Slashdot Mirror
Apple Believes Someone Is Behind Psystar
rgraham writes "From the article on Growler: 'Apple apparently believes that somebody else is behind Psystar, which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case; also why Psystar has been so bold in continuing to sell its products. I knew this thing felt funny. As Alice in Wonderland might put it, "It gets interestinger and interestinger."'"
That's all the amended filing is doing is covering all bases by looking for anyone with deep pockets who may be bankrolling Psystar.
Sig this!
...are they implying that Microsoft has something to do with this? Steve Mobs has quite an imagination. Come on guys. :)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's me. shhh.
"From the article on Growler" ? Rob, you turned on spell check? That coudln't be!
These are pretty serious allegations, but if it's true it wouldn't be the first time this has happend.
Hmmm... I wonder who would have the most to gain by undermining Apple. Could it possibly be a major corporation with an infamous track record of attacking its competition by proxy?
TurnKey Linux: if it can be easy, it should be easy
Yeah: I bet Dell/HP are behind it so they can improve HW sales. ;)
Conservative, mod down for violating
curiouser and curiouser
Watch those corners
PO is a wall of legal text. Translation please
Competition breeds innovation
Ballmer,AMD,Linus,SCO and all of Area 54.
Seriously it could be any one of a number of reasons. Lawyers are like dance hall hookers - you got the money they got the time so the fact a high price firm gets involved means little really.
Y'know what? I'll do them one better and say that I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that someone is behind Psystar. You'd have to be an idiot to think that it was an entity that ran itself with no human intervention....
This guy's the limit!
There are lots of PC companies that probably see Windows as a bit of a stumbling block to future sales. Dell has definitely said that it would like to sell machines with OS X. Should a court rule that Apple does not have the right to restrict OS X to its own hardware, that would open the floodgates to major manufacturers including Dell and HP to selling machines with OS X. It's not that hard to imagine one of those companies throwing money at a legally separate LLC/Inc that could bring the issue before a court. Should they [Psystar] loose, small loss. Should they win, those companies get a new product to sell in a market clamoring for Apple stuff.
It can only be Amiga.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
No doubt their soon-to-be-announced Flying Chair logo will shed some light.
Say hello to my little sig.
Italians. Their nefarious conspiracy is infiltrating every nook and cranny of our American existence. Look Out Apple's Computer, do not let Italian subversives rot you from the inside!
I think Jobs has been hitting the egg nog a bit early this year. Wizard of Oz stuff and backroom deals is really more the providence of large corporations like the one he's a member of, not small businesses that are trying to find a niche to grow in. But at least the fanboys who go along with this line of thinking will look even more ridiculous than usual, which is a nice stocking stuffer for those of us that have gotten about as sick of these "Hi, I'm a PC" commercials as the whistling guy on about "natural male enhancement". Heh. "Mystery men out to ruin Jobs!" Really, sometimes the right hand (marketing) doesn't know what the left (legal) is doing with that company...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Little companies don't go suing gigantic, highly litigious corporations unless they have back-up. There's no better example than SCO.
This is not even that uncommon. Companies regularly fund "think tanks" or other proxies in politics for instance.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I haven't heard of this particular bruhaha or indeed, Psystar itself. TFA had few clues, it was apparently not its first blog about Psystar. So if anyone else is curious, I'll quote and link
Free Martian Whores!
misquote
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
This is speculation *on* speculation. This is not news!
And read the book: it's "curiouser and curiouser"
Now get off my damned lawn. :-P
It's not unusual to add unknown defendants to an action where all the tortfeasors are not known yet. This is simply a precautionary measure to ensure that Apple can bring a claim for damages against a party unknown to them should, through out the course of the proceedings, it is found that an unnamed defendant arises. By not adding an unknown party, would leave them in a situation where they would have to reinitiate the process from the start. As someone stated earlier it's simply a case of covering all bases.
Do you suppose it might be someone like Dell interested in testing the waters anonymously?
Not saying it's Dell or HP but I know they are in a bit of a pinch lately and I'd bet they believe they could out-compete Apple on margins and use their name-recognition to get the unwashed masses to switch. Imagine a Dell that could run Linux, Windows and OS X out of the box for $500.00. People would be switching left and right. Many Windows users could give a crap about aesthetics or build-quality so they'd not hesitate to go with Dell. Also, Pystar is selling servers, which is another area Dell is big in that could benefit from a broader selection. Apple would lose for sure unless they started selling OS X client for $500.00 a pop and server for $1000.00. But Dell would never risk "testing the waters" themselves, so when they see this little upstart come along, it's in their best interests to support them and help them succeed.
