Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[macUser2007]

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.

They sold a legally purchased copy of the OS, and also sold hardware, which worked with it. Tons of shops do the same with other OSs.

If you don't like, please do not buy it.

But why are you gloating because now others cannot buy it? Do you really think that less choice is somehow better for end-users, than more choice.

Also, do you really abide by every EULA for every product you've ever bought? If you did, you'd be the one and only perfect sucker.

 

[charlituna]

Oh really? Then by that logic (assuming I agree with it which I don't necessarily) Apple is guilty of abusing their monopoly

the market is Personal Computers. NOT Mac Computers. No monopoly for Apple to abuse.

Bill Gates was found guilty of including IE for free with all Windows OS!

again no. Microsoft was found guilty of cobbling non IE web browsers on their machines in order to force the use of IE.

also, have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

back at ya. have you read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca

in particular the parts about it being illegal to circumvent copyright protections. which is exactly what Psystar did in order to install the allegedly purchased retail disks into their machines. not to mention that they can't prove they bought and didn't shoplift said disks because they didn't have the records Apple requested.

 

[dejo]

They sold a legally purchased copy of the OS, and also sold hardware, which worked with it.

If that's all they did, fine. But they also installed the OS onto that hardware before shipping it. That's the crux.

 

[smurfjammer]

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

But they can't so they said in court.

 

[charlituna]

Yes! And so we have come full circle.

Hackintosh! It's legal for one end user who buys the hardware and buys the software and makes their own machine.

actually it isn't. the grey area is just that Apple isn't likely to come after you for doing it for yourself, especially when you aren't screaming to the hills that you did it.

Apple isn't against innovation and there are some folks that will play with the code in order to understand it and build software that works with it (which is then copyrighted, mass produced etc and that's how we get things like Toast etc). that is fine.

but it also not at all what Psystar was doing. which is why Apple balked

 

[-hh]

Apple is catering to people who just want to manage their photos, not get viruses and make movies.

So what? Is this illegal or deceptive?

Crayola caters to selling crayons to children who want to make colorful pictures, without having to get messy with fingerpaints or learn how to properly use a paintbrush. How naughty of them.

Apple is not advertising heavy duty movie editing or photoshopping.

And Microsoft isn't advertising "heavy duty" Pro/Engineer 3D CAD software.

That's a real shame, since every Mom & Pop that I talk to say that they need a PC to (1) read email; (2) surf the web; and (3) do the detailed design work for NASA for the next Space Shuttle.

Windows programs are far superior to their Mac alternatives, just read the reviews.

Please. Those of us who use both OS platforms on a daily basis have utterly no need to "Read Reviews".

(next post, continuing):

Apple is trying to target people with a $600 budget...

Quite an odd claim, considering that the facts are Apple is dominating the $1000+ market segment.

Apple is advertising a virus free OS that is best for your digital lifestyle - they shouldn't be advertising that with the prices they have.

That's up to the individual consumer to decide what its worth.

Personally, I have no qualms in dropping $500 to help improve the protection level on my personal data (risk of loss), since I know that it cost me far far more than that to generate it. Risk assessments are predicated upon both the Probability and the Consequence.


(YA even later post):

What is the problem with getting virus protection?

In a word, because: TANSTAAFL

Having to run any AV increases the system's overhead...which is a performance loss and thus, a productivity loss.

Of course, you can overcome this performance hit by buying a faster CPU, but that takes a money hit...and invariably, a battery life hit too - - There's no such thing as a free lunch.

So despite MS's attempts to convince us that there's no differences between OSs, the facts are that they are different...and these differences influence even seemingly simple hardware comparisons.

For example, consider the PC laptop comparison to a MacBook Pro we saw here: it was a simple hardware specifications comparison that assumed that the OSs were equals, so it was supposedly okay to compare a 2.4GHz C2D to a 2.4GHz C2D, etc.

But even for literally the same OS, changing only that the one is running AV software (to remain secure) and the other isn't, the TANSTAAFL principle says that there must be a cost ...somewhere... to pay.

