×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Believes Someone Is Behind Psystar

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the put-on-your-foil-hats dept.

The Courts 606

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."'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

606 comments

Folowing the money (5, Insightful)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989445)

That's all the amended filing is doing is covering all bases by looking for anyone with deep pockets who may be bankrolling Psystar.

LOUD, Crazy Loud (4, Funny)

StCredZero (169093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989783)

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!

Awwww... (2, Interesting)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989447)

...are they implying that Microsoft has something to do with this? Steve Mobs has quite an imagination. Come on guys. :)

Re:Awwww... (5, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989507)

Vista sales weren't very good, maybe Microsoft figured they could make more money selling macs.

Re:Awwww... (0, Redundant)

Disoculated (534967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989659)

Dude. I tried to mod you funny and I fat-fingered you to overrated. So I'm replying to hopefully un-mod you. My apologies.

sounds familiar (5, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989737)

You know, this sounds really familiar. Oh yeah [slashdot.org] . Maybe now that SCOX is mostly dead the Microsoft dirty tricks shell corporations (e.g., Baystar) are looking for a new game.

Re:Awwww... (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989997)

...are they implying that Microsoft has something to do with this?

From an earlier Groklaw article:

On the theme of folks piling on Apple lately, here's a new lawsuit against Apple, claiming Apple is trying to monopolize MP3s. And here's another, complaining about monopoly again and how Apple is such a meanie for not letting iTunes play Microsoft's DRM-encrusted format, Windows Media Audio. I've come to the conclusion, personally, that if you compete against Microsoft and start to win, you get sued by litigants who suddenly care about stuff only Microsoft can possibly care about. Speaking of monopolies. Complaining that iTunes on the iPod doesn't support Microsoft DRM doesn't pass my sniff test. I simply do not believe there is a customer in the world that would sue over that.

Just my opinion, folks. But I confess when I see a lawsuit complaining that DRM won't play, I start to wonder who might really care about that. I know I don't. I don't know anyone who cares about that, actually. That's what vendors fall in love with, not customers. Maybe in an alternative universe. And lookee here. The plaintiff is a lawyer. Well.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081019133549359

P.J. definitely has a point here. As such, Apple may have a point in their filing. The question is, how far abstracted from Psystar are the parties that Apple is really looking for?

Is it.... (3, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989449)

...the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation behind them?!?!?!

:)

Re:Is it.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989667)

Don't be ridiculous, it's Darl McBride!

Re:Is it.... (5, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989769)

"Don't be ridiculous, it's Darl McBride!"

Hmm...maybe that was Darth McBride?!? That would make sense, building a Death...err....Pystar.

It's true. (5, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989451)

It's me. shhh.

Re:It's true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989533)

Thelonious P. Psystar, esq. III, I should have known!

Growler Groklaw (5, Funny)

Blorgo (19032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989453)

"From the article on Growler" ? Rob, you turned on spell check? That coudln't be!

Re:Growler Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989677)

I was going to make a follow-up joke here but given that Groklaw is operated by actual lawyers I feel it was prudent refrain from doing so.

Re:Growler Groklaw (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989683)

Typo or bad pun? You decide!

(For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"). How come slashdot editors completely rewrite some submissions, usually badly, while not proofreading anything?

Re:Growler Groklaw (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989771)

For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"

And for those who wonder WTF "Greplaw" is, mcgrew meant "Groklaw".

Re:Growler Groklaw (4, Informative)

Graff (532189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989775)

For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"

Erm, you mean Groklaw [groklaw.com] right? That's where the article from the Slashdot submission is from.

Greplaw [harvard.edu] is a different, if similar, site.

Re:Growler Groklaw (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990229)

Shit, you're right. I confused the two even after RTFA. My bad, pls mod my original post "overrated", kthx

If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (4, Interesting)

liraz (77590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989455)

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 [linux.com] track record of attacking [boycottnovell.com] its competition by proxy [channelregister.co.uk] ?

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989645)

What does Microsoft really stand to gain from allowing more machines with OS/X to sell? Presumably Apple is still getting money from sales of the OS, at the cost of whatever margin they might have on their PC's. Further, Apple is spared the cost of having to support users with unsupported hardware.

It's not like their anti-Linux stuff. When users switch to Linux, they're Microsoft free. When users switch to OS/X, there's still the potential for sales of Microsoft software to the platform. Apple is still getting their money for the OS (right?), undercutting them on hardware margins for PCs doesn't sound like something that would really undermine Apple.

