Mac-cloner Psystar loses Apple lawsuit

Well Psystar screwed up with the copyright infringment, but dang Apple is so self centered if they even have a lock-and-key system. The Psystar system sold for 599, not 1500 like an equivalant apple. I honestly was hoping Systar would win this one but whatever.

Totally stiffles any and all competition. So, licensing which limits a consumer's rights is legal?

BS – this should have been a showdown for consumerism. Instead, it's big money and big lawyers getting what they want from little everyday man once again.

With this same thinking, innovation is dead. All Corporations need do is include a use it our way or you are breaking the law license, and they are assured income forever. Any innovations are obviously above and beyond planned use, therefore illegal, and will be cause for lawsuit.

Poor, poor judgement.

You know what I find funny, they get on bill gates and microsoft for anti trust laws for software within their own os and you can't even run the apple os on a non-apple computer. I understand the contractual obligations, just seems strange to me.

Go develop software, then let everyone else sell it cheaper and see what you think of that!

I'm a Mac user, thru and thru...I have an iMac, an iPhone, an AppleTV, etc., but as much of a fan that I am, I have to say that this smells to high Heaven! If anyone wants an a good example of a Monopoly, I think we can look at Apple. But I love the products and I'll continue to purchase!

This is absolutely absurd, any given TOS/EULA agreement is not a law abiding contract. This case challenges previous rulings in this way and sadly as it was stated before this is a direct attack on all consumers.

Cliff B said the following and I'm restating it for emphasis:

"With this same thinking, innovation is dead. All Corporations need do is include a use it our way or you are breaking the law license, and they are assured income forever. Any innovations are obviously above and beyond planned use, therefore illegal, and will be cause for lawsuit."

1). It is hilarious that Psystar has an advertisement for their machines on this page.

2). Apple's business model has always been wack.

3). They are not selling the software more cheaply; they are selling the hardware more cheaply.

4). Apple should have stuck with the PowerPC processors that have had much success running PS3s and XBox 360s.

This stuff about a monopoly is nuts. The only sector of the market apple holds exclusive control of is apple computers. That's not a monopoly, that's a business.

They don't license their software–that's a choice, and it almost bankrupted the company when they decided to do so. They stuck with it and are content to hold a small percentage of consumer computing and making the rest up in neat little gadgets and accessories...

IBM failed to stop the clones.
Detroit allowed second sourced car parts.

Why is Apple so special ?

Apple is protecting their reputation. Their whole business model revolves around creating robust hardware and software that work well together. You take the hardware control away from them and you'll end up with another Microsoft. Having to develop an OS that is compatible with every Tom Dick and Harry piece of hardware where compromises are inevitable. Their reputation for having an excellent computing experience would be put into jeopardy. Steve Jobs knows this...

OK so this company, Apple, sells a phone exclusively through the worst service provider in the nation as it thumbs its nose at more dependable providers (and their customers). It sells an OS that will run on ONLY it's hardware and prices it's hardware 2x the competition for the 'cool' factor. This company brags about not getting viruses when the bad people have no interest in screwing up a few percentage of the PC users in the world. And to top it off, the machines you pay twice for will not do half the things (i.e. games, etc) that the competitor's OS will do on VARIOUS manufacturer's hardware. I see more Macs in the movies than in the real world. Must be a Hollywood, creative, artsy, useless thing huh. I wonder who they paid off this time to get this verdict?

Apple is not the first company to closely protect their intellectual rights, by any means, nor the first to closely protect the retailing of those products.

Since Apple's market share is relatively small by comparison to Microsoft's, those controls are not considered monopolistic.

Your choice is clear.....better and more expensive, or not very good, and cheap. Kinda sounds like getting what you pay for, now doesn't it?

I can see the EULA thing standing up in court, but not the whole idea behind a anti competitive operation. It is a Monopoly. Their OS is good, but it should not force me to buy their hardware to run it.

I have a mac too.

Software should be free plain and simple.

The reasons for the lawsuit are as obvious as a Neon sign. Its about product controll. In Apples defence this keeps out trouble with multiple hardware configurations which they have said repeatedly they will not support. As it is they often have their hands full with the hardware they do support. Thus a PC version of Mac OS has never fully emerged though we know it obviously possible. That being said Im sure there are ways to resolve this and open the market just a little, but you try convincing the owner of any company why deliberatly allowing competition even supporting it, is a good thing. It simply wont happen.

Now cross over to the dark side for a Moment. We know Microsoft has dirty hands too. But have you ever wondered just how much Microsoft dictates what your new computer will look like and do? Apple just controlls their own product. Microsoft will actualy stop new computers from comming out, computers they legaly have no authority over.
Point in case some really nice Hybred (Solid-State-Drive / Hard-Disk-Drive) laptops were due out a few months back. But MS told the developers, we wont let you. Additionaly developers were told how much RAM they were alowed to ship a system with. Really this stuff should hit closser to home with most of you, than Apple.

Still my point is. Any big company will protect what it conciders to be an intrest. Any big company will dictate to others how things are to happen. We have no say over the matter. We are just blips on the screen.

How can you say its a monopoly? If you want to use Apple's products, do so, if you don't, buy a Windows PC or build a Linux box. There are plenty of options available and you, the consumer, can choose any one of them. You are not being forced to use Mac OS X or Apple hardware. In fact, one of the main reasons Apple's products work so well is the vigorous testing of the software and hardware – together. If there is an issue with something on a Pystar box, software or hardware, who is responsible for the support? Apple or Pystar?

In this case, Pystar took Apple's OS X software, violated the EULA, and tried selling these "pirated" boxes. The ruling that came from this was not unexpected.

Apple claims it is different than Microsoft. While the OS's they promote are different, as companies, they are the same greedy animals. Jumping to Mac and pointing fingers at Microsoft is blindly hypocritical.

Do you copyright fan boys realize how many ideas are stolen from average Joe developers and writers by large companies? Everything from software to movie scripts are stolen, repackaged, reworded, and distributed for profit. Where is your high and mighty sense of morality then?

You think Microsoft was in the cross hairs of hackers? Watch what happens to greedy Apple over the next decade. Some companies just need to be knocked off their hills because the government has a nasty habit of turning a blind eye to business dirty deeds, yet strictly enforcing laws on consumers.

No one is immune and no one is untouchable, including Mac's. Acting greedy and arrogant only brings more attention to Apple. It's going to get it.

Thats bogus. Microsoft got for for including thier own browser with their OS, but apple can say you can only use their os with their computers? If you purchased the software legally then you should be able to install it on any computer. That's like the linux consortium saying you can only install ubuntu linux on Dell computers.