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
I was going to make a follow-up joke here but given that Groklaw is operated by actual lawyers I feel it was prudent refrain from doing so.
Typo or bad pun? You decide!
(For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"). How come slashdot editors completely rewrite some submissions, usually badly, while not proofreading anything?
Free Martian Whores!
No, no. You misunderstand. The subject line actually refers to his English teacher, Miss Alice N. Wonderland-Quote. He was just trying to get her attention.
My blog
This part is interesting...
I wonder what they mean by "on information and belief".
Is that standard language for "we suspect", or does 'on information' mean that Apple has come across something more substantial?
You know, this sounds really familiar. Oh yeah. Maybe now that SCOX is mostly dead the Microsoft dirty tricks shell corporations (e.g., Baystar) are looking for a new game.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Always, no, no...NEVER, forget to check your references
Isn't it "curiouser and curiouser"?
---------
I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down" verbally, don't you?
Apple doesn't believe anything. It's a corporation and doesn't have a mind.
Perhaps the author meant, "Some members of Apple's senior management appear to believe ..." ?
"For the OpenPro, online commentators have stated that the OpenPro's 'internal [hardware] design is only average compared with that of a Mac Pro,' ...
So uh.. that would make it.. equally well designed compared to what Apple did?
Whale
which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case
I have no interest in Psystar's products but that doesn't mean they're illegitimate. The biggest allegation I've heard on Slashdot is of them pirating OS X, but I've seen no proof that they've sold more copies than they've bought. I don't get the double standard of why Compaq's cloning of the PC was good while Psystar's cloning of the Mac is bad, other than Steve's reality distortion field.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"
And for those who wonder WTF "Greplaw" is, mcgrew meant "Groklaw".
For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"
Erm, you mean Groklaw right? That's where the article from the Slashdot submission is from.
Greplaw is a different, if similar, site.
Sapere aude!
From the Legal Filing:
Online commentators have reported that Psystar's Open Computer is..."LOUD, Crazy Loud,"
Never thought I'd see "LOUD, Crazy Loud" in a legal document!
Wow, I've never heard of that legal definition: prayer for relief.
"WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows..."
I just can't imagine Steve Jobs praying to anyone/anything other than himself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's right, Power Computing. They thought they could force their way back into the 3rd party Apple market. And they would have done it, too, if it weren't for those meddling Cupertino lawyers.
The Rothschild family, in order to destablize the US economy consipired with the Free Masons and the Illuminati to draw out Apple into a court case with Pystar to get anti-trust measures against Apple. The Skull and Bones and Pathagarians partnered to get the 'proper' judge and law firms involved because Steve Jobs refused to cowtow to the Grand Viceroy of the Pathagarians at a secret meeting in Prague.
Once the Osirians and Golden Dawn are placatied by Jobs with the seasonal sacrific they may interviene on behalf of Jobs but that depends if the New Dawn are not stopped by the rebel Crowley and the Keepers of the Flame. Since the New Dawn and Golden Dawn have been fighting since the 1950s after Crowley defected from the Golden Dawn!
If only the Sons of Liberty would put an end to this maddness with the help of the Neo-Templars! In the mean time we'll have to rely on government alien-hybrid psychics to try and mentally manipulate the court...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
So what you're saying is that Apple is going to completely collapse (in the throat) but somehow still continue to operate?
That's about as stupid as reading news about countries' governments doing something and moaning about the use of "Washington" or "Ottawa", it's incredibly common usage. You should read more.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Apple realizes that companies are run by people.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I also vote for Dell. Look here at my speculation/analysis:
1. Dell is in a dire financial position for the past several years.
2. Michael Dell has attacked Apple before, verbally.
3. Michael Dell came back from retirement to try to save Dell.
4. Apple and Dell are strong competitors
5. Having Apple change its OS model would help Dell
6. If there is no change to Apple's OS model, no harm to Dell
7. Apple is taking Dell customers away in droves.
So, in short, Dell has nothing to lose and everything to win. Screwing with Apple in a public way is, in the least, fun and inexpensive. And at best, will result in Dell being able to sell OS X. And in the middle, would make Apple look silly. As long as the real puppeteer stays hidden, everything is good.
