Apple accuses Psystar of hiding behind bankruptcy

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    I think they want to know who's bankrolling these enterprises. The money involved in this incident is chump change.



    If individuals can make Hackintoshes as they are now, it doesn't require that someone to bankrolls any or all of them.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Apple has the wherewithal to pursue every last one of these fly-by-night clone makers for years.



    And by the looks of it, it should be easy, since they don't seem to be making any money anyway. Here today, gone tomorrow.



    There's a question as to whether that's the best use of the money if it actually comes to that.



    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.



    The computer market is a bit of an oddball in this respect. There aren't a lot of consumer products that are modular and that dozens of makers make interconnecting products, an individual can assemble a computer with a dozen parts and each part made by a different company or any of a dozen other companies.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I know I'll sound like the devils advocate here...



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



    If you don't want your OS pirated, you have to tie it to hardware somehow (and not make it a pain for users).



    I don't see where it's smart to blame the victim.



    Quote:

    They know this, but are trying to play 'whack a mole' and are losing fast, the clones are mushrooming all around the world at a even faster pace.



    Unless this is all part of a plan, a plan to kill their own hardware sales that is.



    Aren't there only a handful of them? There are about four high profile ones I can think of.
  • Reply 42 of 81
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DanaCameron View Post


    I'm not the "get into a lather" type. I'm just here for the conversation.



    I'm here for the shave and a haircut.
  • Reply 43 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    I'm here for the shave and a haircut.



    I'm here for the dentistry. I thought everybody was.
  • Reply 44 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RBR View Post


    It is easy to do because Apple is a vertically integrated monopoly, [which] 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.



    Focusing on just the hardware and the tightly integrated OS for that hardware, how can Apple, Inc. be scrutinized as monopolizing how its own product performs? Apple isn't monopolizing what people do with their Macs. Apple's control over the end-to-end user experience is to ensure that people can do whatever they want (with other applications) with full trust and confidence that the hardware and Mac OS will work reliably. What else am I missing?
  • Reply 45 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DanaCameron View Post


    Focusing on just the hardware and the tightly integrated OS for that hardware, how can Apple, Inc. be scrutinized as monopolizing how its own product performs? Apple isn't monopolizing what people do with their Macs. Apple's control over the end-to-end user experience is to ensure that people can do whatever they want (with other applications) with full trust and confidence that the hardware and Mac OS will work reliably. What else am I missing?



    You're not missing anything -- the terms are being misused. Vertical integration and monopoly are two different concepts. One is not naturally implied by the other. Apple is not a "monopoly" by any accepted definition of the term.
  • Reply 46 of 81
    brucepbrucep Posts: 2,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    I'm here for the dentistry. I thought everybody was.



    I miss teckstud too.
  • Reply 47 of 81
    Apple has a monopoly on Mac computers, Dell has a monopoly on DELL computers... but neither has a monopoly on computers.
  • Reply 48 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post


    Apple has a monopoly on Mac computers, Dell has a monopoly on DELL computers... but neither has a monopoly on computers.



    By any reasonable definition. Everyone has a "monopoly" on products they've copyrighted or patented.
  • Reply 49 of 81
    eldernormeldernorm Posts: 232member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I know I'll sound like the devils advocate here...



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



    If you don't want your OS pirated, you have to tie it to hardware somehow (and not make it a pain for users).



    They know this, but are trying to play 'whack a mole' and are losing fast, the clones are mushrooming all around the world at a even faster pace.



    Unless this is all part of a plan, a plan to kill their own hardware sales that is.



    Sorry but that would make having Banks build in such a way that you COULD NOT rob them, but not make it hard to use their services.



    Or make it a law that everyone know that MS services SUCKED and could not complain.



    Just a thought.



    en
  • Reply 50 of 81
    ktmktm Posts: 4member
    OK, I've read the comments to several of these Psystar stories, before commenting.



    My initial reation is there is gross misunderstanding of US law, and the Consititution, and the commenters on this site are nothing but unabashed fanboys who will support Apple no matter what, not unlike the goosestepping army of Hitler.



    That being said - I'd be open to getting proven wrong.
  • Reply 51 of 81
    maximaramaximara Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    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.



    The whole of Chapter 11 (along with a LOT of other stuff is up atthrough Cornell Law School Two passages seems to say the opposite of what you are stating:



    § 1123 (a) (2) specify any class of claims or interests that is not impaired under the plan;



    § 1123 (a) (3) specify the treatment of any class of claims or interests that is impaired under the plan;



    The word specify would seems to require details. BUt if that was enough there is this little gem:



    § 1125 (a) (1) “adequate information” means information of a kind, and in sufficient detail, as far as is reasonably practicable in light of the nature and history of the debtor and the condition of the debtor’s books and records,



    The "in sufficient detail" part would indicate they can't just make up numbers out of thin air for your creditors--Psystar is going to HAVE to cough up something somewhere along the line.



