Psystar files for bankruptcy, anonymous creditors to be outed

We have mixed feelings about the news that Psystar is going under. On the one hand, it's wonderful having somebody attempt to create powerful, expandable Macs for cheap, on the other hand the company has been generally abrasive to the grassroots hacker community its work is based on, and pretty bombastic when it comes to Apple and "the law." But hey, everybody needs to make a profit, even companies being sued into oblivion by Apple, and the news of Psystar filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection has interesting legal implications. Not only does it stall Apple's case against the company -- while implying a possibly inevitable defeat -- but Apple has long posited that a mystery investor behind Psystar has nefarious aims, and the bankruptcy hearing on June 5th will name the creditors behind the company. Our fingers are crossed for a "Dan Brown"-style conspiracy, but we're prepared to be "post-2002 Tom Hanks"-style disappointed.

[Via SlashGear]

[Iceman @ May 26th 2009 1:58PM]

Must be the Woz!

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 2:05PM]

That would make a lot of sense, because Woz, while brilliant as an engineer, was a horrible businessman. He created a company to make universal remotes after leaving Apple and it folded pretty quickly.

[r3loaded @ May 26th 2009 2:08PM]

+1 for the Woz conspiracy! He has both money and a personal point to prove

[James @ May 26th 2009 2:42PM]

AHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!

So long you Terrorist nubs!!!!

you smelled of Osama anyways...

This is what you get for leaching off the backs of hard working hacker Nerds, Dweebs and Poindexters that would rather spend their friday nights tinkering with iPhone Basebands then driving around in mommy's BMW trying to get an STD from the town shore!!

AHAHAHAH

[Jean-Michel Decombe @ May 26th 2009 2:52PM]

Zune tattoo guy is behind this, trying to get back at Apple for constant iPod hipster bullying

[Bad Beaver @ May 26th 2009 3:16PM]

Re: Paul a. Chapel

You know you want one of those remotes. I know I do. Legend tells they were powerful. Very.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 3:39PM]

Universal remotes aren't necessary in my world. I watch television through EyeTV on my Mac ;)

[Patriks7 @ May 26th 2009 5:29PM]

"Zune tattoo guy is behind this, trying to get back at Apple for constant iPod hipster bullying"
Aha! Zune tattoo boy and Woz! They are definitely behind it! They have the money and the reason!
Time to go write a book and publish it before the case! :p

[M. @ May 26th 2009 1:58PM]

hey Forrest Gump was a good movie!

anyway, it's a shame it had to go down.. but it was inevitable, maybe just maybe Apple will start to think about lowering their prices just a bit.

[M. @ May 26th 2009 1:59PM]

it should be:

hey The Terminal was a good movie!

[AMiSH PiRATE @ May 26th 2009 2:03PM]

Remember how we all loved Forest Gump until 2002 when...

...and then we were just disappointed? *sigh* I miss those innocent days.

[Heath @ May 26th 2009 2:05PM]

I don't think they will even start to think about lowering their prices. They are gaining in market share.

[macgregger @ May 26th 2009 4:36PM]

toy story 2 was okay

[roole @ May 26th 2009 5:48PM]

@AMiSH PiRATE..... what happened in 2002?

[RiddleMeThis @ May 26th 2009 6:22PM]

the pirate lost his salty dog named lieutenant dan?

[Cheddar @ May 26th 2009 2:00PM]

Hard to feel bad for a bunch of criminals...breaking Apple's licensing policies is small in comparison to their flagrant disregard for the laws of the US. Not complying with the courts demands should void all their rights to protection under different US laws.

Good riddance to these clowns.

[mirakutea @ May 26th 2009 2:04PM]

This was a wierd pointless company, people can make their own hackintoshes.

[Jay Voorhees @ May 26th 2009 2:06PM]

"a bunch of criminals"..."their flagrant disregard for the laws of the US.".... "to these clowns"...are you talking about Psystar or our government? Anything you can do I can do better, as long as I don't get caught.

[Rob @ May 26th 2009 2:11PM]

If you had a legitimate copy of OS X is none of Apple's business what I do with it. I don't care what their silly EULAs say. It's like anything else you buy. As long as you're not pirating the thing what business of theirs is it what you do with it. Please.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 2:17PM]

@Rob

While you are well within your rights to install a personal copy of OS X on any computer you like, once you buy hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X with the express purpose of reselling them to third parties, you become a reseller and as a reseller, you have to get a license from Apple, who owns the rights to OS X. Microsoft does the same thing.

