Psystar bizarrely claims Apple doesn't own copyright for Mac OS X

Typical Asian nonsense

I would like to mention a few things.

1. Apple Mac OS X is now based on an open source code. Apple modified it with their great looking and efficient GUI, there you have so much for the argument that they own the full legal rights to the software they "created".

2. As far as I know "EFI" is not a technology owned by Apple.

3. If Apple is selling a retail copy of software (like Mac OS x), meaning purchased at the apple store without any hardware included, then I do think that any Judge in their good righteous mind will not favor a restriction like the one apple imposes (to be installed only on Apple's Hardware). People, every one has to remember that Apple's EULA IS NOT A LAW, is a company policy, and if it turns to be consumer unfriendly, it will certainly not hold water in court.

4. Ask yourself, What makes a Mac computer? In simple words is a collection of parts or components made by many manufacturers, and those happen to be the same as in windows PC's. This is a battle IBM lost already cause they DID NOT OWN RIGHTS ON THE HARDWARE. It is like telling people do not buy different car parts (or mix parts from Chevy and Ford) to build your own "Cheford".

5. Ask yourself, Why Apple switch from IBM CPU's to Intel? They claim it was due to IBM not satisfying their request for a cpu that is smaller, faster and consumes less energy( all that is true), but I think Apple really wanted a divorce from IBM to simply engage intel so that Microsoft users enjoy Apple's Mac OS X while enabled (thru bootcamp) to use MS Windows on their Macs without missing the functionality from their PC technology. Now, Apple does not have any policy restricting users from installing MS Windows OS on intel Macs, how weird is that, is exactly the reverse of their very own restriction. Well if Apple is to win this case, then Microsoft Corp. will earn the right to add a clause in their EULA to restrict users from installing Windows Vista on Apple made computers (as is not intended for macs). They will have the rights to enforced this EULA after Apple wins.

__________________

I will close this comment now. I am not a lawyer, but if I have to say something, is that Psystar's Attorneys are not fully understanding what they are dealing in court. Gentlemen, this the right argument. Don't loose focus.

P.D. I have owned five mac's. and also have an Acer Hackintosh (which I am using right now) and Mac OS X is better supported and runs better on Macs (duh!), it was written for Mac and Apple has outstanding customer support, but there is another fact, Mac OS X runs very well (near perfect) in my $450 Acer, way better that Windows Vista did on it.

"Apple is marketing to everyone"

Apple clearly stated that they WILL NOT compete in certain markets. Just like Mercedes. They don't cater to everybody.

"I can spend half the money and get a brand new PC, that probably comes close in specs anyway."

Then do THAT and don't use OSX, like I said.

"before I shell out $3000 for a something I'll only use for testing."

Wow, obvious troll is obvious.

Macs don't cost $3000, bub

"then more and more people will do everything they can to fill that void in the market. "

There are plenty of windows machines that fit your price point and 'fill the void'. Buy those.

Nobody has a right to steal or appropriate Apple's IP. If you don't like Apple's way of doing things, there are plenty of windows and linux-based competition on the market.

"(and trust me, they're not as popular as you think they are),"

Good, then stay off of OSX. Simple as that.

"More and more knock-offs will start to appear"

Intel Macs all have TPM's in them (See, Apple KNEW that Hacks would do this crap). All Apple has to do is USE them and the clones die right there. I would imagine that recent events are a good excuse to drop the other foot.

"if Apple doesn't realize this then they're going to find they suffer the same fate as the music and film industry is. "

You mean rampant piracy?

So, how is GIVING their property away and eating a ton of PLASTIC going to remedy that?

Apple already did the stuff that you WANT back in the 90's and it did NOT work then. Look it up.

"So ya, your "door fee" analogy proves to me that you believe that owning an Apple computer is the equivalent to getting into a fancy club, well I'm sorry to break it to you, but they're just computers,"

If that's the case, then leggo my eggo, STFU, GTFO, STOP complaining about prices that you're too broke to pay and use a Dell with windows so you can be be happy with THAT.

Meanwhile, I'm going to continue BUY Apple's products because I care about the future, I can afford them and I wish to assure the well being of my favorite company and the future products that they will market.

We don't serve your kind of riff-raff here.

MMMM, that's some good beef wellington! Oh, another slice? Suuuuuuuure!

"Seriously, if you don't want to pay the *door fee* then stay out there on the cold street with the rest of the windows and Linux users while us TRUE Mac users stay inside where it is warm and safe."

Hi, I'm a Mac, and I only consider myself and everyone else who isn't a raging fanboy like me can kiss my USB port.

