Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[OriginalMACNUT]

Microsoft never made hardware. Incorrect. If Microsoft suddenly created it's own hardware and said you can only use Vista on that hardware, they could legally do so.

 

I know MS never Made Hardware!! My god, did you just see what you wanted to see in the Post?

I think you need to look at my POST again. MS did try to make HArdware for there Platform in early early 90's ( even maybe Late 80's ) bub, Get your facts straight before you try to point out that somebody is wrong.

Supreme courts ruled before they could even made 1 parts though.

Major thing that separates MS from APPLE

MS would still run on all PC's and ( MS Hardware ), but courts said this would give MS an unfair advantage.

 

Just to point out here, not sure if it has been said already.

 

The key issue being that Apple has limited the OS to there platform, if not this puts them into the same bracket as MS, which in turn, there would be no more OS X.

Or no more Apple, Highly doubtful.

 

Even if they win the Lawsuit, Apple will never support other platform because of this reason.

[Maxintosh]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you deserve to or have the right to it.

Well stated! I'm starting to think that this is a generational issue, mostly with those from 'generation me'. Certain age groups seem to think the world owes them something. They need to take a deep breath and wake up. Apple doesn't own OS X to anyone except to those who purchase OS X for Macs, as that is what it was designed for.

 

I keep seeing a reoccurring sentiment in all of these posts. People think that just because they can do something, they deserve to.

I'm seeing the same thing and it's scary. See above.

 

Apple in fact doesn't sell Mac OS as a separate product. They sell an upgrade to the OS that comes preloaded on your Mac

Yep, I tried to mention this earlier but certain people just glossed over it while they were 'justifying' why they should be entitled to use it. OS X is designed from the ground up to work with supported Apple equipment. The fact that it can be shoe-horned onto a PC is moot. I'm sure that this fact will be brought out in court and then Apple will shortly there after win the case.

 

MS did try to make HArdware for there Platform in early early 90's bub, Get your facts straight before you try to point out that somebody is wrong.

You might want to take your own advice there 'bub'. I studied the full legal decision and found nothing to back up what you said. In fact the word 'hardware' doesn't even appear once in the final courts decision. You might be confusing it with something else. Back in 1995, Intel was in the process of developing a high performance CPU chip that would make Java run extremely fast. Microsoft did not want this to happen, so Microsoft warned Intel that unless it immediately abandoned those efforts, that Microsoft might work with rival chip makers and target Intel, in essense, try to hurt Intel. This does NOT mean that microsoft was about to manufacture hardware. It means that they were threatening other companies that they'd attempt it. If you have factual evidence to the contrary then I'm sure we'd all love to see the ads for said MS hardware.

[jaez]

Well stated! I'm starting to think that this is a generational issue, mostly with those from 'generation me'. Certain age groups seem to think the world owes them something. They need to take a deep breath and wake up. Apple doesn't own OS X to anyone except to those who purchase OS X for Macs, as that is what it was designed for.

 

...

 

I'm seeing the same thing and it's scary. See above.

 

You guys are koo koo. Its not about doing anything just because you can. It's constrained by the law "do no harm."

 

Me putting OSX on my PC does no harm to Apple.

[Maxintosh]

It's constrained by the law "do no harm."

Umm... I think you're mixing the law with the medical Hippocratic Oath

[GTR-33]

Me putting OSX on my PC does no harm to Apple.

So how do you get to the point that Apple should be sued for being "anti-competitive" for not allowing you to install their OS onto a generic PC? How come this wasn't an issue when Mac OS was PPC based? Why aren't other companies with proprietary OSes being sued for being "anti-competitive"? IBM doesn't allow you to use AIX on just any machine. How about HPUX? They stand to serve completely different purposes though the point is valid.

