Psystar Halts Sales of Mac Clones, Plans Legal Appeal [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 2, 2009, 10:14 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/02/psystar-halts-sales-of-mac-clones-plans-legal-appeal/)

Computerworld notes (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141659/Psystar_stops_selling_Mac_clones_with_Apple_s_OS) that unauthorized Mac clone manufacturer Psystar has stopped offering its line of PC hardware with Mac OS X preinstalled in the wake of a settlement agreement (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/01/psystar-agrees-to-pay-nearly-2-7-million-in-settlement-with-apple/) with Apple. All models are currently listed as "Out of Stock" on the company's website, although it continues to offer its Rebel EFI software solution to enable customers to install Mac OS X on their own, marking a shift in its business tactics (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/01/psystar-to-change-tactics-and-sell-mac-os-x-ready-computers/) in response to Apple's legal challenges.

Psystar has not given up its fight, however, as it has vowed to appeal a federal court judge's ruling (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-judgement-against-psystar-for-mac-os-x-copyright-infringement/) in favor of Apple in its copyright infringement suit against Psystar. Under the terms of the $2.7 million settlement, Psystar is not required to make financial payments until all appeals have been heard."We will take the case up with the Ninth Circuit," said Psystar's chief attorney K.A.D. Camera of the Houston firm Camera & Sibley LLP. In an interview late Tuesday, Camera said Psystar will file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over a Nov. 13 summary judgment by federal Judge William Alsup, who said Psystar violated Apple's copyright as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it installed Apple's operating system on the clones it sells.

"We think that Judge Alsup got it wrong," said Camera. "The effect [of the settlement] is to allow the case to be heard by the Ninth Circuit," he continued, and characterized the settlement as "extremely favorable" to Psystar.While the current case in California centers on Psystar's inclusion of Mac OS X Leopard on its systems, a second lawsuit is also pending in Florida, where Psystar has claimed that Apple is in violation of antitrust laws by limiting use of Mac OS X Snow Leopard to Apple hardware. That case is unaffected by the recent decision in the original California case or by the settlement agreement between the two companies.

Still pending in the California case is Apple's request for a permanent injunction that would formally prevent Psystar from offering Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. The court will hear arguments on that request on December 14th and will then decide whether to grant the injunction, and if so, whether it will extend only to systems with Leopard pre-installed or whether to include Snow Leopard-based systems and even Psystar's standalone Rebel EFI software.

Article Link: Psystar Halts Sales of Mac Clones, Plans Legal Appeal (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/02/psystar-halts-sales-of-mac-clones-plans-legal-appeal/)

powers74

Dec 2, 2009, 10:15 AM

Can't we just start a new website for this saga?

jav6454

Dec 2, 2009, 10:16 AM

And the drama continues

alphaod

Dec 2, 2009, 10:19 AM

Psystar die off already.

Apple can do whatever they want with their OS. We're lucky Snow Leopard isn't sold in embedded form.

xDYLANx

Dec 2, 2009, 10:23 AM

They need to give it up already.

elhungarian

Dec 2, 2009, 10:24 AM

mattwolfmatt

Dec 2, 2009, 10:26 AM

Is anyone else sick of reading about this stuff? (I know, I know, yet I still found the time to read it and click on the "comment")

I don't make the decisions, but I'd like to see this kind of stuff on page 2. Or 14.

rdowns

Dec 2, 2009, 10:30 AM

Forgetting all their legal troubles with Apple, you'd think these guys would just throw in he towel already. With sales of only 768 machines, seems the public has spoken and have little interest in ac clones. The fact that they are still here says (to me) that they are being backed by someone else.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 10:32 AM

"We think that Judge Alsup got it wrong,"

Priceless.

These fools are under some serious delusions.

ucfgrad93

Dec 2, 2009, 10:34 AM

They need to give it up already.

Agreed, Psystar needs to recognize that it is over.

PeterQVenkman

Dec 2, 2009, 10:42 AM

I'm rooting for them now. I love the underdog.

wunderboy

Dec 2, 2009, 10:43 AM

I must be stupid because I don't see it. I thought that this country was based on creative people making something unique and then making money from that. They can choose to sell it or make some kind of distribution agreement. Clones have been done before and Apple choose to go a different route...that is their prerogative in my humble opinion. They sure didn't leave as many businesses in the lurch as our Government Motors did.

I bet that if they would have just sold the machines with rebel efi on it, Apple wouldn't have bothered...since Psystar was being creative. Apple, could of course, put hooks into their software to make it very difficult for Psystar's work around to function. Look at the Pre and iTunes.

In the end...the lawyers win on both sides. What a waste of time, energy, and resources that Apple can use on more productive things.

I agree that there is something more to Psystar that we don't know about...768 machines doesn't equal much revenue.

WeegieMac

Dec 2, 2009, 10:45 AM

You have got to be taking the piss?

Psystar have no legal agreement in place to sell systems with OS X preinstalled, nor do they have the right to essentially hack OS X by writing code that will allow a PC user to install OS X.

Seriously Psystar, **** off, you're becoming more boring than you were irritating.

Shasterball

Dec 2, 2009, 10:45 AM

I don't get it. If you settle, you cannot appeal...

theheadguy

Dec 2, 2009, 10:47 AM

I'm rooting for them now. I love the underdog.
lol!!

This is becoming a Shakespearean tragedy.

dashcs

Dec 2, 2009, 10:47 AM

I was wondering why Psystar agreed to the 2.7 million.
They agreed they would pay 2.7 M if only all they're appeals been heard.

Man they need to give it up.

wunderboy

Dec 2, 2009, 10:51 AM

Also, what is the whole deal in Florida? I just don't get it?!

If you really look at it there must be some sort of backing behind this whole thing. Someone or some corporation that wants to make things difficult for Apple anyway they can.

I am no legal expert, but if this turns out to be true can Apple file some sort of suit for wasting their time and money? I bet if there were such a fee our frivolous lawsuits would decrease. Just think of the revenue of my great state of California would bring in...aren't we the leaders in frivolous suits?

Glideslope

Dec 2, 2009, 10:57 AM

205559

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 11:05 AM

I don't get it. If you settle, you cannot appeal...
The settlement doesn't cover the actions that Psystar was ruled against by Allsup in the summary judgment. Psystar is appealing that summary judgment which explains why Apple can drop charges without prejudice - they can still refile if the appeal is heard and granted.

In short, the settlement is conditional on the summary judgment being enforced. If it happens to be overturned on appeal, Apple can still refile as the original case would commence as normal. Psystar has every right to appeal a guilty verdict since the settlement covers separate elements not already decided.

Xavier

Dec 2, 2009, 11:18 AM

What makes Psystar think they will win a case the second time around?

crees!

Dec 2, 2009, 11:21 AM

That would be the ninth circus court of appeals in Cali.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 11:24 AM

In the end...the lawyers win on both sides.

You know, people always say that. But it's the client who decides who to sue or when to appeal, and the client who decides to go rip off Apple.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 11:24 AM

That would be the ninth circus court of appeals in Cali.

Which, on IP matters, is rarely overturned.

JAT

Dec 2, 2009, 11:31 AM

"We think that Judge Alsup got it wrong,"

Priceless.

These fools are under some serious delusions.

While I agree that their claims are likely to lose, this is the legal system as set up by us. They have every right to claim a judge (or jury) is incorrect, that is the definition of appeal. It is not, however, priceless. No doubt it will cost somebody quite a bit. :D

So, your complaints here are really about the legal system, not Psystar. It's funny that sometimes you agree with it, and sometimes you don't. Maybe if you were consistent in anything but "Rah, Rah, Apple!!", other forumites would respect you more.

jeznav

Dec 2, 2009, 11:40 AM

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 11:42 AM

While I agree that their claims are likely to lose, this is the legal system as set up by us. They have every right to claim a judge (or jury) is incorrect, that is the definition of appeal. It is not, however, priceless. No doubt it will cost somebody quite a bit. :D

So, your complaints here are really about the legal system, not Psystar. It's funny that sometimes you agree with it, and sometimes you don't. Maybe if you were consistent in anything but "Rah, Rah, Apple!!", other forumites would respect you more.

