Psystar files for bankruptcy likely delaying Apple case - Page 2

Capitalism runs on the ability for competitors to protect their intellectual property. Apple clearly states that the Mac OS X must run on Apple hardware, therefore Psystar PC's are not 100% compliant -- they do not comply to the Apple License Agreement.

There are plenty of choices in computing -- Macs, Windows PC's, Linux and other *nixes. Apple has a unique business model of a so-called monopoly of hardware, software and OS, and that gives the Mac its distinctive performance, consistency and reliablilty. Some of us choose this arrangement over ones that are supposedly freer or cheaper.

Any group of crooks that would break the Apple way and making it work more like the Windows PC is actually taking away a distinct choice from consumers.

You could be right. We're all pretty much in guess mode. Venture capitalists do take risks with their money, though you wouldn't find me risking a nickel on these guys.

What does that have to do with my comment?
Regardless of "where they should be" Apple is having a banner year yet Psystar is filing for bankruptcy.

Is there any chance that Psystar, in their battle with Apple, is being supported by M$?

I'm sure everyone here would love that being that it would give people another reason to hate them, but I see it as highly unlikely.

Right- and GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden. Anything is possible in the mind of a deranged Apple fanboy.

Maybe true if you did not have idiot running the business... Lots of companies make inexpensive products and still are in business today.

it those companies who understand their business and what their customer want who are still in business

Thats a probable given the change in M$'s attitude towards Apple " get a mac" campaign.
You cant deny the fact that M$ loves monopoly!

Not for Apple stockholders.

Monopolies are only good until the company figures out the customers are locked in. You end up with inferior products and higher prices. You see it with the utility companies, you've seen it with Microsoft, and you're seeing in pro segments where Apple jacks the price of Mac Pros up $200 with each revision knowing that its much cheaper to pay the increase than the thousands it would take to switch.

Ive just checked out www.psystar.com and they still look like they are in business. What is the source of this information? Theres no mention on their own site of being in administration.

Ceases to work great on non-Apple certified machines*

I don't understand why people think hardware vendors are completely incapable of writing drivers for operating systems. Occasionally you get a bad driver here and there, but it's really not as bad as people here make it out to be.

OS X can obviously be ran on non-apple built machines, all while not at all effecting the performance and reliability of Apple computers. It's Apple's right to say no to this though, which is the key issue here.

What the hell is wrong with the world today when they could be allowed to reopen with their unlegit business scheme (if I understand correctly they foresee winning the case and happily resume screwing with Apple's SLA?).

Still, it would have been nice to have built my own computer that was twice as fast and put OSX on it... all for half the price.
Plus, it would have been a computer capable of real upgrades.

My Mac Pro is a great machine, but I'm also well over $5000 into it. On the PC side of things, $5800 buys me a heck of a box and probably a new display too.

If Apple extended their warranty to 3 years on the Mac Pro without Applecare, and the option to extend to 5 years with Applecare, it would be a different story. Their premium desktops should be lasting more then 3 years.
Common Apple... show some trust in your products... extend the length of warranty. Thats better then a price cut.
1 year warranty is a joke and tells the world "hey, we are making shit products too".

I don't mind paying premium for premium. Is this not the Apple mantra?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing to stop Psystar from still operating while they file for bankruptcy protection.

Seeing that the info is on all the news sites, I imagine someone got ahold of it from wherever this stuff is available for viewing. They must list somewhere where all the submitted lawsuits and bankupties are.

Now it's even more important that the court case go forward. Just because Apple has more money for lawyers, should not in itself guarantee that new competitors are blocked.

This is America. It should be possible for new competitors to enter (if a court agrees with their model). The court has not yet ruled. Until that time, Apple's legal maneuvers could be interpreted under anti-trust law as a predatory move that is illegal. Apple could eventually be broken up, legally, if they kill everything that moves like this. IMO. Just having more lawyers does not prove you were right. In that way, Microsoft could have extinguished Apple at a sensitive moment 10 years ago. I'm just saying, Psystar stands for something important even if they are wrong. It is important the court gets the chance to say so, so we don't have to deal with this type of question again.

If an attorney sits at his desk and even "thinks" about your case? Well, that goes on the billable hours sheet. Same thing goes for faxes, emails, letters, phone calls, etc.

You would be amazed how quickly it all adds up. Plus, since presumably we are talking about a large team of attorneys? It wouldn't take long at all.

Not to mention the fact that the firm mentioned does not bill at $100/hour.

What exactly is so important about stealing another companies property?

I'd agree with you if Psystar represented healthy competition, but as I see it the only thing they stand for is intellectual thievery.

Really? Here's a thought. Go take a poll of folks in California who are serviced by the current, post-Enron version of Pacific Gas & Electric. Ask them if they preferred being serviced by the old, public monopoly version of PG&E, or what happened after PG&E was forced to sell off assets. Which led to their being owned and operated by Enron. Which then led to their being sort of back on their own, but now having to pay higher prices as, oops, they no longer own the facilities that make the power.

