Apple accuses Psystar of purposefully destroying evidence.

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Aug 17, 2009.

  1. MacBytes macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. supmango macrumors 6502

    Feb 17, 2008
    This article makes Pystar sound like it is run by a group of the smartest narcissists I have ever heard of.
  3. cohibadad macrumors 6502a


    Jul 21, 2007
    ouch. Willful destruction of evidence. Courts tend to frown on that.
  4. Peace macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    Sure sounds like something Psystar would do too.
  5. bruinsrme macrumors 601


    Oct 26, 2008
    Yeah Psystar is the only company in the world with shredders and would do something like that.:rolleyes:
  6. r.j.s Moderator emeritus


    Mar 7, 2007
    I didn't take it that way. When you look at everything else Psystar has done (CEO not knowing sales numbers, no records of anything, convenient bankruptcy filing, etc) it just fits in with everything else they've done.
  7. Peace macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    I was referring to the current case between Apple and Psystar and this discussion not the world as a whole.

    Perhaps you should take a remedial course in english.
  8. r.j.s Moderator emeritus


    Mar 7, 2007
    Interesting ...

    It may be decided this week.
  9. bruinsrme macrumors 601


    Oct 26, 2008
    Sorry for my sheety remark.

    The whole case makes me laugh.
    First Psystar openly sells such computers, more than likely knowing there will be implications. Then when the hot water rises they claim bankruptcy for protection, just like many of the companies associated with the Big Dig. As they continue operating, they find out what documents are being requested.
    Does Psystar have any documents, probably so or did. But since apple hasn't probably gotten anything from them apple has to present to the courts that they suspect the destruction of any documentation since no business can operate without some type of documentation.
    Cripes at certain points of the world it was mandantory to fire up the shredders. With the lack of evidence when we pulled back into port it was extremely difficult to prove anything. Same with Psystar.
    Apple could go after the credit card companies and shipping companies to see exactly how many systems were purchased and shipped.
    Apple will win this hands down but in no way will Psystar make it easy for them.
    Why apple wants the code is beyond me as they probably already obtained a system and can strip it off the OS.
    I would suspect Psystar to throw the towel in soon, the people in charge disappear to a distant island and then the code to show up on the internet and there be a community similar to the iphone jailbreaking community that is all about hackintosh any pcs.
  10. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    I humbly welcome you to 2006.
  11. mrfrosty macrumors 6502

    Oct 1, 2005
  12. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    I'll be the last person to say Psystar is a great company or even that I would buy one of their computers, but...

    Does this not look almost like a Witch Hunt by Apple?

    You can look at this 2 ways basically...

    Either Psystar made an attempt to get within the legal limits in how they were installing MacOS X by changing their installation practices.


    They were deliberately destroying evidence to prevent Apple from proving their case.

    The end game though is, unless Apple can prove what the evidence (code) was or that is was deliberately destroyed for the purposes of evading the law, Apple is going to lose.

    The very mention that Apple KNOWS what's on Psystar's customers' computers is kind of disturbing to me.

    Will Apple go after the OSX86 Project people next? Probably not. Most likely, all of of Apple's actions are designed to sue (LEGAL-BILL) Psystar out of business. But, the implications of Apple's actions are kind of scary.

    That Apple Mac Introduction "Big Brother" commercial that aired during the Super Bowl is starting to have a new scary meaning.

    Steve Jobs needs to look in the mirror.

    Between this case and the abandonment of all the PowerPC customers, I'm seriously considering the Hackintosh route for my next go-round of Mac purchases.
  13. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    No. They were ordered by the court not to destroy the source code. They did.

    My understanding from this article and others that I have read is that the ball is actually in Psystars court to prove that they had no obligation to preserve the code.

    The were using code. They were ordered to preserve it by the court. They destroyed it.


    In what way is suing someone who violates your license scary?

    What "new scary meaning" does the commercial have? That Apple will defend its IP rights in court? Is that new? Or specific to Apple?

