Comments on: Psystar's bankruptcy protection filing could minimize Apple suit

Essentially, filing has pressed the fast-forward button on the copyright proceedings and minimized what it could owe Apple.

[Random_Walk]

Wow.... I'm thinking they'll be dead in a month. Even the lawyers aren't going to hang around a corpse for long, especially one that owes money.

[Maccess]

It's Chapter 11, not Chapter 7, which is liquidation. Chapter 11 is usually a defensive move to minimize claims, and force claimants into a line. I'm really looking forward to definitive court ruling on the use of copyright law.

If someone buys a retail box of Mac OS X because he loves the box design and decides to frame it and display it over the fireplace, is he breaking the agreement?

[drhamad]

@Maccess: There's no copying going on there, so no, no problem. I'm not sure where you got your example from...

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Macaccess:

"If someone buys a retail box of Mac OS X because he loves the box design and decides to frame it and display it over the fireplace, is he breaking the agreement? "

Unless the fireplace and frame are Apple Certified Hardware, then yes, they are violating the EULA. You can only use OS X with Apple authorized hardware.

[Random_Walk]

I know they're doing Chapter 11... but if they're not making money, and there's little to no hope of making more? Now add that they're having to fend off a lawsuit, but can't even pay off the lawyers to do that?

I stand by my statement... they'll be dead in a month.

[Perry_Clease]

Apple probably wasn't so much after Psytar's money, but more interested in stopping the sales of MacClones

[ralfthedog]

Correct! 10 Million is nothing to Apple. The point of this action is to get an injunction. The greater point of this is to get a legal precedent.

[solitare_pax]

Either way, the poor consumers who bought into Psystar's 'cheapo Macs' scheme are going to be out of luck.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@raifthedog:

"The greater point of this is to get a legal precedent."

BINGO. Apple cannot afford to have a legal declaration made in this case. It's far better for Psystar to simply disappear without the court getting a chance to dig into the validity of the EULA that software companies use to threaten and bully consumers with.

Apple, Microsoft, Sun, Adobe, etc, all do not want a precedent made here. It is better for it to just quietly disappear as if it had never happened.

[the_ricochet]

pobrecito

[lkrupp]

I guess the market for cheap Macs isn't as large as the all the Psystar supporters claimed it was, huh. Poor sales was the reason they filed for bankruptcy. Nobody was buying.

So all the claims about the existence of such a market, all the whining about monopoly and competition, all the wishful thinking by the cheap, headless Mac crowd, was all wrong from the get-go. All the armchair marketing geniuses who pontificated about how Apple needs to be in the el-cheapo market to stay alive were smoking ganja. So Psystar was going to force Apple to lower its prices and make cheaper Macs, huh. I guess not.

[ZetaZeta_]

Well, I wouldn't buy the system because I wasn't about to buy a system where I couldn't get updates from Apple, lest i fear my OS lock down, and I'm sure many didn't want to trust Psystar's update when they could (and now have) gone under.

However, I wouldn't mind running OS X on cheap hardware. I think there could be a demand, but the way Apple protects its OS it's hard to sell something running OS X without it being pretty undesirable.

As long as Apple has a stranglehold on its operating system, they can sell expensive hardware and be protected by legal and technical barriers.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that if Apple didn't try and defend their OS so much, there could be a demand for running that software on other hardware. The real question is are they allowed to do that? Right now they are but Psystar's main argument was probably that restricting the hardware your OS can be installed on seems anticompetitive.

What if Microsoft decided Apple hardware couldn't run Windows? We'd all blow a gasket. Is that situation comparable to this one?

[ralfthedog]

I see no problem with Microsoft Windows being restricted from running on Apple hardware. I don't run Windows. Other than gaming and vertical applications, Mac users can do anything they want without Windows. I would be more upset about not being able to run Linux.

Windows running on Apple is just a marketing crutch to help people make the transition to OS-X.

[BigGuns149]

I think that a lot of people were rightfully concerned that Psystar was going to go out of business or at least stop supporting their Mac Clones and then you were going to be stuck without a lot of security updates that they can't download. For the amount of uncertainty involved in Psystar's machines whereas running Mac OS I think they were actually somewhat expensive computers.