Heck, they're probably spending more money on legal proceedings than they would've gotten from those sales.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (0, Redundant)

stocke2 (600251) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989753)

because it could eventually kill off Apple, like the first wave of clones almost did. Apple is a hardware manufacturer the software is to boost hardware sales, if they loose the software, it could hurt apple.
now, I am not saying Microsoft is behind it, but that would be a possible motivation.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (1)

faloi (738831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990187)

The first wave of clones was well before the iPod, iPhone and other iProducts, though. Apple has moved beyond just selling PCs. Back in those days, they had a healthy margin on their PC hardware...like everybody else. Nowadays, I'd be shocked if the hardware sales mean as much to them as it used to.

Don't get me wrong, they've still got an image to maintain, and have every right to fight these folks in court.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989833)

Well... The last time Mac OS had a licence for 3rd party use. Apple almost died from it. But also it can be a case to discredit the value of OS X. By opening the legal floodgates for having OS X compete on the same level that MS does gives MS and advantage as Windows tends to run better on Crappy (not necessarily slow but 3rd party rip off, or the product that do not have full functionality, eg. celerons ) hardware. And being that OS X doesn't have drivers for all the different platform options and the hardware makers already grudgingly make the drivers for Microsoft. Will make OS X run more unstable and flakier then Windows. Thus having Apple to loose a competitive advantage. However this is rather a complex marketing strategy. I would suspect the funding for the law suits were probably from companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo who just want to be able to ship OS X on their platforms so they can be Hip and Trendy too. Also not be stuck with Windows.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990197)

Well... The last time Mac OS had a licence for 3rd party use. Apple almost died from it.

Different situation back then though. The anti-Microsoft sentiment wasn't NEARLY as strong back then, nor was Apple's desktop offerings (seriously, as an avid current Mac user, and an occasional pre-OS X user, I'll say that IMHO every MacOS prior to 10 sucked pretty badly).

So what you had back then was a very tight niche market of users who likely couldn't support the company via software sales alone. Even after they killed the clone program Apple was still effectively a sinking ship without OS X.

Today however, hating MS is the in-thing, Apple is is seen is the most cool company to every grace the stock market, and their OS is technically amazing and rapidly gaining in popularity. A mostly software-company dabbling around with a tiny bit of hardware is not doomed to failure: Microsoft has proven that. The question is simply whether or not their software revenue is enough to keep them afloat. Last time Apple tried this, it wasn't. This time, I'd wager that they're in a much better position.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (1)

Pictish Prince (988570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990215)

What does Microsoft really stand to gain from allowing more machines with OS/X to sell? Presumably Apple is still getting money from sales of the OS, at the cost of whatever margin they might have on their PC's. Further, Apple is spared the cost of having to support users with unsupported hardware. It's not like their anti-Linux stuff. When users switch to Linux, they're Microsoft free. When users switch to OS/X, there's still the potential for sales of Microsoft software to the platform. Apple is still getting their money for the OS (right?), undercutting them on hardware margins for PCs doesn't sound like something that would really undermine Apple. Heck, they're probably spending more money on legal proceedings than they would've gotten from those sales.

I begin to see a pattern:
John Doe I == Ballmer
John Doe II == Jobs?

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (5, Insightful)

glop (181086) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989839)

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!

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (4, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989893)

I can't believe it would be them. Undermining EULAs hardly serves MS's interests. On this case, I would expect Apple and Microsoft to be allied and want the same outcome: that people agree (lawyer speak) to contracts that they never actually agreed (laymen speak) to.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25990225)

Exactly. There's no way Microsoft would pull something like this. If Psystar wins, it would set a precedent that once you buy software you can use it however you please.

Re:If it's true I bet I can guess who it is... (3, Insightful)

tuxgeek (872962) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990161)

I seriously doubt Microsoft would be behind this scam.
After reading the Groklaw article it sounds like the PCs are cheaply built with the options of Vista or Mac OSX.
No finger pointing here, but China has become pretty adept at distributing reverse engineered and/or unlocked proprietary software.

My magic 8 ball says that Apple will successfully shut Psystar down eventually, only to re-emerge under a different name somewhere else in the future.