  14. r.j.s Moderator emeritus


    Mar 7, 2007
    No, it isn't. If you look back, Apple has several Psystar machines, therefore, they are customers.
  15. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Jun 19, 2007
    Plymouth, MN
    No. This is Apple doing what it is legally obligated to do, protect its brand name and trademarks as vigorously as possible.
    Since there is no legal way to install OSX on aything other than a Mac as of now, I would say its number two. It is very cosistatant with a company that has been as flagrant about Apple as Psystar
    No, Apple can still win, If the tampering charges come to naught, the case will proceed as usual.

    Wait, where did you get any sense that Apple knows anything what is on your hard drive. There is no way that they could have done that without a subpoena.

    Lawsuits are a part of business. Apple has to do whatever it can to protect its products or it can loose the rights to the,. That is a legal requirement. If Psystar cannot take a lawsuit, well thats too bad. Legal action is a legitimate risk of business.

    How? Apple is not spying on you. Apple is not saying that an individual cannot make a hackintosh - they have never commented on it. They are saying that you cannot make a business out of it. That is very different.

    And see what? A successful CEO that is engaging in the correct pracices that any other business would engage in?

    I fail to see how the two are related. Apple has no obligation to support any hardware platofrm beyond what they are legally entailed to do. They can drop anything at anytime. How that justifies hackintoshing (which would require you to buy an intel computer anyway) is beyond me.
  16. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Anyway, what's all this bollocks about "spoilation of evidence"? Don't these people have a dictionary? It's spoliation.
  17. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    I personally think Psystar has broken the law in at least their initial installation process, but then again I think the DMCA law is an abomination that should have never happened, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there because I come from a completely different perspective.

    However, I still believe Apple's EULA will never survive a full court challenge as it's way too egregious by almost any legal or ethical standard.

    Apple is just trying to sue Psystar out of business and it appears they'll play the Big Brother role and pry into Psystar buyers' computers. I think that's a BIG BROTHER scary thing.

    Will Apple go after individual Hackintosh customers next?

    I know all the Fanbois hate Psystar and I don't even like them really.

    But Apple is starting to look scary these days. In another article on here, Apple legal is attempting to sue just to prevent an article about Steve Jobs from being published! LOL
  18. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    So if I sell my Hackintosh on Ebay, maybe Steve Jobs will be the highest bidder? LOL

    But seriously, I've never understood people who support the current DMCA law.

    It is totally anti-consumer and makes lots of people guilty before proven innocent for IP.

    I hope it eventually goes to the Supreme Court and gets the tossing it deserves.

    Obviously Apple is basing much of its case on the DMCA law which gives them ridiculous protections and even the ability to SUE HACKINTOSH users if they wanted to!

    I'm sorry, but that IS Big Brother scary and that's an incredible irony considering Apple's initial "Big Brother" Super Bowl commercial for the introduction of the Macintosh. :(
  19. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    I agree that the DMCA is a horrible law that was horribly written and is overly broad in its application. What do we have to agree to disagree about?

    This case is a full court challenge. What terms of Apple's SLA are "way too egregious"?

    Where did you get that idea?

    I doubt it, but maybe. But that's a risk you take by playing in those legally gray areas.

    Why does it matter who likes them?

    You keep saying that. You must be easily frightened.

    Did you just make that up? I haven't seen any mention of a court case.
  20. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    It's in another thread. I'm sorry that I read more than you do.

    And if you don't think Apple's SLA or EULA is way too egregious, then there is really no further point in arguing.
    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    And yes, I think Apple's EULA will get thrown out in court, but they won't let that happen.

    Their plan is to sue Psystar out of business before it ever goes to court and so far, they're pretty darn close.

    If a judge ever got a hold of Apple's EULA, it would be picked to pieces the same way the EU hammered Microsoft.