[slacker25]

QUOTE(BigPimpin @ Sep 29 2008, 03:13 PM) *

You DON'T know what the EULA is before you purchase it

 

@ BigPimpin'

Read Much they expect you to be an adult and expect to read what you are getting into

 

@Maxintosh

im a republican has nothing to do with being stupid they are in class their own

[mercurysquad]

Does anyone even remember IBM PC-AT clones, without which the desktop/computer market wouldn't even exist as we know it today? SoundBlaster 16 clones? Windows key added to every keyboard after Microsoft Natural Keyboard introduced it? Atari 2600 clones? TETRIS??

 

Or how about intel suing AMD for manufacturing processors which are compatible with intel's instruction set?

 

This is a pointless debate.

[Bob Ajob]

It seems to me that the challenge for Psystar is that they are an unlicensed, non-OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) selling and supporting an unlabelled (and therefore unlicensed), INSTALLED version of an Apple software product (i.e. after NOT agreeing to the license agreement). Perhaps Apple should just consider selling specialist OEM copies of Leopard with NO WARRANTY OR SUPPORT for OEM end users?

It seems difficult for Apple to prove that required Apple hardware even exists for OSX. Even the 'unique' Apple system cases, trusted platform chips, firmware and other Apple-only items [which can only be sourced from Apple?] are 'OPTIONAL' for Hackintosh users and things like EFI-X can easily work around them. The only argument is over Psystar's legal entitlement to continue re-selling full retail or OEM copies of OSX Leopard (pre-installed or otherwise) in direct competition with Apple support. Most commodity hardware is totally useless without the correct firmware support but can still [optionally] be sold separately without support. For example, 3rd-party vendors can resell an OEM version of Microsoft Windows XP with a single small hardware component (keyboard/mouse) - the main difference between the OEM and full retail versions being that the full retail has better levels of post-installation support and can also be used to upgrade existing software installations wheras the OEM version is a full 'bare-metal' install only)

 

I have a few questions which seem difficult to prove -

• Do FULL RETAIL and OEM versions of OSX Leopard exist for non-Apple customers? [suspect YES]
  
• If so, can Leopard be successfully purchased, installed and used on non-Apple hardware without any reverse-engineering or modification of the software? [suspect YES]
  
• Are Psystar legally entitled to source full retail or OEM copies of OSX Leopard [from Apple or elsewhere]? [suspect YES]
  
• Is an EULA an agreement that end users optionally make AFTER they purchase a product, which only entitles them to full support for that product? (i.e. If you are WILLING to void all warranties and lose support...suspect YES)
  
• Can an end user license agreement (EULA) be legally enforced [in the USA where this case resides]?
  
• If not, are Psystar legally entitled to be Apple software installers but just not agree to the end user license?
  
• Are Psystar legally entitled to change their sales strategy and provide retail Leopard for free with NO APPLE WARRANTY OR SUPPORT and then charge for [optional] specialist hackintosh post-install support?
  

Even if an EULA is made legally binding, I can see a way around it for Psystar, such as -

• Genuine Apple labels (i.e. those that come with genuine iPods or from elsewhere) are always given away with each Hackintosh, so end users get 'GENUINE' Apple labels to place on their commodity hardware, allowing Psystar to meet the specific terms of the Leopard EULA before installation
  

Further reading -

 

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A [Full retail?]

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf [The exact wording in full?]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#In_the_United_States [Grey area or what?]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=160285891246 [True value of a 'GENUINE' Apple label?]

[slacker25]

@Bob Ajob

 

OEM is not a copy but yet an EULA that developers of software release to OEM companies that can distribute it with thier 3rd party machines and apple has not now nor ever done this type of thing

 

to the second questions no patter how they look at it no it cant not with out modding the disk the hardware or the boot proccess of some sort

 

3. No cause apple doesnt do OEM

 

4. NO as same for all software .. the EULA is there and everyone that isnt a rtard should know that they exist there for either do as the owner says or hey dont use it dont instgall it cause the EULA says something along the lines of .,.."by installing this you agree to the terms

 