I can see Apple trying to protect their bottom line, but this behavior will eventually lead to enough people getting upset to the point where it will attract hackers... Then Apple's claims of being virus free will go out the window. They will be no more secure than machines on the windows platform. I have an Imac, I love it, I hope Apple doesn't make targets out of all it's clients with aggressive corporate behavior. Microsoft's predatory antics have brought it to where it is today. I am no longer a Microsoft client. (Apple, I hope you're listening).

As much as I dislike malware, I dislke Apple even more and refuse to get sucked into their vortex. Every time I need to buy a new computer I look at Macs, and every time I end up buying a PC because I can't stand Apple and Apple users' attitudes.

Their products are overpriced and from personal experience most of their owners (I said *most*, not *all*) have a sense of smug, self-satisfied superiority, much like BMW owners.

I'm not saying copyright infringement is OK, but it's too bad Psystar lost. As others have mentioned, Apple could use the competition.

If, as the article says, was the result of a "Summary Judgement", it means that there were no facts in dispute. Apple, as the author (and innovator) licenses its software. If a party violates the terms and conditions, Apple can take action. As for a monopoly – nonsense. There are a variety of operating systems available – granted not as elegant as OS X, but certainly very effective.

Psystar and their lawyers, knew (or certainly should have known), the risks they were taking in trying to exploit Apple's operating system for profit. It didn't work.

Most people arguing against this result have little, if any clue of what they are talking about.

While it is still against the Mac OS X EULA and DMCA, there's little that anyone can do if individuals obtain the needed hacks and patch their own copies of the OS to run on regular WinPC hardware. However, no company/organization can legally sell HACKED copies of other commercial software (and most free software also says you can't alter or charge for it). If Apple HADN'T won this, it could have allowed anyone to resell hacked copies of anybody else's software so long as an original copy was provided to the purchaser. Granted, the Linux/Freesoft zombies would love that, but it would generally just cause a nightmare. And there is nothing inherently monopolistic about a 'closed-system'...if there were, then all devices with any OS (firmware or otherwise) would have to be open for anyone to change at will.

If you buy a car and put a different engine in it, do you expect the maker to still honor the warranty? Should it be fine for people to reprogram their car's computers even if that might cause the airbags or anti-lock brakes to not function as designed?

Enough with the simple-minded, knee-jerk (and usually just anti-Apple rant) responses to these kinds of stories, already! Armchair expert market analysis doesn't count for anything either unless you've got some real and successful experience at it in the market(s) in question.

I love Apple products but hack them every chance I can in order to break their "control" over the consumer. Lighten up Apple.

No, Apple is not a monopoly, they compete in a market that gives people enough choices to decide what they want to buy. It so happens that their OS is limited to their hardware by design and in reality Apple is entitled to restrict the use of their OS as the court has decided. On one hand, if Apple allowed licensees of their OS to run on non-Apple machines they would open up a large segment of the marketplace to using OSX. On the other hand, by doing so, Apple would have no way of controlling the quality of how well that OS ran on the non-Apple machines.

Given this ruling Microsoft should purchase a large PC manufacturer, like Dell, rebrand it Microsoft PC and subsequently add a lock & key system to all future OS releases so that you need an MS PC to run Windows.
That would be a brilliant move on Microsoft's part.

Monopoly? You cannot be serious. The US is a country that protects the rights of creative entrepreneurs to innovate and make money from their inventions. Apple, Dell, Microsoft all began this way. Microsoft has acted contrary to Global anti-trust laws, but not Apple. Go buy a PC or use Linux if you don't like Apple... or create your own and outsell Apple AND Microsoft – that's the American way!

A company which controls about 5% of the PC market can hardly be called a monopoly, especially when there's another which controls about 92% of the same market.

In order to understand Apple's motives, you have to remember that the company barely survived against the Microsoft OS monopoly.

They tried licensing the OS to clones in the '90s and that nearly killed them. They just didn't generate the volume of sales to survive on software licensing alone and the clone makers took too much away from their hardware sales.

Their only chance to survive has been through the sale of high margin hardware at the high of of the market. This provides them with the cash which is needed to keep research and development going, allowing them to have innovate products when compared with other software developers like Microsoft.

I think the result – OSX up to Snow Leopard – has been worth paying the extra dollars for. In turn, the excellent Mac OS has forced Microsoft to be more innovative.

I can't understand what they doing.

how come Microsoft's inclusion of its free browser in Windows is considered anti-competitive, but Apple's forcing everyone who purchase OS X to install it in Apple's own overpriced hardware isn't?
if it was Microsoft suing the hell out of anybody who refuses to install Windows in Microsoft-approved hardware, there would have been a helluva lot of uproar.

Tbone I disagree. As long as that operating system is sold at the correct price it shouldn't make any difference? It's one thing to sell a MAC at a price that undermines the official price, but it's a whole other subject to sell a computer that uses the Mac operating system, when that computer isn't a mac!!!

Bravo Apple!

Apple is a quality product which works. They cost more because their software is written to work with their hardware. If they were forced to compete on price and open up to a variety of combinations of third party hardware the quality of their OS would go down.

Personally after decades of suffering with a Windows PC, I'm willing to pay a little more to have something which works.

If you want a cheap product which doesn't work buy a Windows PC.

I own a small software company. When you make something, and you have intentions, like, "this is for my hardware", and somebody just circumvents you with your own stuff, of course you'll get upset. Apple is owned after all, for profit, and run for profit, for a living, an income, for it's people, which means money, prices are set, rules are made, and must be followed. If they made their OS for their hardware, then that's what they did and that's THEIR BUSINESS and little communist complaining kids who want to rip everything off for free are just out of luck because this was a righteous decision. Don't rip off software, basically. Systar can make it's own OS if they want to.

While Apple is just protecting what they've developed...
This does not bode well for Apple getting into more homes and having their share of the industry grow. Boo on you Apple.

Oh well, way to show you how much Apple cares about their money. Their new slogan, eat it.

Why is this article suggesting that you could "build your own hackintosh" as an option? That too would be a violation of Apple's EULA and therefore copyright infringement.

The Hackintosh project too has violated Apple's EULA by "reverse engineering" or "creating derivative works" which are both explicitly forbidden.

Does anyone even read those twenty pages of small print that are included with every Apple software update or product pamphlet? Consumer rights are virtually gone in the United States.

There's a gross misunderstanding here, particularly when comparing the anti trust issues with MS OS... it's comparing apples and oranges. In simplified form, Apple is not attempting to control the use and OS on any other hardware except their own. Other hardware mfrs may choose any OS licensed to run on their system... Apple chooses not grant such OS licenses as obviously it works against their hardware sales strategy. Claiming this is not fair, or in violation of anti-trust, would be the equivalent for example, claiming it's unfair that Sony's PlayStation OS should run on other mfrs hardware as well... there's countless other examples of proprietary OS and hardware that are limited to exclusivity, running on one, or limited number of hardware platforms.