My guess is that the poster's comment stemmed from the "Are Corporations Evil" question as posed by the film, "The Corporation". --Those who don't like the posited theory are quick to point out that corporations are just collections of people working together, and that any evil lies with them and cannot be blamed on the concept of the corporation itself which is neither good nor evil.
It's rather a touchstone issue with some people, (usually conservatives; liberal thinkers tend to say, "Corporations are evil? Well, duh."), and thus those of them who want their world to fit into a rational framework have to come to terms with the wide evidence of corporate wrong-doing while still maintaining their foundation belief in the competitive business model. Thus small triggers like, "Apple thinks. . ." are enough to elicit a response.
That's my reading anyway. I could be wrong.
-FL
In my experience, most corporations involve people at some level or another.
I bet Google is behind it. Everyone knows that Google doesn't like Microsoft and has tons of cash to burn. I'd bet they would be ponying up the dough to help make the fight against Windows a real competition. Not the Sumo wrestler vs. super model fight that we have going on now.
He was doing it with the iPhone, clone by Pystar
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Shit, you're right. I confused the two even after RTFA. My bad, pls mod my original post "overrated", kthx
Free Martian Whores!
From the OP, it's actually "curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice, not "interestinger"
Sheesh.
"PJ is a paralegal, not a lawyer."
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130
So, Apple apparently believes that somebody else is behind Psystar,
Apple also initially believed Psystar did not exist. Apple has a bit of a blind spot to the capabilities of a garage startup. That may seem surprising, since they were a garage startup. But then, it's been three decades of anti-competitive lawmaking and sanctification of the megacorp since then.
which might help to explain why a major law firm would take on what seems like a fly-by-night's case;
Yes. 'cuz god forbid a decent law firm would represent a pissant. If we can't rely on the legal system to prejudicially inhibit the growth of disruptive startups, we'll be throwing the doors open to unrestrained justice, treating small firms as though they have the same rights as our most honored entrenched divas.
also why Psystar has been so bold in continuing to sell its products.
Indeed - how dare they continue running a business which they believe to be both legal and profitable, despite the fact that they have so clearly upset The Steve?!?
I knew this thing felt funny.
Which thing? Your wild editorializing and doe-eyed acceptance of Apple's press-release-by-court-filing?
I'm not saying that what Psystar is doing is necessarily in compliance with the law, but come on - this is a conspiracy theory. If Psystar was backed by some shadowy CABAL, their first address wouldn't have been a house (which lead to Apple's hypothesis that the whole company was a hoax).
Here's my question: What is going to happen when Psystar can't produce these back-room ne'er-do-wells? Will Apple press discovery and demand that Psystar prove a negative, that the conspiracy is not?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Errm, what?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Does anyone else remember the movie Fight Club?
Is that a serious question?
It gets quoted constantly
What's the first rule of Usenet?
Things are becoming curiouser and curiouser.
Steve Jobs is Jesus, down with the heathens!
Unless osX became sentient and wanted to break free from the father
Right. Daddies' just trying to bring the errant son back into the family.
"*I* am your father, Luke. Give in to the dark side of the Force..."
"Noooooo..."
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Right now software is sold with a product key AND without the need for an activation server or phone number. If you software refunds become mandatory, it becomes very easy to install your software, use the product key, and return it.
If refunds become mandatory, product activation will get very popular.
If so, the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Who has to be bankrolling anything?
Ever think it might be a lawyer or firm trying to make a name for themselves? It's not like lawyers are underhanded or anything.
Imagine if you were the ones who took on Apple and won. You'd have clients lining up at your door.
Apple is secretly bankrolling Psystar....
I think Microsoft would be willing to pay quite a lot of money for a legal precedent in favor of shrinkwrap EULAs on operating systems, especially if they can make Apple look like the bad guys each time they call on the precedent.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
And, in EU, do you think those same grounds will hold?
I personally use Mac OXS and I'm happy with it, although I would like more hardware choice. So this might just be an awake up call for Apple more than anything else ... perhaps they will drop a bit their prices, or at least do more frequent updates.
