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."'"
...are they implying that Microsoft has something to do with this? Steve Mobs has quite an imagination. Come on guys. :)
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
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
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?
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...
Because IBM was big and evil and Apple isn't, so we get to apply different standards based on our whims.
FWIW, I support Psystar, too. I'd love a Mac at less than Mac prices.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Only problem with that is anyone who was important with Power Computing was bought by Apple. Power Computing was the only clone manufacturer who was completely bought by Apple as opposed to having their contract canceled like the other and for good reason, their computers unlike the other clones where excellent. Apple even hosted Power Computings tool and software utilities for years after they bought them out.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I think you're being a little naive (and the mods too) because this looks precisely like what happened with SCO, which was also a fairly small company that was trying to find (rediscover in their case) "a niche to grow in". To actually push their claims, they required large influxes of cash from a Microsoft shell corporation. The way to answer this is to find who is financing Psystar and what conditions that financing is contingent on, e.g. in the case of Baystar, they actually threatened to sue SCO if SCO failed to continue their strong-arm legal tactics against IBM and linux in general. If Psystar were "just a small business" and not being pushed by someone else, why would they sue Apple so dramatically? More likely they would try to stay under the radar off Apple until they were comfortably profitable to resist the inevitable law suit from Apple.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
The Gates foundation is too busy building Doomsday seed vaults with the Rockefeller foundation and Monsanto and genetically engineering mosquitoes.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
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
Apple *IS* evil... way more evil than IBM could ever try to be in their wildest imaginations.
Apple once granted permission to make an Apple 2 clone to a company that did that and made it LOTS better. Apple sued and won on the basis of "We said you could make a clone, not embarrass us by making it way better!"
This is the story of the Apple IIe and the Franklin computer. It is one of the ugliest things I have seen happen in the business world and I will never forget it and the company associated with it.
The practice of making clones and copies is one of the most important practices behind development, innovation and technological progress. Try to restrict that and you are trying to stop the world from growing.
I think you're being a little naive (and the mods too) because this looks precisely like what happened with SCO
I'm not being naive, I'm trying to avoid slashdot turning into a forum where people have had their sense of humor surgically removed. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers, and Apple's fanbase is just too tempting of a target. nom nom nom.
But if we must be serious... Why sue Apple in a "dramatic way". Well, has anyone sued Apple in a boring and non-dramatic way recently? No. Apple's lawyers are legendary. Suitors routinely stage reenactments of Custer's last stand in the courtroom. Why would you try to stay "under the radar" until being sued? What -- hoping that the armies of Mordor won't notice the Ring Bearer until its too late? It makes more sense to use the lawsuit as free press, rather than wait for them to descend on you. Besides, it looks better bravely charging into battle than it does making your last stand -- people are more likely to buy your product if they think you're on the offense than if you're fighting extinction.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
it's a baiting scam. first they sell a couple million psystars with OSX, then when justice says all of those copies must be wiped from the hardrives and returned to apple, owners will have to replace the OS with vista.
they annoy apple senselessly AND cash in a couple million sales. win-win for redmond
What ? Me, worry ?
As soon as Apple can't restrict sales of Mac OS X to people who own Apple hardware, you know what you'll see? Apple will stop selling Mac OS X as a standalone product. The Apple faithful will just suck it up and buy new hardware.
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.
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
All of the mustang variants I'm aware of are done through cooperation and permission with Ford.
It's also in the nature of a car to be modified by its owners and resold--the car is primarily a functional item, rather than an expression. If you built something else with the same *lines* as a mustang, ford lawyers would be parachuting in :)
hawk