[wardoggie]

You still don't get the big picture. Apple is not enforcing EULAs for people who want to build their own "Hackintoshes" for their personal use (or for limited sales among friends and family, etc.). If people do it quietly, Apple probably doesn't have to acknowledge it. And the people who have Hackintoshes implicitly understand that they can't expect support from Apple.

But if Apple doesn't defend itself against someone trying to overtly profit from their intellectual property, which is a combination of hardware and software, there is no reason why Dell can't jump in the business of selling unauthorized mac clones like Psystar is trying to do. Then Psystar would go out of business anyway because they can't compete against Dell's supply chain, margins, and distribution network. You could also bet the farm that Dell has deep enough pockets to afford some real R&D to make the hacked Mac OS X more like the complete Apple experience. Then Apple is reduced to selling OS X and good industrial hardware design, bleeding market share of hardware sales to other companies. Would Apple fade from existence? Probably not. But they'd probably become more like Microsoft and less like Apple. Or, worse, they'd become like the crippled 1996 version of Apple, not the financially strong 2008 version.

[bgrieco]

What I think is interesting about this thread is how people get so emotionally envolved with it.
The first posts, of people celebrating about the dismissal, are very funny.
Unless they purchased Apple stocks it's nonsensical.

Apple Inc. is not a Mothership, Apple is not saving us from a worst than death threat. In fact, our lives would be much better having Psystar (or even Dell) as a hardware supplier. We would just have more choice.

The problem is not if you have a monopoly, but if you create trust with it. Microsoft has a monopoly, but it doesn't force you to purchase specific hardware. What Apple does.

I have no dreams about the outcome of this quarrel. Apple will win at the end. Not because it's right, or just or fair or whatever, but because it's stronger and have better lawyers.

[ronincali3002]

It's as tenous position for me as for Apple. I really did enjoy the Power Computing computer I had back then. It was better than what THAT Apple had to offer. Apple as it is today offers what are arguably much "better" hardware systems for both pros and consumers versus what was available back in the days of the Apple clones. I kinda want it both ways, yes, because while I think it's possible there could be great benefit to consumers from the licensure (usage?) of the MacOS to third party hardware manufacturers, I also see the downfalls of such for both Apple, and for users.

Let's just say that I'm glad I'm not in Apple's or Psystar's shoes.

[mdawson]

The Secretary of Defense has nothing to do with either this case, the DOJ v. Microsoft case or the Judiciary. The U.S. Government did not turn a blind eye to Microsoft until Bush came into power.

Secondly, I did not state or imply that these cases are similar nor did I use an analogy. What I did was acknowledge the fact that cases do not necessarily turn out as expected. The fact that a different judge may hear Apple?s case increased the probability of such a happenstance.

[Wondercow]

goresc said:

>> Sigh. Coca-Cola has a monopoly of the Coke market, Ford a monopoly of the Ford market, Microsoft a monopoloy of the MS market, etc.


That's not their point.... Psystar was arguing if you BUY OSX as separate product, you should be able to install it on any hardware you want, and as a company they should be able to provide that service or package.

You're missing the point (two, actually): the person to whom I replied said that because only Apple sells MacOS-compatible computers, Apple has monopoly in the Mac market. I simply pointed out that there is no "MacOS market" anymore than a Coke market, a Ford market, etc.

The other point you're missing is that Psystar did indeed try to argue that there is a "MacOS market" that Apple illegally monopolizes. That was their whole defence and the exact point of this article.

Quote

Apple's stance would be like Coke stipulating that if you buy Coke, you must drink it in a Coke-provided glass or you're breaking the law. Or Ford requiring that you only use Ford-produced gasoline in your Ford hardware (which I think actually was determined to be illegal way back when). It's the same as today's argument that if you buy music media,you should be able to play it on any device you own if you can get it there.

Not at all; you're making an all-too-common fallacious argument. One buys to own the products you mention; when the money changes hands so does 100% ownership of the item. No one, save Apple, owns a copy of MacOS--it is licenced from Apple. The more apt analogy would be that Apple dictating use of the OS (and on which equipment it can be used) is like a rental-car company dictating how the vehicle can be used and on which roads. Now, guess what? when you rent a car the company does dictate the terms of use--including where, when, and how it can be driven.

>But if you all want to fight for EULA's that eventually will require you to turnover your first-born child to company X just on their say-so, go ahead.;)

Right, because that's what's happening here. Sure.

[Neil_Anderson]

Psystar is falling.

