Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[Veri]

Contracts are legally binding until a court rules them illegal.

How can something be legally binding unless a court's obliged you to follow it? IOW, what does it actually mean for something to be "legally binding"?

A more realistic interpretation of a contract is "a random string of pompous loghorrea", except when either
(i) you respect the guy you're signing it with; or
(ii) you think the guy is going to cause you damage in court if you ignore it.

Contracts only work because (i) or (ii) cover many cases.

 

[Ansuz]

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

You don't seem to get contract law. EULAs are contracts and contracts are legally binding - there is no question of that in the courts. However, when contracts violate established laws or are found by the courts to be unenforcable those individual contracts can be made void.

Those cited cases show the EULAs are binding, enforceable contracts, but just like other contracts they can include unenforcable or illegal clauses. One of the things this case was going to determine was if the Apple-branded hardware clause was legal.

 

[inkswamp]

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.

They've been shown to be enforceable in cases where there is piracy occurring, and I said that in my first post. Did you not even read the Wikipedia link you posted? It says quite clearly that they are not consistently enforceable. Does that sound like a legally binding contract to you?

This argument is like riding a merry-go-round. On acid.

 

[pdjudd]

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?

That's not relivant. From my earlier cite:

Whether shrink-wrap licenses are legally binding differs between jurisdictions, though a majority of jurisdictions hold such licenses to be enforceable. At particular issue is the difference in opinion between the courts in Klocek v. Gateway and Brower v. Gateway. Both cases involved a shrink-wrapped license document provided by the online vendor of a computer system. The terms of the shrink-wrapped license were not provided at the time of purchase, but were rather included with the shipped product as a printed document. The license required the customer to return the product within a limited time frame if the license was not agreed to. In Brower, the Supreme Court of New York ruled that the terms of the shrink-wrapped license document were enforceable because the customer's assent was evident by its failure to return the merchandise within the 30 days specified by the document. The U.S. District Court of Kansas in Klocek ruled that the contract of sale was complete at the time of the transaction, and the additional shipped terms contained in a document similar to that in Brower did not constitute a contract, because the customer never agreed to them when the contract of sale was completed.

Your inability to return a product is between you and the original seller. But for reference I have returned software purchased online (it was an Adobe product) and received my money back after filling out a form that asserted that I no longer had the software in my possession. So it is possible,

 

[Ansuz]

*sic*

I don't think you are an Apple hater. I see your point about what Apple would have to do to get to a 15% market share and I do agree with you. However, I think this makes the assumption that Apple wants a 15% share, given the sacrifices that would have to be made in order to get there.

At the end of the day, Apple stock has one of the highest values in the tech sector and they are sitting on cash reserves that other companies would kill for. Every year their market share grows and people are buying their premium products even in our current economic downturn. While you or I may want them to release certian products to better suit our needs, the numbers clearly show that they executives at Apple are making good decisions regarding their brand and company.

 

[macUser2007]

You're not making sense. It's a patent dispute. Apple owns multitouch patents and it's defending them. Nothing wrong here.

You miss the point. Again.

The main point from my post: "I suppose we could have a bunch Palm fan-boys indulging in similarly moronic gloating...."

But I don't expect you to see it. You are religious.

 

[Goona]

I am happy, that you carefully read the EULA, to determine which Mac models allow you to replace what parts. But most of us use common sense.

But no, it's not that simple, and there is a good argument, that portions of that EULA are unenforceable. That's the part that you are missing.

But Apple has a lot of cash, and is one of the most litigation-happy companies in the industry, so it's hard for smaller companies to find out, before they go broke.

I do like Apple products, but I also am aware that Apple is a rather evil company, which uses the thread of litigation to stifle competition and innovation.

Oh so companies shouldn't have the right to protect their property, someone please tell us in what these clowns from Florida were innovating?

This is a bit dim, IMO.

Why would you be happy that a cheaper alternative failed? If you didn't like it, you didn't have to buy it.

It's like a Windows fan being happy if Apple failed, because of Boot Camp. Just silly.

Yeah and I could go and buy cheaper alternatives from Dell, HP, Acer who have much better computers than the crap coming from these thieves.

Hm, Apple IS a religion to some, and apparently can do no wrong.

Let's see this:

"If you missed it, Apple delivered a very thinly veiled threat to Palm, flouting how it had touch-sensitive intellectual rights up the wazoo to protect itself from the competition. Apple, though, may be due for a heaping helping of humble pie, as it's now on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Elan Microelectronics claiming infringement on two patents -- both involving multitouch. Elan, best known for its keypads found in Eee PCs everywhere (along with some other diversions), won a court injunction against Synaptics for infringement on one of those patents, and seems like it may actually have a shot of shaking down the house of Jobs. It's also seeking an injunction against Apple to prevent it from selling the MacBook, iPhone, and iPod Touch until everything gets legally sorted...."

I suppose we could have a bunch Palm fan-boys indulging in similarly moronic gloating....

Apple never made any direct threats to Palm smart one.

