Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar

joeblough said:
it doesnt take a mystery tech company behind the scenes to bankroll the lawsuits. Psystar's lawyers probably think they can get damages out of apple for restraint of trade or something like that. or perhaps they have told psystar that if they prevail, then psystar owes them royalties on the sale of their computers. either way, like many trial laywers, they are working for a potential payoff if their lawsuit is successful.
Click to expand...

Except... if lawyers got involved, the first thing they would have done is see if they have a case BEFORE selling the first machine. When you examine the issues, it becomes obvious to all but the most deluded that there is no case here. And BTW.... the Judge agrees and has already thrown out Psystar's counterclaims.

And if lawyers were involved, they would have given up as soon as their counterclaims were thrown out. The fact that this is being pursued in defiance of good legal sense suggests that the people behind this are not lawyers and are not even listening to their own lawyers.
 
jbernie said:
BS. Microsoft can modify its EULA to state that you can only install it on a machine that currently has Windows installed, ie you would have to buy a PC with windows preinstalled (sound familiar?), but they choose not to.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their own monopoly to kill competitors or further their own monopoly. Because Microsoft has already been found to have an OS monopoly, they are skating on thin ice if they try to mess with the EULA to do anything that could cause the remotest harm to any competitor.

When you are not a monopoly, you have a lot of freedom in how you target your product. Monopolies like Microsoft have no such rights under the law.

Microsoft wouldn't even think about being so stupid.
 
Most conspiracies turn out to be false, but Apple might be right here though. Psystar is hiding something and they are not giving all the details. Apple will try go get all those details and this "conspiracy" comes with it. If Psystar doesn't want to get conspiracies to take the upper-hand they quickly give all the information Apple wants to have.

It is plausible, but certainly not very likely that a larde PC-vendor is behind Psystar. I rather think it is a dissatisfied Apple customer who is financing and operating Psystar.
 
I am very skeptical about any other corporation being involved in Psystar's defense, for two reasons. First, they hired lawyers with apparently little to no knowledge in antitrust law, which is evidenced by their craptastic legal argument, which has already been substantially gutted. Second, any involved company with actual assets risks becoming a deep pocket in any damage claim settlement. Doesn't add up.
 
plumbingandtech said:
My money is on a Dell / Taiwan Manufactor / Reverse Vampires / RAND Consortium
Click to expand...

LagunaSol said:
...I smell Ballmer.
Click to expand...

I immediately thought of Dell, seeing as Michael Dell once suggested closing Apple and boy was he wrong about that, and just look where he is now. There's got to be some hard feelings there.

Bill Gates doesn't seem like he really cares, but Ballmer is certainly a possibility. Though I don't see how he'd eventually make a profit. He could just be in it to screw things up.

I'll be very interested in finding out if there is someone behind the scenes now. I'm sure Apple already has a better idea, but can't say because it'd be slander?
 
SydneyDev said:
I think Alice said "curiouser and curiouser," not "interestinger and interestinger." Lol.
Click to expand...

Well, the article reads, "As Alice [...] might put it [...]" (emphasis added). Alice wasn't directly quoted; her playfulness with words was just invoked.

Interesting thing, this conspiracy. So if Psystar wins, I wonder what every other computer manufacturer stands to gain...
 
They took a left turn around the way the previous cases were argued, even though they referenced them in their counterclaims.

Would have been much better if we could have seen inside the judges chambers as he passed out from nonstop laughing at the corporate version of the OJ defense.
 
termite said:
You are incorrect. It is illegal for a monopoly to use their own monopoly to kill competitors or further their own monopoly. Because Microsoft has already been found to have an OS monopoly, they are skating on thin ice if they try to mess with the EULA to do anything that could cause the remotest harm to any competitor.

When you are not a monopoly, you have a lot of freedom in how you target your product. Monopolies like Microsoft have no such rights under the law.

Microsoft wouldn't even think about being so stupid.
Click to expand...

Microsoft is fully within their rights to have the same basic EULA as Apple, doing so does in no way prevent Apple from selling its own hardware with its own operating system installed. Microsoft would in no way be anticompetitive.

Microsoft will not do it because if they did they would be giving the Unix variants a great boost in the make your own PC market as those people are not allowed to install OSX as it violates Apple's EULA and likewise they could not install Windows as it would violate (the alternate) Microsoft EULA and that pretty much leaves the Unix variants to install.

So many people on here fail to comprehend is that if you think Psystar is wrong, then you agree 100% that every person who makes their own Hackintosh is wrong and also breaking the law and should be taken through the courts like Psystar. It doesn't matter if money is being made or not, installing OSX on anything other than an Apple sanctioned product is breaking the law. Killing Psystar is in effect killing off everything but Apple sanctioned systems. People on here go on and on about Psystar is the most evil of evil corporations yet in the same breath say it is A OK for a home user to do exactly the same thing. The only thing saving the home user from Apple legal is that they generally cannot be bothered with chasing one person.
 
