Psystar files for bankruptcy likely delaying Apple case

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 168
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shavex View Post


    sad day.



    That's ignorant.
  • Reply 22 of 168
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Okay, so Pystar makes computers that are 100% Mac OS X compliant. Why does that make them crooks? The parts are open and freely used on PC's running Windows... Folks, if Pystar would win, we all win. It creates competiton, and therefore better products and lower prices. That's capitalism. Hoping Apple wins out is a vote for higher prices, less choice, and whatever Apple feels we deserve to get from them. In other words, you, the consumer, loses.



    Oh God, here we go again.



    Exactly what part of the fact, that they did not have have a license from Apple to do what they did, do you not understand?
  • Reply 23 of 168
    ddbddb Posts: 3member
    Wait a minute, Pystar is going out of business selling cheap, knockoff Macs because of the pullback in consumer spending?



    Aren't all the pundits and armchair experts constantly insisting that cheaper macs are THE ONLY WAY to weather the economic downturn?



    Looks like maybe a cheaper mac is not the answer to life after all.
  • Reply 24 of 168
    ivan.rnn01ivan.rnn01 Posts: 1,822member
    Psystar weren't just a small gang of ingenious and energetic little guys. There was a serious power behind them. The power having been emerging from certain developing countries, which wanted cheap Macs. "Nice job, ladies. And nice PC."
  • Reply 25 of 168
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    If Psystar had deep-pockets financial backers then they very likely would not be filing for bankruptcy protection.



    Hmm.... It doesn't sound like you have done too many startups.



    It's a very common practice for VC types to set contractual goals for the startup to achieve prior to the release of additional funds, also listed in the contract. So, in effect, both parties are clear as to what funds are available and what it takes to have them released to the startup.



    So, it is possible that they have, or had, deep pocket associates. Most likely any deep pocket associates would now be quietly fading in the shadows, hoping that the "list" a few posters have mentioned never sees the light of day. Assuming, of course, that said list exists at all.



    Truth is, I have no idea of how Psystar was set up, so I could just be talking out my garbage collection heap.
  • Reply 26 of 168
    gtl215gtl215 Posts: 242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DDB View Post


    Aren't all the pundits and armchair experts constantly insisting that cheaper macs are THE ONLY WAY to weather the economic downturn?



    Looks like maybe a cheaper mac is not the answer to life after all.





    DING DING DING! what do we have for him, Johnny?? Hit the nail right on the head.



    Mac software works great because of controlled hardware. Let the hardware run free, and the software ceases to work great. PERIOD!
  • Reply 27 of 168
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Wasn't Psystar formed so Joe 6-Pack had a much less expensive alternative to Apple computers?

    And they are filing for bankruptcy because of a "turbulent global economy and pullback in consumer spending".

    Yet Apple, with their "overpriced systems", is having record revenues...
  • Reply 28 of 168
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,792member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    For whom? Why?



    Care to elaborate?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    That's ignorant.



    I assume this person thinks that Psystar should be able to make Mac clones legally????
  • Reply 29 of 168
    nerudaneruda Posts: 427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    Oh God, here we go again.



    Exactly what part of the fact, that they did have have a license from Apple to do what they did, do you not understand?



    I am going to assume that you meant "that they did not have a license from Apple to do what they did".



    If not, then the part where the EULA specifically limits installation of the OS to Apple branded hardware which Apple has all the rights to do (since it is their property). If Apple had granted Psystar a license to do what they did then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit (and it would not have gotten past a summary judgment motion if that had been the case).
  • Reply 30 of 168
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neruda View Post


    I am going to assume that you meant "that they did not have a license from Apple to do what they did".



    If not, then the part where the EULA specifically limits installation of the OS to Apple branded hardware which Apple has all the rights to do (since it is their property). If Apple had granted Psystar a license to do what they did then there wouldn't have been a lawsuit (and it would not have gotten past a summary judgment motion if that had been the case).



    Yeah, classic case of "fat fingers".



    I have corrected my original posting.
  • Reply 31 of 168
    gto65lgto65l Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Okay, so Pystar makes computers that are 100% Mac OS X compliant. Why does that make them crooks? The parts are open and freely used on PC's running Windows... Folks, if Pystar would win, we all win. It creates competiton, and therefore better products and lower prices. That's capitalism. Hoping Apple wins out is a vote for higher prices, less choice, and whatever Apple feels we deserve to get from them. In other words, you, the consumer, loses.



    If I created the hardware for a GPS navigational system, the parts of which are readily available from many electronics component retailers, and then used TomTom's software by downloading their software updates from their website, which is freely available, would it be stealing?



    YES!



    TomTom's software is tied to the hardware. All software updates are considered additive to an already purchased license of the software bundled with the hardware. Duplicating the hardware and then using updates as the software is stealing!



    Why is this so hard for some people! If Psystar wins, we all lose. Get ready to pay $500 for your Snow Leopard update!
  • Reply 32 of 168
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by htoelle View Post


    Another thought

    Most likely Apple will let this thing die where it is, taking no further action.



    Depends on where they think their case is in terms of success.

    Apple did not sue to get money from Psystar.

