Hackintosher denies Apple's documents allegation
Psystar takes it to the street
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.
Apple says they did. In a letter filed with the US District Court of Northern California last week, Apple was equally blunt. "Defendant, Psystar Corporation," it reads, "has destroyed relevant evidence that it was legally required to preserve."
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."
The letter requests that the court order Psystar to produce the code described in the blacked-out sections. If they fail to do so: "Apple requests that the Court issue and order: (1) requiring Psystyar - under penalty of perjury - to admit that it has destroyed documents and (2) making a factual finding that prior versions of Psystar's software included [blacked out text] and were destroyed by Psystar."
Exactly what was in that allegedly erased code, we may never know
Psystar has taken its own potshot at Cupertino, as well. In a posting on the company's community blog entitled A taste of their own medicine, the Hackintosher invites its supporters to suggest questions to ask the nine Apple execs whom the company will depose for the trial.
The Floridians are apparently quite happy that they're readying the depositions. "After numerous depositions of Psystar employees and associates the shoe is finally on the other foot," the posting reads, "oh the joy!"
And the list of Cupertinians who will be required to squirm under Camara and Sibley's questioning is an impressive one. Among the nine are senior vice president of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller, SVP of Mac hardware engineering Bob Mansfield, and vice president of finance and worldwide business management Mark Donnelly.
When The Reg asked Psystar lawyer Camara why the company was soliciting questions for the deposition from its supporters, Camara replied: "Psystar has nothing to hide in this litigation," adding that: "We welcome the public's input and participation in our case."
Camara also told us that from his point of view, the case has ramifications beyond one underdog Hackintosher in Doral, Florida. "This case is about issues," Camara said, "the enforceability of EULA's [end-user's license agreement], the scope of the interoperability exception to the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], the scope of section 117 and the First-Sale Doctrine," concluding that the issues at question are "much broader than Psystar's particular business."
The case is scheduled to go to trial on January 11, 2010 in San Francisco. We expect that there will be plenty of maneuvering before that date. According to Camara: "Psystar plans to do its best to keep the public and the industry informed about the important legal issues being decided."
Apple, as is its habit, will likely make its positions known only through court filings. Although, as Phil Schiller's recent emails to a concerned developer and blogger about App Store tribulations, perhaps Cupertino's veil of secrecy might part a wee bit in this case, as well.
But we'd advise against holding your breath. ®
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.
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.
@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.
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).
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 !