It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Apple unearthed evidence of whoever they thought was behind Psystar. Really makes one wonder if this a single company or a corporate conspiracy. It should be noted that an LLC structure legally protects the identities of all companies or individuals who may be shareholders in the company.
I wonder if that's still true if a company has been shown to have committed illegal activities. Perhaps those identities could be revealed. Possibly if it could be shown that there are other entities, Apple could move for them to be unmasked under some area of the RICO Act. Are they using that already?
Sorry, you've only got that partially correct. The lack of creativity and critical thinking in this country is the result of the dumbing down of American because of a flawed liberal agenda that has taken over education. We see the result of decades of that process in the Obama administration's abuse of the free market economy AND the media's complicit cooperation. THAT, sir, is what is very sad
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
It's pretty clear that Psystar couldn't afford to pay its previous legal team, and the current one is probably hoping for some sort of ridiculous windfall in order to get some kind of remuneration.
Agreed. Any major company would laugh at the idea this would ever succeed without being sued out of existence. I doubt they would waste their money just to harass Apple. It amazes me that so many have cheered Pschystar as some kind of legitimate competitor.
"They will observe the building process from start to finish, including the installation of OS X on our machines," the company said of Apple's legal team. "We believe the only thing they will discover is what we have been open about from the start, and of course the scorching Florida heat."
Psystar doesn't know the meaning of heat since their actions has unleashed the wrath of one Steve Jobs. The "heat" that is coming upon them will make "the scorching Florida heat" feel like spring in Maine!
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
This case is about whether they have that right. I wouldn't bet on it.
They can make "compatible hardware" as much as they like -- it's only when they start selling it as a Mac when they get in trouble. I'm not sure selling the the OS separately and unloaded would be a more defensible strategy, if it was clear that they were trying to sell Macs, and invade Apple's patents and trademarks on same. Which it is.
The reactions people have to this case are often perplexing. We are all perfectly happy to buy products composed of parts. We never insist that those parts be deconstructed so that we can make our own, or to force companies to compete with themselves. Only with computers does this seem to make sense to some. I wonder why. It's so completely strange to me.
At one point Apple amended it's own suit against Psystar to include a search for additional party(-ies) that may be behind a more concerted effort to hurt Apple. It might be buried by now, but hopefully you can find it in an earlier story.
The suit was amended to include possible "Jon Doe's" that may be involved in Psystar's operations, but there were multiple interpretations of that rather vague inclusion at the time. One of which is that the "Jon Doe's" referred to are actually the people in the OSX86 community that wrote the patches and hacks that Psystar ripped off for their business model.
So while the current third party assumption has always been that Apple believes Psystar is involved in a conspiracy or is actively looking for conspirators in their operation, that isn't necessarily the case at all.
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
-- Apple owner and shareholder
It's not just the hardware and software. Installing OS X on a PC box involves extra software written to modify either something in the computer, or in the OS itself to enable the install.
So if they sold Linux machines, and boxed copies of OS X (and they would have to get some kind of resellers agreement to do that), then the OS still couldn't be installed.
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
It's not just the hardware and software. Installing OS X on a PC box involves extra software written to modify either something in the computer, or in the OS itself to enable the install.
So if they sold Linux machines, and boxed copies of OS X (and they would have to get some kind of resellers agreement to do that), then the OS still couldn't be installed.
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
This. I couldn't have put it more succinctly myself.
This. I couldn't have put it more succintly myself.
Sure. Assuming that the protections that software companies count on for their protection isn't overturned in this case, the only recourse companies would have is to sell linux boxes that are built as closely to Apple requirements as possible, as they are doing now, and enumerate exactly what hardware they are using. Then, by word of mouth, those who are willing to go the entire way themselves could buy the machine, and OS (somewhere else), download the special software, and follow all the instructions to go into the terminal etc, to get an install.
They would be on their own.
But Psystar doesn't want to do this, they want to have a much bigger sales base, and profit, by selling Mac boxes.
Pystar will never become a viable company even if left alone. The best they will ever do is hack together some drivers that will never play consistently with the rest of the OS. They will end up like EmperorLinux, turning out crappy expensive machines that will break with every software update. Apple has nothing to worry about.
the catch is that even if you are correct, not shutting down Psystar and legally validating that Apple has a right to the tying and to not allowing cloning etc means that every other company, one of which might be a viable threat, will think it is okay.
so Apple needs this case against Psystar carry on and be judged in Apple's favor. to protect themselves for the future
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS.
you support gross violation of the law then.
Quote:
They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware.
you are correct that they can certainly build any computer configuration that they wish.
Quote:
Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware.
it isn't the pre-loading per se that is the issue. yes one can argue that since they "bought" the software (there is still doubt due to the lack of evidence that those disks were not stolen) and someone else is using it they violated the End User Agreement. but such agreements are still walking the line of invalidity.
the real concern is that they violated Apple's court certified right to restrict the hardware used with the OS via the creation of a technology that bypasses the allowed lock. If the court places said restriction into the realm of copyright (via installation which copies the software from the physical media to the computer) as Apple wants then that bypass becomes a flagrant of the DCMA. Possibly at a criminal level.