[aMUSICsite]

Yep it proves that one small company could not compete with Apple, but if HP, Dell or Sony were allowed to sell computers with OS X on then Apple hardware could be in trouble, but their software sales would go through the roof!!!

[CitizenX]

Wouldn't any backers of Psystar have liability for any infringement claims? I would think that they would seeing as they knowingly put their money behind the company.

[ralfthedog]

The reason corporations exist is to provide insulation for investors. It is very hard to hold an investor liable.

[Vegaman_Dan]

I believe Psystar was a front from one or more hardware OEM's to test the waters of Apple's determination to keep the public locked to their brand of hardware only. Now that they have some results, they will cut Psystar loose, let it quietly disappear and then try again in a while.

[gudin]

well, the market was certainly bigger than that served by a company specifically doing what it did in an unauthorized manner. Obviously Apple would sell many more such boxes that Psystar was ever going to. I'd like a cheaper mac (though the Mini suits me fine), but it's certainly questionable whether Apple selling such a box would actually benefit them.

Apple is doing quite fine selling highly polished, quality and capable machines. People like macs, because they like polish and quality. They are not just boxes of chips. Most PC manufacturers would LOVE to have Apple's reputation for quality and coolness. They don't have it, because they are generic. They run windows, and they don't control the entire widget. Macs don't get in the way of the user, PCs do, to a much greater extent. PCs force you to do everything the way the PC thinks you should. Macs seem to encourage you to work the way you want to work.

[shellcodes_coder]

If they were selling PCs instead of Crap clones then they would have earned so much cash but...

[groink_hi]

What? Actually, they did sell Windows and Linux PCs - it just wasn't talked about. By selling PCs with Linux or Windows installed, they competed with the thousands of other manufacturers. I think people would've rather purchase an Acer, HP or Dell than a Psystar PC.

One point no one here has made is that the sale of desktop PCs are now lower than laptops. This includes Apple-manufactured laptops. This is a critical point to make because manufacturing a clone laptop is next to impossible of being profitable long-term. I really don't believe Psystar is doing bad because of the Apple lawsuit. Rather, I think it is because the PC clone market with ANY operating system will forever be dead IMO.

[thstai]

Wouldn't it be funny if the Microsoft commercials "ragging" about how expensive Macs were, caused people to consider a PC instead of a Mac and for business to also sour for Psystar and therefore cause Psystar file for bankrupcy?
Oh sigh! (I mean, oh "Psy"!) Next Mac cloner.

[indug]

This article is trivial. It conveys only the most primitive knowledge of bankruptcy protection and assumes the validity of Apple's EULA in preventing the installation of OS X on non proprietary hardware.

[ikramerica--2008]

That's because the EULA is assumed valid until proven otherwise.

[canberra_photographer]

Um, software is the intellectual property of whoever created it and the use of it outside of what the owner allows is illegal.

[bonesbautista]

Meanwhile, all of the people buying Psystar units will have no protection. No warranty, no obligations by Psystar for faulty parts and workmanship.

Yeah, that's what I want - cheap hardware with no warranty and no recourse. The judge should take that filing and burn it - what about consumer protection?

[Vegaman_Dan]

Um, that's the same for every company on the planet once your warranty expires too.

My Apple Touch has a headphone jack that is coming loose. It's two weeks past the warranty. Apple's answer? Please pay $499 to replace the unit. it was a known defect in the unit, but Apple chose to ignore it until the warranty was expired, *then* admitted to me they knew about the problem.

Am I upset about it? Nah, it's just par for the course for Apple or any other OEM. You're expected to buy a new unit once the warranty is expired.

[rcardona2k]

alt.die.die.die

[play7]

"by ZetaZeta_ May 26, 2009 4:53 PM PDT
What if Microsoft decided Apple hardware couldn't run Windows? We'd all blow a gasket. Is that situation comparable to this one?

Then Apple users will be crying.........;.Macs wouldnt be around much longer

[medezark]

Mac's got along fine before the Intel switch, and even before the ability to run Windows in virtual environments on the MAC. Not necessarily in the home market, but for high end video and graphics applications they were, for a long time, the King of the Hill. And the price barrier wasn't as pertinent for these specialty markets. Even without the ability to run Windows on an Apple, Apple's have developed a rabid fanbase for which they would still be relevant.

