Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

[celtikmind]

F your I, stealing intellectual property, modifying it, and selling it for a profit without paying the company that owns the intellectual property is also illegal...

...I'm going to say in most countries.

Of course it is, but that doesn't change anything for Apple's EULA being legal or not. There are other parts in an EULA as well, no?

But those are also generally countries that don't give two ***** about a creator's rights when it comes to intellectual properties. They make the US comic book industry look generous.

Are you a real lawyer or the arm-chair one? Check my answer above.

Only gave you the heads up so no reason for you to go off like that. Like I said, I don't know the details on why it's illegal. Just know it is.

Not like we haven't been claimed to be barbarians before...

 

[Veri]

Is there anyone here at all, out of interest, who defends a legal system where you can lose a case / be driven to bankruptcy because you run out of money for legal representation?

I can't think of justice less blind than one which makes it possible to overpower your adversary simply because you have more money. It doesn't matter one bit whether Psystar are morally right or wrong, the law should be such that any man of reasonable intelligence stands able to defend himself in court.

Or, looked at from a different angle, what is actually so hard about defending oneself in a US civil case? What legal skills are needed that couldn't possibly be learnt by a group of intelligent laymen over a few months? Is Apple intending to win on a multitude of obscure technicalities which would only be familiar to a gaggle of experienced lawyers?

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.

Not that they'd likely be backing Psystar, but the FSF
(i) is probably the greatest contributor to OS X outside Apple itself, what with its work on gcc'n'all;
(ii) despises EULAs;
(iii) sells software - just because they are happy for you to copy it, it doesn't mean they don't also sell official copies and accept donations in kind.

Also, has everyone here who defends Apple because they believe Apple is morally entitled to payment for its work also contributed to the FSF for the FSF's contribution toward OS X? Just want to make sure that people aren't just being "legit" because they're afraid to get caught, and actually do it because they believe in paying people for their work.

 

[0098386]

Good. I believe if you want to make a non-Mac branded OSX running computer you should jolly well build your own. Psystar just seemed cheap to me, like the kind of company I wouldn't trust sending my money to in exchange for a computer. Meh.
I still believe OSX's real competition is going to come from Microsoft once Win 7 is out.

 

[Fitty Cent]

We are happy because their crap products failed.

Because a machine with better performance at a cheaper price is always a "crap" product. God forbid you should be able to have some hardware choices .

 

[celtikmind]

You do realize that Apple does employ lawyers, right? As far as I know, Apple's SLA has never been found to be illegal in any country.

Of course, there are some countries where the enforceability of SLAs that are agreed to after purchase is in question.

That might be it, as I've said do a search. I can't give you a more detail answer. I'm a Mac-user, not a judge.

 

[macUser2007]

...Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of....
Try again.

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.

 

[celtikmind]

Is there anyone here at all, out of interest, who defends a legal system where you can lose a case / be driven to bankruptcy because you run out of money for legal representation?

Me? Never. But it seems very possible to do in the States?

Good. I believe if you want to make a non-Mac branded OSX running computer you should jolly well build your own. Psystar just seemed cheap to me, like the kind of company I wouldn't trust sending my money to in exchange for a computer. Meh.
I still believe OSX's real competition is going to come from Microsoft once Win 7 is out.

You got my vote.

 

[accumulator]

How the consumer wins

Can a fanboy tell me how the consumer wins in this case?

I don't know if I qualify as a "fanboy". But here's why the consumer wins. Let's assume that Psystar sells crappy knockoff computers running Apple's Mac OSX. Let's further assume that Apple doesn't make as much money when one of those computers is sold as they do when an Apple-branded machine is sold. So far, so good?

First: Apple is having that money stolen from them - their intellectual property is being used to benefit some other company, in violation of the law. Long term: If psystar and others succeed at doing this, then Apple's revenues drop, and Apple has less money to pour into R&D, and OS X stops being as much better than alternative options because there's less investment in it.

