The Miami New Times News (try saying that out loud ten times in a row really fast) has a long story on the Pedraza brothers, the two men behind Psystar, which is located in Miami. The story details the brothers’ youth, and, of course, talks a lot about Psystar and Apple. There is a lot of interesting stuff in there not covered before.
Apparently, the two brothers, Robert and Rudy Pedraza, 24 and 25 years old respectively, had quite the troublesome and poor youth, and especially that whole “poor” thing played somewhat of a role in what they’re doing now. “Like a lot of people, I’d always loved Apple’s interface,” Robert says, “But there’s no way we could afford that stuff growing up, so we always felt sort of excluded from the company.”
And now we are at today, where they are offering non-Apple labelled machines with Mac OS X preinstalled, while facing this massive legal tussle with Apple, one of the largest technology companies in the world.
The article’s author also addresses the issue raised recently about Psystar possibly using code from the open source community to power its Rebel EFI package. According to several influential people within the OSX86 community, Psystar is stealing their open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for 50 USD a pop. This shouldn’t have to be a problem, if it weren’t for the fact that the APSL v2.0 has a clause similar to that of the GPL in that code must be made available to those who received the binary (and since a test version is freely downloadable, you could be entitled to the source too). The ASPL must also be included in the package, and it isn’t.
Now, this is assuming Psystar is indeed using said code. Rudy claims it’s nonsense. “The first thing you have to do is unlearn everything you’ve read online about how to make this work,” Rudy says, “because it’s all wrong.” I’m not entirely sure what is meant by that quote, however.
The brothers also explain that they didn’t set out to challenge Apple, but that they kind of wish they had because then they would’ve approached the matter better. “It’s a common misconception that we set out to challenge Apple,” Rudy says, “I kind of wish we had, because we probably could have approached this from a much more logical starting point. But that’s not how it happened.”
The brothers also address the frantic first few weeks after putting their machines online for everyone to see. The entire ‘net exploded, with many people claiming the company was a fraud. Gizmodo was quick to label the brothers as scammers, because Psystar changed address three times in the first week, and had to switch credit card processors to boot.
They claim they simply weren’t equipped to handle the hundreds of orders pouring in. “We were just not prepared for this kind of reaction,” Rudy says, “And the violence of the backlash was just shocking to us.” They’re referring to Gizmodo posting pictures of Rudy’s house, something he found particularly scary, especially considering some of the comments on the web.
The article details the stakes of the legal case between Psystar and Apple, something we have already debated at great lengths here at OSNews. Robert Pedraza contends that the company’s actions are fully legal (obviously) and likens software to books – much like Borland used to do back in the ’80s.
“It’s like buying a book,” Robert says, “Once I own it, I can tear pages out, underline sentences, even rewrite a whole section. And if I can find a buyer, I can resell that one copy however I please.”
I especially like the one-sentence summary of the case in the article: “So the California case, in essence, comes down to whether Apple’s licensing agreement trumps the Pedrazas’ rights as consumers.” That about sums this entire thing up in my book.
The article also has quite a few details about the financial aspect of it all. Several people claim that Microsoft or Dell are behind Psystar, funding them with money to fight Apple. In fact, PJ from Groklaw takes it all a step further by claiming Psystar is another attempt by Microsoft to bring down the GPL, and that it’s related to the SCO case.
However, when looking at the financial statements of Psystar, it becomes clear that Rudy Pedraza is facing quite some financial hardships. The bankruptcy papers from earlier this year showed a 120000 USD personal loan from Rudy, and he states this is only a fraction of the debts incurred by the legal case. The company also once owed 88464 USD to its previous legal firm, 12793 USD to DHL for shipping costs, and 25000 to its credit card processor.
“There’s no question I’m investing a lot of money,” Rudy says, but he denies all claims that bigger companies are funding Psystar to continue its legal struggle with Apple. “I’m the secret funder. It’s just me,” he adds.
It’s an interesting, unbiased article with quite a lot of information on Psystar and the Pedrazas that we did not yet know. It’s refreshing to finally see the two men being given the opportunity to speak.
As sad as they background stories might sound, I’m anything but convinced about the whole open source code thing, which is something I find very important. I’ve used both Rebel EFI as well as the various open source offerings, and the similarities are clear. Then again, there’s also the common sense argument: they are in such a visible position, with the entire ‘net falling over them whenever they make a peep, that it would be a fail truly epic in proportions if they indeed did steal open source code.
If I were them, I’d open the code to Rebel EFI, to take all the doubts away. The money they are making is about the safe update and driver installation service anyway, so why so cautious about the actual software package?
