or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar, Apple enter partial settlement to cease clone Mac sales
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar, Apple enter partial settlement to cease clone Mac sales

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
After 17 months of litigation between Apple and clone Mac maker Psystar, the whole ordeal may soon be at an end, with an agreement between the two parties expected to be revealed this week.

Psystar on Monday filed a new document with Judge William Alsup in a San Francisco court revealing that it and Apple had entered into a "partial settlement" that will be filed with the court on Tuesday. The revelation came as part of a response to Apple's request for a permanent injunction, filed last week.

Based on Psystar's claims, the agreement would seem to cover the sale of all clone hardware with Mac OS X preinstalled. Apple originally filed suit against Psystar in July of 2008 due to the Florida company's selling of unauthorized machines with the operating system installed.

Per the terms of the alleged deal, Psystar would pay Apple damages of an unspecified amount, and Apple would agree to drop the bulk of its case.

"Psystar has agreed on certain amounts to be awarded as statutory damages on Apple's copyright claims in exchange for Apple's agreement not to execute on these awards until all appeals in this matter have been concluded," Monday's court filing reads. "Moreover, Apple has agreed to voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims. This partial settlement eliminates the need for a trial and reduces the issues before this Court to the scope of any permanent injunction on Apple's copyright claims."

Further details of the settlement are due to be filed in the California court Tuesday.

But Psystar hopes that the court will not extend any potential injunction to its Rebel EFI product. The filing made Monday notes that Rebel EFI, which allows third-party installation of Mac OS X on unauthorized computers, is a "product that has not been litigated in this case, that has not been the subject of discovery in this case, that is presently the subject of litigation in the Florida case, that is composed exclusively of Psystar software, that is not sold in conjunction with any hardware, and that is sold entirely apart from any copy of Mac OS X or any computer running Mac OS X."

Revealed in October, Rebel EFI is a $50 application that allows certain Intel-powered PCs to run Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. In its filing last week, Apple alleged that Psystar has taken to "trafficking in circumvention devices," a practice that will irreparably harm Apple.

While Psystar claims it has agreed to pay damages to Apple, the Cupertino, Calif., company suggested last week that the Florida corporation would be unable to offer any money. Psystar filed for bankruptcy this May, only to emerge from Chapter 11.

The beginning of the end for Psystar came in November, when Alsup ruled in favor of Apple on a number of summary judgment points. Alsup concluded that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple and was in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Despite the summary judgment, a number of issues remained to be resolved in court prior to the alleged settlement: Apple alleged that Psystar engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among others. The trial was scheduled to start in January 2010.
post #2 of 45
I would think Apple would want to demand that there be a full trial for damages that would totally gut Psystar. It sounds like nothing is going to happen to Psystar and they will be able to continue what they are doing now. They have no money they say, so they can't pay damages. There seems to be nothing to stop Psystar from continuing their business. Apple has spent lots of money on attorneys, and I would think they want something to show for it.
post #3 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

I would think Apple would want to demand that there be a full trial for damages that would totally gut Psystar. It sounds like nothing is going to happen to Psystar and they will be able to continue what they are doing now. They have no money they say, so they can't pay damages. There seems to be nothing to stop Psystar from continuing their business. Apple has spent lots of money on attorneys, and I would think they want something to show for it.

The injunction stands, at least that's what i got from the reading. Psystar will be barred from operating a business selling Mac clones. It's just that Apple won't financially rape them as hard as was originally expected.

More detail here:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...7&pageNumber=2

http://www.slashgear.com/psystar-agr...angle-0164805/
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Based on Psystar's claims, the agreement would seem to cover the sale of all clone hardware with Mac OS X preinstalled.

Just don't preinstall and send the disc to the purchaser. Obviously AI doesn't have all the info. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this.
post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees! View Post

Just don't preinstall and send the disc to the purchaser. Obviously AI doesn't have all the info. It will be interesting to see the final outcome of this.

This makes more sense, yes. The real issue in this case is how Psystar is still further enabling the customer (using your particular example.) In effect, the customer would simply become a hackintosh user, but with special advantages, which is the sticky part.