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.

This is the world we live in, if a company doesn't a product at the price that I want, with the features that I want therefore they are doing something illegal.

 

[Lyra]

Ha ha ha ha ha,

I'm sorry I can't help it... it really IS funny... You know why? Cause EVERYBODY saw this one coming. Furthermore, when you do something that's UNAUTHORIZED... what were you expecting? Rather... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?!!?

Sorry, but I can't take this seriously.

 

[dguisinger]

They've been shown to be enforceable in cases where there is piracy occurring, and I said that in my first post. Did you not even read the Wikipedia link you posted? It says quite clearly that they are not consistently enforceable. Does that sound like a legally binding contract to you?

This argument is like riding a merry-go-round. On acid.

Just to point out your failure in this logic: Most contracts are not 100% legal; which is why almost every contract has a clause stating if any part of the contract is found to be illegal in a court of law, only that clause is to be stricken and the rest of the contract remains in force. Most contracts violate a law somewhere, because there are too many conflicting local laws that form a patchwork around the world, and many local laws conflict directly with federal laws. When you have 300 years or more of laws on the books, things are never clear cut.

 

[i make movies]

Perhaps. Although I doubt that a factory purchased BMW engine comes with some sort of agreement saying that "you will only place this in a BMW automobile"...

It kinda does if you buy a vehicle new. The warranty. You void the warranty if you take it outside the authorized service center, let alone fixing/replacing the engine yourself.

Sure, you can put the engine in an Kia, but if you rip the drive train, BMW nor Kia will replace the engine/drive train. Much to the same effect if you buy a iMac and try to swap processors, it will void the warranty.

 

[Stridder44]

Serves them right!

How does it "serve them right"?


It'll be very interesting to see the names of people who have been funding this company though.

 

[pdjudd]

They've been shown to be enforceable in cases where there is piracy occurring, and I said that in my first post. Did you not even read the Wikipedia link you posted? It says quite clearly that they are not consistently enforceable. Does that sound like a legally binding contract to you?

This argument is like riding a merry-go-round. On acid.

Please read the post above yours by Ansuz where he states:

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.

Bolding mine. Simply because some contracts have been rendered void does mean that all are not. Contracts tend to be entered in willfully between two or more parties who understand what they are getting into. Business even more so.

In the case of Apple, their terms of sale were allready ruled as vais since customers know what to expect. Judge Allsep ruled that long ago.

 

[gnasher729]

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

A software license is a contract. As a contract, it is generally enforceable. There are obviously exceptions, some things are not enforceable in a contract, especially in a contract between a company and a private end user. That doesn't mean there is any uncertainty. Terms in a EULA are enforceable unless you can give a specific reason why a specific term in a EULA should not be enforceable.

Example: "You agree that if you install MacOS X on a computer that is not Apple-labeled, Apple has the right to sell your children into slavery and keep the proceeds". Not enforceable. "MacOS X may be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer". Enforceable.

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.

Please. How was Apple supposed to stop Psystar? I think it was mentioned in the court papers that Apple asked Psystar to stop what they are doing. Psystar didn't. So what do you suggest Apple was to do other than litigating?

 

[pdjudd]

Just to point out your failure in this logic: Most contracts are not 100% legal; which is why almost every contract has a clause stating if any part of the contract is found to be illegal in a court of law, only that clause is to be stricken and the rest of the contract remains in force. Most contracts violate a law somewhere, because there are too many conflicting local laws that form a patchwork around the world, and many local laws conflict directly with federal laws. When you have 300 years or more of laws on the books, things are never clear cut.

Correct, that why contacts get dealt with on a case by case basis and not in general. If that were true, one badly written contract would damage every contract out there. Contracts tend to be carefully written out and very rarely get stricken in total. Individual clauses get pulled but that requires a specific case.

 

[celtikmind]

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.

-Eric

I think you have a valid point here. Apple ain't interested in gaining market share right now, that's obvious. Their main attention is the 'gadgetmaking', the iPhone, the rather lame iTablet that forever has been on it's way now and so on. Perhaps they don't even want a higher market share for various reasons...

If they ever turn their 'great eye' towards computers again we'll see what happens.

 

[ericinboston]

I don't think you are an Apple hater. I see your point about what Apple would have to do to get to a 15% market share and I do agree with you. However, I think this makes the assumption that Apple wants a 15% share, given the sacrifices that would have to be made in order to get there.

At the end of the day, Apple stock has one of the highest values in the tech sector and they are sitting on cash reserves that other companies would kill for. Every year their market share grows and people are buying their premium products even in our current economic downturn. While you or I may want them to release certian products to better suit our needs, the numbers clearly show that they executives at Apple are making good decisions regarding their brand and company.

I'm glad you're one of the people that can politely debate topics here.

I find it extremely odd that Apple wants to sit at sub-20% marketshare in the Mac world. I mean, what company strives to make a product line that only has 9% marketshare? Seriously. I doubt Uniden does with their home phones, or Honda with their cars, or Western Digital with their storage solutions. Why the heck would a company, publicly-traded I might add, want to sit at such a low marketshare?

