Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Psystar Crushed In Court

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-surprises dept.

The Courts 640

We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now. Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast." Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."

cancel ×

640 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This comment surprises me (5, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30100914)

I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out. ... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.

If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).

So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?

Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .

So what if you own one of these machines? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30100934)

Are they going to shoot up in value in the history of computers market?

Re:This comment surprises me (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30100952)

How about Microsoft? Although they're usually picked on because of their past actions, it's possible here.

Apple is stealing a lot of Microsoft's mindshare and they're percieved as "cool and hip" whereas as Microsoft are thought of as an evil MegaCorp.

Dragging Apple down to their level in the public's eyes wouldn't be a bad strategy.

Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (3, Interesting)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101000)

Microsoft is very happy with the status quo. Apple voluntarily limits itself to the tiny niche that is their own hardware. As is, they're absolutely no threat to Microsoft.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (0, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101038)

Oh really? Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?

Zune, Microsoft Store, the new "iPhone killer" windows mobile, etc, etc

Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (3, Interesting)

beej (82035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101194)

Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.

"Higher volume, lower price"? Doesn't sound like Apple to me. "Corner the $1K-plus market!" Now that's more Apple's game.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (1, Insightful)

bencoder (1197139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101200)

Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.

exactly. which is why it makes no sense for microsoft to be behind psystar, who are pushing for apple to take that new attitude

Why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101312)

Oh really? Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?

Uhm, because they can?

Their whole business model is Windows and Office (i.e. OS and document formats). That makes them such an enormous profit that they can afford to spend oodles of cash on side project on the off chance that they have a chance of beating the market leader.

Apple is still peanuts to MS, zealotry aside.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101404)

In order to be a "threat", Apple would have to encroach on Microsoft's turf. Your examples like the Zune are instances where Microsoft is trying to get a foothold in Apple dominated markets.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (3, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101436)

Why does MS have to be considered "cloning" Apple when Apple is never the first to implement anything? Doesn't Zune owe more to Rio than it does to Apple.? Doesn't Microsoft Store owe more to umm nearly everyone than it does to Apple? Wasn't Windows Mobile around long before the earliest iPhone rumors?

Apple has implemented existing ideas in an elegant way, but they're still "me too" products, not original ideas.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (3, Insightful)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101522)

This. Apple is very, very good at evolution. Rarely revolution.

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft (3, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101464)

Oh really? Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?

Zune, Microsoft Store, the new "iPhone killer" windows mobile, etc, etc

Apple could be a very serious threat to Microsoft if they changed their attitude towards businesses.

Microsoft's bread and butter is Windows and Office. The iPhone, iPod, App store that you mention do nothing to dent that. MS is just trying to build a bigger business by trying to get into those markets, not to counter a threat to their cash cows.

Because that's their business model (3, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101468)

Why then is Microsoft trying to clone everything apple is doing?

Because that is their business model.

Excel to Lotus, Explorer to Netscape, C# to Java, Xbox to Playstation...the list goes on and on. It's what MS does.

It's nothing personal against Apple. That's just what they do.

Re:This comment surprises me (3, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101008)

Dragging Apple down to their level in the public's eyes wouldn't be a bad strategy.

It's not, but I think it's unnecessary. MS just needs to stand back and let Apple do it to themselves. Anybody knowledgeable about tech knows that Apple is just as evil as MS, and that knowledge is beginning to filter out into the general public. I really anticipate a collapse of the 'cool' shell that apple has built around itself in the next few years, and they'll have to actually begin competing on merit. They might do well, because they sell a decent operating system, good computers, and a not too bad mix of portable devices. They're very competitive everywhere except the price/performance ratio.

Re:This comment surprises me (3, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101136)

keep holding your breath. That shell might and only might die when steve jobs leave the company. however apple is setting themselves up for a company without steve jobs.

The cool shell though is the fact they innovate the combined hardware/software, not just one piece of the pie, but making whole new pies. It has been shown time and time again MSFT only makes products good enough to beat the competition through brute force. Since just about everyone else gets their software from MSFT they start at a disadvantage. The ipod caught every other player off guard because it was simple to use. the iphone caught every other phone off guard because it was simple to use.

You can literally hand any one an iphone and they can figure out how to make calls with it and surf the web without being told how. Maybe one day other companies will figure out that the interface matters more than the hardware specs. that people with big fingers can't push tiny little keyboard buttons to enter phone numbers with. That as you age you lose the dexterity of a 15 year old. I have watched business people use the blackberries, and all they do is struggle with it. I hand them my iphone and they find they can do the things they just were easily, not trying to use a scroll ball half the size of the tip of their pinky.

Re:This comment surprises me (0)

Sparky McGruff (747313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101494)

You can literally hand any one an iphone and they can figure out how to make calls with it and surf the web without being told how. Maybe one day other companies will figure out that the interface matters more than the hardware specs. that people with big fingers can't push tiny little keyboard buttons to enter phone numbers with. That as you age you lose the dexterity of a 15 year old. I have watched business people use the blackberries, and all they do is struggle with it. I hand them my iphone and they find they can do the things they just were easily, not trying to use a scroll ball half the size of the tip of their pinky.

