Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware
Psystar files for Chapter 11, tucks tail between legs
In the fight for the right to As TMO points out, this action seems to indicate that the financial supporters of Psystar are seeing the writing on the wall and believe Apple will likely be the victor in the legal battle for distribution rights of OS X-running Macintosh clones.
One outcome of Psystar's decision to file Chapter 11 is that its equity creditors will be revealed, finally pulling the curtains off of the secret of who has the (possibly) deep pockets in Psystar's legal battle. Another outcome is that Apple's case against Psystar will be temporarily delayed as the bankruptcy proceedings require all other legal action involving Psystar to be put on hold.
Currently Psystar is still selling its 'wares online, however, once the Federal judge presiding over the bankruptcy filing lifts the stay of legal actions, it is likely that Psystar will fold under the financial pressure. Psystar's chutzpah notwithstanding, the bankruptcy hearings are set to begin on June 5; stay tuned folks, this is still going to be messy.
[via Twitter, a tip of the hat to @PaulKent!]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Eric Warnke said 12:37PM on 5-26-2009
I would have never bought one of their systems, but I would have liked to see the meat of the case resolved in one way or another since it's a very important question about sales of retail software and EULA's.
Reply
colouroflight said 12:56PM on 5-26-2009
That's a shame. I hope they fight Apple off and get away with it, though.
Reply
Christina Warren said 1:03PM on 5-26-2009
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.
Reply
Rich said 7:41PM on 5-26-2009
"EULA law and precedent"
Since when have EULAs been law? At best, EULAs are wishful thinking.
VanillaSpice said 9:41PM on 5-26-2009
No, thinking that EULAs are not enforceable is wishful thinking. Thinking they are "not law" is just crazy, because there is such a thing as contract law, and EULAs are nothing more than terms and conditions for a contract of sale.
The legal problems surrounding some EULAs were due to their nature of being contracts of adhesion where you could *only* read the EULA by purchasing the software, and once purchased you were supposedly bound by the conditions of the EULA you couldn't read beforehand.
But all of Apple's EULAs are available for perusal prior to purchase, and the EULA itself is presented (and must be agreed to) prior to installation. You must give *explicit* assent to the EULA or you cannot use the software. If you use the software (if, say, you make clones and you install the software on them) then you will have given explicit assent (by clicking "I agree") and so you are definitely bound by the EULA, make no mistake about it.
mark said 1:28PM on 5-26-2009
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!
Reply
Actionable Mango said 2:09PM on 5-26-2009
Psystar is a reseller, not an end-user. Seems like the EULA wouldn't apply to them. Also, courts have ruled both ways on whether a shrink-wrap EULA is even valid in the first place.
It reminds me of the case where someone tried to return an opened box copy of MS Windows. He had to open the box to read the EULA. The EULA states if you don't agree with the terms of the license, to return the software. He didn't agree with the terms of the license, so he was trying to return it. The store wouldn't let him return it, because it was an opened box. It's an unfair, no-win scenario.
Reply
liquidmark said 5:01PM on 5-26-2009
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.
Roberto Felgueiras said 3:01PM on 5-26-2009
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.
Actionable Mango said 5:33PM on 5-26-2009
EULAs are ridiculous.
By reading this reply, the reader agrees to send Actionable Mango a package of Mint-flavored Newman-O's.
Aron Trimble said 7:45PM on 5-26-2009
Damn it.
*shopping for Newman-Os*
VanillaSpice said 9:56PM on 5-26-2009
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).
Roberto said 2:52PM on 5-26-2009
When's the firesale?
Reply
bebopredux said 4:30PM on 5-26-2009
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.
Reply
Peter said 6:54PM on 5-26-2009
This is exactlly what apple wanted. Sue them till they run out of money.
Reply
Slacker said 1:52PM on 5-27-2009
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.....
Reply