Psystar files for Chapter 11, tucks tail between legs

The list of creditors can be found on page 4:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/psystar_debts.pdf

Nothing earth shattering at all, which is a bit surprising...the owner made a $120,000 investment...that's it? Hmmmm.....

Actionable Mango - EULAs are terms and conditions of a contract of sale. You agree to these terms when assenting to the contract.

Just putting "By reading this you agree to ..." does not make a contract or anything resembling it. To have a contract between us would require me to give explicit assent to the contract, which cannot be done passively (by, say, reading something), it needs an explicit action of assent (signing a document, installing software, taking goods to the counter in a shop with the intention to buy, etc).

There is just no comparison between a contract with a EULA, and someone writing "By reading this you agree to ..." (as amusing as it might seem at first).

Damn it.

*shopping for Newman-Os*

This is exactlly what apple wanted. Sue them till they run out of money.

Psystar recognized a need for a mid-level Mac and seized the moment. I came so close to getting one just because I had such a need. I get by with my iMac but, I just can't swing the $$ necessary for a MacPro. I'd love to have a mid-sized tower I can easily upgrade for around $1000. That's be so sweet. Look, I have 4 Macs in my home along with 6 iPods and an appetite for the iTunes store that gets me in trouble each month. I'm an unabashed fanboy and a loyal MacHead.

Please Apple, let's have a mid-sized tower that bridges the gap between iMac and MacPro. MacBook Pro? Check. MacBook? Check. iMac? Check. iPods? Check. I'm sure I'd come up with the $$ for this. Otherwise, I'm staying put for now.

that's true, but an the same vein that doesn't protect Psystar, since they were pre-installing it and there for knew what they were passing on the their customers. The individual who purchased the system could be forgiven, but it was the company selling it to them who would have "read" the EULA, disregarded it and built a business around a legal shell game. Abetting in breaking the EULA should still be a crime, especially when and Enterprise is built around that notion.

When's the firesale?

That's why Apple's case is for copyright violation.

Apple is saying the Psystar is violating their copyrights and their Brand rights by doing what they do.

Die a horribly painful death by the side of the road Psystar. You have been as annoying as most any "star" in the tabloids for sale at the grocery store. Next story!

I was sort of expecting this after the last motion-war over Psystar's failure to turn over all financial documents as requested for discovery -- because, by Psystar's own filings, those documents didn’t exist. The whole "business" which already looked shoddy and slapped together anyway, was clearly total amateur hour. To me that sort of explains the brazenness, you can be ballsy if you have nothing to lose.

I agree that some of the questions posed by the suit were interesting, but in this case, they appeared so black and white, by my non-lawyer eyes, I wasn't expecting any sort of reversal from what is already pretty standard EULA law and precedent.