Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, you're not seeing the problem. What that would be like is if Joe's Burger Place bought the recipe from Burger King. They didn't just start making them, they paid Burger King for the permission, but they use their own ingredients to make the burger.
I tend to agree with this approach. Hardware company and far from controlling the market with majority share.
Suit: Fail (actually they will settle out of court for a nice NDAed sum).
OK, my thread was misleading - OS X will need to be modified, but ONLY to remove the stuff that Apple added to prevent people installing it on 3rd party machines. Not to add things or re-write the operating system, only to remove the 'locks'
One major difference here (and I'm not saying this validates anything, but it's worth noting) is that plenty of people are running Apple's OS on PCs.
You cannot get Lexmark ink into a Canon printer.
You cannot get a Wii game to play on a PS3.
You can run Mac OS X on a PC.
Again, I'm not saying it's right - just that it's possible.
No, but that person doesn't have a case to sue the baker if they bought the bread under an EULA.
Sure! I think that a bakery has that right, if they choose to. Now, very few people would buy it and the company would probably tank. Consumers would likely flock to other bakeries with a more lenient terms of use.
But this bakery you speak of might be appealing to some, especially if the toaster is particularly good at toasting the bakery's bread (catching my drift?
)This would only be a problem if for some reason this bakery were the only ones in the world able to make bread. Then you'd have a problem...
they should have a low cost OEM version like windows does that costs less then the boxed upgrade and is a full install.
I'm sure you aren't allowed to use that vehicle for drastically less money than you would if you bought it. I'm sure it's just people blindly agreeing to contracts despite there being alternatives with the same fees and no usage restrictions.
Ohh.. wait a tick.
You honestly think that car companies would suddenly be able to require leases for ALL vehicles. Every car manufacturer. No one would be able to own their own vehicle anymore. There would be no sales.
Here you go consumer, there are now EULAs on all vehicles. You cannot buy one anymore. Now that we have you by the nuts, let's discuss usage.
You may not recline your seat past 90 degrees while driving. Radios will be disabled. You must purchase new tires from us at a drastically higher than market average every 3,000 miles regardless of tire wear. Etc, etc, etc.
You really wish for that? Enjoy.
Here's an analogy: All roads are made for vehicles of a certain diameter and length. Now let's say 95% of the roads in the country are built to those specifications. They all require EULAs.
Now in order to use a non EULA vehicle, you're required to use a vehicle with a slightly wider diameter. It doesn't restrict what you can do within it. However you are now limited to 5% of roads.
Regardless of whether people WANT a EULA vehicle or not, they're forced to choose one if they want to visit their children or get to work, or go on vacation. You get what I'm saying?
It is the definition of an unconscionable contract of adhesion.
The hardware isn't made by Apple any more, now it is made by Intel who also make the same hardware for Dell.
Me apologies, but they are so lame. They have been reinventing the wheel since 2001. That is persistent branding.
Apparently you're the one not seeing the problem. If Joe's Burger Place starts selling a burger called the Whopper without permission from Burger King, they are the ones at fault.
Is this really that hard to understand?
(which is what this thread is about, I want to see it made legal and hence remove the copyright infringement)
Sure! I think that a bakery has that right, if they choose to. Now, very few people would buy it and the company would probably tank. Consumers would likely flock to other bakeries with a more lenient terms of use.
But this bakery you speak of might be appealing to some, especially if the toaster is particularly good at toasting the bakery's bread (catching my drift?
This would only be a problem if for some reason this bakery were the only ones in the world able to make bread. Then you'd have a problem...
You'd still have a problem if it was one of two bakeries in the world. And the problem is that if you use the bakery analogy....MOST bakeries would be using EULAs
The bakery analogy is hard to expand on because no one would agree to things that limit their right to feed themselves (that drastically anyway), as it's a basic human right.
Let's take a car lease. It's easier to expand upon and I've already been using this analogy with someone else in this thread, so let's just simplify.
You really think a car dealership should tell you what roads you should be able to drive that leased vehicle on? And no, not how much wear and tear you put on in a year (allotted mileage). But actually which roads you can and cannot drive your vehicle on?
$500 was the g4 mini price the new is $100 more and you have to pay $200 more on top of that to get a DVDRW and you still only have 1gb of ram and slow 2.0 cpu with the POS gma 950 video.
Psystar isn't selling a computer called the 'Mac Pro' here, with a huge Apple logo slapped on the side. They are selling their own version which doesn't even resemble one of Apple's products.
Except Burger King doesn't sell the recipe, they sell you a burger. Apple sells you a license to upgrade OS X from a previous version that was originally included when you bought your mac. It is ~$120 because it's an upgrade and Apple has based it's entire business around selling hardware. By Pystar selling it or installing it on a PC Apple loses all the hardware revenue and is therefore rightfully pissed off.
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure OS X itself and/or the install DVD will not boot on a computer with a BIOS. That isn't Apple being anti-competitive, that's just Apple being forward thinking in supporting EFI which is supposed to replace BIOS. I would assume that means some modification will be required to get OS X to run.
Thats not the same at all. Essentially what Pystar did was bought a Whopper from Burger King (not the rights to the recipe), modified a few ingredients with their ingredients, and sold it at a profit still calling it a Burger King Whopper.
Thats my point. The hardware configuration was (designed by apple) in such a way to benefit the OS (made by apple). Who cares who makes the chips. Its just a chip.
This burger analogy is crazy, but I think you're both off.
It would be more like Joe going to Burger King, buying Whoppers and then bringing them back to his place while they're hot and trying to sell them.
Even that is pretty off, but I just don't think this weird burger analogy works at all!
That opens up a whole new can of worms, because that means no one is entitled to intellectual property anymore, and anyone can PROFIT from others' work. Because that's all this is about, Psystar's profit.
I think that you are mistaken and you can run the standard disk on a version with a BIOS, providing that the hardware is supported by the Kernel.