Apple has filed to dismiss with prejudice clone-maker Psystar's monopoly complaints. The two have been trading legal blows since July when Apple accused the company of infringing on its trademarks and copyrights. Hackintosh vendor Psystar offers machines capable of running OS X from as little as $555. Psystar responded in …
You can tell this is a techie site. All this talk about operating systems, Kingston RAM and Intel architectures misses the point: Apple is a DESIGN company, NOT a technology company. The underlying technology is irrelevant!
Apple have never shied away from using their own interfaces and technologies where necessary. The iPhone hasn't been the most successful v1.0 (and now v2.0) phone design in history because of its technology. It's been successful because of how that technology was *exposed to the user*.
We're finally reaching the end of an era. The end of that first, learning-how-to-walk-and-talk stage of the IT industry, where technology finally learns about manners, wearing nice clothes and how to behave when dealing with its peers.
All the talk in this thread has focussed on PCs and how Apple uses the same hardware as everyone else. There are idiots here who have gone so far as to explicitly claim that this hardware is "identical"! And you call yourselves IT experts!? Since when have any two PCs ever been exactly the same, right down to the RAM chips and North Bridge? BULLSHIT! The IA PC is an open _hardware platform_. That means PCs have different graphics cards, sound cards, network chipsets, motherboard chipsets, RAM chips, even CPUs -- from Intel to VIA!
It's precisely because of the PC architecture's openness that end users have had to suffer decades of instability and poor, lowest-common-denominator software and interface design.
Yes, OS X now runs on a specific *subset* of PC hardware, but so was the original Xbox. I don't recall anyone _outside_ the tech-wanking fraternity caring a gnat's fart that Microsoft's box couldn't also run Microsoft Word! Closed, proprietary, systems are NOT a problem if -- and only if -- we have open standards for information exchange. We've been this route before with the likes of the Atari ST, Commodore Amiga, Acorn Archimedes -- all proprietary -- and not been the worse for it.
(CPUs aside, all consoles are now around 90% industry-standard hardware components and 10% "special sauce". All three current consoles use PowerPC-derived CPU cores.)
Technology is NOT the end. It is merely the means to an end. Enough already!
The degree of misunderstanding here is scary..
...some people seem to know what they're on about, many doubt.
Modifying someone's closed source, compiled software to get it to work on your machine is not legal... end of story.
I for one hope Apple win here (as they should) as if OS X gets opened out to all the tossers in the world then it'll end up like MS, trying to support every config in the world will make it a nightmare to work with and use, as it stands it's on predefined hardware, is incredibly straightforward to work with and for the most part, does "just work"
Very murky waters IMHO.
I find I tend to side with Psystar. I think the argument would be completely different if Apple *didn't* sell their software on the open market. But they do. Anyone can buy a copy. I'm sure the EULA subsequently requires the purchaser to run his purchased software on Apple hardware, but I doubt if that would stand up in law. (Not that i'm any expert).
I'm sure the law could be simplified vastly: Make sellers assert their 'conditions' *before* sale, not *after* sale. (Ever tried to take a copy of Windows back to PC world because you didn't agree with the EULA?).
That way, the buyer and the seller are protected: The seller is protected in so far as he can claim that the buyer was made aware of any pre-conditions PRIOR to purchase, and went ahead and purchased anyway.
Anyway, I guess I'm drifitng off topic: I can't really see how Apple can sell you a CD with software, and then tell you what you can/can't run it on.
*IF* however, they *only* made Apple Macs with the software on it already (like they used to do) then it would be a simple copyright/theft issue and I would side with Apple.
Sorry Apple, you always seem to want your cake and eat it. You bitched and moaned about Windows Media Player, then went ahead and tied iTunes to Quick Time. Then you went ahead and built on online music portal tied to your own portable music player.
Vile vile company.
"The underlying technology is irrelevant!
But that's the only copyright Apple have: the underlying technology.
Which, if irrelevant, means there's nothing relevant to complain about.
YOUR degree of misunderstanding here is scary..
"Modifying someone's closed source, compiled software to get it to work on your machine is not legal... end of story."
And NOT modifying someone's code but making your own and reverse engineering IS legal.
And, except in Germany, not legal does not mean illegal.
Shit. And YOU'RE telling US "we don't understand"!!!! Fuck, learn to understand what you say first!