They have a very high burden to overcome, and the record in the case is not on their side (for example, the appeals court will not consider things that were not plead by Psystar).

I wonder if the circuit court will even take the appeal.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 11:44 AM

While I agree that their claims are likely to lose, this is the legal system as set up by us. They have every right to claim a judge (or jury) is incorrect, that is the definition of appeal. It is not, however, priceless. No doubt it will cost somebody quite a bit. :D

So, your complaints here are really about the legal system, not Psystar. It's funny that sometimes you agree with it, and sometimes you don't. Maybe if you were consistent in anything but "Rah, Rah, Apple!!", other forumites would respect you more.

My comment had nothing to do with the legal system. Obviously, Psystar is going to appeal. Parties often do it as a matter of course. My comment was that they're delusional if they seriously think they're going to get anywhere. They might have simply appealed as a matter of course, but I wasn't referring to this possibility.

And the sensible thing to do with respect to the Psystar case is to support Apple and any other individual or company that finds themselves in the position of being ripped off in a similar manner.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 11:45 AM

soundbwoy

Dec 2, 2009, 12:36 PM

If Apple rally wanted to give them Ol' in out, in out. They could say, go ahead and install it on your machines as long as it is purchased directly form apple (not retail) for the going price of $1000 per license and Pystar cannot sell the machines without it as well assume all support responsibilities. That would really put a hamper on things without the legal issues.

scottness

Dec 2, 2009, 12:46 PM

An appeal? Are you kidding me? I wish I had money to keep myself amused in a losing legal pursuit.

ANIM8R

Dec 2, 2009, 12:53 PM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9530/4.7.0.109 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

So how can psystar afford more potential law suits when they have only sold 768 machines?
2.7 million $ and 768 machines. Hmm..

Today class we will be answering this question. Please open your books to Chapter 7 ... ;)

lightpeak

Dec 2, 2009, 12:57 PM

I'm rooting for them now. I love the underdog.

+1

scottness

Dec 2, 2009, 12:58 PM

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 01:01 PM

An appeal? Are you kidding me? I wish I had money to keep myself amused in a losing legal pursuit.

Everyone has the right to an appeal in case a travesty of justice occurs.

Today class we will be answering this question. Please open your books to Chapter 7 ... ;)

Not for awhile - they allready filed for bankruptcy and part of their agreement for escaping it was that they could not re-file for another year. They still have 8 months left.

powers74

Dec 2, 2009, 01:05 PM

I wonder if Apple lawyers wear blue jeans and black T-shirts to court.

badapple18

Dec 2, 2009, 01:40 PM

I guess Apple might put the TPM chip in it's next hardware refresh. But then it's going to be difficult to maintain the non-chipped motherboard we have today.

Also, even if they trim vendor IDs and CPU IDs from the system, there's always a hack for that.

"Apple! You shouldve implemented the TPM chip back in Intel transition!"

It's apple sheep like you that make me sick, sure pystar was in the wrong a bit, but I am absolutely sure that apple is ignoring there customers by not offering us a mid grade tower. there is a HUGE market for a mac desktop with a coreI7 that doesn't cost 2500 bucks with no monitor. We need something in between the mac mini and mac pro. The way you talk about implementing a TPM chip makes it sound like your the type that wouldn't mind us all having chips implanted into our heads for our "protection" having apple open source might not be a bad thing if you want apple to become more main stream.

ChazUK

Dec 2, 2009, 01:44 PM

GIVE IT UP Psystar, I don't like what you're doing. Trying to profit in this way is absolute bollocks.

Yes, I own a hackintosh but for me it's a hobby machine (I love to tinker with things and troubleshoot why the latest thing has gone wrong - it's the ex PC owner that likes things to break)

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 01:58 PM

GIVE IT UP Psystar, I don't like what you're doing. Trying to profit in this way is absolute bollocks.

Its like they have something to prove, like the PirateBay.

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 02:05 PM

It's apple sheep like you that make me sick, sure pystar was in the wrong a bit, but I am absolutely sure that apple is ignoring there customers by not offering us a mid grade tower. there is a HUGE market for a mac desktop with a coreI7 that doesn't cost 2500 bucks with no monitor. We need something in between the mac mini and mac pro. The way you talk about implementing a TPM chip makes it sound like your the type that wouldn't mind us all having chips implanted into our heads for our "protection" having apple open source might not be a bad thing if you want apple to become more main stream.

Your error is assuming that Apple should cater to its customers - that is not correct. Its sole obligations is to make money. Apple has made it very clear that there are some segments of the market that they will not cater to - that is their God given right as intellectual property owners. They have no obligation to no-one but themselves.

Your sense of entitlement is very misguided. It matters not what you want. Apple offers something - if they do not offer what you want you have the choice of going with something that does or get nothing. You have no rights to OSX outside of what Apple is willing to offer. Take it or leave it.

MattBaker

Dec 2, 2009, 02:06 PM

What does Apple gain by agreeing at this stage?

They don't get money, they don't get Psystar to stop appeals, what do they get?

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:12 PM

They don't get money, they don't get Psystar to stop appeals, what do they get?

Apple doesn't have to do anything. Because of the settlement value and Psystar's stupidity Apple can have front row seats to a company digging itself into a hole.

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 02:14 PM

What does Apple gain by agreeing at this stage?

They don't get money, they don't get Psystar to stop appeals, what do they get?

Well assuming their injunction succeeded, they get to move on with more relivant case matters. They know that Psystar is likely to not pay, thats why they filed the injunction - to stop Psystar from damaging Apples business any further.

It is not about money at this point, but they aren't going to waste their time when they can accomplish their needs by getting an injunction and waiting until Psystar echausts themselves in a failed appeal process. Apple wants to end this and end Pystars business. This was just house cleaning.

JGowan

Dec 2, 2009, 02:14 PM

... Slightly off thread topic, but Psystar related so,...

While there are so many wondering if there were some big company behind Psystar, financing this -- what if it's what Apple wanted all along: a small company that could/would take the lawsuits only so far.

I think this whole suit was in their best interest. It tells bigger companies with much deeper pockets, you're going to lose if you try the same or something similar.

Could Apple have instigated this whole thing?

I really don't think so -- but I think it's an interesting "what if"? ;)

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 02:21 PM

It's apple sheep like you that make me sick, sure pystar was in the wrong a bit, but I am absolutely sure that apple is ignoring there customers by not offering us a mid grade tower. there is a HUGE market for a mac desktop with a coreI7 that doesn't cost 2500 bucks with no monitor. We need something in between the mac mini and mac pro. The way you talk about implementing a TPM chip makes it sound like your the type that wouldn't mind us all having chips implanted into our heads for our "protection" having apple open source might not be a bad thing if you want apple to become more main stream.

First of all, if the market was as big as you think it is, they'd be doing it. Apple enjoys making money. The fact that you want something doesn't mean there is a "huge market" for it. Something like 75% of apple's sales are laptops. That doesn't leave a "huge market" for the rest.

Second, accusing him of being in favor of "having chips implanted into our heads" is a moronic, histrionic, overstatement.

badapple18

Dec 2, 2009, 02:22 PM

Your error is assuming that Apple should cater to its customers - that is not correct. Its sole obligations is to make money. Apple has made it very clear that there are some segments of the market that they will not cater to - that is their God given right as intellectual property owners. They have no obligation to no-one but themselves.

Your sense of entitlement is very misguided. It matters not what you want. Apple offers something - if they do not offer what you want you have the choice of going with something that does or get nothing. You have no rights to OSX outside of what Apple is willing to offer. Take it or leave it.