Second: Apple is justifiably worried that people will get a bad impression of Mac OS X because it's running on some crappy hardware that is not well integrated with the software, lacks support for various features, and can't be updated. Apple is concerned that an uninformed consumer would blame APPLE for the fact that their Psystar POS is flaking out on them. They have a bad experience, and associate that bad experience with Apple. They tell all their friends that Mac OS X is crap and that their machine doesn't work right and lost all their data (or [insert other complaint here]). Apple wants Psystar to cease and desist because Apple's good name is being placed in jeopardy by actions taken by another firm. Consumers benefit from the knowledge that if they buy something running Mac OS X, Apple will stand behind it, so the consumer knows that it works. Again, this puts Apple in a position where it loses revenue, which means less money for OS X development, so we all suffer.

 

[windywoo]

So... what part of:
and that the majority of the population doesn't give a flying frig that they have a limited number of configurations so long as their computer works

... don't you understand?

But the majority of the population use Windows, so clearly they couldn't give a frig about nice looking overpriced PCs either.

 

[machomer]

They have competition... they are just a long way ahead of it all.

Nicely put, Apple's products are so widely accepted for its simplicity and ease of use, the competition is leaps and bounds behind

 

[windywoo]

Second: Apple is justifiably worried that people will get a bad impression of Mac OS X because it's running on some crappy hardware.

They should stop making iMacs and Mac Minis then.

 

[smurfjammer]

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.

They only go after companies that use their copyright/trademark/intellectual property, you just need to look at the ModBook who has Apple's permission to alter and sell Apple laptops.

 

[*LTD*]

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.

Psystar innovated nothing. Nothing. They're ripoff artists. What could they possibly innovate? Running Apple's own OS on junk boxes?

The competition doesn't innovate when it infringes on Apple's products and their rights under IP law.

And Apple isn't "evil." There's no such thing, unless your name is Sam and your friend's name is Frodo. Apple is simply doing what any other company in their right mind would do: protect their rights under the law and enforce them whenever possible. Anyone who depends on IP law in order to make a living would do the same (i.e., Font designers, software writers, etc.)

 

[Krevnik]

But now we won't get to see if it was legal or not. They didn't break a law they broke the EULA which they were contesting in court. The judge ruled that they should be allowed to make a case, indicating that he didn't entirely agree with Apple's EULA.

EULAs generally fall under contract law / copyright law. "By following these rules, we grant you a license to use a copy of this product" is the name of the game with a EULA. Contract law and copyright law do give copyright owners and those who entered into a contract a means to find relief if one party violates copyright law, or violates the rules of the contract. Also, remember that the GPL is a EULA, using contract/copyright law to the advantage of the OSS community. It is also fairly open in nature, and as such, less likely to run afoul of the problems below. But for the GPL portion of the OSS community to thrive and enforce its principles, EULAs need to be enforceable on some level.

Usually were EULAs break down is if they have rules that cannot be followed without breaking local law (which can plague any contract), or those rules are specifically prohibited by local law. Another issue is if the purchaser buys the product, sees the EULA and decides not to be bound by it, and then cannot seek a refund from the seller and the seller auto-assumes the buyer entered the contract. Coercion into contracts is bad, and can get the contract rendered null and void depending on your local law. This is a fairly hotly contested area of law right now (what renders a EULA null and void and what doesn't, and why, and if bad clauses invalidate the entire contract, or just the clause, and what jurisdictions does that happen in).

The judge saying Psystar can make a case doesn't mean that he has an opinion at that point, but rather that Psystar may have a legal leg to stand on. If there is valid reason to hear the argument, it must be heard. If someone comes in and their claim is basically gibberish, the judge is within his/her right to dismiss the case right then and there. But as law can get murky, a lot of cases do get heard regardless of the judge's personal opinion (which shouldn't even enter the equation, if the judge is good at what they do). SCO's own lawsuit against IBM was ridiculous, but it had to be heard, because there may have been a legal leg to stand on, and it wouldn't have become even remotely clear until after the discovery phase.

