PDA

View Full Version : Court orders Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 for baseless discov...


MacBytes
Aug 26, 2009, 09:12 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Court orders Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 for baseless discovery motion (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090826101205)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

gilkisson
Aug 26, 2009, 09:21 AM
Oh, please.. Psystar, FOAD already.

But what kind of questions was Schiller legally expected to be able to answer? It sounds like questions such as "how much money have you lost because of Psystar" and "What are your exact profit margins" are verboten, at least when asked of Schiller. So what information did they really expect?

$5000 is the slap on the cheek, preparatory to the blade across the throat which is to come.

Tallest Skil
Aug 26, 2009, 09:22 AM
I hope that this isn't over and that they're forced to pay far more... in not just money.

uaecasher
Aug 26, 2009, 09:22 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Court orders Psystar to pay Apple $5,000 for baseless discovery motion (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20090826101205)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Only 5k :(?

MisterMe
Aug 26, 2009, 09:37 AM
...

$5000 is the slap on the cheek, preparatory to the blade across the throat which is to come.All of the monetary amounts published in this saga have been paltry sums. Remember that Psystar went bankrupt over an $87,000 legal bill. The company sounds like a garage operation to me.

LEStudios
Aug 26, 2009, 09:39 AM
All of the monetary amounts published in this saga have been paltry sums. Remember that Psystar went bankrupt over an $87,000 legal bill. The company sounds like a garage operation to me.

You think? :rolleyes:

NAG
Aug 26, 2009, 09:40 AM
And unless they were naive fools they knew they weren't going to make money from selling macs. So why were they doing this?

gilkisson
Aug 26, 2009, 09:43 AM
All of the monetary amounts published in this saga have been paltry sums. Remember that Psystar went bankrupt over an $87,000 legal bill. The company sounds like a garage operation to me.

I don't know if it's been asked/answered, but I wonder how many OSX units Psystar managed to sell? What is their sales numbers/profit margin?

They may not have the $5k to fork over. What will the judge do then? Contempt?

bruinsrme
Aug 26, 2009, 10:07 AM
The ironic thing is that Apple has probably lost more to pirated apps in the apps store than they have to Psystar sales.

jav6454
Aug 26, 2009, 10:13 AM
$5k is just the beginning.

JKColo22
Aug 26, 2009, 10:14 AM
They may not have the $5k to fork over. What will the judge do then? Contempt?

It is not the courts job to enforce a monetary judgment, nor do they really care if you collect on it. That said, Apple can go about enforcing the judgment in several ways such as placing liens against property Psystar may own. However, if Psystar goes chapter 7 because of this suit, Apple will probably never see the cash. That said, Apple could probably care less about collecting a mere $5k since it would cost them more than that just to find a method by which to collect it.

jaw04005
Aug 26, 2009, 10:17 AM
When the case with Psystar first started I thought it could lead to a bigger battle over software EULAs and consumer rights. I do believe some of the limitations and stipulations used by companies like Apple and Microsoft in their EULAs are anti-consumer. For example, Apple's transfer rights. For software packages like Final Cut Studio, Apple stipulates that the software license can only be transferred (or resold) once. That's ridiculous. It's become acceptable in the software industry to ship draconian EULAs by default. I'm not sure software companies even give much thought to them anymore. The average customer would need to be a lawyer to fully understand all the legal jargon used in a modern day EULA.

However, Psystar's legal team has did nothing but make frivolous claims and charges against Apple (Schiller not prepared for deposition, Apple failed to copyright Mac OS X, Psystar CEO said they never kept financial records, etc.) since the legal battle began. They've practically made a mockery of the court system.

At this point, pissy star (as Molly Wood of CNET likes to call them) needs to go away. I hope Apple fights them into oblivion. I would also like to know who their financial backers are (Dell?).

SnowLeopard2008
Aug 26, 2009, 10:57 AM
Psystar is just wasting time and should ashamed to call themselves a company for all the lying, cheating and trickery involved in their side of the case.

guydude193
Aug 26, 2009, 11:00 AM
:eek: Apple could buy a new Mac Pro and a ACD with that kind of money. They. Are. Loaded! :p

bruinsrme
Aug 26, 2009, 11:01 AM
Psystar is just wasting time and should ashamed to call themselves a company for all the lying, cheating and trickery involved in their side of the case.

No company should get away with lying, cheating, or trickery.
With the exception of Banks, Mortgage companies, Tobacco companies and so on. Psystar should be held to higher standards. Opps forgot to list Palm

nanofrog
Aug 26, 2009, 11:09 AM
When the case with Psystar first started I thought it could lead to a bigger battle over software EULAs and consumer rights. I do believe some of the limitations and stipulations used by companies like Apple and Microsoft in their EULAs are anti-consumer. For example, Apple's transfer rights. For software packages like Final Cut Studio, Apple stipulates that the software license can only be transferred (or resold) once. That's ridiculous. It's become acceptable in the software industry to ship draconian EULAs by default. I'm not sure software companies even give much thought to them anymore. The average customer would need to be a lawyer to fully understand all the legal jargon used in a modern day EULA.

