Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Believes Someone Is Behind Psystar

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the put-on-your-foil-hats dept.

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."'"

10 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. Folowing the money by actionbastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  2. In some ways, it makes a lot of sense by saterdaies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do believe a little ruling a few years ago basically said no, Microsoft CANT do that. This is why Dell and HP have been able to sell Linux and Unix systems on top of their Microsoft OEM products.

      No, Microsoft couldn't contractually force them to sell only Windows. That doesn't mean they can't just say "we're not giving you a discount anymore and we're not saying why." You think people that are fired for being gay are ever told that's why? Or people that are profiled by the police are told "We pulled you over because you're black"? There's always been ways around laws that say you can't do X for reason Y, because there's always reason Z, which is what everyone will claim was the reason, never Y.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  3. This is a common practice by Starturtle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. sounds familiar by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  5. Re:Awwww... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would think Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony etc. not MS, whose world domination strategy still centers around Windows.

  6. Re:Yes THEY are all in on it by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    The size of a company's bank account is usually proportional to their size. High-priced lawyers tend to want lots more money that a small company like Psystar likely has unless they have a puppetmaster.

    --
    My blog
  7. Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... by glop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah right! Microsoft can't wait till everybody can buy MacOS X for their PC!
    And what joy it would be to them if Psystar could invalidate the EULA so that Dell could then ship their PCs with MacOS X!

  8. Off with OP's head! by monkeyboythom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the OP, it's actually "curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice, not "interestinger"

    Sheesh.

  9. Re:Awwww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    QUESTION:

    Why is it illegal to clone Apple Macintosh computers, but it was not illegal to clone the IBM PC? Why is Apple protected, but IBM was not? What's the distinction?

    ANSWER:

    The IBM PC was generic hardware with an operating system owned by Microsoft, and Microsoft didn't have any agreement that precluded them from working with other companies. OSX is an operating system owned by Apple which Apple is not willing to license to other companies.