Let the conspiracy theories fly (1)

m0s3m8n (1335861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989463)

Yeah: I bet Dell/HP are behind it so they can improve HW sales. ;)

Re:Let the conspiracy theories fly (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989665)

Dell and HP are selling a lot of hardware. That's not the problem, though they might be selling fewer units, or with very little growth. It's the margins on that hardware is where they are taking a beating.

miss quote (2, Funny)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989465)

curiouser and curiouser

Re:miss quote (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989757)

It's "misquote", not "miss quote". "Miss Quote" was my second grade math teacher, the old bitch.

Non-Lawyer Speak, Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989483)

PO is a wall of legal text. Translation please

Re:Non-Lawyer Speak, Please (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989975)

18. On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystarâ(TM)s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the âoeJohn Doe Defendantsâ). On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Appleâ(TM)s intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Appleâ(TM)s license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendantsâ(TM) true names and capacities when they are ascertained.

Legalese really is the most dry textual representation of ideas possible... not only are we threatening you with all manner of unpleasantness but the very act of reading our threat saps your will to live.

I far prefer the xml 'spec' [w3.org] for ease-of-reading..

There should be a law which states that Lawyers are not allowed to [ab]use text.

Someone is behind CmdrTaco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989485)

(it's Kathleen Fent. Wearing a strap on. And leather chaps.)

Re:Someone is behind CmdrTaco (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989717)

Sounds good. Can I have a go after her? I've got a ten inch one TacoCmdr might like.

I say its a good thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989501)

Competition breeds innovation

I say its a tasty thing! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989621)

KFC breads chicken

Re:I say its a good thing! (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989701)

Damn straight! Now that Psystar is developing their own OS, Apple will be forced to improve OS X.
 

Yes THEY are all in on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989509)

Ballmer,AMD,Linus,SCO and all of Area 54.

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.

Re:Yes THEY are all in on it (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989781)

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.

I'm positive (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989521)

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....

Re:I'm positive (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989561)

Unless osX became sentient and wanted to break free from the father

In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (5, Insightful)

saterdaies (842986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989553)

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.

Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989819)

ell 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.

Sure, except you forget that Microsoft still has both hands on their balls right now. "Go ahead, sell OS X, but we won't give you OEM pricing then, you'll pay retail." Small companies like this one are the only ones that can pull this off because they don't have legions of angry shareholders and lawsuits to worry about, who would be rightfully pissed about a $100 increase in unit shipping price over an OS with a ~7% market share. Most won't even put Linux on their systems right now because of this, and Linux is free.

and linux is free (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989977)

Most won't even put Linux on their systems right now because of this, and Linux is free.

And you get what you pay for. Linux is not a viable enterprise solution. Why get adolescent software free when you can just buy what works, which is what any serious business truly needs.

Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990019)

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.

Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (4, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989955)

Or maybe by someone who wants to save us from Apple's ridiculous and limiting EULA shrinkwrap nonsense.

>Should they win, those companies get a new product to sell in a market clamoring for Apple stuff.

That's true, but we also get a whole hell of a lot more consumer rights. Imagine being able to return software for a refund! Or running the software you paid for on anything you like. Or selling it. You know, the basic consumer rights we take for granted for everything except software.

Freedom to tinker and freedom to use is bigger than Apple. Much bigger.

Re:In some ways, it makes a lot of sense (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990135)

Don't know. Maybe a big company is funding the lawsuit, but Psystar is a company consisting of two kids in their mid-20s, Roberto and Randolfo Pedraza, who are most likely operating out of their parents' basement. No, really. Check it out for yourself [guardian.co.uk] .

So i doubt the company itself is backed by anyone. I think they just picked themselves up a 'guardian angel' so-to-speak.

The logical suspect (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989559)

It can only be Amiga.

Re:The logical suspect (1)

rdforsyth (1039844) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989789)

I think it's Apple themselves. It's the only logical conclusion. My second guess would be the Woz.

Re:The logical suspect (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989871)

If Psystar is turning a profit, then you can be sure that Amiga/Bill McEwen aren't behind it.

Hang on a mo, Psystar are actually shipping products, and on schedule too. That definitely rules out Amiga.

I know who is doing it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989573)

Italians. Their nefarious conspiracy is infiltrating every nook and cranny of our American existence. Look Out Apple's Computer, do not let Italian subversives rot you from the inside!

Hmm (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989575)

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...

Re:Hmm (2, Funny)

JackassJedi (1263412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989689)

They are just bored and are suing themselves. As a small benefit, if the court decides that Apple has the rights to restrict OS X usage, they'll get that out of it.