However, Psystar's legal team has did nothing but make frivolous claims and charges against Apple (Schiller not prepared for deposition, Apple failed to copyright Mac OS X, Psystar CEO said they never kept financial records, etc.) since the legal battle began. They've practically made a mockery of the court system.

At this point, pissy star (as Molly Wood of CNET likes to call them) needs to go away. I hope Apple fights them into oblivion. I would also like to know who their financial backers are (Dell?).
This is how I saw it as well, when the news of the case first broke.

Now, it's looking like the case won't get into the language of the EULA, and set any guidelines as to what's truly legally acceptable or not. :rolleyes: :(

No company should get away with lying, cheating, or trickery.
With the exception of Banks, Mortgage companies, Tobacco companies and so on. Psystar should be held to higher standards. Opps forgot to list Palm
Nice! :D Got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks. :)

batchtaster
Aug 26, 2009, 11:57 AM
What I find most bizarre is that this is not Psystar, per se, acting like ass-monkeys. It's their lawyers. So, apparently Psystar managed to find exactly the right team to accurately represent them. Of course, that could be because the CEO of Psystar and his head legal counsel did, and continue to, share a dorm room together and do beer bongs on a Saturday night. That would certainly explain a lot.

BittenApple
Aug 26, 2009, 06:26 PM
This is mere change compared to what Apple wants...

nanofrog
Aug 26, 2009, 08:08 PM
This is mere change compared to what Apple wants...
I seriously doubt money is Apple's goal. ;)

Tallest Skil
Aug 26, 2009, 08:11 PM
I seriously doubt money is Apple's goal. ;)

Apple's goal is to make people say, "Psystar, who?" within six months. If they can get money while doing it, they're fine with that. They're sitting on a mountain of 31 billion, cash, so I agree; they couldn't care less.

r.j.s
Aug 26, 2009, 08:16 PM
I don't know if it's been asked/answered, but I wonder how many OSX units Psystar managed to sell? What is their sales numbers/profit margin?

They don't know. Their CEO testified that there are no records.

nanofrog
Aug 26, 2009, 08:47 PM
Apple's goal is to make people say, "Psystar, who?" within six months. If they can get money while doing it, they're fine with that. They're sitting on a mountain of 31 billion, cash, so I agree; they couldn't care less.
Not only Psystar, but prevent any other company from even attempting it (fear). Apple has the financial resources to run upstarts into the ground (can afford to persue them via the legal system, and pay for the most talented attorney's that specialize in Intellectual Property).

So long as the language in the EULA, isn't challenged directly and overturned on particular points, no upstart will have a chance.

seashellz
Aug 27, 2009, 02:29 AM
This is how I saw it as well, when the news of the case first broke.

Now, it's looking like the case won't get into the language of the EULA, and set any guidelines as to what's truly legally acceptable or not. :rolleyes: :(


Nice! :D Got a good laugh out of this one. Thanks. :)

you forgot Microsoft

tonyshucraft
Aug 27, 2009, 02:55 AM
They don't know. Their CEO testified that there are no records.

No wonder they have had finacial problems so easily, they are less organized than me. The probably sold 1000 computers but were too busy smoking up their mother's basement to even recall how to spell the word "finances".

Pegasus665
Aug 27, 2009, 06:45 AM
Good luck Psystar!

gilkisson
Aug 27, 2009, 07:28 AM
Good luck Psystar, as you burn eternally in the fiscal hell your thievery has earned you!

Fixed that for you...

niuniu
Aug 27, 2009, 07:38 AM
Good to see a big payout to lets these companies know the courts mean business :D

armoguy94
Aug 27, 2009, 10:02 AM
Let's hope that Psystar wins this one guys

Tallest Skil
Aug 27, 2009, 10:05 AM
Let's hope that Psystar wins this one guys

Any last words before we brand you as a Windows fanboy? :D

zmttoxics
Aug 27, 2009, 10:23 AM
5k!? Zomgz, the lawlcatz will be furriouz1!!!

This whole thing should have ended before it started.

BaldiMac
Aug 27, 2009, 10:37 AM
For example, Apple's transfer rights. For software packages like Final Cut Studio, Apple stipulates that the software license can only be transferred (or resold) once. That's ridiculous.