Sense of Entitlement? Did i say i went out and bought an apple clone? did i say i built my own hackintosh? actually I said i wanted to purchase one. I use my macbook pro everyday and enjoy it. I would love to have a nice tower with a few hard drives and a decent processor with a monitor/monitors of my choosing (ones that don't cost an arm and a leg that are still good quality) and this is why when i get home i still maintain my 1 household PC for all of my media, backups, network storage and backup for my wife's macbook and my previously mentioned macbook pro. but i will be damned if i will spend 2500 bucks for the base model mac pro which is clearly over priced

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:23 PM

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 02:24 PM

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 02:24 PM

Umm, you have no clue what you are talking about. Mac OSX is already opensource.

Methinks you're a Linux troll in disguise.

No it's not. Darwin is.

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 02:25 PM

Umm, you have no clue what you are talking about. Mac OSX is already opensource.

Methinks you're a Linux troll in disguise.
Mac OS X is not open source. The darwin Kernel is open source but that is neither here nor there.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:25 PM

Sense of Entitlement? Did i say i went out and bought an apple clone? did i say i built my own hackintosh? actually I said i wanted to purchase one. I use my macbook pro everyday and enjoy it. I would love to have a nice tower with a few hard drives and a decent processor with a monitor/monitors of my choosing (ones that don't cost an arm and a leg that are still good quality) and this is why when i get home i still maintain my 1 household PC for all of my media, backups, network storage and backup for my wife's macbook and my previously mentioned macbook pro. but i will be damned if i will spend 2500 bucks for the base model mac pro which is clearly over priced

So? You're awfully defensive. I think we've hit a soft spot. Don't like the price... don't one.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:29 PM

Mac OS X is not open source. The darwin Kernel is open source but that is neither here nor there.

Ohh wow, and how would Apple benefit from OSS Cocoa and its Apps? I mean OSS operating systems are doing sooo well with 1% market share...

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 02:30 PM

Ohh wow, and how would Apple benefit from OSS Cocoa and its Apps? I mean OSS operating systems are doing sooo well with 1% market share...

We were both just correcting your factual error; neither of us drew any conclusion about the advisability of open sourcing the OS.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:31 PM

We were both just correcting your factual error; neither of us drew any conclusion about the advisability of open sourcing the OS.

But Mac OSX is open source. DarwinOS is the Project Name. Your double standards are amazing. Linux could completely have a closed source Userland and you'd still call it opensource.

BTW Camaier, he did. How about you read the entire conversation for once.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 02:36 PM

But Mac OSX is open source. Your double standards are amazing. Linux could completely have a closed source Userland and you'd still call it opensource.

BTW Camaier, he did. How about you read the entire conversation for once.

1) i read the entire conversation
2) Mac OS X is not open source. Stop saying that. There's a huge difference between the kernel being open source and the OS being open source. And no one would call linux open source if the userland was closed source - we'd call the kernel open source. Darwin and Mac OS X are two different things.
3) what double standards? Software is open source if all the code that comprises it is open source. Otherwise only portions of it are open source. And it is wrong to call proprietary software open source, because it's not. Precise and correct language is not a double standard.

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 02:37 PM

But Mac OSX is open source.
No it is not. The Darwin Kernel is open source. Mac OS is closed and proprietary. They are two very different things.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X):

Source model: Closed source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_source_software) (with open source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software) components)

Using open source material does not make the entire project open source.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 02:37 PM

But Mac OSX is open source. DarwinOS is the Project Name.

Parts of OS X are open source. Some really, really important parts, however, are not (particularly the GUI.)

Refer to Apple's OS X EULA, the "open source" descriptions is particular.

http://www.opensource.apple.com

It's a mixture of open source and proprietary software.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 02:47 PM

1) i read the entire conversation

Yea right, your post said otherwise. Otherwise you would of called the suggestion of OSS Mac OSX.

2) Mac OS X is not open source. Stop saying that. There's a huge difference between the kernel being open source and the OS being open source. And no one would call linux open source if the userland was closed source - we'd call the kernel open source. Darwin and Mac OS X are two different things.

Read that first part again, you're confusing yourself. Mac OSX IS OPEN SOURCE. It has Cocoa LAID UPON IT. I can REMOVE the Cocoa layer and replace with QT and something like KDE if I really wanted too.

3) what double standards? Software is open source if all the code that comprises it is open source.

Thats not actually true. Linux is called opensource even though it has Binary blobs in the kernel. Haiku is OpenSource even though it has binary blobs from Be Inc.

Otherwise only portions of it are open source. And it is wrong to call proprietary software open source, because it's not. Precise and correct language is not a double standard.

Even by the proper definition of an OS Mac OSX is opensource. By the slang term, its not. You are using the slang.

"An operating system (OS) is an interface between hardware and user which is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer that acts as a host for computing applications run on the machine. As a host, one of the purposes of an operating system is to handle the details of the operation of the hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these details and makes it easier to write applications. Almost all computers (including handheld computers, desktop computers, supercomputers, video game consoles) as well as some robots, domestic appliances (dishwashers, washing machines), and portable media players use an operating system of some type.[1] Some of the oldest models may, however, use an embedded operating system that may be contained on a data storage device."

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 02:50 PM

Read that first part again, you're confusing yourself. Mac OSX IS OPEN SOURCE. It has Cocoa LAID UPON IT. I can REMOVE the Cocoa layer and replace with QT and something like KDE if I really wanted too.

Then it's not OS X. It's MorpgingDragon OS. Some key parts of OS X are proprietary. Substitute anything else . . . and you end up with something else.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 02:55 PM

Yea right, your post said otherwise. Otherwise you would of called the suggestion of OSS Mac OSX.

Read that first part again, you're confusing yourself. Mac OSX IS OPEN SOURCE. It has Cocoa LAID UPON IT. I can REMOVE the Cocoa layer and replace with QT and something like KDE if I really wanted too.

Thats not actually true. Linux is opensource even though it has Binary blobs in the kernel. Haiku is OpenSource even though it has binary blobs from Be Inc.

Even by the proper definition of an OS Mac OSX is opensource. By the slang term, its not. You are using the slang.

"An operating system (OS) is an interface between hardware and user which is responsible for the management and coordination of activities and the sharing of the resources of the computer that acts as a host for computing applications run on the machine. As a host, one of the purposes of an operating system is to handle the details of the operation of the hardware. This relieves application programs from having to manage these details and makes it easier to write applications. Almost all computers (including handheld computers, desktop computers, supercomputers, video game consoles) as well as some robots, domestic appliances (dishwashers, washing machines), and portable media players use an operating system of some type.[1] Some of the oldest models may, however, use an embedded operating system that may be contained on a data storage device."

You are being nonsensical. Mac OS X is the trademarked brand name for a particular collection of code. That collection of code is not open sourced. End of story. Darwin is darwin, and Mac OS X is Mac OS X. You cannot call Darwin "Mac OS X" because it's not. I don't care whether Darwin is an operating system or not (and it's not). Even if it was, you said Mac OS X is open sourced. And no matter how many times your demonstrate your inability to grasp a simple issue with a binary solution, it's not open sourced.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 03:00 PM

The kernel is open source.

The user interface and all the applications that come with OS X are not.

Apple does maintain some open source projects, but most everything aside from the kernel is closed source. For instance, WebKit is open source. The Safari browser itself is not. The Finder, Spotlight, the entire GUI, and most (if not all) of the apps that come with the OS are closed source. These key components make "OS X" what it is. Without them, you've got a BSD-based Unix OS of some kind with very little, if any, resemblance to OS X. So in other words, it's not OS X.

Not much of what we consider "OS X" is open source - it's mostly underlying things (like the kernel or the the SMB client/server, etc.)

If you doubt this, simply call Apple and ask them or read Apple's EULA regarding this. And you can also refer to the courts for recent decisions regarding this issue. ;)

SnapMac

Dec 2, 2009, 03:00 PM

I don't get it. If you settle, you cannot appeal...
err..uhh..
Under the terms of the $2.7 million settlement, Psystar is not required to make financial payments until all appeals have been heard.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 03:11 PM

Just to clarify a bit further, Darwin is open source, as we know. You can probably install X11 on it and use it as a standard Unix OS with any window manager and desktop environment you wish. Except Apple's.