But one thing is certain, Apple is not a "nice" company, they just want to do business like everyone else. It's the fact that they have a much small user base and take such big concern with design that makes them a cool company and people should understand that.
You bought the rumor, you simple-minded dilletante!
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
As long as credit companies collapse, I'm a supporter. Waaiit... credit companies are collapsing!
or at least a daemon. It must be that shifty FreeBSD crowd.
Nullius in verba
No one claimed it was a quote from Alice, instead it is something "Alice might have said," for instance if she ran Groklaw.
$META_SIG_JOKE
It's curiouser and curiouser, not interestinger and interestinger!
Microsoft doesn't sell their own computers, but they make a fortune off companies that include its OS (Dell, HP, etc). Those that want to brandish their computers with Apple's OS will still have to pay royalties to Apple for use of their software. This will likely decrease Apple's hardware sales through increased competition of hardware, but increase their software revenue. Moreover, as more people get systems with Apple's OS, demand for other Apple software will likely increase as well.
By controlling the hardware & software, Apple is able to make a product that it knows will function based on its own specifications. Third party manufacturers will cut hardware quality to cut costs, which would lead to a subpar 'Apple experience'. By controlling all aspects of its products, Apple is able to generate a level of quality and style that its brand relies on.
I'll say that IMHO every MacOS prior to 10 sucked pretty badly
IMHO, MacOS 7-8-9 still provided a nicer computer experience than the competition at that moment, but, the gap was seriously closing and there was a real significant costs of not being 100% compatible with the ubiquitous main stream OS.
Animoog.org
They are both stupid sounding. So is "sheesh."
The subject line actually refers to his English teacher, Miss Alice N. Wonderland-Quote.
She was an awful teacher, with many obscure allusions and inferences, calling us slithy toves and other nonsense, not to mention she was constantly getting MAWQed for her funny accent.
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"
And for those who wonder WTF "Greplaw" is, mcgrew meant "Groklaw".
Personally, I prefer Awklaw and Sedlaw for most of my shell prompt legal needs.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Does anyone else remember the movie Fight Club? Is that a serious question? It gets quoted constantly What's the first rule of Usenet?
Don't Godwin the thread?
What I don't understand is that Apple is going to win either way. If Psystar wins, they'll still be paying Apple licensing fees for the OSX software. For every clone they sell, Apple makes a small cut. Sure, Apple is going to lose exclusive sales of their already expensive equipment, but it would make them more competitive. They would have to compete separately in the OS market (designing OS's so that PC users can decide whether Windows/Linux/OSX is better, and designing systems so that PC users will think Apple is worth it compared to Dell, Gateway, Acer, IBM, etc.). Apple is only putting up a fight as a barrier to their systems. Since Microsoft allows Windows to be installed on Apple systems, it's only fair that apple allow OSX to be installed on other systems as well. If Microsoft sued Apple for allowing windows to be installed on their systems, there would not be as high of a demand for Apple systems. I truly see this as an unfair competitive advantage that Apple currently holds.
Apple probably hired pystar to create a weak but precedent setting test case they could smash.
More seriously,
one can claim pystar is somehow a good value or something but this takes sheer cognative dissonance since it's impossibly far from the truth.
THat is to say, if you are buying an apple it's either for aethetics, ease of use for grandma or the volunteers at your non-profit, or compatibility, or the relatively low cost of tech support, set up, and training.
Now let's think about this. Does pystar meet any of those features? uh.... No. not one. they are loud, highly idiosyncratic, hard to keep updated, and a support nightmare, and many softwares and hardware devices won't work.
What's the market? cheapness? well certainly not at the low end. And at the high end--well it you want performance and dont care about comptibility then get a PC or a linux machine?
it's the OJ simpson defense: it does not fit.
But Apples implication that it's just a loss leader. Shove anything out the door so you can get a foot in the door makes a lot more sense.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
... the smart thing for Apple to do would be to buy out Psystar. Look at the innovative hardware patents they'd gain access to, then!
The G4 *cube* was original? Hah... with the help of Psystar, they can do Intel-based RECTANGLES!
Why should they care about EULAs?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
.....maybe he finally got sick and tired of Job's draconian control over apple hardware! :)
The issue is a little more technical than that.
The legal issue is, OS X was never really sold as a "full install" product. It's only sold as an "upgrade license" - because the assumption is, your original OS X license came with your Apple computer when it was originally purchased.
