing disasters like Leopard and MobileMe. Remember the good ole days when you didn't have to wait 4 or 5 updates for a stable product. Granted, some of the features of these products are ambitious, but I feel more like a beta tester than an excited customer lately. I don't like the Vista-like feeling of dread. Now that I use my Mac more for work than play, disasters are very costly.