Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[twilson]

Apple HAS competition.

Sucks, Apple could use some competition..

On a hardware level Apple has "EVERY other computer manufacturer" as competion.

On an OS level they have "Microsoft and the Linux/Unix Distros" as competition.

Of note, Apple is not the majority vendor in either of those scenarios.

Mac + OS X is not a market sector. Hardware (i.e. laptops/desktops) is a market sector. Operating Systems is also a market sector.

 

[Veri]

Yes, Judge Alsup _has_ decided [...] that Apple absolutely has the right of selling MacOS X with a license that doesn't allow Psystar to copy it, and that Psystar has to obey that license.

Definition of "copy" and source of judgment please? I haven't been following closely, so perhaps I missed this, and Groklaw's opinionated-layman articles show an even worse understanding of how corporations use EULAs than Macrumors commenters .

 

[r.j.s]

Definition of "copy" and source of judgment please? I haven't been following closely, so perhaps I missed this, and Groklaw's opinionated-layman articles show an even worse understanding of how corporations use EULAs than Macrumors commenters .

Here is a copy of the opinion, I don't have time this morning to find the relevant parts.

http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2008/Psystar_antitrust_dismissal.pdf?tag=mncol;txt

 

[Veri]

Here is a copy of the opinion, I don't have time this morning to find the relevant parts.

http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/p/2008/Psystar_antitrust_dismissal.pdf?tag=mncol;txt

The first half of p.14 ends very suddenly by stating that Apple is "entitled" to ask consumers to only use their product with Apple hardware, citing DEC vs Uniq. But that is another antitrust dispute referencing the Kodak case, which reinforces why Uniq (and so Psystar) can't appeal to the Kodak ruling. Unless I've misunderstood, I can't see it declaring valid a term such as appears in the Apple EULA.

That paragraph is rather a precursor to the end of p.14 - and all that's doing is claiming that antitrust provisions cannot be applied directly to markets created by contracts. The dismissal of the counterclaim declared that this term was not invalid on antitrust grounds. But it makes no effort to find it valid (and why would it? Psystar needs to give evidence that it's invalid using something less lame than "antitrust!").

Also, p.11 sounds like it's explaining why Microsoft is not a monopoly, as does paragraph 11 of DEC vs Uniq. Man, the law can be arbitrary.

 

[gregorsamsa]

Years ago, it didn't work, apparently - but things were slightly different then, weren't they? Is it safe to say: Apple computers weren't a viable player in the personal computing genre back then? Maybe ... however today, it seems to me Apple has a very mature, robust operating system that can arguably hold its own in just about any "crappy hardware" environment with which it ends up being paired.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, I'm just easier on the idea than some others of OS X selling on decent PC hardware (ie. no cheap, bargain-basement prices!), made by only a select few manufacturers who satisfy Apple's standards. As I said earlier, such OS X PCs could be, for example, mostly mid-towers, thus limiting cannibalization of current Macs.

Things were a lot different back then. Apple had a poor business model, was leaking cash, Mac clones were outselling Macs, technology was generally more expensive, pre-Intel Macs had a different modular layout, etc. Since the switch to Intel, licensing OS X to select PC makers is a lot more viable, but I think Apple would only do this if they were to concentrate on growing market share.

Like I say, it's merely an idea, coming from someone who cares more about the OS I work in than any loyalty to brand names, hardware aesthetics, etc. I really have no proclivity for that kind of stuff, though I have no particular problem with those who do.

 

[BaldiMac]

I really don't understand why some of you cannot see that BASIC LOGIC. If they are tying, it's ILLEGAL.

The Eula is IRRELEVANT in that regard because it's NOT LEGAL TO TIE SOFTWARE TO NON-PROPRIETY HARDWARE. *PERIOD*.

In dismissing Psystars counterclaims, the judge said that "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."

It's sad how these small companies can usually be bullied by giant companies like Apple, who can afford armies of lawyers. I would really have loved to see this go to court.

It is still going to court. Legal fees are only one third on Psystar's total debt that it lists in its bankruptcy filing. They are not going bankrupt solely because of the legal proceedings.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Thanks to everyone who took over for me in fighting this troll when I went to bed.

And now... the conclusion.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/

I read the page. Top to bottom. NOTHING SUGGESTS ANYTHING ABOUT PRICING.

coo

So this is your way of saying, "I have no chance of rebuttal to this part of the argument so I'll act like a toddler in a vain and pathetic attempt to ignore it.", is it?

