Apple accuses Psystar of hiding behind bankruptcy

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 81
    ktmktm Posts: 4member
    Alright, I give up. I was hoping to provoke someone to come out an actually put cement behind Apple's legitimate claim, rather that just 50 boring posts bashing Psystar. I'm not interested in getting into a word war.



    Pretty lame. Bye
  • Reply 62 of 81
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    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, [i]how do they know they're bankrupt?



    No pot to...

    ...... piss in!
  • Reply 63 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    Alright, I give up. I was hoping to provoke someone to come out an actually put cement behind Apple's legitimate claim, rather that just 50 boring posts bashing Psystar. I'm not interested in getting into a word war.



    Pretty lame. Bye



    It's true that there are needless Psystar bashing, but this isn't Psystar Insider, in some part, goes with the territory.



    You didn't put much, if any, effort to explain what you're talking about. If you thing someone was wrong, it wouldn't hurt to point it out and explain why it's wrong. Forget the "world war" hyperbole, you were barely willing to talk about anything at all except to lay down the "fanboy bomb", and invoke Godwin's law (mention Nazis, Hitler, etc) which, if you didn't know already, are almost always arrows from the quiver of a troll, not feed stock for a legitimate, inquisitive conversation.
  • Reply 64 of 81
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    Theres nothing vague about my post



    I agree. Vague is probably the wrong word.

    'Stupid' might be a bit closer.



    If you don't like fanboys... of tech companies or football teams then ... fine ... but don' t equate either to Nazis.



    Think before you post.
  • Reply 65 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by piot View Post


    I agree. Vague is probably the wrong word.



    Vague: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.



    Yes, that's the concept I was going for.
  • Reply 66 of 81
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    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.



    First post on the board and he satisfies Godwin's Law. We have a new standard of individual here.
  • Reply 67 of 81
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,085member
    This is being executed beautifully by Apple.



    They know exactly who is behind Psystar and are proceeding in the necessary method as required by courts to prove it.



    It reminds me of the way at a Keynote they have all their ducks in a row when introducing a product that was vaguely rumored but still manages to surprise due to a feature that was not known.



    Bravo!
  • Reply 68 of 81
    jimdreamworxjimdreamworx Posts: 1,085member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    Alright, I give up. I was hoping to provoke someone to come out an actually put cement behind Apple's legitimate claim, rather that just 50 boring posts bashing Psystar. I'm not interested in getting into a word war. Pretty lame. Bye



    Word war? Shurely not "World War 2", since you mentioned goose-stepping and Hitler.



    Grand idea that you leave, but your record for invoking Godwin's law in the fewest posts will be hard to beat!
  • Reply 69 of 81
    daseindasein Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


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



    I agree and imagine Apple would pass if that's all they found out it was, but they must smell something more here to formally pursue these guys, no? Garage hackers are one thing, testing the business waters is something I imagine they would want to slap down or box in ASAP. Otherwise, Dell, HP and others would be in the pool configuring their own offerings.
  • Reply 70 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    I agree and imagine Apple would pass if that's all they found out it was, but they must smell something more here to formally pursue these guys, no? Garage hackers are one thing, testing the business waters is something I imagine they would want to slap down or box in ASAP. Otherwise, Dell, HP and others would be in the pool configuring their own offerings.



    "For your own use" is not only difficult to track down, but taking action against a home-builder would rely entirely on the enforceability of the EULA as it applies to personal use, which I don't think they'd want to test. Psystar is clearly (and brazenly) trading on Apple's copyrights, which is an entirely different matter.
  • Reply 71 of 81
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    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?



    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



    In either case, I think the IRS would be very interested to hear about their lack of income reporting.
  • Reply 72 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Vague: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.



    Yes, that's the concept I was going for.



    Your posts are a lot more fun to read when they are not about the Jackling House issue!



  • Reply 73 of 81
    gtl215gtl215 Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    So I don't see what's stopping Apple from making a violent shift to Windows as their primary OS



    when did this site become, "AppleFansSmokingCrackInsider.com"?
  • Reply 74 of 81
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    I am not here to argue who is right, Apple or Psystar...



    But, for Apple to complain that Psystar is hiding behind the law to protect themselves seems a bit hypocritical when Apple uses the law to their advantage...the oh-so-common cease-and-desist orders they are fond of.
  • Reply 75 of 81
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Sounds like Apple is really wants to tighten the noose. Regardless what Psystar fanboys think or whine about, I hope that noose tightens up, skin turns blue and a double-knot made out of it. I really want to know what/who is backing Psystar.