OS not modified
As far as I understand it, they haven't modified OSX as they then wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, and they would know it, all it needs is a PC with BIOS modifications (which isn't part of the OS) as OSX runs perfecly fine on Intel x86 kit as it does in a real mac
"Does Mercedes create a monopoly by refusing to sell their engines to other carmakers? No - they have a right to put them exclusively in their own brand of cars."
Aside from the licencing they do on new cars to other manufacturers, *anyone* is entitled to buy a replacement, recon or second hand Merc engine and do what the hell they like with it.
If they want to stick it in a Ferrari or a Metro, then that's their business.
As OS X is sold as a product in it's own right then you should likewise have the right to do what you want with it (apart from breaching copyright and pirating it). It's non of Apple's business.
However Apple's case can only hinge on IP and patent infringement on the hardware. If it is proven that the hardware is capable of running OS X but infringes on nothing of Apple's then there's no case. Licence agreements saying you can only run it on their hardware are more than likely meaningless and unenforceable. Besides that, it still has no impact on the hardware manufacturer as it is the end-user who is breaking the agreement, not the manufacturer of compatible hardware.
There is a down side to 3rd party hardware though in that once they become widespread then the OS will start to look bad as it suddenly exhibits all kinds of incompatibility and stability issues. Why does OS X "just work"? For the very reason Apple own and control the hardware.
I can see the point in Apple's complaint though. They subsidise the cost of the OS through the hardware. If they allow 3rd party hardware then the OS cost will have to rise heavily.
Gulfie war syndrome ?
are you one of Websters alternate personalies ?
Don't you understand the term "deliberately hobbled" the Intel macs are standard machines using whoevers chipset (I'm sure that varies throughout the year) OSX is simply doctored so it won't run inless it finds some form of Apple branding in there.
There is no REAL reason apart from the following statement :
OSX is the only way Apple can sell their over priced and mediocre hardware to any appreciable number of people
> You don't hear people crying out for HP-UX or VMS on their machines.
Err thats becasue those ran on propriety hardware. When I worked on DEC Alpha boxes you had VMS, NT or several U*IX or Linux variants. Personally I always wanted a version of VME that ran on PC hardware
As for "Apple shouldn't be forced to allow OSX on other platforms." Well then THEY SHOULDNT SELL IT TO PEOPLE IN THE 1ST PLACE. Make it free (as indeed it was in the past) with the hardware, and simply charge for updates (and having to provide your macs serial number to prove you are actually a mac owner)
As for stability issues, having worked in the publishing industry for 16 years, all I can say is that OSX is OK but not fantastic, but having lived through OS 7, 8 & 9 I would say that Apple have no proven track record on that score.
They also have a remarkable number of DOAs when kit is delivered compared with the likes of Dell & HP (we are talking about deliveries of 250+ machines)
Most car analogies don't work because you don't *license* cars, you buy them.
If you buy a Honda race engine for a Fireblade from HRC, you're not legally allowed to put it in a Yamaha chassis and race it. Why? Because that's the license and conditions you agree to on purchase/rental.
For better or worse, you're not buying an OS; you're licensing it.
re: Car analogies?
Nope, you don't license. You buy it.
The "you've licensed this" is what the grabby little fuckers WANT people to believe.
But you pay for it as retail. It IS retail.
If it's licensed, where's by DVD version of my VHS movies? If it's licensed, where's the recovery of goods at production cost if my CD's are stolen or scratched?
See, it's only "licensed not bought" when they want it treated like a license. It's "Bought" when it suits them (e.g. "Buy now on DVD!" "Buy to own now!" or "No, you scratched it, you buy a new one").
re: Mercs again
There's no such thing as IP.
The rest of your message is right, but stop spreading the BS the monopolies and cartels are trying to get us to swallow.
THERE IS NO "IP".
There's trade secret.
THERE IS NO "IP".
- Asteroids as powerful as NUCLEAR BOMBS strike Earth TWICE YEARLY
- Review Ubuntu 14.04 LTS: Great changes, but sssh don't mention the...
- Vid CEO Tim Cook sweeps Apple's inconvenient truths under a solar panel
- Got Windows 8.1 Update yet? Get ready for YET ANOTHER ONE – rumor
- HTC mulls swoop for Nokia's MASSIVE Chennai plant