Apple accuses Psystar of hiding behind bankruptcy

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 81
    chase rchase r Posts: 18member
    I love it... Kicking Psystar while there down.



    I wouldn't do it any differently.
  • Reply 22 of 81
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacFinder View Post


    Apple was always trying to protect the MacOS from those illegal actions. Since Apple II.

    You can find more information using Google. So, they have just cracked this defense.



    But there are some rumors that Apple,

    tired with Psystar and other clone makers and just those guys who have installed Hackintosh,

    is developing the excellent protection right now for Snow Leopard.

    Also, if you'll investigate some sites like RussianMac's,

    there's an interesting warning: "there's no guarantee that you'll be able to install the newer versions of MacOS"



    I hope that those clone makers will just stay with v10.5,

    and not touch the newer versions,

    and after several years it would be very hard to sell the "not-too-up-to-date" system" .



    I enjoy your posts dude.THIS one has you on the fence, and also on either side of the fence.

    That's ok.



    That special machine killing phone bricking software surprise wlll not be used against these traitors.



    It will be a timed 22 month set-up. Millions of people will be drawn in. People will become lazy and complacent. and then .... mactripp dude .. Can you finish this. Do you see where i am going?



    I wonder if me saying it will ruin it ?



    i await you
  • Reply 23 of 81
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    ...but it's really all Apple's fault.



    If you don't want your OS pirated, you have to tie it to hardware.



    Brilliant!



    So when someone breaks into your house.... it''s your fault .... because you didn't put a padlock on the door.
  • Reply 24 of 81
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    When somebody files Bankruptcy two government entities are involved. One is the US Trustee's Office, which is a wing of the Department of Justice. Two the Court. It is possible for somebody to file Bankruptcy and never meet his, her, or it's judge. The Judge is only involved if there is a dispute.



    There is no implied danger here. Bankruptcy judges only deal with Bankruptcy questions. Further, they don't look to much at the business model either. They only decide whether the reorganization of debt requested by the Debtor is appropriate if a creditor (e.g. Apple) challenges the requested relief.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by floccus View Post


    I wonder if there's an implied danger to Apple if Psystar was allowed to exit bankruptcy doing the same thing they're currently being sued for. It would mean that a judge had already implicitly said that what they were doing was legal enough that they can keep doing it after reorganizing. Of course, one would think that any bankruptcy judge would examine Psystar's planned post-bankruptcy business model and see that if they plan to keep selling computers with questionable legality that its in the best interest of both parties to settle the matter now by allowing the suit to proceed.



  • Reply 25 of 81
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    You probably don't know a lot about Bankruptcy. When companies file Bankruptcy they fill out a Petition. The Petition requires a company to list the name, address, and amount owed to any creditor. It also requires them to list creditors as secured, priority (e.g. tax debt), or unsecured. It doesn't require the debt to be specifically identified. The purpose is to give the Creditor notice of the filing. Presumably the creditor knows what the amount is for.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maximara View Post


    Not specifying just what that $75,000 if for is even more insane.



  • Reply 26 of 81
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    No according to him, it is his fault because he didn't bolt all of his belongings to the house. I don't want somebody to blame me for somebody robbing me blind so I am going to buy all those bolts right now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    Brilliant!



    So when someone breaks into your house.... it''s your fault .... because you didn't put a padlock on the door.



  • Reply 27 of 81
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macnyc View Post


    Your argument is nonsense... Microsoft is still in business despite the millions of illegal copies of windows.



    Billions, you forgot about the Chinese.



    But you don't see Microsoft suing all of them do you?



    It's because M$ is a software company and covering the entire market is their objective to prevent competition.



    M$ only takes action where and when they can, when it makes legal and financial sense, when a result will benefit them profit wise or else it's a waste of time and money.



    If a government of billions of people don't cooperate, what the hell can you do? Invade them?
  • Reply 28 of 81
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    It's a good point - if you break the law, you can't get out of it just by saying you're bankrupt. You still must answer for your deed.



    You misperceive the nature of a bankruptcy proceeding.



    A reorganization under protection of the court is not a "get out of jail free card". It merely means that all pending litigation is stayed during the pendency of the proceeding or until such time as the bankruptcy court may issue an order allowing any particular case to proceed.



    The bankruptcy court has the authority to adjudicate claims against the debtor whether they be disputed (as in pending or prospective litigation) or not.



    It is not a requirement that the bankruptcy judge grant Apple's motion, though he could if he determined that it would be appropriate. Frankly, it is common practice to enter bankruptcy to have claims adjudicated without the protracted expenses of conventional litigation.



    One of the things that Apple stands to lose if its claim is adjudicated in bankruptcy court is the ability to abuse the legal process (and Pystar) for the purpose of crushing them whether their claim is victorious or not.