Happy Coca-Cola Christmas!

Re:Hmm (2, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990141)

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 [linux-watch.com] . 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.

Of course there is (1)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989587)

Little companies don't go suing gigantic, highly litigious corporations unless they have back-up. There's no better example than SCO.

This is not even that uncommon. Companies regularly fund "think tanks" or other proxies in politics for instance.

I had to see da wiki (4, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989593)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Psystar Corporation is an electronics company based in Miami, Florida which sells surveillance and communication equipment, and, most popularly, "Open Computers". These computers, first announced in April 2008, have the option to be pre-installed with Mac OS X Leopard, making them the first commercially-distributed hackintoshes.[1]

The end-user license agreement for Mac OS X forbids third-party installations of Leopard, and Psystar's Mac clone is in violation of that agreement.[2] However, Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court: "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"[2] Psystar says it will continue to sell the Open system, adding "We're not breaking any laws."[2]

On July 3rd, 2008, Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in the District Court of Northern California.[3] A case management conference was scheduled for October 22nd to plan out future proceedings of the trial.

On August 28th, 2008, Psystar Corporation responded to Apple's claims of copyright infringement, and also countersued Apple for anti-competitive practices, monopolistic behavior, and copyright misuse.[4][5] This countersuit was dismissed on November 18, 2008.[6]

Dear Lord, People! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989625)

This is speculation *on* speculation. This is not news!

And read the book: it's "curiouser and curiouser"

Now get off my damned lawn. :-P

This is a common practice (5, Insightful)

Starturtle (1148659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989643)

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.

Who would want to support this? (4, Interesting)

NtroP (649992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989649)

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.

  1. Support PyStar quietly in the background
  2. if they gain traction "buy" Pystar
  3. diversify their offerings so as not to miss the mac surge and have leverage with MS
  4. ...?
  5. Profit

Re:Who would want to support this? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989933)

6. Get sued to hell and gone by shareholders and the SEC who just found out they diverted money off the books.

Apple watches their SEC filings -- and they have to disclose where all their money goes as a publicly-traded company. If its discovered that Dell directly financed this company and didn't disclose it in their SEC filings, their next investment will be in Crisco.

Re:Who would want to support this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989971)

Is PyStar a new Python module?

On information and belief... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989735)

This part is interesting...

8. On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystarâ(TM)s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the âoeJohn Doe Defendantsâ). On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Appleâ(TM)s intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Appleâ(TM)s license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendantsâ(TM) true names and capacities when they are ascertained.

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?

Check your references (0, Redundant)

marquis111 (94760) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989745)

Always, no, no...NEVER, forget to check your references

Isn't it "curiouser and curiouser"?

---------
I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down" verbally, don't you?

Wrong permise (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989747)

"Apple apparently believes ...

Apple doesn't believe anything. It's a corporation and doesn't have a mind.

Perhaps the author meant, "Some members of Apple's senior management appear to believe ..." ?

Grow up, and stop being so pedantic (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989899)

That's about as stupid as reading news about countries' governments doing something and moaning about the use of "Washington" or "Ottawa", it's incredibly common usage. You should read more.

Triggers (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990069)

My guess is that the poster's comment stemmed from the "Are Corporations Evil" question as posed by the film, "The Corporation". --Those who don't like the posited theory are quick to point out that corporations are just collections of people working together, and that any evil lies with them and cannot be blamed on the concept of the corporation itself which is neither good nor evil.

It's rather a touchstone issue with some people, (usually conservatives; liberal thinkers tend to say, "Corporations are evil? Well, duh."), and thus those of them who want their world to fit into a rational framework have to come to terms with the wide evidence of corporate wrong-doing while still maintaining their foundation belief in the competitive business model. Thus small triggers like, "Apple thinks. . ." are enough to elicit a response.

That's my reading anyway. I could be wrong.

-FL

Average? (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989763)

"For the OpenPro, online commentators have stated that the OpenPro's 'internal [hardware] design is only average compared with that of a Mac Pro,' ...

So uh.. that would make it.. equally well designed compared to what Apple did?

Biased much? (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989765)

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.

Re:Biased much? (2, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989855)

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.

