Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[celtikmind]

This kind of moaning has always been there in the Mac forum community. Except that curiously, all these things Macs are "missing" doesn't seem to be impacting Mac sales at all.

Until Apple makes a Mac SemiPro (a.k.a. headless iMac/PC GamerMac) I wouldn't be so certain. Quite a few people seem to be screaming for one... Thinking the Mac mini weak, the Mac Pro way too expensive and the iMac not enough in storage, expandability or graphics power.

However, the low margin, the sustainability of the expandability and the resemblance of a typical PC isn't "way of Apple" so it's perfectly clear why they won't make one. But if they were, I for one think it would sell like hotcakes, with the added bonus of many Hackintosh'ers buy a real, Apple Mac.

 

[BaldiMac]

So what you're saying is that representation was no longer available because it could no longer be paid for: directly, indirectly or retroactively. This comes down to exactly the same thing: losing a case not because blind Lady Justice judged against you but because you can't afford lawyers.

Losing because you are weak rather than because your case is weak is what happens in a society of men, not a society of laws.

No one has said that representation is no longer available. Psystar has not lost. The case has not been decided. Your point is valid in the larger sense. Just not in this case.

Apple does not "actually code", its employees do, with copyright being assigned to Apple. Apple provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software. The FSF does not "actually code", but its adherents do, with copyright being assigned to the FSF. The FSF provides resources to enable the coordination of developers of its software.

Apple's employees are part of Apple. Their work is property of Apple. Your argument is like saying "I didn't write that letter, my hand did."

 

[bruinsrme]

Lemme guess, someone's gonna reply telling me to go out and buy one of those really cheap $2700 Mac Pros.

-Eric

Why just one?

 

[celtikmind]

Did they?! A subsidiary of Coke sued Coke itself?

Welcome to America! Country of Sue R and Sue E!

 

[Ansuz]

*sic*

You are more than entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day, Apple is allowed to make whatever product they feel like making and sell it for whatever price they feel like selling it for. Neither on of these choices is illegal simply because the end user isn't satisfied with the options available to them.

You clearly like the OSX environment but are unhappy with the price to power ratio of their hardware offerings. Thats understandable but it does not entitle you to a product that fits your needs. I'm a big fan of Aston Martin cars but am unhappy with their prices. This does not mean that AM should come out with a cheaper care to appease me, rather, it means that I buy a different car.

 

[inkswamp]

i agree that competition is one of the greatest things for businesses, but not when it is created illegally by means of using Apple's operating system.

No laws were being broken and I'm not sure why people keep insisting otherwise. If laws were being broken, Apple could have issued a cease and desist notice and taken Psystar down from the start. That, of course, is why there was litigation, to figure out if Apple or their brand were being damaged by Psystar's actions.

Lots of people on this site and elsewhere claim Psystar was breaking laws, but that's demonstrably untrue. If you'd like to explain what was illegal in their actions, by all means, enlighten me. And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

QUESTION:

Why are people still talking about the End-User-License-Agreement and Psystar in the same sentence...

Psystar is NOT an End-User...

And what's worse is that EULAs have never been clearly established as a legally binding contract so even if Psystar were defined as an end user, it still wouldn't give Apple any legal rights to stop them.

 

[Ansuz]

And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.

And what's worse is that EULAs have never been clearly established as a legally binding contract so even if Psystar were defined as an end user, it still wouldn't give Apple any legal rights to stop them.

Contracts are generally concidered to be legaly binding until a court rules that they are not. They do not have to be found binding to be enforcable.

 

[gkarris]

A more apt question is not "who" is the end user, but "why" we are calling anybody an "end user". Apple uses a "Software License Agreement". Not an "End User License Agreement". In a sense, Apple's licensing terms apply to everybody equally if you are an end user or a reseller.

O I C...

Thanks....

(stops wondering...)

You have my permission to continue arguing...

 

[designgeek]

Two unrelated points on this:

1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.

2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.

No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.

Cheers!

Jim

Thank you, I've been thinking this since I read the story today and I just didn't think it worth my time to go over these points but in reading the rest of the thread I'm glad you did. Especially the second point, it's not even worth discussing, obviously beyond a reasonable doubt Dell is not going to involve itself in something like this.

 

[*LTD*]

With Psystar out of the picture (it seems), the consumer hasn't lost any more than it has in the past with Apple. And hasn't won anything more, either, except the same thing as before.

If you're going to argue that Apple's emergence in this dispute as the "victor" is somehow bad for the consumer, you'll need to believe that Apple has always been bad for the consumer. That's really an untenable argument to make, especially in light of a) Apple's customer satisfaction records, year after year, leading the industry, and b) in light of their continued strong Mac sales performance in this economy, not to mention their record pre-recession performance.