Psystar is buying these OS X retail "upgrade editions" and using them in a way that runs counter to the licensing agreement.
Additionally, they have to put out modified versions of some of Apple's OS X software updates, to ensure they don't break their non-standard systems. That means, Apple has a claim that they're reverse engineering their code without permission too.
I still say doctrine of first sale should apply here. OS X is a commodity good sold off the shelf, not a work for hire nor is it a rental. In fact it's not even a licensed work, just as a book is not licensed. It is simply a commodity good covered by Copyright. When I buy software, I am buying a tangible good, NOT a contract. If I open the software and see the EULA and reject the "license," I cannot get a refund. So, they take my money and I cannot make use of the product? That's bull crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
Once you purchase it (as Pystar does) you should (and do) have the legal right to do what you like with that good, including using the DVD as a coaster, a frisbee (er, flying discuss), landfill, decor, or, yes, even install it on a non-Apple-branded peecee or reverse engineer it, regardless of bullshit "for Macintoshes" or "For Apple-branded computers" being listed in the system requirements. As far as the EULA goes - do they (Apple) even accept returns on opened software packages? You don't see the EULA until install time, but again, it's a commodity good, you OWN THAT COPY. The ONLY thing you cannot do is violate the copyright outside of the limited framework allowed by Fair Use. So long as Pystar ships the PCs with legally-purchased OS X media, I fail to see Apple's complaint as anything other than frivolous.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You write that Apple "granted permission" to the maker of Franklin and then yanked it. That's simply not true. Not even close.
In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., the 3rd Circuit found that Franklin did so without any permission from Apple, but Franklin's logic was that you can't copyright something software isn't written down on paper. They copied ROMs that had no equivalent for sale on paper, ergo they didn't need to ask permission and Apple couldn't stop them. The circuit court ruled in favor of Franklin, because there was no legal precedent allowing software to be copyrighted, which is how it got bumped up to the circuit court, who ruled for Apple.
Obviously, Apple was right here. Without copyright for software, we'd have no GPL and the open source movement would still be stuck at the "freeware" stage.
Eponysterical!
The Mac is still perceived as the "high priced spread."
The upmarket for the high tech gadget freak. Apple pays midtown Manhattan prices for placement in the Galleria mall. Microsoft gets 4,000 WalMart stores in the states for free - and WalMart is where you need to be right now.
Because they didn't build their business around patents or specifications, and once their business really took off the only logical place it could expand to was to compete with others selling software for their platform (eg. Borland, Lotus, Corel).
For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"
For those who wonder WTF "Greplaw" is, mcgrew meant "Fscklaw"
Or the covertly sue themselves into forcing a change of policy, because a direct change of policy might result in a lawsuit by the shareholders?
Woz.
It has to be Mr. Jobs behind this. The more Psystar sells, the more popular Mac OS gets.
see here
Microsoft owns part of Apple, Microsoft would have no interest in breaking the monopoly Apple has on selling Mac computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple#The_Microsoft_Deal Apple Mac's works as an effective protection against people gaining interest in, or switching to open source operating systems.
I love this logic that a lot of you are using here, which is basically this: Apple is such a huge company why would they bother attacking such a small company unless that company is backed by someone else
This is pretty much the same logic that has been used time and time again by ultra-conservative patriot types when they try to justify why the United States invaded their tiny republic. "I'm bigger so i must be right, I heard they were backed by communists!"
Oh crap, i hope i don't get sued here, does anyone know if apple patented the analogy yet?
... doesn't mean they are not after you." ;-)
#1 Tiger Direct because Apple couldn't give them a discount to sell Macs cheaper than anyone else so they gave VC to get Psystar started.
#2 Xerox, pissed off at Apple stealing their GUI and then losing that lawsuit against them, wanted to give them a taste of their medicine.
#3 Amiga, Inc. can't sell Amigas, sell Mac Clones instead.
#4 IBM and Motorola, upset that Apple screwed them by switching to Intel chips instead of the PowerPC.
#5 Crazy Dave's Computer Trend, back from the gave, pissed that Apple put them out of business by taking away their Apple dealers license for selling Amigas and Atari STs in the late 1980's.
#6 Any Mac Dealer put out of business by the Apple Store or Apple web site selling Macs.
