
Apple loses Hackintosh ruling, angers judge - jacquesm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/apple_loses_psystar_motion/
======
DanHulton
I've read all kinds of "Hackintosh" guides, but I didn't know there was a
company out there doing business in this area.

Has anyone tried any of the Psystar Hackintoshes?

~~~
snewe
They look impressive:

<http://store.psystar.com/ads-rebel/rebel-22-osx.html>

~~~
yellowbkpk
Did you mean to post what appears to be a referral link?

~~~
rms
SID probably equals session ID, from him clicking around on the site.

------
omouse
Go Psystar go!

------
Locke1689
_Psystar's suit alleges that since Apple is "tying its operating system to
Apple-branded hardware," Cupertino is unfairly monopolizing the market for
what Psystar dubs "premium computers," and by doing so "collects monopoly
rents."

The suit is specific to Apple's new Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard operating
system - which is why Apple wanted it thrown out, saying that the new suit was
"essentially identical" to the existing legal imbroglio between Apple and
Psystar, which centers on the previous operating system, Mac OS X 10.5, aka
Leopard._

Uhh, that seems pretty straightforward...

Either the judge doesn't understand that there's really nothing different
about Snow Leopard or there's some legal nuance I'm missing.

~~~
astine
If you'd finished the article, you'd have noticed that it was the second half
of the request that the judge rejected. Apple wanted the judge to reopen the
discovery part of the precedings to take into account 10.6 which was released
after the the discovery part had already closed. The judge said that this was
Apple's fault for delaying the release of the OS and declined the motion, the
whole motion.

~~~
netsp
This sort of just highlights how the legal process just doesn't have the
ability to deal with either the time frames or the technical challenges of the
newer industries.

Throw in the ability of things like software to escape easy definition and/or
the need for new legislation in light of new paradigms and you basically are
stuck.

~~~
electromagnetic
Apple _purposely_ delayed the release of Snow Leopard so that the discovery
period had ended, they then realised they needed it open and applied for it to
be reopened. The judge denied this because Apple brought it on themselves, so
how are there time frame problems? Apple fucked itself through its own legal
incompetence, done and done.

~~~
Readmore
Yes because Apple chooses all the ship dates for their OS updates based on
rinky-dink legal cases. Actually Snow Leopard original scheduled ship date was
3 weeks AFTER it actually went on sale so they didn't 'delay' anything.

But you're completely right Apple "fucked itself" by releasing their new
operating system ahead of schedule.

------
pedalpete
Seeing as OSX is a Unix variant, don't any improvements to the OS have to be
released free of use? I was under the impression that the Mac license reads
'You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-
branded computer, or to enable others to do so.' because they cannot legally
require that the OS only operates on Apple hardware. Therefore if, if a
manufacturer wishes to use the OS, they would need to provide Apple branding.
At the same time, this may be the catch-22. You can't use apple branding
without the permission of Apple, and you can't install the OS without using
the branding.

~~~
omouse
OS X is a variant of a _BSD UNIX and, if I remember correctly, the license
does_ not* require them to release changes and definitely not free of use.

Also, much of OS X that people like is the Cocoa stuff which most definitely
is _not_ covered by a free software license.

> _I was under the impression that the Mac license reads 'You agree not to
> install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or
> to enable others to do so.'_

That's part of the End User License Agreement, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer, but
I remember reading that those aren't legally binding (at least not in sane
countries) since they're legal agreements made after the purchase. You didn't
agree to it as a condition of the purchase so how can the seller force you to
do something after you already own the software?

~~~
eli
It's unclear if those are binding. Courts have ruled both ways. That's one of
the issues in the case.