What we know from the outset is that Psystar, on a realistic economic level, poses no threat to Apple for the time being. No one is buying their crap. Less than a thousand units. It's laughable. The clone threat is rather more insidious and is untested long-term. Apple seems to be alright with letting the Psystar fly live, but with its wings torn off. I'm not sure which is more sad, a dead Psystar or a crippled one.
post #6 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

It's just that Apple won't financially rape them as hard as was originally expected.


It's that Apple can't, the company is intentionally broke.

Apple got what it wanted, was to stop them from making clones, which was to be expected.


The folks at Pystar played their poison trump card, which was releasing Rebel EFI to the masses.

Sure they got a few bucks here and there, but it's obviously been torrented to the masses.


Now future versions of Rebel EFI, that could continue as a business model while Apple and Pystar hack it out in court all over again.

Then when that fails, Pystar just goes to another country and the game starts all over again.



Apple needs to tie performance of OS X with a special hardware feature that can't be duplicated in software. Sure OS X will run on PC's, but very very slowly.

I always advocated a OS X demo program for Windows, this way people can try before they buy.

People who are not into computers and like to use them are afraid of change. It's the learning curve problem. Shorten that and Mac sales would jump considerably.

That and paying attention to business and government markets.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #7 of 45
Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Apple needs to tie performance of OS X with a special hardware feature that can't be duplicated in software. Sure OS X will run on PC's, but very very slowly.

Do you really need to be told _once again_ why this isn't likely to happen? Oh well, it's less typing to just 'User CP -> Edit Ignore List -> Add Member To Your List...'.
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

It's that Apple can't, the company is intentionally broke....

Agreed.

But how much is the law a complete ass here though in that you have a company doing obviously illegal nefarious, and underhanded things. They get taken to court about it but that doesn't stop them doing these things for the entire duration of the legal action. During the legal action they violate the law yet again, albeit in a slightly different way. After which they end up losing, but not losing any money. They get a years worth of free publicity and the litigant gets no guarantee that they won't do it again.

I know Apple is the "big guy" in this situation but suppose the IP belonged to a smaller one or two person company? To me it's crazy that any of this even happened and totally unfair to Apple in every way.

Psystar's business should have been completely suspended for the duration of the trial and part of the settlement should be a cessation of all activities like Rebel EFI, and a guarantee that they will never do anything like this again in any country or help anyone else do so. The litigants are millions of dollars out of pocket and Psystar gets a slap on the wrist basically. Again, Apple can afford it, but what about companies that cannot?
post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

I always advocated a OS X demo program for Windows, this way people can try before they buy.

People who are not into computers and like to use them are afraid of change. It's the learning curve problem. Shorten that and Mac sales would jump considerably.

Oddly, I actually like this idea. There are already "Windows" installations of Linux flavors out there (Google: WUBI) for you to test drive the Linux OS, why not the same technology for a stripped down version of OS X to give windows users a taste.

Of course, I think that's the idea with the current offering of iTunes, Safari, and QuickTime on Windows, to preview what things are like on a Mac (and has anyone noticed just how hard iTunes on Windows sucks in terms of performance? Definitely faster on a Mac... I just hope it wasn't engineered that way.)

Then again, I am a huge fan of "Just let us install it on a standard PC already" with out any kind of support from Apple. We all know it will never happen though.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by old-wiz View Post

I would think Apple would want to demand that there be a full trial for damages that would totally gut Psystar. It sounds like nothing is going to happen to Psystar and they will be able to continue what they are doing now. They have no money they say, so they can't pay damages. There seems to be nothing to stop Psystar from continuing their business. Apple has spent lots of money on attorneys, and I would think they want something to show for it.

You obviously don't understand court settlements, do you? Neither party, nor do the courts, want to spend money on going to trial. It is much more expensive than litigation and discovery. Apple can get what it wants without going to trial. Psystar will not be able to continue their business of selling PC's with OS X installed. You don't need a trial to stop someone from doing something.
post #12 of 45
Not sure why Psystar was fighting so hard from this article it sounds like they shipped less then a 1000 units

http://erictric.com/us/psystar-promi...sells-hundreds

This company had illusions of grandeur, if they were selling units like the claimed to their investors I an understand the fight, but they were not making a penny on this. Either people stayed away from the company because of the law suite or people who buy apple are not looking for a low cost solutions.