Exactly. I bought an ipod touch for "entertainment" on a cross country flight with my kids. My just-turned-five year old had it up and running, pulling up movies and playing the games that I put on there with no help, except for showing her how to turn it on and telling her to "touch the screen". That's why people buy an iPhone/iPod, and that's why they're cooler than the LG whatever or the Zune.

For the non-technical crowd, that simplicity -- simple but still usable devices -- makes Apple stuff "cool". Microsoft has never even remotely approached that level.

Re:This comment surprises me (0, Troll)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101182)

Actually, you have to wonder if maybe it was Microsoft behind Psystar, and if this really was EXACTLY the outcome they wanted, I mean, Microsoft itself has a fairly draconian EULA, and they just might have wanted a test case to set precedent for affirming it, backing someone to get sued by Apple (and lose) seems slightly less absurd then sueing themselves.

Re:This comment surprises me (2, Insightful)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101106)

Apple's not at the Microsoft level. Remember that hundreds of PC manufacturers are legally selling computers with Windows with and without Microsoft's blessing. There is an open and competitive market for PCs and PC components, keeping prices low and pushing innovation forward. Even though Windows is non-free and closed-source software, it has still created a vast hardware ecosystem with low barriers to entry.

Nobody can say this about Apple, who are still working to the 1960s proprietary hardware business model, and still behaving as if the PC revolution never happened.

Re:This comment surprises me (5, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101268)

And yet Apple is reaping profit hand over foot, during a economic depression. Why fix what isn't broken. They obviously have something that Microsoft does not. "Cool" and "Hip" will only go so far. If there is nothing of substance to back it up, then after a few months, the hotness has worn off, and people drop them in droves. This obviously is not happening. Apple continues to increase it's market share, even in these bad economic times.

I can guarantee you that if MS finds any manufacturer that isn't properly licensing Windows, they would be wiped from the map. The difference here being that MS licenses it's OS for resale. Apple does not. The only barrier to entry is to buy an Apple Mac, which are about the same price as any other comparable piece of hardware from a PC manufacturer (not a whole seller mind you, but a manufacturer).

If I recall, it's the Microsoft market share and profit that is shrinking. Apple is doing just fine on it's "1960's proprietary hardware business model', whatever that means. It's just a closed system, nuts to bolts. Nothing wrong with that. Thousands upon thousands of manufacturer's produce a closed product.

Re:This comment surprises me (1)

Prometheas (852384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101378)

I would remind you that hardware is Apple's product; the software is just the "secret sauce" that pulls it all together.

McDonald's doesn't share what's in the Big Mac's sauce, Coca Cola doesn't share the recipe for Coke.

Besides, you can install Linux or Windows on your machine, if you so desire. I just don't think it's very fair to cry "foul" that they're not just giving away their secret sauce ('cause that worked so well for Sun...)

The mushroom maidens (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101384)

Apple is stealing a lot of Microsoft's mindshare and they're percieved as "cool and hip" whereas as Microsoft are thought of as an evil MegaCorp.

The geek is a hothouse product with little contact with the outside world.

The geek will rant on forever about "the convicted monopolist."

But, with Apple content with a very profitable and easily serviced upscale niche market, anti-trust is a bust.

The truth is that you can't pin the label on either one of them and make it stick.

Microsoft gets Boot Camp and the Mac as a strong secondary platform for Windows apps.

Apple gets iTunes for Windows and placement on the desktop with 93% of the market.

Psystar makes an early exit.

Our hero and heroine live happily ever after.

Re:This comment surprises me (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30100958)

I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out. ... coming from Pamela, who revealed that Microsoft played no small role funding the SCO debacle though bogus license purchase.

If you follow patent troll cases for example, you would know that shell business are often set up by litigants for the sole purpose of facilitating a lawsuit. Once you've acquired your defunct IP, you set up a web site to demonstrate intent to sell a product. Sure it's not strictly necessary to test the patent but it can help when it come times to assess damages, and it garners judge and jury sympathies (especially if you can get it tried in the Texas east district).

So, who was behind Psystar? Dell perhaps? There's no chance in hell a startup box builder would go to these lengths to test a legal theory. Their vested interest in the supposed business was a pittance compared to the cost to fight this, so where'd they get the money?

Obviously, Psystar was staged for the exclusive purpose of being sued .

It makes you wonder. Incidentally, it's amazing how often "you're a conspiracy nut" comes from people who have no grasp of long-term strategy and really don't know the first thing about it. The person or group who works towards a goal in incremental steps (each of which has an excuse or plausible deniability) over longer periods of time is much more likely to get what they want than the person or group who goes for a short-term, win-or-lose, once-and-for-all type of showdown. That's particularly true when what they want to get is illegal, immoral, or goes against things like tradition, social convention, or public opinion. Recognizing this reality is the first step towards truly understanding business and politics.

