“The Mac clone maker being sued by Apple Inc. because it installs Mac OS X on generic Intel-based systems said it bought copies of the operating system from Apple itself, court documents show,” Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld.
“‘Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon,’ the company said. ‘Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple. While Psystar complies with Section 117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple — and Apple alone — will say ‘whether, how or by whom its software is … distributed or used,”” Keizer reports.
“Apple’s case relies on exactly that; it has claimed from the start of its July 2008 lawsuit that the Mac OS X end-user licensing agreement (EULA) forbids users from installing the operating system on hardware not sold by Apple,” Keizer reports.
“Apple declined to comment on the case, which is slated to go to trial in April,” Keizer reports.
Full article here.
The saga continues. This episode’s so bad, we suspect Lucas wrote and directed it.
You don’t BUY a commercial OS, you buy a LICENSE to use it !
Actually many forget that Apple did license their OS to several clone makers. Itvwas Power Computing, Umax and someone else I believe. That decision nearly destroyed Apple until Steve Jobs came back and axed the cloners. Apple was ready on the decline bad and that cloning decision damn near killed them. Apple, doing things Microsoft’s way, pretty much fails everytime. Apple wants to control the experience people have with their OS. They will never allow anybody like Dell to make “Macs”.
HAHA…
starwars really does suck.
@Hapless,
The times were different back then. Nobody wanted Apple’s OS. The only customers were existing Apple customers. OS X is in big demand. A lot of people would be glad to drop Windows at home and switch to OS X.
@Hapless,
Also, it would be nice if Apple actually made Macs again. Its been how long since the iMac, Mac Pro, and Mac mini were updated? These lags in product updates are not what a “hardware” company should be doing.
Without the kickass software that Apple puts out, nobody would want their hardware. Just like nobody would buy their hardware if they only offered Windows on it.
Steve Jobs said it himself at Macworld in 2005. OS X is the Mac.
Hmmm… no OS X box that I have bought ever had the word “Upgrade” on it.
I guess I must have bought the full versions.
> I guess I must have bought the full versions
Because the license says it can only be used on Macs, there is no point in writing “upgrade” on the box. Every Mac that can run Leopard came with Mac OS X. Therefore, every copy of Leopard sold separately in a shrink-wrapped box is an UPGRADE for an existing system. Apple does not sell a separate upgrade product for say $79. The retail price is $129 (not higher like for a “full” copy of Windows) because Apple assumes it will be used to upgrade an existing Mac.
This lawsuit is going to be fun. Fortunately Apple makes the entire true universe widget, i.e. the software and the hardware.
The moronic real world tinkerers may think they have a choice building and adding (ad nauseum) components to their computers but they end hostaged to an inferior operating system and have to rationalize their choice by saying…well we can play games.
Anything can be made to look good, but it takes depth and substance for true tasks.
The big problem with Psystar and all of their claims and arguments is simple. All of their MacOSX installs are from a single hacked version of the install. Does not matter if you buy retail copies of MacOSX and give them away with system purchases or resell them for profit or not.
Simple facts are that what Psystar is doing is illegal and amounts to thief. If Apple uncovers the big money backers of Psystar this whole case could end up being a block buster movie one day depending on who the Psystar’s sugardaddy is.
you don’t buy OSX, you buy a license to use OSX. its like buying a photo from a photosite.
A far more detailed (and quite excellent) analysis of this can be read here: http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2009/01/14/psystar-files-its-reply-to-apples-response-to-psystars-motion-for-leave-to-amend-its-counterclaim/#more-2785