Yep, that really led to lower prices and better service. Not!

I disagree. Psystar is not a fair competitor as it is using Apple's intellectual property to make a sale. The fact is that if the courts ruled that Apple HAD to release its OS for use on any clone, Apple would have to raise prices: do you think the Mac OS is really worth only $129? Apple is able to charge that (really an update price) because hardware always is sold with the OS (except for updates).

One of the reasons why Apple computers are superior is because Apple is able to control both the hardware and the software (even though much of the hardware parts are off-the-shelf). If Apple permitted clones, think of the extra customer service and operational costs necessary to support those clones.

So I disagree that Psystar is a true competitor and I disagree that prices would drop if they were permitted to exist in their current form.

Your whole post is rubbish... but this is the best bit.

It's not stealing. Just because popular language suggests it is so do not make it so. Exactly what is being stolen?

Revenue? No.

The EULA does nowhere suggest that the copy of OS X bought must be put on a computer supplied by Apple. It say 'Apple-labeled' computer. There is zero clarification in the EULA other than the word Apple being capitalized.

Stellar contribution. Pulitzer?

At less than 10 percent of the PC market, Apple is not a monopoly. I have a Toyota and when I need parts, sometimes they are exclusively available from Toyota. Does that make Toyota a monopoly?

I've not been following the prices of Mac Pros. I got a Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMac in 2003 and found that, for my needs, the consumer-level Intel-based Macs of today gave me all the performance I need. In the case of the Mac mini, iMac, MacBook and even the MacBook Pro, Apple has kept prices steady while continually improving the machines.

If you've paid attention, Apple is highly regarded for its quality and customer service, so your gloom-and-doom scenario is illusory. Even if your claim about Mac Pros is correct (are you one who thinks they should get an 8-core for what last generation's quad core cost?), your thesis is very weak.

Correct. That's the purpose of Chapter 11. They are allowed to operate while reorganizing.


Old joke: A man gets a letter from his attorney.

Dear Bob,

I thought I saw you downtown yesterday so I crossed the street to say hello. It turned out to be someone else.

0.10 hour $25.00

For a post that suggest that Apple could be broken up, for simply trying to protect THEIR OWN IP... and that Psystar is doing something "important" .... I think that "rubbish" is actually a rather fair and generous response.

For the still broken idea that the terminology "Apple labelled computer " doesn't mean, a computer built and sold by Apple... no response is necessary,

1. No one knows whether the software was purchased or copied, except Psystar and Apple.
2. Since Apple is the only producer of "Apple-labeled" products, how exactly does a third party hardware manufacturer sell a legal copy of Apple software pre-installed on any non-Apple CPU?
3. I'm fairly certain that the courts will provide all the clarification you can handle. And then some.

[Off Topic]

And along those lines...

A man walks into a Post Office to mail a letter. He can't help but notice a man furiously signing hundreds of Valentines Day cards with "I can't wait to see you again!" and dropping them in the mail.

The first man says: "Wow, you must be the world's greatest lover."

To which the second man replies: "Not really. I'm a divorce attorney!"

But seriously folks, I'm here eight nights a week....

[/Off Topic]

What part of the fact that neither Kaypro or Compaq had licenses from IBM when they made the first clones don't you understand?

1. Rubbish. Psystar's website claimed to supply a legitimate copy of OS X with the computer being purchased.

2. I can produce any number of 'Apple-labeled' computers. And what's to say it even has to be 'produced'? At its most asisine, I can slap an Apple sticker on my desktop computer. A genuine one even - it comes in the box with the software. So, is the computer Apple-labeled or not? Not in the sense that you might want it to take, but I merely point out that what appears obvious is not always so. Why, for instance, did the EULA not say "Computer System Supplied by Apple" rather than "Apple-labeled computer"? There may be some legal reasoning for this, but I'm not American, don't know how you guys roll in this respect.

3. That's the point being made, isn't it? Why don't we let the courts sort it out rather than have one dominant company crush the other. That appears to be way the corporate world works. The question is put, but rarely answered.

The reason why Compaq and Kaypro were able to copy the IBM PC was because IBM only patented the BIOS and not the other hardware. They reverse-engineered the BIOS and were able to copy the rest. It wasn't till about a decade later that IBM was awarded millions against all of the cloners, but that was just a drop in the bucket when they lost billions. Now where's IBM? Not selling boxes, but services.

Yeah, just like those lousy refrigerator and coffee machine manufacturers do, what with their proprietary operating systems! Burn 'em all to the ground!

The only part of this story I'd dispute is IBM collecting any damages from the cloners. The way I understand it, IBM sued Compaq (the first to reverse-engineer the ROM-BIOS) but lost because Compaq could prove that no copyrighted IBM code was used either on purpose or accidently to duplicate the BIOS functions. IBM tried to make this difficult by freely distributing copies of books documenting the BIOS code. Compaq had to find engineers who could sign affidavits swearing that they'd never set eyes the IBM book. Once they got over that hurdle, IBM could make no claim on them.