You're thinking too simplistically (4, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101056)

Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.

The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.

Re:You're thinking too simplistically (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101190)

Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.

The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.

That scenario would make Paystar a "useful idiot" as some call it, which provides added deniability for the people who pull the strings. That still falls under long-term strategy and plausible deniability. My observation was deliberately worded in a simple way because understanding of this topic is sorely missing in the general public. When the audience you intend to reach is unfamiliar with a topic, you don't usually start with the most advanced material.

Things like strategy, plausible deniability, propaganda techniques, and argumentation fallacies are either not taught in the public schools or are given only the most superficial treatment. Therefore, most people either don't know about them or have no real mastery of the concepts. When they see a politician talking about an issue, they don't immediately see patterns of influence and don't ask questions like "qui bono?" That the public schools don't cover these topics is no excuse for the widespread ignorance. People generally spend far more time educating themselves about things that have much less of an impact on their lives.

This means that the general population is easy prey for what is effectively a ruling class that does have this knowledge and is in the profession of using it. This population understands the actual realities of politics about as well as the average Roman citizen understood the intent of "bread and circus".

Provocation? (1)

warrigal (780670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101176)

If Psystar was a stalking horse then the only reason that makes sense is that someone wants Apple to lock their OS to their hardware. Apple doesn't seem too concerned by hobbyists building Frankenmacs. Their ever vigilant lawyers haven't been jackbooting down doors and dragging offenders to court. There have been instances in the past where an OS-maker has turned a blind eye to, if not actually facilitating, its OS being pirated simply to deny a competitor marketshare. Maybe somebody was worried that Apple was moving in this direction. However, if Apple is provoked into action by a startup selling Frankenmacs might they not decide to implement a TPM system to lock the OS to Macs-only? No more hobby Frankenmacs and Apple is seen as not only closed software but closed hardware too. The Technorati would be incensed and Apple would wear the black eye forever.

Re:Provocation? (4, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101386)

If Psystar was a stalking horse then the only reason that makes sense is that someone wants Apple to lock their OS to their hardware. Apple doesn't seem too concerned by hobbyists building Frankenmacs. Their ever vigilant lawyers haven't been jackbooting down doors and dragging offenders to court. There have been instances in the past where an OS-maker has turned a blind eye to, if not actually facilitating, its OS being pirated simply to deny a competitor marketshare. Maybe somebody was worried that Apple was moving in this direction. However, if Apple is provoked into action by a startup selling Frankenmacs might they not decide to implement a TPM system to lock the OS to Macs-only? No more hobby Frankenmacs and Apple is seen as not only closed software but closed hardware too. The Technorati would be incensed and Apple would wear the black eye forever.

I would speculate that Apple is not really threatened by Frankenmacs in general. The kind of hobbyist who is technically inclined and is willing to put something like this together is probably outside of their target audience. I have known people who bought Macs not because they were fans of Apple, but because they were dissatisfied with PCs loaded with Windows. They were not technically inclined and most of their PC problems could be put into two broad categories: configuration issues and malware. They found Macs to be a breath of fresh air not because they think Apple is "hip" and "cool" but because they found its GUI to be easy and intuitive and its underlying Unix system to be rock-solid stable and not prone to malware. They felt like they found something that "just worked" and felt like that is what they were paying a higher price for. I think of these folks as Apple's target audience.

For those reasons, TPM would be a rather extreme measure. They are, at least for now, taking the "other option" of going after commercial Frankenmac producers legally instead of technologically. The precendent this sets is quite likely to discourage other companies from doing the same. The only ones left who are building Frankenmacs are doing so personally and not commercially and for the reasons I mentioned above, are probably not Apple's main market.

Re:This comment surprises me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101090)

So what you're saying is, Psystar : mission accomplished?

Somehow I think they WERE just "that dumb" and "that greedy" to think they'd skate on this.

What would be the point of baiting this lawsuit, and who would profit?

Re:This comment surprises me (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101196)

So, who was behind Psystar?

If Apple prevails on the remaining issues, we might find out. If Psystar is forced into bankruptcy, their records would be among the property transferred to the receivers.

-jcr

Re:This comment surprises me (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101270)

Well, legally the court said in the ruling there are cases where using a master copy in the name of efficiency is acceptable. For enterprises, the use of an image to install an OS to a large numbers of computers for the sake of efficiency is fine. For example, a large company may install a volume Windows license from MS onto a bunch of computers or they may use a disc image to do an install and then replace the generic license key with a specific one after the install is over.

Psystar's use however was not because typically enterprises have agreements with the original copyright owner to do this when they buy enterprises licenses. Apple did not sell Psystar such a license and did not grant them the authority to do so.