People have a choice to choose other hardware and/or OS combinations, Apple is not denying this choice, only protecting their proprietary products and investment relative to their marketing strategy. The difference with the MS OS anti-trust issue is that, at least at one point, about 95% of hardware came loaded with MS OS, and all the associated apps bundled in Windows, so whether the buyer chose a Dell, HP, Sony and most other PC hardware, they were, for the most part, still railroaded into using MS OS, and to a lesser degree it's bundled apps... not much choice there. That smells of anti-trust.

Bottom line is... we seem to forget that we as a consumer have more control over how and what is made available on the market, but are too impatient and resolute for immediate gratification of our specific demands. Point being, if you don't like the product in its entirety, don't purchase it... it's a powerful statement to the companies who design, manufacture and sell their products. If you think Apple is denying the freedom of choice, don't buy their product(s).

Personally, I think Apple has done a clever, and profitable, job of designing their mix of hardware/software products and how they work together. Once thought of as a negative, closed OS/hardware systems are showing their value in performance and continuity, not to mention for developers to develop apps that work seamlessly through a complete line of hardware applications (PC, MP3, Phone, etc.) And at the end of the day, isn't that what we want?

I'm perplexed at some comments regarding Apple products being more expensive and the company's profitability in recent years. What company doesn't sell their products at the highest margins the market will bear?? Duh?

And what, MS, Dell, Sony, etc... they don't want the highest margins/profits? Unfortunately for these manufacturers, their products are not as "hot" on the market.

Again, if you don't think Apple's products are worth the money, don't buy them. Why waste time whining about it? It's like buying a Ford based on personal reasons, but complaining that your neighbor purchased a Benz.

I'm also perplexed as to why so many are agitated regarding Apple products being aesthetically refined/appealing... why does this bother people? Again, it's like saying why does a Ferrari have to look so good, can't it just perform well and look like crap? What's the point? Most of us have gotten beyond the point (many years ago) that a PC is part of everyday life, not intrinsic to sign of manhood because the internal hardware is showing. Perhaps every car should look like a wrecked Ford Taurus. I like my PC to look appealing... I stare at it 8 hours a day. And am willing to pay for it.

I this is where Apple is really screwing up. They owe their reputation as an expensive, yet well made, computer maker, to their obsessive lock on the hardware and OS. You don't run into nearly as many bugs if you have control of the hardware. You can craft the OS to work with it...or select the perfect stuff ahead of time. Whichever.

But if they would just suck it up, and expand their fleet of programmers to start working with general hardware and sell the OS separately, they would still have control of their own hardware, and I believe people would still buy it. You know...for the "pure" Mac experience. But they would sell the holy heck out of their Operating System if it were available, and I promise you...they would be the first real competition Microsoft has ever had.

People are willing to pay MORE for a well made product. Windows 7, Apple's entire history, Herman Miller Aeron chairs, and Tempurpedic beds all prove that.

Wait wait wait...I am seeing a lot of use of the word "monopoly" in the comments.

This is not a monopoly issue. Apple is not preventing anyone from having a computer by enforcing their (stupidly heavy-handed) copyright.

They are preventing use of their software on non-Apple pc's, but that's not a monopoly. They have plenty of other options for computers. Not just Windows computers either. There are many flavors of the Linux Operating System that are maturing quickly and are quite usable.

A monopoly is when you make sure, through questionable means, that you're the only game in town. That is not the case here.

It seems to me that all of Apples enthusiast should consider this simple fact. They all are ready to pounce on Microsoft due to the price of Windows 7 over the price of OS X. Yet how many versions of Windows 7 can one by for the price difference that Apple is charging for their computer systems? It seems to me that I am good for several Windows upgrades even at the heftier price.
Apple has always been quite proprietary. Hats off to Microsoft – they can make their OS run on many hardware platforms. What is Apple scared of. The eclectic following of Apple is paying way to much for nothing.

There is no clear cut standard regarding proprietary ownership of a copyright. You can sell McDonald's burgers in only a McDonalds, but you can't show an MGM in only MGM owned theaters. You can run Windows on a non-IBM constructed computer but you can't run MacOS on a non-Apple computer. The main difference between Windows and MacOS is that Microsoft released its OS to the public to encourage software coders to create software for the Windows platform. Apple has never released its OS to the public. As a result you can find almost any possible software you might want or need available for Windows but those available for Mac are limited. There are a few which will run on both, but there are still those Windows applications which have never been adapted for Macintosh platform, Microsoft Access, for example. It has never been available for the Mac and probably never will be. Copyright cases are always decided on a case-by-case basis and the owner of the copyright always has to demonstrate how they've been injured by the infringement of their copyright. If Apple has never released the OS then they've never released it. An EULA is for the End User (that's the EU part). "End User" does not mean intermediate seller. While I agree that there would be much money to be made if Apple were to release its OS for use on non-Apple constructed computers, Apple is not in the business of making business for others and profit for others. By keeping their software a proprietary product they are not creating a monopoly. No one is prevented from buying a computer.

Maroni is right, the OS wasn't being sold for less, it was the hardware, I don't see the big deal in Hardware issues, I'm a PC user, Heck I even built my own Gaming PC. I am using Windows 7 and PC hardware just becuase it is cheaper, but I have a copy of OS X sitting on my desk, I would install it in a heartbeat if Mac allowed there OS to run on non-apple hardware. They control only 5-6% of the Computer market, I'm sure they would benefit and control more if they lightened up.

1) in the Mac ads, instead of bashing the PC, maybe they should try actually talking about the MAC's strong points.

2) Let non apple hardware run OS X, that may lead to a huge increase in OS X sales.

Try that apple, may help.

This isn't an Apple vs. Microsoft issue.

There's no debate that the use of a EULA is good for Apple from both a corporate strategy or fiscal standpoint. It would be very advantageous if Apple's EULA said that I had to pay them $1000.00 every time that I sneezed. No one would argue whether it's fiscally smart for Apple to do that or whether I could simply sneeze less. The issue for me is one of consumer rights. How much of my rights can Apple deny me or any consumer between the time of purchase and the time a product is used? Why are people so willing to trade their freedoms for the almighty corporate Wall Street giants?

Why does Apple or anyone else have the right to make up what constitutes an illegal act with a piece of software that I legally purchased? Why should the mere act of disassembling software be a copyright infringement? I can take apart my VCR. I can modify my car. Why should Apple software be afforded excessive legal protections under a "EULA" that tramples my consumer rights?

