Modify Colors
Psystar emerged a year ago as a small company trying to sell “open” Macs: computers without an Apple sticker than still run OS X. In the beginning, all the odds seemed to be against them. They were a small company and Apple is a big company. They were clearly in violation of the EULA that accompanies OS X and their hacks were in question. It didn’t look good for them when they first arrived on the scene.
All of this is still true today, except that the tide has changed. Now, rather than suggesting that Psystar better get out of this fast or else they would be killed by Apple in court, most people are speculating on how big of a threat Psystar really is to Apple. Not everything has gone according to plan for Psystar, who got their original countersuit thrown out, but on the whole they’re not doing bad.
Early on Apple claimed that Psystar was being financially backed by major computer manufacturers, hoping to test the waters without risk. This rumor was given some credibility as Psystar completely ignored efforts to settle out of court, which most other small companies would likely have done, and hired high-profile lawyers for the case.
It is certainly not clear that any money actually changed hands between Psystar and secret supporters, but, even if they are doing it unintentionally, Psystar is clearly being the test dummy for the rest of the computer manufacturer world. You can bet that Dell and HP are watching closely as Psystar continues to survive and improve their standing relative to Apple.
Psystar itself may never cause any harm to Apple, since they are so small, but their continued existence has got to be tempting the big names. Once the big names in the computer making industry arrive, the game changes. Apple is not going to die if Psystar still stands at the end, but they will certainly have to adjust to a more Microsoft-like strategy.
Related posts:
- Could Psystar Defeating Apple Have Broader Consequences? Several months ago, a small company called Psystar began selling...
- What if Psystar Wins? From the beginning it seemed like a long shot, but...
- Is All Lost For Apple? For those of you not following the Psystar and Apple...
- Comic: An Itch Apple Can't Quite Scratch Psystar seems to just keep bothering Apple, most recently promising...
- Hardware DRM on the iPod Shuffle: Apple Oversteps the Line Edit: Since post, Apple has rejected claims of hardware DRM....
I believe I made my point in my second post here. I listed talking points and even provided a summary statement.
The point is that this article is half-cocked since the author knows nothing about the law and little about this case. Just like if I wrote an article on anything but the superficial basics of Linux I would be half-cocked.
Please show where they are partially false? They aren’t.
And no I would not agree with that. I have followed this case since before it was reported on the web, and one of the first words out of Rudy Pedraza’s mouth was a boastful punk challenge to Apple. They knew fully what they were getting into and were fully prepared not to cave.
It just seems you are a bit ignorant of the facts here and want to pose hypotheticals. Would a hypothetical small company do so? Maybe. I am not interested in that. I am interested in this which gave every single indication that they knew fully and were prepared fully to take on Apple.
I can’t prove this, but I expect that law firm was already retained before they shipped computer one. I also believe that there are unknown backers, but cannot prove that as well. It seems that Apple feels that it can prove it enough to make that allegation in Federal Court.
And please do explain how a big honking flat falsehood that Psystar was ignoring out of court settlement is mere minor difference.
What is really frustrating to me in this whole bondoogle is that I end up defending Psystar constantly against misrepresentations such as that; and I despise what Psystar is doing. But right is right, and facts are facts.
90% of what non-legal persons have written on this should be flushed down the toilet.
Pamela at Groklaw has some excellent articles on it, but like me, she is also a paralegal, though she actually works in IP law so would be even more knowledgeable. However, she covers a lot of cases, I just work on this one for World of Apple with the occasional Electronic Frontier Foundation entitlement article thrown in for good measure.
What I am talking about is a complete mangling of the facts. That absolutely false statement links to articles that say nothing of the kind, though those articles aren’t particularly good either.
A party CANNOT IGNORE Court-ordered Alternative Dispute Resolution and must participate in good faith. I have absolutely no idea where the author read “completely ignored” into those articles.
Now unto a second point,
What is that statement based on? They actually are doing pretty bad considering that their original counter-claim was dismissed. I think that the Court made a very bad ruling in allowing their second one to stand and if by some stroke of Atlas Shrugging Apple should lose, they seem to have already an appealable point.
Now unto a third point,
If people are doing that simply because Psystar still exists, they are retarded. Right from the beginning (very close to it) it was known that the trial was set for November. Right there you know that they are likely to exist until November 2009.
And yesterday, Apple filed a document with the Court that might get them slapped down with sanctions.
The instructions box here says that outside links can be posted if they add to the discussion. Here is the index of all that I have written on Psystar, I am not an attorney, don’t claim to be one, but I know enough not to make outlandish claims like a party ignored a Court Order or OMG PSYSTAR IS CLAIMING APPLE DIDN’T COPYRIGHT OSX!!! You guys didn’t that, but many blogs did, and they never retracted it.
http://news.worldofapple.com/category/psystar/
I know nothing about Linux or programming. I wouldn’t even try to write an article on it. I wish those who know little to nothing about law would do the same.
If you don’t understand the law, you shouldn’t write on it. The first part of your statement is totally and irresponsibly FALSE.
The reporting on this case by the web has been abysmal.
dizzle – Care to explain? Obviously we cannot know what happened between Apple and Psystar, but it certainly does not look like Psystar wants to settle out of court. If you have other information, I would be glad to hear it.
dizzle – It seem to me that most of your points, though partially true, are rather minor differences. Would you at least agree that when Psystar first made headlines, it would have been reasonable to guess that they would cave to Apple’s pressure?
dizzle – What’s your point?