And I didn’t want you to miss this gem. The author contacted Apple for a response too, but the Cupertino giant declined to comment. All an Apple spokeswoman said, while laughing, was this: “Who asked you to do this story? These Psystar guys pitched you on it?”
They didn’t want to take on Apple? Really? That defies all logic.
Either they’re pathological liars, or stupid business people, or both, because anyone could readily see the holes in their thinking, if they’ve got the remotest ability to do any sort of research to understand what they’re dealing with, say, reading a EULA, and considering that it’s Apple they’re dealing with, or any other IP holder that’s clearly set out limitations to what they’ll find acceptable.
Now, as for the EFI firmware, that’s one of those tricky things as well: if they publish the source code because it is open-sourced with the appropriate license, there’s no likely reason to expect they’ll sell anything more after the first source code release, even if to an original customer that bought the binary. For those wanting a Hackintosh, building open source firmware, if the developers did their jobs at all, is far from the hardest thing in the world: those that aren’t the typical Hackintosh market are a non-issue, and also likely a non-customer anyway, so unless they can arrange for an unbiased third-party to compare their source code against what it’s being assumed the source is, just to dispel rumblings, I doubt that will happen.
And, as for changing addresses so quickly in such a short period of time: have they never heard of using P.O. boxes? All the real companies like to do it, or at least a very large number of them
No, they are not pathological liars, they are just rather unsophisticated quite young guys with little business experience, stumbling into something which is far bigger than they had expected.
The thing I don’t understand at all about this is the hysterical rage which Apple devotees direct at these particular guys. They don’t express the same rage at Quo, which seems to be doing the same thing. Or PearC, or freedompc.co.uk.
And they never address the real reason why the situation, not Psystar itself, but the situation in general, is so important. This was perfectly articulated in the following quote:
Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet free speech issues, thinks the brothers just might prevail. “We’ve lived 100-plus years with the basic proposition that if you bought it, you own it,” he says. “We don’t let vendors reach into your living room and micromanage how you use a product. Why should Apple get away with it?”
That is the question.
The further question I would ask of all the Apple devotees is this. Do you really want all software makers to be able to refuse permission to install their software on some brands of hardware? Are you sure? Do you really want MS to be able to ban dual booting of Windows, on Apple branded computers? Do you want people to be able to ban running their software in VMs, but only on VMs running on Macs? When someone installs on a Mac in defiance of a EULA, are you going to be out there cheering for the software supplier, and demanding that he has the right to enforce his EULA? In the name of preserving the integrated end user experience perhaps?
The rage at Psystar in particular is not because they are doing anything different than the others you mentioned but that they get mentioned on this and every news site almost daily, they are an easy target.
Personally i think this whole “poor boys” shtick is bullshit. There are plenty of ways they could handled this without resorting to stealing software. If one of them really were a “software expert” he could have put together a decent enough distro, help out with Etoile, possibly even make his own OS. However all he is a hack and a lazy one at that, nothing they do couldn’t be done by a reasonably tech savvy geek and some time. All they are really doing is forcing Apple’s hand into adopting DRM in future versions. When that happens then they won’t have won, in-fact everyone will have lost.
Stealing?
So now reselling software is stealing? That makes me one hardened criminal.
I was talking about the supposed stealing of opensource software without attribution, giving back to original community and/or not releasing the source code to their work according to the original license. That is called “stealing” from the community. Not everything is about Apple Thom.
Lies!
There is a difference between reselling used stuff, and making a business out of selling new copies of a software you are not licensed to sell.
Thom, no offense but I find that very troubling, if you don’t get that very basic difference.
That is, if the software is indeed licensed. Various judges think otherwise.
If they aren’t the judges involved in the case, their opinions mean nothing, period.
The right of first sale as it relates to computer software has enough precedents (Bauer & Cie. v. O’Donnell, Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, Softman v. Adobe, Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc.) that it’s not a slam-dunk for either side. My bet is that Apple will settle this case before it actually goes to a jury, because the last thing they want to see is a precedent where anybody can repackage their OS on a vanilla x86/x64 machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
They’re not stealing anything. They purchase the copies that get installed and shipped just like most other OSX x86 people. The difference is that instead of just doing it for your own computer they are assembling and shipping entirely functional computer with OSX installed and significantly more reasonable prices than Apple does for admitted slightly better casing, however the rest of the components are every bit as good as what Apple ships and charges far more for.
Apple apologists and fanbois are funny…
I USED to buy macs when I could strip their overpriced crap down to reasonable prices and then add in components for an overall savings of $1000s, e.g. $500 to Apple for a hdd that I can buy at a local retail outlet for $80 or $40-50 online bulk? $300 for DRAM that I could pick up for $80?(probably even better quality as you never know what OEM DRAM you’re getting from Apple ta any given time) $300 for a $150 GPU? gets even better now that you can add in CPUs which are widely available at better prices with x86 v. when they use ppc. Sure it takes me about 20m to install everything, and I end up with a heap of lowend GPUs and low capacity memory modules. (The microscopic hdds I used to leave installed as the OS drive.)