Are people really so in love with their little iPod's that they'd rather defend Apple and corporate greed ahead of their own consumer rights?

Of course this is the right decision. If the court ruled differently, we would have XBox clones, PlayStation clones, Ericson mobile phones clones, etc the whole world of intellectual rights would have been turned on its head.

If you really want a 'Mac clone' then buy a PC and do the hack job yourself by installing OS X on it and then cross your fingers it will work. Lots of guides on the net to do this, but it is not supported, but heck, you that shouldn't stop you if you really want 'freedom'.

Most of the posts here are rather unusual... it's as if it's 2001. Has anyone looked at Apple's performance? It's the most valued company in tech and amassing huge piles of cash, and dominating several media industries. Not sure why many of these posts are claiming Apple is not doing the "right thing" to succeed. Maybe they're not interested in having majority of the PC market... they're margins are certainly higher than anyone else in the same industry.

Many of the comments posted here are by PC enthusiasts who are into the tech aspect of PC... about replacing boards and processors and how they saved $50 doing so. You have to realize that this is a small minority and by no means represents the vast majority who really don't care about "working under the hood" of their PC. It's not rocket science anymore. While I know how my car operates, and could certainly make my own repairs, I have no inclination, time, nor interest to change my oil or replace the plugs. Same goes for PC. I don't care that MS driven PC's have more third party replacement parts, nor the additional apps that may run on them as these are not mainstream apps I would use. I think most posts here are missing the point. The PC market has changed dramatically over the last 5 years and Apple was (is) better positioned with it's product offering and strategy than most others in the industry. It seems that many ARE willing to pay more for Apple's products... they're fiscal performance, particularly in a global economic downturn, is proof of this fact.

Sorry Pystar, you read the license agreement. It was in plain English. I would love to have a legal means of installing OS X on hardware of my choosing. I happen to think its a great OS in desperate need of more mainstream exposure so they can get the gaming community involved. Its a well known fact that Apple hardware comes with an outrageous sticker price. Its harder to justify now that Mac's are effectively PC's on the inside. Yes yes, we know you get a pretty box out of it but for some of us techies that is irrelevant.

With that said, Pystar chose to move forward with selling the OS on non Apple hardware which is forbideen in the EULA. So they set themselves up for failure from day one. No court was ever going to give them a free pass on this one. Why they didn't just settle the matter is beyond me. Now Apple is going to have a field day tallying up damages. I can just visualize the Apple lawyers sitting around wearing translucent green visor hats feverishly working 1950 style calculators with the pull handle as we speak.

I guess Apple isn't all that much different than MS after all.

I think many consumers just assume that when they buy a PC/Mac that they indeed own the entire system. This ruling should go a long way towards informing consumers that while they may indeed own the hardware, they only have permission to us the software in the manner prescribed by the authors.

It's called licensing. The only ones that own the software are those that publish it.

Good judgement, if people could go and rip your hard work off so easily there would be NO innovation, no reason to justify such large research and development budgets into state of the art software and hardware.

Mac sux. Who cares?

Any company obviously wants to fleece the consumer for the maximum amount that they will pay.

The real question is why does the consumer allow itself to be bullied in this way, and why continue to buy this overpriced anti-competitive brand?

So don't blame Apple, blame yourself and every friend of yours who continues to support their bullying by buying their product ("Thank you sir, may I have another").

Anything ruling that relies on the DMCA in any way is probably reducing the rights of consumers.

Although I have done so in the past, I don't buy Apple products anymore because I find that OSX (the only "unique" Apple feature) is nothing but a slightly shinier Linux distribution, and I can build better faster PCs for a third of the price.

Apple wants total control of the compatible hardware (good job switching to x86 architecture) so that they can get a 200% return on every measly chip they sell to their legions of worshipers.

If this is not a monopoly what it?

Well, Apple's products may be overpriced, but I presume that part of the money that we pay is for research and development of the product we pay for and R&D of future products. Apple's known to innovate and even Apple-haters will have to admit that their innovation pushes other companies to innovate as well.

Cameras on laptops, touch screens, etc. I'm starting to see more consumer-level computers (and phones/PDAs) with these features...I wonder if Apple wasn't there, would we have gotten them so fast?

Psystar can offer the same as Apple for less because they don't have to innovate. They just have to reverse engineer. The ruling was good overall and if it did not come out this way, then I think the USA would have a hard[er] case arguing against certain countries which have companies that copy a product and change a letter in the brand name and resell it for a fraction of the price.

Face it – If Macs weren't so overpriced, then they might get more market share – But first they need to address the fact that they still aren't ready for big business.

ErikL put it best...

"Their whole business model revolves around creating robust hardware and software that work well together. You take the hardware control away from them and you'll end up with another Microsoft. Having to develop an OS that is compatible with every Tom Dick and Harry piece of hardware where compromises are inevitable."

People who don't understand this, need to! Or else OSX would just become another Windows...

1) Apple stole their OS from Berkley
2) Microsoft built theirs from the ground up

3) OS X is stable because its UNIX – not because its a MAC
4) Windows 7 is light years more secure and stable than OS X

5) People think their getting gold with Apple
6) Apple hardware is IDENTICAL to what Dell sells for 60% off of what apple sells

7) Mac is SIMPLE to hack, own, etc
8) WIndows 7 is not

The lawsuit may have stopped psystar, but it opened a whole can of whooop-a$$ when they get hit for antitrust lawsuits, and it is fact that they are now in the sights of the hackers who will exploit OS X so simply and unmercifully that the mac guy will have to run and hide under the bed with his boyfriend.

Most of you people really are ignorant. It's fine to have your opinion, but understand this: The Mac OS is FUNDED primarily through sales of Mac hardware. So, once again, our country of "rather buy cheap Chinese goods at Walmart instead of better made American products so American companies go outta business" people would rather buy these cheap clones and not care that Apple get's paid. Then when Apple goes under or stops being able to fund the Mac OS, all these same people will blame Apple instead of themselves.

Good luck America

I am not an iMac owner, but I do own an iPhone and I love it. The only reason I have never tried out a Mac is essentially the price point. And I believe this is probably why most people have never tried one. Forget about "making the switch" from PC to Mac. In this day and age, most homes have more than one PC or laptop anyway. If the price of a Mac was more inline with a PC, I see no reason why the average home would not have one of each. Or at least an iMac as a second laptop.

