Apple says Psystar holding back info in Mac clone legal case

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER! Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.



    I don't think it's the copying of OSX which is so much at issue, as it is Psystar trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. This is a more difficult concept to grasp, but I believe equally important in this instance. Many if not most proprietary products are a combination of generic parts, or parts which can be purchased individually. Apple sells Macintosh computers, which are defined as the combination of Apple's hardware and software. The fact that parts of a Macintosh computer can be purchased individually does not give anyone else a right to assemble those parts and sell Macintosh computers.
  • Reply 142 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I don't think it's the copying of OSX which is so much at issue, as it is Psystar trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. This is a more difficult concept to grasp, but I believe equally important in this instance. Many if not most proprietary products are a combination of generic parts, or parts which can be purchased individually. Apple sells Macintosh computers, which are defined as the combination of Apple's hardware and software. The fact that parts of a Macintosh computer can be purchased individually does not give anyone else a right to assemble those parts and sell Macintosh computers.



    BTW, EFIX is great and they didn't do anything illegal to allow Mac OS X to install itself on a non-Mac PC, but setting yourself as a distributor without permission is illegal. EFI-X knows this as they removed to sell to EFiX USA after they tried to sell PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed. Since EFiX USA no longer has a distribution license for EFI-X products there Mac clone business is not defunct.
  • Reply 143 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I love how your solution is to throw copyright and distribution law out the window (but only when it pertains to Apple) while inconveniencing the consumer at the same time.



    Apple has never gone after the OSx86 Project as they are not acting as a distributer. If Psystar bought OS X and used OS X to install on their personal machines, then fine Apple woudn't have bothered them, but they are selling their machines with a copied version of Mac OS X on the machines without getting permission to be a distributer. PSYSTAR IS NOT A CONSUMER!



    Apparently you missed the part where I said this:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.



    Instead, you opted to show your wisdom with this brilliantly mature statement:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Ask your teacher about it when you finally get into your high school economics class.



    Like I said, brilliant. Soli, I appreciate your opinions on things, as you're typically a voice of sapience amongst voices of trolls. Have I misjudged you?



    -Clive
  • Reply 144 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Apparently you missed the part where I said this:



    Instead, you opted to show your wisdom with this brilliantly mature statement.



    Like I said, brilliant. Soli, I appreciate your opinions on things, as you're typically a voice of sapience amongst voices of trolls. Have I misjudged you?



    -Clive



    Yes, I did miss that part. A brand can be irreparably hurt or even sabotaged by such action so it does matter.



    I should to have an emoticon after that statement. While I disagree with you it was meant to jocular. My apologizes.
  • Reply 145 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    The "reseller's license" argument is a bit of red herring. Whether or not they have a license to resell OSX, they don't have the right to assemble the parts of a Macintosh computer and sell Macintosh computers. As the holder of the copyrights, patents and trademarks, only Apple has that right. The fact that the parts of a Mac can be purchased seems to confuse a lot of people into believing that assembling those parts and selling Macintosh computers doesn't violate Apple's intellectual property rights.
  • Reply 146 of 157
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I doubt Apple would care much about an ebay power user selling boxed copies of OS X. This does not strictly violate Apple's terms as the seller has no direct responsibility for what the buyer does with that copy. An entirely different situation from installing OS X on a computer and selling the computer at a cost lower than the Mac. Which uses Apple's property to compete directly against Apple.



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Clive At Five



    Apparently you missed the part where I said this:

    The reseller's license is the only thing of which I won't argue on Psystar's behalf. They don't have one. Does it matter? I'm not sure. There are hundreds of career power-sellers on eBay who get by without them, despite frequently reselling copyrighted work. I don't understand this either. Regardless, I think it's the least important of the issues at stake here, so let's move on to something more substantial.



  • Reply 147 of 157
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I should to have an emoticon after that statement. While I disagree with you it was meant to jocular. My apologizes.



    Appreciated.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    A brand can be irreparably hurt or even sabotaged by such action so it does matter.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I doubt Apple would care much about an ebay power user selling boxed copies of OS X. This does not strictly violate Apple's terms as the seller has no direct responsibility for what the buyer does with that copy.



