Psystar agrees to pay Apple $2.7M in settlement

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 87
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robodude View Post


    In regards to your assertion, what big company actually stands to benefit from this? The main draw of OS X is that it's tied to Apple hardware. Put it on other hardware and it quickly becomes vulnerable to the same problems as Windows.



    I think that's the point. Had Psystar actually made a go of it, Apple's brand actually would have been harmed. Apple's competitors benefit.



    At the end of the day, the whole thing just seems really weird. It's hard to believe that they would be so clueless as to risk a great deal of other people's money on such a shaky premise, but it seems almost bizarre to imagine that they had deep pocketed backers that were looking to blindside Apple.
  • Reply 42 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I think that's the point. Had Psystar actually made a go of it, Apple's brand actually would have been harmed. Apple's competitors benefit.



    At the end of the day, the whole thing just seems really weird. It's hard to believe that they would be so clueless as to risk a great deal of other people's money on such a shaky premise, but it seems almost bizarre to imagine that they had deep pocketed backers that were looking to blindside Apple.



    It is bizarre, but we still don't have any concrete reasons to believe that they were supported in their Quixotic mission by anyone.
  • Reply 43 of 87
    pg4gpg4g Posts: 383member
    Hmmm I'd say we do: they have no way to pay the legal fees, yet somehow they have a legal team. That show money is coming from somewhere.
  • Reply 44 of 87
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    It is bizarre, but we still don't have any concrete reasons to believe that they were supported in their Quixotic mission by anyone.



    I?ve never believed that they have backers and this doesn?t look that way either. If they did, I?d think that Apple would have gone after them for more money and to teach them a lesson. At least, i would, but I?m a ruthless SOB.
  • Reply 45 of 87
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PG4G View Post


    Hmmm I'd say we do: they have no way to pay the legal fees, yet somehow they have a legal team. That show money is coming from somewhere.



    They could have done it with the intention of winning, hence the first team leaving. Or using borrowed money from a source like a bank, not one with a vested interest in seeing Apple?s business model change.
  • Reply 46 of 87
    I'm selling OSX 10.6.2-compatible systems with the following specs:



    * 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo

    * 2GB memory

    * 160GB hard drive1

    * 8x double-layer SuperDrive

    * NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics

    * Mac OS X Snow Leopard and iLife Included!



    Only $699.00 + shipping!



    -Switchy
  • Reply 47 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    2.7 Million? If the reports of them only selling under 200,000 units are true, this may be like 80% of their profits.



    Reports had them selling about 768 of them.
  • Reply 48 of 87
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    They could have done it with the intention of winning, hence the first team leaving. Or using borrowed money from a source like a bank, not one with a vested interest in seeing Apple?s business model change.



    That's the thing, though-- from everything I've seen, there was simply no chance, none, that they were going to prevail, and any reasonably competent legal advisor would have told them that immediately.



    The whole thing would have made sense if it were the scheme of a couple of ambitious 18 year olds working out of a basement, which possibly it was, but it sure did seem to involve a lot of money for being so half-assed.
  • Reply 49 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I?ve never believed that they have backers and this doesn?t look that way either. If they did, I?d think that Apple would have gone after them for more money and to teach them a lesson. At least, i would, but I?m a ruthless SOB.



    I have an idea that the Apple legal team isn't a bunch of shrinking violets either. The theory that some nefarious plot was at work here always seemed to me to be overblown and without basis. One rule of life always seems to hold -- never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by stupidity.
  • Reply 50 of 87
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    That's the thing, though-- from everything I've seen, there was simply no chance, none, that they were going to prevail, and any reasonably competent legal advisor would have told them that immediately.



    The whole thing would have made sense if it were the scheme of a couple of ambitious 18 year olds working out of a basement, which possibly it was, but it sure did seem to involve a lot of money for being so half-assed.



    But then I have to ask what wealthy company would have backed such a losing battle. I can’t think of any, not even Michael Dell would do it.