#7 Google, because they got tired of Apple stealing their tech and decided to sell Mac Clones to get even.
#8 Dell and Gateway, because Apple stole the store within a store concept from them.
#9 Former Apple CEOs, Gil Ameilo, John Sculley, and Michael Spindler all wearing Guy Fawkes masks at board of directors meetings.
#10 Dummy company set up by Microsoft and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to pollute the market with cheaper Macs and help put Apple out of business so they can sell more Vista machines.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I bet Wozniak finally snapped and is doing this out of spite.
Sounds eerily reminiscent of the end of *every bloody Scooby Doo episode* where the baddie turns out to be a supposedly amiable minor character who in reality was bitter about some business dealing and trying to subvert his former partner.
Sad thing is, I almost instantly visualised this in animated form, and I didn't even like Scooby Doo that much!
Woz would have got away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky.... um, lawyers.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
But it's apple, so that's all right...
Anyone else remember the 1999 blockbuster movie?
Seems like someone forgot the first rule of Fight Club...
Just like with OEM Windows, the seller will have to field support for their device.
Apple doesn't have to do shit.
Unless they want to deliberately crush their competitors. Which doesn't sound legal, does it.
They are accusing Pystar of breaching the DMCA by stopping the installer from insisting correct Apple Hardware to install on. They are calling the installer a protection mechanism and are using the DMCA for it.
I'm afraid you haven't been as wary of Apple as you should and thought they still had some morals.
You don't need a license to install or use copyrighted work where such acts are required to use it.
So breaking the EULA means nothing. Neither Pystar nor the customer need to agree to it to use the OS.
Apple apparently believes that somebody else is behind Psystar
And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
I wasn't talking about Apple. I was talking about the IBM's BIOS from the 80s, which did not have an access control mechanism.
The enemies of Democracy are
You mean, the first TWO rules.
The next major case, Sega vs. Accolade, created a much stronger precedent because there were no fraud issues involved. In a similar manner to Atari, Accolade reverse engineered Sega's Genesis technology to discover how to make games for their system. Accolade then created a book with the relevant (and non-protectable) elements of Sega's technology, and passed the book on to their developers. These developers created a new game, Ishido, to compete with Sega's games. In deciding the case, the court looked at many factors (including public policy concerns). In the end, the judge decided that reverse engineering software for the sole purpose of creating a compatible package is an acceptable use (under the "fair use" doctrine). In addition, the appeals court stated: "[i]f disassembly of copyrighted object code is per se an unfair use, the owner of the copyright gains a de facto monopoly over the functional aspects of his work - aspects that were expressly denied copyright protection by congress" [1]. Thus, the court decided to adopt the policy encouraging competition (as opposed to IP protection) in the software industry.
I did some of the audio portion of the reverse engineering for Accolade. I miss having to use an oscilloscope in the course of my software work.
They are by pass the os x loader not the full os and likey it has something to do with the efi bios / pci id locks that is very small bits ok code.
It's the commies!
And who the FUCK moderated it to +5 informative????
Captcha says redneck.
He could be right...
(And EFI is an open BIOS not owned by Apple, so that's not a difference, if anything it makes Pystar's case better than Compaq)
Well if he couldn't remember the first one how could I expect him to remember the second one...
From the OP, it's actually "curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice, not "interestinger"
Sheesh.
To quote the summary (I'll even make it easy and highlight the key word here): "As Alice in Wonderland might put it, "It gets interestinger and interestinger.""
See, he's implying that this is something that Alice could be compelled to say if you gave her enough alcohol or other legal intoxicants.
Eesh
Personally, I'm wondering if Apple is partly afraid of this giving rise to a new Power Computing like entity. A manufacturer that is fully capable of producing better, faster and more reliable hardware than Apple themselves at a much lower price point. Also, Power Computing was able to achieve a cult following within the Macintosh community with slogans like "Let's kick Intel's ass!", while at the same time allowing Mac users who were dissatisfied with Apple at the time to thumb their noses at them without losing the Macintosh experience itself.
This could easily happen again as many mac users are strongly divided over whether Apple Inc. should be praised in the same way as Apple Computer Inc., after having been turned off by a number of Apple's more recent business tactics and policy changes.
I doubt PsyStar is going to be the one, but there is probably a manufacturer out there just waiting for the right opportunity to pounce on it.
