Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th May 2009 09:53 UTC
Legal Two weekends ago, Apple accused Psystar of withholding information in the ongoing lawsuit between the two companies, and the Cupertino company asked the judge to order Psystar to reveal said information. Psystar replied, explaining that some documents simply did not exist, and some were lost during a move of offices. Apparently, judge Alsup wasn't impressed with the defence, and sided with Apple.
Order by: Score:
Comment by m4k4v3L1
by m4k4v3L1 on Wed 13th May 2009 10:00 UTC
m4k4v3L1
Member since:
2005-07-22

pwnt!
Psy* sounds like Roger Clements.

Edited 2009-05-13 10:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by m4k4v3L1
by rockwell on Wed 13th May 2009 16:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by m4k4v3L1"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Clements? Google is your friend.

Reply Score: 2

Psystar's business causing Apple damages
by WereCatf on Wed 13th May 2009 10:28 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Psystar's business is causing Apple damages

When a new player enters the turf and is actually even a little bit successfull then of course it is "causing damage" to the old players as lost profit. That's just plain common sense.

And I doubt PsyStar intends to cause any other "damage" than what Apple loses by some select customers going for a clone instead. It just wouldn't be in PsyStar's own best interest; they'd lose their whole market if Apple made OSX freely useable on any hardware, they'd lose their whole market if Apple somehow managed to restrict OSX to only Apple-approved hardware, and so on..

And I don't believe for a second that there were some big companies funding PsyStar just so they could damage Apple. I mean, how much damage could a small hardware vendor do to a multi-billion corporate when they don't even own the OS on the hardware they're selling? They can only make a dent in Apple computers sold, nothing, NOTHING else. So what would any such mysterious companies behind PsyStar benefit from it?

Apple knows all this, they just don't like to have a new player on the turf they've previously had all to themselves.

Reply Score: 6

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

Psystar itself doesn't really matter much but if they win this case it will mean that any clone wanna'be could enter the market and really cause Apple some damage. Which makes you wonder; what is in it for PsyStar if their currently exclusive market becomes crowded? Do you think they would still do well if Dell or HP brought out mac clones? I don't believe for a minute that PsyStar are purely looking out for our interests - so who's interests are they serving?

Reply Score: 5

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't believe for a minute that PsyStar are purely looking out for our interests - so who's interests are they serving?

Maybe, just maybe, they're just trying to earn a little money by selling clones and as such they're just looking out for their own interests? Oh, but hell no, of course every is out to destroy Apple...

Reply Score: 1

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

yes, but I also said, how much are they going to continue to make when the big boys jump in? I So how is it in "their" best interest?

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

yes, but I also said, how much are they going to continue to make when the big boys jump in? I So how is it in "their" best interest?

By doing what they're doing now? Selling hardware with OSX? Just because there's more people doing it doesn't mean you can't do it, too.

And in any case, I don't even really care. The only reason I side with Psystar is because I don't think you should be able to do what Apple does; use EULA to limit on which hardware you can run the software you've bought and paid for, and I think Psystar are a legally viable company. I have no interest in OSX myself, I can't see a single reason to install it on my PC even though it's totally legal here where I live.

Reply Score: 2

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

I can see that there are a number of perceived, actual and potential issues that this case highlights.

I think any company (Apple in this instance) is perfectly within their rights to say:

"This software is only to be used on our hardware".

The customer then has a choice to buy the package or buy a competitor's offering running alternate software without that restriction. Just because OSX can be made to run in some fashion (possibly even better at some price points) on similar hardware from another vendor doesn't mean that Apple should have to allow it.

What I wouldn't agree with as a consumer is if the only way to become aware of its restrictions regarding non Apple PCs was by reading a EULA that could only be read by breaking the packaging seal and hence void the option of a full refund.

The EULA should be presented at the Point of Sale. You can agree to it on the spot or take a copy away to study before putting down your hard earned cash. Your hard-copy (electronic or physical) would be binding so revisions would only apply to new sales and not be retrospective.

Market forces should then dictate what terms are acceptable to consumers except for the case where there are obvious anti-competitive or illegal elements.

I don't think PsyStar or the like should have an automatic "right" to resell OSX on their systems. They should only have the rights afforded to licensed OEMs. Seeing as that isn't offered by Apple at the moment that would equate to zero.

