i hope that the legal system hand apple their azzes and allows clones. the osx license agreement is anti competitive in nature imagine your auto dealer telling you that you can only use their tires on their cars or their radios in their cars, ect. nonsense, apple has been able to get away with this nonsense like sco got away with their nonsense until the legal system put an end to it.

jsloan,

Auto Manufactures in fact can tell you what you can and cannot do with your (their) car. If you continue to use the wheels supplied with your car, then you will need to purchase tires that fit that spec, Radios are the same, now that people want it to look more integrated with the car, it is harder to replace it with an aftermarket.

Now what I believe you were trying to say was A dealer cannot make you stay with them for all work performed on your car. That would be illegal.

Apple really depresses me. I'm totally a die-hard windows user, but that's besides the point. Back a week or two ago there was an article on Toms Guide about the newest copyright Apple has submitted, effectively barring any future companies fro even thinking about multi touch technology. Mac just keeps waving its user agreements and the likes around (iTunes...). I'd like to see them at least have to rethink their policies once.

AndrewMD UMMM you are wrong. They can tell you they would void the warranty but not that you cant use them.

andrewmd, That's not quite the same as what's being described here. Even if you get different spec wheels and tires, often times you'll have a choice of manufacturer for those options. More often then not, 3 or more different manufacturers. Radios, too, are easily replaced with non OEM parts.

With Apple, you can't buy from other manufacturers. You can only buy apple equipment to run the OS X.

Look at Microsoft or Linux's OS's, for example, which while they must have hardware requirements met, there are many different ways of reaching these requirements through several different manufacturer's. You don't NEED to use a MS licensed CPU. You don't need an MS licensed Mobo. Or chassis. Or PSU. Or whatever.

The most ridiculous part of the multi touch patent is the fact that Microsoft had the Surface almost two years before the iPhone was even launched. Dell also had the XT which launched 6 months before the iPhone that featured multi touch. They weren't even close to being the pioneers behind the technology but somehow they are awarded a patent for it.

All of which completely ignores the fact that the only way to get a non-upgrade license for OS X is to buy a Mac. You can't run OS X on a PsyStar machine because PsyStar can't sell you a full copy of OS X, they can only sell an upgrade, and the upgrade license (which is clearly valid), says you have to own a qualifying previous version of Mac OS to use it. Like it or not, Apple's EULA limiting it to Apple hardware is valid.

they've been awarded patents for almost every way of doing touch and several functions.... it borders on insanity. If Microsoft or IBM tried to file some of the patents Apple does they'd get laughed out of the patent office. And if they did get the patents they'd be subject to all sorts of rulings by the EU etc.

I really do hope Pystar win, but I have to wonder... where are they getting their cash to fight this battle?

osx only upgrade? can you do a full install with it, then its more than an upgrade. a manufacturer can suggest what how they would want you to use their product, but you are buying a copy that you can do what you will, so long as you don't make illegal copies, and installation is not maing an illegal copy. also the car wheels size is tied to the rim size, you can get after market rims of different sizes for any car, you can change anything you want about your car, including the computer and roms, their are after market shops that sell cheap roms, with tweaks. the thing is if you don't know what you are doing you can get hurt or cause an accident, but you are not prevented from doing it, so long as it passes inspection, for example it has to be able to stop at x speed in y feet or whatever the state you have the car registered in asks for... don't worry with any luck the apple clones will be available to everyone in no time and apple will have to find another way to stick it to their customers.

I think that was made clear by phystar amending it's case. Now they're trying to convince the courts that doing so in the first place is anti-competitve, which for the most part is true. If the judges arent payed off by apple, phystar has a decent chance at winning I think.

Possibly, but most hardware comes with software that is licensed only for use on that hardware. For instance, the BIOS, OEM versions of Windows, the software in your TV, DVD player, stereo, mp3 player, etc. It's all licensed only to run on the piece of hardware with which it was purchased, and you're paying for the software in the price of the hardware. Mac OS X is no different, it just happens to be capable of being made to execute on other hardware.