To all those critics that say apple should make a lower cost product, if the market was really looking for that why were they not flooding Psystar with orders.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

why not the same technology for a stripped down version of OS X to give windows users a taste.

Why would anyone want a stripped down version of OS X? How would that give them a "taste" of OS X? I understand PC users prefer cheap computers, so if they want something inexpensive, they can buy a Mac Mini if they want a "taste" of OS X.
post #14 of 45
Seems Apple is saying "stop selling and we won't bury you."

The Rebel EFI issue is interesting.
post #15 of 45
This is like a great movie, but without a villain. I really want to know who the bond villain is, who has been funding Psystar from the start!!

And I hope he is in a silver jacket with a cat.
post #16 of 45
from adding more code to check for non-apple hardware and refuse to run.
The people buying the stuff should know they will get no support from apple.
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

I always advocated a OS X demo program for Windows, this way people can try before they buy.

That is a great idea!
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

Why would anyone want a stripped down version of OS X? How would that give them a "taste" of OS X? I understand PC users prefer cheap computers, so if they want something inexpensive, they can buy a Mac Mini if they want a "taste" of OS X.

How about a "Try Before You Buy" idea, an experience you can try at home instead of having to go to the Apple store for a few hours. The mac mini is too pricey for just a taste for many people (especially for what it is).
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

You obviously don't understand court settlements, do you? Neither party, nor do the courts, want to spend money on going to trial. It is much more expensive than litigation and discovery. Apple can get what it wants without going to trial. Psystar will not be able to continue their business of selling PC's with OS X installed. You don't need a trial to stop someone from doing something.

Yes, but the prior summary judgement did that already. What's interesting here is that Apple doesn't seem to want to go to trial on the outstanding issues. Apple certainly wasn't as motivated to settle as Psystar was, at least on the face of it. I suspect it's got less to do with cost than it does with risk. If the judge should rule against Apple on any of the outstanding issues, then they'd have lost ground, and perhaps opened the door a crack to others who might try a similar scheme for selling Mac clones.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #20 of 45
So far I'm not seeing any news from Apple.

From Groklaw:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...09112603405262

The latest motion seems more clear there.
post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

So far I'm not seeing any news from Apple.

From Groklaw:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...09112603405262

The latest motion seems more clear there.

Yes, but this thread is about an impending settlement. Nothing from Groklaw on that yet.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Yes, but this thread is about an impending settlement. Nothing from Groklaw on that yet.

Nothing shows up on the Docket:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...ase_id-204881/
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.

I agree with this. You dont need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come. Its like getting picked on in school and then beat the kid so badly that he cant ever come back to school and no one will ever fuck with you again. Of course, in this scenario it was the poor little kid picking on the big kid with money.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I agree with this. You dont need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come.

Maybe, but there's always the risk of losing on a point of law. Apple seems prepared to quit while they are ahead.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Maybe, but there's always the risk of losing on a point of law. Apple seems prepared to quit while they are ahead.

I knew I should have addressed that point. Very true, but I am not seeing anything that would favour Psystars case.

THis is what I want to see from Apple.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I knew I should have addressed that point. Very true, but I am not seeing anything that would favour Psystars case.

Neither do I, but I'm not a lawyer. I'd like to see them win on the infringement complaints, which always seemed to me to be the strongest points, but it seems they are prepared to take the win they've already got and call it a day. My fear is that the settlement will be sealed (not made public) and so it may look like Apple capitulated on these points. I'm sure Apple's legal team is weighing all of the risks. They didn't come this far to lose or just break even. In the end, they want the message to other potential cloners to be "don't even think about trying it."
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #27 of 45
So Psystar could be lying here?

I'd be interested to see Apple's clarification.
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.

I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.

How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by browardfl View Post

I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.

This isnt about Apple, its about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.

Quote:
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?

Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_formats Note that it doesnt contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with others HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by browardfl View Post

IHow would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?

I would wait until Sony bankrupted itself, and then buy the movies from the companies that buy what remains of Sony's carcass.
post #31 of 45
Mmmmmm.....ended the Clone Wars have.
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This isnt about Apple, its about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.


Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_formats
Note that it doesnt contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with others HW built around their SW R&D without permission?


Gotta love that horrid "I recorded this in a bathroom" sound that you got with the ATRAC format.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Mmmmmm.....ended the Clone Wars have.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #34 of 45
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91201131422651

Excerpt:

Quote:
Psystar has filed its response in opposition to Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction. In it, it claims a partial agreement has been reached with Apple. I, however, will wait until I hear Apple confirm the terms, not relying on Pystar's representations alone. The response says the partial settlement will be filed with the court tomorrow.

According to Psystar, it has agreed to pay statutory damages for infringing Leopard, and Apple has agreed not to make them pay it until after the appeals. Psystar claims that Apple will drop its trademark and state-law claims. We'll see. But Psystar still asks the court to leave Snow Leopard and Rebel EFI -- its new do-hickey that helps *you* infringe Apple's copyrights and violate its EULA and the DMCA -- out of this injunction, and that tells me that despite the spin Psystar is putting on this agreement, there is no deal as far as the big picture is concerned. This is just telling us that the parties have figured out a sum certain for how much Psystar owes Apple *so far*. This case is not over by a mile. Now Psystar is trying to argue that you and I have the right to use Rebel EFI because we are not commercial users. As you can see, Psystar is still angling to stay in business some way, somehow. Here's their argument:
Quote:
In particular, whether sales of Rebel EFI are lawful or not depends on whether Psystar’s end users have a defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117. This issue has not been litigated in this case at all. Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing. If Psystar’s end users are protected by § 117, then Psystar cannot be violating the DMCA by selling Rebel EFI because Rebel EFI, as used by the end users, does not facilitate infringement. Apple correctly explains that this Court has power “to restrain acts which are the same type or class as unlawful acts which the court has found to have been committed.” M. at 9. But Rebel EFI is a different kind of act altogether.

More cuteness. The end users are not commercial users, but the seller of Rebel EFI is, and he knows exactly what they'll be doing with it, so it's amazing they'd even try this, but somebody behind all this nonsense seems to wants to destroy the US tech market leaders, invalidate the enforceability of licenses on software, and make a bundle on their stuff while doing so. I don't believe for one second that Psystar is about two guys in a basement. I have come to suspect that someone, somewhere behind all this is trying to destroy Apple's business, for personal profit, nothing less, just as SCO has been trying to destroy IBM's and Red Hat's business and Linux, for personal profit. Two strange cases, each threatening damage to major players in the US technology sector -- the two major competitors of Microsoft, actually now that I think of it -- and it's all happening at once.

Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91201131422651

Excerpt:
[]

Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.

Ditto. Anything less than Psystar closing shop on anything to do with Apple products sounds bunk" to me.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.

More importantly, they have explained that these representations are coming from Psystar, and that Apple's other complaints have not been withdrawn.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post

You obviously don't understand court settlements, do you? Neither party, nor do the courts, want to spend money on going to trial. It is much more expensive than litigation and discovery. Apple can get what it wants without going to trial. Psystar will not be able to continue their business of selling PC's with OS X installed. You don't need a trial to stop someone from doing something.

Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
post #38 of 45
I hope y'all will excuse this but........

WHO dat say they gonna beat dem Saints!
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.

We don't know precisely what Apple wants out of this. Also, we don't know that Apple truly suspects that Psystar has mystery backers. All we do know is that Apple named John Doe defendants in the complaint, which is standard procedure in lawsuits.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

So Psystar could be lying here?

I'd be interested to see Apple's clarification.

While part of me could believe that Psystar could be lying the other part of me fells they would have to be utterly insane to to do so. However there is one keey thing here--given all the other antics Psystar has done how is Apple going to make Psystar hold up to their end of the agreement?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar, Apple enter partial settlement to cease clone Mac sales