Apple Sues Psystar for Copyright Infringement

Apple does not technically have a monopoly. Still, they managed to create a market that's semi-independent from the computer market and on which they hold a factual monopoly. As a BA student, I actually kinda admire that, ain't no easy thing to do

I read on another site that if you change a product by 10% or more that it no longer falls under the original copyright contract. Anyone know if it's true or not?

I think they left out a zero...

While I don't know if the research things is true, it sure could be LOL... seems like it to me. But, when you buy a Whopper, I know MD don't like it if you came in there with it ... and besides, you are BUYING the burger, not a license to eat one

The Burger King verses Macdonalds story is true, and is a popular case study used in MBA courses to illustrate one type of business strategy.

It's true that you BUY part of the Whopper, but not the whole thing. You LICENSE the other part.

The part that you consume, is bought, yes. But, the wrapping paper with "BURGER KING WHOPPER" written all over it is only Licensed. You can't take that paper and make up your own burger and sell your home made burger using that wrapping paper, because you don't own the wrapper. So, even though you hand over cash to the sales attendent, and he hands over a burger wrapped in Burger King paper, you can't do what you want with the product you now have in your hands.

The Burger King verses Macdonalds story is true, and is a popular case study used in MBA courses to illustrate one type of business strategy.

 

It's true that you BUY part of the Whopper, but not the whole thing. You LICENSE the other part.

 

The part that you consume, is bought, yes. But, the wrapping paper with "BURGER KING WHOPPER" written all over it is only Licensed. You can't take that paper and make up your own burger and sell your home made burger using that wrapping paper, because you don't own the wrapper. So, even though you hand over cash to the sales attendent, and he hands over a burger wrapped in Burger King paper, you can't do what you want with the product you now have in your hands.

And that is Apple's arguement.

You buy a Mac. You OWN the computer, but not the software.

I may be the only one who says that, but...

THANK GOD! YES! YES! YES!

Ditto. Apple Mac OS Should be only made for Apple.

And that is Apple's arguement.

 

You buy a Mac. You OWN the computer, but not the software.

Well..yes...exactly. We don't own the software, so we can't resell it. But, just like I can take the "BURGER KING WOPPER" paper wrapper and wrap some cheese with it to store in my refrigerator, as long as I'm not trying to sell that cheese to someone else with the wrapper on, I can take that OSX and put it on any machine I own. Gee soon even the refrigerators will have their own embedded computers to control and monitor the food, and I'm sure Billy Gates won't mind if Windows is the OS that's installed in the fridge to run things, but I can put OSX instead in my fridge and apple can't say anything about this.Its my fridge, in my home. You know, people are starting to put computers inside their cars, special mobile mini-computer racks fit inside the stereo bays in most autos, and are being replaced today with embedded computers to run GPS maps, digital audio, mobile internet, and a whole host of other things, this is the latest craze. Well, why can't I put OSX there too? Why should I be limited to Windows and Linux etc...see? Apple is living in the past. They have to get with the program.

Defending Psystar will be Carr & Ferrell, a law firm that specializes in tech industry issues such as copyright and intellectual property law.

Link HERE

If Apple thought it could force tiny Mac cloner Psystar, which operates out of a warehouse in a generic, Miami industrial park, to fold its tent by hitting it with a ten-count, 30-page copyright lawsuit, it thought wrong. Court records show that Psystar has retained for its defense a high-profile, Silicon Valley law firm that has previously tangled with Apple -- and won. It's a sign that Psystar, despite its miniscule size, intends to see to its conclusion a case that could have a profound impact on the personal computer industry.

All I have to say is, wow... this is getting interesting...

and not coincidentally, Carr & Ferrell have won against Apple in the past.

I own an Intel Macbook. It is a beautiful machine, though a bit heavy. Still no trackpad "tapping" for xp

Personally I think the Apple computers are beautiful and also functional. Yes, OSX has its share of bugs also (apple support forums)

The Macbook Air is very nice and light, to boot (no pun intended) I am put off though for its lack of internal optical drive(very handy for OS install/reinstallation. An Apple rep told me adding an optical drive would make it too heavy.

I told the rep"hogwash" the Japanese subnotes do it and keep it very light Fujitsu, Panasonic www.dynamism.com

Why doesn't Apple use the "ace in the hole" and work with Dell/HP etc to design computers that will specifically run OSX and gain big bucks and market share in oem license fees like M$ does.

If they did that they wouldn't even need to bother suing Psystar, which by the way, will exponentially increase awareness of OSX86 and likely cause more lost hardware revenue than Pystar could have ever done. I am a bit embarrassed to admit I do not own a Pystar, but a Pystar "clone"

I'm very excite

Someone behind Psystar has deep pockets.

