Jump to content

Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

apowerr

By apowerr,
in Front Page News and Rumors

 Share
702 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

mmcnally
mmcnally
Posted
Posted
Psystar releases Mac-compatible Blu-ray before Apple, but does anyone want it?

 

wonderful news...psystar moves ahead of Apple and adds Blu-Ray to its MAC clones. Will Apple ever add Blu-Ray? Will they feel the pressure now that competition has come to OSX? Maybe Apple will speed up its product roll out, and finally release timely hardware upgrades Windows users have been enjoying for years.

 

psystar_mac.jpg

Beautiful New Psystar with Blu-Ray

 

The basic Psystar desktop PC with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed is offered for $555. The Blu-ray burner is a $310 option, bringing the bottom line to $865...

 

Psystar fills Blu-ray gap on Macs

 

 

Now all that they need to is wait for Apple or this community to get BluRay playback working. Nice headline for them but hardly innovation. Now if they had actually gotten something new to work I would be impressed.

Hackintosh builders could already burn to Bluray.

 

Apple aren't going to bother adding Bluray whilst they would rather sell the content on iTunes for download to your machine and then playback on the AppleTV, and your iPod.

The majority of Apple purchasers (ie not people on this forum) will go the Apple route for HD which is iTunes, if they don't just buy a BluRay player anyway.

 

Why would Apple rather let you buy your content elsewhere and playback on your Mac rather then have you buy from the iTunes where Apple will make more money. People who are going to be buying iPod, AppleTV and Mac will buy them anyway. Sales are up in terms of $ and also units shipped with Market Share increasing. BluRay playback or lack of clearly isn't holding Apple back with there chosen target audience.

 

If Bluray playback comes then it is going to be with QuicktimeX which is supposed to be a complete overhaul. So likely to hit with 10.6 which is due for release when?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted
wonderful news...psystar moves ahead of Apple and adds Blu-Ray to its MAC clones. Will Apple ever add Blu-Ray? Will they feel the pressure now that competition has come to OSX? Maybe Apple will speed up its product roll out, and finally release timely hardware upgrades Windows users have been enjoying for years.

 

The basic Psystar desktop PC with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed is offered for $555. The Blu-ray burner is a $310 option, bringing the bottom line to $865...

 

So, as usual, Psystar spend all of 60 seconds adding hardware that I could easily add to my Mac any time, and then claims it's somehow relevant to the market? Why are these f*cktards getting any exposure?

 

You'll notice, for it to actually mean anything, they are waiting on Apple's hard work and development for it to mean anything to Mac users.

 

They are just crooked leeches and they deserve to be sued into the poorhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmcnally
mmcnally
Posted
Posted
Isn't finished yet...Psystar plans Mac notebook

 

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10...ay_desktop.html

 

Yep, I bet that they are busily scurrying through this forum to see which laptops work best with OSX86, and that will then approach the manufacturer to OEM it for them, in a slightly different case.

Putting in real design work here and adding real value! <_<

 

For what they are adding you may as well build an EFI-X system. If building your own system is too risky then why risk going with a 3rd Party Mac anyway. And yes I am aware that can't get an EFI-X device for a notebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted
No, it's not. I can't believe there are this many stupid people in the world.

 

Calling us stupid won't change that we're right. By US law a EULA is a contract. Legal and all the like. You agree to it, you must abide by it.

 

If you sign a contract that says you will repay a loan and then break the contract, you are legally responsible for the consequences of breaking that contract and the court will hand you your ass on a plate. I realize the method by which you agree to the EULA contract is contested in some areas of Europe, but since Psystar and Apple are both US companies and the US doesn't have any overall problems with EULA agreements of this type, this is fully enforceable by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
dies
Posted
Posted
Calling us stupid won't change that we're right. By US law a EULA is a contract. Legal and all the like. You agree to it, you must abide by it.

 

If you sign a contract that says you will repay a loan and then break the contract, you are legally responsible for the consequences of breaking that contract and the court will hand you your ass on a plate. I realize the method by which you agree to the EULA contract is contested in some areas of Europe, but since Psystar and Apple are both US companies and the US doesn't have any overall problems with EULA agreements of this type, this is fully enforceable by law.

 

Clicking a button which doesn't even care who you are is NOTHING like signing a contract.

The day the family pet can accidentally enter into a contract on your behalf is the day their equal and equally worthless.

 

 

I say I never saw this "EULA" you speak of, let alone agree to it.

 

You say that can't be it comes up right before installation and you must agree to it to continue, I say well it didn't.

 

What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Maxintosh
Posted
Posted
Clicking a button which doesn't even care who you are is NOTHING like signing a contract.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard regarding this. That's like saying signing a contract means nothing because the pen that you used doesn't care :)

 

I say I never saw this "EULA" you speak of, let alone agree to it.

Then according to the contract, you may send OS X back to Apple and they will give you a refund. Legally, you have no valid excuse, just unreasonable justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
dies
Posted
Posted
That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard regarding this.

Then you should read what you just posted. ;)

That's like saying signing a contract means nothing because the pen that you used doesn't care :rolleyes:

No, no it's not.