If you do this, you've got a Unix operating system of some kind. But not OS X.

mclaycast

Dec 2, 2009, 03:15 PM

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 03:17 PM

ya i think pystar really needs to get some balls and sell computers with windows and linux on them. Any real mac user would still buy osx on a real apple computer and not give a rats hat about pystar.

Looks like it. After selling only a laughable 768 units, there's not a huge market for fake Macs.

SuperBrown

Dec 2, 2009, 03:19 PM

Yea right, your post said otherwise. Otherwise you would of called the suggestion of OSS Mac OSX.

Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument. :D

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 03:20 PM

Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument. :D

Even with the correct "would've" I don't understand his sentence.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 03:41 PM

Dude, just the fact that you wrote "would of" instead of "would've" completely invalidates your argument. :D

Its slang... duh...

I'm not secretly drunk... after a University welcome party... >.>

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 03:44 PM

Its slang... duh...

No, it's not. It's just wrong. Why would a slang term for "would've" be "would of?" It's the same number of letters.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 03:46 PM

No, it's not. It's just wrong. Why would a slang term for "would've" be "would of?" It's the same number of letters.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

Slang is slang mate.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 03:51 PM

Slang is slang mate.

So you're never wrong. You're just using slang.

MorphingDragon

Dec 2, 2009, 04:27 PM

So you're never wrong. You're just using slang.

Maaaaate

Bubba Satori

Dec 2, 2009, 04:43 PM

They need to give it up already.

Yeah, Apple must have spent a ton on legal expenses for every one of the 900 computers Psystar sold. Innovation!

Bubba Satori

Dec 2, 2009, 04:46 PM

Looks like it. After selling only a laughable 768 units, there's not a huge market for fake Macs.

Which begs the question, why did Apple spend tens of thousand of dollars in legal fees for every Psystar sold?

Either Psystar was a threat to Apple's business by selling less than a thousand somputers or they weren't and Apple is just another control freak, corporate bully with $35 billion in the bank.

So which was it?

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 04:52 PM

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 05:13 PM

macfan881

Dec 2, 2009, 05:14 PM

Dear pystar

you suck

that is all.

Winni

Dec 2, 2009, 05:23 PM

Dear pystar

you suck

that is all.

No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.

Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.

Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

MattBaker

Dec 2, 2009, 05:23 PM

Have we seen any evidence that Psystar, Inc. is anything more that one idiot with a dream?

Legal bills don't have to be huge. Inventory was trivial. A/R was non-existent.

It's the only story I can think of: one idiot who thought he had found a way to beat "The System".

KnightWRX

Dec 2, 2009, 05:33 PM

Which begs the question, why did Apple spend tens of thousand of dollars in legal fees for every Psystar sold?

Either Psystar was a threat to Apple's business by selling less than a thousand somputers or they weren't and Apple is just another control freak, corporate bully with $35 billion in the bank.

So which was it?

First one. IP rights need to be defended, no matter how insignificant the infrigment. Especially when it's another commercial entity that is infringing on your rights.

And bravo on a well executed Petitio Principii. Shows how much of a fool you are.

Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

Wait, are you sure you want to make this claim ? You do understand that Apple is a publicly traded company and as such, it's financial information is available all over the Internet as it is publicly dissiminated every quarter. Hence, if someone wanted to prove how much of a fool you are, they could just.. oh I don't know... go look up Apple's last quarter revenue by product segments and show you how computer hardware accounts for 50% of their revenu and that software is a single digit percentage on their revenue sheet.

If I were you, I'd edit my post and remove such an idiotic comment before someone proves you wrong and destroys all your credibility.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 05:33 PM

Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

Yeah, that's why Apple almost went out of business in the mid-1990's when it actually did allow it's OS to be put on other company's computers (motorola, power computing, umax). Right.

BaldiMac

Dec 2, 2009, 05:40 PM

No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.

Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.

Ahhhh. The mythical German loophole that no software company is aware of. It lets businesses benefit from consumer protection laws. Invalidates copyright. Mocks software companies who bother to translate their licenses into German. Confounds Apple's lawyers. Slices. Dices. And can be brought up whenever all other arguments fail.

Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

Apple actually makes most of their money selling hardware. It's not one of those things you have to take on faith or bollocks. Just check the financial statements. They are published quarterly. Not that this fact has anything to do with whether it is legal for PearC to copy and modify OS X without Apple's permission.

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 05:41 PM

So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

Should have listened to KnightWRX. ;)

Nearly 50% of Apple's revenue comes from Mac sales alone.

Software and services account for a mere fraction of that, and are far outlcassed by iPod and iPhone sales. Apple makes the LEAST of its revenue on software and services.

cjmillsnun

Dec 2, 2009, 05:48 PM

No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.

Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.

Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

Actually you are mistaken.

Microsoft got slapped down because they made a deal with all OEMs to include a Windows Licence even if Windows was not supplied on the computer.

That is anticompetitive and illegal in all states.

Apple makes most of their income through hardware sales. Their margins are roughly 200% on hardware.

BTW if the German supreme court ruled one way, then all Apple would have to do is appeal to the EU courts which would uphold the EU Copyright directive, effectively overturning the German court.

SimonMW

Dec 2, 2009, 06:13 PM

Serious question. How do you pronounce "Pwned"?

*LTD*

Dec 2, 2009, 06:19 PM

Serious question. How do you pronounce "Pwned"?

"Poned."

I hate when it's pronounced. It just sounds stupid. But there you have it.

macfan881

Dec 2, 2009, 07:57 PM

No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.

Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.

Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.

you talk about what MS does with software and windows 7 selling it on other systems and what apple does with pystar they are two total diffrent things. First MS Gets a share of what Dell HP Sony etc. make and gives it to windows for dist rights what pystar is basicly Robery they take copies of OS X and then selling it for them selfs they are crooks get over it.

twoodcc

Dec 2, 2009, 08:47 PM

i don't see psystar winning the florida case. hasn't there already been a similar court case in the past where apple won?

Bafflefish

Dec 2, 2009, 08:55 PM

Ahhhh. The mythical German loophole that no software company is aware of. It lets businesses benefit from consumer protection laws. Invalidates copyright. Mocks software companies who bother to translate their licenses into German. Confounds Apple's lawyers. Slices. Dices. And can be brought up whenever all other arguments fail.
It does bring up an interesting point though: why has Apple not sued to stop Hypermeganet from doing exactly what they sued Psystar for doing?

Here's an interesting read on it all (and fairly recent, as it's from September): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb5dc348-9bf1-11de-b214-00144feabdc0.html?catid=99&SID=google

What I find of interest is this quote:

The lawyers told Hypermeganet that buyers of Apple computers were confronted with the restrictions of Apple’s end-user licence agreement only after they unpacked their gleaming new toys – a retroactive restriction explicitly barred by German law.

You'd have thought that Apple would have taken some type of action against them in the past 9-10 months (they started selling systems in February).

Edit - Also, someone can correct me on this, but I heard that under German law, if any part of the EULA is invalidated, the entire EULA is invalided. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 08:55 PM

i don't see psystar winning the florida case. hasn't there already been a similar court case in the past where apple won?

The Florida case is essentially a carbon copy of the original Psystar “anti-trust” case that was filed in California. Simply substitute “Leopard” with “Snow Leopard” and the result is the same. It failed then and its going to fail again (my personal prediction).

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 09:07 PM

It does bring up an interesting point though: why has Apple not sued to stop Hypermeganet from doing exactly what they sued Psystar for doing?

Here's an interesting read on it all (and fairly recent, as it's from September): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb5dc348-9bf1-11de-b214-00144feabdc0.html?catid=99&SID=google

What I find of interest is this quote:

I cut off here to debunk Hypermeganet’s claim - The license is not only available after opening the box - it is available at any time before purchase at Apple’s website. They can make any claim they want - it doesn’t mean that it’s actually going to float.