Psystar bought from Apple a single OS X copy, installed it onto a Mac Mini, loaded it onto an X86 computer ("master copy"), made modifications to it, then used the master copy to install to other computers. Psystar said since they included a retail copy of an OS X DVD, this was all legal. The court however found that Psystar did not always include a copy and that even if it did, the computer copy was not always the same version of OS X as the DVD. (I think this meant the DVD was Leopard whereas the computer had Snow Leopard installed, etc).

Even if it was the same version, fair use does not allow for anyone to make multiple, unauthorized copies as Psystar had done. Likewise if a person made a copy (even several copies) of your software, music, etc, that might be fair use. If a person made 500 copies of each, that might not be covered.

Lastly since Psystar modified OS X to run on X86 computers, it is guilty of creating a derivative work without Apple's permission.

Re:This comment surprises me (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101506)

Even if it was the same version, fair use does not allow for anyone to make multiple, unauthorized copies as Psystar had done.

The only problem besides not using the same version should be failing to include discs.

Lastly since Psystar modified OS X to run on X86 computers, it is guilty of creating a derivative work without Apple's permission.

That's a bunch of crap, and if that's what the decision says then First Sale law is over, at least until it gets escalated, and it will. First Sale is critical to whole long lists of industries. Using copyright law to restrict transfer of an object [blogspot.com] is an abuse.

Of course, I'm not arguing Psystar should have been able to fail to include the OSX DVD in the box; where copyright law allows you to make copies, it requires you to transfer all copies upon sale. I'm also not arguing that they should not be required to use the same version as the DVD that goes in the box. At the same time, not allowing them to use imaging software is ridiculous by any reasonable standard. Who cares how the software gets on the box? The only issue should be whether Psystar was making allowable copies or not. Buying it and installing it onto the system is allowable, so why not installing an image which would be identical to doing that over and over again? The only reason can be to protect a monopoly. Again, I do understand that this is not what Psystar did. Unfortunately.

The simple truth is that Psystar DID have to use an image method to perform the installs, and so this should be considered a minimum necessary step towards exercising First Sale rights to do as you like with something you've purchased; but I do agree that they should have been required to use an image based on the same version of OSX that would appear in the box. First Sale law permits you to modify things you've purchased. If I am not permitted to modify Apple software, then arguably I can't even use it. And if I'm not permitted to use images to deploy OSX, then I'm certainly not even going to consider using it in the enterprise. If Psystar isn't allowed to use a custom image, then I must assume I'm not allowed to either.

I need a picture drawn for me. (3, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101292)

I've been through the links and it just looks like a company wanted to sell a cheap Mac clone. I don't get what one or a firm would get in setting up a clone company just to get sued by Apple.

Re:This comment surprises me (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101320)

How about Lawyers? If I was a corporate lawyer in need of a quick buck(or million) who wanted to invent some work for myself, I'd have a friend incorporate a startup and do something that would obviously get a huge legal force to come down on us, and collect the fruits of that labor. And who could actually pierce our corporate veil and claim that spending millions in legal defense against Apple was contrived? Quite necessary at that point. Plus, the lamest thing is even a loss in a complex case like that could look good on a resume for a future related case as an expert consultant to a legal team, perhaps even Apple's! When it seems like both sides in a case "lose", its usually their lawyers that won.

Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30100968)

Sell PCs! This was always about trying to mooch off Mac's success and not about individual freedoms.

Too Bad (0, Flamebait)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30100978)

OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

Re:Too Bad (3, Insightful)

munctional (1634709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30100992)

it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

The real question is: do they even need to in order to maintain their ridiculous profit margins?

They've almost died on PC sales several times (3, Interesting)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101030)

Their real profit these days is the iPod/iPhone/iTunes segment. Which they would make approximately zero on if they were only available to Mac users.

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101150)

That's right, no one ever bought an iPod when they were Mac only.

Your point is sound, but lacks historical knowledge. I would have expected better from such a low userID.

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (1)

Prometheas (852384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101300)

Aw, come on mr. coward – are you attempting to comparing sales volume of Mac-only era iPods against that of dual-platform iPods?

If you were to take the sales figures from this era as a percentage of the modern-day, you'd get a fraction so close to zero that statisticians relish describing as a "rounding error".

Your point attempts to account for historical knowledge, but dismisses pragmatic rationality.

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101238)

Don't listen to him Master! We BOW DOWN BEFORE YOU!

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (2, Informative)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101254)

The Mac division is very profitable, and it is growing. I'd estimate the installed base (not market share) of Macs in North America at about 20%. Take a look at any Apple quarterly earnings report to see it for yourself.

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101314)

So no one owns a Mac? How did you manage to get an "Insigthful" for that observation? No they wouldn't have become the dominant force in music delivery and the App Store wouldn't be as big if they were Mac only but saying "Which they would make approximately zero on if they were only available to Mac users" is irrational. Say they would have made far less but PC users aren't propping up the company. I mostly own PCs and keep a Mac around partly for internet and media. It's just easier to use for those things. It doesn't whine at me 24/7 like the PCs do. There's downsides to both, notice I mostly own PCs, but saying Apple products only exist because of PC users is pretty out there.

