Psystar fights back, hires attorney

I believe Apple will argue copyright infringement and not EULA crap. OSX had to be modified to run on psystar machines after the latest updates and that is a violation of copyrighted code.

I hope they go back to PPC! This nonsensical, cavalier, robin hood attitude towards apple's ip is childish. if you wrote the code for osx and people were pirating it and you were not getting the money, you would feel a little differently now wouldn't you? go back to your home built linux boxes children.

It's fascinating that so many of you are claiming that Apple is maintaining some sort of monopoly. They are by no means the only vendor in town, as you can buy a computer from Lenovo, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, Sony, etc. Apple makes computers, which are comprised of two things, hardware and software. The software (OS X) is one of the features that make the hardware so attractive. Any computer manufacturer is free to add a similar feature to their computers by writing their own OS, but they choose not to.

Just because it is much easier to install software on unapproved hardware than to graft a physical feature from one product onto another doesn't make it any different. If Toshiba wants to have fingerprint ID on their laptops like Sony does, they can (and must) design their own. They cannot cut one out of a Sony laptop and glue it onto theirs.

Apple is free to charge whatever they want to for their hardware, and if you find it to be too expensive, you are free to buy someone else's hardware.

Does Mrs. Fields operate a monopoly? Sure, you can buy cookies from other companies, but Mrs. Fields refuses to license their recipe, so you can only buy a Mrs. Fields cookie from Mrs. Fields. What about cell phones? Why can't I install Blackberry OS onto a Motorola Q? Yet another monopoly...when will it end?

Thieves the filthy little thieves...! Good luck to em...

What if Pystar is a company setup for this purpose to get OS X on vanilla boxes.

It would be funny seeing DELL, HP, Leveno, and others helping PYSTAR to win the case.

EULA's are not law anyhow, and it's not even a legal contract.

The post-purchase EULA in most software is (legally, but unfortunately not politically) at a minimum unenforceable and possibly a violation of several federal laws in its attempt to coerce the legal owner of the software to behave in a particular way under threat, since software is clearly "sold." When was the last time you went out to a store to "license" some software you need?! Imagine bringing home a box of Cheerios from the supermarket, prying open the top flap and seeing a note inside that reads: "...to continue using these Cheerios you must agree to ...... if you do not agree you must not eat any of the Cheerios and return them to the place of purchase (software makers even use the word purchase in the _lincense!_ agreements).

What would most people do? They would laugh and eat the cheerios.

The EULA's for software that is hidden inside the box (and sometimes even buried in the installation routine, that is, only when one demonstrates the gall to try to use the software one purchased) to be found only after the completion of a legal purchase (during which no mention of "licensing is ever made) are equally laughable from a letter-of-the-law view.

The fact that the software industry and the entertainment industry work together spending millions to create new case-law favorable to their ridiculous approach to IP -- sell it and then intimidate the purchaser into not using it -- is sad. The fact that the judicial system is still largely staffed by people for whom a number-two pencil is advanced technology leaves such cases up to the political pressures (read: the party with the best lawyers and lobbyists) and not logic or even intelligent application of preexisting laws and precedents.

More power to Psystar for fighting this "you buy but we still own it" attitude that is all to quickly turning American jurisprudence on its face and becoming a perverse status quo.

I think that if look under the covers, this EULA legal battle is the whole purpose of a Psystar. I mean really who are these guys anyhow? Some two bit hardware company from nowhere. Now they are challenging Apple for the keys to open the OSX clone market. This will be an interesting case for sure.

Now, the part of that statement that gets me is the "unfair competition" part. At what point is it unfair to apple for another company to compete with them? Apple has a monopoly on their hardware/software. Any competition is not only fair, but almost required by US law (or at least how it is written, not how it is bought and paid for with "campaign contributions"). So in my mind that is the most rediculous claim I have heard today. Basically apple is saying "waaahhhh... we want to make more money and if someone sells the same thing we sell, we wont make as much money over charging for our pretty toys...waaahhh... that's not fair..." Now I know that on copyright/contract (eula) issues, they have Psystar nailed... thats not my issue here. But truth be told, I think that is exactly what apple needs to keep them on their game, a little honest competition. Thats what keeps market prices and quality in check.


I know its the equivelant to wishign for a unicorn for my birthday... but I sincerely hope that Psystar totally wins the case. I hope they slam dunk apple and give Stevey the finger. Just to humble apple just a little bit.

And before you call me an MS lackey, my primary machine is a 2008 Mac Pro. I own a lot of apple stuff... but I definately paid way more than I would have in an open market.

Violating a EULA is not automatically a legally enforcable decision. In fact there are a lot of cases where a company's software EULA has been turned down as unenforcable. Couple that with Psytar conceivably being able to argue anti-competition (though they probably wouldn't win that portion of the argument) and there is a lot of case here to argue. It's not as cut and dry, "Apple is the winner!" as you might think.

Psystar didn't hack anything.It's just when Apple decided to use Intel chips they opened the door to third party vendors (which is a good thing).

Psystar does know that a certain Intel Processor chip which is higher than the "D" plays well with OS X.

Apple has a current monopoly on there software at the moment and if this was Microsoft they would've already had to seperate the two YEARS AGO.

The only thing that separates Apple Computers/Laptops that shipped with Intel inside are the casing and the OS.

I'd love to have a Apple Desktop for my multimedia work but paying a premium just because it's an Apple product doesn't go over well with me.I can build something twice as fast and still save some cash.

Thanks for posting a story that doesn't involve the iPhone.Maybe I'll start checking back here regularly.