Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info - Page 3

Now that many of these media appliances have upgradable firmware you can DL for free off their website and install via various methods, how about if I DLed the firmware for a commerical Blu-ray player and then built my own BR player to sell publicly without the consent of the owning company?

A tax return (which should also be in the possession of their accountants, assuming they have accountants), won't necessarily include all of the documentation Apple is demanding. I presume tax returns will could suffice as a P&L statement for that tax year, but Apple also wants breakdowns of costs for constructing a Psystar Mac clone, and more specifically I am guessing, where they are buying their copies of OSX and for how much. The suspicion has to be that Psystar is not actually buying a copy of OSX for every Mac clone they sell; if they could prove they are, I can't imagine why they would not be anxious to prove it to the court.

Sony licenses Blu-Ray to authorized manufacturers. Apple does not want to pay the licensing fees as they are set now. This is why Apple currently does not sell a computer with a Blu-Ray drive or functionality.

This is not too difficult to understand.

I can say with confidence that they are buying a copy of Mac OS X for each illegal clone they make. This is what they think is needed to be within the letter of the law. Originally, at least, they were using an altered version of Mac OS X, one which could not be had from the retail copies they owned. These would have been pre-hacked and torrented and installed. The OSx86 Project developers were none to happy with Psystar for using their code, too, without permission.

They originally even required the customer to mail their HDD back to Psystar to get updates and fix any issues, despite having the retail copy of Mac OS X in possession. The customer had to pay for shipping and their personal data was in the hands of Psystar.

It seems that now they are using a more sophisticated method that may use a pre-boot system that tricks the Mac OS X install disc to install natively. If this is so and they are not altering the OS itself, then there would be nothing illegal about such an installation. However, it would still be illegal for Psystar to sell the pre-installed OS without Apple's permission.

What is hard to understand is why your reply to me is about Apple's lack of Blu-ray licensing when my mention of Blu-ray appliances was just an example that could be interchanged with any freely downloadable firmware, as a more apropos analogy of why you can't create a business around another company's IP without their permission.

PS: I do believe Apple's reasoning is because of the licensing, but I think it's only a partial truth that was used to push the blame off them. There are technical, cost, and future logistical issues that make the adoption of Blu-ray a complex choice for Apple as opposed to other major PC vendors.

I did not know that Mac OS X is freely downloadable and that it is considered "firmware". I always thought it was purchased on a DVD and that it is called an "operating system".

I suppose you're right though, Dell does the same thing: they take freely downloaded firmware updates of Windows XP and then install that firmware on hardware they create and then sell it. Or they might do what custom PC makers do, where they just buy copies of Windows XP and then install it on computers they assemble. I have no idea. It is all so confusing to me!

How does being made free make it not okay to create a business model around it? How does interchanging the term firmware to operating system, which all media appliances run, change the example? You are getting caught up on the details. I suppose you will say that a Blu-ray player is not an appliance because it's not an oven or a toaster.

Exchange 'freely downloadable' to 'paid for upgrade' and 'firmware' for 'OS', if you wish. It doesn't alter the scenario one bit. Psystar is still creating an illegal business model.

Don't bring your political agenda into this thread. It does not belong.

'Akshully' the reason that your analogy is really appropriate is that it highlights why some people should just stop posting in threads where they have no idea what they are talking about.

PS. What's really sad is that your "owned" was serious.

This would have been my understanding as well, but I am trying to reconcile that understanding with their evident reluctance to disclose where they purchased their copies of OSX. I don't think anyone really believes Psystar when they say they can't produce basic financial records. If they had one, big thing to hide, the legitimacy of their copies of OSX would have to be the biggest. Perhaps they are gray market, which would make their case that much weaker. Or perhaps they really aren't buying a retail copy for every clone. If that's the case, they are totally screwed from now until forever.

If that is the case, then even the few rabid Psystar supporters on this forum wouldn't be able to defend that action.

I suppose you're right. If you own Dell stock, I suggest you sell it, since their entire business model is illegal.

Why? The problem is, while this is what they say there seems to be no proof available of this. If they haven't purchased the copies of OSX then this case is over!

But if they haven't actually done this then...

Are you suggesting that Dell obtains their OEM copies of Windows illegally?

Yes.

By your definition of illegality.

They state that they are and theur whole business model is built around selling a retail copy of Mac OS X on a DVD even if the installed version is not from that DVD.

When you purchase an Open Computer or OpenPro you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand that Apple Computers does not support the Open Computer or OpenPro in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the Open Computer. In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will operate correctly as the Open Computer and/or OpenPro is not supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not develop the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals, Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the Open Computer and/or OpenPro in any way. Psystar is not responsible for any legal repercussions brought upon you due to your use or involvement with the Open Computer and/or OpenPro

Dell is a licensed OEM partner of Microsoft, Psystar is not an a licensed OEM partner of Apple. I really can't see how you can think that Dell must be breaking the law if Psystar is.