Not really Brendan, ErikL did not put it best. The reason Microsoft had to make (or chose to make) an OS that is compatible with every "Tom Dick and Harry" piece of Hardware is becuase that is what users wanted. OS' like that are for people who know what is in there computer, how it works, and for those who want to build there own computer how they want it. (business, design, gaming, etc.) OS X just doesn't. Now if ErickL was referring to Tom Dick and harry hardware as homemade hardware, then that's Linux you are thinking of. Just becuase Windows is compatible with all hardware, doesn't mean that comprimises HAD to be made, becuase they weren't. I am running windows 7, no crashes or comprimised featrues. When I ran vista, still, no comprimised features and it only crashed once in the 2 years I used it, and it was my fault.

troutmaskreplica said it right.

Sorry if someone's mentioned this already, but this is actually VERY similar to the IPhone. MS licenses Windows Mobile to multiple hardware manufacturers, and the end result varies from pretty good to complete crap. Apple only puts the IPhone OS on it's hardware, guaranteeing a solid user experience. If hardware compatibility is expanded, the user experience is diminished. Just a slower processor could greatly impact usability, nonetheless the 10-20 other components that make up your computer.

I don't necessarily like what Apple does, but I understand why they do it... and I don't believe it's entirely money driven...

OK one major misconception concerning Apple that I find quite comical. Apple is not doing fiscally well due to the sales of Apple computers and their OS. They are doing so well due to the broad range of products they sell, mainly the Ipod and Iphone. If Apple's bottom line was based solely on the sales of Macs, you would see a whole different picture. 5% of the PC market doesn't not add up to that much money no matter how overpriced they are. I shake my head at Apple's business practice concerning their tight reign on their OS, but that's their choice. Everyone likes to compare Apple OS and Windows to Fords and Mercedes. I enjoy this comparison greatly. Both will get you to where you need to go at the same time given you are following the rules. The biggest point is when I arrive in my Ford, I will be able to afford to do other things. You with the Benz will be able to stand next to it and shout how great it is but when you open your wallet, it will still be empty. My computer and the OS I use is not an extension of any of my body parts. It's what I use to get the job done, not shout "Look at me, Look at me!.

I found it interesting when Apple decided to switch to the Intel architecture and more than a few experts thought Microsoft would finally have some competition in the OS market. Wonder what would happen if they did put together a less restrictive licensed, but unsupported, version to get the world to do their R&D on different hardware but only support the platforms they sell? Think RedHat and Fedora. Could Steve make more money than Bill?

Wow. Seeing just how badly you klutzes understand the law and just how much your opinions are media-biased and emotionally-driven, I'm VERY glad I went to law school. I get to run circles around you...and that's before I even have to use my brain. Neat.

I'm all for fair competition, but if I designed or invented something and someone else takes it and sells it at a cheaper price, and I get no profit from it, then that is unfair. Its my design and my invention. Therefore, it is my right to do what I wish (as long as it is legal). Psystar was clearly taking away Apple customers.

Do I think that Apple charges an arm and a leg for their machines? Hell yes.

Do I think that they are stingy with their software? Hell yes.

However, for another company to take something Apple developed and use it for their own gain, and Apple see's no benefit from it, that is not only unfair, it is illegal.

IMO........This is quality control at its finest and I see no problem with it.

Apples business strategy is obviously very successful and their products are some of the finest.
I fail to see the problem here.

This case is what it is (regardless of outcome).

As a consumer you can send a message to Apple. If you don't like their policy, don't buy Apple products. Your wallet can make or break any company.

I personally don't care for anything Apple makes. It's candy for kids and there is always a better alternative based on functionality and versatility...just not in white and chrome.

The commercialization, monopolization, and high expense of computers and their operating systems can be summed up in one word: Linux! Therefore by refusing to use software that restricts your rights you are helping to support innovation and research in new technology. I support open-source software, because it's free, innovative, it keeps me happy knowing that I own the hardware and that I didn't pay and arm & leg for my computer.

Sometimes there are things that don't work quite right but that's okay because as with innovation sometimes you have to go through a bit of pain to get the best of something. However Linux, doesn't have near the amount of bugs as Windows does, nor does it have the prohibitive cost associated with Windows and Mac. As long as you run stable the problems you would experience with Linux are very very few. Choosing to run the unstable, or testing versions though and you'll have some fun and want to scream at times but still it's better then the it's commercial alternatives.

I have a big problem with a lot of people who think it is okay for Psystar to have broken the law. We all know, every Mac and Windows fan, that it is illegal to put OSX on another system, plain and simple. Laws are there for a reason and when you break them there are consequences. Psystar is learning that now. I use both Mac and Windows...legally, that is what matters, not which I think is better or which I think is more aesthetically pleasing.

@ Don

about Apple's fiscal misconceptions, read:
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/01/charlie-wolf-how-the-mac-roared-back/

But regardless of this article, it would not be uncommon to take lower margins on one product line to increase another's (and I'm not saying that's necessarily the strategy with the Mac line) And while share of the market and unit volume is increasing, it's not always the best strategy to increase numbers and lower margins... many variables to consider. But even with the Macs higher price tag, it is outperforming the US and global market stats, while most other PC mfrs are tanking. Another car analogy... until recently acquired by VW, Porsche was the most profitable car manufacturer globally, but they certainly came nowhere close to dominating market share relative to unit volumes... but did dominate a specific market segment at high margins. They were acquired by VW because they had a solid product line and were successful strategy.

Of course it's their choice to control their OS, it's part of a larger strategy... again, look at their fiscal performance relative to other players in the industry.... can you seriously say they are not doing the right thing?! This is basic marketing/biz "101" Based on this, I agree with Johnny Marx's comments entirely.

Well, maybe your wallet may be empty after buying a Benz, but not everyone's is... what's your point here... everyone should drive a Ford based on YOUR fiscal strategy, or lack of? Based on your premise, everything we purchase and use should be strictly to "get the job done"... getting us from point A to B. It may be the way you make decisions, but most of the world does not.

The only ones I see shouting "look at me" are those proudly saying how little they spent on a PC and how they modified/repaired their own hardware... why would I, or anyone else, care? Oh, and proudly dissing anyone who runs other hardware/OS that might cost a bit more.

We've moved on from an era which your premise and opinion is the driving factor of where the industry is, and is headed. It's as if you, and most on this blog, are holding on to nostalgic opinions based on mostly irrelevant and non-practical market and user purposes.

So, Apple is successful, so what? MS/HP/Sony/etc. had a long run, why not another leader, or 2, or 3 in the industry? Besides, in my opinion, the afore mentioned are becoming dinosaurs on the relative time line of tech and forward-looking markets.

In terms of legalities, as another post mentioned... most here need to read up on basic definitions of monopoly, anti-trust and licensing agreements before posting unsubstantiated comments.

I, or anyone else, do not need to be "saved from Apple", or any other tech company, by those who have a weak grip on what drives the technology markets, and certainly to a larger extent the implications of business and legal dynamics involved.