    § 1104 (a)(1) is a real laugh riot for Psystar as it say the court can appoint a trustee "for cause--including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management."



    Given the way Psystar has blundered along in the California case I would say the incompetence or gross mismanagement clauses likely apply.



    Oh and it gets even better. According to Total Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Attorneys Nationwide: "Completeness in filing bankruptcy: You can't leave anything out when filing bankruptcy. You're expected to list all of your property, income and debts. Excluding any of these is as bad in the eyes of the bankruptcy court as putting incorrect information on your forms when filing bankruptcy.
  • Reply 52 of 81
    maximaramaximara Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    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!



    Doubtful as there is no such thing as a "foolproof plan". I suspect that in some way Apple is going to have Snow Leopard set up in a way that is make is cost prohibitive to continue this nonsense.
  • Reply 53 of 81
    I've asked this question before, but it bears repeating: if Psystar do not have, as they claim, anything that resembles a balance sheet or a P&L, how do they know they're bankrupt? More importantly, how do they intend to show that they're bankrupt?



    Either they were lying at the Apple deposition when they claimed not to have such things (and, IIRC, laughably claimed that they were under no legal obligation to maintain such records), or they're lying now.



    Cheers



    Jim
  • Reply 54 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    OK, I've read the comments to several of these Psystar stories, before commenting.



    My initial reation is there is gross misunderstanding of US law, and the Consititution, and the commenters on this site are nothing but unabashed fanboys who will support Apple no matter what, not unlike the goosestepping army of Hitler.



    That being said - I'd be open to getting proven wrong.



    Which of course you can't, provided your posts continue to be vague, insulting, and lacking in any facts or arguments of any kind. Well done.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jim Campbell View Post


    I've asked this question before, but it bears repeating: if Psystar do not have, as they claim, anything that resembles a balance sheet or a P&L, how do they know they're bankrupt? More importantly, how do they intend to show that they're bankrupt?



    Because they've maxxed out their Visa card?
  • Reply 55 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    OK, I've read the comments to several of these Psystar stories, before commenting.



    My initial reation is there is gross misunderstanding of US law, and the Consititution, and the commenters on this site are nothing but unabashed fanboys who will support Apple no matter what, not unlike the goosestepping army of Hitler.



    That being said - I'd be open to getting proven wrong.



    So you're open to other people proving their case, but you're not proving your case to any degree.
  • Reply 56 of 81
    maximaramaximara Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    OK, I've read the comments to several of these Psystar stories, before commenting.



    My initial reation is there is gross misunderstanding of US law, and the Consititution, and the commenters on this site are nothing but unabashed fanboys who will support Apple no matter what, not unlike the goosestepping army of Hitler.



    That being said - I'd be open to getting proven wrong.



    I see no examples of "gross misunderstanding" except by Psystar supporters. Constitution is not a simple straight read--it is was West Virgina couldn't exist (Read Article 4 Section 3 as to why) Article 1 section 8.



    I doubt that the first sale doctrine would allow you buy 1000 copies of a book take out pages and then put them manually in a story you have written and sale those 1000 copies (that is basically what Psystar is doing). I would think the issue of derivative works would enter into the picture for anyone doing such a thing.



    Trademark law is another issue in this mess. Since Psystar is using software that has Apple's trademark all over for the computers Psystar is selling given them added value all without Apple's permission it would seem Psystar has problems there as well.
  • Reply 57 of 81
    ktmktm Posts: 4member
    Theres nothing vague about my post, I explicitely stated I am taking the unpopular position.

    I'm doing that because I'd really like to know what Psystar has done that is hurting Apple so bad.



    I get the part about Apple losing some hardware sales, but the software thing only helps Apple in my eyes.



    I would never buy a computer from Psystar or any other clone maker, my computing needs require Apple quality at a minumum. I would probably pay 20k for a personal work computer if it was worth it.



    That being said - why is there such jealous hate being directed at a company that could actually help Apple increase market share?
  • Reply 58 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    You have still made no real argument that I can detect.



    The question is not whether Psystar has "hurt" Apple. Like any other owner of intellectual property, Apple is entitled to protect it, and you can be sure that they are going to protect it.
  • Reply 59 of 81
    ktmktm Posts: 4member
    I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in a court of law, the onus was on the defendant to prove themselves innocent.
  • Reply 60 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Also, no clarification was made on what this claimed to be "gross misunderstanding of US law, and the Consititution". That is a grossly vague claim.
Sign In or Register to comment.