Apple spent millions developing OS X and they deserve the right to control it. Don't like it? Write your own operating system. What's that? You have no programming skills. Well, maybe you should STFU.

[Jay Voorhees @ May 26th 2009 2:28PM]

Paul, you just came off of a 3 day weeked of nothing but iPhone wet dreams. Why are you so angry? Did Mr. Bob attack you personally? Are you the one who spent millions of dollars developing an OS? You've become so attatched to a company even though the only stock you have in them are all of the products you have purchased, but you will defend their name from being dragged though the mud till your death. There must be something more productive you can do with your life. Go outside, plug in your little white headphones, and enjoy the world. Apple will be around long after you're gone and doesn't give a damn about you. It's ok, you'll live even though Rob is speaking his mind on the internet.

[ben @ May 26th 2009 2:30PM]

The Mac OS X retail is only valid for upgrades.

[Cheddar @ May 26th 2009 2:39PM]

Jay...I don't doubt that our government has the unique ability to take a small mistake and turn it into a colossal mistake...

Rob...just because you buy something legally it does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it...

[LondonConsultant @ May 26th 2009 2:48PM]

"Microsoft does the same thing"

Not a good example to make your point that Apple isn't being anti-competitive! Remember that Microsoft has just been found guilty by the EU of anti-competitive practices and fined over a billion euros...

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 2:55PM]

@Jay Voorhees

WTF? The iPhone? Who the hell mentioned the iPhone? I made a well reasoned argument about Apple's OS X copyright, as relates to resellers, and you deflect to the iPhone? I don't get your argument.

And by the way, I don't own an iPhone or iPod. So exactly what was your point again?

[coolbho3000 @ May 26th 2009 2:58PM]

LondonConsultant: Are you sure you aren't thinking of Intel? The EU fined Microsoft for anti-competitive practices long ago, with Intel it was much more recent.

Anyway, Apple is being very anti-competitive with their EULA, even though it may be complying with the law - they are limiting the hardware you can run OSX on to their own, squashing all competition wanting to make OSX compatible hardware. This was somewhat okay during the PowerPC era but nowadays OSX can technically run on the vast majority of consumer PCs out there. Apple limits it in order to sell more of their own hardware... Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 3:00PM]

(Sorry for the repost under the correct thread, Engadget's software hard at work again...)

"Hard to feel bad for a bunch of criminals"
...
"should void all their rights to protection under different US laws"

As per Wipedia, "Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States." Thus, Innocent until proven guilty. Since the US Constitution is the final say in US law, isn't your very claim contradictory? You are first calling them criminals (they have not yet been convicted), then saying that Apple deserves protection of law, and that protection should not be afforded to another company when said company has yet to be found guilty. If you wish to follow law, then follow it complete, not special consideration to protect Apple and Apple only.

@Paul, you claimed not too long ago that when Win7 reaches final release, you will torrent a copy and not pay for it. So people reselling a copy of OSX is evil, immoral, etc. but you stealing a copy of Windows is OK because it is Microsoft and you hate them. The Apple hypocrisy well at work.

[Monkey with glasses @ May 26th 2009 3:04PM]

@cheddar

Say what? That's the dumbest thing i ever read on engadget, and believe me I've read alot. You're a champ, I mean chump.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 3:07PM]

"...just because you buy something legally it does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it..."

Is that not one of the complaints against Microsoft in their trial? Microsoft was selling software to Dell, HP, etc. and those companies wanted to modify the installs to have links to Netscape, Real, etc. on the desktop. Microsoft told them no, and it was a complaint in front of the court. It was declared that those companies could modify the software and add desktop icons. The anti-MS fans cheered it, because when somebody buys software they should be able to modify it any way they wish.

But, I suppose, you will have some random argument that Apple is special, and should not be held to the same standard.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 3:08PM]

I keep hearing people make this argument:

"Well, if I buy OS X I should be able to do with it whatever I want."



Well, that's fine and all, but that isn't the argument. The argument is this:

"Should a company besides Apple have the right to resell thousands of copies of an operating system that they didn't design?"


What you can do with a personal copy is not the issue. What you do in your home is your business. Once you try to sell hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X on the open market, you have to get a reseller license, because Apple owns the copyright on OS X. Microsoft does the same thing. They have sued people for selling Windows on the internet without having a proper resell license.