How many times do you think you should be able to sell an individual license? The person you sell the license to would have the same rights under the license that you did. Including the ability to transfer or resell the license once.

pdjudd
Aug 27, 2009, 12:35 PM
How many times do you think you should be able to sell an individual license? The person you sell the license to would have the same rights under the license that you did. Including the ability to transfer or resell the license once.
Yea, it sounds like its designed to prevent unauthorized reselling of the software in part and to make sure you get rid of the whole thing.

Billy Boo Bob
Aug 28, 2009, 10:41 AM
you forgot Microsoft

I can't believe people still thinking Microsoft would be behind this. Just what does M$ stand to gain from any of this? M$ doesn't make a dime on any Psystar OS X boxes. If anything they would rather not see Psystar succeed... More OS X boxes means less Windows boxes. Just like Dell saying they'd like to be able to sell OS X on their machines. M$ wouldn't want that, either.

And as for this 5K... This isn't any final tally. It's closer to being akin to a contempt of court fine slapped on a lawyer that pisses off a judge one day. This is not a settlement that Psystar is paying Apple.

zombitronic
Aug 28, 2009, 04:01 PM
In the latest news, Psystar sues Apple for Snow Leopard (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/08/28/psystar_sues_apple_for_snow_leopard_exploding_iphones_update.html).

The filing claims that Psystar is entitled to be able to buy copies of Snow Leopard on the market and install them onto its own computers that it re-sells. The suit alleges that the company is already capable of installing the new operating system on its hardware.

"The Psystar computers that run Mac OS X Snow Leopard are able to do so by running software, written by Psystar, that interfaces with the open-source portion of Mac OS X Snow Leopard," the filing reads. "The manner in which Psystar computers run Mac OS X Snow Leopard is entirely different from the manner in which Psystar computers run Mac OS X Leopard."

pilotError
Aug 28, 2009, 04:23 PM
In the latest news, Psystar sues Apple for Snow Leopard (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/08/28/psystar_sues_apple_for_snow_leopard_exploding_iphones_update.html).

I guess they are using the FakeSMC stuff now LOL

bobsentell
Aug 28, 2009, 10:10 PM
I tend to agree that Microsoft would rather Apple win. With Mac OS only able to run on Apple computers Microsoft doesn't have to worry about PC makers making Mac compatible units. And with a netbook friendly version of Windows 7 coming soon as well as a better proccessor from Intel, Linix will probably be offered less (excluding Asus). Leaving the PC OS market open to mostly Microsoft, as usual.

Judging by the fact Microsoft isn't in the hardware business, I would surmise that Apple makes more money selling Mac OS and accompanying software than the hardware itself. Even HP makes more money selling commercial testing equipment than they do selling home PCs. (That would also explain why purely PC makers stuggle: i.e. Dell, Gateway) I honestly believe that Apple would make more by opening their OS and software up to other manufacturers.

Apple made iTunes PC-friendly and it took off. Imagine if they did the same with Mac OS XI.

Yes, I'm a PC user. But I'm looking at this from a business standpoint.

pdjudd
Aug 29, 2009, 01:03 AM
Apple made iTunes PC-friendly and it took off. Imagine if they did the same with Mac OS XI.

Apple did that, they lost tons of money. The problem that Apple never saw is that the hardware partners had no inherent interest in Apple's second business - hardware. As a result Apple lost big because these hardware vendors could just mark their hardware down (users in general are ignorant about hardware - why do you think Dell and HP sells tons of cheap systems). As long as Apple remains a hardware company, they loose by imitating Microsoft because they can underbid Apple. OEM versions of Windows can be had by OEM's for something like 80 bucks per copy. Apple cannot survive on margins of 30 bucks for their OS - the cost of OS development is mostly supplemented by the hardware business. Third party sellers have no interest in what Apple or MS does with their software. They just care about the price so they can resell it to end users.

Apple and Microsoft's business models are vastly different. You want Apple to fundamentally alter their business model and still maintain quality. That just won't happen. I understand you are looking at this from a business standpoint, but your not looking at the business model correctly. You can't guarantee success by copying someone else. Microsoft doesn't make money by selling Windows at their current market prices and making it available for every hardware maker under the sun. They make their profits by selling to business en mass and their business model reflects that they operate under business rules. Totally counter to what Apple does or wants to do.

pdjudd
Aug 29, 2009, 01:11 AM
In the latest news, Psystar sues Apple for Snow Leopard (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/08/28/psystar_sues_apple_for_snow_leopard_exploding_iphones_update.html).

*Sigh* this is another waste of time. Judge Allsup will dismiss this case under the same grounds as the initial lawsuit was dismissed. Of course thats because this is the same suit just with a different version!

The courts are not going to be happy with Psystar and they need to be fined again.

leekohler
Aug 29, 2009, 02:39 AM
Good luck Psystar!

Agreed. Psystar is a nice thorn in Apple's side.