[D_Dog]

Everybody is dismissing that the "Mac OS Market" is a separate entity from the personal computing field overall, but how many of you seriously consider anything else? For me, OSX is THE only operating system I want to use, and therefore Apple HAS a monopoly on the hardware I can choose from. When the first clones were available in the 90's I went right out and bought a Motorola clone because it had the specs I wanted at the price I thought was fair, and I expect many of you did something similar. Whether Psystar has a good product or caters to the "Walmart" crowd is irrelevant to me at this point, what I admire is that they are fighting for me to have a choice. Competition and innovation are good things and I hope that the judge sees that in the coming trial.
Who supports the system that you bought & who pays for that support?
What innovation does pystar bring to the game?
For that matter what innovation does Dell bring to the game?
If you don't like what Apple is offering go buy a PC.

[mdawson]

Quote

D-Dog wrote:

>

Quote

Everybody is dismissing that the "Mac OS Market" is a separate entity from the personal computing field overall, but how many of you seriously consider anything else? For me, OSX is THE only operating system I want to use, and therefore Apple HAS a monopoly on the hardware I can choose from.

Clearly, you have no concept of the economic or legal definitions of ?market? or ?monopoly? as the first two lines of your post obviate. Fortunately, Justice Alsup is apparently more knowledgeable than you. Consumer preference does not dictate or define a market and a company maintaining control over their brand does not constitute a monopoly. So yes, we are dismissing the Mac OS market, because no such thing exists. The Mac OS is a component of a product and that product is Apple?s brand, period.

Quote

D-Dog wrote:

>

Quote

Whether Psystar has a good product or caters to the "Walmart" crowd is irrelevant to me at this point, what I admire is that they are fighting for me to have a choice.

And here we have this bull? argument again. Psystar is not fighting for you to have a choice. They are attempting to defend their illegal act of using another company?s brand against that company. Psystar is fighting for the right to leech off of other?s work at the developer?s expense. Perhaps you should get over your selfishness long enough to stop putting Psystar on some pedestal as the guardians of consumer interests because they are not doing this for you or any other consumer, but instead to justify profiting from another OEMs R&D.

Quote

D-Dog wrote:

>
Competition and innovation are good things and I hope that the judge sees that in the coming trial.

Yes, competition and innovation are good things, but no one has the right to compete within a brand. Brands are owned by single companies, because brands are not markets. Apple sells personal computer systems, period. Apple is not Microsoft, and therefore Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems for just anyone to use. OS X is far from the most prevalent operating system in use so to imply that Apple is stifling competition is beyond ludicrous.

Any lack of operating system choice in the personal computer market rest solely on Microsoft?s shoulders as the DOJ v. Microsoft case clearly demonstrated. In fact, the only reason that OS X exists as an alternative to Windows today is because Apple develops an operating system exclusively for Apple hardware, so Microsoft could not bully Apple into an exclusion deal as they did with Dell, et al.

D-Dog wrote:
>
If you don't like what Apple is offering go buy a PC.

Exactly. And yet you contradict the entirety of the rest of your post by ending with this statement.

[alexhardy]

There is no "Mac OS market." The Mac OS and Apple hardware are one product called the Mac, inextricably linked and owned by Apple.
Psystar deserve to be sued into the gutter.

[Wondercow]

mdawson said:

> D-Dog wrote:
>
> Everybody is dismissing that the "Mac OS Market" is a separate entity from the personal computing field overall, but how many of you seriously consider anything else? For me, OSX is THE only operating system I want to use, and therefore Apple HAS a monopoly on the hardware I can choose from.

Clearly, you have no concept of the economic or legal definitions of ?market? or ?monopoly? as the first two lines of your post obviate.

D-Dog doesn't know how to set apart a quote, but you should have recognized it regardless ;)
The entire top portion was a quote from page two, posted by ebonfyre.

Quote

> D-Dog wrote:
>
> If you don't like what Apple is offering go buy a PC.

Exactly. And yet you contradict the entirety of the rest of your post by ending with this statement.

:O THAT part was D-Dog 's own reply to ebonfyre. Hee hee, you just validated that you share his point! Come on mdawson, we expect better from you! :-)

[mdawson]

Quote

Wondercow wrote:

>

Quote

Hee hee, you just validated that you share his point! Come on mdawson, we expect better from you! :)

Hey, I just started a new occupation so I do not have the kind of time I once had; you have noticed I have been posting less often recently. ;)

Anyway, D-Dog responded to the article and not ebonfyre so with his failure to indicate that the first part of his post was a quote, I saw it as being his words and not someone else?s.

Personally, I do not know why so many people respond incorrectly; that is, I consistently see people responding to the article or whomever posted last in the thread instead of to the post to which they are responding. Ironically, there is even a Macworld staffer that replies incorrectly. Is it really that hard to click the ?Reply? link at the bottom of the post to which one is replying? ?:|

But yeah, I missed that one. (why is there no frelling blush emoticon) ;) I really have not had the time to follow threads as closely as a usually do though, but I found a great occupation in a dying economy, so at least there is symmetry. :p