Feeds

back to article Hackintosher denies Apple's documents allegation

Psystar is vigorously defending itself against Apple's latest charge that the Florida Hackintosher has destroyed documents relevant to the two companies' ongoing legal brawl. "Psystar has not destroyed documents," Kiwi Camara of Camara and Sibley, Psystar's recently retained lawyers, bluntly told The Reg. Apple says they did. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
WTF?

Legal Defense Team.

I'll have some of whatever they're smoking.

0
0
Linux

*** GO PYSTAR ! ***

Where can I donate to the Pystar Defense Team??

I want to see some feathers ruffled.

~ Where's the popcorn?? ~

0
0
Jobs Horns

I aint no lawyer but...

"Although the letter goes on to enumerate the destroyed evidence, large chunks of it are blacked out, presumably to protect Apple's trade secrets. Apple alleges Psystar has overwritten earlier versions of its code before Apple had a chance to examine them, deleted or lost relevant emails, and failed to satisfy "other deficiencies in... document production.""

If apple didn't have a chance to examine them in the 1st place how can they say they were even relevant? And what kind of document production wasn't satisfied? Apple mad that Psystars R&D probably consisted of 1-2 people who kept it all in their heads and didn't document how they did stuff very well? Apple almost sounds scared that they might lose on some accounts and are trying to get documentation stuff was illegally destroyed to make sure the final judgment goes completely in apples favor

0
0
Welcome

@ Version 1,0

When you're finish toking on that, pass it to me... but avoid Wrenchy's popcorn...

...it's -more than likely- stale.

0
0
Ted
FAIL

Give it up Psystar

Psystar has zero chance to win so why are they even trying? They're $250,000 in debt over this, so give it up and quit before that amount rises to $750,000. Psystar is cryptic word for LOSER.

0
0
Jobs Horns

Lets see the mighty Apple squirm a bit.

Microsoft get a tonne of shit aimed at them but Apple's practices are on the same level, if not worse. Apple has a bunch of pretentious, style obsessed fanbois who will defend every tiny fart that comes out of Steve Jobs, and would do so even if it was aimed at their faces.

Apple make a big deal of Windows issues despite the fact that they won't even dare to let their own OS run on any hardware than their own. Lets see Psystar win this case and Apple's smug smile wiped from its face.

0
0
Bronze badge

regardless of whether they win

afterwards they need to start some serious actions on whether apple has abused the market and shut out competition ..

me thinks yes !

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Nope

"Apple almost sounds scared that they might lose on some accounts and are trying to get documentation stuff was illegally destroyed to make sure the final judgment goes completely in apples favor"

Not really. In any court case, if new evidence comes to light to either party, they're not just going to overlook it are you?

0
0
Bronze badge

@Ted

"Psystar has zero chance to win so why are they even trying?"

I don't know what it is, but there's something in whatever it is that these types smoke that causes them to confuse legal reality with there own personal view of morality. Furthermore they seem to believe that the legal system will somehow automatically rewrite the law once presented with this personal view.

And it doesn't matter how often the courts find against them. Even when the highest of all courts has found against them they will continue to believe that they are right and will somehow win in the end.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

OS X

Apple OS X should be legal to run on any compatible hardware, purely because if Microsoft turned around and restricted the use of Windows to computers manufactured only by them and specific partners there would be an uproar.

Once Apple went to Pentium based machines they lost any genuine excuse not to offer the OS to the general market.

I am intending to either buy an iMac or the Dell XPS which is similar, mainly for space saving. I'll just dual boot into Windows as I use Visual Studio on a daily basis and already bought Photoshop etc for Windows.

If OS X was available legally to buy and run on my own hardware I would do it alongside Windows 7. I can't be bothered running it illegally. Not for a moral reason, just too much hassle to be worth it for something no better or worse than Win7 overall.

Eventually this may become like the IE issue in Europe, except this is something that actually matters.

I'd like to see how many people buy Apple products for the OS, and how many buy it for the actual hardware and/or the "street cred" (Street cred that some of them 'think' it gives them)

0
0

@ AC at 10:07 GMT

why should they do it? if i was in the same position as them i wouldn't do it. not at all.