OS X has more bloatware than Vista.

*ahem* EVIDENCE THEREOF. Saying something doesn't make it true.

Thus, only 3% of market share.

SHUT UP with your LIES. You tried to prove your point, now I'll AFFIRM ours.

NINE POINT SEVEN THREE.

(upgradable to at least a 9800MGTX 1GB)

It would melt.

Consoles and computers are different.

No, you just don't know anything about consoles and are ignoring that part of the argument.

Digital downloads* are the way of the future.

Sure, in 2015 and later. U.S. broadband infrastructure can't handle them. Thus, Blu-ray. And Blu-ray will hold 2k and 4320p (Super Hi-Vision) video by that time, so it will STILL stick around. Downloads in 2015 will be 1080p while disk media will be 2k and 4320p.

The format is a bag of worthless. I can't believe we still even have optical discs.

Again, bandwidth. Until it becomes cheaper per byte to download 1080p video, 1080p disk media will always be here.

I think that I like the idea that this is paid Microsoft PR... no one else would keep screaming, "3%" when Apple hasn't had 3% since 2001.

 

[mags631]

I guess it's good to dream, but Apple hates their customers making choices.

Drivel.

 

[way2l84sanity]

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.

I think that if you put that BMW engine in a Kia and sold it with the advertisement that it runs like a BMW, because it has a BMW engine in a Kia. BMW would possibly ask you to stop selling or face legally action. Apple (& BMW in example above) Has to be concerned with Customer experience, A person who buys only part of their product, not the whole product. Because it was designed to deliver certain experience to the end user. I doubt that people who bought a Psystar will tell people they know that it was a Psystar Hackintoshes computer that they had problems with, they will say that Apple computers are over priced and don't work any better then the $400. Dell. Or the customer has never owned a mac before and Apple has no control over their experience or can't help them at the genius bar, or over the phone when they need help. I don't think Apple is going after the person who is putting OS X on a pc for their own use, but try and sell it to the public and they will take legal action.

There are other post that wonder why Apple is happy at 10% market share and why won't they make a cheaper computer.

1. I doubt that Apple is happy at 10% market share, but seem to be try to grow at a manageable rate, to keep quality and experience at a constant level. Plus they have 29 billion in cash, I doubt Dell does. (Dell's balance sheet, flush with more than $9 billion in cash…)Is Dell Doomed?

2. I think you get what you pay for - I bought my first mac 4yrs ago, a lot of friends at work told me to save money and buy a Dell. After I got the specs of my powermac, I try to look for a Dell that would be close in specs. after all the add ons and upgrades, the price difference was only $300. and the Dell only had one core where as the powermac was dual core. Apple knows they have the stigma of high price computers, making a $400 - $500 is not the only solution, With Apple retail stores, ipods, iphones they are try to change that stigma of high price to a great user experience.

 

[gnasher729]

That paragraph is rather a precursor to the end of p.14 - and all that's doing is claiming that antitrust provisions cannot be applied directly to markets created by contracts. The dismissal of the counterclaim declared that this term was not invalid on antitrust grounds. But it makes no effort to find it valid (and why would it? Psystar needs to give evidence that it's invalid using something less lame than "antitrust!").

Since Psystar is now in Chapter 11, and one of their debtors is their lawyers at $88,000, I don't think this will happen.

 

[farmboy]

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.

No. Market share does not matter "a lot". Your car analogy regarding gas is like a computer needing electricity. Available almost everywhere last time I checked, even for Macs. And exactly what software/hardware are Macs lacking? We run two fairly complex businesses with Macs, have Macs at home, and I can't think of something we're missing. Office suite-check, CAD software-check, accounting-check, Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign-check, browser/email-check, etc.

Unless--and this is just a guess based on your moniker--you're a serious gamer who wants to configure a screaming machine to whatever the latest spec are, regardless of whether those specs actually make a difference in the use of the computer. There's a lot more to speed than clock numbers and RAM totals. In which case, why are you here? Screaming speed is not a Mac thing, and it's not a Mac flaw.

 

[Winni]

Psystar filing for bankruptcy before the end of the lawsuit is too bad for American customers. You guys in the States will now have to wait for another contester who has enough balls to fight out the validity and legality of the Apple EULA in court -- and for the sake of the customers, hopefully see Apple lose it.

