Comments on: Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled

Apple seeks not only damages and any profits Psystar has earned, but also a recall of all Open Computers sold, according to a copy of the complaint seen by CNET News.

[The Wiethoff]

If apple argues 2000 computers lost them sales of 2000 apple computers at a cost of 2000 each times tripple damages = 12 million bucks. Its not chump change.

The real question is when you own software, how far can a company go to limit how you use the software you own. Would it be OK to write a Eula for my software and say that it can only be run on certain hardware, or can only be run on computers that are white with blue buttons, or it can only be used by Muslims who pray daily can run my software? If you violate a software Eula are you breaking the law if you are not causing damages to your software company?

[tubageekster]

I think we all know what will happen. Apple is going to release Snow leopard, and it will not be possible to legally install it unless your hardware profile matches (or is close to) a mac.

[luc1ph3r]

unfortunately I have to agree with Apple, Psystar did violate their EULA but the arguments people are using for Apple seem flawed. If Apple is indeed a "HW company" that designed a custom OS for their HW how are they a viable competitor to Microsoft who is a SW company and thus prove that MS is not a monopoly? Now if they are a SW company then they would be using bundling tactics to force people to buy their hw... So which one are they??

[applusr]

Who ever said that Apple was competitor to Microsoft, they are competitor to other computer(i.e: Dell, HP) makers that run Windows.

[davinp]

Here is one reason I don't like Apple. IBM let companies clones it's PC, so why doesn't Apple do the same?

They also lock down their products, which is not neccessary. Take iTunes it's locked down so no other mp3 player can use it. Apple is also a bully company

[applusr]

Just a question: can you use any mp3 player with the Zune Software?
Apple didn't develop itunes for other players, they developed it for the ipod.
Apple is not a bully, they are just like any other company who wants to protect their property. Much like Disney, they sue for unauthorized use of the property. Are they bullies? no just protecting what is theirs.

[troyallen]

Yes, they lock down their products, you have other choices. What is it you don't understand?

[JustinEMT990662]

wow ... ok let me clear up some stuff:

1. MS v Apple on sales. MS makes software, not whole hardware systems (yea i know they make mice keybaords etc... but not whole computers), Apple does. Apple has a VERY longstanding reputation for quality and ease of use BECAUSE they don't allow clones. They have tight QA to ensure good product. Granted everything has bugs at some point and no one is perfect, but if they weren;t good, people wouldn't buy them.

2. PsyStar violated the EULA, period. The argument of a hammer vs an operating system is moot. A hammer has multiple purposes, while an operating system has one. You can't go out and buy a copy of New World Systems or AS/OS-400 and run it on a PC .. and guess who makes those?? IBM!
3. IBM did not allow clones to be made, they cant stop people, hence Amiga, Atari, Nintendo. Those are all rudementary computers. Same reason there are so many makers of computer parts. Apple stops people from making systems which run their OS. They does this with patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. Techincally, any Core 2 Duo system with an IBM onboard video card could be called a MacBook clone since the hardware is set is similair. PowerPC systems weren't just Mac either.
4. Bootcamp. MS allows Apple to use the Windows trademark since it gets sales from it. You still have to BUY a copy of Windows to run with Bootcamp, Apple doesn't give you one.
5. Regarding Apple's business practices. They are strict for a reason, to maintain quailty control. You don't like it, don't buy Apple. There are plenty of alterantives. Just like this country, if you don;'t like the laws, leave. If you want the peace and prosperity (not that there is much of that now), you have to play by the rules. Simple.

It amazes me to hear so many people complaining. I am an MCP and a proud Mac owner, I play both sides of the fence. You all need to get your facts straight befiore you attack people. If you made an invention, patented it etc... and had been selling it for years, worked hard to build a good reputation, and then someone came along, took a core piece of your invention and started selling knockoffs which weren't half as good as yours, and people were thinking they were buying something that was as good as yours, you wouldn;t sue? I would.

OSX is the way it is thanks to Apples QA. You start loading it on systems IT WAS NOT DEISGNED for and who knows what can happen; but to the average person who knows no better, all they know is they bought a computer, it had this system that was supposed to be great, and now its acting up and missing stuff. Do you think they would buy a real mac now? not liekly.

[drfrost]

Let's forget about right and wrong for a minute. I'm SHOCKED it took Apple, one of most litigious tech companies in existence, so long to file this suit.

[runut]

apple is the most monopolistic company ever. they make the machine, the os, the browser, the media player, the router. isn't that anti-competitive? give the little guy a chance steve!

[applusr]

Honestly, are you forced to buy only apple products? You should know the definition of a word before making that type of statement. Apple would be anti-competitive if no other browser, the media player, the router work with there computers. Apple is company that strives for quality, stable and easy to use computers.

[troyallen]

LOL. You statement is so ridiculous, I can't even answer it.

[JustinEMT990662]

Whatever. You can use any browser (short of IE) with mac ... i use firefox personally. You can use any router (i have a linksys), you can get Windows Media for Mac or most other players too...

