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
curiouser and curiouser
Watch those corners
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.
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
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!
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
Damn straight! Now that Psystar is developing their own OS, Apple will be forced to improve OS X.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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
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!
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!
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
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!
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? ]=-
Apple realizes that companies are run by people.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
From the OP, it's actually "curiouser and curiouser" cried Alice, not "interestinger"
Sheesh.
Yes, but when talking PC MANUFACTURERS, Dell and HP have a serious competitor in Apple. Much of that attractiveness that Apple has compared to their offerings is in their operating system. In effect, Apple can manage to jack up the price and offer an extremely limited number of hardware options, but still pull in sales due to an advantage that Dell and HP simply don't have access to.
Eliminating that advantage would do a lot to drive some Apple customers to Dell and/or HP. At the same time, a lot of people with Windows systems that they don't want to replace might jump at the chance to replace it with a Mac(TM) by Dell or Mac(TM) by HP.
Either way, if this decision went in favor of Pystar, I don't see it being anything but good for the other major computer manufacturers.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
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
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
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
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?
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
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!
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).
It could easily be The Apple Software Division
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