In the meantime, I hope that Apple will sue the German and the Russian Hackintosh sellers. Apple's chances of enforcing their EULA are much worse in Europe and the Russian Federation than they are in the US. But that probably explains why Apple hasn't done anything yet and lets those guys go on with their business.

 

[macUser2007]

Psystar filing for bankruptcy before the end of the lawsuit is too bad for American customers. You guys in the States will now have to wait for another contester who has enough balls to fight out the validity and legality of the Apple EULA in court -- and for the sake of the customers, hopefully see Apple lose it.....

Yeah, well, the pimple brigade here has trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Whatever Psystar was (and no, it was not exactly a nice company,) it would have been good to see this go up through the court system and resolve some things.

There is a good chance it would have resulted in invalidating portions of the standard draconian EULAs, and it would have been good for consumers (and not just Apple users.)

 

[mags631]

You guys in the States will now have to wait for another contester who has enough balls to fight out the validity and legality of the Apple EULA in court -- and for the sake of the customers, hopefully see Apple lose it.

Excellent demonstration of presumption.

In the meantime, I hope that Apple will sue the German and the Russian Hackintosh sellers. Apple's chances of enforcing their EULA are much worse in Europe and the Russian Federation than they are in the US. But that probably explains why Apple hasn't done anything yet and lets those guys go on with their business.

So your position is that Apple has no valid position in determining how its products are best used?

 

[Ansuz]

There is a good chance it would have resulted in invalidating portions of the standard draconian EULAs, and it would have been good for consumers (and not just Apple users.)

I don't know about that. I doubt that if the portion of the EULA we are concerned with here (installing on non-Apple hardware) was invalidated that Apple would just throw up their hands and say, "Oh well, nice while it lasted." Rather, I'm sure we would see them employ other methods to make it more difficult to obtain a retail version of OSX unless you already owned a Mac. Whatever those measures were, they would be quite bad for the hobbiests who are toying around with hackentoshis and would certainly not improve the expereince of people who bought Apple products.

If expereinece has shown us anything, its that the people who own this intellectual property are going to use everything in their power to impose their restrictions upon it, so far as copyright and IP laws allow.

 

[fixyourthinking]

I bet it was some big-name blogger(s) and other knowledge workers with too much money and not enough time to spend it on stuff.

I was thinking someone like C/Net myself ...

Most bloggers don't have a lot of money - including the big names.

 

[charlituna]

I supported Apple against Psystar and I suspect that Apple would have won the court case.

But even so, I'm disappointed in this outcome. I would have liked to see Psystar make their case in court, even if I did disagree with them.

this bankruptcy doesn't mean the other case won't happen. if anything it might be setting up a sitch where Apple won't get any damages if/when they win because Psystar has certified they won't have any.

i too would like to see this whole thing carried to completion so that it is in the books that Apple is 100% legally allowed to do what they have been doing. instead of a fair chunk of it still being 'no one has said they can't'

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.

more to the point they were violating several trademark, copyright etc laws

if Psystar wanted to be competition they should have developed their own OS not just stolen from Apple or any other company. heck, the last I looked the Unix undercore to the Mac OS is open for all to use. the company could have created a better GUI etc and been true compet for Apple AND Microsoft.

not to mention that there are questions of the retail disks they say they ship with all systems. they have no receipts it seems to prove they weren't obtained via shoplifting and other illegal means.

 

[windywoo]

So your position is that Apple has no valid position in determining how its products are best used?

I would tend to agree. Apple sell the software separately, it should be up to the customer what they do with it.

 

[-hh]

Time to see who's been hiding in the shadows the entire time! Any bets?

and

I wonder who is all behind it......

We all wonder. However, this is probably the correct answer:

My bet is no one famous. Folks who have lots of money and/or influence take extra steps to protect their identity in ventures like this. I predict nothing of interest will be revealed.

I'd similarly expect nothing of interest to be revealed, but I'd not be surprised to find it come to light with banking records that go to places like the Cayman Islands .. and a lawyer in the way to try to block any identifiation.

However, with the many laws & agreements now on the books for anti-terrorism dimensions to money laundering, several of these barriers aren't as bulletproof as they need to be ... and the lawsuit is ample evidence of 'illegal activity' to invoke those international agreements to disclose.

Personally, I'd really like the backers to all be exposed, for the simple reason that if they can't be exposed, then how is the same system supposed to be able to track down real-world terrorists today?

