“This past August, embattled clonemaker Psystar filed a complaint in the state of Florida seeking a ruling from the court which would allow them to sell copies of copies of Snow Leopard on its own hardware. In addition, Psystar is also seeking an injunction against Apple that would preclude them from tying OS X to Apple hardware on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly in the market for premium computers,” Edible Apple reports.
“Last week, Psystar amended their complaint to include their recently released Rebel EFI software. Their new complaint also includes a new argument which purports to prove that its actions aren’t in violation of copyright laws because they’re not modifying OS X, but merely bundling OS X with their own proprietary software,” Edible Apple reports. “Psystar, in essence, is arguing that it’s not tinkering with any OS X source code, but that it merely writes software designed to extend the functionality of OS X, just like a third-party web browser or a word processor.”
Edible Apple reports, “It’s some crafty legal maneuvering, to be sure, but it’s an argument that ultimately fails for a number of reasons.”
Full article here.
Still wondering — who is actually funding this Psystar circus, anyhoo ?
Why does it take so long for the legal system to work?
I know some Italian guys who will bundle a knife and some concrete shoes with anyone ya like!
“Still wondering — who is actually funding this Psystar circus, anyhoo ?”
___________
Well my thought is it’s certainly not Microsoft… I was surprised a few weeks ago with the MDN poll how many people thought MS was behind Psystar.. But seriously, why would MS want to encourage OSX use on generic PC’s? That would only mean more competition for Microsoft..
“Also, it’s quite obvious Psystar is patently arguing out of both sides of its mouth. It first asserts that it’s software runs innocently on top of OS X, just like any other program. But then it admits that it works around Apple’s security measures, as opposed to every other program.”
Maybe some USA legal-types can enlighten me;
Does Psystar’s flip-flop-flapping on the hook at the end of the line impress a judge in the USA legal system, or does it irritate said judge and show the defendant in a negative light with a porous defense?
Lawyers and weasel words.
Big surprise there.
When will these assholes fade into oblivion?
@NHL
Not all of the cases are taking place in the same court. They’re arguing different points in different jurisdictions. Weasels…
@ MikeK – But seriously, why would MS want to encourage OSX use on generic PC’s?
1) Because Microsoft’s business model only works if you’re handed a software monopoly to start with, as happened in the PC world with IBM. Without that monopoly position, there’s no way Apple would have a profitable business model for OS-only sales.
2) Because Microsoft knows Apple wouldn’t just sit idly by. They know Apple would be forced to employ software tactics to more tightly bind OS X to their own hardware. This would not only take Apple’s time and attention away from other things, but would also most likely cause incompatibility problems resulting in upset users (with the flames being fanned by MS astroturfers).
I don’t believe Microsoft is the driving force behind Psystar, but I certainly wouldn’t rule them out as a participant.
“Psystar is also seeking an injunction against Apple that would preclude them from tying OS X to Apple hardware on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly in the market for premium computers,” Edible Apple reports.”
Wouldn’t that be something? A judicial ruling that Apple has a monopoly on *premium computers*! That would make Monkeyboy throw a chair or two, at the least.
It won’t happen. While we believe that Apple sells *the* premium computer and OS on the planet, there are other high performance workstations available. It is not a monopoly. Psystar and their contingency lawyers are a complete and utter joke.
I think Apple is just giving these assholes enough rope to hang them selves. I think it is entertaining at best because they will never be viable, even if they win. Who aside from us Mac geeks even know about these clowns.
Ugh. This case needs a major dose of Valtrex – it just won’t go away!!!
Groklaw.com has been making the argument, quite convincingly, that the people behind Psystar actually are targeting open-source software. Many of the EULA features that Psystar disputes as illegal are the basis for how the GPL is enforced.
I just don’t understand why Psystar is allowed to continue their business while all this is going on, why Apple doesn’t request an injunction, and why nobody thinks this is odd.
——RM
I’ve got a couple of guys on speed dial that would take care of the situation.
If you want it to look like an accident, it will cost extra.
@ clinicaltechmaster
“Why does it take so long for the legal system to work?”
In the case of music piracy it hardly seems to work at all. Funnily enough, most people seem to think that’s a good thing.
Follow the money! Just *who* is bankrolling this tomfoolery?
Is anyone actually buying this stuff (computers) from Psystar?
clinicaltechmaster asks, “Why does it take so long for the legal system to work?”
An experience serving on a jury years ago suggests that once the process starts, it takes its own sweet time irrespective of anything taking place outside that court room. After eight days waiting to be assigned to a jury, I was empaneled on a petty theft case involving $20 snatched out of a woman’s hand.
The accused refused to plead, so we went through the hours involved in picking the jury, attorney statements, a few more hours of testimony, then – after consultation between judge and attorneys – about 20 minutes of jury instruction before our deliberation. Just consider how much time and money was involved for all concerned. All over $20. (FYI, we quickly found him guilty.)
I amused at the fact folks don;t seem to realize that everyday Psystar is around is one more chink in the Apple armour. They they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on – they’d be gone by now.
Fun sort of David and Goliath thing playing out.
“why would MS want to encourage OSX use on generic PC’s? That would only mean more competition for Microsoft..”
Maybe because since anyone could sell OSX on any commodity box…it would kill the Macintosh, due to competition with cheaper hardware.
Apple need to defend this but it probably isn’t hurting their business. However if the hacks become common ala Compaq cloning IBM PCs then they could be in a bag of hurt.
Remember when Apple allowed clone makers to license the Mac OS. Apple thought they would go for the low end market. Instead they compete in the high end arena where the margins were best.
Obviously Apple’s industry design would still capture a lot of people but the problem would be that they could lose market share and hurt their profit margin. Apple are at a critical point where every point of share reduces their cost of goods and makes them able to squeeze out competitors with superior product at lower prices.
Clone makers would put crap together but with fast processors and sell it cheaper than Apple
I amused at the fact folks don;t seem to realize that everyday Psystar is around is one more chink in the Apple armour. They they didn’t have a legal leg to stand on – they’d be gone by now.
they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. but it is one thing for Apple, us and a bunch of lawyers to say it. it needs a judge and/or jury to say it to give it the weight of law. And Apple needs to go through all of this to protect themselves against later Psystars
Pystar: Please. Go. Away.
Hey Thanks for this! I found lots that are very useful to me such as Anika presents Reuse. It’s good to make some gifts for your friends during some festive season!
accident claim company