Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[gehrbox]

My understanding is that workstation computers are just a subset of desktop computers (on the high end, of course), so maybe the problem is that there are differing definitions.

A Mac Pro runs the same version of OS X as the Mac Mini and runs the same apps, it emails, it browses the web, it plays music.

What it offers is internal room for additional HDD's and DVD's, the option to change the video card, more memory expansion options and add more firewire cards. Oh ya it has a faster FSB and more cores that run at a faster speed.

It's nothing special. Todays workstation is tomorrows low-end home computer.

 

[dejo]

That's like saying that Semis are a subset of pickups.

To me it's more like saying Semis are a subset of trucks.

Almost no one is arguing for a cheap Apple computer. Virtually everyone arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost.

Try $1699.

So, then you are outside of the virtually everyone arguing for design and not cost. Not saying that's wrong. Just that rickag shouldn't be whitewashing everyone.

 

[BenRoethig]

To me it's more like saying Semis are a subset of trucks.

So, then you are outside of the virtually everyone arguing for design and not cost. Not saying that's wrong. Just that rickag shouldn't be whitewashing everyone.

You hardcore types do really love twisting semantics, don't you? Yes, when it comes down to it, every thing has a price where its too much. Before you guys go off on your cheap Dell lover tirades, I'll let you know this. I'm willing to spend extra to get a better computer. What I will not do is spend $2300 to get a machine well above my needs nor will I waste my money any other all in one that's not worthy of the Apple logo imprinted on it.

 

[Winni]

Apple claims to be the sole author of OSX. Pystar claims that they are not. Who is right?

Psystar is obviously right in this case. OS X is largely based upon FreeBSD and various other open source projects which are definitely NOT Apple products or projects (although they have bought some of them in the past), so Apple cannot claim to be the sole author of OS X. They can claim that they are the sole owner of all the legal rights to OS X, though.

About the workstation vs desktop discussion:

The main technological difference is that workstations basically use server technology designed for high data throughput. The Mac Pro's Xeon CPUs are much meaner number crunching beasts than Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad CPUs, and they are designed for much higher continous workloads than their desktop siblings.

Anyway. A Dell Inspiron desktop starts at 279 USD, a Dell Studio begins at 549 USD and a Quad Core XPS Desktop (where it gets interesting) starts at 799 USD. And in my experience (gained during working for large organizations) you still get EXCELLENT customer support and service from Dell for these prices.

I think many are missing an XPS equivalent from Apple. The problem is that these babies are in most cases already as powerful as a Quad Xeon Mac Pro and thus would kill many Mac Pro sales. Apple, however, is interested keeping in the high margins they have with the Mac Pros, so it's unlikely that they will sell a mid-price tower.

And this, in turn, leads to the demand for COMPETITION in the market for hardware for OS X.

Apple makes most of its money with iTunes, iPods and iPhones these days. Macs basically have become a somewhat lucrative hobby. Why don't they just sell OS X to anybody who wants it without tying the license to their limited choice of hardware?

 

[macbookairapple]

Psystar is obviously right in this case. OS X is largely based upon FreeBSD and various other open source projects which are definitely NOT Apple products or projects (although they have bought some of them in the past), so Apple cannot claim to be the sole author of OS X. They can claim that they are the sole owner of all the legal rights to OS X, though.

About the workstation vs desktop discussion:

The main technological difference is that workstations basically use server technology designed for high data throughput. The Mac Pro's Xeon CPUs are much meaner number crunching beasts than Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad CPUs, and they are designed for much higher continous workloads than their desktop siblings.

Anyway. A Dell Inspiron desktop starts at 279 USD, a Dell Studio begins at 549 USD and a Quad Core XPS Desktop (where it gets interesting) starts at 799 USD. And in my experience (gained during working for large organizations) you still get EXCELLENT customer support and service from Dell for these prices.

I think many are missing an XPS equivalent from Apple. The problem is that these babies are in most cases already as powerful as a Quad Xeon Mac Pro and thus would kill many Mac Pro sales. Apple, however, is interested keeping in the high margins they have with the Mac Pros, so it's unlikely that they will sell a mid-price tower.

And this, in turn, leads to the demand for COMPETITION in the market for hardware for OS X.