Re:They've almost died on PC sales several times (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101370)

While Apple's revenue does not entirely depend on their computer sales anymore, I wouldn't say that computer division isn't profitable. According to Apple's financial statements [apple.com] , they are experiencing sales growth as well as profit growth in computer sales. Overall desktop sales are down but laptop sales are up.

As for real profit on units, Apple makes on the average more per computer than they do on each iPod and iPhone. They sell more iPods and iPhone than computers though.

Which is why their computer's confuse me (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101390)

What Apple has done is turned themselves in to a consumer electronics company. In particular, they are a company that sells cool. Their designs are seen as cool by a great many people in the US at least and that gives them a market. After all there were plenty of good MP3 players before the iPod, and there are plenty of good ones now. So why was the iPod the one that took off? Because it was cool. It was a fashion accessory as much as an MP3 player. People wanted to own it for the style.

Well the same deal with their laptops these days. I know exceedingly few people that buy them because they are OS-X computers, they buy them because they like the style. In fact, many now buy them because they can run Windows which means that they can run all the apps they need. They may still use OS-X as their main OS (though I've seen MBPs converted in to Windows-only systems) but it was access to Windows and the software that brings that made it practical to get one.

As such I think Apple ought to stop this crap of trying to lock their OS to their hardware and do two separate divisions and products. Start selling Macs as stylish computers with OS-X or Windows, or both. Let people buy them with what they want. Sell them because they are stylish. Yes, they'd still cost more but people will pay for style. Make Mac the brand of computer you go to for style, regardless of what you want to do.

Then, license OS-X to whoever wants it (for an increased cost of course). Make it just another OS that people can buy if they want.

Of course continue to sell electronics, maybe look at other markets at well (TVs perhaps?).

It seems like Apple's insistence on doing computers they way they do is not based on a good business practice but just stubborn insistence.

Re:Too Bad (1)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101036)

It seems to have worked quite well so far.

Re:Too Bad (0, Flamebait)

bug1 (96678) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101092)

It seems to have worked quite well so far.

For who, apple or consumers ?

How about judging a company by the contribution it makes to society rather its profits (or are you a shareholder) ?

Re:Too Bad (5, Insightful)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101062)

You're right.
The single vendor lock-in is just killing them. They were doing so well when they allowed others to build Mac clones, they should just go back to doing that. Jobs was obviously an idiot for cancelling the scheme - if he hadn't the company may have been a household name by now, instead on teetering on the brink of disaster.

It's worked pretty well for the rest of us (0)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101120)

Apple has never given it a real chance.

Re:It's worked pretty well for the rest of us (3, Insightful)

Prometheas (852384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101264)

Even assuming I agreed with you regarding whether or not Apple gave licensing a "real" chance (which I haven't yet decided, but leaning towards not), I don't see any compelling reason for them to roll the dice (again) on such an experiment, considering both their present commercial performance AND reported customer satisfaction.

But, for the sake of entertaining a thought: what specific choices on Apple's part regarding the handling of licensing Mac OS would have constituted giving it a "real" chance?

Re:Too Bad (5, Insightful)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101072)

Meh. Apple is pretty happy where they are. If their hardware suits you and fits your needs, buy it as necessary. Otherwise, avoid it. Many many people have a hard time doing that. If Apple finds themselves needing to change because of this down the road, they will. It's that simple.

If you're building a hackintosh, good for you. Tinkering with things like that can be fun. But please don't start acting like Apple is supposed to support you. Don't install it on production machines. The hacking part of the hackintosh is supposed to be half the fun anyway. But that is it.

I agree, but it's not that simple (0, Flamebait)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101108)

A particular Apple machine might suit my purposes at one time, but that doesn't imply that they'll always be able to meet my needs. I wouldn't lash myself to the mast of Apple any more than I would Dell or Acer or any other hardware vendor. So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person.

Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (5, Insightful)

Prometheas (852384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101212)

The claim that OS X is "absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person" [emphasis mine] isn't a terribly reasonable statement.

Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (4, Insightful)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101226)

By that logic, Windows is irrelavent (to any reasonable person) because you are tied to a single software vendor.

Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (2, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101280)

So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person

Windows is also tied to a single vendor - Microsoft. If they screw up - like they did with e.g. Windows ME and Vista - it doesn't matter how many OEMs can deliver the hardware to run it on. Linux is multivendor - and not tied to a specific hardware company - but compared to Windows and Mac it has strengths and weaknesses. It's not the only relevant one.

Re:I agree, but it's not that simple (1)

Naturalis Philosopho (1160697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101310)

...except for all the reasonable people who have needs which do not change much, if at all, and for which almost any single vendor suits them. See, what you did there was take an proposition in which the operative word was "my" and conflate that with a proposition in which the operator is "any reasonable person". You are a specific case, accept that we're not all the same, acknowledge that people with needs other than yours are reasonable, and you'll see why your argument is rubbish.

