Windows is an effective substitute. It's not efficient, it's not nearly as easy to use, but it is effective.

You can't sue a company for having a monopoly on their own product. This is like suing Pepsi Co. because they won't let me rebottle their Mountain Dew and make a profit off it myself.

I have to laugh at Pystar, I mean they got courage but their underpaid lawyer will suffer and so will his law firm. If I were the lawyer, I'd pull out now because he isn't going to make a dime after Apple's team of lawyers have stripped, dissected and publicly executed Pystar. Apple will use this legal battle to scare anyone who even contemplates clones. If anyone is interested in Pystar computers, they are not worth the cash as very soon they will be NO support for them.

The problem with all this is that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidise development on the OS - of course someone can make a barebones Mac clone cheaper than Apple can because they're not having to subsidise OS development.

The problem with all this is that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidise development on the OS - of course someone can make a barebones Mac clone cheaper than Apple can because they're not having to subsidise OS development."

Perhaps its time Apple stops selling full copies of OS X and only upgrade copies...

If Apple lost this they would have to reduce the price of the computers and raise the price of the OS. $400.00 OS X upgrades any body?

You can't sue a company for having a monopoly on their own product.

Where in the h*** do you live. In the US, you can sue anyone over anything. You can sue testudo (hey, that's me!) over his annoying posts.

It doesn't mean you'll win (you won't! haha!), but you can still do it.

This is really simple. Psystar knowingly purchases and loads Apple's operating system onto non-Apple machines in violation of the conditions specified in the EULA. No reasonable person could seriously argue that they have no choice but to use the Mac OS; with very minor exception, any software that is available for Mac OS is available for Windows, certainly there is no App like AutoCAD's CADD or ArcView GIS which runs exclusively on the Mac, Adobe and Quark are probably the most common high-end commercial Apps used on the Mac, and those are also written for windows. Apple has it's own Pro Apps, but they don't control the market in those specialty software groups, in fact there are ample media Pro-Apps available for more than just two OS'.

The only monopoly Apple may have is making money on its own product, and that is what Psystar is really going to court over; Psystar is really saying Psystar should be able to make money on Apple's product also. I would be shocked if this went against Apple, but stranger things have been known to happen, but lets, for the sake of argument say it does. A precedent would be set and the next thing you know you have other building Mac clones. So what really boggles my mind on this is this: Does Psystar actually believe that they, would be the ones to benefit from this? They would simply be a blip in the history of PCs, and would be out of business in a short time. If Apple conceded and rewrote the OS to be installed on any machine such as the Windows distribution model, the PC makers such as Dell, HP, etc. would started building machines preloaded with Apple's OS. Apple, in the end, would adopt a Windows distribution model, and probably cease making the Macintosh hardware.

Of course I doubt that will happen. Psystar's entire thought process seems flawed, and the only reason I even give it consideration is because they have hired a law firm which has demonstrated success against Apple legal. Though in this case, I further doubt Apple will settle anything out of court for the above reasons; Apple cannot allow a competitive market for it's own OS and I haven't even mentioned the whole issue about support for non-Apple machines when the OS doesn't work as it's suppose to. I believe Apple will take this opportunity to set a precedence of its own closing potential future challenges. In the meantime, Apple will request a cease and desist order and, worst case, this gets dragged on for years, probably ruining Psystar and probably changing to the technology which would make this whole thing about nothing.

So in the end, this is just another episode of Seinfeld.

The only monopoly Apple may have is making money on its own product, and that is what Psystar is really going to court over; Psystar is really saying Psystar should be able to make money on Apple's product also. I would be shocked if this went against Apple, but stranger things have been known to happen, but lets, for the sake of argument say it does. A precedent would be set and the next thing you know you have other building Mac clones. So what really boggles my mind on this is this: Does Psystar actually believe that they, would be the ones to benefit from this? They would simply be a blip in the history of PCs, and would be out of business in a short time. If Apple conceded and rewrote the EULA allowing the OS to be installed on any machine, such as the Windows distribution model, the PC makers such as Dell, HP, etc. would started building machines preloaded with Apple's OS. Apple, in the end, would adopt a Windows distribution model, and probably cease making the Macintosh hardware all together.

Of course I doubt that will happen. Psystar's entire thought process seems flawed, and the only reason I even give it consideration is because they have hired a law firm which has demonstrated success against Apple legal. Though in this case, it is unlikely that Apple will settle anything out of court for the above reasons; Apple cannot allow a competitive market for it's own OS. And I haven't even mentioned the whole issue about support for non-Apple machines when the OS doesn't work as it's suppose to on this non-Apple machine. I believe Apple will take this opportunity to set a precedence of its own thereby discouraging any potential future challenges. In the meantime, Apple will request a cease and desist order and, worst case, if this gets dragged on for years, it will probably ruining Psystar in the end. By that time, the changing technology would probably prevent what Psystar is trying to do, which, in the end would make this whole thing about nothing, making this just another episode of Seinfeld.

