I remember all the dire predictions and hand wringing when LCO filed suit against IBM over Unix ownership. As time went on and the facts came out it became clear that LCO was trying the old shakedown on IBM. It didn't work and LCO is history. Just sit back and watch what happens with this little chess move.

Someone asked: "Not sure who has IQ low enough to pick up this case."

The answer is:
Carr & Ferrell, a company which specializes in intellectual property law. This was the law firm which represented Burst.com in a patent infringement case against Apple dating back from 2006 (this was settled last year when Apple agreed to pay Burst.com $10 million). The law firm also backed Burst.com when it went up against Microsoft, a move which earned the company $60 million in an out of court settlement.

Low enough IQ for you?

I am saddened by the continuous butchery of the English language on the internet. How can you not know the difference between LOOSE and LOSE? They're two different words that mean two different things.

The written word is the medium of the internet. Please learn how to spell and which words to use. This is among the most basic of skills, something that you should have learned in 4th grade. There really is no excuse.

What this article fails to state is that Apple is putting out a different product that much of the rest of the industry. It has an integrated hardware and software platform because it chooses too.

That is a business model and product, not a market and single commodity. The end-to-end model and product of Mac OS X is not in any way a monopoly. Sorry guys, but I guess that's the best defense that you can come up with.

This is like saying McDonalds has the "monopoly" on BigMacs.

The software and hardware are tied together as a complete product, just as the game boxes and the likes of WebTV and TiVo or even the iPhone, Newton, etc.. The list can go on forever. Even most cars have specific software.

I see this going nowhere.

I just got done reading the Software License Agreement for Leopard, and the Psystar guys are unquestionably violating it six ways to Sunday. The only hope they have of winning this case is if they can convince the judge that the SLA is unenforceable.

Their lawyers have never really won a case against Apple - they've just managed to get an out-of-court settlement from them once. But in this case, Apple can't afford to settle out of court, because what Psystar is doing could easily be duplicated by any company anywhere at little cost or initial investment.

Apple needs to crush these guys and get a judge to rule that the SLA is legal and enforceable, because anything less is going to result in an entire cottage industry springing up overnight to sell generic PC components with Leopard pre-installed.

For those (including the editors, apparently) with hindsight shorter than 10 years, Psystar is far from "the first company to begin selling clones". Apple's second post-Jobs CEO, Michael Spindler, started licensing clones in 1994, and there were several successful manufacturers -- so successful that one of Steve's first actions after his return to a barely breathing Apple Computer in 1997 was to rescind the clone licenses and in at least one case buy the company (Power Computing). Arguably a good move, given where Apple is today.

So Pystar is saying its Ok for GM to make Fords and VW can make Toyota's.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just one of a great many you can easily find...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=macintosh_os&articleId=9023959&taxonomyId=123

go educate YOUR self pal. what vintage ms koolaid are you consuming?

The issue here is the legality of the EULA and whether it is overbroad.

OSX is a piece of software that is sold separate from the underlying hardware. I can buy a copy of this software and not buy an Apple computer.

The EULA restricts my usage of that software to an Apple designed computer thereby creating a monopoly for the software.

This benefits Apple by allowing them to sell somewhat more expensive computers, with albeit better functionality and design, and the premium Apple logo.

The question for the court to decide is whether these EULAs are good or bad for the advancement of technology and society and whether Apple is restricting advancement and abusing their software monopoly ( of OSX).

If Apple ONLY sold OSX when you buy an Apple computer and did not ever sell OSX separately, then there would be no channel ( other than user to user resale) for any company or individual to buy additional copies of OSX to install on their non-Apple computer.

This raises a good question, where is Pystar getting the OSX install discs. Are they paying retail or wholesale? They are paying Apple the market rate for OSX and not stealing it. Apple is getting what they deem a fair price for the software.

OK, so say Apple tells its distributors not to sell the OSX disks to Pystar. Do the distributors have to listen? Is this a strong-arm tactic and thus raise the question of a monopoly.