Tivo makes great DVR software, I really like it, but I can buy a much cheaper DVR from someone else. Should I be able to pirate Tivo's software and hack it to work on a brand X DVR? What about Apple's iPod software, should I be able to hack it to work on a Creative, Sansa, or Zune device? What about installing the Zune software on a non-Zune device? How about running RIM's Blackberry software on a Palm, Nokia, or Samsung phone? You can't buy/license the software for any of those devices separately from the hardware. What about device drivers for video cards, NICs, etc., they generally only work with one manufacturer's cards (or when they're supplied by the chip manufacturer, maybe most cards using that chip). Because I can download or purchase upgrades for the software for those, does that mean I can install that upgrade on a completely different device? (hint, NO!)
Software is almost ALWAYS licensed only for use on the device with which it was purchased. Third party (i.e. not the hardware vendor and not the consumer) software is the exception. Mac OS X is NOT third party software and it's not licensed for use on anything other than a Mac.

Given that no one is forced to buy an Apple computer, there are plenty of other choices, and in fact, most people buy something other than a Mac. Windows has 80% of the market and Linux and Mac OS X each have less than 10%, obviously, Apple isn't stopping anyone from buying computers nor limiting anything except their own market. There is nothing anti-competitive about it. It may be foolish, it may be poor strategy, but it's not anti-competitive or illegal.

The Mac OS X software that PsyStar is "buying from Apple" and including with their machines, is an upgrade license only, but those machines don't have an original Mac OS X license to upgrade, so it's a violation of the license terms to install and use that software on the PsyStar machine. Unless Apple and PsyStar can agree to terms for original licenses for the PsyStar machines, anyone using Mac OS X on PsyStar machines is violating the EULA, and therefore, the copyright.

PsyStar is wasting time and money. They will lose.

Apple is fully within its rights to restrict its OS to certain machines. Macs are fully supported by Apple, and they have no responsibility to make it usable on other machines or the tech support headaches that would cause. With everyone's moronic analogy about Honda and roads, a better analogy would be what if someone hacked an Xbox to play Playstation games or vice versa. Apple doesn't want its brand and system associated and confused with some hack machine. It's a bootleg Mac, simple as that. Plus Psystar seems less than reputable. If you're so anti-Apple, then don't use OS X. Simple as that.

Incorrect. You generally don't buy software, you buy a license to use the software subject to the license terms. There are exceptions, but they are few and Mac OS X is not one of the exceptions. The fact that Apple allows a full install (only on Apple hardware) does not change the terms of the license. The ability to do a full install on Apple hardware is provided as a convenience to the user so they can do a clean install without having to go back to the install disks that came with the computer. Since every Mac ever sold includes a license to use the OS, Apple can assume that if you're installing it on Apple Macintosh hardware that meets the system requirements, then that machine is licensed to run Mac OS, ergo, it qualifies for the upgrade.

PsyStar may lose, but the important point is they are trying to bring to issue the broken patent system we have with IP.

Personally, I believe Apple has the right to restrict support for their software to their hardware - all other uses are at the end users own personal risk and no guarantees of usability would apply. However, to make it a criminal offense to put it on different hardware seems extreme.

To go back to the car analogy, it would be like the auto manufacturer stating any wheels found on your car by a third-party manufacturer would result in you paying a heafty fine and loss of the tires seems a bit rediculous - and that is what Apple is doing when they say "our hardware or else". It does not matter that there are other car manufacturers who let you put third party tires on your car... to say that their actions are legal because you can always go buy a different manufacture's car seems a bit weak to me.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Well they could simply have the EULA state that Apple will only support Mac Hardware since it is their obligation as the builders but unbind their software from Mac Machines so other people, or companies can provide their own support on different machines...

in fact, if they pulled that early enough, they could probably start setting up licensing deals with OEMs and make a killer profit... on software they had created a while back. They'd only need to provide support for the core and the manufacturers of addons would be responsible for the driver kexts...

They would then probably have to just upgrade their product line or reduce their selling price to sell more of Their Hardware...

Not quite correct, you can use non-Apple parts in your Mac, people do it all the time, but you must have a Mac. A more appropriate analogy is that you can't run Chevy's engine control software on a non GM engine. You can then use non-GM parts on that engine, but you had to buy a GM engine to start.


True, but MS and Linux have different business models (from each other and from Apple). If you look at the cost of Windows (XP Pro, Vista Pro, full version, not an upgrade) vs. the cost of a Mac OS X upgrade, you'll see that MS also charges a lot for that license. Mac OS X upgrades are inexpensive (similar in price to Windows upgrades) precisely because they are upgrades, not full licenses. Mac users paid for the full license when they bought the Mac, just as Windows users pay for a full license when they buy a new machine with Windows.

