With new claims, Psystar tries another angle

Wow, I just read through all the comments, and some people have some SERIOUS misconceptions about Apple's rights and business ideas. Thank you liquidmark for being the voice of reason.

"Are you seriously as stupid as you sound? You're equating stealing to a ruling that would futher inhibit interop."

Apparently not as stupid as you ARE Chris!

Straight up, F*CK YOU

First off, my copying pages from Spiderman and bundling it in my own book and SELLING IT, is NO DIFFERENT from Pirating a HACKED copy of OSX and bundling it my own computer and selling it!

"(1) Apple could do more. Honestly. Don't deny it."

You COULD drink battery acid! Would it be a good idea? NO!

"(2) A ruling in this case could have way further legal implications than anyone here is willing to realize."

WHAT?! read what I said earlier!

If Psystar wins, that will make what I said, LEGAL!

Perhaps YOU don't want to realize what is at stake here!

"(3) Yes, Psystar is stupid."

First intelligent thing you said all thread... >_>

"4) Yes, Apple is right, but they are stupid too."

By protecting their IP? How do you figure?

"Apple is partially at fault here."

Riiiiight

And women who get raped are partially at fault in your world too, right?

They were just asking for it, weren't they?

I suppose that, if I don't put an electrified fence with guard towers, around my house, that I'd be 'partially at fault' when someone steals my lawnmower?

That's it, blame the victim.

"They wanted a closed hardware/software system, they shouldn't be selling the operating system openly."

Like I said, if Marvel doesn't want other people to scan and resell their books, they shouldn't sell them to the public.

Now, how many copies of Liquidmark's Spiderman do you want to order?

They're only 50 cents a copy.

Are you seriously as stupid as you sound? You're equating stealing to a ruling that would futher inhibit interop.

I get it. I understand this is a unique case. I know Apple's perspective, and yes, I too believe that only the Mac OS X operating system should work on a Mac computer.

But for chrissakes, don't try to say that Apple hasn't done everything it can do to prevent OS X from leaking out to other users without Macs. I've already pointed out that they could very easily be the sole seller for the operating system and require a serial number to purchase it. Right now, Apple simply has not gone to every protection possible to ensure that OS X is not leaked to the homebrewers and Psystars of the world. Really, every time a homebrew computer is made or a Psystar is manufactured, Apple is getting money. It's not like they're using pirated copies of the OS.

All I'm saying is:
(1) Apple could do more. Honestly. Don't deny it.
(2) A ruling in this case could have way further legal implications than anyone here is willing to realize. Don't be stupid about it. The law doesn't paint in tiny strokes, it is applied in big, thick ones, and you never know how this ruling could be applied in a case down the road. Perhaps Microsoft decides to sue Apple because they never wanted Windows to run on a Mac. Sure it's not legally possible now (and would be totally stupid), but after this ruling comes out, they might find that it's possible under the new case law.
(3) Yes, Psystar is stupid.
(4) Yes, Apple is right, but they are stupid too.

These are the kinds of things you need to consider. Yes, Psystar is stupid. I get it. But this legal battle can do little good for anyone involved.

And jeez, get your heads out of your asses and realize Apple is partially at fault here. They wanted a closed hardware/software system, they shouldn't be selling the operating system openly. That's common sense.

Ok Cris, here's the deal.

If Psystar wins this case, then I'll start making my OWN Spiderman comics and SELL them.

How does that sound?

I mean, Marvel did things with their Spiderman that I don't like and I think things could have been done differently/better. A lot of people agree with me.

I am also CAPABLE of drawing Spiderman and the whole nine yards.

Sure Marvel will disagree, but, according to you guys, they have NO right to decide how their IP is used, how it is presented or even distributed.

On top of that, I'll take EXISTING copies of Spiderman, scan them, print out my own copies and bundle them with my books. Then I'll sell the whole bundle for 50 cents each because that's the price I think Comics should be.

After all, according to you guys, I'm well within my rights!

I can do whatever the hell I want to because:

1) I bought the book, so, therefor, I own the artwork!
2) I'm capable of Buying marvel books from retailers other than Marvel
3) Marvel did things with the IP that I didn't like and ran their company in a way that I didn't like.
4) Marvel's Copyright and Trademark protections mean NOTHING because I say so!
5) That little tidbit at the beginning of each and every book that says "DON'T REPRODUCE THIS!" Means nothing because it is isn't a legally binding contract! >_<
6) Marvel charges TOO MUCH for their books and all of the people too BROKE to read Spiderman want to read it too. So, I'm actually doing a public service. After all, they can't just simply GO WITHOUT something that they can't afford, now can they?