Reply Score: 0

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"What I wouldn't agree with as a consumer is if the only way to become aware of its restrictions regarding non Apple PCs was by reading a EULA that could only be read by breaking the packaging seal and hence void the option of a full refund."

I agree with this statement completely. Actually you can return software for a full refund in the US after it has been opened due to the EULA being on the inside. At least I have had no issues doing that in the past few years. Granted it used to be a problem until the courts decided you needed to be allowed to return it.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Psystar itself doesn't really matter much but if they win this case it will mean that any clone wanna'be could enter the market and really cause Apple some damage.


This is missing the point. It is not really about Apple. This is strange from the perspective of the Mac community, but its true.

It is about what restrictions a supplier of software in general can place on the software that he sells at retail. If Apple loses, it will be lawful to disregard the EULA clause and install on the hardware of one's choice. By extension, such restrictions as the ability of MS to forbid one in the EULA from installing Office under Wine will also become unenforceable.

If Apple wins, anything goes. A software supplier can now dictate what hardware one installs on, and what software is permitted to be there at the time or installed later. Consider: MS could stipulate that if Open Office is installed, you may not install Office, and if Office is installed you may not install Open Office. Maybe that you may not install Office if you have any installations of OO anywhere on the LAN? Maybe you cannot install Office if you have any desktop Linux installs anywhere in the company?

This is absurd you say. The reply will be, in true Apple style, you don't like it, don't install it. You click through that EULA and you have signed a contract which is enforceable in law.

This is why this thing is not about Apple, and not about OSX. Its about our intellectual freedom.

Reply Score: 7

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

That's only if Apple decides to continue selling OSX at in retail stores. Apple could very well decide to just do updates via a networked connection or have the user burn a DVD once it is assessed that they are in-fact using a Mac. They could restrict sale of OSX to Apple Stores only where you can only get the software by proving that you have a Mac. There is nothing but convenience for their customers that is stopping Apple from doing so.

They could very well implement something like WGA where after the install the software authenticates with Apple, any circumvention and distribution of this then would in-fact be illegal. There are a lot of things tha Apple could have done but haven't, In-fact Logic is a prime example of an app that actually removed restrictions with the last update due to customer demands. Apple champions ease of use as one of their mantras and one of things they do to make that idea a reality is to get out of the way of the customer when it comes to installing software.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

The issue is not: should they sell retail copies of OSX. It is not an issue about whether Apple should do anything. It is not about Apple at all, they just happen to be the ones that have raised it. Just as the civil rights cases were not about whether Fred Jones personally should be allowed to ride in the front of the bus, the issue was whether racial segregation of public transport was constitutional.

In this case the issue is not about what Apple does, its about what we can do and what any software supplier can stop us from doing.

What rights does have any software supplier have over the environment into which we install retail copies of his software? Should he choose to sell retail copies at all.

Who cares what happens to Apple? Or OSX? Its completely unimportant! What matters is what we can do with software we have bought! Apple people need to raise their eyes just a bit, and realize that their beloved company or OS is not the important thing here.

What is important is us! And the rights we have vis a vis any software suppliers.

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Apple knows all this, they just don't like to have a new player on the turf they've previously had all to themselves.


Nor do they care to have the product of millions of their dollars in R&D used against them.

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nor do they care to have the product of millions of their dollars in R&D used against them.


Then they shouldn't sell retail copies of Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

...unless the court establishes that the EULA is contractually-binding and not just an ugly splash-screen.

Reply Score: 1

Hussein Member since:
2008-11-22

That what Apple should do.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple knows all this, they just don't like to have a new player on the turf they've previously had all to themselves.

Nor do they care to have the product of millions of their dollars in R&D used against them.


Their R&D?
Last time I checked they didn't own Intel, Weston Digitial nor any of the other companies that Apple buys it's hardware from.
Psystar are using components available 'off the shelf', so no Apple R&D there.

They're even buying copies of Apple's OS in much the same way as they would if they were a Windows OEM. So they're paying for the R&D of the software.

