Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Thread beginning with comment 396697
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Probably because...
by tyrione on Fri 27th Nov 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "Probably because..."
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Most people were smart enough to stay away from an obviously shady business like Psystar. I don't mean shady in regards to Apple's os, I mean shady in regards to their convenient lack of record keeping, their obviously huge funding source with no explanation, and their continued incompetent responses to the court. They are either very naive, very stupid, or very dubious, possibly all three.
Consider, as well, that the majority of people who will have heard of Psystar were interested in hackintoshes already, i.e. the more technically-minded people, and they could easily have just done it themselves. It's not as though your average person has heard of Psystar at all. They didn't really have a prospective market for their machines or a marketing strategy to appeal to those who might actually have bought one.
Still, this does make Apple look ridiculous on the face of it. A whopping 768 machines... wow. Do remember though, that just because one clonemaker was unsuccessful and extremely stupid to boot, that doesn't mean others will make the same mistakes, and Apple has every reason to fear a clone maker becoming successful. Their business model isn't set up to handle it, (they've tried it before, after all), and they do not seem to want to change their business model or repeat their mistake.


A fool looks at 768 and dismisses the reality of defending your IP and copyrights.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Probably because...
by Tuishimi on Fri 27th Nov 2009 07:34 in reply to "RE: Probably because..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. Nip it in the bud.

Reply Parent Score: 2