[Jay Voorhees @ May 26th 2009 3:25PM]

Holy crap Paul, I think you just stumbled onto something incredibly profound here.

'Well, that's fine and all, but that isn't the argument. The argument is this:

"Should a company besides Apple have the right to resell thousands of copies of an operating system that they didn't design?"'

You just accurately described college book stores, disk replay, game stop, and now amazon and TRU. Why should apple be any diffrerent than game designers and authors. Theoretically if Apple sold me OSX then i inturn sold it to Psystar, Psystar installs it into a computer and sells the computer. I make money off of something I didnt design as does Psystar. Same damn thing.

[jepzilla @ May 26th 2009 3:26PM]

Paul, the counterargument would go: if Apple doesn't want Psystar to resell OS X, they have the choice to not sell it to them in the first place.

That being said, Psystar's booboo is modifying OS X (to run on their hardware) before reselling. That's a derivative work and requires explicit permission. They should have gone the EFI emulation route.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 3:33PM]

You guys don't understand copyright laws. When you buy a copy of OS X in the store, that's considered a personal copy and fair use laws allow you to resell that copy to a third party. Once you establish a corporation (which is what Psystar did) and buy hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X, you become a reseller and the laws governing fair use do not apply to you.

No one buys thousands of copies of OS X for personal use. The only reason to buy that many is to start a business. And fair use isn't set up to protect businesses. It's set up to protect the rights of individual consumers. A corporation doesn't receive the same protections.

So all your arguments to the contrary are fairly specious.



And remember I correctly predicted that Psystar would be out of business this year. But that's because I understand copyright law.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 3:38PM]

@Paul

So now you are a lawyer that knows copyright law? Can I see your credentials?

"No one buys thousands of copies of OS X for personal use."
So a company that has 1000s of Macs and want to upgrade so they buy Snow Leopard when it is released. They automatically became a reseller by your argument. What is the cutoff between a reseller and a user? 2 copies, 3, 10, 50, 100, 1000?

Then again, which company has 1000s of Macs to upgrade.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 3:47PM]

@Nohone

Businneses that need bulk copies of OS X get their licenses through Apple's volume licensing program.

http://www.apple.com/au/software/volumelicencing/

They aren't reselling them on the open market, so no they don't qualify as resellers. Apple has a reseller program. In many cities that don't have an Apple Store, you can find mom and pop business licensed to sell OS X.

Psystar never did that.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 3:52PM]

Paul, again, I ask you, so now you are a lawyer that knows copyright law? Can I see your credentials?

BTW, I am not completely disagreeing with you on all points, just that you are fighting so hard to defend Apple, but have a different attitude when these issues are faced by **other** software manufacturers. And no, for the record, I am not a lawyer. My bit about innocent until proven guilty is something that you learn in 3rd grade, and something that all citizens should know.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 4:05PM]

I don't recall saying I was a lawyer and be that as it may, why do I need to prove myself to you? If I made a error on the provisions of fair use in the copyright law, then prove it. Otherwise, what are you arguing about?

Is this simply a case of your reactionary Apple hate?

[Monkey with glasses @ May 26th 2009 4:07PM]

Whatever I pay with my hard earn money is mines and mines only, I could do what the f#@$ i want with it, if they don't want you to resell than don't sell more than a person can use, it is cool to take my money but not cool if i do the same with the product i just purchase. Every companies I know are doing it, even apple.

[Zak @ May 26th 2009 4:15PM]

Nohone: Get a new schtick already. The issue is not whether he's a lawyer, the issue is if he's RIGHT. Stop asking stupid questions like "are you a lawyer" and ask some intelligent ones instead. Make some points, maybe. Do something other than questioning his credentials.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 4:18PM]

Thanks, Zak. The guy admits I'm right, but he still wants to argue with me, just because it's Apple.

[liquidmark @ May 26th 2009 5:03PM]

"You just accurately described college book stores, disk replay, game stop, and now amazon and TRU."

Those companies bought their products from distributors or individual sellers. they have a LICENSE from the original publishers to sell the games regardless of WHERE they got the games/books/whatever from.

They still need PERMISSION to sell large quantities of product.

"Theoretically if Apple sold me OSX then i inturn sold it to Psystar, Psystar installs it into a computer and sells the computer. I make money off of something I didnt design as does Psystar. Same damn thing."

