Um, Yea. If Microsoft is getting sued and fined for including its own software on its operating system, I do not see how it is any different. Its not letting manufacturers use its OS on their hardware.

Also, OSX includes a browser, that doesnt give users a choice when using it. iLife suite? That gives people reason not to buy adobe video editing software or other companies. They should get sued and have to pay a big fine

@advanceking

I have no idea if you're being sarcastic or if you're actually stupid.

Anyway, PyStar is what's called a "leech". Go build some crappy Windows-based or Linux-based PCs and be done with it.

I'm gonna sue Ferrari cause its engine doesn't fit in my Porsche 911. Maybe I should sue also Louis Vuitton cause I want the LV monogram on my Gucci bag :)

Haters start your engines. Tomorrow, I'm down with Yoko.

I've been waiting for Apple to be sued on a number of fronts inlcuding it's monopolistic practices as well as it's false claims in their adverts.

advanceking is correct

iomatic - obviously an Apple fanboy

romanzy - your analogy is incorrect, you would be more accurate to say that Ferrari only runs on Mobil gas and you want to sue them because you prefer Citgo gas ALSO LV and YSL and Gucci are trademarks as is the Apple logo they can all use leather to make purses and shoes but they can not use other co's trademarks to label those products Psystar doesn't want to use the Apple logo on their computers they just want to make them out of "leather"

Apple is the USSR of computers - totally closed off from everyone else yet bent on domination (despite the inevitable failure)

I can't see why anyone would be willing to limit themselves whilst being "bent over" and price gouged by using Apple products

I find it odd that Pystar would wait until now to file such a suit, and for that matter, tie it to Snow Leopard of all things. It's only an incremental update.

Yes, Apple is walking a fine line, sometimes one step beyond it. I agree to the first poster, even though he might be sarcastic.

Apple is bundeling not only their mp3-Players to their own software, also they do it with their iPhone Applications, they also bundle their very OS to their very own Hardware.

Technically there is no reason for that; its business politics.

For good reason on behalf, with bad consequences for the user on the other hand.

But we have learned by history, have we?

Those technologies will survive which are "available".

No matter if it is a pirated MS Windows, a free/librare Linux or an affordable OS X.

Who has the best cards in this game?

Depends on how loyal your customers are, if you are playing the commercial game :-)

Lets see.

I am not a slave to any brand, person or system.
Are you?

Dennis

I agree with the original poster and Dennis's comment about being a bit sarcastic. Apples practice would be the equivalent to MS saying that their OS is only able to be installed on Dell PC, even though as we can plainly see the software is capable of being applied to other systems. Apple was guarded at one time under the PPC hardware since it was proprietary and gave apple grounds to stand on as no other systems were using that hardware.

However the moment that Apple launched themselves into the Intel market and if you have ever been to Project OSX86 you can see how adaptable the OS X system is even for non Apple hardware. The last basis that apple has at this point is perhaps the EFI system they use (the grey boot screen). And even then Apple provided that to the programming community, yes Apple GAVE the source code out to be dissected and in a way I think of apple as the baby daddy to Pystar.

And in todays time Apple is standing behind the EULA for their softeware as the last line of defense. I would recomment lookin up the iTunes and Safari for Windows EULA when it was first ported over. It atually said that the iTunes for Windows was only to be installed on Apple hardware.

There is also a Euro company doing the same thing Pystar is doing but over there its legal. This country has given software and large corp's pretty much free reign over "intelluctual property" even at the costs of the legit purchaser/end user. Similar to the fact that I have a legal right to make a back up of my property (CD's, DVDs, and so forth) However it is illegal to make and sell software that would allow me to do just that. (See Real Networks court case against the MPAA over its Dvd copy software.

Bottom Line I do not see Pystar "winning" in this. But I would love this to loosen apples trying to play the underdog just cause they price them selves outside of the general market