You do know that Joe Blow can buy copies of Microsft Windows XP legally, install them on computers he builds himself, and sell those computers legally without being a "licensed OEM partner" or whatever bullshit you come up with, right?

Of course, because MS chooses to allow that. If people are buying Windows at the full price why would MS care? Their whole PC business model is selling software to make money on selling software. Apple sells Mac OS X as a supplement to previous Macs sold. If MS wanted to stop some small PC maker from selling their OS at the full price and require them to get approved first, then certain could do that, but there is no reason for them too. If you keep ignoring the facts and keep trying to horseshoe dissimilar business scenarios in the same model you'll see the truth.

It would appear that you stumbled into the wrong forum.

This forum is about Apple products and services.

The "I'm an idiot who can't think for myself, so I let someone else think for me" forum can be found here:

www.RushLimbaugh.com

You see, now you are closer to the truth.

Apple could have prevented this very situation by selling copies of Mac OS X which ONLY upgrade previous installations of the software. It could have also prevented this situation by selling a full install version which retails for $300.

Instead, Apple decided to litigate the competition out of the picture. Not because Apple is in the moral position, but only because it wants ALL competition removed from the picture for no other reason besides hubris. Microsoft fell into that trap. Look where it got them.

There's nonsense, and then there's bloody nonsense. This bloody nonsense, squared.

The ability to use a produce in violation of the law in not tantamount to permission to do so. I think we could all easily come up with numerous examples of copyrights which can be easily violated, but I seriously doubt anyone would suggest that those copyrights are null and void on that account. Some seem totally convinced that computer operating systems live in a completely different legal and logical universe. They don't.

Neither Apple nor any other company is obligated to allow, let alone encourage or create, competition for their own products. Who does this? Name one.

Microsoft's problems were with antitrust laws. Their situation was completely and utterly unlike this situation. They have no resemblance to each other in any way, shape or form.

I'm all for rooting for the underdog, but, I think in this case Psystar is being purposely obtuse and vague. Any company that has investors and spent millions on R&D is going to have financial statements. Their excuses seem dubious at best.

Well, not really, they are purchasing the OS. It's the EULA that they are breaking.

It's more than just the EULA. They are trading on Apple's copyrights and trademarks.

Selling a computer with a legally purchased operating system on it is illegal? Oooo kaaayyyy.




So selling an unused retail copy of Mac OS X on eBay while mentioning "Mac OS X" on the title and showing a photo of the box is illegal? Ooooo kaaayyyyyy.

Why would you delete an email when you have Gmail?

That's individual private sale.

Psystar is selling these on computers and running a business behind it.

Big differences there.

Same reasons Apple turns a blind eye to the hackintosh community but not to Psystar.

No, that isn't illegal if that is how you bought it... and there is plenty of precedence that allows that to happen, but buying one copy and selling two is illegal. How many copies of Windows do you get with each Dell? Two, one on a disc (or a partition as your install disc) and one installed as the OS. Psystar is buying one copy on disc but then selling two copies with each of their illegal clones. If they were only selling the retail software uninstalled with their PC, requiring their customer to install it then the issue would be a lot more grey. But that isn't all what they are doing. Buyng one and selling two, without first getting an OEM license from Apple, which that have the right to not allow.

PS: You still haven't answered my question.

Glad to see Judge Alsup saw through Psystar's nonsense and demand they produce the documents required by both Florida and Federal law. Failure to do so could result in contempt of court charge and if they tick off Alsup enough a summery judgment in Apple's favor. This could be followed by the AG of Florida and IRS going after Psystar for failure to keep the required tax documents.

In short it looks like Judge Alsup may be getting fed up with Psystar's legal games.

While it is true that all the information Apple is requested is not sent to the IRS with the Form 1120 (the corporate tax return) it is required if the IRS ever did an audit. By law you must have documentation that proves that every figure you gave the IRS is real especially the figures put on Schedule D (Form 1120) and Form 4797; these documents must be kept for seven years.

So, it is legal if an individual sells one computer, but it's illegal if two people sell two computers? At what point is it legal and what point is it illegal?

Yes. Judge Alsup saw through their BS before, too.

It seems Psystar is now playing the "little guy" or "mom and pop store" card. Big bad Apple is trying to strongarm the little guy.

Except that the little guy in this case is the worst kind of Intellectual Property violator.