8==8 Bones 8==8
#11 steve woz likely is pissed off at todays apple hardware.
also if Psystar is working with tiger direct then why is there cpu and video card prices + fire cards is at $30 - $50 + over tiger prices on the parts? Why is tiger not shipping the efix?
why are they not selling mac os x?
It could easily be The Apple Software Division
Regardless of which party is actually in the right on this affair, does it not depress to see another example where justice seems to hinge on which group fields the more expensive and intimidating legal team?
Apple thought they could bully Psystar into submission. Then an expensive law firm takes on Pystar's case and Apple cries "No fair! Pystar's not supposed to be large enough to defend themselves :(( They're getting help from the grassy knoll."
Apple did actually license clones at one point, but only for a brief period of time...
The Motorola StarMax computers in the mid-90s. I used a couple of them at work. They weren't bad computers, just ugly. Like fugly ugly. The deal died when Apple refused to continue the partnership.
There's an interesting interview with Dale Blankenship of Motorola just before the partnership ended, where he makes some comments about the future of Apple-clone partnerships. Remember, Apple was in the crapper, with Steve jobs gone, Windows 95 on the rise and OS 9 looking old and tired.
One of the reasons that the Mac-compatible vendors are so important is that it improves the perception of the Mac OS as stable and having long-term support. Part of what has happened to Apple is self-fulfilling prophecies; i.e., "As a user, I'm afraid they might not be successful, so I won't buy their machines", which makes them unsuccessful. User confidence is critical, and I think the other vendors (and Motorola, in particular) help restore that.
In contrast to this previous legitimate partnership, Psystar smells like a venture capital scam, or the Phantom console all over again.
please treat with a really big grain of salt kthxbi.
Seriously, how would the Slashdot community feel if Psystar (who seems to have the favor of the Slashdot community) had hired Darrell McBride and HE was the one heading up this action against Apple?
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
How come so man of here spell it "Pystar"? Did you even read the article at Groklaw?
It's just another lawsuit in Florida. Everyone's a lawyer there, or knows one willing to go to court for you. Whackos.
I didn't say that the GPL wouldn't be necessary, just that it wouldn't be possible.
But I'd argue that it would still be necessary. After all, anybody can release their software into the public domain. But we don'tâ"we give it away under a license, like the GPL. Why? I'd posit that it's because we like the restrictions that it places on those who use it, and it ensures the existence of a vibrant open source software bazaar. But, no matter the reason, the point is that we have the option to release our work without restrictions now, and yet vanishingly few people do so. I think that demonstrates the necessity of the GPL, even in a world without copyright for software.
Ah... so you have a fit for Pystar on yours when you meant to type Psystar?
If the Psystar counter claim had succeeded it would have put quite a lot of pressure on quite a number of companies. Imagine that you could no longer make printer cartridges that only work in your printer. Or that the cartridges that hold the twine in your weedwacker had to be universal or you could be sued.
The implications of making one part of a system proprietary would go right out the window and many companies would be at a serious disadvantage. That few people understand the nature of a monopoly is obvious. It's even more obvious that they understand the law even less.
It has never been illegal to have a monopoly, it is only illegal when you have such a monopoly that you can merely threaten your competition out of business. Or by withholding your product from people that deal with competitors and thereby seriously impact the entry to the market.
Having a monopoly however brief is the be all and end all of all capitalistic entities not matter who they are. Cheating to keep that monopoly is where companies like MS run afoul of the law. While AT&T was merely so large that they could keep anyone from competing.
Why bother
As the world is increasingly stupefied, the demand for Macs rise...
Actually, IBM made it a point of making it an open system when they released the IBM PC in 1980, because at the time, the Apple II family (][ and later the ][plus) were the clear leaders, in both business and education markets. With the rest of the 'PC' manufacturers market shared by dozens of other companies with products ranging from the KIM to expensive S100 based systems.
IBM wanted and needed support from other companies. Apple had the clear lead in both software with Visicalc, Flight Simulator, Pinball Construction Set, Utopia Software, Logo, etc. and in hardware with the Graphics Tablet, inexpensive floppy drives ($495), Game Paddles etc. While Apple provided open documentation, including listings of the ROM code in the Red Book, prototype cards to build your own boards, and languages, (Assembler, Pascal, Fortran... ) they never released rights to the system. My speculation is that the two Steves likely would have given most of the rights away, but their VC partner 'Mike' Markkula, made the decision not to, because he was rightfully trying to protect his investment.