You'd have thought that Apple would have taken some type of action against them in the past 9-10 months (they started selling systems in February).

It took months (at least 4-5) to build a case against Pystar - and Psystar was really, really, overt about their actions. Apple can choose who they go after. Their first target was low hanging fruit so they could have precedent. We cannot imply anything from Apple’s silence regarding PearC - for all we know, they are the next target.

Edit - Also, someone can correct me on this, but I heard that under German law, if any part of the EULA is invalidated, the entire EULA is invalided. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

I don’t think contracts work that way. Even if it did, it wouldn’t trump copyright law or even international copyright law in the EU (which Germany is part of).

Apple can still file copyright claims against PearC since their hackintoshes are made probably using the same method that Psystar used to make their hackintoshes. They don’t have to argue the legality of their EULA - They can bring it up as proof of their intent of how OSX is supposed to work and let copyright law do the rest.

Bafflefish

Dec 2, 2009, 09:08 PM

Actually you are mistaken.

Microsoft got slapped down because they made a deal with all OEMs to include a Windows Licence even if Windows was not supplied on the computer.

That is anticompetitive and illegal in all states.
Close but not quite. It wasn't that Microsoft was requiring OEMs include licenses on systems that then didn't actually have Windows installed. It was that Microsoft had negotiated royalties so that, even on systems where Windows wasn't installed (and no license was present), Microsoft was still getting a royalty payment, even though they had no legal right to one.

Thus, from a business perspective, if you're going to have to pay a royalty to Microsoft anyway for a system that wouldn't even include Windows, then you might as well have Windows be the OS on it. That's what Novell complained about, and what the EU ultimately smacked MS for.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023_3-204317.html

BTW if the German supreme court ruled one way, then all Apple would have to do is appeal to the EU courts which would uphold the EU Copyright directive, effectively overturning the German court.
Germany has very stringent consumer-protection laws, something which the European Commission doesn't really touch upon. It would be interesting to see which would take precedent.

Remember too that while member nations have to sign off on the EU copyright law, they're still free to impose or exempt certain limitations, and there's also exceptions in place for laws in-place before ratification of the copyright law was required.

Bafflefish

Dec 2, 2009, 09:19 PM

I cut off here to debunk Hypermeganet’s claim - The license is not only available after opening the box - it is available at any time before purchase at Apple’s website. They can make any claim they want - it doesn’t mean that it’s actually going to float.
Well, according to the limited reading I did, the EULA has to be present at the time of sale between retailer and customer. This is in order to protect the consumer against any changes that may have been made to the EULA.

Thus, that's why a lot of people seem to debunk the "it's available online" argument. Plus, it appears that even if a consumer were able to access the EULA at the register when paying, there's no guarantee that the EULA online is the same as what's currently present when you go to install the software. Thus, the EULA being available online is irrelevant (this is just what I've seen stated for Germany, it's not my own personal opinion).

In regards to the license being available after you open the box (I'm guessing you're referring to when you go to install it), I think though that goes against the idea of you agreeing to it at the time of purchase with the retailer (once again, this is just from what I've read. I have absolutely no experience with this :P )

Since a person can't agree to the product's specific EULA when paying for it, the thinking apparently is that it's null-and-void. Whether that would pan out in court, I'm going to say I'd doubt it. But I'm sure if anyone is going to get that idea/concept thrown out, it'll be Apple, lol.

One thing of curiosity though: you mentioned that it took Apple 4-5 months to finally sue Psystar. If Hypermeganet is in fact essentially carrying out the same process, you'd have thought it wouldn't have taken Apple nearly as long to try and stop them, especially given their experience with Psystar. They sued Psystar after 4 months. Hypermeganet has been selling their systems for 10 months now, and Apple hasn't so much as peeped. :?

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 09:30 PM

Here is a Wiki article on German copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_copyright_law). I highlight the big ones:

While exclusive licenses are almost as powerful as copyright transfer, the author always retains some rights to the work, including the right to prevent defacing and to be identified as the author. Employment agreements are frequently construed as granting the employer an exclusive license to any works created by the employee within the scope of his obligations. For computer software, the copyright act expressly provides that all economic usage rights (as opposed to personality rights) belong to the employer.

Bolds mine. This seems to mean to me that Apple as the owner of OSX retains some rights such as the rights to derivatives (defacement). Apple would also be the only one that could profit from OSX...

Here is another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) case regarding the GNU license in Germany:
Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.

That sounds like you can only copy or modify or distribute with a licence from the owner. No license, no copying. It doesn’t matter if the conditions were agreed to or not. And this was upheld on appeal.

cmaier

Dec 2, 2009, 09:39 PM

Here is a Wiki article on German copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_copyright_law). I highlight the big ones:

Bolds mine. This seems to mean to me that Apple as the owner of OSX retains some rights such as the rights to derivatives (defacement). Apple would also be the only one that could profit from OSX...

Here is another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License) case regarding the GNU license in Germany:

That sounds like you can only copy or modify or distribute with a licence from the owner. No license, no copying. It doesn’t matter if the conditions were agreed to or not. And this was upheld on appeal.

This is referring to what are sometimes called "moral rights," a uniquely European aspect of copyright law. (There are some aspects of this in U.S. law, but not much). The idea is that if a guy creates a beautiful painting, he retains the right to prevent someone from spraypainting a moustache on it, using it in a ketchup commercial, etc. because it wouldn't be dignified :-)

It is unlikely that this would be applied to software derivative works, as derivative works is a separate idea in copyright law. Of course, while I learned a bit about the European systems in law school, as a lawyer I've had no exposure to anything other than European patents, so I could be completely wrong.

pdjudd

Dec 2, 2009, 09:50 PM

Well, according to the limited reading I did, the EULA has to be present at the time of sale between retailer and customer. This is in order to protect the consumer against any changes that may have been made to the EULA.

I asked about this before, nobody can provide me anything on this statement other than that blanket statement. I don’t think it’s that simple.

One thing of curiosity though: you mentioned that it took Apple 4-5 months to finally sue Psystar. If Hypermeganet is in fact essentially carrying out the same process, you'd have thought it wouldn't have taken Apple nearly as long to try and stop them, especially given their experience with Psystar. They sued Psystar after 4 months. Hypermeganet has been selling their systems for 10 months now, and Apple hasn't so much as peeped. :?

Not necessarily. A plausible scenario was that Apple chose to go after Psystar first since they were a bit more blatant and looked to be a easier kill. Not to mention that this was a US case which would be easier to tackle than suing a company overseas. Psystar sold their first clone on April 2008. Apple filed 3 months later. Looks like PearC started later - the first article that I find mention of PearC is early 2009. At best at the 10 month figure you quote puts them last year - after Psystar.

We also have to remember that Apple is not a company that likes to talk about their legal cases. They haven’t publicly commented or even talked about Pystar outside of the courtroom. The fact that they have yet to publicly talk about these guys comes to no surprise.

I conclude this: Psystar reared its ugly head in April 2008. Apple of course filed thinking this as a strait-forward case and file 3 months later. A few months later they learn about PearC. Apple is probably more interested in finishing this case and setting a precedent rather than involving itself in two cases one which is an international one. There is also the matter that Psystar has been really obtuse and been dragging their heels.

seashellz

Dec 3, 2009, 01:40 AM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9530/4.7.0.109 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

So how can psystar afford more potential law suits when they have only sold 768 machines?
2.7 million $ and 768 machines. Hmm..

Could money be coming from the Bank of Redmond?

IF so, its going to be money down the drain....
Bill cannot stop the demise of Windows-any better than he can stop erosion-or the wind-it has had its day in the Sun-let it go out in dignity....er just let it go...

cathul

Dec 3, 2009, 01:57 AM

double post, sorry :X

cathul

Dec 3, 2009, 02:00 AM

I asked about this before, nobody can provide me anything on this statement other than that blanket statement. I don’t think it’s that simple.

