Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[IWantItThatWay]

Okay, well, with over a billion dollars profit per quarter in a recession, I think that Apple can afford to still completely ignore everything that you have ever said.

And they could get even more profit, but as I said they want to control the experience to what THEY want, not what you want.

Microsoft says "Listen, I know everyone is different. I know there is difference in the world, I want you to get what YOU want, not what we want you to get, except when it comes to browsers, but anyways want a $300 PC? Go ahead. Want a $900? Go ahead. Want a Core i7 3.2GHz 12GB DDR3 RAM 1TB HD GeForce 295? Go ahead."

 

[*LTD*]

453 replies. Wow. Nice work, everyone. This thing is officially hashed out from every angle!

We're even beating AI (by miles), and they posted the story not too long after MR did (assuming AI readership is comparable in number to MR's.)

And hey, Apple's stock is up +8 today, to $130. MR should get an Apple stock marker as well.

 

[glowingstar]

Real competition is when other companies innovate on their own to create a unique product that matches or surpasses another similar product (see iPod; iPhone). Cloning isn't helpful competition. It doesn't add anything of innovative technological value.

Competition is definitely good, but the lack of it doesn't seem to halt Apple from further innovation.

I also think competition is a good thing. Remember Umax Supermacs? I used mine for seven years, thanks to upgrades. And don't you wish we had more bto options than the Apple store gives us? And for cheaper? Even if it's not as pretty as an Apple-branded Mac....

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

You just don't get it, do you? They are just selling you knowledge. When you buy a car you are getting the machine itself. Software is nothing more than information. Same goes when you buy any software, movies, books, music, etc. You are buying the right to use someones ideas. They put certain restrictions on how you are allowed to use those ideas. That is how IP law works.

Software is nothing more than knowledge? So I won't be getting a cardboard box with a DVD inside when I go to the Apple store and ask to buy Leopard? They will just sit me down in a room and recite the code to me which I am then responsible for remembering and then re-writing to my hard drive when I get back home? In order for your argument to hold water, there would have to be no physical item offered along with the knowledge. of course there is, so you are wrong. And again, every single car sold includes countless man-hours of knowledge, much more than any OS has ever possessed. For your argument to make sense they would have to sell me the sheet metal and screws and wires and stuff in a big pile and tell me to figure out myself how to put it together and make it run.

 

[gnasher729]

Read the actual First sale doctine sometime. What you are reselling is your licence to the IP. While you own it you are still bound be the terms of that licence and the new owner is bound by the terms of that licence.

All First Sale allows is the selling of IP licences you purchased. It does not allow you to alter that IP.

First Sale does not apply in this case. If all Psystar was doing was buying retail OSX DVDs and selling them on their website, they wouldn't be doing anything illegal. However, the second that they rewrote the code Apple owned in order to install those DVDs on their machines, they violated the terms of that license and copyright law.

Just as a side note: One of Psystar's claims was that by not preventing Psystar from buying Apple's software, Apple was somehow agreeing with how Psystar was going to use the software. The First Sale Doctrine makes this argument invalid: Apple could refuse to sell MacOS X to Psystar, but they couldn't prevent anyone from going to an Apple Store, buying 100 copies of MacOS X, and selling them on to Psystar under the First Sale Doctrine. So Apple couldn't prevent Psystar from getting copies of MacOS X in their hands.

The other thing (important for wannabe Psystar successors) is that inducing your customers to breach the Apple license is also illegal, and enabling this breach by creating hardware specifically designed to circumvent Apple's copy protection is illegal as well.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

They don't need to be relevant - just profitable, which they are and when they had clones they weren't.

Market share matters a lot in the computer world, unfortunately. For example, BMW or Ferrari can afford a small market share because they can get gas anywhere, or get fixed anywhere. Because Apple has such a small market share, they do not get the software/hardware than Windows machines get.

 

[Veri]

Fine.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

Hm, we have changed from Proof by Wikipedia to Proof by delegation, Proof by Omission, Proof by Outside the Scope and potentially Proof by irrelevant references (note "may or may not"). Of course, you can counter that parent poster was Proof by eyeballing. And both sides may be guilty of Proof by reduction to the wrong problem and Proof by Restriction, though with opposing outcomes. I'm tired, and should go to bed or something.

 

[smurfjammer]

I also think competition is a good thing. Remember Umax Supermacs? I used mine for seven years, thanks to upgrades. And don't you wish we had more bto options than the Apple store gives us? And for cheaper? Even if it's not as pretty as an Apple-branded Mac....

