Apple asks for lawsuit dismissal with 'prejudice'

Well, given the quality of some of Apple's hardware that a premium is paid for, I for one wouldn't mind a bit of competition for Apple. Competition is good for consumers and seeing as Macs now use generic Intel and PC components I for one wouldn't mind seeing the market open up a little more.

I do like my Macs, but Apple certainly aren't perfect. Leopard has a ton wrong with it. It's only because Vista is so bad that I feel I can look the other way. Competition with hardware could encourage them to up their game and make my Mac as stable as I know it can be.

The choice is either buy a Mac or don't. If you really have a problem that you can't run OS X on your own hardware without breaking the EULA, get Windows or Linux instead. No-one is forcing you to want to use OS X.

And if Apple WAS to cater to all these different hardware configurations, it would become as crappy and useless as Windows is now.

You don't buy Mac OS X when you hand over your money, any more than when you buy any other piece of software.

You buy *permission to use* the software, in accordance with the terms in its user license agreement.

There is nothing anti-competitive or monopolistic about Apple taking this stance. The Mac OS X / Apple hardware platform is one product, not a market. If that's what you want you should go build a PC and choose whichever flavour of Windows, Linux etc that takes your fancy.

Apple are entitled to use every means at their disposal to crush Psystar like a bug.

Just so it's clear:

when someone files a lawsuit, the first thing you do as an attorney is file a motion to dismiss. the motion says, essentially, "based on what they've claimed, they couldn't possibly win...so let's not waste time with trial, please just dismiss it"

the judge then decides whether to dismiss it or not.
if he/she dismisses it "without prejudice," that means that there's a technical error in the suit and it's OK if they refile and try to correct it.

if the judge dismisses it "with prejudice," that means that based on all the factual circumstances and applicable law, the suit could not be won, and so it's dismissed for good.

"prejudice" in this context has no negative or inappropriate connotation.

Except that Apple sells Mac OS X in a store. If you sell it - why should you then get to tell me how to use it.

Not just prejudice, extreme prejudice!

Not really much here other than they want a ruling on the merits.

The countersuit is bogus--it makes no sense that a product in and of itself is a monopoly. Obviously Apple has to be able to set the terms on which its OS can be used for its business model to survive. Just because Microsoft took a different approach (open licensing, essentially) doesn't mean everyone has to follow that approach.

Because I would never, ever, consider buying alternative hardware to run Mac OS X, I really hope Apple wins this one.

But no worries from all of you out there that believe consumers should have a choice.

My lowly opinion here will have no influence whatsoever on the outcome.
My written words just don't harness that level of power.