Most of the small, anti-Apple minority here that continually beleives that Apple is doing the consumer a disservice doesn't have any kind of leg to stand on, really. The numbers don't bear out their allegations, nor does the majority of customer feedback.

 

[zap2]

Only if you don't know what a computer is.

Please..its more of a hassle then Linux/Windows is(and for good reasons, Apple doesn't make OS X with installing on PC in mind)

 

[inkswamp]

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract. The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

 

[ericinboston]

Are you joking? Microsoft, Dell, HP... Ring a Bell?

I have to agree with the other person.

It's not really a competitive landscape for Apple to compete with the PC world since you can do whatever the !(@#^@$ you want to a pc yet if dare think about installing anything non-Apple on a Mac you're excommunicated.

Yes, there is competition on the OPERATING SYSTEM level...you know...Apple OS vs. Microsoft OS...but that's really it.

Until I can walk into a store and see a Mac Clone next to a Mac just like I can see 37 PCs next to each other, I really don't think Apple "competes" with the PC industry. Remember, I didn't say the Microsoft Windows industry.

Before people fire back paragraphs about the MS and Apple ads, I am aware of them and I can probably sit here for 45 minutes and write everything you are going to say.

Apple makes a good product, but the Apple world vs. the PC world (again, not Windows world) is a topic where the word competition just doesn't exist.

Apple seems to finally be approaching 9% personal computer marketshare for the first time since 1985...I'd like to see them hit 15% but I doubt that will happen unless prices fall and more computer options are available (read: bring back the normal desktop and let me choose my monitor, for example.) as well as Apple targeting people who just want a sub $500 desktop. Not everyone in the USA can afford a $1200 iMac. The Mini is barely an option as it comes with nothing but a power cable...so turns that $599 into $699 pretty quickly when you add a keyboard/mouse.

-Eric

 

[Tallest Skil]

Please..its more of a hassle then Linux/Windows is(and for good reasons, Apple doesn't make OS X with installing on PC in mind)

Eh, it's probably difficult for a first-timer. I've done it a lot, so I guess I've forgotten the beginning.

 

[*LTD*]

Two unrelated points on this:

1) If Psystar were, as they claimed, not able to produce balance sheets or P&Ls for any of their trading activities, how do they know they're bankrupt? Bankruptcy is a function of the balance sheet.

2) Anyone who thinks Psystar was backed by Gates, Dell, or anyone currently directly involved in the Western computer market is out of their tiny minds.

No-one -- let me spell that out for you in a Perry-Cox-from-Scrubs-stylee -- Nuh-uh oh-ho-oh-ho-oh-one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principal of the EULA.

Cheers!

Jim

Thank you! Extremely lucid thinking.

It comes down to the basic integrity of Intellectual Property. A lot of people depend on it to be able to make a living.

 

[pdjudd]

Please cite the court case where it was ruled that EULAs are not legally binding. I was under the impression that this was still being decided by the courts and, in fact, this trial was to be one of the major players in making that decision.

No need to. EULA's have been upheld as legal before. However the legally has always been on a case by case basis:

Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

Cite

There hasn't been any real push in testing EULA's in general since the entire software business is based on licensing a product to somebody.

 

[Veri]

No one has said that representation is no longer available. Psystar has not lost. The case has not been decided. Your point is valid in the larger sense. Just not in this case.

OP pointed to a "lengthy and costly legal battle with Apple", then citing conjecture that "the company's financial backers have pulled out". The clear implication is that money is needed to enable one's case to be seen in equal light to that of one's opponent. This sucks.

Apple's employees are part of Apple. Their work is property of Apple. Your argument is like saying "I didn't write that letter, my hand did."

Apple's employees are part of Apple in a specific sense, for Apple does not have slaves, but voluntary employees. The effect of the employment contract is such that the work done by employees toward Apple's projects belongs to Apple. Similarly, the work done by, well, anyone, towards the FSF's projects belongs to the FSF.

(You are allowed to tweak gcc to your heart's content and give away your changes. But what you're producing isn't gcc. Despite the common viewpoint that the FSF are a bunch of hippies, they own a huge chunk of intellectual property that's critical to multiple platforms, including Apple's own. Microsoft are one of the very few exceptions to this reliance on FSF IP.)

 

[Ansuz]

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract. The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

I'm really not. You claimed that EULA's are not legally binding. Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal. In order for EULA's to be not legally binding a court somewhere would have had to rule this so. I am asking you for the case where this ruling was made.

As for cases where they have been found binding, see pdjudds post:


Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

Even if those copies were legally purchased (which we aren't sure that they were since Psystar can't produce any evidence of the purchases) they violated the terms of the EULA - which has never been declared illegal - when they installed it on non approved hardware. That was the point of the entire case.

 

[BaldiMac]

No laws were being broken and I'm not sure why people keep insisting otherwise. If laws were being broken, Apple could have issued a cease and desist notice and taken Psystar down from the start. That, of course, is why there was litigation, to figure out if Apple or their brand were being damaged by Psystar's actions.

