Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Files Suit Against Psystar

Posted by kdawson on from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.

Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussing Psystar from the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.

6 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. It's mildly shocking... by adder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!

    1. Re:It's mildly shocking... by Sandbags · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).

      The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.

      I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).

      Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...

      besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)

      I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
  2. Not a bad business model... by BUL2294 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Create a line of Mac clones.
    2. Sell them to an unwitting public.
    3. Have Apple file suit.
    4. Pay bonuses to all the execs.
    5. Declare bankruptcy.
    6. Shut down all operations.

    Guess what... Everyone who bought a Psystar is left totally unsupported (which includes the all-important security hole fixes) and the execs made a bundle... Now, could Apple go after the execs personally for copyright infringement or (the soon-to-be-defunct) Psystar? Ironically, there was no consumer fraud here--businesses go under all the time and anyone who bought a Psystar would have had to know that Apple wouldn't support them...

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  3. Re:No surprise by drspliff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It takes a lot of preparation for them to reach this point and file proceedings, consider:

      * exec hears about it, if it were Microsoft chairs would be thrown
      * passed to the legal team to see if Apple have a case
      * legal sign off
      * paralegals do the groundwork, scrutinizing the EULA etc.
      * ...
      * ...
      * case is filed in court?

    In the past I've tried bringing legal action for trademark infringement, and the whole process just to get things started can take months and months especially if you're in a large organization with N-layers of forms & approvals required for anything like this.

  4. Re:Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go. by frission · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a little more to it now. It sounds more like they're suing because they took the Leopard update, opened it up, modified files in it, and re-released it for themselves. I think they're considering that a copyright infringement.

  5. Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir by revscat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And finally, how successful would OS/X be if Apple sold it as software for any platform, Microsoft-style? It would be earth-shakingly successful, probably garnering 50% marketshare within one year. And probably making 10x more money than they do now.

    They tried that before. It didn't work out too well. Also, you're wrong.

    One of the strengths of OS X is that it runs on a limited, well-understood suite of hardware. Bugs are easier to fix, components are easier to tweak, and new features are more easily added. I do not, and never have, believed that Apple would be well served by opening up OS X. It's a tightly run ship (for the most part), and opening it up to all hardware would serve neither Apple nor end users.