    In any event, the bankruptcy court is perfectly capable of sorting things out.
  • Reply 29 of 81
    gcsgcs Posts: 29member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Billions, you forgot about the Chinese.



    But you don't see Microsoft suing all of them do you?



    It's because M$ is a software company and covering the entire market is their objective to prevent competition.



    M$ only takes action where and when they can, when it makes legal and financial sense, when a result will benefit them profit wise or else it's a waste of time and money.



    If a government of billions of people don't cooperate, what the hell can you do? Invade them?



    And if they own 40% of your country, what good will it do to invade them?
  • Reply 30 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    I'm curious if Apple does tie Snow Leopard to hardware what people will come out of the woodwork and scream "monopolistic behavior".



    I don't pretend to understand all the intricacies of IP law, but Mac OS X is Apple's software product, designed specifically to work with several products in Apple's hardware line?Apple justifies this control as its way of ensuring the consistently-high quality of the end-to-end user experience (caveat venditor). Apple owns it all and should have the right to dictate how it all works together.



    I think Apple should tie Snow Leopard and beyond to its hardware (doing the same retroactively with older Mac OSes wherever possible as well) and make it as difficult as technically possible for thieves around the world to steal its IP and taint the Apple brand by distorting the user experience.
  • Reply 31 of 81
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    I did mention in my previous post about other countries ignoring IP laws. I'm curious if Apple does tie Snow Leopard to hardware what people will come out of the woodwork and scream "monopolistic behavior".



    OS X is already tied to Apple's hardware. Or am I misunderstanding your post?



    The issue of Apple being a monopoly has alreadty been put to bed legally several times in the US, both with respect to OS X on Macs and with respect to iPods/iTunes. I believe this was also resolved with the EU.



    Not only is Apple not a monopoly abuser (which is always the real issue), but they aren't even a monopoly, and currently have not met any legal definition of it in the US.
  • Reply 32 of 81
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    I did mention in my previous post about other countries ignoring IP laws. I'm curious if Apple does tie Snow Leopard to hardware what people will come out of the woodwork and scream "monopolistic behavior".



    I can see that happening eventually as the public becomes more and more aware that Mac's are just generic Intel PC's now with a different OS.



    Apple is still riding high on it's old public perception that they are completely different computers, like they were under PPC.



    The longer Apple takes to do the hardware tie-in, the powerful more the "monopolistic behavior" screaming will be and even get the attention of lawmakers to stop them.



    Apple made a violent switch to Intel processors just a year after praising IBM and the new PowerMac G5 and the future.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnEbPm8mATQ



    So I don't see what's stopping Apple from making a violent shift to Windows as their primary OS if the overseas clones in IP law lax countries become so overwhelming and unstoppable that it's killing Apple hardware sales.



    What's stopping people in the US, Apple's primary market, from buying from German based PearPC?



    Nothing right? Now multiply that clone company by thousands and watch traffic dry up at the Apple Stores in a hurry.



    That's what I see as happening. Clones kill, and I can't believe Apple allowed it to happen to them again.
  • Reply 33 of 81
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    [QUOTE=DanaCameron;1432344 <from the title> How can anyone accuse Apple of monopolistic behavior?[/QUOTE]



    It is easy to do because Apple is a vertically integrated monopoly.



    Before you get in a lather, that is only a part of the question involved in "the clone wars". The determinative issue is whether Apple is a legal vertically integrated monopoly. So far the decisions have said yes.



    Will that change? Who knows? Ultimately, the answer may depend upon the jurisdiction in which the case is decided.
  • Reply 34 of 81
    maximaramaximara Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    That's all well and good, except for the fact of other companies setting up shop in countries with little IP respecting laws. RussiaMac anyone? How about a PearPC?



    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-304057.html



    Given the import duties it makes no sense to get a RussiaMac never mind Russia has not been know for quality.



    import duties also apply to the PearC (the PearPC that is a dead PowerPC emulator whose last stable update was back in 2005) and Apple need only slap the EULA on Snow Leopard's box and the fig leaf crap PearC is using will be gone and like the formal clone makers of old they will quickly with and die as they will no longer have the strange German legal fig leaf to hide behind.



    Besides I have a copy of Leopard and right on the box it states "Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreements included in this package" and on other side it states under requirements: "Mac computer with...' and I assume these same passage are in German for the German version. So the fig leaf PearC is using may not be there in the first place as the Mac ECLU is right on the the freaking box.
  • Reply 35 of 81
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,603member
    Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who might be bankrolling Psystar? Would it be a big, established company, or some venture capitalist testing the waters for a larger cloning effort apart from Psystar? Was Psystar a legitimate start-up at the outset who then got co-opted, or a stalking horse from the get go? Anyone?
  • Reply 36 of 81
    rbrrbr Posts: 631member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Anyone want to hazard a guess as to who might be bankrolling Psystar? Would it be a big, established company, or some venture capitalist testing the waters for a larger cloning effort apart from Psystar? Was Psystar a legitimate start-up at the outset who then got co-opted, or a stalking horse from the get go? Anyone?





