[ct77]

Slam dunk. Psystar deserves whatever comes their way from the judicial system.

[wiseguy]

Sure, it hurts a lot more. But more than hurting Psystar, it helps Apple. Maybe they waited to pack a serious punch, but maybe they waited so that a lot of people who would otherwise not buy a Mac got a cheap taste of one. Now it's getting taken away from them, but they might want to keep their Mac experience and instead opt to buy a real one.
Apple 2, Psystar 0.

[doglesby]

KPO said:

Something a little more plausible (as Apple is nowhere near 50% market share in anything except digital music players) is an attempt to create something like WINE that will run OS X software on another operating system (such as Linux or Windows) without having to run OS X. Given that much of OS X is based on open source, it certainly seems possible that someone could attempt this, particularly if Mac-only software becomes more prevalent.

The low-level system (the stuff all operating systems have) is based on open source projects. The APIs necessary to do what you're talking about? Not so much.

Not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, but the open source comment is not germane

[SpinThis!]

doglesby said:

The low-level system (the stuff all operating systems have) is based on open source projects. The APIs necessary to do what you're talking about? Not so much.

Yeh exactly. HFS+ (the file system) is not open source. Cocoa/Carbon programming APIs are not open source. And most importantly, Aqua?the Mac OS X GUI?is not open source. If it were, then there would be clones all over the place, just not with Apple's branding, icons, etc.

The anti-trust issue doesn't make much sense here. No one's forcing you to buy Apple products.

I hate the car analogy but lots of people point out that what Apple is doing is like telling you where you can drive, what vehicles you can drive, how fast, etc. That's not true. What Psystar is doing is more akin to, say, BMW offering an OS for its vehicles that controls most aspects of how the car drives. Then another company?Yugo?designs their own knockoff version of this car using a similar but older BMW-built V8 engine, different rims and tires, less capable suspension, etc. that appears to run a hacked version of the BMW software. Then claim it's the same experience.

[longlivetheclones]

Wow, whatever happened to freedom? Sheesh! After all the railing against the big M, now we're going to give Apple a pass? Come on, let the clone wars begin. I am a mac user (I have three imacs and a mini), but come on, Jobs, your prices are too high! I'm pulling for Psystar!

[SpinThis!]

KPO said:

Microsoft tried to argue the "no one forces you to buy it" argument. It is valid when you have Apple's current market share, which is why they are likely to prevail in this case. However, if they achieve Microsoft Windows-like market share, things could change

Actually, market share had little to do with with M$'s anti-trust case. One of the many reasons they were indicted was because they were also forcing hardware manufacturers to basically carry no one else's products but Windows (for example Linux or BeOS).

When you by a Mac, you buy the whole widget. Apple is primarily a hardware company that just happens to make excellent software. That's the difference. It what Apple sells. They may sell an OS upgrade that is separate from the initial offering but that software only works on certain machines that ran a previous version. Apple even lets you run Windows if you want.

[People_Eater]

KPO said:

For instance, fast-forward a few years. Let's say Apple has become the dominant PC manufacturer (crossing 50%) and OS X has overtaken Windows in terms of new sales. Might the anti-trust police come into town and force Apple to start licensing again?

No. Microsoft got in trouble, because their business model is based on licensing. They can't (or at least shouldn't) be able to treat their OEM customers unfairly, or strong-arm them.

Apple avoids this issue, because it only sells the OS for its own products. It does not control the fate of other companies. For example, let's take Nikon. They make lenses for their Nikon cameras. They are not obligated to make lenses for Canon or Leica cameras, even if Nikon had 100% of the market.

Quote

Remember that's why IBM back in 1980 was reluctant to design a proprietary OS.

That seems like an odd statement. Got any source for that? Either it's not true, or IBM were being incredibly stupid, because making their own proprietary OS would have protected them.

I thought the reason they approached Microsoft for an OS, was because they were desperate to get an OS quickly, because they didn't have one ready, and did not anticipate how important consumer Operating Systems would become. To them, the OS had no value in itself, it was all about the hardware.

[People_Eater]

longlivetheclones said:

Wow, whatever happened to freedom? Sheesh!

Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my face begins. Psystar never had the right or freedom to co-opt Apple's property. Apple has the freedom to protect their business interests.

Quote

After all the railing against the big M, now we're going to give Apple a pass?

What? How is this situation even remotely comparable to what Microsoft has done? When did Apple go around strong-arming distributors and telling them that they couldn't sell any software products other than Apple's?

Basically, this is the exact opposite of the Microsoft situation. Microsoft was telling its customers they could only sell Microsoft products, and not others. Apple is telling a company it can't sell Apple products without permission. What is wrong with that?

[longlivetheclones]

Well, I guess that's one way to see it. But maybe it will tick 'em off and make them not want to give Apple their money.

I remember back in the eighties when I bought my //c I almost bought a HAVOC--an Apple clone. In the end, I opted for the Apple because I knew too little about the machines to risk a knock off. But through the years since I have had at least a dozen pc clones. Personally, I think the comptetion among pc hardware makers has been a GREAT thing. And today, with viable options like linux, and all the open source software available, I say, open the hardware up to all OS's and let the public buy and run what they want on what they want.

[longlivetheclones]

Yeah, but I am talking about the freedom to build a box that can run whatever OS I choose. I wasn't connecting the M$ lawsuit issue with this one as a legal matter, in fact, they don't relate. I was referring to the way that the big M has taken grief in the whole open source debate. To me, I think Apple should be content to sell hardware and software and leave me to decide what box I build and what software I run--that's all.

[prolix876]

Getting back, for a moment, to a hypothetical case where Psystar might have stood a chance:
SUPPOSE that PsyStar had actually provided a new copy of OS X with each PC sold, instead of merely copying one master disc (as I'm under the impression they did); and SUPPOSE that PsyStar had, instead of modifying OS X to run on non-Apple hardware provided an additional middleware utility (the hardware sees it as software; the software sees it as hardware/firmware). In such a case, their operation would have been legal but at a significantly higher overhead, I imagine.
The important US Ninth Circuit case Autodesk v. Vernor [link] recently reaffirmed that the First Sale Doctrine does allow selling used software. The judge in that case, Judge Richard A. Jones, ruled that for all intents and purposes software IS sold instead of licensed, regardless of the legal fine print, and therefore, it should be treated as any other copyrighted work that is bought and sold and subject to the First Use Doctrine (which, incidentally, is 100 years old this year and falling to pieces).
By not modifying the operating system, PsyStar wouldn't face liability under the DMCA for reverse engineering but, also of note, according to the link cited above, if software is treated as a sold good instead of a licensed one, then reverse engineering and anything else restricted by the EULA is up for grabs. (With no license there can be no License Agreement.)
It's an interesting possibility to ponder...

[longlivetheclones]

As I understand it, it is possible to run Leopard on a pc without modifying the program. All that is required is the right hardware components and some modifications to the BIOS. In fact, it is my understanding that Psystar is offering just that sort of arrangement--you CAN buy the open box and the OS separately and do the install yourself. From my perspective, Apple should be happy they sold the software and let the rest go in the name of competition.

[prolix876]

If what you're saying is factually true, then I'd have to agree with your opinion.

[longlivetheclones]

That's what is sounds like to me. Here is what Psystar's website says about their Open Computer:
bq. The highly extensible Open Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer we will not only include the actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc, but we also preinstall Leopard for free so you can begin to use your computer right out of the box.
It seems that you could just get the box from them and actually buy the OS from Apple, if you wanted.