No, it's not easy, but as it's quite specific to german law there are some german books who deal with all the legal aspects of EULAs and stuff like that.

F.e.:

Koch, Frank A.: Handbuch Software- und Datenbankrecht, ISBN 3-540-00016-X
Koch, Frank A.: Computer-Vertragsrecht, ISBN 3-448-04813-5
Marly, Jochen: Softwareüberlassungsverträge, ISBN 3-406-48785-8
Mayer-Wegelin, Clemens: Käuferrechte bei Computerspielen - Technische Kopierschutzmaßnahmen und End User License Agreements. JurPC Web-Dok. 28/2009 (http://www.jurpc.de/aufsatz/20090028.htm#u10)

In generall EULAs are part of the business conditions in germany. They are no seperate licence, but a part of the business conditions.
In germany business conditions have to be clear to the customer before he buys something. If any EULA is presented only after the purchase they cannot become part of the business conditions and aren't enforcable because of that fact.

Copyright laws are a totally different thing.

MorphingDragon

Dec 3, 2009, 02:12 AM

No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.

The German laws you a referring too are for CONSUMERS. PearC will be trialed as a company, which I believe in Germany is that any Civil contract between companies is legally binding. (I think, some guy had a link in another thread.)

And because Germany is part of the EU, they must adhere to EU policy. If they rule in favour against Apple, Apple can appeal to the EU directly. Which they have DMCA x200!

That said, we're assuming they sue under German courts and not under the EU courts.

HONDAxACURA

Dec 3, 2009, 02:42 AM

I am all for rooting for the underdog, but this time, GIVE IT UP Psystar. Get over it.

twilson

Dec 3, 2009, 05:31 AM

Its like they have something to prove, like the PirateBay.

Yeah, and look how that turned out :S

nookster

Dec 3, 2009, 09:39 AM

Yeah, and look how that turned out :S

Sold to globalgamingfactory.com for 60 million Swedish Krona, how awful for them.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 10:11 AM

Sold to globalgamingfactory.com for 60 million Swedish Krona, how awful for them.

And all they got was a popular name. Those guys (assuming the deal goes through) aren't going to get that much. As of September, there has been no sale. Not too many people think that it will ever happen.

Even if it does go though, half of that is going to go to pay off their current legal fees to one government. PB can still be sued.

KnightWRX

Dec 3, 2009, 10:18 AM

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 10:19 AM

Not to mention the jail time.
Right, that too.

MacKiddyWiddy

Dec 3, 2009, 10:28 AM

someone just destroy pystar completely... http://macblog.***********/imgs/signature_SmileyFace.jpg

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 10:34 AM

someone just destroy pystar completely... http://macblog.***********/imgs/signature_SmileyFace.jpg

Well when Apple gets their permanent injunction approve and the courts deny Pystar's appeals - it will pretty much be curtains for Psystar.

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 11:56 AM

They ought to go down the modbook path. Offer re-packagings of Apple internal components.

1) 10" netbooks that are ready to accept the MBA's motherboard and connectors
2) 10" convertible tablet (swivel screen) (multi?)touch screen netbooks that are ready to accept the MBA's motherboard and connectors
3) 10" (multi?)touch screen tablets that are ready to accept the MBA's motherboard and connectors
4) convertible tablet (swivel screen) touch screen laptops (12"-15") that are ready to accept a Macbook motherboard.
5) maybe nettop/set-top-boxes/desktops that are ready to accept the Mac-mini's motherboard and connectors

They'd be sold sans-motherboard. You buy the appropriate Mac (MBA, MB, Mac-mini) and the above product, pull the motherboard out of the MBA/MB/Mac-mini, and put into their product. Away you go.

They could also go one step further, like Modbook, and get Apple's permission to sell the devices pre-converted (they buy the MBA/MB/Mac-mini, instead of the end-customer, and do the conversion for the customer).

The products wont be as cheap as their current strategy, but they also wont be violating the OSX license. And if they get permission, like Axiotron did, they can also do it without leaving the customer warranty-less. Hopefully it's not "too late" to get that permission.

I'd certainly be interested in #2 or #3. I've thought about trying it myself, using an existing case. But that would be rather expensive (have to find one that has the right peripheral components, buy that one as a separate product (including its motherboard), and then also buy the MBA). Psystar could basically eliminate buying that extra motherboard and ensure that you're buying something that will definitely work with the MBA/MB/Mac-mini motherboard.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 12:14 PM

I don't know if you can get away with doing parts 1-5. First I don't think that any of Apples' components would fit (although that may not be true. Second, Apple can still claim that the components are not "Apple branded". They could easily argue that the case and branding thereof is part of the licensing terms. Remember - Apple Labeled can mean whatever Apple wants it to mean. You cannot assume that it refers to just one component like the logic board. A side issue is how to market it - you cannot use Apples trademarks really effectively - I don't think Apple would allow you to legally sell it as a Mac. To whit - you cannot take Ford components, and just swap the body and still call it a Ford in your marketing.

I really think the only route is the route that Axatron uses since the only thing they change is the screen. They still use all of apple's casing and they therefore can market it as a Mac that has been physically modified.

Obviously the biggest hurdle is getting Apple's blessing. They bless the ModBook because the end user is buying Apple's hardware and keeping it. Of course the problem is that ModBooks are of course very expensive and they serve a very niche purpose. It totally defies the main reason to do hackintohing commercially - price. If price was not an issue - most people would just be getting Mac Pros instead of Hackintoshing a mid tower.

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 12:46 PM

It totally defies the main reason to do hackintohing commercially - price.

I don't agree.

That's Psystar's primary hackintosh market, but I don't agree that it is the primary hackintosh market/reason. Almost everyone I know who has done the hackintosh process, has done it because Apple doesn't offer a physical product that they're after -- a netbook. And, for me, the only reason I'd go down that path, is the same (but I want a 10" mac based tablet, not a netbook).

As for "how to label it" since you can't use the Mac brand: Hackintosh.

It's a legal form of hackintosh, and everyone knows what hackintosh means (or, at least, everyone in their target market). So, leverage it. Maybe make it distinctive, for trademark purposes:

HACKintosh or HackintoshPro or HackintoshPlus or HackintoshKit

And, like the Modbook, the user is keeping the primary apple component: the motherboard. It's true that they might never get permission to do the pre-conversion for the user (for the reason you gave), but I can't see any reasonable legal block to them selling the kit version (where the end user has to do the conversion themselves). They can't do block that any more than they can block case accessory vendors from selling things that can allow you to make a pimped-out Mac Pro. And, really, it's the same thing as the case mod market, just with a different twist.

cmaier

Dec 3, 2009, 12:49 PM

I don't agree.

That's Psystar's primary hackintosh market, but I don't agree that it is the primary hackintosh market/reason. Almost everyone I know who has done the hackintosh process, has done it because Apple doesn't offer a physical product that they're after -- a netbook. And, for me, the only reason I'd go down that path, is the same (but I want a 10" mac based tablet, not a netbook).

As for "how to label it" since you can't use the Mac brand: Hackintosh.

It's a legal form of hackintosh, and everyone knows what hackintosh means (or, at least, everyone in their target market). So, leverage it. Maybe make it distinctive, for trademark purposes:

HACKintosh or HackintoshPro or HackintoshPlus or HackintoshKit

And, like the Modbook, the user is keeping the primary apple component: the motherboard. It's true that they might never get permission to do the pre-conversion for the user (for the reason you gave), but I can't see any reasonable legal block to them selling the kit version (where the end user has to do the conversion themselves). They can't do block that any more than they can block case accessory vendors from selling things that can allow you to make a pimped-out Mac Pro. And, really, it's the same thing as the case mod market, just with a different twist.