5. see 4 the EULA is not by passible by patten laws that is sol property of apple with the restrant that by the very fact that you are executing their code and application you are in agreement with thhe EULA

 

6. phystar is free to do this along with accepting charges if seen fit

same with apple could come after most anyone who does it including people here

 

They meant labeled by apple dont bend the truth thats for the justice system to do

[jaez]

APPLE RESPONDS TO PSYSTAR

 

http://www.macworld.com/article/135860/200...le_psystar.html

 

Macworld | Apple: Psystar's antitrust claims 'deeply flawed'

 

Oct 2, 2008 2:09 pm

 

Apple said that Psystar's argument that the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker had illegally tied Mac OS X with its own hardware was "deeply flawed" in a motion filed earlier this week. And the company wants a judge to dismiss Psystar's antitrust counterclaims.

 

.

.

.

 

Apple contends that antitrust laws can't be used to force it to license its OS to competitors. "One of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturer's unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act," the filing reads.

 

Sherman Act, huh?

 

I wonder why Microsoft didn't think about that argument?

 

 

Seems to me Apple's lawyers are confused.

 

The manufacturer has the right "to distribute its product" and decide "with whome it will deal", that's fine, but the MANUFACTURER HAS NO RIGHT TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM DEALING AND DISTRIBUTING. i.e. Psystar isn't asking Apple to help distribute to and deal with Psystar's constomers, eh?

 

If that's Apple's best argument, Psystar's won.

[Maxintosh]

I wonder why Microsoft didn't think about that argument?

Gee... maybe because it didn't apply to microsofts case?

 

but the MANUFACTURER HAS NO RIGHT TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM DEALING AND DISTRIBUTING.

Wrong again. Psystar has already shot themselves in the foot. In Psystar ads (and other companies ads) they have characterized the Apple Macintosh line as "just one product in a sea of PCs." In psystars own words that's hardly "anti-competitive" or a "monopoly". LOL

 

So jaez , tell us all how Apple is engaging in antitrust behavior by loading its own software on its own hardware and how that somehow (mystically) is harming consumers?

 

Tell us also why Apple should assist its competition, and/or be forced to prop up a competitor? No other business is forced to do this so why should Apple be the only exception, just because you selfishly want to illegally use their well made OS X OS? Please don't try to weasel out of answering, and state legal reasons for your conclusions, as that is what the judge will have to do in this case.

[jaez]

Gee... maybe because it didn't apply to microsofts case?

 

 

Wrong again. Psystar has already shot themselves in the foot. In Psystar ads (and other companies ads) they have characterized the Apple Macintosh line as "just one product in a sea of PCs." In psystars own words that's hardly "anti-competitive" or a "monopoly". LOL

 

The monopoly is in the "tying" of OSX to MAC.

 

So jaez , tell us all how Apple is engaging in antitrust behavior by loading its own software on its own hardware and how that somehow (mystically) is harming consumers?

 

They way you phrase that, obviously there's no problem. But, why would Apple want to stop Psystar selling a PC built from off-the-shelf components, that just happens to be able to run OSX, that, now, is a mystery. Perhaps, you could explain Apple's logic there, for us?

 

Tell us also why Apple should assist its competition, and/or be forced to prop up a competitor? No other business is forced to do this so why should Apple be the only exception, just because you selfishly want to illegally use their well made OS X OS? Please don't try to weasel out of answering, and state legal reasons for your conclusions, as that is what the judge will have to do in this case.

 

Nobody is asking for Apple's assistance.

 

When did Psystar call Apple to ask for help? I missed that one.

 

Nobody is forcing Apple, it is Apple that filed the first claim to try to stop Psystar from selling compatible computers.

 

I'm sure INTEL would love to use the court to force AMD to stop selling compatible CPUs. But, it ain't gonna happn.

 

INTEL created the microcode instruction set, it's their "software", was designed to run on their MICROPROCESSORS, why should AMD be able to sell alternate MICROPROCESSOR hardware to run the same INTEL software instruction code?

