Psystar Halts Sales of Mac Clones, Plans Legal Appeal

[pdjudd]

I'm pretty sure that if you buy a mac and mod it into some other form factor, no one will have a beef with you. If you do this as a business model, the copyright issue would undoubtedly be moot by the first sale doctrine. The issue would only be trademark at that point. There have been trademark cases on this issue in other industries (buying used printer cartridges and refilling them, buying old cars and reselling them, etc.) Case law has mixed results depending on facts.

I agree with that. The only issue is Trademark which is something that all companies have to be wary of though.

 

[kzin]

Not to nitpick, but the modbook uses a Macbook, not a Mini.

I wasn't referring to the modbook in that case. I was referring to a DIY apple tablet, that used a mac-mini as its starting point.

We might have to agree to disagree here.

Most likely, yes.

I propose different terms because of the legal problems of copyright infringement. Axitron for example is not guilty of that - but if you have to modify Apple's protection code or you are violating their license intent - that's bad.

You'll get sued for your actions, not the name of your hobby

 

[nookster]

And all they got was a popular name. Those guys (assuming the deal goes through) aren't going to get that much. As of September, there has been no sale. Not too many people think that it will ever happen.

Even if it does go though, half of that is going to go to pay off their current legal fees to one government. PB can still be sued.

If it does, kudos to them, if not, then kudos for the publicity.

The site is still running, and they even have time to promote indie films and contribute to such works as Steal This Film, whilst smelling the roses along the way.

As much as it sticks in the throat of some, I seriously can't see them going on the breadline anytime soon.

 

[pdjudd]

I wasn't referring to the modbook in that case. I was referring to a DIY apple tablet, that used a mac-mini as its starting point.

Interesting - never heard about it until now.

You'll get sued for your actions, not the name of your hobby

Right. The law doesn't care about the name. However in discussions, what we call things is very important especially when they have legal implications. When you are starting off with Apple hardware, no matter what you do, it still is a mod - your intentions are pure. The problem is that hackintoshing has a lot of black elements when you consider the licensing violations that are rampant - Almost to the point where its the defining characteristic of the project. That's why I propose a black and white distinction - if you start with Apple hardware - whatever isn't an upgrade is a mod. Whatever you do to it (make it into a tablet, put it into another tower), as long as you start off with a real mac, the term "mod" works just fine. Anything else is just a fake mac - I don't see that taking off, but the legal actions against hackintoshing taints the whole thing.

The same thing works for other things like speech. When we want to refer to speech that is the basis for legal action, we call it specific things like "libel" or "perjury" and so on versus opining, speculating, and so on.

I say at the very least we should have two categories - one for legal activities and one for not so legal activities. We can subdivide them if we want, but we should not mix them around otherwise we have massive confusion.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I would imagine Psystar riding into town not on a horse, but a donkey.

Well, they are a bunch of asses thinking they could even remotely get away with such stupidity.

 

[djgamble]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9530/4.7.0.109 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

So how can psystar afford more potential law suits when they have only sold 768 machines?
2.7 million $ and 768 machines. Hmm..

Somebody's funding them...
M$ or Dell maybe?

 

[pdjudd]

Somebody's funding them...

1) There has not been any naming of John Does in any of the recent rulings. If there is no identification, legally they don’t exist.

2) People have demonstrated that they can run businesses the size of Psystar with similar staff and similar finances with nothing but their credit cards and bank loans. The only thing that Psystar has that these guys don’t is the lack of intelligence on their methods, bad lawyers to defend them (practically no payment upfront) and their arrogance toward the law, Those things require no money much less backers

M$ or Dell maybe?

Even if we do argue the possibility, we can eliminate Dell - they would have backed off the minute Psystar presented their utterly stupid legal strategy that any IP or copyright expert (much less anybody with a smattering of a legal degree) would know was folly. Second, Dell has gone on the record of selling “Macs” - only with the explicit blessing of Apple. That would predicate them from supporting a company that would do just the opposite - especially when a company like Dell knows that they could be named as an accessory - one that unlike Psystar - they could face big fines.

Microsoft would be the last group of people to sponsor these Jerks. The idea is ridiculous on it’s face:
1) Why would they want competition in the market by loosing their hardware partners?
2) Microsofts entire business strategy is based on software licenses and their ability to dictate their terms to businesses and individuals. Were Pystar to win, that business model would cripple MS’s ability to license their software.

In other words, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

We do know that they tried to get venture funding by claiming that they would sell millions of systems - but there is no evidence that anybody bought that sales pitch for a minute.

Unfortunately, unless anybody comes out, which is unlikely to happen given the summary judgement and settlement only named Psystar and nobody else and the minute that the appeals fail its finalized, we have to assume that they fund themselves like any entrepreneur does. The idea of mysterious backers is fun to speculate on, like any good conspiracy, those pesky lacks of evidence make it something that we have to reject until we have names.

I can claim John Does guilt in any number of things real or imagined, but without names or any proof of their actual existence, you cannot take such claims seriously. That’s why they are so common in lawsuits - you cast a big net should you get lucky and it’s easy to do.

 

[iigsie]

Have we seen any evidence that Psystar, Inc. is anything more that one idiot with a dream?

Legal bills don't have to be huge. Inventory was trivial. A/R was non-existent.

It's the only story I can think of: one idiot who thought he had found a way to beat "The System".

If you're right, then that particular idiot does deserve some respect for going up against the big guys. Power to the people and all....

 

[iigsie]

if I don't want anybody to come in through the back door, then I make sure it's secure with a good security system installed. If I have a door made of balsa wood surely I'm inviting someone to walk through it, but that's another argument. Psystar is still morally wrong, but he's the small guy so I'm siding with him on principle.