Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Psystar Amends Complaint here
Page 1 of 1
Psystar Amends Complaint
MultiQuote
#5
rgreen4 
- Moderator
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 7,735
- Joined: 22-October 06
- Location:S. Georgia
Posted 28 February 2009 - 10:30 AM
This will be interesting to watch and there is actually a precident involved. The IBM case from the 1960's.
At that time when you leased an IBM mainframe (few purchased them in those days even if they could), the operating system was provided as part of the package (sound familiar). Now while IBM was not the only manufacturer of mainframe computers, they did have the dominant market share (unlike Apple) and so they were sued by the other providers of mainframe operating systems. IBM either lost or finally capitulated and signed a consent decree agreeing that they would provide no operating system with the computers they sold for a period of years.
The reason this is interesting, is that up until and even after the IBM PC was introduced every other Micro Computer (as they were referred to then as the term PC meant the one and only IBM PC) came with an operating system as part of the package. IBM PC compatibles (or clones) were generally provided with MS-DOS, most of those based on the Z-80 chip came with CP/M, and I don't know what the Apple II came with. Only with the IBM PC did you have to purchase a separate OS, generally PC-DOS (variant of MS-DOS), but some purchased CP/M at the beginning because of it's dominance in the early years among the other Micro Computers.
While today, most personal computers come with an operating system not only provided as part of the purchase, but pre-installed. But, only the Apple Mac comes with an operating system written by the same company that manufactures the hardware.
It's ironic that Microsoft if they sued Apple would have a direct correlation to the IBM case, and Apple would have a difficult time defending against the precedent. Psystar is trying the opposite tack, as they want the software without the hardware, whereas the IBM case people wanted the hardware sold without the software.
At that time when you leased an IBM mainframe (few purchased them in those days even if they could), the operating system was provided as part of the package (sound familiar). Now while IBM was not the only manufacturer of mainframe computers, they did have the dominant market share (unlike Apple) and so they were sued by the other providers of mainframe operating systems. IBM either lost or finally capitulated and signed a consent decree agreeing that they would provide no operating system with the computers they sold for a period of years.
The reason this is interesting, is that up until and even after the IBM PC was introduced every other Micro Computer (as they were referred to then as the term PC meant the one and only IBM PC) came with an operating system as part of the package. IBM PC compatibles (or clones) were generally provided with MS-DOS, most of those based on the Z-80 chip came with CP/M, and I don't know what the Apple II came with. Only with the IBM PC did you have to purchase a separate OS, generally PC-DOS (variant of MS-DOS), but some purchased CP/M at the beginning because of it's dominance in the early years among the other Micro Computers.
While today, most personal computers come with an operating system not only provided as part of the purchase, but pre-installed. But, only the Apple Mac comes with an operating system written by the same company that manufactures the hardware.
It's ironic that Microsoft if they sued Apple would have a direct correlation to the IBM case, and Apple would have a difficult time defending against the precedent. Psystar is trying the opposite tack, as they want the software without the hardware, whereas the IBM case people wanted the hardware sold without the software.
Page 1 of 1