Not the same as gamestop or what have you. Those companies have PERMISSION from the publishers to sell the games. They also have PERMISSION to buy the games off of a individual and resell them. They have to sell the games within certain criteria and the whole nine yards.

As a business, they need PERMISSION form Apple to buy or sell OSX as a means of making profit. There's NO way around it.

Once they have the intent to make profit from it in large quantities, they need permission.

By YOUR logic, I can offer my neighbors Wi-Fi service and charge them for it. Nevermind that my broadband provider will make less money at the end of the day, it's ok for me to do whatever I want. screw their rights!

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 5:08PM]

Paul is claiming that we do not understand copyright law, claims he does ("But that's because I understand copyright law") then gives advice on copyright law. The only way to give advice on copyright law is to be a lawyer. In fact, they have a term for giving legal advice when you are not a lawyer, or giving incorrect information if you are a lawyer - malpractice. You neeed to be a licensed lawyer to give legal advice. He also claims that he is making reasoned arguments ("I made a well reasoned argument about Apple's OS X copyright"). So if we do not know copyright law but he does, then he must be a lawyer to give legal arguments. If he is not a lawyer, then his arguments are invalid and for the courts to decide - which they have not yet done (hence, my "Innocent until proven guilty" statement earlier). Any argument to the contrary, claiming that Phystar was in violation of Apple copyrights, is, to quote Paul with a small tweak, Is this simply a case of your reactionary anybody but Apple hate? Not only this, but he has said (comment now long gone, since he has been banned so many times), that he will Torrent Win7 when it is released, because he should not have to pay for it. If he is knowledgeable in copyright law, he should know that Torrenting Win7 RTM is a violation of copyrights. So he is able to give sound copyright law arguments, but he himself willingly violates said law? If he violates that law, then he is saying it is OK to protect one company but disregard rights of another, because it is a company he dislikes.

Zak, you have the biggest little "schtick" [sic] going around here. Put anybody down if they disagree with you, ignore parts of qestions when you are backed into a corner (just as Paul did, answer one part of what I wrote, but ignore the "are you a lawyer" question because it could be used to invalidate his argument), cherry-pick specific words from one person to "prove" you arguments, and claim that your word is the final, unquestionable truth - even if it contradicts something you may have said before. Get over it yourself, before you say somebody else is doing it.

And no, Paul, I did not admit you are right. I said I agree with some of what you are saying. This is what I mean when I say cherry-pick, you use portions of what I write, twist it to your fitting, and use it to claim that I hate Apple. My argument is that we need to protect copyrights of all people, not of just one company. But I guess in your little world that me saying we should protect the rights of Microsoft in addition to Apple, is an affront to Apple, since I am also arguing for Microsoft.

Who again is showing the hating hate?

[Mike10010100 @ May 26th 2009 5:11PM]

What? This is so stupid!

First of all, I'm going to say right now that I have no idea what the rightful outcome of this trial should be, and have no CLUE as to whether or not Psystar or Apple is in the right.

However, I will say this.

@Paul
The question remains. Did you or did you not claim that torrenting an illegal copy of Windows 7 was ok because it was Windows, whereas when someone else legally buys a copy, they automatically are criminals without even hearing both sides of the argument?

Everyone knows that both you and Zak are Apple lovers. That's fine. But don't think you have to internalize everything that happens against Apple and make it your personal crusade. I happen to be doing the same thing, buy my personal crusade is for logic and reasoning. I'm pretty sure Nohone just checkmated you about the legality of downloading a torrented copy of Windows 7.

Finally, Zak, could you please respond ONLY to this query? Have you ever posted anything other than A: a comment defending Apple or condemning Microsoft in an Apple related post or B: a comment defending Apple or condemning Microsoft in a Microsoft related post?

Thanks

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 5:25PM]

I'm not even going to bother to read what Nohone wrote. Dude, that paragraph is way too long and I'm sure you can't dispute my notions on copyright. You just have a stick in your butt because you thought Psystar was the answer to all your dreams about the destruction of Apple.

Face it, dude. Apple is going to be here for a long time.


@Mike10010100

Dude, the day I buy up thousands of Windows licenses and start a business called OpenWindows and sell Windows 7 without a reseller license, that's the day you can call me a hypocrite. And I never said that pirating Windows was okay, but even if I did, how the hell does that make Psystar right?