    What I think is that they were paid some retainer and were hoping for a settlement at some point to make it go away. To try to make Apple cave by looking like a big bad giant crushing the "entrepreneuring" little guy.



    If dumb cases we never get legal representation then we’d never have seen these…
  • Reply 51 of 87
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macfabulous View Post


    That´s the big question? If Psystar´s financial backers makes it possible for them to pay up, all of these trademarks will in some degree be fair game for those who wants to exploit ??? Dell, Microsoft and others could benefit. Or am I wrong?



    Was this part of the scheme from day one?



    If you think that major manufacturers like Dell, or HP, or anyone else would sell computers with OS X pre-installed without an agreement with Apple you need to see a doctor. Even if, and that's a really big IF, some legal mumbo-jumbo makes it appear to possibly be legal they still wouldn't do it without Apple's willing assistance and agreement. As long as Apple doesn't want to license OS X the only companies doing something like this will be piss-ants like Psystar. And Apple can play the "keep one step ahead of the pirates" game forever. They can break the Rebel EFI with every update. Just ask Palm how their iTunes syncing is going these days.
  • Reply 52 of 87
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by estolinski View Post


    "Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.



    Apple who?



    I think "Psystar who?" who would be more correct. Although I'm sure you could also find plenty of people who didn't know who/what Apple was even if they knew what an iPod was. And chances are they know what an iPod is in the same sense that they know what a Kleenex is, i.e., as a category of devices not as a particular brand like they actually are. I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who knew what Psystar is/was.



    It's probably unquantifiable because the "harm" is so very close to none.
  • Reply 53 of 87
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    But then I have to ask what wealthy company would have backed such a losing battle. I can?t think of any, not even Michael Dell would do it.



    What I think is that they were paid some retainer and were hoping for a settlement at some point to make it go away. To try to make Apple cave by looking like a big bad giant crushing the "entrepreneuring" little guy.



    If dumb cases we never get legal representation then we?d never have seen these?



    Yeah, sure, plenty of frivolous lawsuits, and no dearth of attorneys ready to file them. Still, that kind of thing doesn't generally involve putting up a lot of money, of one's own or one's backers, in a scheme so hair-brained it doesn't pass the laugh test.



    Or am I wrong about that? Was there ever a lot of money involved? I guess it doesn't take much capital to put up a website, buy the parts for a PC tower, and install some software. For all I know they were doing it on an order by order basis, given the low sales numbers we've now seen.
  • Reply 54 of 87
    I am kind of hoping that Canon will sue over the use of the name Rebel
  • Reply 55 of 87
    Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".



    Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.
  • Reply 56 of 87
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarquisMark View Post


    Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't this set a bad precedent about the enforceability of EULAs. So, if I buy a copy of OSX and violate some term in it (e.g. put it on a non-Apple branded PC), they can go after me. I don't know if I like the sound of that, not just with Apple but all software companies with these EULA you have to "agree to".



    Not that I'm condoning Psystar or anything. Just worried this is a step in the wrong direction even if it is in favor of our beloved Apple this time.



    There's a fair amount of difference between you making a Hackintosh for your own use and trying to sell them as a business....



    For one thing, how would it ever come to Apple's attention?
  • Reply 57 of 87
    timuscatimusca Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    That is, sadly, funny. ROTFLMAO.



    It's also very Photoshopped.
  • Reply 58 of 87
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimUSCA View Post


    It's also very Photoshopped.



    Even if it is, I?ve seen the show enough to know that some people do mis the easiest questions for whatever reason.
  • Reply 59 of 87
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maximara View Post


    Actually the summery judgment did set a precedence: Apple restriction on hardware is protected under the DMCA. This majorly cripples future endeavors and other companies trying the same thing.



    You are both wrong.



    No one "set a precedence."



    They may have set a precedent however.
  • Reply 60 of 87
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TimUSCA View Post


    It's also very Photoshopped.



    Real picture of real contestant answering real question incorrectly AFAIK.
Sign In or Register to comment.