The First Sale Doctrine has been litigated and says resale is allowable and companies can't stop it.

Read the Copyright Clause of the constitution people:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Apple's overly broad EULA should be dismissed and Pystar and others should be able to continue selling their inferior hardware.

Apple should rely on the superior design, support, hardware engineering, and additional WORK to make their product desirable rather than adding words to a piece of paper to keep fattening the hog.

There are lots of PC manufacturers, HP, Sony, Dell etc..selling Windows and making money. Each of them has their good points and bad points and people decide which hardware to buy.

We all know that OSX is a better operating system, and that Apple's hardware is the best...but competition is better and we should expect as much out of Apple as we do of Microsoft.

with Microsoft's OS saying that they "copy" the latest and greatest from OS X. If Psystar is so intent to be able to run Mac OS on their stuff, then shouldn't Psystar, a second rate company, slapping together some second rate hardware, have that hardware run some second rate version of Mac OS X? Hey Psystar, install VIsta and shut up!

do they have a license to resell OS X in their computers? Do they have the right to distribute a modified version of it?

Actually, clones came before Apple started licensing them. I recall reading an article in MacWorld of a company that completely white-roomed the MacToolbox/ROM and sold it in a computer that ran mac software (as well as another OS).

Company was called NuTek, and they sold their stuff in 93, I believe.

OS X development is subsidized by hardware sales. I suggest you cheapskates get real jobs.

Everyone outside of software development seems to think software development is cheap. Grab a clue.

"If Apple ONLY sold OSX when you buy an Apple computer and did not ever sell OSX separately, then there would be no channel ( other than user to user resale) for any company or individual to buy additional copies of OSX to install on their non-Apple computer."

Apple DOES sell OS X only when you buy an Apple computer: thereafter, you can buy new versions to "upgrade" your installation. That's about it. There is no Tiger to Leopard update/upgrade.

From the EULA:

1) This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

The EULA is clear, however in my opinion it is overbroad and this section should be invalidated.

If you replace Apple Software with Microsoft Software and Apple-labeled with Sony or HP-labeled people would be up at arms.

Apple software is like the drug-trade, keep the drug scarce (illegal) it remains expensive. People want the drug and they will pay the price.

Make the drug legal and the price comes down. Since the operating system is only a small portion of the system and many companies continue to sell billions of dollars worth of variants Intel Hardware, the only issue is fear of competition.

In 2007 Apple made ~10.5 billion off of Mac Sales.
11 billion on Ipod related stuff, 1.5 billion on software.

They can and would compete if the EULA is invalid and may initially lose some revenue, but CONSUMERS will benefit due to the more competition. Better hardware designs with more features to keep up with the PC world.

Those who have stock may say, oh no at first but the marketshare for OSX would rise tremendously. More software would be created and the creative process would be helped not hurt.

It is easier for Apple to spend 2 billion dollars filing a lawsuit than to compete. This happens so often.

Psystar has an uphill battle, but one that I commend them for fighting.

Is "guest" a shill for Psystar?

The "guest" is trying to make a point that selling a $99.00 disk called OS-X for third party PC manufacturers will increase the bottom line for Apple.

That argument is not supported by facts. It is at best conjecture which is ill-supported by investigating the history of Apple.

$99.00 per OS sale will not offset the loss of a Mac hardware sale. Nor will it offset a increase in hardware support which WILL happen.

The argument that "guest" is trying to make is poor and ill-considered. MSFT makes money off of millions of OEM sales and near millions of corporate sales per quarter. This is a guaranteed income in the case of MSFT.

In Apple's case, it is a complete unknown whether there would be enough $99.00 per OS sales to offset the loss of hardware sales. I would bet that Apple couldn't make up the difference.

Another point is that Apple and its OS attempts to differentiate itself from MSFT by being nimble and adding new features on a consistent basis. If Apple had to support third party manufacturers then the main reason to purchase a Mac would be diluted.

If Apple sold "Leopard Upgrade" discs -- which it HAS included in systems in the past, but has only sold FULL RETAIL INSTALLERS at their stores on the shelf -- there could be an issue.