Lots of people on this site and elsewhere claim Psystar was breaking laws, but that's demonstrably untrue.

You say that you can demonstrate that the claim that Psystar was breaking laws is untrue. Go for it!

If you'd like to explain what was illegal in their actions, by all means, enlighten me.

The most obvious infraction would be that they are in violation of copyright law by distributing OS X without a valid license to do so.

And do so without relying on the shaky, if not debunked, argument that EULAs are legally binding contracts because they are not.

The fact that you claim that license agreements are not legally binding does not make it so. They have consistently been upheld in the US, although certain provisions have been found to be unconscionable or otherwise illegal. Most of the stricken provisions are related to arbitration.

 

[inkswamp]

Cite

Exactly. If EULAs were legally binding contracts, there would be no uncertainty about their enforceability like that.

 

[pdjudd]

You're asking me to disprove a negative. Uh-huh.

Instead, you show me the court cases where EULAs have been established as a legally binding contract.

You made an assertion that EULA's are not legal contracts. We want proof of that.

The only instances where EULAs have teeth is when they are used to stop piracy. And since each copy of OS X Psystar sold was legally purchased off-the-shelf, then that's not applicable to what they were doing.

Unless you can provide any evidence of that beyond the assertions by Psysar (which have no legal weight or muster), you can't state that. We have no proof that Psystar purchased anything from Apple.

 

[bruinsrme]

I'm really not. You claimed that EULA's are not legally binding. Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal. In order for EULA's to be not legally binding a court somewhere would have had to rule this so. I am asking you for the case where this ruling was made.

Even if those copies were legally purchased (which we aren't sure that they were since Psystar can't produce any evidence of the purchases) they violated the terms of the EULA - which has never been declared illegal - when they installed it on non approved hardware. That was the point of the entire case.

I read several EULAs and they state if i dont agree to a EULA I can take it back to the store I purchased it for a full refund. What stores take returns on an open software box?

 

[pdjudd]

Exactly. If EULAs were legally binding contracts, there would be no uncertainty about their enforceability like that.

umm... I am actually in agreement with BaldiMac since I sowed several cases where EULA's have been shown to be unenforceable and valid - the antithesis of what you claim.

 

[ericinboston]

You are more than entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day, Apple is allowed to make whatever product they feel like making and sell it for whatever price they feel like selling it for. Neither on of these choices is illegal simply because the end user isn't satisfied with the options available to them.

You clearly like the OSX environment but are unhappy with the price to power ratio of their hardware offerings. Thats understandable but it does not entitle you to a product that fits your needs. I'm a big fan of Aston Martin cars but am unhappy with their prices. This does not mean that AM should come out with a cheaper care to appease me, rather, it means that I buy a different car.

Great point...but please, no car references.

And my reply to you would be: If Apple ever wants to see 15% marketshare, they're gonna have to start APPEALING to folks other than Apple loyalists, clueless rich customers, and people who want a Mac just to have a shiny box on their desk. If they don't wanna hit 15%, fine. And I'm not being sarcastic. Many on this forum seem to claim they live with Jobs and has been told that Apple never wants to create computers for the masses for several reasons. Ooooookay.

Seriously. I may annoy some people by making that statement (both on the marketshare comment and my stereotyping) but it is true.

Macs are not $249 iPods. Macs are not $299 iPhones. If (and I'm stating IF) Apple wants to start gaining true Mac marketshare, they're gonna have to start selling a LOT more...which, as we all know, means that Apple is going to have to target newer/more audiences...which likely means that Apple will need to target folks whose budget is under $1000 for a full system...and very likely sub $700. PC land provides this option, Apple does not. I have many friends/family members that look to me for computer advice and my first question is "would you consider a Mac" and their immediate reply is "no, too expensive". They know it. They're not techies like many of us on this board. They are the average consumer out to buy their kids or family a new notebook or desktop and they know that every BB and Staples ad in every Sunday paper shows numerous computers for under $1000 yet never an Apple.

Don't make me out to be an Apple hater. I like Apple, but I think I have a sense of reality of what they will need to do IF they want to grow serious marketshare...and plenty of trade publications and investor comments agree with me. Appealing to new audiences is what Apple needs to do...and a big way to be more appealing is to create cheaper product lines that target the new audiences.

-Eric

 

[inkswamp]

You made an assertion that EULA's are not legal contracts. We want proof of that.

Your own Wikipedia link explains better than I can. Go read it. They're not consistently enforceable. What does that tell you?

But common sense and simple observation of the events here shows that if the EULA were already a legally enforceable contract, Apple would have been able to stop Psystar without litigation. The fact that they are in court over all this pretty much puts it to rest.

But yeah, I know. Wrong site for this line of thinking.