All Apple are loosing out on is:
* the mark up on components (and if that's really harmful to the software R&D, then Apple should raise the price of 'off the shelf' software discs),
* and end user support (but then that's not an issue either as Apple are not paying their employees to answer Hackintosh queries - so no expenditure there)


As for this specific article. I think it's disgusting that Apple are allowed to time waste and blow smoke like this. Just get on with the court case already and stop trying to run your competitors into the ground with expensive and unnecessary red-tape.

Edited 2009-05-13 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 0

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

Apple want to win this so I would expect them to pursue all avenues to protect their IP and business model. It's clearly one that works for them.

OS X may be sold separately but it is explicitly intended for apple supported hardware - the two are a package that Apple has tested, optimized and will therefore provide support for and will want to protect from dilution by a 3rd party. It isn't purely off-the-shelf components stuffed into a pretty case. The custom boards, firmware and the overall integration with the OS makes up the final product. With PsyStar you take a lucky dip that all works as best as it should - like you do with Windows. The Apple product may not always be perfect as that implies but my personal experience has shown it to prove more reliable than any of the wintel boxes I've owned or supported. If Apple as it exists today are forced to allow OS X on OEM machines then we will all lose because the OEMs will cut corners and Apple won't be able to compete on price

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

OS X may be sold separately but it is explicitly intended for apple supported hardwareOS X may be sold separately but it is explicitly intended for apple supported hardware


It doesn't say so on the box. It only lists a few minimum requirements and that's it. I also did not enter into an agreement at the store. The only thing I have is an EULA which forbids me to install it on anything but an "Apple-labelled computer". The point here is to see if that specific clause, which is a post-sale restriction, will hold up in court or not.

It is better for consumers if it does not. It is better for software companies if it does. Plain and simple.

And of course, what the hell is an "Apple-labelled computer" anyway? I have several Apple stickers... If I tack on onto my generic PC, does that make it an Apple-labelled computer? It's a computer... With an Apple label...

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple want to win this so I would expect them to pursue all avenues to protect their IP and business model. It's clearly one that works for them.

Had this been Microsoft and people would have been crying foul.
Granted Apple aren't a monopoly, but the fact still is Apple are abusing their power to crush the competition.

Let the court case play out fairly and if the courts rule in favour of Apple, then so be it. But don't try and put your competitors out of business by simply draining the money out of them with unnecessary bureaucracy.


OS X may be sold separately but it is explicitly intended for apple supported hardware

And Windows Vista wasn't intended for Celerons, but it was shiped with them.

- the two are a package that Apple has tested, optimized and will therefore provide support for and will want to protect from dilution by a 3rd party.

So don't sell OS X to third parties.

It isn't purely off-the-shelf components stuffed into a pretty case.

Not purely, but over 90% of the parts are.


The custom boards, firmware and the overall integration with the OS makes up the final product.

You're overstating your point there. True it makes a difference, but not a significant one.



With PsyStar you take a lucky dip that all works as best as it should - like you do with Windows.

Now you're just exaggerating.
Psystar test their products before shipping, so it's hardly a "lucky dip".
And I know of countless people who have had to return their Apple products because of hardware failure.

Electonics can and will fail regardless of the OEM. The simple fact is, you can't build devices that complicated 100% perfect 100% of the time.


The Apple product may not always be perfect as that implies but my personal experience has shown it to prove more reliable than any of the wintel boxes I've owned or supported. If Apple as it exists today are forced to allow OS X on OEM machines then we will all lose because the OEMs will cut corners and Apple won't be able to compete on price


Maybe, but the court case isn't about what might happen years in the future. It's about whether OS X can leagally be loaded on non-Apple hardware.

Besides, even if the flood gates do open to 3rd party OEMs, nobody is stopping you from remaining faithful to Apple builds. Where as you're stopping others from running OS X and potentially bring their improvements and software development to your preferred platform.

Edited 2009-05-13 12:58 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Besides, even if the flood gates do open to 3rd party OEMs, nobody is stopping you from remaining faithful to Apple builds.


That's the key reason right there why Apple is so afraid of losing this case, and why they're taking Psystar to seriously, and consequently also why Apple fans hate Psystar so much.

You see, if Apple and its hardcore fans are right, than Apple hardware is far superior to anything else on the market, totally worth its price, and completely affordable and not expensive at all. Which raises the question...