And let’s not even go into the PSU that Apple tends to ship with, as half the time they’re underspecced or pretty shoddy quality OEM stuff that ends up also needing replacement.
Now it gets even worse with Apple notebooks today and no easily user-replaceable batteries. This is a rather cynical Apple tactic IMNHO as I expect they think that they’ll just get another $2000 or so from the customer instead of them spending $100 on a new battery every few years. (Not everyone really needs a newer notebook every few years, and Apple notebooks have also been lagging in the discrete GPU area for some time now, again…)
Edited 2009-11-13 16:34 UTC
[QUOTE]This was perfectly articulated in the following quote:
Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet free speech issues, thinks the brothers just might prevail. “We’ve lived 100-plus years with the basic proposition that if you bought it, you own it,” he says. “We don’t let vendors reach into your living room and micromanage how you use a product. Why should Apple get away with it?”[/QUOTE]
The difference being of course if we put it in our living room, reverse engineer it and then sell a product based on this reverse engineering… that _is_ a violation of copyright! and always has been! This is what they are doing.
KRR
Oh they hate Quo and PearC too, not to mention all individual Hackintosh users. Just read any comments from Mac fanboys on the subject; it doesn’t take long to spot the snide, bitter remarks about how Hackintosh users/buyers are all just stupid poor people with no taste who must have pirated OS X.
It’s just that they hate Psystar MORE. Why? Because Psystar has been consistently successful at appealing to the emotions and the “root for the underdog” instincts of the geek public, effectively beating Apple at their own game.
And of course it’s no coincidence that the fanboys reserve the most hatred for the one company that Apple has gone after so far.
And – here comes the hard one – do you really want it to be possible for the GPL to permit use of GPL licensed software on any computer whatever, as long as it is not a Mac?
Still liking them apples?
Hell yeah! With 20/20 hindsight anybody surely could! ;-p
Are you kidding? A lot of people have been pretty straightforward at pointing out the obvious conflict with reality that the business plan for Pysstar was.
to promote public sympathy.
Whilst we can choose to believe their story or not, I can certainly believe that the Internet is one big lynch mob. Getting on the wrong side of Anonymous is not a good place to be.
You point being?
I believe the point here is that it doesn’t matter if your right or wrong, if the public opinion on the net is against you, you will be massacred online.
And, any attempt to defend themselves (like this article) is then just taken as ammo against them. On the Internet, if people believe you are wrong, then _you are wrong_ and that’s final, like it or not.
I haven’t read the article because I don’t want to include their personal story in my judgement of the company’s actions.
In other words, borrowing one of Apple’s standard tactics.
The difference being that, when a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation like Apple tries to play the underdog, it rings a little hollow.
“Robert cracked the code behind Apple Computer’s elegant operating system, OS X. ”
lol more like using the work of others and taking the credit and money…..
… in the article, the Pysstar guys go off on the OSX86 community. It takes a special kind of dementia.
It’s also a good thing to put on his CV I guess…
If they’re smart enough to find a way to leverage other peoples’ work and make a profit, they’re smarter than you give them credit for…
OSNews needs to set up a preference so readers could ignore certain topics. Psystar would one I would ignore first.
That system already exists – in you head. Just… Skip them
.
Thom, that takes too much effort
We want a handy dandy button that says “Forever ignore any topic with this tag”.
Since desktop computers have been invented people want a button that says “think for me”, but it ain’t ever going to come.
I can’t even say it once. “The Miami New Times News”
I found the article very insightful, particularly the hints at Psystar’s sales numbers, and of course the correct pronunciation of “Psystar”.
Not sure who to believe about borrowing the open source ‘Hackintosh’ software. The evidence presented a couple of weeks ago was rather convincing, but I haven’t seen any detailed analysis either refuting or confirming. Wouldn’t surprise me either way.
Edited 2009-11-12 03:29 UTC
“It’s an …, unbiased article …”
You’ve got to be kidding? Unbiased? you’re as deluded as they are!
Most times when they mention Apple its qualified with things like “has 35,000 employee’s” or “Millionaire layers!”… Anything to elicit the innocent David battling the big bad Goliath metaphor.
These guys are about a genuine as a Seiko watch from a box of Cracker Jacks!
KRR
Mac should have just released OS X for other hardware anyway. If they had done this when Vista failed then they would be a huge percentage of the user market by now!
Sorry to be pedantic, but who *exactly* is Mac?