[troyallen]

Apple has every right to design a product and protect it. There is Microsoft and Unix to choose from, as well 3rd party hardware and software to run on Windows and Linux. Again, every person has a right to product their ideas and products. And Apple DOES NOT have a MONOPOLY.

[macnate--2008]

1) People are saying that because Apple had a EULA/Patent/Intellectual-Property/etc that it should be honoured outright. Really, these things are made-up things and the whole reason this is a profitable area of law is because some things are protected incorrectly, too broadly, and/or restrict things it shouldn't. There's no knowing if Apple's EULA is watertight and even if it is today, there's no telling if it will hold up in 5 years, 10 years, whathaveyou. You can call this progress or you can call this the fallacy of believing "just because there's a law, it must be right."

2) A moral argument might suggest that Apple toils at the operating system and therefore should be compensated appropriately -- and has the right to leverage its value as it pleases. Heck, if I could get money directly to the coders and testers, I'd love to -- THEY are doing the hard work and heavy lifting and yet I'm still unconvinced that the Psystars of the world will be dipping into their meager salaries (outside of the money Apple spends/wastes in litigation). Apple is a megalithic company and corporation -- the money that people spend on Macs goes to the wealthy, the stockholders, to advertising. These people have a legal right to this but do they have a moral right? Laws and morals are made-up abstractions, by degrees -- and most american laws/morals are geared toward protecting wealth and commerce. And then we are trained to revere these things above all us. But it's made up! It's not real. Apple won't die and certainly not the wealthy. What should I care to keep the rich funded? I'm giving them more money by keeping their mac users' computers working. If I can turn on one person out of dozens onto a Mac because of a Hackintosh, what should they care? And surely, what do *I* care about their made up laws when some slick lawyer will overturn them all in a year or a decade? Just wait, systems -- like empires -- fade away...and a new Law abides.

3) As for Quality Assurance... people who buy non-apple computers and have them break for non-apple reasons, have it coming. But honestly, all the Apples I support break for their own reasons... from where I'm sitting, Quality Control can't get much worse. Anyway, the hardware is all the same -- motherboard by X, hard drive by Y, sound card by Z.... Apple has shipped Macs with hard drives made my IBM in the past....it all comes around... Apple just guarantees that their internal components will work with one another, most of the time.

[macnate--2008]

Okay, I exaggerated, Quality Control at Apple could be worse and I'm grateful that they are surely doing what they can. My experience with a borrowed hackintosh has been superb and rock solid but setting it up is not for the faint of heart. It's the fastest Mac I've ever used and the only thing I can't do is restart it (it can shutdown and sleep fine) -- so it's run 24-7 for several months. Waste of energy but a testament to the machine.

[malpaso_man]

It amazes me how many Apple bashers there attacking Apple products. If these attackers were taken seriously and their views respected, Apple wouldn't be where it is today. It would be in the toilet, which is where Micro$oft is headed now.

All you Apple haters don't seem to get it. Apple is controlling for very good reasons. Case and point #1: Macs don't have virus or spyware problems. Case and point #2: Macs are a hell of a lot easier to use and far less problematic. These two reasons sum up why Mac OS X is gaining ground and why Apple and Mac sales are outpacing other PCs.

If Apple was "in control" of their products and weren't careful in what they sell, they wouldn't be where they are today, the true innovative company. Now, I know I will be attacked for defending Apple, Inc. But most of you know that what I am saying is true. Love them or hate them, Apple is doing well and prospering because it knows what it's doing and it's working for them and making them successful. They didn't get to where they are today by caving into opinionated, disgruntled, misguided jerks who post negative blogs on CNET and other tech sites. I am willing to get that some of these jerks who claim they will never buy or use an Apple product will at some point be eating their words at some point in the not too distant future.

Apple is doing well because they are controlling, meticulous innovators who only want to offer quality products. They aren't perfect and sometimes their products and software have glitches, but they eventually workout those glitches. They aren't perfect but they are sure a hell of a lot better than what the competition offers.

[cnetuser90]

This is ridiculous. Psystar have no right to use Apple's software without permission, it not only goes against the copyright of the software, but removes one of the unique identities of a Mac, its OS.
Having a clunky piece of plastic that runs Leopard (Psystar's new machines) just ruins the special Apple touch on computing.

[Scott Gardener]

PsyStar: Make your time. From a legal standpoint, this one is kind of a no-brainer. I'm not a lawyer (I'm a doctor, blast it, Jim!) But, the principles are pretty straightforeward. Apple wrote their own material, specifically designed to work with their devices. Sure, since they redesigned their devices so that they're made of the same stuff as a lot of other devices out there, but that does not automatically release their software into the public domain or force them to follow the same licensing procedures as their competitors. The fact that PsyStar had to hack the OS to make it work on their system only buries them. The argument that Apple "needs to" let others use their OS on non-Mac computers is akin to telling artists who post their graphics to their web sites like DeviantArt that they have to let people re-post their artwork without permission. It doesn't work that way.