Quote:
If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up.
you don't like the locking but Apple has a right, and some darn good logic, behind them. so you are left with a three choices
1. buy a Mac and get over it
2. buy a Windows machine and get over it
3. buy/build a hackintosh but don't pretend like you are doing anything noble and wonderful. because you aren't. you are encouraging illegal activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
those who are willing to go the entire way themselves could buy the machine, and OS (somewhere else), download the special software, and follow all the instructions t
not could. would. the DCMA is against any tech or knowledge that breaks copyright protection. so even instructions on '3 easy changes in Terminal' is not allowed. same for the info on how to unlock the sim on an Iphone.
what Psystar could have legally done and Apple would not be able to stop them, is to have gone to the open source portions of the OS (which are free for the taking), made their own GUI and created their own OS that would work on whatever they wanted and very possibly run all the Mac-compat software. Apple might have tried to ding them about their software but there's tons of 3rd party stuff also that Apple can't speak about.
what Psystar could have legally done and Apple would not be able to stop them, is to have gone to the open source portions of the OS (which are free for the taking), made their own GUI and created their own OS that would work on whatever they wanted and very possibly run all the Mac-compat software. Apple might have tried to ding them about their software but there's tons of 3rd party stuff also that Apple can't speak about.
True, but then they'd likely be running into patent issues - i.e., the Dock, parts of the Leopard theme, etc. It would have to be a different OS to whatever degree. In which case you'd likely end up with something other than OS X that is able to run OS X software. So it wouldn't really be a Mac clone. It would be . . . something I'm not sure anyone would want to begin with.
True, but then they'd likely be running into patent issues - i.e., the Dock, parts of the Leopard theme, etc. It would have to be a different OS to whatever degree. In which case you'd likely end up with something other than OS X that is able to run OS X software. So it wouldn't really be a Mac clone. It would be . . . something I'm not sure anyone would want to begin with.
They would need a lot of resourses and programming talent .Would they have that?
Comments
I'm confused. The article says Psystar's Chapter 11 filing was "dismissed" by the court. Usually in legal lingo, that means it was not allowed.
Correct. It wasn't.
Unless I'm missing something, I think the correct term is "emerged" from Chapter 11.
Emerge simply means what it means - "coming out of" whether the bankruptcy was dismissed or fully administered.
Dismissed means the court does not accept the bankruptcy and creditors/other interested parties are free to pursue legal action.
If the bankruptcy had been allowed, then the plan would have stipulated who is to be paid what and how, if anything.
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Apple unearthed evidence of whoever they thought was behind Psystar. Really makes one wonder if this a single company or a corporate conspiracy. It should be noted that an LLC structure legally protects the identities of all companies or individuals who may be shareholders in the company.
I wonder if that's still true if a company has been shown to have committed illegal activities. Perhaps those identities could be revealed. Possibly if it could be shown that there are other entities, Apple could move for them to be unmasked under some area of the RICO Act. Are they using that already?
This IS starting to sound like a bad joke, just like SCO. Just... die... already.
But the SCO situation really only affected them. there was no wide reach to the decisions, not adding markedly to the law.
If Apple loses this, it would have consequences well beyond Apple.
The SCO case was a footnote in legal history, but this would be a major shift.
Sorry, you've only got that partially correct. The lack of creativity and critical thinking in this country is the result of the dumbing down of American because of a flawed liberal agenda that has taken over education. We see the result of decades of that process in the Obama administration's abuse of the free market economy AND the media's complicit cooperation. THAT, sir, is what is very sad
Ok, cut the politics.
Another one post wonder. How about a delete?
Let's see how he rolls.
-- Apple owner and shareholder
Good point.
It's pretty clear that Psystar couldn't afford to pay its previous legal team, and the current one is probably hoping for some sort of ridiculous windfall in order to get some kind of remuneration.
Agreed. Any major company would laugh at the idea this would ever succeed without being sued out of existence. I doubt they would waste their money just to harass Apple. It amazes me that so many have cheered Pschystar as some kind of legitimate competitor.
"They will observe the building process from start to finish, including the installation of OS X on our machines," the company said of Apple's legal team. "We believe the only thing they will discover is what we have been open about from the start, and of course the scorching Florida heat."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Psystar doesn't know the meaning of heat since their actions has unleashed the wrath of one Steve Jobs. The "heat" that is coming upon them will make "the scorching Florida heat" feel like spring in Maine!
Mmmuuuuuaaaaaahhhhahahhahahahaahaha...
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
This case is about whether they have that right. I wouldn't bet on it.
They can make "compatible hardware" as much as they like -- it's only when they start selling it as a Mac when they get in trouble. I'm not sure selling the the OS separately and unloaded would be a more defensible strategy, if it was clear that they were trying to sell Macs, and invade Apple's patents and trademarks on same. Which it is.
The reactions people have to this case are often perplexing. We are all perfectly happy to buy products composed of parts. We never insist that those parts be deconstructed so that we can make our own, or to force companies to compete with themselves. Only with computers does this seem to make sense to some. I wonder why. It's so completely strange to me.
