What is Digg?Sponsored by Guitar Center
When Heavy-handed Hints Fail--Guitar Center Wishlist Posters view!
guitarcenter.com - Cool personalized designs send a friendly reminder that a new Stratocaster would rock, thanks.
224 Comments
- TheWindBlows, on 11/15/2009, -4/+58You know Psystar were the bad guys right?
Charging near Apples price for PC's with Mac OS X.
Stealing Open Source Projects and breaking their licenses.
Then a few other things I missed, but those are the top two. - Angostura, on 11/15/2009, -11/+65The interesting thing is going to be waiting for all the paperwork to come out to discover who was funding Psystar.
- non00b, on 11/15/2009, -9/+45apple is not a monopoly. Nobody forces anyone to buy an apple computer. You don't even have to run OS X on an apple computer, you can run whatever OS you want on it.
- VargVikernes, on 11/15/2009, -7/+35"Mind, though, that this ruling only covers Leopard. Snow Leopard will be handled in the Florida case.
In any case, this is a good example of the slippery slope I wrote about earlier this week. This opens the door for software companies to include - and enforce - all sorts of restrictive clauses in their EULAs, because Alsup's entire ruling is based on the fact that yes, Apple licensed Mac OS X instead of selling it. "
http://www.osnews.com/story/22493/Apple_Scores_Mas ... - sashapave, on 11/15/2009, -1/+28I'm surprised it took so long.
- Renian, on 11/15/2009, -17/+42Good? Maybe for Apple. Not for the consumer.
- mrkmrk, on 11/15/2009, -4/+28Not to mention the fact that a monopoly usually has better than ~10% marketshare.
- confoundedjoe, on 11/15/2009, -3/+25http://digg.com/apple/Apple_Wins_Clone_Suit
only about 14hrs before - monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -2/+22If you think whatever psystar's doing is legal, tomorrow morning go start a business, buy 100 copies of Windows 7.
Crack them all so it doesn't need Serial number or any sort of authentication, then sell it. - Orbital101, on 11/15/2009, -0/+20Is there room in anyone's philosophy for the idea that the computer they choose doesn't necessarily define who they are?
- Orbital101, on 11/15/2009, -4/+24The RIAA is making money off of products they don't produce and not sharing a fair slice with the artists who make it. The RIAA wants to cut off or control channels that don't belong to them, such as internet access. They want control over what people can and can't listen to, period.
Apple makes a product and they want to sell it. They don't want to make a product that promotes the sale of their competitors' products. That's not crazy. Maybe Apple charges too much, but even if they charge a million dollars per computer, it still doesn't mean they have to help Psystar make money off their hard work. - Memnochxx, on 11/15/2009, -3/+23"If I buy the ***** license of the OS I shoud have the right to install on any piece of hardware."
No, you have the right to whatever the license grants you to do. If you don't like the license, then don't buy it. - tzdb, on 11/15/2009, -1/+16Psystar could sell the system, and allow the end user to perform the installation themselves from an original Mac OS X installation disc. However, they would still be violating the DMCA by supplying the tools necessary to do this.
- DDRSkata, on 11/15/2009, -4/+19Well, not quite. I don't fully agree with the ruling, but it was based primarily on the fact that Psystar modified the code and resold a derivative work.
- kevinmoore, on 11/15/2009, -7/+21Clone of what "*nix product", exactly? Mac OS X is UNIX 03 certified along with Solaris, AIX, and HP/UX.
http://www.opengroup.org/comm/press/19-2-nov07.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specifica ... - ScottyDelicious, on 11/15/2009, -0/+14@DeathRay2K: OEMs also have permission from Microsoft to slipstream Windows. Psystar did not. So, no... Cute analogy, but it doesn't fit here because there is a big chunk of logic missing. PERMISSION from the content creator / copyright holder.
- tzdb, on 11/15/2009, -0/+141. I think you are confusing instruction throughput with latency. No RISC architecture I am aware of can execute any instruction in only 1-2 clock cycles. The whole point of RISC is to allow easier pipelining. Pipeline depths are typically 4 or more cycles, which is how long an individual instruction will take to complete.
2. Modern CISC processors translate instructions into a RISC-like instruction set internally anyway.
The bottom line is PPC offerings from IBM or Freescale could not match the performance nor power efficiency of the latest Intel x86 offerings. - Qumahlin, on 11/15/2009, -2/+16"The consumer knows a hackentosh is not the same product as a mac."
No, your average consumer has no idea what a "Hackintosh" is. You can expect that should an average consumer buy a computer from Psystar there is a good chance they may end up calling Apple for support only to be told "sorry its not an Apple, ignore all those logos you see in your OS"
People here seem to have a problem grasping exactly how "educated" the "average consumer" is...the answer is not very. - GregR, on 11/15/2009, -0/+12Exactly. Apple doesn't put annoying DRM serial numbers on their OS but it's implied by the EULA.