I bet the financial backers (if any) pulled the plug on the money train and wrote it off as a lose.

I doubt it, they wouldn't be in chap 11 if they had backers like dell or hp.

Or more accurately, the backers realized that they very well could be exposed. By dissolving their offshore corporation now, they can go into their Bahamas or Caymans (or wherever) offices to destroy all records and close up shop before there's able to be any government intervention: they're taking preemptive actions to try to keep their identity hidden.

Again, the problem is that if this strategy works here, then terrorists can cover their tracks in the same way, which reveals a huge international security flaw.

I think their backers decided to give it up after it became clear Psystar didn't keep any records of expenses or sales.

I'd expect that there would have been stories of "Bag Men" who literally handed the front men a few bags of cash. This is an attempt to disrupt banking records chains to obscure the true backers. However, this simply screams even louder that criminal ... not merely civil litigation ... charges apply, as well as all those things that Banking is supposed to have in place to prevent money-laundering from terrorists. Its tiresome to be beating this "terrorist" drum, but this does appear to be a very good test case to see if the banking system is able to track as well as they claim that it can, and since there is "Cause", there doesn't really appear to be any excuse to not go pursue the backers.

And the backers may be a bit nervous that their Psystar front men ...er, "Stooges"... aren't necessarily going to stay 100% willing to take the fall, and thus may squeal.

Motivationally, the ones who would have benefitted the most from this lawsuit (if Psytar won) would be an entity that doesn't make/own software EULA's, but uses them. The most obvious examples of this class are the PC manufacturers such as Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc.


-hh

 

[EmperorDarius]

I'm happy that those bastards are going down.

 

[charlituna]

So this may show my newbie status, but is it illegal to legally purchase a copy of OSX and put it on a non-apple computer? If so, how does that not fall under some sort of "monopoly"? I mean, when you boil it down, Apple assembles computer just like everyone else, with parts everyone else can buy too (leaving aside aesthetics off course...). Insight anyone?

by letter of the law, yes it is illegal for you to put the OS on a computer not created and sold by Apple. HOWEVER, if you do it for yourself in the spirit of learning and understanding etc in the privacy of your own home, you aren't likely to be sought out and punished. just like the folks that unlocked and jailbroke their phones for themselves.

it's when you take it to the masses and help others to break those rules that you get trouble. hacking the OS, jailbreaking a phone. these are violations of the DMCA, especially if you spread the means out into the world. or if you use it to make a profit. this is where Psystar resides.

on the monopoly issue. it would only be one if there was such a thing as a Mac Computer Market. there is not. this has been deemed by the courts. so Apple is safe on that one. this is why Psystar is trying to get the whole DMCA and End User thing overturned.

You know, that's really the interesting part of this: Apple could have come along at any point and directed their venom at the Hackintosh community or other small operators who tried to (or did/do) put OS X on non-Apple hardware.

yes they could have. but one person doing something for himself as a personal experiment is not a threat. Psystar is another kettle of fish. they are trying to make money off the hack, flouting standing laws etc. if they wanted to be competition they should have done it the right way. not by stealing the answers off someone else's test and walking out with a perfect score

What was stolen? The software wasn't purchased? I was with the understanding every computer they sold had a fully paid for copy of OS X.

so they claim. but they lack the receipts to prove it.

 

[macUser2007]

...
so they claim. but they lack the receipts to prove it.

But if they produced the receipts, would you then shut up about it?

 

[bartzilla]

Thanks to everyone who took over for me in fighting this troll when I went to bed.
.

Yes. The internet really needs more and more pages on forums filled with pointless OS wars with trolls who aren't actually interested in real debate. Kudos to all of you who gave idiots a platform for airing idiotic ideas.

 

[charlituna]

QUESTION:

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

Psystar is NOT an End-User...

they are an unauthorized reseller who obtained copies of a software governed by an EULA, sold to EndUsers (not to resellers) and hacked it etc.

 

[dejo]

they are an unauthorized reseller who obtained copies of a software governed by an EULA, sold to EndUsers (not to resellers) and hacked it etc.

Please, please can we stop calling it a EULA! Yes, yes, it's pretty much the same purpose. But Mac OS X is licensed under a SLA (Software License Agreement) not a EULA. I suspect they have a very good reason for this different nomenclature. In that it covers more than just the end user. Like resellers, for instance.