Sorry to break it to you there big guy, but Apple isn't the same as Mercedes. Mercedes doesn't make economy cars because that isn't the market. Apple is marketing to everyone. Their whole marketing strategy is to spin Apple computers as "so simple a monkey could use it".

Then you go to the store and realize that you have to be a pretty rich monkey.

Someone suggested I buy an Apple computer on the resale market, but why should I? I can spend half the money and get a brand new PC, that probably comes close in specs anyway.

Can I afford a brand new Macbook, yes....of course I can, but out of principal (and need) I won't spend that kind of money. I would rather spend my time trying to get a "hackintosh" to work before I shell out $3000 for a something I'll only use for testing.

Regardless of what elitist ideals you hold on too, the fact is that if Apple continues to sell their products as the prices they are, and offer no alternatives to that, then as they grow in popularity (and trust me, they're not as popular as you think they are), then more and more people will do everything they can to fill that void in the market.

Psystar is a perfect example of that, and so is the Meziu M8. More and more knock-offs will start to appear and if Apple doesn't realize this then they're going to find they suffer the same fate as the music and film industry is.

So ya, your "door fee" analogy proves to me that you believe that owning an Apple computer is the equivalent to getting into a fancy club, well I'm sorry to break it to you, but they're just computers, same as any other and until you (and Apple) realize that, they will continue to sell their products using unclassy advertizing, and at a price that most people can't or won't spend.

OR, apple could realize that instead of spending time trying to sue the pants off anyone trying to get hold of an apple computer, they could produce machines (or allow a company like Psystar to sell reasonable priced computers.

I enjoy how apple markets their computers "for everyone" but keep the price to high that many people even if they wanted one couldn't afford it.

You want to know why Windows PC's still hold 80 - 90% of the market, it's because they realized a long time ago that making a product out of reach of the average consumer isn't always the best move if you want to make a profit.

Why has a company like Psystar even popped up? If Apple was selling computers at a reasonable cost, it wouldn't be worth it for a company like Psystar to even attempt business.

How do I know this to be true, because I am one of those who would like to have an Apple for testing, but I have no desire to pay the prices they set. If Psystar offered a laptop, I would have it on my desk already.

"If you don't want to buy a Mac, then Apple doesn't care about you unless you want to steal their stuff. "

Thank you for helping prove my point.

I personally hope that Psystar can somehow win this case. I have always said that if Apple wants to continue to sell high priced machines to keep the quality up then go ahead and do that, but there are a lot of us out there who wouldn't mind having an Apple capable computer for other reasons.

As a web designer I would love a Psystar machine for testing on. I don't really have a need or desire to spend almost twice as much on a fancy Apple machine for the limited amount I would actually use it.

If I were Psystar, I would simply include the OS free with every purchase. I would call it a gift to our users and they could choose to use/install the OS or not. Regardless, I think the days of Apple sitting at their end of the table, arms grasping the "loot" and snarling at everyone else is coming to an end.

Apple can choose to fight all the companies that are inevitably going to try this, or they can start offering affordable computers to people who want to buy a Mac, but aren't willing to pay the crazy "Apple Tax"

Apple is a hardware AND software company. Just as the Zune and xBox make Microsoft a hardware company as well as a software company.

Point is, being predominantly software or hardware has nothing to do with restricting the use of products by 3 parties. It also has little impact on copyright.

Regarding the Psystar case, Psystar isn't using Apple hardware. They are using Apple software. In this instance, Apple is a software company.

Personally, I think Apple's switch to Intel and being capable of running Windows opened the door to this. I think a clever lawyer could make the argument that Apple makes a PC capable of running Windows, Linux, and OSX. As such, their restriction of OSX to their machines could be view as monopolistic. While it's a bit of a stretch, it is an interesting argument.

What people always forget in their comparison to MS is that Apple is a hardware company. MS was nailed for their bundling of their software on other OEM hardware. Since MS is the dominant OS, they were abusing their monopoly position. OS X is the required software to make Apple hardware work. Sort of akin to Sony's PS3 OS. Should you be able to run that on non-Sony hardware?

Also, the OS X retail version is technically considered an upgrade since their hardware is preinstalled with a prior version of OS X. Hence the incremental naming, OS X 10.4 (Tiger) to OS X 10.5 (Leopard). So when you buy that retail box, you are purchasing an upgrade under the auspices of having a previous version. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

As far as the copyright thing goes, it's never cool to steal someone else's work and not get compensated for it. Maybe Psystar is trying to imply that Apple didn't copyright Leopard. Again, see my point about the upgrade above. If OS X 10.0.0 was registered, then the subsequent incremental upgrades should be covered under that registration.

Ha! Next thing you know russians will start charging license fees for using smileys..