0
0
Silver badge

@ Kevin 6

Apple's argument is covered more fully at other sites. Basically, they have a production Psystar computer and notified Psystar in October last year that as part of the discovery process they would need to be able to look at the various components that go into the software stack. Obviously they already have the real OS X bits, they're interested in the hack bits. Psystar first declared bankruptcy, then the court said that bankruptcy was no barrier to Apple's case, and Psystar subsequently managed to come out of bankruptcy almost immediately. They've now failed to deliver various of the bits that Apple requested, despite being notified of the need to preserve them. I assume the redacted parts refer to specific documentation as per Apple's paranoid theory that someone much larger is or was financing Psystar specifically to create this court case.

Supposing the court agrees that relevant documents have been destroyed, that probably means that Psystar lose immediately, owe Apple all costs and that the people that run Psystar are in contempt of court and are liable for imprisonment. So what do they do? They ask the audience if there are any questions they'd like posed in depositions, apparently unable to understand that the court doesn't view depositions as an opportunity to ask anything whatsoever. It's probably because of that sort of idea that they don't seem able to retain lawyers for very long.

Whatever you think of Apple, the Psystar people are clearly cretins. As pointed out above, they don't understand the difference between their personal morality and the idea of law, and even if they get to a full trial will probably play a genius move like arguing that EULAs should be illegal because they're not very nice and, look, they made a kitten cry.

0
0
Linux

Its not rocket science !

There are two ways to get OS-X onto something other than an Apple manufactured computer.

The first is to hack the OS itself and patch out the bits which look for specific hardware. I tried that and found it fairly straightforward to do. Here in the UK we CAN reverse engineer things, unlike in the great US of A, although copyright laws and patents would prevent it being sold !

The second is a MUCH better way of doing it because you might just be able to sell it!

That is to make hardware on which OS-X will run without modification. I have managed that too by carefully bringing together the right choice of mother board, display, etc., etc. Then make a 'special' plug-in card --- I can it an 'alias' card. Basically it is a liar and tells the OS what it wants to hear. Well, almost. You have to rewrite the BIOS to get the hardware patching to work, but since none of the hardware is Apple, then they can't complain --- can they?

I do it for fun, so just don't ask ! If you think you SHOULD be able to do it, then you can spend your own time acquiring the skills. I have been programming computers since 1964, long before Apple and Microsoft were ever heard of.

Oh --- just a last thought. Saying that Apple SHOULD allow its OS to run on other machines as though they are somehow faulty for not allowing it, please remember that in 1982 IBM did pretty much everything they could to prevent 'clone' machines from being respectable. Also remember that Microsoft never was a hardware maker, unlike Apple. Remember DR DOS ? Every new version was a step ahead of MS DOS --- until the next MS DOS copied what was in the last DR DOS. I can't think of a single thing that Apple has copied from Microsoft, but, looking the other way round, there is a lot of 'how can we do something like that without being sued?'

Just my opinion -- I know its worthless, so no need to tell me !

0
0

@ThomH

Unless Apple put the summary of evidence behind those blackout bars, they don't even have a claim, much less a case.

Oh, and EULAs aren't illegal, but they -are- meaningless. The EULA provides no rights to either party, simply because property law and copyright law trump corporate policies. Once you buy the media, you can sell it as you please (property law). You cannot legally copy the contents and sell the original (copyright law).

0
0

@AC Re: OSX

"I'd like to see how many people buy Apple products for the OS, and how many buy it for the actual hardware and/or the "street cred" (Street cred that some of them 'think' it gives them)"

For me it's a bit of both. I have toyed with the idea of running OS X on non-Apple hardware using something like EFI-X but I do like Apple's hardware, especially their laptops, and don't have time to waste on dealing with any issues that could crop up from running on non-Apple kit.

0
0
Grenade

Are we really caring about this?

After Apple gets their nose bloodied by Pystar(not saying they are gonna win). Whats to stop Pystar from moving to another less reputable country like Mexico or France and doing it again.

Anyway I already run BSD for free, no need to pay the Steve Jobs Army for the privilege.

0
0
Silver badge

@Dan 21

Obviously we don't know what's behind those bars, but the ongoing case is related to Psystar's sale of computers with OS X preinstalled. So, whether Psystar destroyed evidence or didn't, that won't really affect whether Apple have a case.

Regardless, per Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090813212508930), large parts of the letter are redacted (implying that the two paragraphs posted by The Reg are illustrative, not exhaustive) and was accompanied by a bunch of exhibits (now sealed). So, ummm, looks like they might have a point with this application even if they don't satisfy the "behind those black bars" test you just made up.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.