I personally would have bet money that Apple's winning the case would have hinged on the fact that Psystar was pre-installing OS X on machines. Doing so would have meant Psystar was entering the contract on the buyer's behalf. If Apple's EULA clause that it needs to be installed on hardware that they brand is valid, then Psystar violated the contract on behalf of the buyer and could very likely be held liable for that violation.

 

[Theclamshell]

netbook

I was a little excited to see a pystar netbook
but all the way

 

[windywoo]

EULAs generally fall under contract law / copyright law. "By following these rules, we grant you a license to use a copy of this product" is the name of the game with a EULA. Contract law and copyright law do give copyright owners and those who entered into a contract a means to find relief if one party violates copyright law, or violates the rules of the contract. Also, remember that the GPL is a EULA, using contract/copyright law to the advantage of the OSS community. It is also fairly open in nature, and as such, less likely to run afoul of the problems below. But for the GPL portion of the OSS community to thrive, EULAs need to be enforceable on some level.

Usually were EULAs break down is if they have rules that cannot be followed without breaking local law (which can plague any contract), or those rules are specifically prohibited by local law. Another issue is if the purchaser buys the product, sees the EULA and decides not to be bound by it, and then cannot seek a refund from the seller and the seller auto-assumes the buyer entered the contract. Coercion into contracts is bad, and can get the contract rendered null and void depending on your local law. This is a fairly hotly contested area of law right now (what renders a EULA null and void and what doesn't, and why, and if bad clauses invalidate the entire contract, or just the clause, and what jurisdictions does that happen in).

The judge saying Psystar can make a case doesn't mean that he has an opinion at that point, but rather that Psystar may have a legal leg to stand on. If there is valid reason to hear the argument, it must be heard. If someone comes in and their claim is basically gibberish, the judge is within his/her right to dismiss the case right then and there. But as law can get murky, a lot of cases do get heard regardless of the judge's personal opinion (which shouldn't even enter the equation, if the judge is good at what they do). SCO's own lawsuit against IBM was ridiculous, but it had to be heard, because there may have been a legal leg to stand on, and it wouldn't have become even remotely clear until after the discovery phase.

I personally would have bet money that Apple's winning the case would have hinged on the fact that Psystar was pre-installing OS X on machines. Doing so would have meant Psystar was entering the contract on the buyer's behalf. If Apple's EULA clause that it needs to be installed on hardware that they brand is valid, then Psystar violated the contract on behalf of the buyer and could very likely be held liable for that violation.

Thanks for the legal clarification, I was trying to say something along the lines of "The judge had an open mind" not that he supported Psystar or was against Apple.

 

[zombitronic]

Point taken.

Make it something like ram or hdd then. I guess the bottom line is that if it was originally purchased from apple, then you can swap out whatever you want and still be "legal"?

RAM and Hard Drives are exceptions since those components are considered user replaceable (on certain models) and upgradeable by Apple (they do not disallow their replacement). They are still contained in the overall package of what a Mac is. Now, if we start talking about parts not considered replaceable (not on a 1:1 basis at least), then we start not calling it a Mac. Apple's branding is what allows them to determine what can be used in a Mac and what a Mac is made up of. It doesn't just consist of "everything and only what is in the case". Its just not that simple.

A Mac's motherboard has the firmware needed to boot OS X. The firmware contains specific code that is created, owned and sold by Apple only in conjunction with an Apple computer. There is no legal way to obtain this firmware without buying an Apple motherboard. It is NOT sold separately from the hardware, so the argument that you can buy OS X by itself does not apply to the firmware needed to boot OS X.

If you were to buy an Apple motherboard and put it in your own case with your own RAM, hard drive, etc., it seems to me that you'd be installing Mac OS X on a genuine Apple branded computer, since the official firmware is step one in the startup process. Then again, you'd have to purchase an Apple motherboard, which isn't cheap.

