I still don't get why Pystar doesn't simply let the customer source the OS independently - which is very easily done, and avoid the exorbitant cost of the legal battles.

And thus the legal battles end...or at least substantially tip in their favor.

And the publicity is not worth the price they are paying!

One wonders if they aren't former Apple employees, as the self-inflicted masochistic damage is reminiscent of having watched Apple's missteps throughout their history! ;-)

I'm glad the lawsuit was thrown out in a way if for no other reason than Pystar can't build a pc for toffee.

Any law suite against Apple is frivolous and stupid. This is the greatest company on earth that can do no wrong. All Apple products are flawless and without reproach.

man i really hope that was sarcastic

Are you from North Korea man? Relax, you can discuss normally here, nobody will throw you in jail for expressing a different opinion.

He's an Apple troll, he posts ridiculous comments like that in every Apple related thread. Best to just ignore and move on.

The fact that Apple was not deemed a monopoly shows there's still some sense in Courts today. I happen to agree with the judge on that. By the way i don't have nor use any Apple computers, besides an ipod which does not use Apple software/firmware. I prefer Linux and Windows OSes. Apple would be a monopoly if they were the only player in town in the PC business, and they are not.

Maybe some of you should realize you don't OWN ANY piece of software. You only pay for a license. This goes for Windows, Business Linux/Unix, and MacOSX, any piece of software, even games. I'm not so sure about hardware. If you don't like the restrictions, use something else. Apple has the right to do whatever they want regarding their OS, even if it means that they stay in a niche market forever, implode, expand... whatever.

Burn the witch! Burn the witch!

Careful, or your common sense will make you a target of all of the fanboys and trolls here.

Finally, a few emerge regarding this issue with a clue regarding the definition and conditions that must exist for a company to exercise a "monopoly".

What is "hardware" a wood/metal box? if it's a chip then it has software.. Your right everything is a License to use on the media you purchased it on or for.

And most licenses have restrictions stating what you can and cannot do with that content. Most commonly that you cannot reproduce those materials without the OK from the content publisher (and usually some sort of fee) aka Sony, EMI, Paramount, Bantam Books etc.

Savor the civil talk while you can. Trolls are coming.

I have the same complaint now that I had back in the 90's: If Apple wants more people using their OS, they need to open it up and let clones live.

Aside from that opinion, I don't think Apple has any ethical right trying to stop people from installing a piece of software THEY BOUGHT on hardware THEY BOUGHT and OWN.

Apple tried clones. In the 90s. Guess what happened? Nobody bought them.

Guess what else.. OS9 sucked in the 90s also. No wonder no one bought it. Plus Windows gained the taskbar in the 90s. Apple didnt stand a chance of expanding back then. They might have a nice chance now.

They did. Unfortunately, people bought the clones instead of actual Macs, cutting Apple's sales to almost nil. Apple learned that they cannot survive as a hardware company without tying the software to the hardware. Doing otherwise allows the clone manufacturers to undercut them in price to the point Apple loses almost all of their sales.

The money made from the OS hardly covers the money lost in hardware sales.

Really? I know they were sold at Radio Shack stores and I had asked the manager about them back when I was first looking at a computer for graphics design when I was in High School. He said they just weren't selling, that people wanted the real thing. Oh well. Probably a canned public response.

Oh I agree. I hated OS 9.

Yes .. The successes of the clones was so good apple cut all clone agreements and PISSED motorola off because of their investments in clones. Causing the PPC CPU to be given to IBM and later forcing apple to switch to intel.

Yes apple is good at re-writing the truth\history but that is what happened from people inside motorola.

Apple is not monopolistic anyone can buy them and anyone can use iTunes. It's just your choice...

As many of the clones were CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) complaint, exploited the chameleon bi-endian nature of the Power Series chips and you had the ability to also natively run Windows, UNIX, and the MacOS on them - a MAJOR distinction over the Apple machine. If you will go back and look at NT, you will see that Power was then a supported platform before Intel's pressure resulted in them killing the capability!

As, at that time, the Mac Quadras were simply an Apple branded IBM RS6000 desktop machine. In fact, the UNIX versions of the Quadra servers circa came bundled with AIX!

Jobs' return resulted in his closing the platform and disabling CHRP compliancy - just as his refusal to open the platform 7 years earlier (eg, the Mac2 with NuBus came out against his desires after his ouster) got him canned the first time.

Your version of history is fascinating as well as creative!

Yup, the restricting of clones did little to the 604(e) market where the vast majority were used in IBM RS6000s. This was not what "forc(ed) Apple to switch to Intel".

Most likely they won't stop the general consumer from doing it.

But Apple has the right not to support the software if it is not installed on the hardware that the license indicates. I'm sure Apple has prosecuted pirates before.

They do have the right to take someone to court who thinks they can ignore that license agreement just because they feel it isn't fair and make a profit with their ignorance.

I agree that apple would get a larger stake in there OS market if they allowed Mac OSX to run on any pc hardware. But i get the impression Steve Jobs does not want a large stake in the PC market. He's content with his niche market. if anything to know he can steal some thunder from Balmer and then laugh in his face. Kind of like Ralph Nader. He'll never be big but he knows he can take some votes away from the Republicans & Democrats ;)

OS X should not be tied to Apple PC's, if it can be bought separately, it should run on any PC.

I don't agree. You might not be hip and cool enough to use it.

couldn't they just put a brief personality test as part of the installer and give a refund to the people who fail?

they probably would do something like that. =]

one simple question which I highly doubt you could answer.... Why? (and don't say something to the effect of because thats how it should be :P)