I have a friend who only buys HP, my sister is still using a 9 year old Mac because it suits her just fine, at work we buy Dell and Apple, and I use a Mac since it will load any OS I care to and I can afford a new one if my needs change that drastically (and I enjoy the build quality in the meantime). All reasonable for their purpose. Cause they're tools; not every job requires a hammer, and a multi-tool sometimes sucks despite having the "tool for the job" on it because it's just not the full fledged thing.

apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro i (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101250)

apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pro is very over priced.

People do not want to be stuck with one screen and the mini is weak and priced high next to other systems Laptop cpu 2gb ram, on board video, 160GB hd at $600?

where is the $1000-$1500 system the imac are poor priced there $1200 for on board video? $1,499.00 and only dual core + 4670 graphics with 256MB? you can get core i7 systems with screen and better video card at that price. $2000+$200 for a core i7 imac? and only 4850 graphics with 512MB?

The $2,499.00 mac pro comes with a MUCH WEAKER VIDEO CARD, LESS HD SPACE and NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB for $1000 - $300 more then a imac with a screen build in?

Re:apple needs non aio systems and mini is weak pr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101416)

As an extremely happy Mac user, you like everybody else fails to understand why people by Mac these days. After 15 years os using Windows on my home machine, 5 years of Linux, my Macs have proven to be the most reliable and hassle free machines I have ever had. Coupled with the fact that I don't play games on my computer anymore and I have no compelling reason to ever go back.

And as icing on the cake I have cool technologies like TimeMachine and Spotlight. TImeMachine has saved my ass a couple of times and Spotlight is just way too convenient to give up.

You guys always focus on the hardware specs and completely fail to consider the things people want to use computers for.

Re:Too Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101080)

Some might say that OS X is a good operating system BECAUSE it's only designed to work with Apple sanctioned hardware. It's a tradeoff between having to support a massive amount of hardware poorly, or a small amount of hardware that limits customizability. There are a lot of people out there that want to get things done with a computer, but not have to worry about the computer itself.

Re:Too Bad (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101148)

Um... Darwin [apple.com]

Oh yeah, don't forget CUPS, WEBKIT, and a few other useful tools.

Darwin is not OS X (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101186)

All the interesting bits are either proprietary, or written by someone else.

Re:Darwin is not OS X (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101306)

That is entirely dependant on your definition of "interesting". I couldn't give a rat's shit about their window manager, but Webkit is slick stuff that I use every day.

Re:Darwin is not OS X (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101424)

Bingo. WebKit is just a set of bugfixes in KHTML. So - written by some else.

Re:Too Bad (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101202)

OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

This statement seems silly on the face of it, and would benefit from some, you know, supporting evidence.

Mac's marketshare has been steadily increasing for quite some time now. Not to mention that I know lots o' Windows folks who swear by HP/Dell/Sony (pick one) for their personal computers, and Unix/Linux admins who will only buy Sun or SGI or whatever.

Even outside of the computer realm, people become enamored of particular brands all the time - be it automobiles, televisions, appliances... whatever. And once they lock themselves into that mindset, it is not easy for them to change their opinions.

Re:Too Bad (1, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101214)

Might as well write off Apple as a player now

Had a look at their five-year chart? Or better yet, their stock performance since 1997?

If you want to write them off, I sure hope you're not managing your own stock portfolio.

-jcr

Write off Apple (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101220)

Ya the business model Apple uses will never work. Ya..

If this was MSFT, the backlash would be huge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101266)

Double standard. Apple gets kid glove treatment in the media. I've been a mac user since OS 10.0...I bought my last mac, I hate their behavior. Win 7 changes everything.

Re:If this was MSFT, the backlash would be huge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101474)

Win 7 changes nothing as far as marketshare, or even stemming the "switcher" tide. As well as it may perform compared to Vista, it will not slow down the growth of Mac marketshare for desktops and laptops. Just sit back and watch for a few years (or ignore everything I've just said and keep pretending that Win 7 made any kind of difference on relative sales vs. Apple, I don't give a shit).

Re:Too Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101284)

Dell is a decent hardware assembler, but few people can be satisfied by a single OS vendor. Might as well write off Microsoft as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and no longer abuse its monopoly position with Windows...

Re:Too Bad (1)

cfryback (870729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101330)

OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

+1 Probably a reason why I will never drink the Apple Kool-Aid.

Re:Too Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101444)

OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

Bwaa ha hahaha!

I suppose your "logic" explains Apple's EXPLOSIVE year after year growth? Even with Apple's near 30% profit margin. they've DOUBLED market share each and every year for the past five- But if living in a fantasyland suits you, by all means live in it!

Re:Too Bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101502)

they've DOUBLED market share each and every year for the past five

Care to cite your sources? This article shows that apple increased their market share only 31% in 2008. Far off from your 200% number you threw out there.

But if living in a fantasyland suits you, by all means live in it!