Apple makes most of its money with iTunes, iPods and iPhones these days. Macs basically have become a somewhat lucrative hobby. Why don't they just sell OS X to anybody who wants it without tying the license to their limited choice of hardware?

Funny thing is Apple makes most of it's money from Macs.

 

[BenRoethig]

Funny thing is Apple makes most of it's money from Macs.

Not any more. Two thirds of its revenue came from the consumer of electronics wing last quarter.

 

[charlituna]

Psystar is obviously right in this case. OS X is largely based upon FreeBSD and various other open source projects which are definitely NOT Apple products or projects

the whole Psystar is right and FreeBSD are two different issues. if the creators of FreeBSD wanna sue Apple for claiming to have written all of OSX they can go for it. But that issue doesn't automatically make it okay that Psystar modified the OS code, put it on computers and sold them very likely in violation of the EULA, etc.

But there is an issue that comes up. Can a computer just modify the stuff based on the open source code and not be considered illegally modifying the software. Does that modification make it a new software or is it still considered the original one. I put these thoughts out there because it is possible that it will be deemed that, by modifying any part of the OS, Psystar created a new software. but that new software was based largely on OSX bits that were not open source, thus they stole from Apple. That right there could bring down the whole case, EULA issues etc aside.

 

[aoresteen]

the whole Psystar is right and FreeBSD are two different issues. if the creators of FreeBSD wanna sue Apple for claiming to have written all of OSX they can go for it. But that issue doesn't automatically make it okay that Psystar modified the OS code, put it on computers and sold them very likely in violation of the EULA, etc.

But there is an issue that comes up. Can a computer just modify the stuff based on the open source code and not be considered illegally modifying the software. Does that modification make it a new software or is it still considered the original one. I put these thoughts out there because it is possible that it will be deemed that, by modifying any part of the OS, Psystar created a new software. but that new software was based largely on OSX bits that were not open source, thus they stole from Apple. That right there could bring down the whole case, EULA issues etc aside.

Have you read the OSX EULA? Apple specificly permits the modification of the open source components of OSX. It's in the EULA for OSX.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

pargraph 2D

 

[macrumorino]

So, if Apple were to offer a mid-tower with Core2Duos for, say, $1999, that would be okay, right?

Of course you know this is irrelevant.

What is not okay is if Apple tries to prevent someone else from putting out such a model for a fair price--which would be far less than the ridiculous price you just made up there.

 

[dejo]

Of course you know this is irrelevant.

What is not okay is if Apple tries to prevent someone else from putting out such a model for a fair price--which would be far less than the ridiculous price you just made up there.

It is entirely relevant. Poster rickag was saying that virtually everyone here that is arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost. So, I wanted to check with "virtually everyone" if such a tower with a desired design would be suitable. I even priced it below the current Mac Pro even though no one is arguing cost, apparently, so I could've priced it above the Mac Pro.

Just seems to me that the claim that virtually everyone is not arguing cost is false. For plenty of you, you and Ben included, that is still an important factor.

 

[macrumorino]

It is entirely relevant. Poster rickag was saying that virtually everyone here that is arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost. So, I wanted to check with "virtually everyone" if such a tower with a desired design would be suitable. I even priced it below the current Mac Pro even though no one is arguing cost, apparently, so I could've priced it above the Mac Pro.

Just seems to me that the claim that virtually everyone is not arguing cost is false. For plenty of you, you and Ben included, that is still an important factor.

The thread is 1400 posts long. There are other threads as well. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands... well, COUNTLESS many posts have been written finding fault with Apple's computer products. So to try to see whether any particular factor is being criticized is just a waste of time.

Apple is screwing up with cost, design, customer service, quality control, etc.? Yes, all of the above.

Mac designs: laptops are decaying; iMacs are BAD; mini is fine; Mac Pro is good to excellent in most respects and AWFUL in energy consumption.

Mac costs: from excessive to ridiculous in all models except for the Mac Pro.

Mac state-of-the-art hardware: from months to years behind state of the art. This used to apply in a pretty straightforward manner according to the most recent updates, but nowadays even the recent updates are behind the state of the art. The Mac Pro is the last model to have been state-of-the-art upon release, and once again, with the evermore pressing exception of its energy consumption. By contrast, the Mini is so dreadfully behind the times that it borders on fraudulent to continue to sell it at the same price as in 2006.

