Star Psystar Asks Judge to Rule Its Business Is Legitimate
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Nov 2009 10:13 UTC
Law and Order While the Apple v. Psystar case is currently on hold until the hearing regarding the motions for a summary judgement takes place (November 12) the Psystar v. Apple case (still with me?) is only just beginning. Psystar has amended its original complaint in this second lawsuit, asking the judge to order Apple to cease calling Psystar's business "illegal", claiming it hurts the clone maker financially.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 71 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/haz
Thread beginning with comment 392573
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple made the investment into OSX, not Psystar. It's their product and they can sell it a manner that benefits them.


And Psystar can resell it in a manner that befits them. Basic economic principle that's older than god. Why should Apple have a status aparte?

Apple's profit margins depend on selling a complete package which includes the OS and the hardware.


Why should anyone other than Apple and its stockholders care about its profit margins? Why should I? Why should Psystar? Should the law be disregarded to safeguard Apple's profit margins? Would you allow the law to be disregarded to protect Microsoft's profit margins too?

I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar was created as a private investment trap.


I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is actually acting as a puppet for the RIAA/MPAA here. Those two organisations would benefit massively from having EULAs clearly labelled as okay. Imagine CDs with EULAs in them, which stated no personal copies, no reselling, only allowed to be played in authorised players (i.e., not recorders)... It's the RIAA/MPAA's wet dream. Insane, you say? Well, what other company is Steve Jobs the big boss of?

Bingo.

Of course, the above is complete nonsense - but it's no more nonsensical than those silly claims about Psystar you EULA supporters make.

Edited 2009-11-03 18:57 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

And Psystar can resell it in a manner that befits them.


They can resell someone's product as long as they are not breaking the laws. Beyond the EULA there are also resale laws. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with this case when Apple is holding all the cards. Even if Psystar finds a way to legally resell OSX Apple can nuke their business.

but it's no more nonsensical than those silly claims about Psystar you EULA supporters make.


I said that I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar is a private investment trap. It isn't a claim, it's speculation and it isn't at all nonsensical.

A private investment trap works like this:
1. Get people to invest in your business
2. Go belly up over extenuating circumstances
3. Keep the profits that you sheltered

The whole thing can be done legally as long as you can show that you didn't intend to defraud investors. Unethical yes but in a case like Psystar it can be impossible to prove that they had no intention of creating a sustainable business.

Of course the people in charge of Psystar may not be doing this but based on the fact that they have been shady about their physical address and gpl code I would guess that the people in charge never intended for the company to be around long-term. They may not be trying to defraud investors but I believe the business has been built around short-term profits.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"And Psystar can resell it in a manner that befits them.


They can resell someone's product as long as they are not breaking the laws. Beyond the EULA there are also resale laws. I'm not sure why you are so concerned with this case when Apple is holding all the cards. Even if Psystar finds a way to legally resell OSX Apple can nuke their business. "

Of course Apple can - but they don't want to for two reasons.

1) There's little they can do to hinder Psystar without making themselves look supremely dickish, which would clash with the whole "think different" image.

2) It would cost money and effort, and those costs would probably be ongoing.

Instead, Apple seems to think they can make the problem go away forever by just throwing money and lawyers at it.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3