Sorry for the double post, thought the first one didn't take as it was over 3000 characters.

This whole ridiculous lawsuit could be a means to take the bulk of the company's assets and get that value into their lawyer's hands, protecting the assets from the Apple lawsuit.

I wouldn't be surprised if the lawsuit completely emptied the pockets of Psystar. By the time Apple wins its lawsuit (is there any doubt?), Psystar's legal council would have emptied Psystar's assets. By design.

Psystar's creditors will then get zero dollars. Apple gets zero. And the owners of Psystar and their legal buddies walk away with the profits.

It is arguable that Apple wishes to maintain control over the hardware combinations on which its software is executed.

One of the reasons Windows is so .... er ... expansive is the sheer number of possible hardware combinations. Doing a good job of testing involves testing your software on all the possible combinations which you reasonably expect to work.

Lets consider what happens when a serious bug occurs. Apple has a known set of hardware and can fairly rapidly reconstruct any combination to resolve the problem. Microsoft is pretty much swimming in the deep end there. Its sometimes hard to divorce a random driver problem connected with a third party off brand hardware vendor from a serious issue with the base software. This is one reason that large companies dictate a known set of vendors. Anything else becomes completely unmanageable very quickly.

Apple has a relatively good relationship with its customers. The customers have a reasonable expectation that if they purchase a computer commercially with Mac OSX it will run correctly. They have every right to protect this relationship with their customers by limiting the hardware which it runs on.

Psystar has clearly purchased multiple end user licenses and repeatedly violated the end user license agreement. Furthermore they encouraged this illegal activity with their customers. I'm quite sure that ANY software vendor would have no choice but to move to protect their legal rights. This last salvo is clearly a delay and obfuscation tactic. Sometimes lawyers remind me a great deal of a pack of children bickering in the back seat of the car. Even when one of them is clearly in the right, the other just can't stand to let them have the last word.

built off of unix, which is open source? if so, shouldn't anyone be able to go in and alter it however they want as long as they don't sell it for profit?

Psystar will lose this battle based on the reasons already mentioned- If Apple is guilty of a "monopoly", then so is Sony, Nintendo, Palm, etc- and you just know that even if Apple were to lose the first round (which isn't likely), they'd win anyway on appeal, for those exact same reasons. No judge in the world is short-sighted enough to rule against Apple on this. Apple makes a product which is built as a complete package, just like Sony, Nintendo, etc, and they have the right to keep their product intact. Why hasn't anyone gone after those other companies with the same complaint? Why not sue Ford Motor Company because it doesn't offer a Chevy engine option for its vehicles? Psystar isn't really hoping that this suit will go before a judge anyway- they're hoping to rattle their sabres a little to intimidate Apple to they'll settle out of court with a huge payoff.

i am really getting tired of corporate idiots who take Apple to court because they want a slice of Apple's profits, without doing any real R&D themselves. Any idiot can put together a box full of computer parts and call themselves a "manufacturer"- but why don't they use Windows instead? Why waste all this valuable time and legal fees on a battle they're likely to lose? Apple's OS is superior on its platform because they've tailored the hardware and software to be interconnected- therefore inherently stable. This is also precisely why Windows is generally buggy when it comes to software/hardware interaction.

Some people just get real jealous when a product or company is highly successful. They feel they deserve to cash in on someone else's hard work and they'll do anything to get it. I'll lay 10-to-1 odds that Psystar will lose this battle soundly, and file bankruptcy in a year's time.

I think they have it all wrong...it would be a monopoly if Apple forced everyone to put their OS on ALL computers. This is sort of the opposite.

These people at Psystar have pretty flawed logic thinking that Apple has a monopoly on an OS that's ONLY truly meant to run on THEIR OWN hardware (Yes, just because you can run OS X on a non Apple machine doesn't mean its designed for it, the components of the OS are designed for Apple hardware and they have to hack it and create modified drivers to get it to work). That's like people sueing Research in Motion because BlackBerry OS has a monopoly of being only on BlackBerry hardware or Nintendo has a monopoly because the Wii's firmware only works on the Wii.

Plus, its PsyStar that's in the wrong here anyway, their the ones using a hacked version of Apple's OS and violating the EULA, which is protected in California. So I seriously doubt this whole suit is going to hold any ground.

by Microsoft, just to keep bad media press about Apple constantly flowing. Why else would a company pursue something like this that they have no chance of winning. Legal clones were stopped years ago and now this company thinks they can just come in and demand Apple's blessing. If Psystar's machines are getting kernel panics, nothing can be done about it.

Check out the photo... looks like a MacBook Pro to me...

http://www.carrferrell.com/practice_corp.html