Indeed. That 2.4GHz PC really isn't a 2.4GHz PC, but effectively is a much slower PC after the AV Overhead Tax has been paid. YMMV as to how slow, but by some AV studies, it can be estimated to be in the ballpark of a 25% hit.

Thus, that that 2.4GHz PC w/AV is only running at ~1.8GHz equivalent.


So if we're going to be honest and ask the question: "What's the Windows PC laptop equivalent that while its running AV protection can be considered comparable to the $1999 MacBook Pro?", then we're probably looking at a Core2Duo running at (2.4GHz/(1-.25)) = ~3GHz as a starting point.

Dell's website is underwhelming, but it looks like the Precision M4400 is a fairly comparable beast: it starts at $1498 for 2.4GHz, but several of its other hardware specs are short of the MBP: figure +$336 to equalize RAM, HD, Webcam, DVD-RW, 802.11n, Bluetooth (subtotal: $1,831) and then consider that its still another +$690 to get the X9100 CPU @ 3.06GHz (subtotal: $2,521).

Granted, a strength of having so many PC vendors is more choice in customizations, but even if you leave this PC laptop stripped (eg, 1GB RAM, 80GB HD), just the CPU bump alone ...for rough performance equivalance after AV Overhead Tax ... brings us up to $2,188.

The blunt reality is that when you pay less, you get less: TANSTAAFL.

What makes this all interesting is that it allows us one technique to identify one part of the overall "Microsoft Tax" with Windows. Here, it happens to be an extra $690 to bump up the CPU hardware to offset this estimated performance hit that mainstream commercial AV software imposes on the system.


-hh

 

[charlituna]

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

sorry but the Courts don't agree with you. on the issue that all tying is bad or that Apple's tying of the Operating System to the Hardware is bad. In fact the court has said that tying is not inherently bad and that Apple has all legal rights to tie their OS to particular hardware and it's not abusive.

now if they were setting up the OS so you couldn't use anything but iwork (no microsoft office, open office etc), that would be different. and would be essentially what the gates game tried with IE and Netscape back in the day

 

[charlituna]

They sold a legally purchased copy of the OS, and also sold hardware, which worked with it. Tons of shops do the same with other OSs.

no, they passed on a copy of the software they can't prove they bought, after violating standing laws to circumvent the copyrights.

If you don't like, please do not buy it.

not even if you paid me to do.

Also, do you really abide by every EULA for every product you've ever bought?

I will not make that claim. any more than I would claim that I have never downloaded something off a torrent site. but I don't act like I'm doing something great and noble and that I am not fully aware that I am breaking the rules.

 

[petedskier]

no, they passed on a copy of the software they can't prove they bought, after violating standing laws to circumvent the copyrights.
…

I think this claim is libelous. If Psystar charged a customer for an authentic copy of Apple's OS X that a customer did not receive, Psystar would be guilty of fraud. If a customer receives an authentic copy of OS X and Psystar cannot prove where they purchased it from, I think that would be poor business, but not illegal per se.

If someone has received a Psystar computer and it contained a pirated copy of OS X on it, then Psystar would have violated Apple's copyright.

I don't know what Psystar has done. Perhaps you could explain what laws they have violated.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think this claim is libelous. If Psystar charged a customer for an authentic copy of Apple's OS X that a customer did not receive, Psystar would be guilty of fraud. If a customer receives an authentic copy of OS X and Psystar cannot prove where they purchased it from, I think that would be poor business, but not illegal per se.

I don't know what Psystar has done. Perhaps you could explain what laws they have violated.

I don't mean this in a rude way, but perhaps you could read a few pages of this thread to avoid starting the argument all over again.

If someone has received a Psystar computer and it contained a pirated copy of OS X on it, then Psystar would have violated Apple's copyright.

That would be one thing that they have done illegally.

 

[Mal]

I think this claim is libelous. If Psystar charged a customer for an authentic copy of Apple's OS X that a customer did not receive, Psystar would be guilty of fraud. If a customer receives an authentic copy of OS X and Psystar cannot prove where they purchased it from, I think that would be poor business, but not illegal per se.