However par the license, Apple says $130 is a fair price for their OS as a whole. Therfore why should I be limited to using it on just APple-branded hardware, when I can get a smaller and lighter (but not as thin) solid-state Asus EeePC and run OS X on it, for $600, or spend $3200 for a MacBook Air.

Yes, I'll compromise the screen and keyboard for the sake of travel, but I can't compromise the OS.

Until Apple makes Macs as cheap as ipods (the $500 price range, starting wtih laptops, $300 for headless Desktops) they are going to have this problem continue.

quote: "the price is inflated.

Period, if you don't think so, you are drinking the coolaid.

My core 2 duo 2.5ghz from Dell laptop with video card, etc...I won't go into all the specs because at $750, it is far faster than the macbook pro or macbook, and far cheaper."

Here is the key difference: Dell doesn't spend any $$ in R&D for the OS on your laptop. They don't need to recoup those costs, Microsoft has taken care of that for them. Apple does cost a bit more, yes, but that is because their R&D costs are far greater than Dells. Your example isn't a bad one, but is a flawed argument. The $10.5B in Mac hardware sales that were mentioned earlier in the comments? That just goes to pay for the OS development. The revenue generated by 10.5 retail sales alone would not be enough to pay for developing the OS. There is a reason that Microsoft charges far more than $130 retail for Windows licenses, and that is because they are not subsidizing their costs with hardware sales.

By that logic, any company that makes software that only runs on ONE platform should be sued, no?

So we can all band together for a class-action lawsuit to sue the c*** out of game developers for forcing us to buy a PC to run them?

If i want a Yugo to run like a BMW i sue BMW to authorize me to buy parts to rebuild Yugos to run like BMWs AND then sell them as LIKE BMWs but cheaper, why dilute products. Everyone appears to want cheap stuff, cheap equals c*** hardware period. Apple don't cave in on this one. There are great deals on Mac everywhere if you want one. mario

In order to violate antitrust apple would have to require Mac OS X to be installed on EVERY computer, not only on their own. If I want to buy a Mustang, it will have to come from Ford. If I want to buy a Corvette, it will have to come from Chevrolet.

More examples: I want to play PS3 games on my Xbox. Since you can only play PS3 games on a PS3, apparently that means Sony has a monopoly on its own games and is violating antitrust laws, since you can buy the games at retail stores.

And since I have an entirely misguided sense of entitlement, I think that I should be able to play PS3 games on any platform I want regardless of what Sony says, so let's hire Psystar's lawyers and sue Sony, because apparently this is a valid complaint.

Welcome to the future: People can sue you if they don't like your licensing agreement.

I've worked as a video editor for a couple of years now using Mac Pros. Recently our department has expanded but rather than buying in additional Macs my boss opted for a couple of Psystar Open Pcs with OSX. In my opinion, they're certainly not as good as my Mac Pro and if you want the end to end, hassle free, Mac experience then you should stick with Mac, but legal issues aside, we've been quite impressed with them.

If someone bought a Psystar to run a critical app like FCP then I think it penny wise and pound foolish. Wait until a necessary Quicktime update or app upgrade is required.

Clearly, you cannot legally make a Wii, PS3, or XBox clone without violating license agreements, which leads me to believe there is some dark money surrounding this case.

In a world where many countries do not respect US patents and copyright laws, ridiculous suits such as these threaten the long-term ability of US companies to compete globally.

How can the US expect to maintain any strength in the fast-paced technology sector when "standard practice" software license agreements are threatened in their own back yard!

Shame on us for allowing this to happen.

Many of you need to go look up the facts.

The comment that Apple spends 10.5 billion on RandD is ridiculous. The person who wrote this does not understand software development and has not looked the facts up in public documents.

In Apple's 2007 Annual report they reported RandD spending of ~$780 million (3% of net sales) and 75 (0.2 % sales) million as a separate line item for Mac OSX Leopard development. They spend $3 billion (12% ) on advertising/sales.