The burden of proof is on you here, brother. From where I sit it looks like you're the one living in fantasy land.

Re:Too Bad (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101476)

OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.

Who are these few people that you speak of? If you mean slashdotters, that might be true. The average person buying a computer doesn't care. They mostly care if the computer they are buying will work for them. They should care more about these things but they don't.

Yes, we've heard the death knell of Apple before. That may have been closer to being true ten years ago when Apple was in deep trouble. Today they are sitting on $34 billion in cash. That doesn't account for total assets, that's just cash.

Psystar Brings Out The True Face Of Mac Crazies (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101016)

It is truely bizarre to watch the reaction of the Mac/Apple Crazies(Here's to the crazy ones...) to Psystar.

I can't think of another cult type Defend The Mothership! reaction ever before.

If Psystar wins, people get to use Macs.
If Psystar loses, people get to use Macs.

But there is some sort of disturbing "my identity and self worth is validated by Apple/Mac/Steve Jobs" mindset that is absolutely sickening to see.

Similar reaction to Android (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101076)

Just look at whatever idiot just bought an iPhone at work or at some bar. They have a desperate need to show it off and make sure everyone knows they are 'special'. And a constant need to bring up their iPhone into every single conversation they have. Yet Android is competing with Windows Mobile, not the iPhone. But iPhone users feel the need to lash out in fear and anger at Android that somehow Google is going to make their sad little lives less 'special' with cellphone manufacturers and carries standardizing on Android.

Re:Similar reaction to Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101286)

Translation: "I want an iPhone, but I can't afford one"

Droid and iPhone Cost Almost Identical (1)

MediaStreams (1461187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101344)

And you get multi-tasking, native Google Voice, Google Navigation, and so on.

Re:Droid and iPhone Cost Almost Identical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101512)

No app store, no multi-touch, no sale.

Re:Similar reaction to Android (1)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101392)

Jesus. I think you need to go different bars.

Onward Mac Soldiers! Bury The Unbelievers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101104)

You can just imagine some angry and bitter emo Mac cultist sitting in front of their overpriced Mac wearing their own Steve Jobs-ish black turtleneck scanning the comments for heretics to unleash their mod points on...

The only thing lamer than this verdict (0, Troll)

celeb8 (682138) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101122)

The only thing lamer than this verdict is reading PJ crowing over it at Groklaw. It was great when SCO, a genuine bad guy, was getting kicked around. However in this instance her smug self-righteous I-told-you-so BS is even more obnoxious than the triumph of the EULA.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101158)

Would you care to spell out how thieves are not bad guys?

Fucking Piece Of Shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101210)

What a fucking piece of shit you are.

Go crawl back to Starbucks and your loser emo Mac friends.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101236)

I think even those who thought Psystar was awesome would be saying, "I told you so." Christ, the writing was on the wall from the beginning. Apple can spend more on hordes of lawyers than Psystar can gross in a year. They were dead meat from the get-go.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (0, Flamebait)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101260)

Please explain how Psystar is justified in creating an altered derivative work of Apple's copyrighted operating system.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101356)

please explain when psystar did create an altered derivative work?

Also you have the right to do whatever you want to software installed on your computer, the only thing that could possibly be illegal is distribution.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101402)

17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] .

Psystar may not have operated within the letter of the law, but they certainly operated within the spirit, and their process would have been legal with some minor tweaks. They lost on a technicality.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (1)

arcticinfantry (1130171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101272)

Agreed. As a user of software, I'm always in favor of something that expands my rights as a user when it comes to software licenses. To say that you can't have the freedom to do whatever you want with the software after it is purchased seems ridiculous to me. PJ's got a completely anti-consumer stance on this one, and her zealousness about it and others opinions are very off-putting.

Re:The only thing lamer than this verdict (3, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101438)

Exactly. WTF is up with this quote from TFA:

And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message. Apple makes fabulous code. Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully. So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code. It is.

Huh? How is this case a warning message to the people who argue that FOSS is a better way to develop code? I think PJ has lost it and from reading the rest of the articles on the site, seems to have become a rabid anti-MS Apple fangirl.

And she comes across as pretty weak in the law department as well. Look at how she skirts an important question

I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.

Erm what? Can't she shed some light on a very relevant and interesting theoretical instead of evading it just because it can be against her conclusion that Psystar got crushed? I don't see any insight in her article, just meaningless gloating that Apple won.

Psystar dies, others persist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101166)

Like the German guys from PearC.de and their distributors: .be, .fr, .es,
they just announced a whole new line including Core i5 machines
and dual Xeon configurations, all running 10.6.2.