Then according to the contract, you may send OS X back to Apple and they will give you a refund. Legally, you have no valid excuse, just unreasonable justification.

Exactly. So even you are saying that the worse case scenario is that you give it back and they give you your money back.

 

That's one hell of a "contract" there, even if you default you're no worse off than when you started?

 

Have to say I haven't seen very many actual contracts that end like that, I like it.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Maxintosh
Posted
Posted
No, no it's not.

It's exactly the same. The only thing which is different is the method of delivery :wacko:

 

Exactly. So even you are saying that the worse case scenario is that you give it back and they give you your money back.

Yes, but it's one OR the other. Not doing one or the other is violating the contract. You have 3 choices which are ample; agree to the contract, not agree to the contract and walk away, or ask for a refund.

 

I haven't seen very many actual contracts that end like that

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
knyte2
knyte2
Posted
Posted
It's exactly the same. The only thing which is different is the method of delivery ;)

 

 

Yes, but it's one OR the other. Not doing one or the other is violating the contract. You have 3 choices which are ample; agree to the contract, not agree to the contract and walk away, or ask for a refund.

 

 

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :)

 

 

Contract law is iffy at best, if you're questioning that a contract is binding, I'd generally say no. For every contract, there is a way out of it. Take a look at sports contracts, they mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
dies
Posted
Posted
It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :(

 

Wow. Yes, how witty of you. :blink:

 

Unfortunately, I've seen and read a couple more than I really cared to. But fortunately in every single case there was absolutely no possible way for me to "accidentally" agree to it. Also, in every case the other party was, for some strange reason, very interested in making sure that I was who I said I was, go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badeavasile
badeavasile
Posted
Posted

A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law. The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept). Breach of contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. Sometimes written contracts are required, such as when buying a house. However, most contracts can be and are made orally, such as purchasing a book or a sandwich. Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).

 

Vikipedia

 

Remember those cowboy-movies? "They gotta' contract on your head"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted

"Here come da judge!"

 

Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims

 

But in a 19-page order passed down on Tuesday, Judge William Alsup largely reject Psystar's claims and granted Apple's motion to have the countersuit thrown out of court should the clone maker not better its argument through an amended complaint that can be filed no later than Monday December 8th. Should the company fail to do so, all of its claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

 

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

 

So, were we right, or were we right? They have a chance to counter, but since the judge chewed up all of their bull and spit it back out at them, I doubt there's any more "smoking guns" in Psystar's pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Maxintosh
Posted
Posted
"Here come da judge!"

Wow, Flip Willson, that goes back a ways :(

 

So, were we right, or were we right?

It was inevitable that the Judge would see reason and throw out all of psystars trumped up claims. The only sad part is that there are still boneheads out there who still think that psystar was right... *sigh* :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmcnally
mmcnally
Posted
Posted

I can't say I am suprised. When I read Apples response to the Psystar counter sue, it made good sense, showing how Psystar tried to show that MacOS was it's own market but sells the same machines running Linux and Windows, so surely Windows and Linux must compete with MacOS. Bit of a schoolboy error there really.

 

I can't see Apple going after individuals still as wouldn't be worth the hassle to them.

Of course the big difference is that no-one on the forum is trying to sell Mac OSX computers.

 

Wonder if this means that Apple are going to move onto EFI-X now and sue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaez
jaez
Posted
Posted
It was inevitable that the Judge would see reason and throw out all of psystars trumped up claims. The only sad part is that there are still boneheads out there who still think that psystar was right... *sigh* :(

 

Unfortunately for Psystar, Apple hired one of the Judge's previous legal clerks to work the case for them. Knowing this Judge's methods and patterns of thought was an advantage for Apple. So, it was a clever tactic by Apple's legal team. However, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. Psystar needs to get another Judge. This one will not favor Psystar no matter what. Maybe they could argue conflict of interest and get the judge dismissed from the case. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted
Unfortunately for Psystar, Apple hired one of the Judge's previous legal clerks to work the case for them. Knowing this Judge's methods and patterns of thought was an advantage for Apple. So, it was a clever tactic by Apple's legal team. However, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. Psystar needs to get another Judge. This one will not favor Psystar no matter what. Maybe they could argue conflict of interest and get the judge dismissed from the case. :)

 

:(

 

... and maybe, just maybe - if they all sing Christmas carols down in Whoville the Judge's heart will grow three sizes that day!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Maxintosh
Posted
Posted
Case dismissed!

This is my favorite part:

 

Not only that, but the judge also found that Psystar actually contradicted itself in pointing out that Apple has to advertise heavily to promote OS X against competing operating systems that perform the same tasks, and that Apple is "certainly entitled" to ask its customers to only use OS X on Apple machines. Yeah, that's a smackdown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaez
jaez
Posted
Posted
This is my favorite part:

 

judgething.jpg

 

And this is my favorite part:

 

The only reason it is not (yet) anti-competitive is because of Apple's pathetic marketshare.

 

Let's flip this around: Imagine MS starts making computers and stops OEMs from selling Windows on t... (Read the rest)

 

 

November 18th, 2008

 

:) Apple dodges antitrust bullet

 

 

give them a couple years to get marketshare...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...