So, how many copies of "Liquidmark's Spiderman" do you want to buy?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Oh, also, I'll resell scans of Marvel's 911 special, remove the panel where Dr. Doom was crying and sell that for 10 cents.

Yeah, it isn't like I'm STEALING or anything.

I mean, All i have to do is rework the pages in photoshop and print them to my own paper.

Then I shouldn't be able to purchase OS upgrades through Amazon or other third party channels. I should only be able to purchase them through the Apple Store, using my Mac's serial number as a way of verifying/unlocking the purchase. I get what you're saying and I agree Psystar is kind of stupid, but Apple is not totally in the clear here. They have ways of locking down purchases of the operating system, and there's no reason why they couldn't implement them.

And the EULA argument is silly. There's no consistent legal opinion on whether or not a EULA is a legally enforceable contract. Admittedly in Blizzard v. BNETD the 8th circuit ruled that the portions of EULAs that restrict interop are enforceable (but the 8th circuit has been consistently pro-EULA, other courts might disagree).

Now, I am as big an Apple junkie as the next guy, just ask my iPod, iMac, Final Cut Studio, etc. But I am afraid that the wrong ruling in this case will lead to further legal restrictions on interoperability. It's one thing to prevent a shady computer manufacturer from using software that wasn't designed for their computers, but the legal ruling that would stop that could also prevent a host of other issues that would have deeper and further-reaching implications.

@Chris

System Requirements:
Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
512MB of memory
DVD drive for installation
9GB of available disk space
Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.
Some features require Apple's .Mac service; fees apply.

See what it says?

Mac Computer!

@Jeremy

"The people in favour of Psystar winning this need to stop and think for a second about the implications of a judge forcing Apple to de-couple the two."

The people that are for Psystar are all morons. Plain and simple.
All they think about is what THEY want without taking into account as to why their ideas simply don't work and never WILL work.

Wow, Apple is a totalitarian dictatorship that never listens to its customers? Damn and here I thought they were a highly succesful computer (and electronics now) company.

Apple never listens to its customers?
Clearly you are confusing never listening to its customers to, not doing everything that any person who posts on an Apple message board tells them to. Apple can and does listen to its customers, but listening does not mean doing. If Apple listened to its customers the way some of you are asking them to they would probably be in the same place that Dell, Sony, etc. are right now. Plummeting stock prices, layoffs, etc.

You know that mantra they teach you in retail? "The customer is always right". WRONG. The customer is often absolutely wrong. Apple and Steve Jobs in particular do a very good job of giving the customer what they really need rather than what they claim they want. If Apple had listened to the customer we wouldn't have gotten the iPhone, we would have gotten some crappy iPod/cell phone half breed (oh wait, we DID get that, it was the Motorola ROKR and it was AWFUL). If Apple had listened to customers all the time, they would have released a mac tablet into a failing market. Do you know people who actually have tablet PC's? I do. We use them where I work. You know how often I see people actually using them as tablets? If you guessed never you win!

A mid range semi-expandable Mac may have appeal, just like cheaper Macs would have appeal. But Apple has long ago shown it is not going to compete in every niche of the PC market. Its going to target areas where it can do very very well and suceed there. That doesn't mean that Apple won't release something like you want eventually, but I'm more than willing to trust that when they do they will do it because its the right product, done the right way, rather than something to fill the void.

Apple and Steve have been incredibly succesful doing things that many people never thought they could pull off. They have also been succesful by ignoring "conventional wisdom" and NOT doing things in teh short term that would hurt them in the long term. If I have to choose between Apple's way and Dell's way? I'm choosing Apples, its the one that works!

If this was Microsoft the judge would have thrown the book at them, how do Apple manage to get away with it?

Republican kickbacks anyone? ;-)

What's funny about this whole thing is that copyright is a government granted and endorsed monopoly.

So what Psystar is arguing is any use of the monopoly granted by a copyright is an abuse of monopoly. That argument would hold if it weren't for the fact that that's the whole point of copyrights and patents: to grant government sanctioned monopolies. Obviously there are rules around these monopolies such as fair-use, etc.

This is more or less like saying that if I'm sitting in a chair and refuse to let you sit in it too I'm violating my monopoly power over the chair. Seriously, I called dibs on the chair so back off.

I think this is going to be rejected outright and may even result in Psystar lawyer's being at the very least reprimanded by the judge and perhaps even sanctioned.

It's a joke.

Bye PsyStar, bye InsanelyMac, bye little Apple netbooks that have popped up all over the web. That hobby and those commercial attempts at selling the hobby will soon see themselves digitally frozen somewhere between 10.5.6 and 5.8. Insanelymac runs ads which generate some sort of revenue, Psystar sold boxes which presumably made $$$, and I'm rather happy to see both of them go.