But, again, if you don't like Apple's products or policies, then don't buy them.
Question is, why are you so obsessively bent out of shape wether anyone else does?

I don't get it

You're all a bunch of narcissists.

in many ways, this ruling does not surprise me. psystar should have just made a machine that could run the apple OS, and sold it without, letting the owners take on the liability for loading the software themselves. This is dangerous from the perspective that now all business won't sell you a product, they will sell you a 'license' to use their product and hence, control when and where you use it, etc. the applications of this could extend far beyond proprietary software! But this is also where Apple is missing the boat. By not allowing clones or competition, it keeps their machine costs much higher than their PC based counterparts, and the same is true for their software. Had IBM kept a strangle hold on that technology, they'd be just as expensive, and there'd be fewer PC's in homes today. It was through that competition that the price came down, and now computers are everywhere, in almost every home. Had Apple allowed for clones, they might have a larger market share than they do. By holding all the cards, they have dealt themselves out of the game. 'Windows' isn't on 90% of the worlds machines by holding all the cards. Through that hardware competition, they built themselves a large market share and made up for any losses by sheer volume. Apple could learn a lesson from them.

If i want a Ferrari I'll buy one, not a fiberglass replica. Although I applaud Psystar, you pay for what you get and unfortunatly it was a sub-standard product. When my mac breaks i can pick up the phone or go to the store.
Not the case with Psystar. People think this is CAPATILISTIC GREED~
No, it's a protecting your brand and keeping a product first class.

Imagine that you spent the past 3 years writing the definitive guide to moss. You spent hundreds of hours gathering samples, taking photos, and crawling around the swamp looking for new species. It's 400 pages long and 3 years of your life and sells for $250. Universities buy it for their libraries.

Now imagine that I bought a copy of your book, scanned it into a pdf, printed copies of it, and sold them online for $19.95 plus shipping.

Would you be mad? Would you ask your attorney to stop me?

Apple wrote an OS, and sold a copy with a EULA that says the buyer agrees to not make copies, not hack the license, not sell hacked copies, and not sell it installed on anything but Apple hardware.

Psystar agreed to these terms when they bought their copies of the OS.

I think its another stupid move on apples part.

Apple's 2 biggest problems are cost associated with owning an apple and lack of software. Again apples strategy isnt new.. its just a strategy that will never really work for enterprise software.

Chuck,

From your comments- you describe how your Windows 7 computer has never crashed nor has had compromised features and your Vista computer only crashed once in 2 years. I ask you this – How do you know that Microsoft didn’t have to make compromises to their OS in order to not crash or compromise a feature in order to be compatible with all hardware? I stand behind my words when I said Microsoft has had to make “inevitable compromises”. I’m a product design engineer, design involves inevitable compromise – Apple has to make compromises, just not as many as Microsoft. One big reason is because they control the hardware and OS.

As a consumer, I suppose I’m satisfied that my Subaru WRX has a top speed of 140mph, however if I knew that the limitation was due to the wheels falling off at 141mph I might not be so satisfied. How do you know what the Microsoft OS “could” have been if they didn’t have to deal with low performing hardware? All the consumer sees is “what” it is. You might get your answer if you took a Mac for a test drive. By the way – I Own only Windows machines. I happen to value breadth of software availability above overall user experience. I can fix my own machines too I think there is room for both Windows and Macs in this world- Competition spurs innovation. Each company learns from the other.

Cloning a Mac is a bit like cloning someone who's mentally handicapped due to genetic defects–sure, it's a fantastic feat, but...why?

Does not really matter to me. I love Apple's hardware. Very well built and worth a little more as it lasts longer. I guess I really don't care too much about this....

I can't believe half of the comments people come up with these days.

Apple is a business. They build machines and software for those machines. They license the software with certain conditions tied to it. It's a legal and contractual obligation. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Everyone is so focused on "making" Apple do something they don't feel comfortable with. No one HAS to buy apple hardware or software. But for some reason, everyone feels entitled to a share in apple in order to tell them what they should or shouldn't do.
You think that Apple stifles the competition? Then DON'T BUY IT.

Okay guys enough with the OS wars. This is purely a law issue not a which one is better. Plain and simple: Pystar violated the EULA they get in trouble. END OF STORY!

If I remember correctly, Microsoft started making money charging for the OS on EACH machine sold by IBM that used it's OS. Psystar bought ONE copy of the OS, then copied it illegally to other machines. Microsoft doesn't make hardware, they make money selling the OS. Psystar wanted to circumvent that process. I can buy Mac OS and put is on a Dell if I want, but I need to buy the OS. I can put WIndows on my Mac if I want, but I need to buy the OS. That seems fair.

The point is that everyones knows that Apple have not licensed anything for anyone, and that has given great exclusivity for the best OS around. So, this company cannot fail to have known that what it was doing was illegal – although I am sure with a very good intention. Sadly it is not intentions that count but the written law.

For one, Apple controls what hardware the OSX runs on. They are proprietary for a reason: To give you what they think will be the best experience with their Operating System. You can see this with the iPhone OS as well. There is a reason they won't let it run on any other smart phone: To give the end user what they think is the best experience possible.

If you do not agree with the EULA then don't install it or just build your own and don't tell Apple.

Haters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you don't like Apple then don't buy it. People wanna take cheap hardware and add Apple based software and piggyback off Apple's success. Totally unfair to Apple. I say shut em down(Pystar). Get rich off of your own ideas.

The Apple FanBoy's are out in full force. There are many articles about Apple's poor quality control - many recalls, MacBook nicknamed "CrackBook", battery hazzards, 4G Shuffle that malfunctions when working out, etc. etc. Apple OS is largely FreeBSD UNIX and suffers many of the same problems. Apple's corporate strategy of tying shoddy hardware to their ripped off version of BSD isn't even the issue.

Other misinformation in this forum involves false claims that Psystar was illegally copying the OS. Everything I've read suggests that these were legitimally purchased copies of Apple OS X.

People are saying that, "if you don't like Apple's licensing, don't buy it." The problem is that the consumer is not exposed to the terms and conditions until after they've already made the purchase!

This issue quite simply is that Apple should not be able to make it a criminal act if I run my legally purchased software on the hardware of my choosing. This is a consumer rights issue. Why are consumer rights destroyed after purchase through a EULA under the guise of "copyright law"?

A lot of idiots on this board. They don't seem to know that Dell and the others do sell laptops costing $4k and $5k, all they look at are the cheap stuff and wonder why Apple can't make the same cheap stuff.