 

 

It's anti-competitive to try to stop the compatible hardware from being created and sold !

 

It's that simple.

 

The logic is so clear, it doesn't need fancy LEGALESE to dress it up to make it look more official.

 

Anybody can see this.

[John the Geek]

The monopoly is in the "tying" of OSX to MAC.

 

No, it's not. You still don't have a clue what a monopoly really is.

 

It's anti-competitive to try to stop the compatible hardware from being created and sold !

 

No, it's anti-competitive to break the laws to harm your competition. Psystar is the only company here which has broken any (real) laws. You can imagine Apple breaking any number of laws, but your evidence doesn't line up with the laws you're trying to convince yourself they broke.

[Maxintosh]

The monopoly is in the "tying" of OSX to MAC.

Sorry, but that's NOT correct. Apple, and every other company, is free to make products that work with their own products. There is nothing inherently illegal about that. Many companies do this, in fact they need to do this to stay in business. The law expressly allows for it.

 

 

They way you phrase that, obviously there's no problem.

Glad you're starting to wake up

 

But, why would Apple want to stop Psystar selling a PC built from off-the-shelf components, that just happens to be able to run OSX

Perhaps you missed the whole question regarding "why should Apple assist its competition, and/or be forced to prop up a competitor?

 

Nobody is asking for Apple's assistance.

Sorry, try again

 

Psystar is asking for Apples assistance by using OS X, which ONLY APPLE has paid millions for in its development. Why should any other company just swoop in and steal Apple fruits of their labor, now that OS X is the best OS? If ANY other company wants to use OS X then they need two things; 1) Ask for Apples permission, and 2) to fork over some cash to invest in OS X.

 

it is Apple that filed the first claim to try to stop Psystar from selling compatible computers.

And rightly so

 

I'm sure INTEL would love to use the court to force AMD to stop selling compatible CPUs. But, it ain't gonna happn.

You need to really pick up a book and read it. Intel DID try to stop AMD from that very thing, but the case was thrown out. Weird

 

The logic is so clear, it doesn't need fancy LEGALESE to dress it up to make it look more official.

LOL Sounds more like something you'd see a cartoon character, like Donald Duck say

 

As John the Geek has so rightly said, you are trying to convince yourself that Apple broke the law, but you have NO evidence to back it up. If you do then let's see it. If you can't post any facts then that should be your first clue as to where you're wrong

[NoSmokingBandit]

You need to really pick up a book and read it. Intel DID try to stop AMD from that very thing, but the case was thrown out. Weird

I really hate to talk to you again, but i must say one thing...

Doesnt this statement kill your entire argument?

Intel wanted to stop AMD from running intel-based software on non-intel hardware and they were dismissed. How is that different from apple trying to stop someone else from running apple-based code on non-apple hardware?

 

One thing im a bit confused about as well, you say Psystar stole apple's hard work by using their OS. Did Psystar not buy a license for each install they used? If they purchased a license they didnt steal anything. That would be like saying MadCatz cant make a 3rd party ps3 controller because they are stealing all the hard work sony put into engineering their controller.

[bwhsh8r]

they include a new install disk from apple, in apple packaging, theyre all licensed. its just the clause in apples eula stating that you can only install it on original apple hardware

[jaez]

Apple, and every other company, is free to make products that work with their own products.

 

Quite right. They are also free to make products that work with other manufacturer's products too. Just like Psystar does. Remember, Apple's Mac is built from many other manufacturer's products, the CPU is Intel, the Hard Drive, the RAM, the Network Chips, practically nothing is manufactured by Apple. It's all assembled by Apple the same way Psystar builds their machines.

 

 

Glad you're starting to wake up

 

I never went to sleep.

 

 

Perhaps you missed the whole question regarding "why should Apple assist its competition, and/or be forced to prop up a competitor?

 

The judge may well "force Apple to help" third party system builders to install OSX on alternative boxes. That may be one outcome of this case.