    Certainly a brand can be damaged by those who aren't licensed retailers... even eBay Power-sellers. What if they constantly shipped damaged boxes or scratched disks? Could that not, too, threaten Apple's image?



    Just like with selling OS X OTC, Apple must be consistent with how they treat situations. Either they should crack down on all unauthorized retailers of their products, or none at all. Inconsistency is part of what makes this a frustrating situation. Apple is trying to pick and choose what rules to follow (or claim they care about) depending on whether it will benefit them. It's just like they have done with iPhone app store rejections: inconsistencies in acceptance depending on whether the product threatens them or not.



    On a basic level, consistency is what this is about: Either OS X should be sold like an auxiliary piece of software AND TREATED THAT WAY after the point of sale, or not sold OTC at all. Either Apple should care about all unauthorized retailers, or none at all. (Or to use the iPhone app example again) either Apple should allow all iPhone apps, or none at all.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    An entirely different situation from installing OS X on a computer and selling the computer at a cost lower than the Mac. Which uses Apple's property to compete directly against Apple.



    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?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    The "reseller's license" argument is a bit of red herring. Whether or not they have a license to resell OSX, they don't have the right to assemble the parts of a Macintosh computer and sell Macintosh computers. As the holder of the copyrights, patents and trademarks, only Apple has that right. The fact that the parts of a Mac can be purchased seems to confuse a lot of people into believing that assembling those parts and selling Macintosh computers doesn't violate Apple's intellectual property rights.



    Psystar isn't selling "Macs." They're selling a generic computer that happens to run OS X.



    --The crux of the matter:--



    We have copyright and IP protection laws for a reason, yes, but when those laws allow companies to shield themselves from all relevant competition, have they not gone too far? Should Apple be allowed to hide itself away in the bunkers of OS X's EULA, (and now, the iPhone's)? Should they be able to say, "no, you cannot jailbreak this device that you legally purchased from us, and install the applications of your choice?" Should they be able to say, "no, you cannot use this piece of software which you legally purchased from us, and install it on whatever medium you choose? "



    Thankfully, Apple has not yet sought to prosecute individual end-users who have done these things, but that doesn't mean they don't have the power to. Should Apple decide that they need to wring a few more dollars out of its customers and clamp down on Hackintosh builders and jailbreakers, Apple could, theoretically, win a legal suit against them. Is that right? Should companies posses the ability to dictate a product's use after cash has been exchanged and the product has left the store?



    That is the true question here, my friends.



    -Clive
  • Reply 148 of 157
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Certainly a brand can be damaged by those who aren't licensed retailers... even eBay Power-sellers. What if they constantly shipped damaged boxes or scratched disks? Could that not, too, threaten Apple's image?



    I believe most people who use ebay know they are taking a roll of the dice on the quality of the product they are buying. I cannot see very many people blaming Apple for a damaged disk they bought from a stranger on ebay,



    Quote:

    Just like with selling OS X OTC, Apple must be consistent with how they treat situations. Either they should crack down on all unauthorized retailers of their products, or none at all. Inconsistency is part of what makes this a frustrating situation. Apple is trying to pick and choose what rules to follow (or claim they care about) depending on whether it will benefit them. It's just like they have done with iPhone app store rejections: inconsistencies in acceptance depending on whether the product threatens them or not.



    Apple cannot police entirely every situation under which one of its products are sold. Selling an Apple product on ebay is fairly benign. Psystar is an entirely different matter. If Apple left it alone would set a bad precedent for others to use OS X to compete directly against their business model.



    Quote:

    On a basic level, consistency is what this is about: Either OS X should be sold like an auxiliary piece of software AND TREATED THAT WAY after the point of sale, or not sold OTC at all. Either Apple should care about all unauthorized retailers, or none at all. (Or to use the iPhone app example again) either Apple should allow all iPhone apps, or none at all.



    It is sold as an auxiliary software. In the EULA it clearly states OS X is to be only used on a Mac, unless Apple has given permission to a third party licensee.



    Quote:

    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?



    Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a neighborhood coffee bar buy retail bags of Starbucks instant coffee and sell it as its own? Starbucks lawyers would be down on them faster than,,,,,,,,,



    Yes Starbucks has every right to protect its property. Just as Starbucks' competitors have the right to create their own coffee blends and compete against Starbucks, which is what they do.



