I keep telling you guys that Microsoft is funding Psystar's legal efforts. They did it with SCO (which have ridiculously been shot down four times in court and they're asking investors for money to start yet another round even though the Judge made it final that Novell owns those licenses, SCO never did.).

When you can't code, you sue. And face it, Apple coders are some of the worst on the planet.

Nonsense.

The reason why this legal action is being taken against Pystar isn't because of what they're doing, it's because they haven't got a clue about what they're doing. The build quality of the Pystar products is absolutely crap and it has a direct negative impact on Apple in the minds of consumers, even though Apple aren't involved in the build process at all. If Pystar were doing such an outstanding job and the were highly professional, I suspect that behind the scenes Apple would be speaking to them to see if they could come to an agreement. But that's not the case and the truth is Pystar harm Apple's reputation of quality and it's as simple as that - that's why they want to stop them.

Nonsense

I know I'm going to regret this - but why?

This is what Apple does. You buy the software but they own it, just like when you buy anything from Apple. Look at the names of the products.

Ipod, Iphone, Ilife, MobleME. Its almost like they're saying its ours and not yours. Apple is like a cult, its like Scientology and Steve Jobs is like L. Ron Hubbard. They tell you what to buy and what to like and what you can do with it. Apple fanboys love Apple products and hate everything else. If Apple made a toaster they'd buy it and say its better than a regular toaster. I think Mac OS is a good OS but so is Windows, its a preference. I like the iPod but their are other good media players out there (including the Zune which I also like). People who are in the Apple religion don't see things like that, It seems their brainwashed into thinking Apple is the only thing around.

If Apple really wants people not to put Mac OS on other computers then just don't sell it in stores. I mean if you buy an OS in a store you paid for it and you should be able to put it on any computer you want, or skip the DVD down the street if you want (If you were caught by Apple doing this they'd probably take you to court). There is NO other OS that you can buy in a store and not install it on another computer, even Windows you can install on Mac hardware and MS isn't going to take you to sue you. Now if they didn't sell and people were some how getting it and installing it then I would understand but if you go into Best Buy and buy a copy of OSX it should be yours to do as you wish. Their should be some kind of consumer law supporting this.

And Betaguru you're right unless Apple lets people install Mac OS on any computer they want it won't be able to compete with Windows. Most people don't like to be told what they can and can't do. You're also right, Macs cost more than PC's and the hardware doesn't warrant it. You can't buy the latest and greatest hardware, so you're paying more for less. You may pay $300 for Windows OS in the store, but its cheaper than buying a Mac.

It's called a "proprietary" platform.

And while your angst and pathos are fascinating to watch as you writh on the floor, the concept is not new.

So genius,I guess we can expect you to also troll the WiMax/LTE debate sites as well, as they too are both proprietary.

Yup, run to the dictionary and look up the word. I am not sure if the problem is simple lack of understanding of the term, or simply the fear of using it as they will have to learn how to spell it!

I think a lot of you are missing the big picture here. As long as Apple continues to destroy the efforts of third parties to brand and sell Apple compatible products, the OS will never take a foothold and replace Windows. It is ludicrous that Apple continues to quash the effort of Psystar or others to get the OS on anything other than a Mac. Until this changes, the Mac is an overpriced toy.

"Along the way, the clone maker also charged that Apple failed to file the necessary copyright documents for OS X "with the copyright office as required" by law."

Their lawyers are morons.

In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office.

Sad that such a team of incompetent morons is heading the charge to get Mac OS X out on anything but "Macs". Imagine what could be accomplished by lawyers with actual skill...

I was rooting for them but now it's getting ridiculous.

Here's the thing though....if Apple's goal is to keep OSX running only on Apple built machines, is that not considered a no-no somehow? I mean, if you have a computer running identical hardware as Apple machines, but that gets regular 'mysterious' kernel panics, lockups or otherwise, then logic dictates that something is up, and if that's the case and it points to TPM checking for Apple auth. (and there is dedicated, real world proof of that), then couldn't this build a real case?
Or is it just a case of a manuf. choosing a closed platform for their own hardware? If MS Vista somehow blocked being installed on the Apple computer, I imagine that'd be a problem? or no?

Yawn.
Apple used the TPM to authenicate OSX to the hardware.

ALL OF THE MACHINE IS INTEL ROADMAP COMPLIANT. INCLUDING THE TPM!!!
While you are looking for nefarious conspiracies, why don't you simply query old facts.

AppleTPMACPI.kext

You talk like this is some kind of 'secret'!

Apple has chosen to make their open platform proprietary with regards to OSX.

I happen to disagree with theor strategic marketing choice, and fully believe that they can compete in the open market against generic PCs, while benefiting by an larger OSX market. But hey, it IS their choice. And ours as a consumer.

And no, except for whiners and a more limited market, there would be no problem with Apple restricting Windows from running on their machines which are designated as a 'proprietary' platform!

So please, someone mention and misuse the word "monopoly" again, as it has been at least an hour since such a reference was posted, and we wouldn't want to break with tradition.... ;-)

Are they using the lawyers SCO is no longer keeping?

If nothing else, it's a headache for Apple and comedy for the rest of us.

"If nothing else, it's a headache for Apple and comedy for the rest of us."

Win-win! :)

Psystar, as much as i support your ability to make machines that will run OSX, your attempts are becoming increasingly more pathetic.

Just make the machines and offer the option of bundling VMWare and VMWare Fusion with them if you like. Let customers source OSX themselves. Issue concluded and you can let Apple try to chase individuals who purchase OSX.

And save the money being wasted on absurd legal forays that even a 3rd grader can see through.

Psystar has become a very sad parody of the very action with which they claim to disagree.