- Sinn3r, on 11/15/2009, -3/+15I hear you fasda, the cognitive dissonance must be deafening. Still there's a difference between suing a corporate competitor and suing a 14 year old kid with Limewire.
- monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -1/+13Unless you are an employee of psystar.
Otherwise everybody including the OSx86 community won. - flegmato, on 11/15/2009, -1/+12This isn't about piracy, Psystar purchased retail copies of Mac OS. It's about violating the license agreement that comes with using that software by installing it on unauthorized systems.
- captainproton, on 11/16/2009, -0/+11Uhmm... because they licensed DOS, rather than buying it outright, from MS who were pleased as punch to sell it to the ever-growing number of clones. In short, they lost control of their lock-in and now they're out of the PC business altogether.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple doesn't want history repeating? - Beatmiser, on 11/15/2009, -0/+11Uh no Strangewill- OSX competes directly with Windows (OS) who also has a licensing format- you have a choice. You can in fact choose to buy a pc and run Windows or choose to buy a Mac and run OSX. Apple is not making it difficult for you to buy or use whichever operating system you want.
People here are just throwing around words like monopoly and anti-competitive and I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. - Angostura, on 11/15/2009, -2/+13Go on. Explain exactly how this is a monopoly.
- AraleNorimaki, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11The developers of the OSx86 Project claimed that Psystar did not get permission to use their code and then reworked their license so that it specifically forbids commercial usage
http://www.insanelymac.com/
http://www.osx86project.org/
http://www.hackint0sh.org/
http://www.hackintosh.com/ - JohnnySoftware, on 11/15/2009, -0/+10Just like it is okay for a valet to park your car but it is not okay for someone to take the same keys and GTA your car.
It is seriously disturbing there are so many people on the Internet who cannot seem to wrap their heads around the concept of "theft" or that it could possibly exist -
yet, if you took something of theirs, they wouldn't hesitate to cry "thief!". - Raian, on 11/15/2009, -3/+13It was more complicated than that-- Psystar was breaking the encryption on the kernel, and modifying the code and selling it as OS X.
If I took a copy of Windows, changed the code... then repackaged it and called it Windows by Raian... I'd be toast. - PhillyMJS, on 11/15/2009, -2/+12This outcome was inevitable, given the facts of the case.
What Psystar should have done was sell the hardware without an OS, and provide either detailed instructions for the user to follow, or some sort of boot/patcher disk that would put the "hack" into the Hackintosh-- and let the end user supply their own copy of OS X. That might have made it a little more difficult for Apple to shoot them down. - G-RaZoR, on 11/15/2009, -36/+46This sucks.
- noreturn, on 11/15/2009, -2/+12Great, the whole monopoly argument again. First of all, Apple has yet to take any real action against the OSx86 project. That's because this lawsuit is mainly about killing a Mac clone manufacturer (even if they used the EULA to argue it). This make perfect sense because Apple is primarily a hardware company.
Secondly, it's not a monopoly if they don't want to support every system imaginable. It's not a monopoly when Microsoft chooses not to let you run their Xbox OS on any other computer (even if the Xbox was just a glorified PC). It's not a monopoly when Software Q doesn't run on Hardware R. Charging for a product they developed and only supporting limited configurations for maximum stability is NOT monopolizing on anything.
Let's not use the m word at all, because there isn't a less accurate description of the OS market today. Windows 7 is really quite good because of OS X, and OS X wouldn't be what it was if it was the market leader or in any position to exercise an monopoly. - Wilddigi, on 11/15/2009, -1/+11Why? Apple is selling products and people are buying. I don't see them going bankrupt
- Onetrack, on 11/15/2009, -0/+10Unlike Psystar I am not selling hardware, I did not break any encryption, just using an efi boot protocol to get a completely 100% vanilla untouched, purchased retail disk to boot on commodity hardware.
Also, you're guessing I am in the US, which I am not, thus this ruling pretty much does not have any juristiction here in my country.
Before you get all high and mighty as well.. there are also 3 real macs in the house, 2 iphones and an itouch. Apple gets plenty of support from us.