Re:Biased much? (5, Informative)

B1 (86803) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989985)

The deal is that Compaq reversed engineered IBM's BIOS -- the only part of the design that was a trade secret. Everything else with the PC was very well documented and easily reproduced. The BIOS calls were already well documented. All Compaq needed to do was come up with a fully compatible BIOS without using IBM's code. Compaq came up with workalike BIOS using clean room techniques (or was it Phoenix technologies or some other shop -- I don't remember). I'm sure IBM fought tooth and nail, but they obviously weren't successful.

As for Apple vs. Psystar, it's quite different, the issue is that Psystar is violating Apple's software license agreement (that the OSX software will only be used on Apple-branded hardware). There are software checks in OSX to verify the hardware is Apple's, which means that Psystar would have to patch OSX to bypass those checks, and then distribute the modified code as their own OS.

Had Psystar somehow reverse engineered OSX with clean-room techniques to produce their own fully compatible workalike, this might be a very different case.

Also, copyright laws have changed quite a bit since 1981. I don't know if Compaq would have been able to legally clone the PC with today's laws.

Re:Biased much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25990079)

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...

Easy, Apple has more turtleneck sweaters and lattés. By taking business away from Apple you're pissing on Jack Karouacs grave, man! Dig?

Re:Biased much? (2, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990183)

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

Not good cloning versus bad cloning-- legal cloning versus illegal cloning.

IBM wanted to get a machine on store shelves quickly back in 1981, so they built an open system that was easily copied. The only proprietary thing about the IBM PC was the BIOS, which had to be clean-roomed. The Compaq BIOS was designed from scratch to mimic the genuine, copyrighted IBM BIOS in function, but other than that was an entirely original product. IBM sued over it and lost.*

Today's Macintosh is, from a hardware standpoint, an more or less open system that is easily copied. The only proprietary thing about a Mac is OS X. But Psystar isn't designing their own duplicate of OS X that does the same thing, which would be legal (ignoring patented aspects of Mac OS X for the sake of the argument). They are illegally altering an existing, copyrighted product. That's the difference.

~Philly

* Later, in an attempt to stuff the genie back into the bottle, they developed the proprietary Micro Channel Architecture to make their hardware a closed system to kill the cloners. The plan flopped-- the companies that were making clones banded together and standardized on a new open architecture (the ISA bus, IIRC) themselves, and from that point on IBM no longer dictated the direction the development of the x86-base personal computer would take.

Prayer for Relief? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25989785)

Wow, I've never heard of that legal definition: prayer for relief.

"WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows..."

I just can't imagine Steve Jobs praying to anyone/anything other than himself.

Fight Club (2, Funny)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989813)

Anyone else remember the 1999 blockbuster movie [imdb.com] ?

So, am I the only who thinks that the "someone else behind Psystar" is in fact Apple, fighting itself, schizophrenically?

Think about it. From one of the most locked down proprietary systems to come out of the 1980's, to a BSD based core espousing open source values a couple of decades later, basically this is Steve Jobs losing his mind and trying to break down his own core beliefs of hardware and gadget lock-in. And the only way this is possible is by going completely insane and fighting himself, while true believers and disbelievers alive gawk on.

Re:Fight Club (1)

wicka (985217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989891)

So what you're saying is that Apple is going to completely collapse (in the throat) but somehow still continue to operate?

Power Computing (5, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989863)

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.

Re:Power Computing (3, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990099)

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.

Conspiracy (4, Funny)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989875)

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...

Go Dell Go! (1)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 5 years ago | (#25989991)

I also vote for Dell. Look here at my speculation/analysis:

1. Dell is in a dire financial position for the past several years.
2. Michael Dell has attacked Apple before, verbally.
3. Michael Dell came back from retirement to try to save Dell.
4. Apple and Dell are strong competitors
5. Having Apple change its OS model would help Dell
6. If there is no change to Apple's OS model, no harm to Dell
7. Apple is taking Dell customers away in droves.

So, in short, Dell has nothing to lose and everything to win. Screwing with Apple in a public way is, in the least, fun and inexpensive. And at best, will result in Dell being able to sell OS X. And in the middle, would make Apple look silly. As long as the real puppeteer stays hidden, everything is good.

Well duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25990121)

In my experience, most corporations involve people at some level or another.

Google (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25990167)

I bet Google is behind it. Everyone knows that Google doesn't like Microsoft and has tons of cash to burn. I'd bet they would be ponying up the dough to help make the fight against Windows a real competition. Not the Sumo wrestler vs. super model fight that we have going on now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...