Mac customer service: we make it very clear what we need, and we get totally blown off. The straw that broke the camel's back was the glossy-only option on the laptops and the dismissive instruction to re-orient the laptop so as to avoid reflections. How insulting does it have to get...

Quality control: Apple warranties are ridiculously brief; if you want a normal length of warranty, you have to pay quite a premium which artificially lowers the apparent price on their items.

Conclusion: this is a situation that demands competition. May it soon emerge, better and more varied that Psystar. Apple execs and shareholders may try to lawyer us into accepting increasingly inferior products at increasingly outrageous prices, and we users will have to do something about it.

 

[macbookairapple]

The thread is 1400 posts long. There are other threads as well. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands... well, COUNTLESS many posts have been written finding fault with Apple's computer products. So to try to see whether any particular factor is being criticized is just a waste of time.

Apple is screwing up with cost, design, customer service, quality control, etc.? Yes, all of the above.

Mac designs: laptops are decaying; iMacs are BAD; mini is fine; Mac Pro is good to excellent in most respects and AWFUL in energy consumption.

Mac costs: from excessive to ridiculous in all models except for the Mac Pro.

Mac state-of-the-art hardware: from months to years behind state of the art. This used to apply in a pretty straightforward manner according to the most recent updates, but nowadays even the recent updates are behind the state of the art. The Mac Pro is the last model to have been state-of-the-art upon release, and once again, with the evermore pressing exception of its energy consumption. By contrast, the Mini is so dreadfully behind the times that it borders on fraudulent to continue to sell it at the same price as in 2006.

Mac customer service: we make it very clear what we need, and we get totally blown off. The straw that broke the camel's back was the glossy-only option on the laptops and the dismissive instruction to re-orient the laptop so as to avoid reflections. How insulting does it have to get...

Quality control: Apple warranties are ridiculously brief; if you want a normal length of warranty, you have to pay quite a premium which artificially lowers the apparent price on their items.

Conclusion: this is a situation that demands competition. May it soon emerge, better and more varied that Psystar. Apple execs and shareholders may try to lawyer us into accepting increasingly inferior products at increasingly outrageous prices, and we users will have to do something about it.

The problem with your line of thinking is the majority of people who buy Apple products don't agree with what you're saying. If everything that you said was true, then Apple will be going down under. They are growing more and more successful by the minute so what your saying doesn't apply.

 

[BenRoethig]

The thread is 1400 posts long. There are other threads as well. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands... well, COUNTLESS many posts have been written finding fault with Apple's computer products. So to try to see whether any particular factor is being criticized is just a waste of time.

Apple is screwing up with cost, design, customer service, quality control, etc.? Yes, all of the above.

Mac designs: laptops are decaying; iMacs are BAD; mini is fine; Mac Pro is good to excellent in most respects and AWFUL in energy consumption.

Mac costs: from excessive to ridiculous in all models except for the Mac Pro.

Mac state-of-the-art hardware: from months to years behind state of the art. This used to apply in a pretty straightforward manner according to the most recent updates, but nowadays even the recent updates are behind the state of the art. The Mac Pro is the last model to have been state-of-the-art upon release, and once again, with the evermore pressing exception of its energy consumption. By contrast, the Mini is so dreadfully behind the times that it borders on fraudulent to continue to sell it at the same price as in 2006.

Mac customer service: we make it very clear what we need, and we get totally blown off. The straw that broke the camel's back was the glossy-only option on the laptops and the dismissive instruction to re-orient the laptop so as to avoid reflections. How insulting does it have to get...

Quality control: Apple warranties are ridiculously brief; if you want a normal length of warranty, you have to pay quite a premium which artificially lowers the apparent price on their items.

Conclusion: this is a situation that demands competition. May it soon emerge, better and more varied that Psystar. Apple execs and shareholders may try to lawyer us into accepting increasingly inferior products at increasingly outrageous prices, and we users will have to do something about it.

I know the feeling. When I bought from Apple, I expected a superior operating system on a state of the art computer that would still work like a charm years after its windows counterparts where in the trash heap. I used to think buying Apple care was a joke because the machine isn't going to break anyway. That company no longer exists.

The problem with your line of thinking is the majority of people who buy Apple products don't agree with what you're saying. If everything that you said was true, then Apple will be going down under. They are growing more and more successful by the minute so what your saying doesn't apply.