    Just as Psystar has the right to create their own OS and compete against Apple.
  • Reply 149 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    Psystar isn't selling "Macs." They're selling a generic computer that happens to run OS X.



    Which happens to be exactly the same thing for all intents and purposes. If you don't get that, then you're never going to understand why Psystar cannot legally continue doing what they have been doing.
  • Reply 150 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    @ Clive,



    And it's not so much that Psystar is hurting Apple's business right now, it's the potential that anyone and everyone from startups to major PC vendors would overnight be allowed to sell PCs with Mac OS X installed without needing permission from Apple first that would be a problem. No matter what theorectical outcome you can think of Psystar won't win and Apple won't lose (much), only the customer and MS would lose from a ruling in Psystar's favour.
  • Reply 151 of 157
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post


    No, I don't have a problem with it being stamped on a piece of plastic and sold over the counter, but if Apple sells it like any other piece of software, they can't expect to be able to control its use after it leaves the store.



    That's why I say that they can either continue selling it as they do and shut up about Hackintoshes and Clones, or pull it and only make it available through closed channels, i.e. a paid Software Update.



    I'm still having trouble getting my head around your reasoning.



    Either a company is allowed to control how there product is sold and used... or they are not. I really don't see why a paid software download is any different from a DVD.... just makes it a little harder to circumvent Apple's locks. Just like it was even harder when OS X was PowerPC only.



    You seem to be saying that the easier Apple makes it to use their OS the the worse they are behaving.



    Quote:

    I wouldn't be so black and white as to call it "pro" or "anti"-consumer. It, to me, reflects an inappropriate "privilege" as a vendor.



    What privilege? The privilege of denying non-Mac owners the use of their OS on a DVD.. vs the privilege of denying non-Mac owners the use of their OS via software update?



    No difference.
  • Reply 152 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
  • Reply 153 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Psystar files for Chapter 11.



    Chapter 11? That means they have some actual hope of surviving bankruptcy. I would have guessed Chapter 13, because as far as I can see, they have no chance of surviving bankruptcy.
  • Reply 154 of 157
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Chapter 11? That means they have some actual hope of surviving bankruptcy. I would have guessed Chapter 13, because as far as I can see, they have no chance of surviving bankruptcy.



    Good point. Can filing for bankruptcy allow them an out in having to supply their statements in the future? IOW, is this just a tactic from their lawyers?
  • Reply 155 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Good point. Can filing for bankruptcy allow them an out in having to supply their statements in the future? IOW, is this just a tactic from their lawyers?



    I don't really know, but I doubt it. The judge acts as a conservator -- he or she decides which creditors get paid and how much. So I'd assume the bankruptcy court needs to be apprised of all the relevant financial details. One thing the article says which might not be true is that this means the lawyers defending them will boogie because now they won't get paid. I'd always suspected that the law firm took this case on contingency. Could be we'll find out now.
  • Reply 156 of 157
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I don't really know, but I doubt it. The judge acts as a conservator -- he or she decides which creditors get paid and how much. So I'd assume the bankruptcy court needs to be apprised of all the relevant financial details. One thing the article says which might not be true is that this means the lawyers defending them will boogie because now they won't get paid. I'd always suspected that the law firm took this case on contingency. Could be we'll find out now.



    Actually the case isn't over so if it was on contingency the bankruptcy would be immaterial to the lawyers. But if they were being paid up front, the defense team will probably walk. They were pretty ineffective though, the only things they really got were timing-delay issues related to basic procedure, not to merits of the case.



    Also, there is no guarantee any third-party smoking gun source of funding will be identified. Does anyone think some corporate intrigue plot player would be dumb enough to forward money directly through Psystar? There are only about a half dozen other ways to fund the case that don't touch Psystar directly and so will never see the interior of a bankruptcy courtroom.
  • Reply 157 of 157
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Actually the case isn't over so if it was on contingency the bankruptcy would be immaterial to the lawyers.



    Isn't that exactly what I said? I also said that we might find out if someone was funding Psystar and its legal defense, not that we certainly would. I personally doubt that any big money was behind this, so if and when we do find out, I'm predicting that the conspiracy theorists are going to be disappointed.
Sign In or Register to comment.