And you should remember that the clones were licensed from Apple (unlike Psystar) and nearly ran Apple into the ground.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

Just as a side note: One of Psystar's claims was that by not preventing Psystar from buying Apple's software, Apple was somehow agreeing with how Psystar was going to use the software. The First Sale Doctrine makes this argument invalid: Apple could refuse to sell MacOS X to Psystar, but they couldn't prevent anyone from going to an Apple Store, buying 100 copies of MacOS X, and selling them on to Psystar under the First Sale Doctrine. So Apple couldn't prevent Psystar from getting copies of MacOS X in their hands.

The other thing (important for wannabe Psystar successors) is that inducing your customers to breach the Apple license is also illegal, and enabling this breach by creating hardware specifically designed to circumvent Apple's copy protection is illegal as well.

Yeah, again, all of that presupposes that the license contained reasonable terms. if the terms included giving Jobs all of your Social Security income, they would not be enforceable. For the 99th time, just because the license dictates something it does not mean that it is enforceable. Even in this case it has not proved to be enforceable.

Only one thing was proved in this case: That Apple has more money than Psystar and they won by legal attrition. That is all that was proved here.

 

[Ansuz]

Software is nothing more than knowledge? So I won't be getting a cardboard box with a DVD inside when I go to the Apple store and ask to buy Leopard? They will just sit me down in a room and recite the code to me which I am then responsible for remembering and then re-writing to my hard drive when I get back home? In order for your argument to hold water, there would have to be no physical item offered along with the knowledge. of course there is, so you are wrong. And again, every single car sold includes countless man-hours of knowledge, much more than any OS has ever possessed. For your argument to make sense they would have to sell me the sheet metal and screws and wires and stuff in a big pile and tell me to figure out myself how to put it together and make it run.

You are being intentionally obtuse. The cardboard box and the DVD are the mediums by which that information is delivered to you, just as the paper and ink in a book are the mediums by which the authors words are delivered to you. Why you buy a book, you aren't just buying the paper and ink, you are buying the ideas. Same with software.

You can argue this point all you like, but the IP laws say that you are wrong. Pure and simple. Your opinion on the subject doesn't really enter into it.

 

[Veri]

And you should remember that the clones were licensed from Apple (unlike Psystar) and nearly ran Apple into the ground.

But did they really, or was it just that Apple was generally rubbish at the time? Were people buying clones in droves simply because they were cheaper than Apple?

(If they were, let this be a lesson to those who say that people choose the Apple hardware premium .)

 

[*LTD*]

Software is nothing more than knowledge? So I won't be getting a cardboard box with a DVD inside when I go to the Apple store and ask to buy Leopard? They will just sit me down in a room and recite the code to me which I am then responsible for remembering and then re-writing to my hard drive when I get back home? In order for your argument to hold water, there would have to be no physical item offered along with the knowledge. of course there is, so you are wrong. And again, every single car sold includes countless man-hours of knowledge, much more than any OS has ever possessed. For your argument to make sense they would have to sell me the sheet metal and screws and wires and stuff in a big pile and tell me to figure out myself how to put it together and make it run.

Intellectual Property is not the same as other commodities.

 

[smurfjammer]

Market share matters a lot in the computer world, unfortunately. For example, BMW or Ferrari can afford a small market share because they can get gas anywhere, or get fixed anywhere. Because Apple has such a small market share, they do not get the software/hardware than Windows machines get.

Yet BMW & Ferrari required specialised tools to fix them, just like Mac's.

 

[Tallest Skil]

And they could get even more profit, but as I said they want to control the experience to what THEY want, not what you want.

Microsoft says "Listen, I know everyone is different. I know there is difference in the world, I want you to get what YOU want, not what we want you to get, except when it comes to browsers, but anyways want a $300 PC? Go ahead. Want a $900? Go ahead. Want a Core i7 3.2GHz 12GB DDR3 RAM 1TB HD GeForce 295? Go ahead."

People want money, people want power, people want fame.

1. You can't always get what you want.
2. What you want is stupid and not what you need.

Again. GO. AWAY. Apple doesn't cater to you at all. You want customization, they don't offer that. Buy a PC, buy OS X, make a Hackintosh, and DEAL WITH IT.

You tout the benefits of a Hackintosh and how it is more "stable"... SO GET ONE.

You refuse to see that most people don't give a crap about what is inside their computer as long as it works, and until you can accept a different viewpoint from your own, your argument is worthless.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

You are being intentionally obtuse. The cardboard box and the DVD are the mediums by which that information is delivered to you, just as the paper and ink in a book are the mediums by which the authors words are delivered to you. Why you buy a book, you aren't just buying the paper and ink, you are buying the ideas. Same with software.