Someone behind Psystar has deep pockets.

Not a big deal. Pockets tend to develop holes...

I dont think they are the same thing. Firstly, the ruling requiring MS to seperate Windows and IE was overturned and the remedy changed. While they were still found at fault, they are allowed to bundle the software still.

 

Secondly, MS was acting as a monopoly. They were forcing companies to use IE under threat of losing their OEM licensing; in addition they were rigging Windows to function less effeciently with other browsers (or at least they were allegedly doing that.) So, they meet the criteria of monopoly. They were excerising their position in the market using threats of force to crush competition.

 

Apple, however, is not a monopoly. They NEVER licensed ANYONE to use OSX on an OEM level. So PsyStar has no claim to this; ergo no monopoly defense. Additionally, they are not using a threat of force to crush competition ...

 

Anyone who thinks Apple has a monopoly simply becuase they dont want OSX running on a PC is dead wrong. They arent manipulating the market to crush Windows or other OS's, they arent influencing people to use their product, and everyone still has freedom of choice.

The *screwing other browsers* argument never went to trial; in fact, because of how the subject browsers (in this case, Netscape and NCSA Mosaic) differed not only from IE, but from each other, it would be exceeedingly difficult to prove that the changes were the result of Microsoft's actions or the actions of the browser developers.

Apple has, in the past, licensed MacOS on an OEM basis (specifically to UMAX and Power Computing); however, they stopped such licensing entirely because they recast themselves as a hardware company, making their software business entirely ancilliary to that hardware business (and the clone manufacturers, specifically Power Computing, threatened the high margins of that hardware business). How deliberate has that recasting been? It's been so deliberate that Apple's Personal Software Division (formerly known as Claris, which makes, among other things, FileMaker Pro) has, despite not going out of business, pretty much completely vanished from the radar, even in terms of Windows software. (FileMaker Pro is still around as a product, and it's even still available for Windows; however, as a personal database, which is FMP's biggest market, as it has always been, you hear more about other products, even Microsoft's SQL Server, than FileMaker Pro.) Apple hasn't gone out of the software business one bit; however, they are trying to make the same argument that Sun (and, for a long time, IBM) tried (and failed) to make - that they are, first and foremost, a *hardware* company, and that their software, such as it is, is designed, either primarily or solely, to support that hardware. (That is utterly despite iTunes/QuickTime, which not only require no Apple hardware, but are actually available for Windows.) The perception that Apple wants to perpetuate, despite the untruth of it, is that they are a primarily-hardware company. And the one hardware company that Apple does *not* want to emulate, despite their profit margin, is Sun Microsystems. Sun, for whatever reason, is perceived as a fading company, despite their persistence as still *the* premier workstation/UNIX-server company (even more amazing, they still persist in distributing UNIX, and actually give it away); however, Sun's per-system profit margins are nowhere near as large as those that Apple has, despite that Sun has no real software costs (remember, Solaris is freely available). With Apple, it's a mantra that is, in its own way, similar to that of real-estate salespeople - perception, perception, perception.

they are, first and foremost, a *hardware* company, and that their software, such as it is, is designed, either primarily or solely, to support that hardware. (That is utterly despite iTunes/QuickTime, which not only require no Apple hardware, but are actually available for Windows.) The perception that Apple wants to perpetuate, despite the untruth of it, is that they are a primarily-hardware company.

It's not so black and white.

Apple is first and foremost a hardware company from the sense that it's the hardware division that earns them the most profit. But as it has always has been with Apple, it's software that defines/creates the Apple brand. Apple knows that in the current market they can't achieve the same control or profit using software alone, hence they pair the two.

Whether this is illegal time will tell, but in the end I think it doesn't really matter. It wouldn't take much for Apple to make a few minor hardware changes that would make OSx86 troublesome for "average home" users. Will they prevent OSx86 outright, unlikely but it would probably be enough to make sales from companies like Pystar too insignificant to matter.

But as it has always has been with Apple, it's software that defines/creates the Apple brand.

Not even close. When you tell most people that you have a "Mac" they are thinking about the hardware, not OS X, iWork or iLife, etc. I agree that their software is absolutely top shelf, but it alone does not define the company.

Not even close. When you tell most people that you have a "Mac" they are thinking about the hardware, not OS X, iWork or iLife, etc. I agree that their software is absolutely top shelf, but it alone does not define the company.

I don't disagree at first thought they think about the designs, I'm talking about why people continue to use Apple and stick with it. Most Apple "fans" don't keeping buying Apple just because of the looks, but for the OS.