Hackintosh is almost certainly a violation of the Macintosh trademark.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 01:05 PM

And, like the Modbook, the user is keeping the primary apple component: the motherboard.
Please provide a cite that states that it is the primary component of what a Mac constitutes. Unless you work for Apple, you cannot. True the logic board is important, but the logic board differs depending on the make and model of computer. To Apple (I am willing to bet), the primary component is the whole computer. Apple's licensing says "Apple branded" for a reason. They are the owner, it's their call what constitutes "Apple Branded"

As far as I know, the Axitron keeps all Apple branded components with the exception of the screen and (I think the keyboard. Other than adding on hardware after market, the rest is all Apple. Its a partial case mod - not a re-casing.

rjohnstone

Dec 3, 2009, 01:21 PM

Could money be coming from the Bank of Redmond?

IF so, its going to be money down the drain....
Bill cannot stop the demise of Windows-any better than he can stop erosion-or the wind-it has had its day in the Sun-let it go out in dignity....er just let it go...

I keep hearing this statement about MS secretly backing Psystar and have to laugh.
Why in hell would MS want OS X to be available to run on any PC? :rolleyes:
Talk about shooting ones self in the foot.

The last thing MS needs is Apple as direct competitor in the desktop OS market.

Right now MS enjoys some security in knowing you have to buy the "whole package" from Apple if you want OS X.

And I hate to break it to you, but Bill doesn't run the company any more. He "let it go" already. ;)

It's Ballmer's baby now.

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 01:32 PM

Hackintosh is almost certainly a violation of the Macintosh trademark.

Trademarks are specific. I'd be amazingly surprised to see any credible claim that Hackintosh is a violation of the Macintosh trademark.

cmaier

Dec 3, 2009, 01:34 PM

Please provide a cite that states that it is the primary component of what a Mac constitutes. Unless you work for Apple, you cannot. True the logic board is important, but the logic board differs depending on the make and model of computer. To Apple (I am willing to bet), the primary component is the whole computer. Apple's licensing says "Apple branded" for a reason. They are the owner, it's their call what constitutes "Apple Branded"

As far as I know, the Axitron keeps all Apple branded components with the exception of the screen and (I think the keyboard. Other than adding on hardware after market, the rest is all Apple. Its a partial case mod - not a re-casing.

Apple expressly supports these things, so they are free to make an exception to their agreement for these.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 01:46 PM

Apple expressly supports these things, so they are free to make an exception to their agreement for these.

They support upgrading the hardware or adding on to it, but I am going to require some proof before I can accept that they support case switching in its entirety. Mods, sure, but case swapping sounds a bit extreme. And even then it would be a commercially limited system without a high price point.

Even if they do (which I am willing to accept), I contend that this does not constitute what we would think of as a Hacintosh. Hackintoshing/cloning doesn't use Apple parts. In Apple's mind that is a big no-no. You can't get one part and call what you have a "mac"

I would go as far as Apple not minding case mods (not as far as non OEM cases though - I would think that goes beyond) proving that each customer buy the full hardware. No buying spare logic boards only, you got to do what Axitron does and buy a full Mac or the customer buys one separately and gets the spare casing. I am guessing that sticking point (buying a mac) is a big thing with Apple. Of course these things void Apple's warranty - but that's a given

cmaier

Dec 3, 2009, 01:54 PM

I meant thy support Axitronic.

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 01:55 PM

Even if they do (which I am willing to accept), I contend that this does not constitute what we would think of as a Hacintosh. Hackintoshing/cloning doesn't use Apple parts. In Apple's mind that is a big no-no. You can't get one part and call what you have a "mac"

I think that's splitting hairs. I think it's one extreme within a spectrum of "Hacking something together, upon which to run Mac OS X". It's the "legal end of the spectrum".

I would go as far as Apple not minding case mods (not as far as non OEM cases though - I would think that goes beyond) proving that each customer buy the full hardware. No buying spare logic boards only, you got to do what Axitron does and buy a full Mac or the customer buys one separately and gets the spare casing.

Which is pretty much what I'm suggesting. I never said "you just buy the motherboard from Apple" nor "Psystar just buys the motherboard from Apple". I said you buy the full Apple product, and remove the motherboard. Or Psystar does it for you (still buying the full Apple product, just like Axiotron does, when they sell you the pre-converted modbook).

Buzz Bumble

Dec 3, 2009, 01:57 PM

Here we go again. The greedy morons at Psystar appeal the ruling ... absolutely zero surprise there. :( Hopefully the next time they get the ruling they deserve: 2.7 quadrillion to be paid to Apple and the morons in charge of Psystar to NEVER be allowed to run any business ever again.

cmaier

Dec 3, 2009, 01:58 PM

Here we go again. The greedy morons at Psystar appeal the ruling ... absolutely zero surprise there. Hopefully the next time they get the ruling they deserve: 2.7 quadrillion to be paid to Apple and the morons in charge of Psystar to NEVER be allowed to run any business ever again. :(

And the horse they rode in on.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 02:16 PM

I think that's splitting hairs. I think it's one extreme within a spectrum of "Hacking something together, upon which to run Mac OS X". It's the "legal end of the spectrum".

I don't consider Mods to be hackintoshes. Most google searches for "hackintosh" do not talk about doing a case mod - they are all about using non apple hardware and not buying a Mac (like OSX86) usually doing it with cheaper hardware - form factor doesn't play a factor. For the vast majority of hackitoshes, the only thing they ever get from Apple is the OS and promptly violate the license.

A case mod scenario involves buying actual Apple hardware with a Apple restore disc that is going to work with the hardware. You are not violating any license here since it's a mod. Upgrades would be fine too since you are upgrading from an OEM copy or you meet the license requirements (you have a "mac"). Obviously Apple allows you to modify certain things.

Overall I think the difference between a Mod and a Hackintosh is what you start out with. With a Mod, you start out with a genuine Mac. Most hackintoshes and clones do not start out with a genuine mac unless they use that to make a clone station and commit copyright infringement.

Which is pretty much what I'm suggesting. I never said "you just buy the motherboard from Apple" nor "Psystar just buys the motherboard from Apple". I said you buy the full Apple product, and remove the motherboard. Or Psystar does it for you (still buying the full Apple product, just like Axiotron does, when they sell you the pre-converted modbook).
Sorry, I thought that was what you were arguing. I agree that if you want to modify your mac, fine - you just have to get a Mac first. Of course don't expect support.

I really think we should use distinctive terms here. We can't call all speach libel - only some speech is libel.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 02:17 PM

And the horse they rode in on.
I would imagine Psystar riding into town not on a horse, but a donkey.

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 02:35 PM

I don't consider Mods to be hackintoshes. Most google searches for "hackintosh" do not talk about doing a case mod - they are all about using non apple hardware and not buying a Mac (like OSX86) usually doing it with cheaper hardware - form factor doesn't play a factor. For the vast majority of hackitoshes, the only thing they ever get from Apple is the OS and promptly violate the license.

A case mod scenario involves buying actual Apple hardware with a Apple restore disc that is going to work with the hardware. You are not violating any license here since it's a mod. Upgrades would be fine too since you are upgrading from an OEM copy or you meet the license requirements (you have a "mac"). Obviously Apple allows you to modify certain things.

Overall I think the difference between a Mod and a Hackintosh is what you start out with. With a Mod, you start out with a genuine Mac. Most hackintoshes and clones do not start out with a genuine mac unless they use that to make a clone station and commit copyright infringement.

I think the reason the current mainstream hackintosh community only talks about the "license violating" solution is that people haven't really widely considered this approach. One person made their own Mac Tablet by doing this to a Mac-mini ... but aside from that, I haven't seen much in the way of "total case transplant" for the purpose of getting a Mac that is in a "form factor that Apple wont embrace".

The case mod community (other than Axiotron) appears to be just making artistic interpretations, or performance tweaks, of the basic cases. I haven't really seen them going after the "form factors that Apple wont embrace" type goal. So I don't really put it in the mainstream of the case mod community, either.