Deleted

With Enron and Madhoff, the courts were able to go after them personally after proving fraud. Jailtime for the Enron boys and Madhoff. However, in Madhoff's case, there were able to go after personal assets too of not only his and his wife, but of friends and family members too. Normally, personal assets are untouchable.

Obviously the circumstances were totally different. However, I wonder if Apple could still go after the founders of Psystar on a personal level of some kind if fraud is proven. Otherwise, what is to stop them from declaring bankruptcy and simply arising again under a different name doing the same IP thievery. There should be some kind of personal exposure if they continue doing this.

Either way, I look forward to Psystar getting the hammer dropped on them in a brutal and blunt way.

You're kidding, right?

You've gone about as far overboard as you can without drowning, and you look to be flailing around just a bit.


Everyone is allowed to defend their property. That's basic here. It's in the constitution.

MS helped Apple, because Apple had them over a barrel. They were caught with Apple's Quicktime code. Before they stole that, movies and other video wouldn't play properly in Windows. It would jerk from frame to frame.

Apple threatened a lawsuit over that, and testified that MS threatened them over it in court during the Netscape trials.

They came to an agreement in which Apple and MS would share patents in various bits of software, and also that MS would buy $150,000,000 in non voting Apple stock, and announce support for Apple by continuing development of Office for at least 5 years.

This wasn't out of the goodness of Gates' heart.

In addition, if Apple went under, MS would have a much bigger problem on their hands over their since government declared monopoly.

We don't know what the courts will decide, but it's Apple's advantage now.

With all the loose definitions of "theft" being thrown around and the multitude of Psystar bashing going on, I once again have arrived to stupidly stand up against a lashing similar to that of breaching dam to defend my opinion.

Psystar is NOT stealing. They are an unauthorized reseller, and are breaking an EULA.

A while back I posted this analogy, which I feel fits this situation perfectly.

So say I buy bags and bags of Starbucks coffee beans at my local grocery store. With them, I open a coffee shop. It just so happens that my mochas are marvelous and my lattes luscious; so much so, in fact, that I'm starting to pull some business from the Starbucks down the block. I legally purchased the beans in the store, I paid exactly what they charged me, they're getting paid for all the coffee I brew. Do they posses the ability to sue me?

SHOULD they posses that ability?

In Psystar's case, they do not have a reseller's license so are technically committing a crime. The question is whether or not the law is appropriate.

As for the EULA, EULAs cannot violate a user's rights. A court could determine that Apple's hardware is sufficiently equivalent to standard third-party hardware (as they should since it is as different from off-the-shelf parts as the different brands are to each other). That being the case, the court could subsequently determine that the EULA's mandate of "Apple labeled" hardware to be an irrelevant one, and ergo, a violation of consumer rights to be imposed.

The situation is similar to an artist selling a $129 duplication of a copyrighted work, say a painting, but also mandating that you can't display the painting unless you also purchase a $2000 frame, which only he sells. Psystar is purchasing duplicates, putting them in their own, cheaper, less gaudy, more functional frames and reselling the package for less. Copyright law prohibits Psystar from reselling a copyrighted work, but does that make the artist's practice of mandating the purchase of a $2000 frame an ethical one?

It is also my belief that resale of copyrighted material should be legal so long as the value of the original work is not damaged. In the two analogies I've shared (coffee and painting), the producers have received the market value they requested for the items in question and therefore have not been damaged by the resale of the modified products/works. Any loss of sale would have resulted from their own failure to utilize the product/work and market them in a way that was of value to consumers, and should not be protected by copyright laws.

Copyright laws exist to protect the works and intellectual property from duplication, but when they can be used to shield companies from legitimate competition of other non-duplicatory / derivative works, the law has been abused as is what I believe is happening here.

-Clive

With your third point, that is exactly how the corporate world works. One company rips another one off or sues the other out of existence. Look at Edison Vs. Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell Vs. Elisha Gray, etc.

Just because the courts sort it out does not guarantee a fair outcome. That itself is rubbish. You're going to need a good lawyer and money anyway, so how is that different than how the corporate world works? Please explain.

Actually, it is revenue that's being stolen. Every sale that Apple may lose from a sale by Psystar is considered to be lost revenue. If Psystar is ruled to have broken the, EULA then every sale it made directly goes back to Apple.

I suspect the bankruptcy was intentionally maneuvered by them to cut out a source of money that Apple could have called for, should they win. I've seen this done before (unsuccessfully).

You're playing poor games with words here, 'Apple-labeled" clearly means a machine made by Apple, as no other machines are allowed to be "Apple labeled".

Apple makes it VERY clear as to what your rights are, and as to what THEIR rights are regarding their software.