Apple doesn't want to be in that market, plain and simple. Get over it.

how does this kill competition? if you have qualms about this then go write your own OS like normal people... sheesh... also id like to say that running Xubuntu for free on a cheap PC is the equivilent to running any other OS on a fairly decent machine IMO

Like many I agree its all for big corps. I think Apple is like microsoft (dont forget bill gates own some of it too).If they dont get the money they will sue and then just like Microsoft end up getting all those viruses.Keep it up Apple! Bill showed you the way to do it!

And everyone thinks Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is Darth Vader!

This is the main reason I will never own or buy a MAC.

Come to think of it, maybe MS should write in its EULA that its illegal to run any future version of Windows on any Apple hardware platform, virtual or otherwise and site Apple's own policies as precedent.

@ Allen W.

As for consumers not being exposed to the EULA prior to purchasing the OS, or any other Apple app/hardware:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
If that's not enough, when you open the box/package, you can read it on paper, and if that's not enough, during the installation process, EULA is revealed and asks you to accept the terms. You can return the product if you don't agree.

Besides, you'd have to be living under a rock for the last 30 years to not have a clue about compliance with software/hardware use. Really, come on... how obtuse can one be to make a point?

You characterize this issue as if Apple is the only one with such EULA compliance terms.

Whether one copy was purchased for multiple machines, or one for each, both scenarios violate the terms of use.

How do you find it justifiably legal, or ethical, to violate licensing terms, through use of proprietary products, by characterizing it as "consumer rights"? The act of "purchasing" a copy of an OS does not inherently allow anyone to use it as you please. There are hundreds of other companies whose hardware and relative OS are strictly controlled... particularly with issues concerning installation/use on other mfrs, hardware.

Apple did not make it "criminal", both US and international law allows for companies, and private individuals, to protect their proprietary products.

And this issue is not primarily rooted in "copyright law", but rather patent.

Really... get a clue.

@Robert

Assuming that consumers were magically imparted with the knowledge of the web address you provided at birth, aren't they going to have a hard time accessing a URL without an operating system, no? I consider it quite an inconvenience to spend additional time and money going back to the Apple store and wait in line again to return a product (assuming you do it in a timely fashion) just to get a credit after you've read the tens of thousands of words in the licensing agreements. If you think that many first time computer consumers (much of Apple's market) are literate about software compliance issues, you're quite mistaken.

Please check your assertions. Whether you agree with the enforcability of EULAs is a completely separate issue and no one said this was specific to Apple. However, only being able to install Mac OS on Apple hardware *is* an Apple issue. This is an unwarranted restriction on my purchase and violates what I would consider reasonable use of the product (ie. a consumer rights issue).

Locking consumers to a particular platform has been found time and time again to be unreasonable, hence the existance of a specific exclusion within the DMCA. This is why it's completely legal to unlock an iPhone. Now if consumers can unlock an iPhone from AT&T, it should be no different than unlocking Apple's OS from Apple Hardware. EULAs are neither specific to copyright law or patent law. Provisions within a EULA may have a basis in copyright law, patent law, or like this provision - it may just be completely fabricated nonsense based in corporate greed and unduly restricts consumer rights.

Have a nice day.

If you can load and run Windows on a Mac without any legal issues? How come you cannot run Mac operating system on a pc? It seems like a double standard from Apple, if there were some competition they would have a tough time selling $1500 against a similar pc at $600. No wonder Jobs and others at Apple earn so much money, I guess it is the American way, rip off whoever you can in the name of corporate greed!

I guess Bammer will never own a XBox, because the EULA prevents hacking the machine. In fact, Microsoft banned a million XBox users from its online service for doing so, and they are perfectly in their right to do so.

@ Don

This is where commentary here really gets stupid.

It's quite common to log on a website to review specs, and other related issues when purchasing PC related equipment. It's not the "first time" PC (or Apple, as you specifically implied) buyers who are at issue here, it's the PC savvy who want to circumvent any proprietary product protection and consequential liability. First time PC/Mac purchaser typically run the product as is, without OS/hardware alterations.

Because MS allows their OS to run on Mac hardware does not mandate vice versa for Apple. Besides, it's MS proponents who are proclaiming how bad OSX is, so why on earth would they want it on their system?

While I agree that most EULA's, in their entirety, are complex to interpret, the very second, and short paragraph clearly, in grammar school English, addresses its use on other hardware.
It's a bit like saying "Didn't know I had to pay taxes as I wasn't told at birth"

It's not an issue with enforceability, or wether I agree, but rather that some contributors on this site who insist their self proclaimed right to override terms on proprietary products merely on the premise that they "purchased it".

With almost any mainstream software/OS, not just Apples, you are paying for (purchasing) a licensed agreement, not actually taking ownership of the software copy. Again, you're quite tech savvy, read the terms.

You are correct, it is an Apple issue, as it is a MS issue, as it is an Adobe issue, etc... who all subscribe to similar terms. For those who also manufacture hardware with proprietary software, they have a legal right to determine how it will be used, whether to their benefit or detriment. Canon develops software... what, they should allow its use on a Nikon or HP equipment??

As owners of a product, Apple's, as anyone else's, EULA is completely warranted. What you consider "reasonable use" may not be to others. Perhaps anyone should be able to circumvent laws regarding ownership by simply stating "I think it's unreasonable"? And that's fine, but then do not purchase the license and misuse it.

Locking consumers to particular platform (not just PCs, but other hardware, across many industries) is typically the norm, not the exception. Industries, particularly tech, are quite strict about this as, obviously, they invest a great deal of time and money, and use the law to protect their ownership.

Unlocking an iPhone from it's service provider is a bit of a different animal... and by the way, not completely legal. Again, read the terms of use. But that's another discussion.

EULA's fabricated nonsense?!?!? What planet are you on? Apple has greed?? I suppose MS, HP, Dell, etc. are just giving away their products?

This all seems to be a lot of sour grapes with PC enthusiasts as a different platform/OS is making headway. Particularly as Apple products are quite hot and for the most part dictating the direction of several media/tech segments.

But regardless of whether one thinks Apple should "release" its OS, or not, or whether it's fair or not, Apple, and any other company, has the legal right to protect it's product use and ownership. Perhaps you should write to your congressman to amend the law.

You may spin this in whatever fashion you like, but in simple and legal terms, what Psystar has done, and what some individuals feel is their implied consumer right, in this particular case and scenario is stealing.

@ Allen W.

forgot... should one not have a system to review EULAs on line, there's always a retail environment available for product info... and not just Apple's.
So many opportunities to be informed.

So Apple did the exact same thing they are accusing Psystar when they finally started cloning PCs and putting their own OS on them. Where would we be if IBM would have shutdown Intel for cloning their CPUs? Just think about it...

