I find it hard to believe that any court could find the manufacturer of an OS that holds 10% or less of the market to be in violation of antitrust rules. Yes, OS-X has some features that Windows doesn't have. And Windows has features that OS-X doesn't. And Ubuntu does things that neither of them will do. This sounds like a desperate strategy because they don?t have anything else.

On the other hand we ARE talking about the US justice system so anything could happen.

" At issue is whether Apple has exclusive rights to Mac OS X"

I don't understand how it could be any other way, isn't OSX Apple's creation?

It's kind of like complaining that Dell doesn't make parts for ThinkPads

Well, Apple could just as easily (turn of phrase, not necessarily evaluated for practicality) move the entire OS back onto the ROM chip and wipe out the whole "software" issue. I the the OS is part of the hardware, and only Apple has access to the hardware, it would pretty much make moot Psystar's dying grasp at a straw here.

Would Apple do such a thing? I doubt it. OS on ROM is passe. It's so 2 decades ago. Apple has been allowed to control the widget now for 20 years, give or take the brief flirtation with clones in the 90s that turned into an unmitigated flop.

I think a judge or panel of them will see that this is nothing more than a revenue stealing ploy, trying to cash in at another's expense, without their permission, or any sort of licensing agreement. It will end up costing Psystar their business for their lack of vision and unwillingness to do something of their own accord instead of "borrowing" (I didn't say stealing) somebody else's ideas.

I can't see Psystar winning although it was bound to happen eventually since Apple is using PC components. Hopefully after this is over and Apple wins, I'd almost bet that the challenges and claims Psystar makes will only make Apple improve their defense and make their EULA, copyrights, trademarks and patents that much more impenetrable. Once the new chip designs with P.A. Semi and the improved ARM designs it should be more difficult for Psystar to offer these "counterfeit" Macs as I see 'em!

Apple could also chose not to sell OSX as an upgrade at all or only to people who can prove they have bought a previous Mac before. Apple could also implement tiered pricing.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
Well, Apple could just as easily (turn of phrase, not necessarily evaluated for practicality) move the entire OS back onto the ROM chip and wipe out the whole "software" issue. I the the OS is part of the hardware, and only Apple has access to the hardware, it would pretty much make moot Psystar's dying grasp at a straw here.

Would Apple do such a thing? I doubt it. OS on ROM is passe. It's so 2 decades ago. Apple has been allowed to control the widget now for 20 years, give or take the brief flirtation with clones in the 90s that turned into an unmitigated flop.

I think a judge or panel of them will see that this is nothing more than a revenue stealing ploy, trying to cash in at another's expense, without their permission, or any sort of licensing agreement. It will end up costing Psystar their business for their lack of vision and unwillingness to do something of their own accord instead of "borrowing" (I didn't say stealing) somebody else's ideas.

I would speculate that this won't go to trial, that psystar will stop selling their clones, and that there will be a non-disclosure agreement in the settlement thereby leaving us all in the dark as to what "really" happened.

End result, Apple retains rights to its intellectual property, and psystar closes its doors.

I think psystar is like a tick landing itself on a large dog. Yes, the tick gets fed, grows larger, gets noticed, gets removed and squashed.

It's not a revenue stealing scheme.

It's a blackmail scheme.

They're hoping Apple is scared by the "And antitrust issues come into play, too." issue and will pay them off.