Quote:
"When you power on your Mac, even before it starts a "real" operating system, the firmware acts as a mini operating system with just enough software to get things going. Specifically, your Mac's firmware tests and initializes the hardware, and then locates and starts the system software booter."

 

[_Refurbished_]

They should stop making iMacs and Mac Minis then.

Sort of. Apple's philosophy is more than just speed and state-of-the-art hardware. Sure, an iMac won't win any speed competitions, but it has many benefits over standard tower PCs. Apple will sacrifice speed for design, ease-of-use, and convenience. Since most of the population does NOT need to be able to hit 20,000 on a 3dMark test, the iMac is a great computer for the general public.

 

[skottichan]

Of course it is, but that doesn't change anything for Apple's EULA being legal or not. There are other parts in an EULA as well, no?



Are you a real lawyer or the arm-chair one? Check my answer above.

Only gave you the heads up so no reason for you to go off like that. Like I said, I don't know the details on why it's illegal. Just know it is.

Not like we haven't been claimed to be barbarians before...

Actually, I've been on the infringed side of the Intellectual Law system. It's illegal because it is a simple "create all you want, you don't have the right to tell people they can't do with things you create".

 

[macUser2007]

...We are happy because their crap products failed.

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.

 

[3.1416]

No, BMW is not gonna sue you; just like Apple has not sued an an individual for creating a Hackinstosh. But if someone opened up shop for "BMW Engine - Now Available in The KIA Sportage!!" - I would hazard a guess that BMW make take small issue with that.

It's not at all clear that BMW could do anything about that, assuming the engines were legitimately acquired and accurately described. Intellectual property is not a blanket prohibition on using products in any way the manufacturer doesn't approve of.

I get the feeling that many of Apple's defenders are on the other side when the RIAA tries to pull stuff like this. After all, you don't own the music on a CD that you buy, just a "license to listen", so they should be able to prohibit ripping to iPods or selling used CDs, right?

 

[Veri]

Psystar innovated nothing. Nothing. They're ripoff artists. What could they possibly innovate? Running Apple's own OS on junk boxes?

Name me three features of any single Apple product that were invented within Apple rather than an integration of external R&D.

 

[Krevnik]

Thanks for the legal clarification, I was trying to say something along the lines of "The judge had an open mind" not that he supported Psystar or was against Apple.

Well, don't take it as legal advice, IANAL. But, there are some basics that people tend to ignore (or abstract away, if you will) when dealing with contracts/EULAs/etc...

One contested area is shrinkwrap EULAs (which Apple's belongs to), and how enforceable they are because you have to open the shrinkwrap before you can agree to the EULA and enter the contract. Especially if the other party then jumps through hoops to prevent you from getting a refund if you disagree with the EULA and decide not to enter the contract.

There is just so much there than you can cover, it would be hard to not let Psystar make a case to defend itself. The devil is in the details, and there are a lot of details that don't have a lot of precedent.

 

[*LTD*]

Sort of. Apple's philosophy is more than just speed and state-of-the-art hardware. Sure, an iMac won't win any speed competitions, but it has many benefits over standard tower PCs. Apple will sacrifice speed for design, ease-of-use, and convenience. Since most of the population does NOT need to be able to hit 20,000 on a 3dMark test, the iMac is a great computer for the general public.

I have no idea who needs those ridiculous amounts of speed other than GAMERS. Not even Final Cut Pro and other Pro apps require that much, and for Pros who use that software, there's the Mac Pro and 17-inch MBP.

Much of this clamouring for highest-end hardware in Macs is simply the desire to one-up the kid in his basement next door. It's hardly a reflection of what the general userbase is most concerned about.

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. Mac sales are experiencing among the smallest contraction in the entire industry in this recession. So the vocal minority (and they're a small minority) is really just misrepresenting the situation, as usual. They have no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[macUser2007]

They only go after companies that use their copyright/trademark/intellectual property....

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....