Linux is a different model completely, while it looks similar to MS model, the pricing (or lack thereof) makes it a completely different business model (ask anyone selling or distributing FOSS about the challenges of that model). I am a big fan of FOSS, and I hope it continues to grow, but it's definitely a challenging business.

It IS a criminal offense when you're making money off violating the terms of a license under copyright. Just as it's an offense to copy and sell CDs, DVDs, etc., when PsyStar started selling machines with Mac OS X that violated the license/copyright, they broke the law AND they were doing it for profit. It IS a crime, and it exposes PsyStar's officers to both civil and criminal penalties, just as if they had copied and distributed the Mac OS X install DVD.

To the best of my knowledge, Apple has not taken action against individuals who have built their own "hackintosh" and installed Mac OS X on it. It's still a license and copyright violation, but it can be tough to get any damages from someone who is doing so for their own personal use.

wait a minute, that is not correct, i can buy parts, used parts form tvs, dvd players, ect. i used to go into city to get them. then i would build my own from taking apart the stuff i bought and making my own.

i can buy a dell computer or parts and take the parts, like memory, cpu, harddisk, ect, and you it to build my own custom computer.

that is what clones are doing they are taking the osx part, they dont want the rest and building their own

apple should be happy that people are interested in their os, over linux, windows

they should come up with way. to oem or sell it and make some money

i bet a lot of window people would buy it, like they buy windows and even run it on box they put together or maybe in virtual vm

isnt that what apple people are doing, installing windows in vm

i personally hope that apple loses this one. i would buy a copy of their os and install it in vm

apple should stop acting like bully and go out there and get a bunch of customers, go out and compete against windows, maybe they would win

what are they afraid of, everyone would use their stuff, or better that only 10% of the market would, oh i forgot that is where they are now

let me tell you a little secret, in early days i used to sell original apple ii, and you know what, apple, steve jobs are the only company that i know that can turn a product that everyone would happily own and turn it into a product that only 10% would.

they owned a number of markets, but then they make it hard to sell or buy. big hardware mentality, and it turns people off, so they go somewhere else.

they come up with stuff and its company like microsoft the get it into the hands of the public.

i think this is where it will end up, they wont have to support it, guarantee voided because its running on hardware it was never intended to be run on or supported.

it'll be like going out there replacing your car break system and then the dealer wont warrant it, but they will be happy to fix your car, but for $$$

when you agree to an agreement the agreement itself must be enforceable, it has to be legal. the courts will decide whether the apple one is enforceable and legal.

maybe apple agreements asks you or limits you to do something that the law will not enforce or that is illegal to ask someone now to do.

is there a computer software industry lawyer or copyright lawyer that would give us their thoughts

for example i can make a back up of my dvds, the dvd company cant stop me or ask me not to do so as an agreement for them to sell me their for example dvd movie. me making a backup copy is not considered by the courts as a violation of their copyright.

see there are limits to what company's can ask of us.

if apple wanted this stop they could stronly encrypt their software and have a hardware decryptor in their apple computers. so then noone could install it without the hardware decryptor and it would be violation for me to break their encryption, their are some limit on this. the law does allow me to break encryption for certains uses, like educational, law enforcement.

but they cant stop me from going on ebay buying a used broken apple, take the decryptor component out make my own little board and then use that and their software in my own custom computer.

you can take non gm parts and put them in gm car, they would have to fit or you would have to adopt. i have created custom car with engine, transmission, ect from different companies that were not compatible. i just had to adopt it. it even passed inspection. i build the engine, the transmission, the body, ect all from different cars from different vendors. what a job that was. but it worked, although with some problems, but it was street legal, licensed, registered, insured and i used to drive it all over the place.

I can't see how this lawsuit will be successful. If Mac OSx made up a significant part of the market and you could only get that software by purchasing Apple branded computers then one might have an anti trust case.

Beyond the *nix roots of OSX a lot of the stability etc comes from certified and tested hardware. Throw OSX on random hardware and you may take away from that.

To use the car analogy this is how I would put it: To get a Mac OSX "engine" you have to buy an Apple "car". After that you could choose to take out the engine and put it in another car but that doesn't change the fact that you need to buy the Apple car in the first place.