[ralfthedog]

The only things Apple would loose if Windows were dropped would be some games and vertical applications. If Windows were dropped from the Mac I think more game designers would be porting to the Mac. I know of several that are talking about making the move at the moment.

Windows does not offer anything OS X cant do better.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Considering Microsoft makes money from Apple users wanting to use Microsoft products, I don't see this happening. All those people running bootcamp- they bought copies of Windows to run on them, so that's more sales for Microsoft.

Nope, no reason for Microsoft to cut Apple off.

If they did, however... yeah, Apple would be in a tough spot. If Microsoft decided in their EULA to start enforcing the shutdown of any and all Windows installations on Macintosh hardware, it would only backlash horribly in the court of public opinion.

Remember it's a double standard. Everything Apple does is Good. Everything Microsoft does is Evil.

[play7]

"Remember it's a double standard. Everything Apple does is Good. Everything Microsoft does is Evil."

Its been just wait 10 years since this apple geek kids has causes this anti-Micro soft BS............I remeber when Apple and MS use to live happy. But know the Rah Rah Apple geek attacks started happenign and then now we stuck with this types of trash untrust reviews and comments. I never knew Apple geeks were this touchy about anything otehr then Apple products and services? Then again they dont know the diff between good hardware and or hype products like apple products. because of all this i wil not touch ipods, iphones etc.....I wish people would lets otehrs be hgappy with what they want or like? Then pressing and causing hate related remarks for the sole supoose of their lack or understand and narrowminded thinking. Give me the old days. Not this new way of trash and burn things because a geek hates somethign they cant afford/ dont understand.

Wow, you mean Apple doesn't run on any hardware? Just Apple Hardware? I mean does that sound fair to the Hardware manufacturers? Talk about a monopoly! I think the EU should lead a lawsuit against Apple dis-allowing their OS from being installed on any machine. I would like to see the MAC VS PC on that one. Windows 7, it'll run on anything!, even ahem a Mac.

[groink_hi]

Hey, I don't see French and Italian designers making those gawd awful designer clothes for obese people. Maybe we should sue them for that.

Although that sounds ridiculous, it is supposed to. The idea that ANY operating system must work with ANY hardware platform is completely stupid. No one complained when Windows NT 4.0 could not run on a Motorola processor. No one complained that ProDOS could not run on a Commodore 128 or Atari 800. A company has a God-given right to write an OS and not have it run on a Wintel based platform. The only reason the EU is in a hissy-fit over Mac OS X and Windows is that the only OS they could come up with within the entire continent is Linux, and quite frankly I could see the EU favor their hometown OS over anything American.

[shycelticwitch]

Apples & Oranges. Sure Windows will run on a Mac. And guess what, it runs BETTER on a Mac. But even so, it doesn't come close to emulating the user friendly atmosphere of OS X, which allows the user to control the system, and not vice versa.

Psystar... I TOLD YOU SO.

[play7]

I never understand what people believe apple give you more freedom the MS?Apple is more closed then MS. ANd cost much more..........People just dont know which is which........"THINK DIFFERENT".Well not anymore with apple. it should say" THINK LIKE US AND BUY WHATEVER WE SELL".Poor apple people are sheeps thes days:(

[digital_iconoclast]

EULAs are not enforceable and Apple knows it. You're asking someone to essentially agree to something only readable once you've already bought the product, opened the box (no refund policy, only exchanges after that for most retailers), and started installing the software. What average person reads (and actually fully understands) this stuff anyway? I would have liked this to go to trial, just to see a ruling handed down. IMHO, if you buy the software, it's yours, you own it, and it's none of their business what you do with it.

So Apple is going to tell me I can't run their OS on any old Intel PC (even though with enough time, effort, and a little research I can get their retail product installed) - but can you figure out why is there Boot Camp, not to mention virtual machines such as VMWare Fusion and Parallels then? I don't understand how they can persist in the one-sidedness and not come out of this looking like worse bullies than Microsoft (who WANT to sell you their OS to put on every Intel Mac). This is just one more reason why GNU/linux and GPL FOSS is really looking attractive from a consumer choice standpoint.