Assumptions are dangerous, but I assumed they meant Apple.
He drive’s the truck. You should have seen him holding the back doors closed all like; “no.. I won’t release this.. I won’t…”
(couldn’t resist)
Funny when your read the article:
I guess as they say, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. I have to admit though, I have more respect for his father selling coke than the two thugs who setup Pystar.
Edited 2009-11-12 12:00 UTC
Comparing drug dealing to breaking an EULA… That’s how low the Apple fanatics need to go?
I did no such moral equivalence – both had broken the law but I have more respect for his father who ran a business versus those two who freeloaded off other peoples hard work – both the Apple’s and the OSx86 community’s, and then have the cheek to charge $50 for it.
His father invested in the manufacturing and selling of a product; his sons stole other peoples intellectual property, bundled it up, relabelled and sold it as if it were their own work. You tell which which is the more honourable.
For the record I do want all drugs to be made legal – but anyone who knows me long enough knows my political bent.
The parent tafficing drugs; yes, that one’s a clear violation of the law.
The child; maybe you have reference to the case law showing that his actions have been found in criminal conflict with existing laws? (or maybe we hold the “they broke the law” until “the law” decides the case)
Not to nitpick but….
1. The father was a guy who bought coke (I don’t know the details but considering they were in Miami and not Peru, I’ll assume he neither grew nor processed it), and then put it in smaller bags and charged way more for it than what he paid (for most of the drug dealers I’ve known, I’d guess he made upwards of %100 profits). Also his buyers were people who had addictions and likely little choice as to whether or not they were going to be repeat customers.
2. The sons buy computer parts, an OSX install disk, and use information they found for free online to do the manual job of putting OSX on the computers they built. If they get repeat customers, it’s because people like the job they have done of selecting hardware, putting it together, and installing an operating system on it which was not meant to run on said hardware.
Seems to me like the brothers have a much harder job (even if it is only a couple minutes worth of work per machine). Not to mention the fact that they’re probably making much less profit than their father (especially considering a lawsuits costs $$$$ and going to jail does not).
All this without even touching the fact that Apple has the easiest job of all, and are probably making higher profit margins than either psystar or the cocaine dealing father.
Don’t ask me how I know this stuff…I just do;-)
They chose to take the initial hit, they chose to keep using it, and have chosen not to get off it – they have every chance to do something about it but they choose not to. In other words the father imported a high demand product in bulk and sold it in small amounts at a premium. It is called capitalism – funny how westerners had no problems smuggling opium into China during the 19th century but they’ve suddenly concerned of the ‘unwashed masses’ when they sit in their own backyard. Talk about hypocrisy.
Mate, they stole OSx86 software and re-sold it as “Rebel EFI” for $50. There is no work required other than some nifty scripts to package it together – they have produced nothing of any value or originality.
You are correct… But it’s a bit of a pyrrhic victory, since you went even further and flat out stated that you consider the trafficking of a highly-addictive, dangerous narcotic to be morally SUPERIOR to Psystar’s actions.
And you’ve come to that insightful conclusion based on… a trial that hasn’t even started yet, much less reached any kind of verdict?
So you believe that Apple has never charged money for a product that included open source code. Interesting.
Oh yes, because you’re clearly someone who can be reasoned with… (*cough*).
Apple has always given back any changes made when using open source – where is the changes which Pystar did to create ‘Rebel EFI’ or is your hatred only directed against Apple?
For a person who attempts to be humorous with a pathetic username, quite frankly, I couldn’t careless what you think. Do us all a favour and stop thieving oxygen and heating up the atmosphere with your exhaling.
Edited 2009-11-13 09:06 UTC
Now you’re moving the goalposts, your previous post didn’t mention anything about contributing back.
Hatred? Are you kidding? I love Apple and their crazed fanbase, you guys have provided me with endless hours of entertainment.
Humorous? Nope, sorry, you’ve missed the point… and at the same time, you’ve unintentionally demonstrated the point.
And that should matter to me because… why, exactly?
“We’ve lived 100-plus years with the basic proposition that if you bought it, you own it,”
Governments should take closed source and firmwares at court.
If they don’t give you the manual of the device the purchase is invalid. (and I don’t mean windows installation instructions)
I’d like to see one of the Apple advocates just answer the question.
Suppose that the GPL is modified because of righteous indignation or maybe just to make a point, and now provides that no GPL software may be installed on any Apple labeled hardware. Any other machine is just fine. Or suppose MS stipulates in a EULA that Windows may not be installed on a dual boot system that is Apple labeled. Any other labeled system is just fine.
Do you guys all think that this should be lawful? Because that is the implication of allowing software makers to stipulate who makes and brands the hardware retail copies run on.