In fact, now that I've used the RC edition and didn't like it, I'm definitely not even going to pirate the retail version. My remaining reasons to use Windows, to run Valve games, evaporated when my friend gave me a copy of Crossover Games by CodeWeavers.

Here's a few screen shots of me running Valve games (among others) on my Mac.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/PACMan3000/

Windows is completely worthless to me now.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 5:33PM]

Mike, you hit on exactly what I am arguing for. I don't know what has been said in court, the arguments given, etc. just some of what has been said here on Engadget. Without hearing all the arguments, without knowing legal precident, etc. saying that Phystar is criminal is, quite simply, foolish.

[Mike10010100 @ May 26th 2009 5:39PM]

If you aren't even going to read when Nohone posts something, then why on earth did you tell him to prove his point and make some points.

The fact remains, you are a hypocrite. In fact, when your friend gave you that copy, wasn't he giving out more licenses and cheating Codeweavers out of money that they worked hard for? Copyright law should come down on your ass.

Now I'm not saying I haven't done some torrenting in the past, but then again, I'm not getting all high and mighty in regards to for whom the copyright bell tolls.

Read Nohone's comment. It has to do with the reason why he's been asking you whether or not you were a lawyer.

[Zak @ May 26th 2009 5:41PM]

nohone: You seem to have missed the point. Nobody cares if you want to see his credentials. If you think he's wrong, PROVE IT. How is that so hard for you to understand? You can blather on about what lawyers can or can't say till doomsday but you have yet to come up with a counter argument to what he's saying. Fail more, please.

As far as me, I already know you don't pay attention to what I say here. As always, you are welcome to prove me wrong about anything at any time. The fact that you seem to be incapable of actually doing that isn't really my problem, is it?

Mike - what sort of stupid question is that? Of course I have. The fact that you feel like you have to ask that just means you haven't been paying attention.

[Paul a. Chapel @ May 26th 2009 5:43PM]

It's really simple, guys. Psystar violated Apple's EULA. Apple has a legal system to redistribute their operating system and that's through their reseller program.

http://www.apple.com/au/buy/apr/

Psystar chose to ignore this. And if they ever go to trial, Psystar is going to lose. Your personal feelings have no bearing on this case.

[Mike10010100 @ May 26th 2009 5:51PM]

First of all, my comments have had NOTHING TO DO ABOUT THIS CASE!

And, regardless, neither of you are qualified to make this case an open and shut one, because it still has to go through the process of trial by jury and because neither of you are lawyers or judges! Regardless of what process Apple has for granting companies the right to resell their operating system, there could have been extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that Apple could have denied them due to the fact that they would be competitors on the Mac market. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

@Zak
That was a rhetorical question. I'm in the process of finding a single post that you have made that didn't have to do with praising Apple or condemning all their competitors. It's a lot to look through. There's a lot of hate. Almost makes you think that YOU were the one who designed all of Apple's products/ founded Apple.

[Nohone @ May 26th 2009 5:54PM]

Paul, debate is where you put out different points of view, and let othes decide. If you don't even read what I wrote, then how do you know I can not dispute your notions on copyright. Debate also requires points of fact. Saying that you understand copyright and no body else does, does not make your notions on copyright correct and invalidate the court's opinion.

Where did I ever say that I want Apple to be destroyed? This is why we dispute your "facts," you simply make up points of argument to back up the little bits that people do agree with you on. Besides, why would I want to see Apple fail? It gives competition to get Microsoft to do more. And it also helps me, being I sent my first iPhone app off to be posted to the AppStore over the weekend. Why would I want to see another of my personal revenue sources fail?

Yes, you did say you were going to Torrent Win7. And you doing it does not give Psystar the right to pirate, nobody calimed that. But on the other hand, they are not pirating, they are reselling something they bought off the shelf. It is up to the courts, not you, not me, not Mike, not Zak, etc. to decide, but the courts to decide if that is wrong.

I once posted a photo of me using an iPhone to post a message here on Engadget. I don't think it was iEye, but one of the other of your ilk (it was the time when iEye was posting here, and it is possible it was you just under one of your many names - I have no proof, but possible). I was told that I borrowed somebody's phone, typed in my message, took a photo, and was lying about it. So can we be sure that you are not lying? I do believe you, but if one person is "lying", then why should we believe you?

Since you will no longer be using Windows, there is no point in you arguing in future Microsoft threads. If you will be missed in those threads, only time will tell.