Really Apple shouldn't really worry whether it wins or not. The main thing for them is perceive control or their Mac experience" (for what that's worth). On the other hand, if I was Microsoft, I sure as heck would file a friend of the defendant motion and sure as heck hope Apple wins. OS-X being unleashed as a legal OEM offered option into any Intel desktop might be a real threat to Win 7 from above just like linux distro's are getting a beach-head in the netbook realm from below. Even if Apple charges an armload for a Leopard license and grants no support or guarantee, many may make the jump especially if an OEM does...rather like many do with Linux distro's in a niche (but growing) market.

I believe that Apple clone-makers would have a reasonable leg to stand on in this matter.

IBM went through a similar situation with Amdahl & Hitachi installing MVS on mainframe clone hardware. Or maybe it was that IBM couldn't legally stop corporations from buying MVS and installing it on the hardware of their choice. I'm sure a little Googling will find the details.

The IBM Consent Decree of 1956 may be a parallel to the issues Apple faces in this matter. This Consent Decree was enforced (in whole/part) for 40 years. Apple could be found in violation of the Sherman Act.

I imagine OSX struggling to run in crazy hardware setups, and unfriendly markets like Russia and China. Unfortunately its not going to happen. Macs are meant to be overly expensive fashion accessories that can only exist in safe environments.

I hope they retain their restricted platform. Every developer is grateful for restricted software / hardware to test upon - that's why consoles are so much preferred to PC's nowadays. The developers can produce and test software much more quickly. After all, testing takes about 80% of projecttime if done right.
As a user, I hope they get off their horse and start selling Core2Duo upgradeable boxes that look good and are priced reasonably =)

Apple UnFanBoy using PC (Core2Duo - AsRock - gaming rig, of course) and Mac (Dual 2GHz G5 - graphics and development workhorse)

OSX isn't sold; it's licensed for use on Apple hardware. Installing it on non-Apple hardware breaks that license agreement which means you can't run the OS.

I'm wondering if there is a law for such a prohibition. Since OSX is sold on retail, Apple cannot restrict its usage. It can however deny support and break the warranty restrictions if it is installed on a different machine than its own. But I dont think that there is a law to ensure this right.

As is with whichever appliance you buy, the manufacturer cannot forbid its usage, rather than provide the suggested and recommended patterns of use. Besides that it can have no other control.

If PSystar is legitimitely buying the s/w and does not ask Apple for support of the s/w on its machines, then I see no problem.

Yay, verily I say unto you...

Beware of fat bastards, which come to you in geek's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening suits.

Maybe it's me... I just don't get it. I don't see why Apple can't sell Mac OS X is anyone that wants it but offer no warranty on non-Apple branded machines that is, simply sell a boxed bit of software that says "Supported by all Apple (x86) Branded Computers". Also, Apple must absolutely NOT run a "Ready for Max OS X type campaign"! All I see is a revenue stream... is this really going to kill sales of their laptops? I doubt it but my mum would sure love to run OSX on her cheapo Tosh (lot of machine for 300 quid).... and why not eh? If I take the risk of installing it for her and it works.... what's the problem? OEMs??? I doubt they'll do that.

Apple needs to pay for its abuses.

There is no good reason to force everyone who wants to use their OS to use their hardware, especially now that Mac OS runs on commodity Intel hardware.

If Psystar wins, that means more choice for consumers. If you want to be a slave to Apple and buy Apple hardware, that will still be your choice. But the rest of us will have more freedom.

And prices will come down.

The people will win. The corporations will lose. That's what's at stake.

I don't think this will significantly hurt Apples' interests. I hope the ruling goes in favour of Psystar.

Psystar basically if for geeks. The Apple Faithful wouldn't risk buying one; you can palpably hear the cries of "shuuuuuuunnn, shuuuunnnn, shuuuunnn the unbelieverrrrr" from their fellow cultists.

No. Psystar fills a gap that Apple does not cater for. A Psystar sale does not translate to an Apple sale should Psystar not exist... I think the people who buy Psy wouldn't buy an Apple necessarily anyway. They don't care about image, they care about the tech.

Frankly, if I were Apple I would work out some sort of a deal with them. It can only be a good thing to get OS-X into as many hands as possible, after all most of those sales are sales Apple would not have should Psy not exist.

If this goes through, this will be the final piece in the puzzle that allows consumers to choose what OS they want on their desktop without having to buy into entire platforms. No more "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" bullshit.

Apple has less than 10% of the market yet half (if not more) the money of Microsoft.The reason for this is the Apple tax. If this case goes the distance and Apple loses then they are in a for a bit of a financial knock...

For all the things that Apple is, is NOT, and represents - I hope this is one case that goes the distance.

OSX is much superior to any windows OS on a self repair, stability and general user friendliness level. Would be good to see more people using it.

"Apple's union of software and hardware is there to guarantee an intended level of user experience as long as other boxes are ticked..." If that is the case then Apple can provide a list of hardware combinations that it certifies works with it's software. The same as Microsoft does, and the motherboard makers do for RAM compatibility. Apple do NOT want this, because instead of charging a few hundred dollars per pc like they do right now, they could only charge 10 to 50 bucks.

If the playing field was levelled, and we had some fair competition of OS's, then YOU would see Apple's OS for what it truly is, instead of being blinded by the shiny white box in the shiny shop. Apple has their place, and I believe they make a good product, it's just a bit overpriced. Competition would improve the product and reduce the price. And it would actually benefit Apple in the long run.

At the risk of sounding like a fanboi - i hope Apple wins this one. Nobody bashes Nokia's door for it's software, or SonyEricsson for that matter. If people want to force Apple's hand, Apple has enough fans to support it's business even if it switches back to propietary hardware. Apple's union of software and hardware (like Nokia/SonyEricsson etc) is there to guarantee an intended level of user experience as long as other boxes are ticked. Apple cannot guarantee user experience if it cannot manage the delivery of said experience. Ask Microshite about user experience if you don't believe me.

Doesn't anyone remember Power Computing 10 years ago? Apple fixed that ill-conceived cloning problem... by buying them and shutting them down.

The problem with Mac clones is that the beige boxes are completely opposite what Apple's target audience is. Apple's core users carry the white laptops like a fashion accessory, not a productivity tool. It's a way for them to say they are different, just like all their friends.

Apple's way out is to make use of that nice PowerPC line they picked up when they bought PASemi some time back. Proprietary hardware = no software piracy. Also those PASemi powerPCs were very quick and very low power.

Apple buying PASemi to make chips for iPhones doesn't make sense. Apple buying PASemi to get a top notch lappie/desktop CPU line does.

that the case will be deader than a door nail. Would stand a better chance if it were happening in Europe with the competition comission.

Efros

This is good news to a degree, though apple will shaking , ill monitor further updates =)