The majority of those buying Apple now were buying cheap HPs and Dells a year or two ago. This platform has gone from the platform for those who want a better computer to basically a fashion accessory. They could stick a $50 atom in these things and they'd sell because of the name.

 

[macrumorino]

The problem with your line of thinking is the majority of people who buy Apple products don't agree with what you're saying. If everything that you said was true, then Apple will be going down under. They are growing more and more successful by the minute so what your saying doesn't apply.

Anyway, you are stating several things there, based on little more than some imagination. In particular, trying to imagine what would be the case if everything I'd written in that post was true. Hey, guess what--it IS true! And yet Apple is not going under; hence, your reasoning has an obvious flaw. In essence, you have used a false equivalence in support of a straw man argument.

On the other hand, who can say if after a few more years of this, Apple will not, in fact, go under? They all but went under a decade ago, and as we can see in several examples (e.g. GM), when a corporation decides to turn a deaf ear and go in the direction of lazy greed, it can "go under".

I am more interested in whether we'll have a good machine to use or not. At the moment, Apple is not providing that.

Now let me help you clear up your confusion: you have chosen to pay attention to the people that are happy with the Apple products as a basis for evaluating what people think about Apple products; then, circularly, you conclude that... surprise surprise... people are happy with Apple products! But what you should be looking at is the people who are NOT buying Apple's products, or those that are doing so in spite of not being happy with them but feeling like there is little to no choice.

Hence we need competition. Lawyering by Apple executives and shareholders is not what we need.

 

[rickag]

It is entirely relevant. Poster rickag was saying that virtually everyone here that is arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost. So, I wanted to check with "virtually everyone" if such a tower with a desired design would be suitable. I even priced it below the current Mac Pro even though no one is arguing cost, apparently, so I could've priced it above the Mac Pro.

Just seems to me that the claim that virtually everyone is not arguing cost is false. For plenty of you, you and Ben included, that is still an important factor.

You're right. I should have qualified in first sentence,"Virtually everyone arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost." by saying that Virtually everyone arguing for a tower is arguing design, not cost for a mid to upper end desktop computer. But if you read the very next sentence it states,"They want a mid to upper end consumer tower because it is a tower with the flexibility and upgradeability that comes with it."
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6602155/

I'm sorry that you didn't get the connect between the second and third sentences. This is an easy concept to grasp, however, you endlessly drone on about it.

Again I apolize that I wasn't specific enough for you. Again, for the final time, as arguing with you is tantamount to arguing with a fence post, a workstation computer is not a mid to upper end desktop computer. As such it is not priced accordingly. It is doesn't target that market, never has. What part of the name MacPro do you not understand. I suggest you go to Intel's website and read up on the Xeon cpu, as Intel classifies it as a workstation/server cpu.

I can only surmise that you like to argue for the sake of arguing, which is pointless. You can argue subsets of desktops all you want, but that skirts the issue, creating tension and needless arguing.

Psystar does not target a market that Apple seems to want. They make a consumer tower desktop in a price range that Apple doesn't and probably never will. I understand Apple's desire to protect their name and reputation, but it is ridiculous that anyone would consider Psystar any threat to Apple's market and financial well being.

 

[macbookairapple]

Anyway, you are stating several things there, based on little more than some imagination. In particular, trying to imagine what would be the case if everything I'd written in that post was true. Hey, guess what--it IS true! And yet Apple is not going under; hence, your reasoning has an obvious flaw. In essence, you have used a false equivalence in support of a straw man argument.

On the other hand, who can say if after a few more years of this, Apple will not, in fact, go under? They all but went under a decade ago, and as we can see in several examples (e.g. GM), when a corporation decides to turn a deaf ear and go in the direction of lazy greed, it can "go under".

I am more interested in whether we'll have a good machine to use or not. At the moment, Apple is not providing that.

Now let me help you clear up your confusion: you have chosen to pay attention to the people that are happy with the Apple products as a basis for evaluating what people think about Apple products; then, circularly, you conclude that... surprise surprise... people are happy with Apple products! But what you should be looking at is the people who are NOT buying Apple's products, or those that are doing so in spite of not being happy with them but feeling like there is little to no choice.

Hence we need competition. Lawyering by Apple executives and shareholders is not what we need.