Anyone that says its Microsoft is an idiot.

Or any other software company for that matter.

Allowing an EULA to be defeated in court, for any reason, will set an extremely bad precedent. No software company wants that. Especially not Microsoft.

- now hardware manufacturers, thats a different story.
 
No, you are all wrong. Do you want to know who the real backers of Psystar are? Go on, ask!

It is really simple. By tearing down Apple's ability to sell hardware and software together, they won't be able to continue to make a profit. They'll be ruined.

Who would want to destroy Apple, and why? It's really very simple. Al Gore. No, he's not responsible, but he is why Apple will be destroyed. You see, when he goes to give his climate change lectures, he won't be able to. He's too loyal to Apple. Plus, he would never run a Keynote on an energy wasting, non-recyclable Dell. Without Al Gore, the world will get hot, too hot. And the oceans will rise to unprecedented levels. And viruses will plague the world and weaken all of humanity.

So who is responsible? I'll tell you who would want to ruin mankind. G*dd**n Crap People.

CrabPeople.png
 
IJ Reilly said:
I am very skeptical about any other corporation being involved in Psystar's defense, for two reasons. First, they hired lawyers with apparently little to no knowledge in antitrust law, which is evidenced by their craptastic legal argument, which has already been substantially gutted. Second, any involved company with actual assets risks becoming a deep pocket in any damage claim settlement. Doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Helping to finance PsyStar's legal defense would not make another company a material participant in PsyStar's business and their assets would not be at risk in any way if PsyStar loses.

A company that would want to sell PC's with OS X, like Dell, could spend millions helping PsyStar pay their legal defense bills with no other risk than losing the cash spent on the lawyers or expert witnesses.

I don't think PsyStar's lawyers are inept, or unknowledgable in antitrust law, but I do think they were slinging mud and seeing what would stick!
 
jbernie said:
So many people on here fail to comprehend is that if you think Psystar is wrong, then you agree 100% that every person who makes their own Hackintosh is wrong and also breaking the law and should be taken through the courts like Psystar.
Click to expand...

Nope. Wrong and illegal are different words.

Look at it from the blind self-interested point of view: Suppose I'm blindly self-interested. I therefore find it useful to me that I can make a Hackintosh -- for example, I can pay less for a midtower. But it is also useful for me to have a strong healthy Apple that continues to innovate my operating system. If Psystar were legal, that would be a severe blow to Apple's ability to spend tons of money innovating stuff that is useful to me. So it is in my self-interest to want Psystar dead.

But more import to me is that I believe whoever is behind Psystar is also behind SCO's bogus attacks on Linux. It's in all our interests that these bozos be held accountable asap.
 
alexbates said:
If Pystar wins this, Apple is doomed. Since Apple has succeeded because of Mac OS X and not hardware, Microsoft could get OSX running on a Dell. That would for sure be the end of Apple.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure I entirely agree there. I agree that the operating system is the main attraction, so if Apple are forced into a corner where they have to open up the hardware side to cloners then all they have to do is up the sale price of the OS to compensate for the loss of profit on the hardware and incorporate some sort of windows style activation in the installation process.

If the 'startup' is trying to get a chunk of the Apple hardware market by getting the courts on their side from the competition angle, then I would suggest that what I suggest above is Apple's best course of action, but I'd also suggest not to go down the compatible with any hardware route like Windows: if the cloners are forced to conform the hardware to the software then I think that's the best way of maintaining the stability advantage of OS X against Windows.

Based on that argument, I'd be offering to pay Apple's court costs if I was in Microsofts shoes. ;)
 
BTW I would not consider any of the current psystar line-up. But if they did they right thing and released a stinking fast laptop then F**k the apple formline and design give me a beast of a brick running OSX anyday!

From,
A dedicated mobile computing power junkie
 
jbernie said:
No sane large company (in this case Microsoft, Dell, IBM, Acer etc) would want to get caught with their fingers in the pie as once that link is made they expose themselves to lawsuit(s) that could be quite costly.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how much money Apple can get from, let's say, Dell. On what basis would Dell have to fork over a lot of money? Punitive damages? Judges don't just randomly award money because they see the defendant can afford it.
 
Beta said:
Allowing an EULA to be defeated in court, for any reason, will set an extremely bad precedent. No software company wants that. Especially not Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Psystar was not trying to defeat the EULA. They were trying to make it mean "this software can be used on any machine."

That would not hurt Microsoft in the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back