I really don't think Apple will be able to sink all the
clone builders of this world,even less stop the hackingtoshers of this world
but maybe they owe it to their shareholders to win a local US battle and show some muscle.
I'm convinced Apple secretly find this a good evolution :-)

osx86-rider

Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (5, Informative)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101208)

All this goes to show is that, contrary to the statements of some Slashdotters, Psystar did not re-install OS X as-is. They replaced key segments, including the bootloader and kernel extensions, in order to get it to install on commodity hardware. That makes Psystar the distributors of a derivative work, thereby violating copyright laws. This is not about the EULA:

"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

I fail to understand how Psystar is even within light years of being right on this issue.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101278)

Obligatory car analogy: Sorry, by installing the LS7 engine in a Mini body you've created a derivative work and have violated GM's copyright. You'll have to die in a fire now, kthxplz.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101318)

I imagine if you tried to sell the modified GM vehicle, GM would come after you with their lawyers. If you modded it on your own they wouldn't care. Apple doesn't care about Hackintoshes. They care about people selling competing products by appropriating their IP.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (1)

oPless (63249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101382)

There are quite a few 'tuned car "manufacturers"' operating.

I for the life of me can't remember any of them other than AMG (but they're part of the same group) so they're probably licensed.

Anyhow, my point still stands. If I wanted to buy a brand new tricked out Mini there would be a company out there that would be glad to sell it to me.

(Minis are horrible things now BMW have them)

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30101454)

Imagine if you paid GM for the car, modified it, then sold it to someone else.

Now imagine doing it as a business.

Neither is illegal.

GM probably wouldn't even care. To them, a sale is a sale.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (2, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101480)

I imagine if you tried to sell the modified GM vehicle, GM would come after you with their lawyers.

Carroll Shelby, Mopar, and Magnuson Moss think you're full of crap.

Remember the Slashdot rules: even if any other physical or software manufacturer would be publicly flayed for committing an act, it's Right and Good and Justified if Apple does it.

I'm typing this on a Mac, probably the last Apple product I'll ever buy because of the crap they pull.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (2, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101492)

I imagine if you tried to sell the modified GM vehicle, GM would come after you with their lawyers.

If they did, GM would lose. There's no question that you have the right to buy a car, modify it, and resell it, just like you can with any other piece of physical property.

That's why this ruling against Psystar is so baffling: with a car, the legal issues are straightforward. With software, although you are allowed to make modifications like the ones Psystar made, and even to have a third party make them for you, if you're going to run a business like Psystar's, you have to be very careful about exactly how your process works -- even though the end result is exactly the same.

It shouldn't matter whether you copy a pre-patched copy of OS X onto the new machine, or whether you copy an identical copy first and then patch it. It shouldn't matter whether you sell the original copy of OS X to the customer and then patch it for him, or whether you sell him a copy that's already been patched and also give him the original. But apparently it does matter, and that's stupid.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101420)

This particular type of derivative work is also known as an "adaptation", which is allowed by 17 USC 117 [bitlaw.com] since it's necessary to make OS X work with a non-Apple machine. Psystar just wasn't careful enough about the order in which they did things: to stay within the letter of the law, they should have sold the copy of OS X to their end user first, then made the adaptation on the user's behalf, instead of making the adaptation first and then selling a copy of it.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (3, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101422)

Here...let me explain... First...get all teary...then start whining...then demand that everyone should give you what you want the way you want it because you want it to be that way. Then start stomping...screaming...crying...maybe rolling around on the floor. Basically...all you really need to do is throw a temper tantrum that would make a 2yr old proud and you will understand the entitlement mentality behind all of this. "I should get what I want, for the price I want, with the rules I want, because I want it that way." This is all driven by people who think that if they don't like the terms of an agreement that they can unilaterally alter them to meet their needs. These are the same people that dream up stupid shit ideas like "We reserve the right to alter this agreement at any time without notice" and then scream bloody murder when other like minded idiots lock them into a contract that says the same thing.

I don't like what the RIAA is doing. I haven't bought any RIAA music in almost 10 years now. I also haven't downloaded any music. I don't try to rationalize some weird shit reason that says it is ok for me to simply take what I want because they won't offer it to me on the terms I want. The same goes for software. I VERY rarely buy software, and I pretty much restrict most of my software to F/OSS stuff. There are a few software package that I have bought, but rather than downloading, I wait for a deal where I can pay the price I want, or I find another product. It is that simple. This insane entitlement mentality is getting disgusting, and is ultimately what drives much of behavior the whiners usually throw tantrums about. Tell me that the RIAA behavior is anything other than greedy entitlement bullshit...just the same as the idiots downloading music.

These battles are escalating battles between large groups of spoiled brats that think that they deserve whatever they demand on the terms they demand and they will go to great lengths to force their demands.

Re:Not first-sale doctrine: Psystar altered OS X (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101430)

APSL [apple.com] covers
1) bootx
2) darwin kernel

apple can't have it both ways, you cant pretend to be open then sue the crap out of anybody who uses that code.

Oblig Quote (2, Funny)

AnotherAnonymousUser (972204) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101432)

This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Kenobi, it will soon see the end of Psystar.

Keeping score on Groklaw bias (4, Funny)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30101496)

Let's see:

Anti-SCO - check
Anti-MS - check
New entry Pro-Apple - check

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>