Indeed it does. Let's assume for a second that Psystar really is a coupe, of rebellious cowboys in the AMerican equivalent of a Garden Shed. Lt us then assume that this business is "volume purchasing" (I use the term loosely owing to the low volume of sales) its parts from conventional dealers, and not directly from manufacturers. Tey are assembling the machines and installing the OS themselves. :et's spec up a Psystar and a Dell to match roughly on power:

Core2 Duo E7400
Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium/Mac OS X 10.6 Leopard
2GB RAM
500GB Serial ATA 7200RPM HDD
16xDVD+/-R Drive on the Dell, 20xDVD+/-R Drive on the Psystar
Radeon HD 4670 512MB on the Dell, GeForce 9500GT 512MB on the Psystar

Our Dell runs us $689.
Our Psystar? A cool $723.99. Switching to a 9400GT drops it to $674.99.

Now, since Dell is one of the largest PC manufacturers in the world and buys its components direct form manufacturers at substantial economies of scale, it is surprising that some cowboys are able to sell a comparable system within $100. And by that, I mean it would be surprising if they enjoyed the same OS pricing.

They do not. Dell most certainly do not pay Microsoft $129 for Windows per machine. Estimates put the number at $50 or lower. Tell me then. How is it that a manufacturer, who are building machines by hand, and paying more than twice as much for their OS, able to compete on price with a giant like Dell?

That Psystar can build a machine at such a similar cost is absolutely absurd. There is no way they can make profit on that, they'd be lucky to break even. Dell itself has razor thin margins. A couple of yahoos in a garage couldn't possibly compete on price.

How then can Psystar possibly be a going concern? It has to have revenue coming in from elsewhere. And think of it like this. Who gains from Psystar winning this thing? Not Psystar themselves, no way. Microsoft? Nope, they lose out massively. Apple's rivals, who make PCs? They stand to gain a great deal - namely OS X, which many of them have been after for years.

There is more evidence that Psystar is a front Company than there is evidence it actually exists. But the question remains, who is behind it? Clearly, it is someone Apple is competing with. The question is which of the many businesses going toe-to-toe with Infinite Loop are involved?

But say for a moment, you don't think there's enough evidence to say it's some wider conspiracy. Let's do some roleplay. You're a venture capitalist, I'm Psystar:

"Hello, I'm a nobody who just got out of College. Me and my associate here don't know much about running a business, but we'd like to sell computers with OS X on them for less than Apple sells theirs for and at prices competitive with PC makers...We think it's legal...Maybe...Anyway, we need like half a million dollars to get a foothold in this market and since we aim to compete on price, our profit margins will be razor thin even where we actually have them - often we'll be selling at BE or lower - there won't be much return on your investment.

So...Interested?"

Are you a business? Are you incorporated, etc, etc. And that's only one part of the issue.

If you as an individual unlock OS X onto a generic PC and then load it onto that PC (or render it into a condition in which it can be installed on that PC), and you then proceed to sell it publicly you're already in violation. But Apple can't go after every individual like that.

Stop lying. That's not what Dell does and that's not what Psystar is doing.

You get a SINGLE copy of Windows XP from Dell. The one on the disc was conveniently INSTALLED on the computer for the convenience of the customer, and a backup disc is provided with the computer in the case reinstallation is needed.

Similarly, you get a SINGLE copy of Mac OS X from Psystar, which was purchased legally. The one on the disc was conveniently INSTALLED on the computer for the convenience of the customer, and a backup disc is provided with the computer in the case reinstallation is needed.

Except that Psystar is turning around and making modifications to that copy of OS X, installing it on PCs (or providing that modified copy with the PC), or otherwise wilfully breaking Apple's copy protection and then running a business behind it.

That's a big problem in terms of Inellectual Property law.

You probably weren't answering Solipsism in that regard, but I'm just pointing it out to you.

Just because you bought a copy of OS X does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you want with it. This isn't about the EULA. It's about IP law.

Alot of the Pro-Psystar people here would like to think that Apple has no Intellectual Property rights to their product once the sale is made. Not so, and it's a fallacious argument to make and very counterintuitive to the people who are able to make a living thanks to the existence of Intllectual Property law.

Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. It doesn't matter if Psystar actually purchased copies of OS X.

So, what you are saying is that if I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X from Apple, bring it home, take the DVD out of the box, and install it on my own computer, which I have purchased legally, then what I have done is illegal, and Apple has every right to come at me with the full force of the law?

Are you serious? Are you so blinded by fanaticism that you do not see the ridiculousness of your claim?

If you can't see that the transference of copyrighted material to another medium is copying of that material then no one here will even begin to help you understand anything more advanced or nuisanced about the law. You are either very young, have never taken any courses on economics, are from a country that did not have a free market or you are Teckstud. Since you do not wish to understand or answer questions posed to you the only recourse we have is not engage you any more on this topic.

If your computer isn't made by Apple, then yes, you have it right. I guess the addition of one extra word is necessary: Apple has every legal right to come at you.

My view is that if you do do the above for your own personal use, that's morally acceptable - certainly it's a lot better than using a pirated copy of OS X. And it would seem that Apple agrees what with the way that they've made very little real effort to stamp out the hackintosh community.