AND THEY HAVE $16 billion in liquid cash equivalents.

Dell has RandD spending of ~$500 million for the same period.

The Mac OSX team is a fixed number of employees taking a framework of open source software , improving it and adding layers of visual enhancements and defining a development tookit to improve external software development efforts.

It is ridiculous to assert that this VERY small % of development costs will bankrupt Apple or cause them much financial issues, other than perhaps psychological for the short term.

In the long term, more users would be using Mac OSX, Apple's product would become EITHER better or cheaper, and Apple would make more money.

Other companies would make more money too. That is the fundamental purpose of antitrust/anticompetitive laws, because companies WANT to overly protect their work to the detriment a productive economy.

It is corporate socialism and subverts the INTENT of the copyright act.

An import issue is that there are 3 main desktop/server operating systems. Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux.

These operating systems are a fundamental building block of the tech economy. Allowing inappropriate restrictions of these important products subverts innovation.

Expanding the use of Mac OSX should be the goal every Apple fan should be proud of. Being an zealot for Apple's products myself does not mean one should excuse them or fight for them at all times, whether its this issue, vast restrictions on the iPhone, or back-dating of stock options.

People should read the full wikipedia entry on software copyright before having a discussion on copyrights. If not they are just acting emotionally and not rationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

Read about Fair use and the elements of fair use including
effect on the market.

"the court notes that the Copyright Act was not intended to create monopolies, it was intended to foster creativity"

The uphill battle for Psystar is really on the back of the lawyers fighting the case. How much of their time will Apple cost them in time fighting the case? Are the lawyers looking for a settlement and at what price. 10 million, 100 million. If enough lawyers see that Apple is willing to pay to settle these cases rather then taking them to court for a final ruling, then more cases will be filed.

Seems like if Apple wants to maintain its monopoly on the operating system it created ( whether you believe that monopolies are good or bad is irrelevant), Apple should spend however long it takes. What's a few billion out of their cash. They have to see which way the wind is blowing and whether the legal system is interpreting Fair Use as pro consumer these days or pro-Apple.

The consumer wins if Fair Use and and thus Restraint of Trade is established.

The court does not have to force Apple to make its software work on ANY other computer. If Dell wants to add drivers, or pay Apple or Nvidia to make certain drivers so be it.

But Apple would no longer be able to say "you can't run OSX on anything but our box" Pay up.

People should read the full wikipedia entry on software copyright before having a discussion on copyrights. If not they are just acting emotionally and not rationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

Read about Fair use and the elements of fair use including
effect on the market.

"the court notes that the Copyright Act was not intended to create monopolies, it was intended to foster creativity"

The uphill battle for Psystar is really on the back of the lawyers fighting the case. How much of their time will Apple cost them in time fighting the case? Are the lawyers looking for a settlement and at what price. 10 million, 100 million. If enough lawyers see that Apple is willing to pay to settle these cases rather then taking them to court for a final ruling, then more cases will be filed.

Seems like if Apple wants to maintain its monopoly on the operating system it created ( whether you believe that monopolies are good or bad is irrelevant), Apple should spend however long it takes. What's a few billion out of their cash. They have to see which way the wind is blowing and whether the legal system is interpreting Fair Use as pro consumer these days or pro-Apple.

The consumer wins if Fair Use and and thus Restraint of Trade is established.

The court does not have to force Apple to make its software work on ANY other computer. If Dell wants to add drivers, or pay Apple or Nvidia to make certain drivers so be it.

But Apple would no longer be able to say "you can't run OSX on anything but our box" Pay up.

They blatantly modified the OS to work on their box. This is illegal. you can not change someone else's work, without their permission, just so it will work on your system. This also goes for those of us using the apple OS on systems not approved for that system. like 10.5 on an iMac g3 333mhz. you can use a program to circumvent the restrictions. thus using a "hacked" or "modified" version. This is what they did, Thus the suit should end there. Now once they can put it on their box without "hacking" or "modifying" it, at that time their suit will hold some merit in a court of law.