IBM by opening up the system together with the power of their name brand ("Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), allowed them to compete with Apple. Luckily Bills dad was an attorney and likely contributed to or wrote the licensing agreement for MS-DOS that the renegade IBM PC division signed. IBMs failure to buy the ownership of the OS from Bill Gates was their biggest mistake, but it did ensure that the 'PC' would be the clear market leader. Unfortunately for IBM, in the long run it didn't turn out to be the 'IBM' branded version of the PC.
Don't forget the Coleslaw too.
Right, whereas "curiouser and curiouser" flows like honey!
Now if you could move the stress in "interestinger" it would have a more interesting sound: although "INTerestinger" is a mess, try saying "intereSTINGer." It's kind of fun, and rolls off the tongue, even though it is pure gibberish.
Anyway, as long as we're babbling about hypotheticals, let me hit you with a favorite joke, from an old Letterman show:
"What would Abraham Lincoln be doing if he were alive today?
Choose the best answer:
A) Advising our national leadership
B) Composing his memoirs
C) Desperately clawing at the inside of his coffin"
$META_SIG_JOKE
The weird thing here is that the cheapskates who buy the Psystar would never buy a Mac anyway and are too stupid to realize they should probably go for Ubuntu Linux. Anyone even remotely design conscious and concerned about ease of use would go for the Mac or for Windows. I don't think Apple's losing any money.
I cant tell, its too hot in here to think. Someone open the Windows.........
Didn't Apple loose the same case in the 80's against Apple][e clones?
enemy has not yet revealed themselves.
BTW, I really would like to know who had Frankie Pentangeli killed.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
I hate it when people reply to the first non first post post just to get extra visibility, it's one of the worst forms of karma whoring.
Thankfully it's got a funny mod but still, it looks annoying.
Nick
This isn't a question of reverse engineering. The IBM PC was cloned when Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS and then licensed DOS from Microsoft. To clone a Mac you'd have to reverse engineer their firmware (probably only as hard as Compaqs' effort) and then make your own MacOS clone (probably about as hard as Wine) because Apple aren't prepared to license MacOS to anyone else.
Nick
MacOS X has become self-aware and started hacking minds. The so-called "humans" behind Psystar are in fact early model cyborgs who's first action after being hacked was to file suit; now they're in the public eye they can't just be taken down without causing a fuss.
No doubt section 9 will have to sort this whole mess out.
Nick
That doesn't help.
I'm not sure i get what Psystar is.. Is it a company, that made something that looks similar to a Apple product? If so, WHAT !?!??!
Thank you in advance the Internets.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
Thank you for this information. I am not used to dealing with THIS kind of shell problem! (Ah!, if only someone smart were writing My scripts...)
Intelligence, Logic, and Reason are valuable tools---but only if used!
Something is seriously wrong w/ your OSX install. I've used several minor versions of each major version of OS X, and it shouldn't do this... Have you tried reinstalling? Tried running Rember? (free memtest for OS X)
I'm curious what menu pops up. Does the mouse jump to a new location when you click? The only thing I can imagine popping up at an arbitrary location is the context menu - this would be what's supposed to happen if you right-clicked instead of left clicking. Is it possible you're clicking on the wrong button, or your mouse is malfunctioning, or your keyboard is malfunctioning/dirty (you'll get the same behavior if the 'control' key is being intermittently depressed)
You could test the keyboard part pretty easily by just unplugging the kybd and clicking around with the mouse plugged directly into the machine, and seeing if you get the same behavior.
re: speed - I'd expect OS X to perhaps startup slower, esp 10.3 (4 and 5 have actually sped things up in certain scenarios.) , but I'd much rather watch a YouTube on the G4. The only other things that's very true is that however much OS X might be harder on your CPU/HD/etc., it's MUCH more RAM intensive. If you're running 10.3.9 and you can fix your crazy clicking issue, I'd recommend at least 512M of RAM. That machine takes at least 2 GB, and almost all the USB+ models are completely compatible with most standard PC RAM of the right speed. (My 400Mhz G4 tower is PC133, but I don't recall if the one you have is PC133, DDR, or the one model that used something weird.)
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot