Psystar emboldens "OpeniMac" copycat clone maker

[AppleInsider]

With unsanctioned clone maker Psystar still pushing its knock-off Macs in the face of ongoing litigation, another company is testing Apple's legal resolve and treading on its trademarks in the process through sales of a pair of new "OpeniMac" systems.

It's not immediately clear who's behind the latest effort spotted by Engadget, but the Argentinean-based dealer has dubbed its systems the "OpeniMac" despite their lack of an all-in-one design. It's also constructed a snazzy website to promote them.

For $990, the dealer is offering a 2.53GHz "OpeniMac" with 3 MB of shared L2 cache, 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 320 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, and an ATI Radeon HD PRO with 256 MB of video memory GDDR3. Another $340 will get you a 19-inch LG LCD display to go along with it.

A high-end offering, conveniently called the "OpeniMac Pro," is priced at $1710 and comes with a 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6 MB of shared L2 cache, 4 GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 500 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, a NVIDIA GeForce GS with 1 GB of GDDR3 video memory, and "a brilliant" 20-inch LG widescreen display.

The OpeniMac website even takes a swipe at the performance of Apple's systems, displaying a series of benchmark graphs comparing the company's official offerings to their unauthorized alternatives.

Last month, a California judge threw out Psystar's countersuit against Apple, leaving the Mac maker free of opposition in pursuing charges against the clone maker that include trademark and copyright infringement.



This week, Apple added a new charge and contested in court documents that it believes Psystar is part of a larger plot with some bigger names pulling the strings.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[JeffDM]

A: Let's infringe on another trademark!
B: Brilliant! That couldn't possibly go wrong?
A: We is smart ain't we?

[Jimzip]

This is fascinating actually ... and for some reason I'm intrigued by the possibility of a real-life evil organisation pulling the strings from the shadows...

Though I think I know who's behind it all: http://tinyurl.com/evilmastermind

Jimzip

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

A: Let's infringe on another trademark!
B: Brilliant! That couldn't possibly add to the damages!

I think the AI article headline is misleading. It implies that Psystar is involved with this latest "openiMac", but as far as I can tell, it isn't. AI just means that the existence of Psystar has encouraged other people to follow in its footsteps.

On to the openiMac: those are fairly rubbish specs for the price. Dell's $949 desktop has a quad-core 2.66 GHz Core i7, 3 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD, 16x DVD burner and 256 MB ATI Radeon 3450 HD.

[elroth]

I don't know if these people think they are protected because they're in Argentina, but this is amazingly blatant. I wonder if Apple has registered the iMac trademark in Argentina, or if it really matters?

To Apple Insider - what does Psystar have to do with this? Saying "Psystar spawns OpeniMac..." in the headline is not true, unless you know something you're not telling us. What's the connection?

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

I think the AI article is misleading. It implies that Psystar is involved with this latest "openiMac", but as far as I can tell, it isn't. AI just means that the existence of Psystar has encouraged other people to follow in its footsteps

I was about to say the same thing. Speculation remains one of the weakest parts of the stories (I won't call them "reporting") posted on AI.

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I was about to say the same thing. Speculation remains one of the weakest parts of the stories (I won't call them "reporting") posted on AI.

I don't think it's speculation on the part of AI, rather than a poor choice of words/phrasing.

[ebrownPDX]

The timing is very interesting for all of this but perhaps this is part of what Apple is referring to in its expanded suit. I'm not sure what sort of person legitimately believes that Apple has no trademark or patent ownership from which to defend its designs Setting up businesses that blatantly taunt Apple into going after them is a pathologically stupid way to make a living. Since the beginning, none of this has made sense to me, especially now that the courts have all but given the green light to destroy these players.

Taking Apple's claims at face value, vague as they are, the fact that there seem to be a number of these operators out in the wild working off the same shaky legal footing lends some credence to their paranoia. The larger question is who would do this and what could they possibly hope to gain from it?

[ Update ] I, too, don't buy that this has any true relation to Psystar other than referentially. There may be a group advising/pushing/paying for this sort of Quixotic lunacy but Psystar it ain't.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

I was about to say the same thing. Speculation remains one of the weakest parts of the stories (I won't call them "reporting") posted on AI.

I don't agree with you guys, or I'd happily change the title. And we're back to this nonsense again, Spam? Claiming we don't do our homework? Claiming speculation when there is none?

There's nothing in the article that's speculative. I value you as a member of the community, but please man... All the title implies is that the existence of Psystar has "spawned" ( essentially given birth to) another Mac copycat dealer.

I guess we could use "emboldens" but I still don't agree that there's something wrong with our title.

K

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Kasper

There's nothing in the article that's speculative. I value you as a member of the community, but please man... All the title implies is that the existence of Psystar has "spawned" ( essentially given birth to) another Mac copycat dealer.

To spawn does invoke a sense that Psystar is directly responsible for OpeniMac's existence. Engenders, triggers, inspires, prompts, foments and give rise to are the words and phrase that come to my mind to mean that Psystar may have been a catalyst for, but clearly isn't directly involved in the genesis of OpeniMac.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Kasper

I don't agree with you guys, or I'd happily change the title. And we're back to this nonsense again, Spam? Claiming we don't do our homework? Claiming speculation when there is none?

There's nothing in the article that's speculative. I value you as a member of the community, but please man... All the title implies is that the existence of Psystar has "spawned" ( essentially given birth to) another Mac copycat dealer.

I guess we could use "emboldens" but I still don't agree that there's something wrong with our title.

K

Perhaps the new company was inspired by the existence of Psystar, but in either case, it's speculation stated as fact. If it is so, name the source.

I'm encouraged by AI participation of readers in the storywriting process. It helps keep speculation in check and adds detail if it is missing.

If you want to call it reporting, follow the standards of reporting. If you want to call it opinion, label it as such.

Also, I've seen AppleInsider quoted on numerous web sites as an authority on all things Apple. I'd love for you to continue to grow this site and especially love it if more stringent requirements were enforced for story submission and editing for content.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Perhaps the new company was inspired by the existence of Psystar, but in either case, it's speculation unsupported by facts. I'm encouraged by AI participation of readers in the storywriting process. It helps keep speculation in check and adds detail if it is missing.

If you want to call it reporting, follow the standards of reporting. If you want to call it opinion, label it as such.

Well I've changed the title and I hope you guys find it more suitable.

Best,

K

[davidandru]

I would be ashamed to run OS X on something that looks like a piece if junk like these machines do.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Kasper

Well I've changed the title and I hope you guys find it more suitable.

While that is a better choice, it's your site and your business, so feel free to ignore any dissenters, including me and this post.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Kasper

Well I've changed the title and I hope you guys find it more suitable.

Best,

K

It's better, but it still implies a connection between the two companies. I don't know if this new company would have done this regardless of the actions of Psystar. Still reads as speculation on the part of AI.

Take care, K.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by solipsism

While that is a better choice, it's your site and your business, so feel free to ignore any dissenters, including me and this post.

Honest feedback is important, especially if you believe journalistic integrity is important. Do you view AI as a rumor mill or as a source for accurate stories that may be referred to by other sites, which could potentially result in millions of dollars of devaluation to AAPL stock?

I prefer harsh criticism of inaccuracies in reporting. It's my ass on the line too as an investor. If something is reported that adversely affects the stock and it's true, that's one thing.

[webhead]

Originally Posted by elroth

I don't know if these people think they are protected because they're in Argentina, but this is amazingly blatant. I wonder if Apple has registered the iMac trademark in Argentina, or if it really matters?

To Apple Insider - what does Psystar have to do with this? Saying "Psystar spawns OpeniMac..." in the headline is not true, unless you know something you're not telling us. What's the connection?

Embolden/spawn sounds OK to me. Psystar's actions have obviously helped fuel the rise of other equally stupid companies, whether direct or indirect.

[Fast Fred 1]

Originally Posted by Jimzip

This is fascinating actually ... and for some reason I'm intrigued by the possibility of a real-life evil organisation pulling the strings from the shadows...

Though I think I know who's behind it all: http://tinyurl.com/evilmastermind

Jimzip

Hey, leave Bill Clinton out of this.

[zmonster]

Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.

THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Do you view AI as a rumor mill or as a source for accurate stories that may be referred to by other sites, which could potentially result in millions of dollars of devaluation to AAPL stock?

As both, but except for the financial articles pretty much all the stories can be found at any number of other sites. I come here mainly for the forum posters which seem to have less children and more well informed adults—such as yourself—than other, similar Apple-centric sites. MacRumors posters are as bad as Digg, IMO.

[VinitaBoy]

I trust Apple will jump on these guys much quicker than they did with Pisstar. They've already laid the legal foundation in Florida and done most of the rudimentary paperwork, so this suit should (I hope) proceed post haste!

[floccus]

Originally Posted by zmonster

Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.

THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.

Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.

[Shookster]

That thing is so UGLY. I'm about to throw up just looking at it.

[Johhny Motel]

Originally Posted by zmonster

Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.

THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.

Trouble is $999 might only be worth $99 in a few months....

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

It's better, but it still implies a connection between the two companies. ...

This is just wrong.

I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.

[wilco]

Originally Posted by davidandru

I would be ashamed to run OS X on something that looks like a piece if junk like these machines do.

That says more about you than it does about the computer.

[Clive At Five]

Originally Posted by zmonster

Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.

THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.

Except that Apple wouldn't make a ton of money... because no one would buy an OS for $999 when they can buy a computer AND OS for $599... or less on eBay. There's a way for Apple to make money on a "system-builder's" OS X and neither $999 nor $599 is a reasonable price. $299 would eliminate the competition of clones, yet still let prosumer hobbyist nerds like me build their ideal Mac without legal infringement.

Originally Posted by floccus

Because that would more than likely be seen as an unfair trade practice and actually help Psystar and others who wish to litigate.

Hahaha, you said it.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

This is just wrong.

I don't know what the first phrasing Kasper used was, but "emboldens" in no way shape or form implies a connection between the companies. You are just wrong to think so.

We used "spawns" initially, but it's not a big deal. People like to nitpick and that is fine. It's true the feedback helps make us a better publication. The fact remains that there were zero clone makers pushing Mac systems before Psystar hit the scene. Some may call it speculation to say the recent influx of clone makers (there are more coming that we haven't reported on yet) is a result of Psystar's efforts, while some will argue that the connection is pretty sound. Either way, lets just stick to discussing the topic at hand from here

Best,

Kasper

[mitchell_pgh]

Show me a Mac where I can add a second internal hard drive for under 2,799.

And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.

[sflocal]

Originally Posted by zmonster

Why doesn't Apple just sanction use of OSX on non-Mac computers, and charge $999/copy for it.

THEN, these rip-off artists will be forced to pay Apple $999 for every computer they ship, and Apple will make a TON of money, avoid the lawsuits, and everybody is happy. Done.

Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.

This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.

Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by Shookster

That thing is so UGLY. I'm about to throw up just looking at it.

AGREED!

Where is the all-in-one enclosure that makes the iMac an iMac???

Apple should sue them on the basis of libel and the defamation of the word and product - iMac!

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Show me a Mac where I can add a second internal hard drive for under 2,799.

And, yes, these computers look horrible. But I really don't care when it's hiding under my desk.

We always think that everyone else think the same way we do. In reality, we are the minority and the majority don't care about adding RAM, another HDD, or upgrading their processor. The majority stick with what they have until they need a new machines. I mean just go to Best Buy or Apple store and listen to questions asked by people buying computers.

Furthermore, most people don't want to go through the trouble of installing a new HDD and would buy an external HDD instead (more flexible and portable).

[archer75]

Originally Posted by sflocal

Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX. They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.

This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.

Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.

Wouldn't make any difference. Copy protection of any form can be cracked easily. Not selling copies doesn't matter as your mac comes with a restore disc which will be posted online for download.
Hackintosh's are easy to build, as you can see other companies are forming to sell this desktops running OSX. Really the only choice for apple is to mount a pile of legal fees fighting all these or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.

[PersonMan]

Originally Posted by sflocal

Apple should just remove the ability to purchase retail copies of OSX.

Then how do you propose that legitimate Apple owners upgrade the operating system?

They should develop some type of authentication system (horror!!) that would validate the authenticity of the hardware upon installation.

They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.

This really sucks but it would pretty much do away with all these knock-off makers once and for all. The binaries could be locked to a specific serial# or an unlock code could be given to unlock the binaries which uses the system serial# as part of the encryption key.

And nuke one of the major reasons to switch to the Mac? To get away from the idiocy that is Windows Product Activation that DOES NOTHING to deter piracy and only serves to annoy legitimate purchasers? And besides, this would not stop the clone makers. In fact, people who purchased a clone would likely not even have to deal with the above mess while those of us who were "dumb enough to buy the real thing" get to have fun with the hassle.

Dunno. But it is getting pretty ridiculous that Apple is having to defend its property and spending all the time and effort fighting these lowlifes when it could be put to better use like improving its product line.

The programmers and engineers designing and implementing the Macintosh system and operating systems have nothing to do with defending Apple's property. Apple has a team of lawyers doing this for them. This is diverting no resources from research and development, as far as anyone can tell.

What would take away from improving its product line is developing the above system that you propose. Then it becomes a matter of wasting resources on constantly "improving" the defenses against piracy that could be better spent improving the actual operating system.

[PersonMan]

Originally Posted by archer75

or offer a midrange tower that people want and lower prices. Or make OSX available for other computers. Until they do that these companies will pop up all over and people will still build hackintosh's.

If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.

[archer75]

Originally Posted by PersonMan

They already do this. How do you think that a standard install is blocked from installing on non-Apple hardware? It's not just emulating EFI. They do have to hack the authentication system.

That's not true. There is no authentication system. With EFI a retail copy of OSX will install fine, assuming the hardware is supported. Trust me.

[archer75]

Originally Posted by PersonMan

If you think that offering a midrange tower and lowering prices would stop others from trying this you're sorely mistaken. Litigating and making examples of these early attempts is the only thing that will keep this stuff at bay.

Others could try but it would do no good. Not if you can buy direct from apple, get the product you want and for the same price. Then there would be absolutely no reason to buy from anyone else.

[bwik]

Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.

If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.

The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.

And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!

[FuturePastNow]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

For $990, the dealer is offering a 2.53GHz "OpeniMac" with 3 MB of shared L2 cache, 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 320 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, and an ATI Radeon HD PRO with 256 MB of video memory GDDR3. Another $340 will get you a 19-inch LG LCD display to go along with it.

A high-end offering, conveniently called the "OpeniMac Pro," is priced at $1710 and comes with a 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 6 MB of shared L2 cache, 4 GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 500 GB Serial ATA 7200 rpm drive, an 8X SuperDrive, a NVIDIA GeForce GS with 1 GB of GDDR3 video memory, and "a brilliant" 20-inch LG widescreen display

That's actually insanely overpriced. I could build either of those machines for about half of what they're charging.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by bwik

Apple is still in a weak position with regards to these clone makers.

If Apple does not want people using their personal freedom to deploy their Mac OS X on machines they see fit, the Apple should not sell the product. No one is forcing them to sell Mac OS X to consumers. It is a high bar for Apple to jump to actually close down another private business. This is a form of violence (say, a police shutdown) that the government is generally extremely reluctant to do.

The government only shuts you down if it has crystal clear, very good reasons. Here, those reasons are not available. Apple has to prove it is wildly different than Microsoft's ubiquitous "open hardware" model. Apple has proved nothing of the sort.

And I am a stockholder so I do hope Apple makes lots of money!

No Apple is not in a weak position. My brothers uses to shimmy up the pole and connect their cable for free. Because they could didn't mean it was legal. Consumer do NOT have the right to deploy OS X on whatever computer they want any more than I can drive my car on whatever road I wish. No one is forcing them to sell the Mac OS but in turn no one is forcing you to buy if you don't like the limitation of the OS being tied to Apple's hardware.

Microsoft does not make hardware and they protect their IP investment with serialization and validation methods that Apple doesn't do. Microsoft and Intel are no more open than Apple. You want open go buy Linux and download the source code of the kernel and apps. Find someone who will open source their hardware.

Psystar will lose this case and the Apple legal team is just looking to make the decision so air tight future cases will be a cakewalk as they'll just refer to the demolition of Psystar as precedent.