So I'm not talking about impulse type customers, which never sustain a product, but continue product loyalty.

I'm talking about why people continue to use Apple and stick with it.

Then you should have said it's Apples product design and quality that defines it. This is not exclusive to their software.

For example; Before I bought my first Mac I was hesitant, wondering why I should buy 'their' computer when I could easily build one myself as I always had in the past, but I bought one anyway. It didn't take long for me to realize that you get much more than 'just a computer' when you buy a Mac. I have never had one single issue with our Mac, we plugged it into the AC outlet, turned it on, and it has performed flawlessly ever since. That's not the typical experience you get with a home made kit computer that you're always 'tinkering' with. I can't wait till this fall when Apple releases their new line of computers so we can get another one. It's that world class design and quality that you get with a Mac that you don't get with another computer. For the most part if a product is made by Apple I feel very comfortable spending my hard earned money on it. The only exception to this rule is Time Machine, which isn't a stand alone product per se but has never worked right for us and is now currently turned off. When I think of Apple I think of cutting edge technology and high quality which is why most people, once they actually own a Mac, keep buying them. Yes there is a premium to pay for them, but oddly enough they can still be considered a good value in most cases

hahahah... this actually came up when i was googling the osx86 HCL

Not even close. When you tell most people that you have a "Mac" they are thinking about the hardware, not OS X, iWork or iLife, etc. I agree that their software is absolutely top shelf, but it alone does not define the company.

Interesting that you define Apple as a hardware company when Steve Jobs himself defines Apple as a software company.

Want proof?

Clicky

Interesting that you define Apple as a hardware company

I did not say that I said most other people see it as that. Please read what is written, and not just what you want to read

Interesting that you define Apple as a hardware company when Steve Jobs himself defines Apple as a software company.

 

Want proof?

 

from about 7 minutes onwards!

He could tell you the sky was red and you'd believe it. The real proof is in their financial statements and annual reports. The revenue numbers don't lie. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost and to dispute that you have to do one of the following:

1. Lie
   
2. Ignore all the publicly available evidence
   
3. Enter the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field
   

You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts. Most people "see" Apple as a hardware company because, in fact, it is.

is anyone else besides me following up on this ??

http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Psys...tors/1228415363

it isnt particularly good for the community ....

STUPID psystar .....

I would think this would be the most important news for this website since it started! It could mean the end of everything or nothing. I sure hope Insanely Mac has good communication with Apple and doesn't antagonize them like those idiots at Psystar did. They could have sold the same hardware with a little different slant that would not have started all these legal entanglings at all. But no, they had to "wake the sleeping giant" and now we all may pay a heavy price for their brashness and lack of caution. I wonder if Psystar will have the sense to just sell the hardware and send the torrent link to the buyer later. If the hardware is compatible, its compatible. They could supply the OS/updates through torrents and thereby severing the link between hardware and OS X.

I would think this would be the most important news for this website since it started! It could mean the end of everything or nothing. I sure hope Insanely Mac has good communication with Apple and doesn't antagonize them like those idiots at Psystar did. They could have sold the same hardware with a little different slant that would not have started all these legal entanglings at all. But no, they had to "wake the sleeping giant" and now we all may pay a heavy price for their brashness and lack of caution. I wonder if Psystar will have the sense to just sell the hardware and send the torrent link to the buyer later. If the hardware is compatible, its compatible. They could supply the OS/updates through torrents and thereby severing the link between hardware and OS X.

This forum should not have anything to worry about. Mind you they still managed to stuff the TV links guy just for linking to media which Google links to!! The only thing I could see on the cards is Apple bringing in an serial and activation system like Windows. But there's always a way to circumvent these things. They get smarter, we get smarter

If the OSx86 project can put Mac OSX on a naturally Windows PC, hell, they can do anything

What are we worried about?

If the OSx86 project can put Mac OSX on a naturally Windows PC, hell, they can do anything

 

What are we worried about?

you are complete right, apple will never go after osx community by simple reason

we are all apple "free beta testers" , is like that - if there is some bug , apple guy's read here and fix it

not need to spend a tons of money for them own beta testers ( like microsoft for example )

witch means also in some how way the osx community is good for apple , also here is nothing commercial after all

probably on this forum are discovered much more bugs that on any "apple's dev's list's"

se we don't need to worry - psystar is other story - they are all about money and so , sure apple won't tolerate that part so easy, with mean also psystar must gone for good

the $50k questions is - what psystar offer "soo" special that all you guys can do here ?

my guess is ..nothing interesting after all ....

but that what i think

Would you buy a Mac if it came with just Linux on it and not OS X.