...why are they so afraid of Psystar? Apple's hardware is so good, cheap, and affordable that surely, a small company like Psystar won't pose any sort of a threat?

Right...?

Reply Score: 2

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Because, if Psystar wins then that will devaulr the software, the real gem that Apple fanatics are trying to protect. Say goodbye to $500 Logic Studio packages (the best bang for buck DAW on the market if you have an Apple machine already). Say goodbye to Final Cut Pro (one of the best bang for buck DV editors on the market. Say goodbye to great deals like Logic Express (basically Logic pro without all the fluff), Say goodbye to great packages like iLife, with its plethora of consumer friendly applications and intuitive interfaces. Say goodbye to getting any of these pakcages at reasonable prices. Sure the initial pay out for a Mac isn;t cheap but once you have one you have years of upgrade and very competitive and reasonably priced software to choose from that makes the price of the hardware, regardless of spec, worth it.

You see the real product that Apple is trying to sell you is their software because that is what controls the experience. The hardware is the initial cost of entry, they may not use exotic components on their hardware, but the package still looks nice and is well designed. Once you pay the initial cost Apple treats you very well after that in terms of software.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Hardware is an initial cost? That must be why the RAM to upgrade my wife's notebook was more than twice as expensive at the Apple store as equivalent RAM from non-Apple branded stores.

Reply Score: 2

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

I'll try and be brief and susinct - it's getting late here ;)

* PsyStar isn't a competitor, they are a leach.
* I think the Celeron argument is reaching a bit.
* Apple sell to customers not 3rd parties in the way you suggest - otherwise there would be no argument.
* 10% (figure plucked out of the air) can still make all the difference in general and when updates are issued
* Custom boards, firmware etc... You are welcome to your opinion - I have stated mine from my experience and I don't think it is over stated.
* "Lucky Dip" I can't test these machines for myself so it would be a leap of faith. They could be fine or not. I choose to spend my money more wisely - and my next sentence conceeds that Apple doesn't always produce perfection. I just have more faith in them fixing the faults.
* Stifleing inovation?! more like stopping fragmentation.

Reply Score: 1

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

There is no OEM edition of Mac OS, Laurence. Nor do the developers, designers, architects, Q&A, etc. work for free.

Look... I know its tempting to champion the underdog here, but going back to the original article -- this is not "smoke" and "time waste" as you put it, this is Apple establishing their case which they are encouraged to do.

And as I mentioned earlier, if a small business (or even a sole-trader for that matter) cannot keep sufficient book-keeping then frankly they have nobody to blame but themselves when the taxman or the judge comes knocking.

Reply Score: 8

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

There is no OEM edition of Mac OS, Laurence.

I didn't say there was. I said there was OEM copies of Windows and I said Psystar legally buys copies of OS X to sell on. I said there was a simularity of what Psystar was doing, but I didn't say it was identical.

Nor do the developers, designers, architects, Q&A, etc. work for free.

I've already explained and dispelled this myth in the very same post you replied to.
Apple are getting income from Psystar for OS X sales and the money that Apple loose for costomer support wouldn't have been an expenditure anyway.

Okay, so the case designers aren't getting any money. But then the case isn't an integral part of a computer and if it doesn't sell then why should they earn money from it (you wouldn't expect this to happen in any other industry, nor any other business within IT).


Look... I know its tempting to champion the underdog here, but going back to the original article -- this is not "smoke" and "time waste" as you put it, this is Apple establishing their case which they are encouraged to do. And as I mentioned earlier, if a small business (or even a sole-trader for that matter) cannot keep sufficient book-keeping then frankly they have nobody to blame but themselves when the taxman or the judge comes knocking.


I don't support Psystar because they're the underdog. I support them because I believe they're both legally and morally in the right.

Reply Score: 3

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19


I don't support Psystar because they're the underdog. I support them because I believe they're both legally and morally in the right.


That's funny. So it is morally right to steal someone else's work and break a contract in the process?

What do you think Ford would say if you started a car company with a generic frame and a Ford motor? You probably would not get very far in your new venture.