If someone has received a Psystar computer and it contained a pirated copy of OS X on it, then Psystar would have violated Apple's copyright.

I don't know what Psystar has done. Perhaps you could explain what laws they have violated.

Libel, huh? So now it's those that disagree with you who are breaking the law? Wow, really sinking to new depths here.

They haven't offered any proof of purchase, which is more than bad business practice, it's potentially crippling for a business, especially once they get sued over said software. They also have violated the law, until they can prove that their violation is actually covered under a different law. In other words, your claim that the other poster's comment is libelous is absolutely absurd.

jW

 

[smurfjammer]

If a customer receives an authentic copy of OS X and Psystar cannot prove where they purchased it from, I think that would be poor business, but not illegal per se.

But they can't prove that they legally purchased a copy of OS X (no records) or show who bought their machines (no records) so no proof.

 

[macUser2007]

But they can't prove that they legally purchased a copy of OS X (no records) or show who bought their machines (no records) so no proof.

Again, would you shut up, if there were records produced of legitimate OS purchases? Or are you just doing you shill-ing?

It is more likely that they didn't WANT to disclose this to Apple, since there are most likely third parties involved. They may or may not have been the John Doe defendants named in the Apple suit.

Apple was using discovery to burry Psystar under a mountain of legal fees.

Frankly, if Palm was a smaller outfit, Apple would have done it to them for using gestures in the Pre. But Palm is better funded, so Apple just rattled the saber, then backed off. Apple is known as one of the more litigious companies in the industry, and not always for good cause.

 

[smurfjammer]

Again, would you shut up, if there were records produced of legitimate OS purchases? Or are you just doing you shill-ing?

It is more likely that they didn't WANT to disclose this to Apple, since there are most likely third parties involved. They may or may not have been the John Doe defendants named in the Apple suit.

Apple was using discovery to burry Psystar under a mountain of legal fees.

Frankly, if Palm was a smaller outfit, Apple would have done it to them for using gestures in the Pre.

They have stated in court that they lost some of their records moving into their current office space and can't product any financial records (even though they have them electronically) why can't you understand that.

 

[petedskier]

I don't mean this in a rude way, but perhaps you could read a few pages of this thread to avoid starting the argument all over again.

If Psystar charged customers for something they didn't deliver, that would be fraud. To accuse someone of fraud would be libelous, no?

If Psystar pirated OS X, that would violate Apple's copyright. To allege that Psystar has been involved in piracy would also be libelous, no?

Those seem pretty specific allegations and if someone has already shown them to be true, I guess I missed it.

Are there any Psystar users out there that can enlighten us as to whether Psystar has committed fraud, piracy, or both?

 

[petedskier]

Are there any Psystar users out there that can enlighten us as to whether Psystar has committed fraud, piracy, or both?

That is you paid for OS X and all you got was a fake looking DVD (fraud and piracy), nothing (fraud and piracy), or it was free (piracy)?

 

[smurfjammer]

Apple was using discovery to burry Psystar under a mountain of legal fees.

Yet Psystar is the one with all the delaying tactics.. multiple counter claims, lost documents.

 

[macUser2007]

They have stated in court that they lost some of their records moving into their current office space and can't product any financial records (even though they have them electronically) why can't you understand that.

And why can't you understand my statement, that:

"It is more likely that they didn't WANT to disclose this to Apple, since there are most likely third parties involved. They may or may not have been the John Doe defendants named in the Apple suit."

And that Apple was using discovery to bury Psystar. And that Apple would do this to anyone they can.

And that Apple "steals" ideas too, and sometimes gets sued, and sometimes settles.

Competition is a good thing for consumers, even if some of the "faithful" want their deity to stay pure.

If Apple doesn't produce a netbook or a tablet next month, it would be nice if someone else sold kits running OS X.

The only reason we have Boot Camp is, that the hackers broke Apple's hold on the hardware. And the World hasn't ended.