 

But, I don't think that's what Psystar was looking for.

 

 

Sorry, try again

 

Psystar is asking for Apples assistance by using OS X, which ONLY APPLE has paid millions for in its development. Why should any other company just swoop in and steal Apple fruits of their labor, now that OS X is the best OS? If ANY other company wants to use OS X then they need two things; 1) Ask for Apples permission, and 2) to fork over some cash to invest in OS X.

 

Psystar paid Apple for OSX. And they are allowed to transfer it to anyone they like. It even says so, in Apple's EULA.

 

 

Here's what the EULA says,

 

"you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"

 

So, as long as you "pay for OSX" , you can "sell it in the form you bought it" to any other person or company !!!

 

You don't need any "extra permission from Apple" to transfer that software.

 

 

 

 

 

You need to really pick up a book and read it. Intel DID try to stop AMD from that very thing, but the case was thrown out. Weird

 

Ahem! Heal thy self Max. Follow yer own advice. Read more.

 

Eventually, "understanding" comes to he who reads alot.

 

This judge will probably "throw out" Apples claims too.

 

 

As John the Geek has so rightly said, you are trying to convince yourself that Apple broke the law, but you have NO evidence to back it up. If you do then let's see it. If you can't post any facts then that should be your first clue as to where you're wrong

 

Hey, I'm not the one in court. Apple is. I don't have to convince anyone here. I only do what is right. Those that do wrong, find themselves in court expaining their acts to the judge.

 

[Maxintosh]

Doesnt this statement kill your entire argument?

No, obviously it reinforces it.

 

One thing im a bit confused about as well, you say Psystar stole apple's hard work by using their OS. Did Psystar not buy a license for each install they used?

You're confused because you are not keeping the conversation in context. Psystar bought copies of OS X DVD's, they did NOT help to pay for any OS X research or development. Big difference legally!

 

 

They are also free to make products that work with other manufacturer's products too.

Read what you yourself wrote. They are free to do that if they wish to, BUT they are NOT required by law to make anything compatible. Does a chevy engine directly fit in any Ford? DOH!!!

 

Apple's Mac is built from many other manufacturer's products, the CPU is Intel, the Hard Drive, the RAM, the Network Chips, practically nothing is manufactured by Apple.

Yeah key phrase "practically nothing" - as in the MOTHERBOARD and OPERATING SYSTEM

 

(not to mention the case, keyboard, monitor, etc. all the things that distinquish one computer model from another)

 

It's all assembled by Apple the same way Psystar builds their machines.

NO it's NOT! Show everyone here where you can buy the following;

• A Psystar designed and built motherboard.
  
• A Psystar designed and built keyboard.
  
• A Psystar designed and built mouse.
  
• A Psystar designed computer case.
  
• A Psystar designed Operating System.
  
• A Psystar designed and built monitor.
  

Psystar doesn't so anything unique that any other hobbyist here doesn't do when they build their own computer. Psystar just does it in larger quantity that's all.

 

I never went to sleep.

I beg to differ

 

That may be one outcome of this case.

Yes anything is possible. Legally though it is very unlikely that the judge will force Apple to do anything.

 

you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software to another party

Yeah, now all you have to do is learn the difference between license rights, and product code

 

I'm not the one in court. Apple is.

As is psystar

 

We've noticed that you repeatedly can't answer the question of "why should Apple assist its competition, and/or be forced to prop up a competitor"? That's OK, it verifies and proves that you don't understand what this case is about. However I assure you that the judge in this case will require an answer to that question from psystar, and when they can't supply one the judge will throw psystars case right out the window

[John the Geek]

Psystar paid Apple for OSX. And they are allowed to transfer it to anyone they like. It even says so, in Apple's EULA.

Here's what the EULA says,

 

"you may, however, make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party"

 

So, as long as you "pay for OSX" , you can "sell it in the form you bought it" to any other person or company !!!

 

You don't need any "extra permission from Apple" to transfer that software.