Apple has always been about the complete package. They make the hardware and they make the software. They have done this for more then 30 years. This is not about your rights to do this or that with software you purchase. This is about Apple's rights to protect the decades of experience and development for their products. Just like in the Music industry, you never truly own software, you license it. If you do not agree to the terms of use, you get your money back. I may not like or agree with that, but it is a fact of business.

If OS X is allowed to be sold to anyone and used on any low end junk box, then it will be a very bad thing. Think of all the support calls that Apple would have to deal with for problems that will arise. Who is going to pay for that?

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

That's funny. So it is morally right to steal someone else's work and break a contract in the process?

How are they stealing anything? They buy legal copies of OSX, they don't steal or pirate those. And the computers are built from off-the-shelf components, again none of which are stolen.

What do you think Ford would say if you started a car company with a generic frame and a Ford motor? You probably would not get very far in your new venture.

Why not? If Ford did sell their engines to non-licensed companies then it's their own fault. They have no right to say how the engine is to be used.

Just like in the Music industry, you never truly own software, you license it.

That's not actually true. It's dependant on the laws of the country of residence; here in Finland you DO own the copy of the software you have bought. Of course you don't hold the copyright to it and as such you're not allowed to break copyright laws. This whole court case is exactly about the same thing: do you own the copy or is it really licensed? If it was indeed licensed then the EULA was valid. If not, then huge chunks of the EULA would be invalid.

Think of all the support calls that Apple would have to deal with for problems that will arise. Who is going to pay for that?

Help desk is a service provided by Apple, it's not a product, and as such they can dictate certain terms to using it like f.ex. that they will only help people with genuine Apple hardware. If they wanted to also earn some money they'd direct the users of non-genuine hardware to another line which costs a lot more but they also try to help the owners of non-genuine packages.

Reply Score: 2

mercury Member since:
2009-01-24

What they are stealing is Apple's brand and reputation to further their own financial interests. Other OS developers endorse and encourage this through OEM licensing - Apple chooses not to because they want to control the whole widget.

As for support, Apple doesn't want to field requests from disgruntled clone buyers because it will stress their existing infrastructure and reduce their ability to service their valid customers. Why would they want to deal with telling all these "other" customers that they can't help them and charge them for the privilege? That would really have to be up to PsyStar or similar to provide and something tells me it won't be as smooth as dropping into you local Genius Bar.
...and if the 3rd party support is crap it will still reflect badly on Apple from a customer's perspective as they may deem it a limitation of OSX - and they would be right.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

That's funny. So it is morally right to steal someone else's work and break a contract in the process?

You obviously know some other term for "stealing" that I'm unaware. A term that described buying hardware and software from legal outlets and that the money for the product goes to the companies that released it.

What do you think Ford would say if you started a car company with a generic frame and a Ford motor? You probably would not get very far in your new venture.

That actually happens all the time and is a perfectly accepted practice. In fact, engine manufactorers are more than happy to sell their engines to 3rd party engineers knowing full well the hardware will get used in this fasion.

Apple has always been about the complete package. They make the hardware and they make the software.

They make the software. The hardware is, bar the motherboard, standard PC hardware.
But yes, you're right that they like to control the whole package. That doesn't make it "stealing" to load the software onto your own hardware though.

This is not about your rights to do this or that with software you purchase.

Actually that's EXACTLY what it's about. It's about whether the EULA can legally dictate what hardware you can and can't load software, you've already bought and paid for, on.

This is about Apple's rights to protect the decades of experience and development for their products.

That already do this by close sourcing parts and patents.
Loading OS X on non-Apple certified hardware wont magically give away Apple trade secrets.


Just like in the Music industry, you never truly own software, you license it. If you do not agree to the terms of use, you get your money back. I may not like or agree with that, but it is a fact of business.

Depends on the country. However the music industry is different because here in England we have national licencing laws that dictate how music can and can't be distributed - not EULAs written by the music publisher.

However, even inspite of the national licencing laws, there are also different copywrite laws for music than for software.
Software copywrite laws allow for backs ups where as UK copywrite doesn't allow music back ups (which effectively means that everyone who buys CDs and copies them onto their MP3 player is breaking the law).
Clearly though, this law is absurd and even the music industries themselves turn a blind eye to personal back ups.

So while I see you're point, you can't really compare music licences to software licences as they're governed completely differently.