 

[smurfjammer]

And why can't you understand my statement, that:

"It is more likely that they didn't WANT to disclose this to Apple, since there are most likely third parties involved. They may or may not have been the John Doe defendants named in the Apple suit."

And that Apple was using discovery to bury Psystar. And that Apple would do this to anyone they can.

And that Apple "steals" ideas too, and sometimes gets sued, and sometimes settles.

Competition is a good thing for consumers, even if some of the "faithful" want their deity to stay pure.

If Apple doesn't produce a netbook or a tablet next month, it would be nice if someone else sold kits running OS X.

The only reason we have Boot Camp is, that the hackers broke Apple's hold on the hardware. And the World hasn't ended.

There already is a Tablet available (the ModBook) with is authorised by Apple and they are going to have to release who John Doe is now that they are bankrupt. Your rantings about competition have no fact to them as you obivously don't know what competition is... iPod vs Zune - competition, Xbox 360 vs PS3 - competition, Dell vs Apple - competition, stealing someone's OS and selling it - not competition.

 

[dejo]

It is more likely that they didn't WANT to disclose this to Apple, since there are most likely third parties involved. They may or may not have been the John Doe defendants named in the Apple suit.

It is more likely? According to whom? How does losing receipts and orders even protect the identities of third parties? And even if they "lost" documents for the sole purpose of protecting those parties, that would seem to be another illegal act: destroying records to protect the guilty.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

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

The fact they are advertising to the average consumer, when Apple does not offer cheap products but overpriced products. It would be like Ferrari advertising on American Idol, saying "It takes you from point A to B."

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?

The argument is weak.

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

Apple includes more useless programs in OS X than Microsoft does with Vista.

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

NINE POINT SEVEN THREE.

And what's their source? I didn't know 8 million was 9.73% of 260 million.... I thought it would be more around 22-25 million.

There are billions upon billions of Windows machines, and you are saying OS X has 10% of billions? LOL!!!

It would melt.

For Macs, yes, because Apple cannot make cool laptops (which is why they are notorious for heating up).

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

Console = 1 or 2 configurations to play video games. Computers do thousands of tasks.

Why not compare toasters? Both plug in a wall!

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.

2015 and later? I'd say 2010 at the most.

Optical discs are dead and only fanboys think they will survive in a couple years. Even Apple knows optical discs are done.

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

Just like CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray are on the way out.

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.

In 2001 Apple had at least a little morality. Apple lost all innovation when it switched to Intel.

 

[macUser2007]

It is more likely? According to whom? How does losing receipts and orders even protect the identities of third parties? And even if they "lost" documents for the sole purpose of protecting those parties, that would seem to be another illegal act: destroying records to protect the guilty.

You are a genius!

 

[macUser2007]

... Your rantings about competition have no fact to them as you obivously don't know what competition is... ..., stealing someone's OS and selling it - not competition.

Actually, your definition of competition is rather simplistic.

But just for the sake of argument, if a whole industry has adopted an OS as the de-facto standard, it doesn't really matter that such OS accounts for only 10% of total OS sales in the country. In such industry, the OS maker has a monopoly, and the government will generally take it into account.

And as for "stealing," what proof do you have that they "stole" the OS?

Apple certainly didn't have proof, or they would have shown it. Or does being an Apple shill give you the right to imply and lie, when it helps you?

 

[smurfjammer]

Apple certainly didn't have proof

Neither does Pystar that's the problem...and personal attacks & name calling because you're not getting your own way isn't clever.

 

[BaldiMac]

If Psystar charged customers for something they didn't deliver, that would be fraud. To accuse someone of fraud would be libelous, no?

If Psystar pirated OS X, that would violate Apple's copyright. To allege that Psystar has been involved in piracy would also be libelous, no?

Those seem pretty specific allegations and if someone has already shown them to be true, I guess I missed it.

Are there any Psystar users out there that can enlighten us as to whether Psystar has committed fraud, piracy, or both?

Psystar isn't denying that they have committed piracy ("unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material"). They are simply trying to justify copying and distributing OS X without authorization.