Apple is successful right now. They were almost going under when they licensed to their OS to the clone makers. They have a successful business model right now, why should they change it, for the sake for it. Why should they go back to something which almost destroyed the company.

Apple doesn't serve every user out there. They choose who they want to serve. For most people out there, Windows is good for them, which is why the majority of the world uses Windows. Steve Jobs said something the other day, he said there are some customers who they choose not to serve. If you are looking for a company that has every hardware choice for you or competes on price, then Apple is not for you. Apple can't address every user out there, they can't have 100 percent of the market, they are happy to have their part and make their money of it. So far they look like they are doing the right things which is why the company keeps on growing. Consumer satisfaction for their products always beats the competitors, they must be doing something right. Psystar will lose, sorry folks you can't force Apple to do something they don't want and nothing they are doing is illegal. I'm sick of people in this world acting like a bunch of spoiled brats thinking they should be entitled to anything they want.

- Oh Apple doesn't sell a netbook.
- Oh Apple doesn't sell a computer under 500.
- Oh Apple is not this..

If you don't like what Apple has to offer quite whining and move onto something else, there are many other computers out there. There are bigger problems in this world than Apple computers, people are dying of hunger every day and people are crying because Apple doesn't make a cheap computer therefore they must be some sort of evil entity. What gives y'all and Psystar the right to determine how they should run their business? Does anybody come to you in your life and tell you how you must live your life as long as what you're doing is not illegal? What about Psystar, does anybody come and tell them how they must run their business unless its illegal?

 

[macrumorino]

If you don't like what Apple has to offer quite whining and move onto something else, there are many other computers out there.

You don't like it when users tell Apple what to do, yet you want to tell US what to do. Bizarre...

 

[macbookairapple]

You don't like it when users tell Apple what to do, yet you want to tell US what to do. Bizarre...

Apple will only do what their users want them to do when it's financially sound for them to do so. Users have been crying for a tablet from Apple for awhile but yet we haven't seen it. I guess Apple should just do it for the sake of doing it even though financially it may not be sound for them. What if a vocal minority want Apple to start building cars, should they all of a sudden decide to build cars? A vocal minority want Apple to license their OS even though it failed in the past for them, I guess Apple should all of a sudden license their OS...

 

[dejo]

As such it is not priced accordingly.

So, cost is a factor. And what, for you, would be priced accordingly?

I can only surmise that you like to argue for the sake of arguing...

No, I don't!

 

[macrumorino]

Apple will only do what their users want them to do when it's financially sound for them to do so. Users have been crying for a tablet from Apple for awhile but yet we haven't seen it. I guess Apple should just do it for the sake of doing it even though financially it may not be sound for them. What if a vocal minority want Apple to start building cars, should they all of a sudden decide to build cars? A vocal minority want Apple to license their OS even though it failed in the past for them, I guess Apple should all of a sudden license their OS...

If Apple is stifling competition, then the legal system needs to intervene. If Apple persists in such shenanigans, then a breakup among some of its divisions may be in order.

If you think that there is something wrong with marketplace competition and a company should be allowed to dictate terms to the rest of us, then that is your attitude. Plenty of people think otherwise.

So with respect to the topic of this thread, there is a company that offers computers for us to purchase, called Psystar. There is another company, called Apple, that is trying to use its lawyers to stop them. We the users should welcome Psystar and others that give us more choices; perhaps Apple will then choose to do so as well.

Corporate greed is a problem, and competition is one of the remedies for it. I can see why executives and large shareholders would be against it, but as for the rest of us, it is to our benefit.

 

[macbookairapple]

If Apple is stifling competition, then the legal system needs to intervene. If Apple persists in such shenanigans, then a breakup among some of its divisions may be in order.

If you think that there is something wrong with marketplace competition and a company should be allowed to dictate terms to the rest of us, then that is your attitude. Plenty of people think otherwise.

So with respect to the topic of this thread, there is a company that offers computers for us to purchase, called Psystar. There is another company, called Apple, that is trying to use its lawyers to stop them. We the users should welcome Psystar and others that give us more choices; perhaps Apple will then choose to do so as well.

Corporate greed is a problem, and competition is one of the remedies for it. I can see why executives and large shareholders would be against it, but as for the rest of us, it is to our benefit.