Apple doesn't particularly care about hackintoshers, the forums are left alone, as are the thousands of guides, youtube videos and irc channels dedicated via the community effort. No-one I know of in the community likes Psystar at all.. Apple is free to crush them into the ground as far as I am concerned.. More power to them. - fury420, on 11/15/2009, -0/+9@breadfret
if using your iPod on an incline makes you feel like something is entering your butt I think your using it wrong? - Qumahlin, on 11/15/2009, -3/+12@breadfred
You always have the option of you know...not buying their products. They aren't in a monopolised position because you have plenty of alternative devices you can use in place of a Mac or iPod - monkeyrun, on 11/15/2009, -0/+9http://digg.com/users/krosack/history
Yeah unlike mine. Your account is almost created exclusively for this story. - Wilddigi, on 11/15/2009, -0/+9Give one once of proof Apple is hurting themselves????
- Lonandubh, on 11/15/2009, -4/+13No, macs are for consumers that believe purchasing bargains is crap.
- newbill123, on 11/15/2009, -0/+9Had Apple lost this case in a small way, it might have created a small market for Psystar until the next version of OS X had activation and DRM. Ho hum.
But Psystar was aiming to win this case in a "big way" with arguments that would overturn precedents concerning intellectual property and implicit contract agreement by use. Two things that the GNU public license (and practically every software licensor) relies upon.
I think you're confusing the joy over Apple winning with the real significance of Apple not losing in a "big way" and having the legal world completely overturn the apple cart of software licensing (no pun intended). - Beatmiser, on 11/15/2009, -6/+14@captinsanity- you really don't have a clue what monopolistic practices are do you?
- kevinmoore, on 11/15/2009, -0/+8The stole that technology from the open source community, so it's already out there.
- JohnnySoftware, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7Franklin bought an Apple II in the very early 1980's, copied its schematics (came with the owner's manual in those days, no cognition required), its firmware, its DOS, its parts list & design, and then "made" their own computer. From an electronic and software standpoint, the same computer.
They were like a pirate version of the early IBM PC cloners. There was a big difference though.
The PC cloning companies paid a license fee to Microsoft for the DOS, licensed the BIOS ROM's code from Phoenix or whoever, and did not just copy everything.
Psystar used the Franklin approach, at least as far as software goes. They didn't write their own software and they didn't license Apple's software from Apple. As far as circumvention goes - you can't do that in the US because that is prohibited by the DMCA. DMCA is part of US law, not from some dubious cult's religious lore. - Beatmiser, on 11/15/2009, -1/+8Breadfred, until you can tell me what market is being monopolized, please do the rest of us a favor and shut the ***** up.
- kingmanic, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7@Khast: Like Tzib said; it's apparent you don't understand what was actually going on in that period. The power chips in the g4's and g5's were being out performed by the x86 chips due to sheer quantity of R&D from Intel and AMD. IBM never had that much of a stake in making speedy PPC chips; they had one medium scale customer and a whole bunch of small scale ones buying their powerchips. They were not able to keep up with Intel/AMD and thus the best they could do was occasional parity. That is why Apple switched. The criticisms of their performance was legitimate.
Ironically the PPC chips now have 3 large scale customers (Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo). - EddiePotato, on 11/15/2009, -3/+10Every customer that buys a Mac clone from Psystar is a customer that probably would have bought a real mac instead, if that's the only way they could use the Mac OS. That's why Apple cares.
- Beatmiser, on 11/15/2009, -2/+9Problem is people like FyberOptic don't even know what they are mad about so they latch onto whatever term they think will give them legitimacy. Fortunately for common sense, most of they time they choose the wrong word.
- Memnochxx, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7It depends on the deal I would say, your example of breaking the deal is undesirable for more reasons than just a broken deal. If the deal however, was that he would sell me a car and I can never eat a doughnut in it, I probably would. Because at that point it's out of his hands and who cares?
- newbill123, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7That's true. That argument (what about modding each individual copy of OS X sold?) was not addressed by the court because it didn't apply in this case.
But two things work against that business plan. First, it'd be extremely expensive to implement compared to the way Psystar was doing it en masse. And second, the court didn't say anything to imply that it was legal to do that either. You could expect a very difficult legal battle with Apple if you gained any measure of success with novel practices that centered on this issue.
So far, the hobbyist community has remained beneath Apple's legal radar. If you're good at making them, just be happy with the handful of hackintoshes you make and don't try to build a business out of your skill. There are other freely distributable operating systems you can use instead. - PrometheusBorn, on 11/15/2009, -0/+6Don't try to argue. It's the same as arguing with someone who doesn't understand why they shouldn't be able to copy someone else's CD, then sell it for their own profit.
For some reason, people can't grasp in the digital age that physical property is not the same as intellectual property. There are different rules that must be followed or the whole system would lost its financial basis - and thus, the whole system that everyone on Digg loves would fall apart. - Angostura, on 11/15/2009, -1/+7If you buy the license then you are buying the rights that that the license grants you.
That's the thing about licenses. -
Show 51 - 100 of 227 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is