Most apple customers appear happy to have it stuck to them. And who are we to question what the patent office rules on. know the engineering priniciples and relevant patent law? I don't. I trust the patent office over my own random ideas. Did you read the patent application and do you Which patents does apple get? The ones you like, that give apple no competitive edge?

You want to see progress?????

just wait until Microsoft wants to implement these features in an upcoming phone....

Reminds me of when Dr. Emmet brown said "when this baby hit's 88mph..Your going to see some SERIOUS shit!"

hehehe

Silly americans just don't get it that the DMCA is american act and has no value in the EU. The same persons think that the EU is out to 'get' US companies, totally ignoring that most complaints filed with anti-trust department were from american companies.
Get used to it: american law is just that, and no more.

Don't worry. Steve Jobs will die soon and Apples monopoly will be over. hahahahha

Could you imagine if you swapped Microsoft for Apple in this case? People would be screaming from the rooftops if MS had the same restrictions as Apple. I know MS and Apple are different and are trying to accomplish two different business models.. however if MS said you can only use or install Windows on machines approved by MS, there would be hell to pay. However, a lot of people support Apple for doing just that. ><

Hell, there might just be a lot more people out there using an Apple OS, if Apple sold their OS seperately (without support), as well as offering their own line of PCs which they fully support.

It's not a question of what seems right or what should be but what the license a user agrees to. If a user is aware and it is clearly stated that Mac OS can only be loaded on Mac hardware that is that companies choice. The user agrees to this in order to use the product. End of story.

Personally for Mac to keep this exclusivity in todays world is stupid. If they were to open up their OS like MS (they can still offer "Official" hardware) they might actually be able to compete with MS. As it stands however they will never gain a majority share because they take the Henry Ford approach to computers.

"A customer can have a model T in any color. So long as it's black.

To system builders this makes Macs seem like an authoritarian or a dictatorship of the electronics world.

Why would I use your OS if you tell me what case I can have, or what GC or processor I can have. I've been choosing this for myself since I started building computers 15 years ago, and it's only gotten easier over time. No fussing with jumpers etc. If I want to OC and cool my computer with cooking oil I can do this (I dunno why but I still love that design)

Back to the lawsuit, I want to say they should be able to, but in the end Apple does have the legal right to decide how their product should be used even if it is shortsited.

I wonder if Apple's business model would survive should they attain a larger percentage of market share in terms of Percentage of OS's being distributed. Should Microsoft brand a computer named WindowFrame and decide that from here on out you can only put your Windows in a WindowFrame computer, if they retained their current marketshare, I think that would be found to be monopolistic and the company would have to divide into two (at least) with Windows and WindowFrame.

Should Apple grow, would they ultimately be compelled to divide into (at least) two parts, Macintosh and AppleTree (You only find Macintosh Apples on AppleTrees). Or perhaps if Apple grows in terms of Market share would that allow Microsoft to make a WindowFrame computer for their Windows, essentially mimicing Apple's business model? It certainly would help Microsoft's Quality control.

i agree with geoff. Psystar's mistake is installing os x on these blank machines using an upgrade disc. You can't even do that with a Windows upgrade without violating their EULA. If Psystar wanted to win, they should have fought for the full installation of OS X. Now they're just being defensive. Although they might break new ground for future cloners but they got to bite this bullet. they did f'up.

They're not legally allowed to void your warranty for "aftermarket" parts or customizing your car unless the parts themselves caused the damage to the aspect of the vehicle that you are requesting a warranty for. The only exception is if they are providing the OEM parts for free which they are generally more expensive.

And FYI, I work for one of the largest aftermarket auto parts companies in the world. What's funny is when people try and argue about how much better OEM parts are... until I show them that we sell the exact same parts, from the same production lines, to both the OEM and aftermarket distributors in a different box.

I'm kind of surprised that they're not trying to nail the same situation down to apple. Not so much that it's anti competitive (it is), but that the consumer has the right to use whatever "aftermarket" parts they want so long as its use does not break the warrantied product. Last I checked, you can't break software beyond the repair of reinstalling it unless your drive eats the disk... just my 2 cents.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C))
This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of the law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle maker's brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law's protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part:

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name... (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)).