The answer simply could be pride or arrogance. But that doesn't float well with any investor. Just as Apple sits today at less than 10% marketshare, they could easily fall back down to 5% later this year for unseen reasons. And Apple will be right back where it's been since the mid-80s...sub 10% marketshare.

As they say in Sales and Marketing: Perception is reality. If consumers feel that Apple is premium quality, great. But wouldn't you think that if it's premium quality they would have better marketshare?

We can go round and round on this.

Maybe my pride in Apple is tired of the see-saw affect...Apple is great for 10 years, then it's on life support for 10 years, then it's great for 10 years, etc. Man, the '90s was a decade that Apple would love to erase from the history books.

-Eric

 

[Ansuz]

How can something be legally binding unless a court's obliged you to follow it? IOW, what does it actually mean for something to be "legally binding"?

A more realistic interpretation of a contract is "a random string of pompous loghorrea", except when either
(i) you respect the guy you're signing it with; or
(ii) you think the guy is going to cause you damage in court if you ignore it.

Contracts only work because (i) or (ii) cover many cases.

Not quite. The laws in most countries allow individuals above a certian age to willfully enter into a legally binding agreement - that is in essence all a contract is. The laws on the book that allow these agreements are what make contracts legally binding. Unless you are able to show why the enforcement of a contract, or a particular clause in a contract, would violate other laws then the courts will rule that contract binding.

 

[zap2]

Ha ha ha ha ha,

I'm sorry I can't help it... it really IS funny... You know why? Cause EVERYBODY saw this one coming. Furthermore, when you do something that's UNAUTHORIZED... what were you expecting? Rather... WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!?!!?

Sorry, but I can't take this seriously.

No, you didn't how did you have any idea Psystar was having economic trouble? Or that there money support was backing out?(if thats true)

Did you have evidence? Or "a gut feeling"?

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Dang, this sucks. I liked Psystar's configurations better than Apple's (they had more variety and were cheaper). They actually had a pretty decent tower for under $800. Now we are stuck with Apple's garbage.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Dang, I was kind of enjoying seeing Apple have some competition.

Apple has competition in every other company who makes computers/software.

What Pystar was doing was not competing. They were breaking licensing agreements and distributing Apple's work in ways it was not meant to be used.

I agree completely with chriszzz in no way was Pystar competing with Apple. They were stealing from Apple.

 

[Ansuz]

If consumers feel that Apple is premium quality, great. But wouldn't you think that if it's premium quality they would have better marketshare?

Not necessarily. Since you mentioned earlier that you were not fond of car references, I'll use something else - Rolex. Rolex is a premium timepiece company with a very small marketshare (relative to all timepieces sold). Part of what aids the consumers idea that Rolex is luxury and premium (and therefore worth the high price tag) is the fact that only a few people own them. Part of being a premium product is smaller marketshare.

At the end of the day, I feel Apple values profitablity and stock price above market share (just as any publicly traded company should). I have no doubt in my mind that Jobs & Co. would licence out OSX to everyone and their mother if they felt that that was the best way for their company to be profitable. They have decided not to do that, so I have to believe that their models show that the low marketshare / high profit hardware stratagy is the best for their products.

 

[smurfjammer]

Now we are stuck with Apple's garbage.

You're not stuck with Apple's garage, you can still build your own (which is way better than anything Psystar offered).

 

[IWantItThatWay]

You're not stuck with Apple's garage, you can still build your own (which is way better than anything Psystar offered).

That is true, but can you get Software Updates or 10.5.xx updates?

 

[dejo]

I find it extremely odd that Apple wants to sit at sub-20% marketshare in the Mac world. I mean, what company strives to make a product line that only has 9% marketshare? Seriously. I doubt Uniden does with their home phones, or Honda with their cars, or Western Digital with their storage solutions. Why the heck would a company, publicly-traded I might add, want to sit at such a low marketshare?

I would contend that for Apple increased market-share is only one of their goals (certainly not the only one, probably not the top one). And they are not willing to sacrifice those other goals in the sole pursuit of increasing their market-share.

P.S. And to nitpick, Apple is certainly above 20% in the Mac world. Probably closer to 100%.

 

[ericinboston]

...

If they ever turn their 'great eye' towards computers again we'll see what happens.

And this is what I don't understand...Apple supposedly (in this forum's eyes) doesn't care about marketshare...yet they have 50 bazillion different I'm A Mac commercials and have been running them for years 18 hours a day. They started in May 2006 so that's 3 full years of Mac ads.

How many iPhone or other non-Mac commercials do we see? 3 a week?

Apple is pouring money and time into these Mac commercials (and I love em all) but gosh golly, make you your mind Apple. Apple drops "computer" from its name in Jan 2007 but began poundin the tv with so many Mac ads (not to mention the magazines and websites) in summer 2006.

I swear I see a new Mac ad on tv every month.