If OS X is allowed to be sold to anyone and used on any low end junk box,

You're making assumptions that non-apple hardware is automatically crap. Given that apple only use PC hardware, don't you think that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that some PC's can be built just as solidly as Macs?

then it will be a very bad thing. Think of all the support calls that Apple would have to deal with for problems that will arise. Who is going to pay for that?

As I already said, Apple don't have to support non-apple hardware.

Edited 2009-05-15 09:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

...in much the same way as they would if they were a Windows OEM.


And this is the crux of the matter. Pystar are using a RETAIL product as though it is an OEM product because is is priced like an OEM product. And it's priced like an OEM product because Apple control (via the license) what hardware it is installed on - in a similar manner to how Microsoft via the OEM license control the hardware on which OEM copies of Windows are installed.

As I have said before if Apple do somehow lose this case they will simply change their pricing structures, significantly increase the price of the retail product and offer massive discounts off the retail price as upgrades for registered owners of Apple labelled computers. And because they will be upgrades they WILL be able to enforce the license.

Hypothetically...
MacOS X Snow Leopard Retail, $1099. $950 loyalty discount for registered owners of qualifying Apple labelled products (ie. Intel based Macs - product sold as an upgrade license), so genuine Apple Mac owners pay $149. Arrivederci Pystar. AND Mac owners love Apple even more for the huge discount. Total win for Apple.

See Apple don't need to continue with this, they will win and Pystar will lose either way. I believe Apple's interest now is purely in determining if there is indeed someone backing Pystar, because if that is determined I can guarantee Apple will (silently) pour more than a few resources into scouring whatever licenses, patents, etc are owned by any backers.

Sour grapes? Using the court system? Maybe it is. But this is big business with big investments and even bigger profits involved, so if you're not prepared to strap on your gloves don't throw your hat in the ring...

Reply Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Sour grapes? Using the court system? Maybe it is. But this is big business with big investments and even bigger profits involved, so if you're not prepared to strap on your gloves don't throw your hat in the ring...


As odd as it might sound, I don't think it is sour grapes on Apples part. In fact, I actually agree with Apple sueing Psystar.
I may not agree that the EULA is legally binding, thus I don't agree that Psystar have done anything wrong either, but I do agree that Apple are doing the right thing by challenging Psystar.
Apple believe the EULA is binding thus they have every right to challenge this. And if they win the case, I may personally disagree with the decision, but ultimately I'd respect Apples legal position.

So this court case will decide once and for all just how legally binding the EULA is - so for that alone, I welcome this case.

What I don't welcome is the tails of how poor Windows runs because of the variety of hardware or how poor OS X runs on non-Apple hardware, because myself and millions of others have had years of success with both the above. Sure, they can have the problems - but so can Apple computers.
Case in point: I've only recently stopped using an 8 year old Windows 2000 desktop - a system that crashed less than a dozen times in it's entire life and never once required a reformat. It wasn't running particularly expensive hardware nor was it particularly well treated. But even so, it still worked 100% well 99.9% of the time.

So arguing that OS X on Apple hardware is the best system in the world (like some have done in this thread) is pure elitisum.

Edited 2009-05-13 16:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

"...in much the same way as they would if they were a Windows OEM.


And this is the crux of the matter. Pystar are using a RETAIL product as though it is an OEM product because is is priced like an OEM product [...]
"

Good Lord, Apple and pricing are completely contingent factors in this issue -- the crux of the matter is if a party of a contract is allowed to unilaterally change the beforehand agreed upon conditions of a contract by positing a post-agreement addendum to the contract.

The seriousness of this issue obviously stretches far beyond any single agent or product, so forget Apple and OS X and look at the issue at hand..

Reply Score: 2

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

An EULA is NOT the same things as a signed contract, and any portions of the EULA that counter current laws are not binding.

Does Apple have the legal right to restrict which hardware it's software products can be installed on?

Now that is the crux of the issue, and IMO Apple has no such right.

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

An EULA is NOT the same things as a signed contract, and any portions of the EULA that counter current laws are not binding.

Does Apple have the legal right to restrict which hardware it's software products can be installed on?

Now that is the crux of the issue, and IMO Apple has no such right.