You can argue this point all you like, but the IP laws say that you are wrong. Pure and simple. Your opinion on the subject doesn't really enter into it.

OK, so if I buy a book at a bookstore, take it home and then cut a few pages out, and then cross through a few lines on some of the remaining pages, you are telling me that I can not then resell that book? I'm just trying to argue with you on your terms. Please advise as to whether or not I can resell a book after I have done those things to it.

 

[smurfjammer]

But did they really, or was it just that Apple was generally rubbish at the time? Were people buying clones in droves simply because they were cheaper than Apple?

(If they were, let this be a lesson to those who say that people choose the Apple hardware premium .)

From memory the clones were selling 5:1 of the same spec macs (and that was when only designers/musicians bought mac).
Imagine the rate a official clone would sell in todays climate against a mac.

 

[Pika]

I hope they lose their homes and the shirt off their backs.

 

[Sehnsucht]

And they could get even more profit, but as I said they want to control the experience to what THEY want, not what you want.

Microsoft says "You can have any PC you want as long as it has Windows and we have your money, bitches!"

Fixed that for you.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

O.K., I think at this point after all these responses it is important that this gets stated for the record:

Apple did not technically "win" anything legally against Psystar! Apple has more money than Psystar and they won by legal attrition. It happens all the time in the business world. This is why the biggest company usually "wins" in these types of cases. Did Apple's unfair legal harassment of Psystar lead to their bankruptcy? Probably! Does this mean they won? Yes, in sense! Does this mean they won in court? No! Not at all! This issue is not settled merely because a company went bankrupt because they had much less money than Apple with which to hire lawyers.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

People want money, people want power, people want fame.

1. You can't always get what you want.
2. What you want is stupid and not what you need.

Again. GO. AWAY. Apple doesn't cater to you at all. You want customization, they don't offer that. Buy a PC, buy OS X, make a Hackintosh, and DEAL WITH IT.

You tout the benefits of a Hackintosh and how it is more "stable"... SO GET ONE.

You refuse to see that most people don't give a crap about what is inside their computer as long as it works, and until you can accept a different viewpoint from your own, your argument is worthless.

I like how you talk about my viewpoints yet your viewpoint is that Apple does not cater to people like me, despite their whole "Switch" and "Get a Mac" campaigns, lol!!!!

 

[flopticalcube]

O.K., I think at this point after all these responses it is important that this gets stated for the record:

Apple did not technically "win" anything legally against Psystar! Apple has more money than Psystar and they won by legal attrition. It happens all the time in the business world. This is why the biggest company usually "wins" in these types of cases. Did Apple's unfair legal harassment of Psystar lead to their bankruptcy? Probably! Does this mean they won? Yes, in sense! Does this mean they won in court? No! Not at all! This issue is not settled merely because a company went bankrupt because they had much less money than Apple with which to hire lawyers.

While I do wish the case had gone to court to settle the legality of the matter once and for all, I think that phrase is unproven. What makes it unfair?

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Yet BMW & Ferrari required specialised tools to fix them, just like Mac's.

PCs are Ferrari's sold for the price of an 87 Toyota.

Apple needs more market share so they can get more programs for their OS. Nero, AutoCAD, Crysis, Dragon Naturally Speaking, Orbit Downloader and a slew of other programs are not available for the Mac.

 

[JohnnyLemonhead]

Oh--and another thing: Apple doesn't make any computers. They make computer cases. Every single part inside my Apple-made case is made by a non-Apple company, so let's dispense with the argument about "their own" machines. They make pretty cases that house the same parts as every other computer does.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Fixed that for you.

There are no alternatives to Windows, though. No one takes Linux seriously and OS X is only available from Apple's overpriced trash cans.

 

[Veri]

The other thing (important for wannabe Psystar successors) is that inducing your customers to breach the Apple license is also illegal, and enabling this breach by creating hardware specifically designed to circumvent Apple's copy protection is illegal as well.

It is naughty when a court of law has decided that it is naughty. Before that, for the purposes of *here* we're just a bunch of laymen entertaining ourselves with the nerd equivalent of a soap opera. That being said:

(1) Everyone buy an EFI motherboard or build the official Intel EFI simulator! A Mac is just a particular type of PC, so *breach of Apple license induced by recommending a modern standards-based PC*, I guess. Although I shan't torture anyone by recommending an EFI-based Itanic, I wonder whether anyone's tried...

(2) Apple has *copy* protection? Perhaps something akin to region protection, with its childish kext. Doesn't exactly have the fullest backing of international law.