    Nothing would make me feel better than watch what is basically a thief crash and burn. I hope this doesn't turn into a years-long SCO fiasco.



    While you may dislike what they do, they are not thieves. They buy the copies of OSX fairly and fully. Installing OSX on a non-Apple PC does not equate to theft in any way. It may break the EULA and other laws, but it is not theft.
  • Reply 76 of 81
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    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.



    What the heck. Installing OSX on a non-Apple PC is NOT piracy...if the installer has paid for the copy of the OS. If they steal it, yes, that is piracy, but Psystar includes a full version of OSX.
  • Reply 77 of 81
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    While you may dislike what they do, they are not thieves. They buy the copies of OSX fairly and fully. Installing OSX on a non-Apple PC does not equate to theft in any way. It may break the EULA and other laws, but it is not theft.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    What the heck. Installing OSX on a non-Apple PC is NOT piracy...if the installer has paid for the copy of the OS. If they steal it, yes, that is piracy, but Psystar includes a full version of OSX.





    Leaving the issue of whether they actually did pay for a copy of OS X per machine they sold aside (this is obviously an open question), lets assume you are correct they paid for a version of OS X.



    Your argument amounts to "if I pay for OS X I can do with it anything that I want, regardless of the EULA". So I can buy the cheapest version of Adobe Photoshop, say the upgrade student edition, and then I can hack it and re box it as a full retail copy of the same program? I mean I did "pay" for the program so why not?



    What's stopping Psystar from buying a "Family Pack" and counting that as 5 installs?



    (By the way: I dislike the term piracy for theft of software as Piracy often involves murder and kidnapping, the term bootlegging is a lot more accurate.)



    Whether or not you can personally see it, what Psystar is doing is theft, but there are more than 1 way to steal. I can steal your pizza, or I can steal your ideas. Microsoft stole Windows from Apple, but Apple lost in court because they were very stupid about the terms of the agreement they used to allow Microsoft to write software for the platform.



    Stealing has both a moral and a legal standpoint.



    I do not think Apple is going after the legal standpoint of stealing here, rather they are claiming violations of copyright, trademarks, DCMA violations, and various other similar avenues but they are doing it because they feel Pystar is committing the moral aspect of stealing.



    That's my take on it.
  • Reply 78 of 81
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    While you may dislike what they do, they are not thieves. They buy the copies of OSX fairly and fully. Installing OSX on a non-Apple PC does not equate to theft in any way. It may break the EULA and other laws, but it is not theft.



    Not sure which of your three posts in a row to respond to so I'll try this one.



    Actually we don't know where or how Psystar gets their copies of OSX or what they pay, since they don't seem to have any financial records for this or anything else apparently. Also it is deceptive to use terms like "theft" either as an attack on, or in defense of, Psystar's business practices. It's not about stealing, it's about trading on Apple's patents and copyrights. If these violations are proven, Apple can ask the court to assess monetary damages against Psystar. I seriously doubt whether Apple could ever collect a judgement, but that's not the point is it?
  • Reply 79 of 81
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasein View Post


    I agree and imagine Apple would pass if that's all they found out it was, but they must smell something more here to formally pursue these guys, no? Garage hackers are one thing, testing the business waters is something I imagine they would want to slap down or box in ASAP. Otherwise, Dell, HP and others would be in the pool configuring their own offerings.



    What I mean is that starting and running a business is trivial to do in this case. It's a web store, a business registration, a little bit of money for inventory, and some office / work space. I agree that the garage hackers usually aren't a threat, but it doesn't take much time or money to start a business, and because of the product in question, the news can easily be virally distributed. So it doesn't require require a big bogeyman to bankroll any of the business operation itself. But if someone is financing it for nefarious reasons, then I agree that should come out of the trial.



    The only question now is now much they are spending on legal defense. That too doesn't sound like much given the stream of contrived statements we're seeing from the defense.
  • Reply 80 of 81
    maximaramaximara Posts: 402member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KTM View Post


    I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in a court of law, the onus was on the defendant to prove themselves innocent.



    You then clearly never heard of Civil Asset Forfeiture. Even with the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 passed state and local police can still use this little gem to take everything you own without charging you with a crime. Look up the Tenaha, Texas Police seizures scandal for the latest in the way law REALLY works in the US. Then come back when you have a clue.
Sign In or Register to comment.