And Apple also has the right to NOT sell the OS. Think about it. They also have the right to put in some draconian security measures in the future to insure that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware. Now who wins then? I am by no means an Apple user, and I certainly do have some strong opinions regarding Apple and OSX. But the fact is Pystar is just a leech of a company, hoping to build a business model off of another company's work. Pystar does have the right to innovate for themselves, find their own product, and market that.

Reply Score: 1

Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

And Apple also has the right to NOT sell the OS.

Absolutely correct. But Apple DOES sell the OS, like it or not.

They also have the right to put in some draconian security measures in the future to insure that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware.
They could do that as well.

But the fact is Pystar is just a leech of a company, hoping to build a business model off of another company's work. Pystar does have the right to innovate for themselves, find their own product, and market that.

Because every single company that snaps together parts and sells computers writes their own operating system? I guess Dell and Gateway are leaches too. LMAO!

Reply Score: 1

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

But this is big business with big investments and even bigger profits involved, so if you're not prepared to strap on your gloves don't throw your hat in the ring...


That applies to Apple too. If you're such a massive control freak that they can't handle anyone running your OS on hardware you don't control, then you should have stayed with your sheltered little PPC niche. Leave the serious hardware platforms to grownup operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I think Apple's best option would be enable a legal OSx86 project forked from Darwin. Then, release an unsupported Universal OS X version which does not even include a full updater - you can only apply a service pack type of update every six months or so. One could subscribe to the service, for a nominal yearly fee ( like $14.99 or something - bandwidth is much cheaper ).

The yearly fee still does not provide ANY support - even for the updates. That'll cost ya more for a best-effort support option - but not terribly much - say $30 per year, or $10 per call - which will cover costs, overhead, and expansion - with profit occurring once expansion ceases.

I'd do it. Seriously. Apple could do one better and offer "Try-It-Out" DVD which will scan and test for OS X compatibility issues, and an optional image-downloader which can permit online purchases to those who purchased the disc - at a reduced rate. Or you can place an order for a DVD to be shipped ( or both - of course ).

Apple has a lot of options, but is probably chained by Microsoft - sad to say. I do recall some story ( or rumor ) back in the day that Apple sold-out to MicrosoftFT in order to prevent their total destruction... MicrosoftFT was interested in lawsuits regarding their ( i.e. Bill Gates' ) behavior... or... something.

--The loon

EDIT: seems something went funky - and I magically replied to the wrong comment....

EDIT: Seems someone decided they didn't like M($)FT, changed it to Microsoft (test: MSFT).

EDIT: actually... changed it to MSFT this time M.S.F.T... just in case...

Edited 2009-05-14 04:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Funding
by Vanders on Wed 13th May 2009 10:52 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Even if Apple discover that Michael Dell, Bill Gates or the Cosa Nostra themselves are personally writing $200,000 cheques to Pystar on a weekly basis, it makes absolutely no difference to the lawsuit or to the legality of Pystar as a company. Apple are simply on a fishing expedition.

Reply Score: 5

Sanity Prevails
by testman on Wed 13th May 2009 11:34 UTC
testman
Member since:
2007-10-15

A business however small (ESPECIALLY small) should keep meticulous records of their finances. "The dog ate them" does not hold water with any taxation office, let alone a court of law. Heck, in some countries it is even a legal requirement.

Reply Score: 3

hankheathen
Member since:
2009-05-13

After opening your article with:

"It might be good idea to detail why, exactly, Apple wants so much detailed financial information from Psystar."

You then detail nothing of the sort.

You essentially postulate a couple of vague personal theories regarding Apple's motives, then conclude that if we haven't heard anything about Psystar from the IRS, their book-keeping practices must be sound.

You then finish with:

"When trying to find your place in this discussion, you have to ask yourself what is more important to you: your lawful rights as a consumer, or a company's ability to impose restrictions upon how you use products you legally obtained and paid for."

Er... what?

I thought the question being raised here was actually about what legal rights Apple Inc has as a technology vendor, to restrict a 3rd Party hardware reseller from reselling one of their products, in this case Mac OS X.

I find it difficult to believe you're trying to paint Psystar as some kind of heroic little honest-as-Abe-Lincoln underdog being persecuted by a big bad corporation - so I'll assume you're not.