At one point Apple amended it's own suit against Psystar to include a search for additional party(-ies) that may be behind a more concerted effort to hurt Apple. It might be buried by now, but hopefully you can find it in an earlier story.
The suit was amended to include possible "Jon Doe's" that may be involved in Psystar's operations, but there were multiple interpretations of that rather vague inclusion at the time. One of which is that the "Jon Doe's" referred to are actually the people in the OSX86 community that wrote the patches and hacks that Psystar ripped off for their business model.
So while the current third party assumption has always been that Apple believes Psystar is involved in a conspiracy or is actively looking for conspirators in their operation, that isn't necessarily the case at all.
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
-- Apple owner and shareholder
It's not just the hardware and software. Installing OS X on a PC box involves extra software written to modify either something in the computer, or in the OS itself to enable the install.
So if they sold Linux machines, and boxed copies of OS X (and they would have to get some kind of resellers agreement to do that), then the OS still couldn't be installed.
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
It's not just the hardware and software. Installing OS X on a PC box involves extra software written to modify either something in the computer, or in the OS itself to enable the install.
So if they sold Linux machines, and boxed copies of OS X (and they would have to get some kind of resellers agreement to do that), then the OS still couldn't be installed.
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
This. I couldn't have put it more succinctly myself.
This. I couldn't have put it more succintly myself.
Sure. Assuming that the protections that software companies count on for their protection isn't overturned in this case, the only recourse companies would have is to sell linux boxes that are built as closely to Apple requirements as possible, as they are doing now, and enumerate exactly what hardware they are using. Then, by word of mouth, those who are willing to go the entire way themselves could buy the machine, and OS (somewhere else), download the special software, and follow all the instructions to go into the terminal etc, to get an install.
They would be on their own.
But Psystar doesn't want to do this, they want to have a much bigger sales base, and profit, by selling Mac boxes.
What in the world is a 'deadpan of ignorance'? I like the sound of it, but it certainly doesn't mean what you think it means.
Maybe he meant bedpan of flatulence.
Pystar will never become a viable company even if left alone. The best they will ever do is hack together some drivers that will never play consistently with the rest of the OS. They will end up like EmperorLinux, turning out crappy expensive machines that will break with every software update. Apple has nothing to worry about.
the catch is that even if you are correct, not shutting down Psystar and legally validating that Apple has a right to the tying and to not allowing cloning etc means that every other company, one of which might be a viable threat, will think it is okay.
so Apple needs this case against Psystar carry on and be judged in Apple's favor. to protect themselves for the future
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS.
you support gross violation of the law then.
They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware.
you are correct that they can certainly build any computer configuration that they wish.
Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware.
it isn't the pre-loading per se that is the issue. yes one can argue that since they "bought" the software (there is still doubt due to the lack of evidence that those disks were not stolen) and someone else is using it they violated the End User Agreement. but such agreements are still walking the line of invalidity.
the real concern is that they violated Apple's court certified right to restrict the hardware used with the OS via the creation of a technology that bypasses the allowed lock. If the court places said restriction into the realm of copyright (via installation which copies the software from the physical media to the computer) as Apple wants then that bypass becomes a flagrant of the DCMA. Possibly at a criminal level.
If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up.
you don't like the locking but Apple has a right, and some darn good logic, behind them. so you are left with a three choices
1. buy a Mac and get over it
2. buy a Windows machine and get over it
3. buy/build a hackintosh but don't pretend like you are doing anything noble and wonderful. because you aren't. you are encouraging illegal activity.
They would then have to give away, or at least give links to the software and methodology of doing the modifications to install the OS. That could still run afoul of the law.
those who are willing to go the entire way themselves could buy the machine, and OS (somewhere else), download the special software, and follow all the instructions t
not could. would. the DCMA is against any tech or knowledge that breaks copyright protection. so even instructions on '3 easy changes in Terminal' is not allowed. same for the info on how to unlock the sim on an Iphone.
what Psystar could have legally done and Apple would not be able to stop them, is to have gone to the open source portions of the OS (which are free for the taking), made their own GUI and created their own OS that would work on whatever they wanted and very possibly run all the Mac-compat software. Apple might have tried to ding them about their software but there's tons of 3rd party stuff also that Apple can't speak about.
what Psystar could have legally done and Apple would not be able to stop them, is to have gone to the open source portions of the OS (which are free for the taking), made their own GUI and created their own OS that would work on whatever they wanted and very possibly run all the Mac-compat software. Apple might have tried to ding them about their software but there's tons of 3rd party stuff also that Apple can't speak about.
True, but then they'd likely be running into patent issues - i.e., the Dock, parts of the Leopard theme, etc. It would have to be a different OS to whatever degree. In which case you'd likely end up with something other than OS X that is able to run OS X software. So it wouldn't really be a Mac clone. It would be . . . something I'm not sure anyone would want to begin with.
True, but then they'd likely be running into patent issues - i.e., the Dock, parts of the Leopard theme, etc. It would have to be a different OS to whatever degree. In which case you'd likely end up with something other than OS X that is able to run OS X software. So it wouldn't really be a Mac clone. It would be . . . something I'm not sure anyone would want to begin with.
They would need a lot of resourses and programming talent .Would they have that?