So if Apple is stifling competition, why haven't they been sued all this awhile, why didn't they get sued when they stopped licensing clones? Even Dell said they would like to license Mac OSX, why haven't they gone after Apple in court for not licensing Mac OSX? I mean should Apple also be sued because of their anticompetitive practices with the App store, what about tying their products to itunes and forcing you to use itunes, why haven't any of those court cases brought to them about itunes cause them to change their ways?

So this company Psystar is the company that is supposed to bring down Apple and their anticompetitive ways? We shall see. I have a feeling many of you will be dissapointed when they lose which they will, if they actually win, then a bigger question shall be asked of many other products ranging game consoles, cell phones, etc. But we shall see soon.

 

[gnasher729]

If Apple is stifling competition, then the legal system needs to intervene. If Apple persists in such shenanigans, then a breakup among some of its divisions may be in order.

How is Apple stifling competition? They don't stop anyone from building any hardware they want. They don't stop anyone from developing any operating system they like. Oh, you mean Apple is not allowing a wannabe competitor to take advantage of Apple's hard work and huge financial investment and use Apple's biggest competitive advantage, their operating system?

That's part of competition: You invest money and time, and the result of that investment is yours. Psystar is free to compete by doing the same, find a company that is willing to sell an operating system they have developed (like NeXT), buy the company, then invest seven years of hard work to improve on it.

So with respect to the topic of this thread, there is a company that offers computers for us to purchase, called Psystar. There is another company, called Apple, that is trying to use its lawyers to stop them. We the users should welcome Psystar and others that give us more choices; perhaps Apple will then choose to do so as well.

Feel free to buy a Psystar computer, together with any operating system to which Psystar owns the copyright, or for which Psystar has a license to install it on their computers. Feel free to buy a Psystar computer with Linux, or a Psystar computer with Windows. I personally feel that there are many, many brands of computers that will perform better with either.

So this company Psystar is the company that is supposed to bring down Apple and their anticompetitive ways? We shall see.

I expect that the court will throw out Psystar's ridiculous counterclaims at some point next week; then Psystar's copyright violations will be the only thing left to decide about.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

So if Apple is stifling competition, why haven't they been sued all this awhile, why didn't they get sued when they stopped licensing clones? Even Dell said they would like to license Mac OSX, why haven't they gone after Apple in court for not licensing Mac OSX? I mean should Apple also be sued because of their anticompetitive practices with the App store, what about tying their products to itunes and forcing you to use itunes, why haven't any of those court cases brought to them about itunes cause them to change their ways?

So this company Psystar is the company that is supposed to bring down Apple and their anticompetitive ways? We shall see. I have a feeling many of you will be dissapointed when they lose which they will, if they actually win, then a bigger question shall be asked of many other products ranging game consoles, cell phones, etc. But we shall see soon.

Dell and the others may be waiting on the psystar case.

any ways who is backing them for the court costs?

 

[madog]

Correction... YOU want a mid ranged tower. I have no interest whatsoever in a midrange tower.

What's the big deal about a midrange tower anyway? The slots for your own video card? That I can sort of understand, although the smallest Mac Pro should be more than adequate for things like that, right? Or are you too cheap to cough up the dough for a baby Mac Pro?

The Mac Pro has a very limited user base. A mid-range tower would benefit the average consumer, which makes up a majority of Apple's market. Basically, something that is upgradeable/customizeable without having to spend $2500-3000 for it. For people who want to think for themselves, but still love Apple, the only "future proof" option is the expensive Mac Pro. Apple thinks YOU should have to pay at least $2500 to easily replace your hard drive (or in fact have more than one) change your graphics card, or add expansion cards, but I sure as hell don't think that way.

There's more to it than just a, "Oh your too cheap to buy a Mac Pro", ignorant comment. And people wonder why there's a sense of smug-elitism from Apple lovers.

 

[BenRoethig]

Dell and the others may be waiting on the psystar case.

Depends on the judgement. If its decided that we have an anti-trust case here and Apple has to license Mac OS X to competitors, Dell and others will be very interested. If its decided Psystar can still make unauthorized clones or if they lose, its of little use to them.

any ways who is backing them for the court costs?

That is the question. Someone could be helping them out or lawyers are known to agree to do high profile cases either pro bono or agree to a percentage of the settlement more or less just to get their name out there.