The legality of Psystar's business model has yet to be determined, obviously. Isn't that what this little court case is all about?

Trying to make it out as some kind of attack on consumer rights is at best a naive fantasy; at worst a childish misrepresentation of facts.

It reads like you may have had a longer, more meaningful article written in your head, but then forgot most of it come posting time.

""

Reply Score: 8

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You essentially postulate a couple of vague personal theories regarding Apple's motives,


They're not "vague personal theories", they are "theories" put forth by Apple itself. Apple itself stated others must be funding Psystar, but that they do not know whom, but that once they know, they'll make it public - the implied conclusion is that they are looking for that information, and this is obviously the way how.

The element about damages is elementary.

Reply Score: 1

Taxes and paperwork...
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 13th May 2009 12:00 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

[quote]Many people also wonder if Psystar is breaking any laws by not having the specified financial information on record. I'd say that if they were being naughty, the IRS would've been all over them already, and Apple would've surely used such knowledge to attack the small company that way. In other words, Psystar is probably in full compliance with tax laws, else we'd already know.[/qote]

Wow, you're naive when it comes to how the IRS works, but then again, I'd expect that from someone that has zero understanding of it from having never investigated it, or having been investigated!

If everyone that was violating tax laws was known to the IRS and had an active case, the IRS would be incredibly busy all the time, prosecuting such things. Generally, people have to become sufficiently well-known through others while conducting life/business before the IRS even notices you: believe it or not, filing taxes, while legally required (as well as a legal requirement to have many years of records available for auditing if anything is claimed as income or writeoffs, as well as the tax forms and details themselves, and all employee-related tax stuff) is still a largely voluntary effort, with the threat of legal proceedings, and unless things look really wonky to a computer or human evaluating filed returns, chances are high they won't even bat an eye with a return that under-reports income compared to their public eye, if nobody has brought it to their attention. In other words, Psystar could be making $1 billion in sales and making a huge amount of profits, but if they filed returns that showed far less but otherwise appear at a cursory glance to make sense, the only way the IRS is going to know is if someone blows the whistle on them and indicates something is fishy. Heck, quite a few people do business dealings with their businesses without having a federal tax ID for their business, because... they never got one!

While you may not expect a small business to by default create a quarterly profit and loss statement, if they're a going concern, they'll have enough records and information available that they can generate one, and do so quickly: otherwise, they're living in limbo, and are doing the business equivalent of some irresponsible checking account holder that never balances their checkbooks, and never knows just how much money they've put in versus what they've spent. Between the common sense of that, and the legal requirements businesses must follow, there's no way in hell that Psystar's defense "We're just a small business, and that paperwork has been lost wholly or partially, we don't have that!" cannot fly in court or the IRS's eyes, and now, if they weren't already quietly being watched by the IRS, they'll likely be under deeper scrutiny now, which... it sounds like they deserve to be.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Taxes and paperwork...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th May 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "Taxes and paperwork..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wow, you're naive when it comes to how the IRS works, but then again, I'd expect that from someone that has zero understanding of it from having never investigated it, or having been investigated!


Companies are required by law to file several financial documents and statements regarding their company every year - even separately from the IRS. I just used them as an example.

Many people said that Psystar not having the documents Apple wants means that Psystar is therefore a shady business breaking the law. All I said was that if Psystar was a shady company who broke the law regarding filing company information, it would have already been picked up long ago.

There are strict dates for such deposits, and missing one is not looked kindly upon, and WILL be acted upon quickly enough for us to know by now.

Edited 2009-05-13 12:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

This EULA trap
by Leroy on Wed 13th May 2009 20:05 UTC
Leroy
Member since:
2006-07-06

causes too much trouble for the consumer. On one hand, like some of the previous posts have stated, companies can and are starting to restrict on how you use the software. Why do they care! They got my money.

Second if I don't like the EULA (Evil Uber Law of Alliance), I'm supposed to disagree or not accept. Caught you! Most stores will not accept even a return of the software once the seal, box, plastic has been broken. Which of course it has, how else are you going to read (see) the EULA.

Maybe we need a Consumer Agreement. "Software, if you want to install on my computer, then you must agree to my terms".

Reply Score: 1

v screw psystar
by mrnagrom on Thu 14th May 2009 01:36 UTC