Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info

1235717

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 331
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    So did they not file taxes for that year? If they did, their will be a copy of their finances. Did they really have everything on one drive in one machine? I can't believe that a company that is completely electronic with no paper backups would not have tape backups of their servers.



    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.
  • Reply 82 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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?



    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.
  • Reply 83 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 84 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 85 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



    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!
  • Reply 86 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    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".



    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.
  • Reply 87 of 331
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran View Post


    Looks like someone from the Osama, sorry Obama team is here.



    Don't bring your political agenda into this thread. It does not belong.
  • Reply 88 of 331
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    Akshully, a more appropriate analogy would be that someone buys a movie on DVD, takes the disc out of the original packaging, places it in a packaging that they themselves created, and then sell that product at a much cheaper rate to people who don't care about the fancy external packaging.



    Owned.



    '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.
  • Reply 89 of 331
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



    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.
  • Reply 90 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    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.
  • Reply 91 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



    I suppose you're right. If you own Dell stock, I suggest you sell it, since their entire business model is illegal.
  • Reply 92 of 331
    physguyphysguy Posts: 915member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I can say with confidence that they are buying a copy of Mac OS X for each illegal clone they make.



    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!

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    This is what they think is needed to be within the letter of the law.



    But if they haven't actually done this then...
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



  • Reply 93 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


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



    Are you suggesting that Dell obtains their OEM copies of Windows illegally?
  • Reply 94 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


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



    Yes.



    By your definition of illegality.
  • Reply 95 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    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...



    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
  • Reply 96 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    Yes.



    By your definition of illegality.



    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.
  • Reply 97 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Dell is a licensed OEM partner of Microsoft, Psystar is not an a licensed OEM partner of Apple. I really 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?
  • Reply 98 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    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.
  • Reply 99 of 331
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anilsudhakaran View Post


    Looks like someone from the Osama, sorry Obama team is here.



    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
  • Reply 100 of 331
    g3prog3pro Posts: 669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    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.



    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.