    If they let it die, what's to stop Dell or anyone else from making clones?

    If they get an actual ruling on their case, that would be a statement to others.



    Quote:

    But suppose for a moment that Apple made something like this as an offer to Pystar. All action against them will cease if Pystar makes a public declaration. That ONE they will cease any and all cloning operations and not restart them at any time in the future. TWO Pystar shall post publicly a list any and all backers past and present.



    If any offer were made/accepted, I highly doubt it would be made public.

    Besides, if the case was settled out of court, whoever was backing them would not have anything to worry about, even if their names were handed over to Apple.
  • Reply 33 of 168
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post


    "Nice job, ladies. And nice PC."



    So you think Patricia Dunn and Carly Fiorina were behind this?



    Ah, it all makes sense to me now.
  • Reply 34 of 168
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justflybob View Post


    Hmm.... It doesn't sound like you have done too many startups.



    It's a very common practice for VC types to set contractual goals for the startup to achieve prior to the release of additional funds, also listed in the contract. So, in effect, both parties are clear as to what funds are available and what it takes to have them released to the startup.



    So, it is possible that they have, or had, deep pocket associates. Most likely any deep pocket associates would now be quietly fading in the shadows, hoping that the "list" a few posters have mentioned never sees the light of day. Assuming, of course, that said list exists at all.



    Truth is, I have no idea of how Psystar was set up, so I could just be talking out my garbage collection heap.



    Hmm, I don't see how it matters. The popular conspiracy theory is that Psystar is a front for a one of Apple's major competitors. If that was the case, then I don't think they'd let them fail for want of a few hundred grand. FWIW, I've never bought into these conspiracy theories, so I see this bankruptcy filing as evidence that big money backers never existed. This does not rule out venture capital, just the kind some seem to be convinced exists.
  • Reply 35 of 168
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neruda View Post


    1. Yes, but in-house counsel rarely deal with these types of cases in-house. This lawsuit is being handled by Townsend and Townsend (an outside law firm), not by Apple's corporate lawyers.



    http://www.townsend.com/



    Townsend & Townsend is not cheap.



    2. Even if this case was being handled by Apple's in-house attorneys, do you think that these lawyers work for free?



    They are on retainer, I doubt we're in the hundreds of thousands at this point.
  • Reply 36 of 168
    teckstudteckstud Posts: 6,476member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTL215 View Post


    DING DING DING! what do we have for him, Johnny?? Hit the nail right on the head.



    Mac software works great because of controlled hardware. Let the hardware run free, and the software ceases to work great. PERIOD!



    In other words- it's a bag of hurt?
  • Reply 37 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,485member
    We really don't know whether any large company or individual is financing this behind the scenes. Apple says that the believe, suspect that it may be so, but it's not know yet that it is so.



    Now, even if Apple does shut them down legally, meaning that the courts agree with Apple's stance, there are two other companies that have started to do the same thing, except that they are overseas. One, I believe, is in Russia. That means that they are likely beyond any law, as Russia doesn't give a hoot about patents, copyrights or trademarks.



    What will happen with those two?



    That's the bigger question.
  • Reply 38 of 168
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:

    Yet Apple, with their "overpriced systems", is having record revenues...



    Apple is doing great, but the Mac OS X platform is underperforming compared to where it should be. The company has too many holes. The "desktops" have a bias towards the low end of the scale and the laptops are too high end.
  • Reply 39 of 168
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,485member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Hmm, I don't see how it matters. The popular conspiracy theory is that Psystar is a front for a one of Apple's major competitors. If that was the case, then I don't think they'd let them fail for want of a few hundred grand. FWIW, I've never bought into these conspiracy theories, so I see this bankruptcy filing as evidence that big money backers never existed. This does not rule out venture capital, just the kind some seem to be convinced exists.



    I doubt a venture capitalist would sink money into this. It's much too risky. When venture capitalists are lagging in putting money into legit firms, why would they want to put one into one that has at best, a 50/50 chance based on Apple's annoyance? It would be a bad enough risk without that to start up a company like this in this climate.
  • Reply 40 of 168
    macfandavemacfandave Posts: 603member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Okay, so Pystar makes computers that are 100% Mac OS X compliant. Why does that make them crooks? The parts are open and freely used on PC's running Windows... Folks, if Pystar would win, we all win. It creates competiton, and therefore better products and lower prices. That's capitalism. Hoping Apple wins out is a vote for higher prices, less choice, and whatever Apple feels we deserve to get from them. In other words, you, the consumer, loses.



    Capitalism runs on the ability for competitors to protect their intellectual property. Apple clearly states that the Mac OS X must run on Apple hardware, therefore Psystar PC's are not 100% compliant -- they do not comply to the Apple License Agreement.



    There are plenty of choices in computing -- Macs, Windows PC's, Linux and other *nixes. Apple has a unique business model of a so-called monopoly of hardware, software and OS, and that gives the Mac its distinctive performance, consistency and reliablilty. Some of us choose this arrangement over ones that are supposedly freer or cheaper.



    Any group of crooks that would break the Apple way and making it work more like the Windows PC is actually taking away a distinct choice from consumers.
Sign In or Register to comment.