    Almost ALL EULAs are egregious in my opinion and deliberately written that way for more of the warning purpose than the legal purpose. I seriously doubt Apple wants its MacOS X EULA tested in court because they have more to lose than they do by winning. No one is buying Psystar computers. However, if Apple's EULA gets tossed in part, DELL could be selling MacOS X computers. That is what this case is REALLY about.
  21. BaldiMac macrumors 604


    Jan 24, 2008
    You may read, but not well. The MacRumors story makes no mention of any "attempting to sue".
  22. BellsWhistles macrumors member

    Aug 17, 2009
    How can you possibly think it is correct ...

    Not that I am here to reinforce Apple's position. But who in their LEGAL mind thinks that it is OK for Psystar to use the purchased OS in that fashion. First, Apple is a hardware company that is selling an update to their OS. If Nokia offered software updates to their phones, would it be OK for LG to strip it out and use it on their phones??? Of course not. Second, it states in the EULA that the Boot ROM, is to be used on Apple hardware. So, where does the sophomoric concept come along and lead someone to believe that Apple is behaving in a Fascist approach?

    Extracted from the OS EULA: "Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.

    Even if it was altered to proceed without the hash from the Apple boot ROM, than the EULA is be violated by reverse engineering. So why would you think at all, that a court would not side with APPLE's brief?
  23. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    Obviously you think the DMCA law is a good thing. Once again we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Under DMCA and your quote from Apple's EULA, I've been a criminal for decades and so have many people on this site. Let's all go to jail together huh?

    And so has practically EVERYONE ELSE on this site who's ever jailbroken an iPhone or installed MacOS 8.5 on an unsupported machine. Geez, I once installed Tiger on a PowerMac 7500!

    I once sold a Mac on Ebay that had Tiger installed and it was an unsupported machine so that violated the EULA!
    I had to do a workaround to install Tiger.

    Looks like I'm going to jail. Thank you EULA. Thank you Apple.

    Trust me, if there is ever a court challenge of MANY companies' EULAs, they almost certainly will be picked to pieces or tossed completely.

    Once again I'll say, I'm not a big fan of Psystar, but this will set a TERRIBLE BIG BROTHER precedent if Apple wins.

    Why hasn't Apple shut this company down ?

    They are clearly hacking Apple software and code too.
  24. BellsWhistles macrumors member

    Aug 17, 2009
    What part of this is Big Brother

    Not sure what to say. Obviously you have construed your own point of view. And made your own set of justifications.

    I have done my fair share of non-conformed usage. But, than again, I didn't give the hardware company the finger in defiance either.

    My point was there is NO legal ground for Psystar's stance. If Psystar were to prevail .... the ramifications in the other direction, for APPLE to protect its' future investments, would make your skin crawl. Think about it .. what if it was YOUR millions (billions) at risk.
  25. HyperZboy macrumors 65816

    Feb 7, 2007
    You're assuming Apple can prove all of this of course.
    This is yet to be seen or that Psystar prevailing would doom Apple to failure.

    Maybe Apple would make multi-million dollar licensing deals with Dell and HP to license MacOS X ?

    I know the Mac clone thing has been done before, but it was never done with any companies willing to pay Apple some serious money before now.

    Both Motorola and PowerComputing both basically ripped Apple off in a way far worse than Psystar is doing. Well, in PowerComputing's case, because they did it legally and started selling too many computers and Apple made really bad deals with both companies, and Apple basically didn't have very good competitive products back then.
    Yes, back then PowerComputing was just plain making better more powerful computers than Apple.

    So, when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, one of the first things he did was buy PowerComputing and cancel Motorola's license.

    I have a strong feeling that not to long in the distant future, Apple will own Psystar.

    Because Apple has far more to lose as you said and there's no way that EULA will completely pass a court test! That's why Apple is filing motion after motion, to LEGALLY COST this company out of business.

    But isn't that kind of very anti-competitive? I guess we could debate that forever, but I'm not sure I'm liking Apple's actions here or with the iPhone or stopping Steve Jobs Bio from being published.

    Yes, I think its beginning to look like a scary Big Brother scenario. Other fanbois may disagree.

Share This Page