 

As usual, you are falsifying your argument in an attempt to bend reality to your favor. Your argument makes sense if we're only talking about Bob selling his individual copy of OS X, but we aren't. We're talking about Psystar selling OS X as if it were an official Apple distributer, which they clearly aren't.

 

You are also pretending that Psystar can buy a boxed OS X upgrade disc and install it on a non-Apple machine which did not ship with a Mac OS on it, which is also untrue. I know you don't think diddly-{censored} of Apple's EULA, but no one cares because - for now and the foreseeable future - it stands and is legal in the eyes of the law. I'm so confident that none of that will change that I'd bet my Mac Pro that Apple won't lose the case. (But then you think your $300 eMachine is so much better than a Mac Pro anyway, you wouldn't really want it.)

[Maxintosh]

also pretending that Psystar can buy a boxed OS X upgrade disc and install it on a non-Apple machine which did not ship with a Mac OS on it

Very key point.

 

It's amazing that when Macs were PPC no one bought a Mac and then was trying to install windows on it Apple has spent a lot of time and money tweaking the code of OS X into the superior OS that it now is. If another company wants to use OS X on their computers, they first need to ask Apple for their permission, which is what Dell did. Apple said no to them and Dell did not fight it because apparently Dell is much smarter than the basement run operation of psystar. Still I think that Apple should pick a PC manufacture and allow them to make a Mac clone. Apple does not want to do this because most PC manufactures crank out {censored} penny pinching computers, which would hurt Apples reputation. However if Apple laid down strict criteria about what should - and what shouldn’t - go into a well made Mac clone from said manufacture, then there would be a decent non-Apple Mac product available which would grow Apples market share. EFi-X could help Apple in the same way. If Apple comes out with a mid-priced mid-sized computer then it will hurt EFi-X. Time will tell who fills that market vacuum first.

[jaez]

As usual, you are falsifying your argument in an attempt to bend reality to your favor.

 

I'm not bending reality. Just stating it as is.

 

Your argument makes sense

 

We agree there.

 

 

if we're only talking about Bob selling his individual copy of OS X, but we aren't. We're talking about Psystar selling OS X as if it were an official Apple distributer, which they clearly aren't.

 

Psystar does "NOT CLAIM" to be an official distributer of Apple. Everybody knows Psystar is "challenging Apple" by selling compatible computers that are not particularly approved by Apple.

 

Psystar is saying "THEY DO NOT NEED APPLE'S APPROVAL TO SELL OPEN COMPUTERS".

 

Apple has a fantasy that they can prevent Psystar from selling computers that can run OSX.

 

And, of course, they are experimenting with that fantasy, testing the courts, to see how much wiggle room they have to make their position stick.

 

As is Psystar.

 

You are also pretending that Psystar can buy a boxed OS X upgrade disc and install it on a non-Apple machine which did not ship with a Mac OS on it,

 

This is what the court will decide. I know the "end user" can install OSX on a PC, but I'm not sure about the intermediate system's builder reseller. The EULA clearly says you "can't transfer a modified OSX to another user" !

 

Is that legal?

 

 

 

which is also untrue.

 

We shall see.

 

 

I know you don't think diddly-{censored} of Apple's EULA, but no one cares because

 

they do care. They responded, showing interest and concern, but they are unable to prove me wrong.

 

- for now and the foreseeable future - it stands and is legal in the eyes of the law.

 

Which law? I don't live in the US. Is there an international law that says "anything you put in an EULA is automatically LEGAL?" even if it's contrary to the principles and local laws of the consumer's jurisdiction of residence?

 

I'm so confident that none of that will change that I'd bet my Mac Pro that Apple won't lose the case. (But then you think your $300 eMachine is so much better than a Mac Pro anyway, you wouldn't really want it.)

 

I'm not confident about anything, the world is crazy, men start silly wars, pass ridiculuous bail out bills, and courts overturn court judgments all the time.