    Does it matter? The issues are the same.
  • Reply 37 of 81
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maximara View Post


    Given the import duties it makes no sense to get a RussiaMac never mind Russia has not been know for quality.



    import duties also apply to the PearC (the PearPC that is a dead PowerPC emulator whose last stable update was back in 2005) and Apple need only slap the EULA on Snow Leopard's box and the fig leaf crap PearC is using will be gone and like the formal clone makers of old they will quickly with and die as they will no longer have the strange German legal fig leaf to hide behind.



    Besides I have a copy of Leopard and right on the box it states "Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreements included in this package" and on other side it states under requirements: "Mac computer with...' and I assume these same passage are in German for the German version. So the fig leaf PearC is using may not be there in the first place as the Mac ECLU is right on the the freaking box.



    It's just a matter of time before a major Mac cloner comes up with a fool proof plan and the bucks to gain lots of attention to rob Apple of significant hardware sales.



    Heck a Mac cloner can start with 15" matte screen notebook similar to the Macbook Pro and gain considerable sales straight off!
  • Reply 38 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    It is easy to do because Apple is a vertically integrated monopoly.



    Before you get in a lather, that is only a part of the question involved in "the clone wars". The determinative issue is whether Apple is a legal vertically integrated monopoly. So far the decisions have said yes.



    Will that change? Who knows? Ultimately, the answer may depend upon the jurisdiction in which the case is decided.



    Please specify the decisions where it has been determined that Apple is a "vertically integrated monopoly."
  • Reply 39 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Mac's are just generic Intel PC's now with a different OS.



    I don't see it this way. Macs may run on Intel processors, but they offer an entirely different user experience than PCs, and are far from generic.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Apple is still riding high on it's old public perception that they are completely different computers, like they were under PPC.



    I think there's a difference in perception. Under PPC/before Mac OS X/before Steve Jobs' return, Apple suffered (rightfully in some ways) with being perceived as "other." What little was known or presumed about Apple products was largely misconception and/or bad word of mouth. Apple had some serious problems a few years ago and was putting out some bad products. Many of those issues have been resolved with the switch to Intel, the transition to Mac OS X and the infusion of real vision with the return of Steve Jobs. Now, I think, the perception of Apple is, or is at least increasingly becoming, that of a "viable alternative."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I don't see what's stopping Apple from making a violent shift to Windows as their primary OS if the overseas clones in IP law lax countries become so overwhelming and unstoppable that it's killing Apple hardware sales.



    I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that Apple should stop developing Mac OS X and only build hardware solutions with Microsoft Windows pre-installed?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    What's stopping people in the US, Apple's primary market, from buying from German based PearPC? Nothing right?



    I'd argue quality, user expectation and customer satisfaction. I've lived in Europe, and based on my impressions, I'd say IP laws are more stringent here in the US because consumers demand more from the products they buy and expect the manufacturers of those products to stand behind them. The successful companies creating successful products protect themselves, and are protected by, (hopefully comprehensive) IP legislation.



    Most people in the US aren't going to be drawn to foreign PC manufacturers in general (we're spoiled for choice domestically as it is), and, more specifically, I doubt they'd be drawn to a foreign Apple clone. Apple is too well known (and increasingly more respected) here in the US and many (if not most) people in the US tend to regard knock-off products as cheap imitations.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Now multiply that clone company by thousands and watch traffic dry up at the Apple Stores in a hurry. That's what I see as happening. Clones kill, and I can't believe Apple allowed it to happen to them again.



    Ten years ago, when beige boxes were all the rage, Power Computing, Motorola and others produced some clones with similar aesthetics to the boring hardware Apple was producing under Gil Amelio. In fact, those clones, in some cases, were better (i.e., more powerful or reliable) than Apple's products at the time. That's no longer the case.



    Today's would-be clone manufacturers would be hard pressed to approach the design and build quality of Apple's current lineup (particularly Apple's unibody MacBook enclosures). Their uninspired metal boxes simply can't compete with Jonathan Ive or Apple's R&D and production budgets. Add to that the solid reliability, power and tight integration of Mac OS X to that hardware and you find a formula that most people in the US recognize as brand quality they can trust.



    Clones are certainly a threat to Apple's (and AAPL's) interests and brand. Apple seems to be doing exactly what they need to do to not let the would-be clone makers get away with anything and I hope they succeed. In any event, I don't think clones (or the threat of them) will kill Apple.
  • Reply 40 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    Before you get in a lather?



    I'm not the "get into a lather" type. I'm just here for the conversation.
Sign In or Register to comment.