Where would Apple be if the FreeBSD OS, which it took and used for MacOS be would have been protected by a EULA like Apples? Think about it.

They would have FAILED!!! The only original thing is their name and look and feel. They copied hardware and OS. They added the user interface, that is basically it.

This should not be legal, it stifles innovation, and hurts consumers.

Apple should not be allowed to prevent others from doing what it itself has done: Innovate on top of other technologies for the benefit of consumers.

Microsoft can't lock down the operating system to use only their browser but apple can lock it down to hardware. Not sure how that is fair.

To own a business is to gamble; You can't take the gamble out of owning a business, "Apple".

Thats retarded, like apple doesn't make enough money to let people save some money. Besides if apple does not wwant things like this to happen then lower their prices. macs are awesome but i will buy a pc any day because they are half the price. I think they should appeal all and claim apple as being a monopoly. If i buy a OS X i should be able to resell it to who ever i want. In fact i will.

...sticking it to the man.

I find it ridiculous and hypocritical that Apple can have Bootcamp load up Microsoft Windows 'legally' and Mac will not sell or allow any other company to sell a psuedo 'BootCamp' for PC to load Mac OS X...Leopard or Snow Kitty...
I am a Mac person and have been for a long time but it seems now that the hardware is non-specific to Mac (except for an EFI module on the board) especially now that Mac is using the INTEL Duo 2 core family of processors and that their Apple hardware is basically midrange PC hardware – nothing Apple about it anymore.
Intel makes their (Apples) boards and Foxxconn/Gigabyte....they make Dells boards as well....Can u say PC cause that is what a Mac has become and not even High Grade PC just mid range.
Dont get me wrong I love Apple to a point but I own PCs as well and I like both –
Apple wake up!!! Sell the Dongle for 250 – 350 dollars and you would consume a lot of the market and people could decide what OS to boot up with....can u say harmony? Software companies would profit, Apple would profit, hardware companies across the board would profit, the consumer would profit from experience and decide what they like, economy would profit.
Stop fighting – I thought the whole Idea for Apple/Mac was 'innovation '
allow us to have a say in the fight ...after all without us you would be broke.

To any of the idiots who claim that Apple is making a monopoly by only selling OS X on Mac hardware – are you aware that Microsoft has in the past made countless deals with retailers forcing them to only sell computers with Windows?

On another note, many people here have said that overcharges for their hardware, but that's really not the case. Apple uses very high-end parts.

PC manufacturers tend to gear their specs towards enhancing the ones that people look for and ignoring the ones that people don't understand. For example, people look at how much RAM, but they don't look at the speed or type of the RAM. Macs usually have much faster, more advanced RAM. This include the fact that a lot of Mac RAM is ECC (Error Checking and Correcting) which makes memory more stable, but is more expensive. Macs even have custom-made RAM that is built to special heating specifications so that the fans need to work less

Macs also usually include amenities that cheap PCs don't offer. Firewire ports, back-lit keyboard and dual-touch touchpad for Macbook Pro, etc.

"Well Psystar screwed up with the copyright infringment, but dang Apple is so self centered if they even have a lock-and-key system."

What; are you a bunch of 12 year olds who feel entitled to rip off anything you think is yours because you think it should be free.

Apple is not a monopoly; it doesn't have enough share of the personal computer market (yes, a Mac is a personal computer) to affect the entire personal computer market. What they do have is a 100% control the Mac market and they want you to pay to play.

Your choice. Buy a Mac on Apple's term or don't. You have not been given the choice by Apple.

i do find it hillarious when someone tries to argue apple is more open source.

oh and that guy that suggested microsoft should do a lock and key series of PC, yes please do us all a favor and find a short pier please.

Apple won, as they should have.
Good.

Apple runs Windows on Bootcamp... Thus 'Computers' that are not apple should be able to run Mac OS X

Michael, The reason I said such a thing, is becuase I, and many others it seems, find it somewhat rediculous that you can run Windows on a MAC using bootcamp legally with full permission from MS, but Apple absolutely refuses to let there OS "Bootcamp" on non-apple hardware. I mean, how hipocritical is that? Doesn't that seem a bit stupid? Like I have said before, Apple would control more of the PC market (yes, I know macs are PC's, I'm a tech guy, don't gotta point that out to me) if they let there OS run on other hardware other than their's. That is just my opinion but, I'm sure there is some sense in it. Also, I'm 18 Micheal.

(I think I just got trolled..?)

As others have stated, Psystar being able to use OSX would be akin to demanding that I be able to use PS3 softward on a box that I created. I am sure I could get a bill of materials for a PS3, rebuild it, and if I could get my hands on a disk of the PS3 operating system, make my own PS3. It really isn't any different.

I would surmise that in the future, Apple OS releases will be only via new computer purchase and software update so that there isn't a physical copy to use in violation of the EULA.

And to anyone who says, "Apples business model is flawed. The would sell so much more of X if they did Y," is making a strange argument. Apple has among the highest market caps of all tech companies and has steadily gained marketshare in the consumer space.

I'd say their strategy has been pretty darn effective, even if I don't disagree with the way they do business.

Well, I'm glad Apple learned from some of their mistakes.

[...] the short article found here and leave a comment on whether you think the Psystar company broke copyright [...]

Hi there! You some type of pro? Great message. Are you able to inform me the way to subscribe your blog?

qdHHOL http://www.RUWE5gOde94HqsfDYIh3uBfJfSMdiDSG.com

The National Gallery little bitch models lqzega perfect teen model 94844 ls dasha model =-]] lacoste kid model 8-(( little model tgp 8976 model children tgp 623 xxx model ads 8))) ls model pussy PP little babe models childrem super model =OOO

Could I order a new chequebook, please? Dark Lolita
63650 Index Lolita
) Lolita Teen
543224 Best Lolita Sites
36011 Great Lolita Bbs
bwxpsn Top 100 Lolita Sites
>:-]] Lolita Girls
>:-DD Lolitas Toplist
rthqb Lolita Galleries
Lolita Topsites
=-[[[

I was born in Australia but grew up in England Lolitas Nude
>:-PPP Lolita Sex Stories
ayal Lolita Links
307097 Lolita Xxx
ckttrs Lolita Cp
>:((( Off Lolita
>:-]] Lolita Gallery
dsy Bbs Lolita
rpghbq Teen Lolita
580213 Lolita Top List
pkurxt

How do you know each other? Hot Preteens
=-((( Naked Preteen Boys
bqqu Preteen Photos
jaudt Preteen Upskirt
=-DDD Preteen Tits
5002 Preteen Sluts
976563 Preteen Ass
0821 Preteen Pussy Pics
=-( Preteen Art Models
mmlau Nudist Preteen
5724