 

Who can say for certain what will be?

 

The only thing I'm sure about, is that I am right.

 

 

Apple said no to them and Dell did not fight it because apparently Dell is much smarter than the basement run operation of psystar.

 

Apple was too small for DELL to care way back then.

 

More profits to make selling Windows PCs.

 

Psystar has a different business focus. They are interested in the "niche products."

[Maxintosh]

Apple was too small for DELL to care way back then.

Now you've just proved that you are talking out of your butt. Do you even know what the word 'small' means? Even back in 2006 Apple was worth more than Dell. Dell stock is only worth 15.25 a share while Apple stock has grown to a whopping 97.07! Apple has $86 billion in market capital and Dell only has 29 Billion. Apple has an annual growth rate of 92% a year! 92%!!! Like I said, you might want to pick up a book and read it sometime. Learning the facts (instead of spreading your uninformed rhetoric) is a wonderful thing

 

Psystar has a different business focus.

Yeah, like ripping other companies off

[DiGiCiD@L]

Now you've just proved that you are talking out of your butt. Do you even know what the word 'small' means? Even back in 2006 Apple was worth more than Dell. Dell stock is only worth 15.25 a share while Apple stock has grown to a whopping 97.07!

 

Although the rest of your argument is accurate, it should be noted that a stocks price-per-share is of absolutely no value in comparison. Note: I'm not saying that Apple isn't or wasn't worth more than Dell, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument. If I have a public company with 100M publicly offered shares which all sell for $1/share and someone else has an offering of 10M shares at $10/share - their company is NOT worth 10X what my company is worth... even though their stock price is 10X what mine is per share.

 

Of course, in this wonderful time we live in today... neither of these is necessarily worth a $2 cup of coffee - because stock price and actual value are only very rarely tied to the actual value of a traded company... which is why we're up a certain creek without a paddle right now.

 

However, on your main argument - you are quite correct... the reason that DELL did not fight Apple - despite the fact that selling Apple clones would have meant a great deal of extra revenue to them was that Apple said "no" and DELL (wisely) decided that it wasn't worth the risk and bad publicity to get in a huge legal battle with Apple, Inc. - Psystar is in quite a different position because they basically have nothing to lose. Apple could have won a huge settlement against a company like Dell... potentially hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars... If they take everything Psystar has... it won't even come close to paying for Apple's legal expenses thus far... let alone at the end if it actually goes through the entire legal process.

[jaez]

Now you've just proved that you are talking out of your butt. Do you even know what the word 'small' means? Even back in 2006 Apple was worth more than Dell.

 

Like I said, Apple was too small for Dell to care.

 

Dell wasn't comparing Apple to Dell, but Apple to Microsoft.

 

There were bigger fish in the sea.

 

And fatter profits from the other fish.

 

Apple was not worth the bother.

 

 

 

From Psystar's point of view, there are too many systems builders in the Windows/PC space already, how can Psystar distinguish itself from the crowd?

 

There's no crowd in the OSX/Mac space, because Apple has "a monopoly" on the hardware there.

 

So, a new startup systems builder has more chance of making a name for itself going up against Apple now, than to fight with the other Microsoft fishes.

 

 

Psystar could well become the Dell of the Apple-compatible hardware space.

 

[slacker25]

@jaez

 

A Monopoly of Tying would be if apple and M$ got together and made it so that windows could only be installed on apple.

This would be because the rights to have windows on prretty much everything has been givin alrerady but if M$ had never done that it would be in their rights to lock it down and hey mighta been better OS in doing so.Apple the legal OWNER of OSX ...... A.K.A ... not YOU!!!!!!!!!! so get over your hippie "im entitled cause i want my way thinking" ......and apple has the right to retain how their property is used or if it is even used.

 

 

the apple hardware is not off the shelf there is custom alterations that was requested from apple for certain performance they want... same can be said as for the ppc there was mutliple other ppc computers out there i think even sun made some that didnt make them a mac.