Comments on: Apple sues clone maker Psystar

The suit was filed July 3 in federal court. The real question, what took Apple's lawyers this long to take action.

[Perry_Clease]

"Wow, someone should challenge Apple's EULA. "

Is that what Psystar did?

[The_Decider]

Can you believe that the idiots at CNET are forcing Beta on its users? Actually it is not beta, if you can get the links to work on a simple AJAX request it can't be called Beta, it can be called CNET business as usual.

[foreyk]

I hope Paystar win, after all if I pay to bought it and not Leasing, I should have the right to re-sell it or do what ever I want with the product. After all that what they want my money!!, which I own it, with hard work to spend it or invest it.. It?s that what we all do in our life.. Just because we are in an era that electronic and software had grow and take a very important role in business; that should no be a reason for a Court rule away from the basics of life that in some point intellectual is like religion?Uhm it seem everyone what to control it.

[tubageekster]

I have a (not exactly) ingenious Idea! Why doesn't apple buy pystar, or launch their own line of cheaper macs? They would make a ton of money, and use the more expensive lines of macs for professionals. They would get a huge amount of market penetration with that.

[b1yofd03]

//////////////???????.

[ftl99]

My question is that if Apple allows you to install a Microsoft OS aren't they doing the same thing as Psystar?

[Lzymn]

Theres a few problems at Apples door one is the fact there current OS is based on FreeBSD and there a open licence almost like linux license with a little more restrictions. Apple owns the GUI ( AQUA )and a few other trinkets but more or less the only thing they can call theres is the GUI, Here is the problem you cant run anything on DARWIN (FreeBSD) alone its pretty much just a Shell/console.
Apple does however own there " BIOS- for lack of whats its really called at the moment " this is where the big problems come in at duplicating that Boot config( BIOS) is agianst Apple's hardware license,Intel processors no matter what machine there in are still intel proc's Apple could have saved some of there licensing by staying PPC or moving to a less known Processor but hindering the fact they wouldnt have picked up some of the Gaming giants and therefor loosing money.

Fact is as long as OS X install's without hacks it shouldnt matter whos hardware its running on i seen a few post ago someone saying Microsoft was a monopoly becuase it included internet explorer in there OS making harder to have a alternitive web browser , Well isnt this the same case on a larger scale OSX is being limited by hardware therefor forcing you to only run apple software.
anyway :
No matter how many lawyers apple has its still a Open license from FreeBSD and anything included should infact stay under the original license . Apple can and should change there Kernel to stay in the safe zone unless they want us to run there OS on any harware as long as it dont infringe on there "BIOS"

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/
http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html - includes there open source policy

If i am wrong about Darwin and OSX not using a *BSD kernel -heavly modified or not , if its a completly diffrent kernel to it own please provide links to real evidence saying its not and in should no way follow *BSD licensing
Thanks