I agree that it is not part of the _mainstream_ hackintosh spectrum ... but, to me, it's a radical change to the hachintosh methology for accomplishing one of the two hackintosh goals (as I said before: not the "cheap mac" goal, but the "form factors that Apple wont embrace" goal).

At worst, I think it's in a transitional grey-area between "case mods" and "hackintosh". It's where those two communities come together.

cmaier

Dec 3, 2009, 02:41 PM

I'm pretty sure that if you buy a mac and mod it into some other form factor, no one will have a beef with you. If you do this as a business model, the copyright issue would undoubtedly be moot by the first sale doctrine. The issue would only be trademark at that point. There have been trademark cases on this issue in other industries (buying used printer cartridges and refilling them, buying old cars and reselling them, etc.) Case law has mixed results depending on facts.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 02:56 PM

I think the reason the current mainstream hackintosh community only talks about the "license violating" solution is that people haven't really widely considered this approach. One person made their own Mac Tablet by doing this to a Mac-mini ... but aside from that, I haven't seen much in the way of "total case transplant" for the purpose of getting a Mac that is in a "form factor that Apple wont embrace".

Not to nitpick, but the modbook uses a Macbook, not a Mini.

The case mod community appears to be just making artistic interpretations, or performance tweaks, of the basic cases. I haven't really seen them going after that form factors that Apple wont embrace" type goal. So I don't really put it in the mainstream of the case mod community, either.

The big reason that is hasn't taken off is that there is a major barrier to entry - you still need to buy Mac hardware. The driving reason is irrelevant if the end result is the same. We might have to agree to disagree here.

I agree that it is not part of the _mainstream_ hackintosh spectrum ... but, to me, it's a radical change to the hachintosh methology for accomplishing one of the two hackintosh goals (as I said before: not the "cheap mac" goal, but the "form factors that Apple wont embrace" goal).

But neither of those two goals predicate buying Apple hardware. Case mods are distinct in of themselves because you actually buy Apple hardware. I contend that 99 percent of hackinshers do not buy any Apple hardware - thy just buy another system or buy their own hardware from specs on the internet. The whole point seems to be not use Apple hardware.

At worst, I think it's in a transitional grey-area between "case mods" and "hackintosh". It's where those two communities come together.

I disagree. If you are starting off with an Apple computer, and you change the case and various parts of hardware, its still a mod in my book and should be kept away from the hackintoshing crowd that does not use Apple Hardware and violates licensing. There should be no gray here. If you just modify hardware from original Apple computers, you're good - but if you have to get around Apple's schemes and you are just building from off the shelf hardware, it is not a mod an you have to violate Apple's licensee intent (that you have a Mac).

Lets look at it this way. Does your computer have OEM restore discs that were legitimately obtained (from buying a Mac) and can be used? If the answer is yes, than you have a legal mac and you either decided to use the original case or had it modified some compatible way. If the answer is no, then you are probably guilty of copyright infringement and DMCA because you probably broke Apple's licensing. You did no mod here.

I propose different terms because of the legal problems of copyright infringement. Axitron for example is not guilty of that - but if you have to modify Apple's protection code or you are violating their license intent - that's bad.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 03:00 PM

kzin

Dec 3, 2009, 03:39 PM

Not to nitpick, but the modbook uses a Macbook, not a Mini.

I wasn't referring to the modbook in that case. I was referring to a DIY apple tablet (http://www.pringle.net.nz/blog/PermaLink,guid,9d75b66c-4a1d-4c9a-aa5a-474b820b8691.aspx), that used a mac-mini as its starting point.

We might have to agree to disagree here.

Most likely, yes.

I propose different terms because of the legal problems of copyright infringement. Axitron for example is not guilty of that - but if you have to modify Apple's protection code or you are violating their license intent - that's bad.

You'll get sued for your actions, not the name of your hobby :-)

nookster

Dec 3, 2009, 04:04 PM

And all they got was a popular name. Those guys (assuming the deal goes through) aren't going to get that much. As of September, there has been no sale. Not too many people think that it will ever happen.

Even if it does go though, half of that is going to go to pay off their current legal fees to one government. PB can still be sued.

If it does, kudos to them, if not, then kudos for the publicity.

The site is still running, and they even have time to promote indie films and contribute to such works as Steal This Film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steal_This_Film), whilst smelling the roses along the way.

As much as it sticks in the throat of some, I seriously can't see them going on the breadline anytime soon.

pdjudd

Dec 3, 2009, 04:09 PM

I wasn't referring to the modbook in that case. I was referring to a DIY apple tablet (http://www.pringle.net.nz/blog/PermaLink,guid,9d75b66c-4a1d-4c9a-aa5a-474b820b8691.aspx), that used a mac-mini as its starting point.
Interesting - never heard about it until now.

You'll get sued for your actions, not the name of your hobby :-)
Right. The law doesn't care about the name. However in discussions, what we call things is very important especially when they have legal implications. When you are starting off with Apple hardware, no matter what you do, it still is a mod - your intentions are pure. The problem is that hackintoshing has a lot of black elements when you consider the licensing violations that are rampant - Almost to the point where its the defining characteristic of the project. That's why I propose a black and white distinction - if you start with Apple hardware - whatever isn't an upgrade is a mod. Whatever you do to it (make it into a tablet, put it into another tower), as long as you start off with a real mac, the term "mod" works just fine. Anything else is just a fake mac - I don't see that taking off, but the legal actions against hackintoshing taints the whole thing.

The same thing works for other things like speech. When we want to refer to speech that is the basis for legal action, we call it specific things like "libel" or "perjury" and so on versus opining, speculating, and so on.

I say at the very least we should have two categories - one for legal activities and one for not so legal activities. We can subdivide them if we want, but we should not mix them around otherwise we have massive confusion.

Buzz Bumble

Dec 4, 2009, 12:23 AM

I would imagine Psystar riding into town not on a horse, but a donkey.

Well, they are a bunch of asses thinking they could even remotely get away with such stupidity. :)

djgamble

Dec 4, 2009, 01:14 AM

pdjudd

Dec 4, 2009, 07:33 AM

Somebody's funding them...

1) There has not been any naming of John Does in any of the recent rulings. If there is no identification, legally they don’t exist.

2) People have demonstrated that they can run businesses the size of Psystar with similar staff and similar finances with nothing but their credit cards and bank loans. The only thing that Psystar has that these guys don’t is the lack of intelligence on their methods, bad lawyers to defend them (practically no payment upfront) and their arrogance toward the law, Those things require no money much less backers

M$ or Dell maybe?

Even if we do argue the possibility, we can eliminate Dell - they would have backed off the minute Psystar presented their utterly stupid legal strategy that any IP or copyright expert (much less anybody with a smattering of a legal degree) would know was folly. Second, Dell has gone on the record of selling “Macs” - only with the explicit blessing of Apple. That would predicate them from supporting a company that would do just the opposite - especially when a company like Dell knows that they could be named as an accessory - one that unlike Psystar - they could face big fines.

Microsoft would be the last group of people to sponsor these Jerks. The idea is ridiculous on it’s face:
1) Why would they want competition in the market by loosing their hardware partners?
2) Microsofts entire business strategy is based on software licenses and their ability to dictate their terms to businesses and individuals. Were Pystar to win, that business model would cripple MS’s ability to license their software.

In other words, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

We do know that they tried to get venture funding by claiming that they would sell millions of systems - but there is no evidence that anybody bought that sales pitch for a minute.

Unfortunately, unless anybody comes out, which is unlikely to happen given the summary judgement and settlement only named Psystar and nobody else and the minute that the appeals fail its finalized, we have to assume that they fund themselves like any entrepreneur does. The idea of mysterious backers is fun to speculate on, like any good conspiracy, those pesky lacks of evidence make it something that we have to reject until we have names.

I can claim John Does guilt in any number of things real or imagined, but without names or any proof of their actual existence, you cannot take such claims seriously. That’s why they are so common in lawsuits - you cast a big net should you get lucky and it’s easy to do.