[www.computerworld.com]

Amazing that they went so far as to take it to the Supreme Court. Where *did* they get the lawyer money from ? I wonder...

I doubt Microsoft has anything to do with Psystar. Open access to Mac OS X could only hurt Windows sales.

Indeed. Hell, MonkeyBoy won't even fund MS's own developers adequately or
buy himself antiperspirant for that matter!

Maybe someone could Google an answer to the "whose money" question.

---

if it was a corporate conspirator, I'd be looking at google...

Their biggest problem was they were distributing the OS with it. Should have sold them without the OS.

---

Help MacInTouch: Buy from Amazon? use this link [amazon.com]
Mac News & Info: [macintouch.com] [macnn.com] [tuaw.com]
Mac Benchmarks: [barefeats.com]
Used Mac Stuff [FS/T]: [macswap.org] LowEndMac Swap List
Mac Software Updates: [macupdate.com]
Fonts: [dafont.com] [fontspace.com]
Online Computer Store With Mac Support: [macsales.com]

Quote
cbelt3
[www.computerworld.com]

Amazing that they went so far as to take it to the Supreme Court. Where *did* they get the lawyer money from ? I wonder...

it's not hard to escalate an appeal that far. I know several people who have done so. It can get expensive to print the briefs which have some... interesting specifications, but it's not so expensive that an ordinary Joe couldn't afford it if he was pro se.

The hard part is getting the Court to accept a petition for cert. They used to be obligated to hear all appeals. Nowadays, they take only the teeny tiniest percentage of cases... only the stuff that the justices find especially interesting. You could have the best and most legally/morally vital appeal in the world otherwise, but if none of the justices has a fancy for your case it won't be heard by the SCOTUS.

Why would Google care? The Mac's significance on Apple's balance sheet continues to trend downwards. Apple could make pretty good money selling OS X for $100 or so sans hardware. Especially if it were explicitly stated there is no support unless you buy AppleCare or own actual Mac hardware.

I still think a company could sell hackintosh-compatible hardware plus an EFI card that would make them entirely compatible with a vanilla OS X install and be able to survive Apple legal challenge.

The customer would have to buy a mac os x install disk.

I think one reason for the Mac App store is for Apple to try to avoid this kind of loophole.

Quote
M A V I C
Their biggest problem was they were distributing the OS with it. Should have sold them without the OS.

Yep.

Quote
silvarios
Why would Google care? The Mac's significance on Apple's balance sheet continues to trend downwards. Apple could make pretty good money selling OS X for $100 or so sans hardware. Especially if it were explicitly stated there is no support unless you buy AppleCare or own actual Mac hardware.

Sil, I think it's obvious Apple is not about trying to make the most money over providing a quality customer experience. In addition, selling OS X on it's own and the resulting customer dissatisfaction stemming from an inconsistent "Mac" experience would potentially dilute any financial gains.

Still doesn't address why Google cares one whit about backing a company trying to sell whitebox OS X hardware. What is their gain?

Apple and google are at war - haven't you heard

and victory is good in war...

Quote
silvarios
Why would Google care? The Mac's significance on Apple's balance sheet continues to trend downwards. Apple could make pretty good money selling OS X for $100 or so sans hardware. Especially if it were explicitly stated there is no support unless you buy AppleCare or own actual Mac hardware.

Widen your view, it's not just about Mac's & OS X.
Look into Motorola Mobility and patents.

Really, really good money in patents. Here's search results on just one IT topic. {approx 120,000 pages}
Oh, and OS X & iOS are not 100% Apple's IP, there are many patent licenses involved.

---

Quote
Panopticon
Widen your view, it's not just about Mac's & OS X.
Look into Motorola Mobility and patents.

Really, really good money in patents. Here's search results on just one IT topic. {approx 120,000 pages}
Oh, and OS X & iOS are not 100% Apple's IP, there are many patent licenses involved.

What does this have to do with a bit player like Psystar? What does whitebox OS X hardware have to do with Google and Apple competing over mobility and patents? Even had Psystar won their case, how does Google benefit? Really, how does Apple lose? Apple still makes great laptops and all-in-ones; in fact, most of their Mac profit comes from the portables anyway. I thought Apple is competitive because of their whole ball of wax approach, which includes customer service.

Quote
hal
Apple and google are at war - haven't you heard

and victory is good in war...

Okay. But Apple initiated this lawsuit, one that seems to not have much to do with Apple's mobility efforts, and one that seems to have very little risk for Apple even had they lost. Even before the lawsuit, Psystar product wasn't making that big of waves, not compared to the Dell Mini cult anyway.

Sorry for trying to help.
I apparently lack the skills needed to be more informative.

Have a nice day

---

Sure…

Quote
silvarios

Quote
hal
Apple and google are at war - haven't you heard

and victory is good in war...

Okay. But Apple initiated this lawsuit, one that seems to not have much to do with Apple's mobility efforts, and one that seems to have very little risk for Apple even had they lost. Even before the lawsuit, Psystar product wasn't making that big of waves, not compared to the Dell Mini cult anyway.

Protecting your assets. If Apple let them slide it would set a precedent that other companies could use to argue in court that Apple didn't actively defend its copyright.

---

C(-)ris

Actively defend copyright? I thought those were terms of trademark, not copyright law. You don't lose rights to copyright until you relinquish them or they expire, as far as I know anyway.

Also, please understand that I was addressing the accusation in which Google or Microsoft was behind some dark conspiracy of financial backing for Psystar's lawsuit, not the merits of the case itself.

Honestly, I just can't see a reason why a non PC hardware company would care one way or the other. I could see a financial motive behind HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, Lenovo, etc wanting to see a world where they could legally bundle OS X with their hardware. However, I still think that's a stretch.

SIl, I thought the others were being pretty clear. Whether you see it or not, it is obvious that Google/MS is a competative threat to Apple.

Never disagreed, but I fail to see how that fact has any relevance in this particular case. By this logic, the CoreCrib guy was also being bankrolled by MS or other party?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 12:14PM by silvarios.

Only if the CoreCrib guy had the potential to set precedent and pose a serious threat competitivly, AND had huge legal bills.

P.S. - I don't know who the CoreCrib guy is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 12:46PM by Carnos Jax.