Psystar bails on bankruptcy, promises to 'battle Goliath'

Computerworld ^ | July 5, 2009 06:20 AM ET | By Gregg Keizer

[Swordmaker]

Mac clone maker begs out of Chapter 11 after payment plan with its legal team falls through

Psystar, the Mac clone maker embroiled in a legal dispute with Apple, asked a federal judge last week to dismiss its bankruptcy case, saying that it had been unable to reach a payment agreement with its law firm.

At the same time, Psystar said in a letter to customers that it is "again ready to battle Goliath," a reference to Apple, as it announced a new clone powered by Intel's Xeon quad-core "Nehalem" processor.

In the motion submitted last Thursday, Psystar asked a Miami federal bankruptcy court to dismiss the Chapter 11 case it initiated more than a month ago.

"As of the Petition Date, it was the Debtor's intention to restructure its operations to be able to produce a more profitable product and that way be able to meet its obligations and continue the litigation in the Northern District of California," said Psystar, referring to the copyright and software licensing infringement charges that Apple leveled against it in July 2008 for installing Mac OS X 10.5 on its clones.

[Swordmaker]

Psystar has requested that the Bankruptcy case be dismissed... and intends to continue it's battle against the Goliath Apple...even though they have not been able to negotiate a repayment schedule with their law firm... PING!

Mac Ping!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Hodar]

This is an interesting one, in my opinion. If you can purchase Mac OS off the shelf, and if you can install it on hardware - I just don’t see how Apple can file suit. They didn’t invent the hardware, they just write really awesome software. Now, I’ve worked for Motorola and was involved in R&D on the PowerPC, and I’ve worked for both Intel and Dell; the x86 motherboards aren’t magical - they are just your standard run of the mill ‘design reference’ motherboards.

Psystar simply exploits the basic hardware, and allows you to boot and run the Apple OS on common off the shelf hardware. Which is pretty cool.

Way back when, Apple allowed clones to be made; and they discovered that the clones did not expand marketshare, but rather it cannibalized their over-priced hardware sales. Now that they use the same hardware as Dell, Gateway, HP and everyone else - I think Apple is making a huge mistake by not competing directly with Windows in the OS market.

[Star Traveler]

Ummm..., they’re schizophrenic and nuts...

That’s why I prefer to call the company Psycho-star computers... (you must be “psycho” to buy from them... LOL...)

[JoeProBono]

[Star Traveler]

You said — Now that they use the same hardware as Dell, Gateway, HP and everyone else - I think Apple is making a huge mistake by not competing directly with Windows in the OS market.

—

That’s where all the analysts and pundits and so-called experts all make their mistake. Apple is not a software company, but a hardware company that uses software to support its hardware. That’s pretty much the way Steve Jobs has made it clear to everyone, too. But, still others “don’t get it”...

So, no..., Apple does not need to compete with Windows in the OS market. it needs to continue to exclusively make their excellent hardware, giving excellent support and providing their excellent software that backs up everything that they make.

If someone else wants to take their software and refuse to abide by Apple’s stated requirements for use of it — then they deserve to be sued “out of existence”... which doesn’t seem to be too far away for Psycho-star... (as they are already mentally unstable at this point in time, by what they’ve just said... LOL...).

[Star Traveler]

Ants need to be put out of their misery, especially when they are irritating the adults... LOL...

[Star Traveler]

The more I read about “Psycho-star” the more I think that they’re crazy... LOL..

It seems that some “big money-interest” is behind the operation for the purposes of funding it and finding some “opening” for getting to Apple — but — they couldn’t find anyone to run such a company other than crazy people, so they got these guys to do it... :-)

[Hodar]

Apple is not a software company, but a hardware company that uses software to support its hardware

Apple's iPhone and iPod products are examples of hardware with excellant softare. However, the PC motherboard is just a standared Intel reference design. Apple's computer hardware, especially their hardware designs have nothing really great to brag about. They have been well behind the industry in their bus speeds for decades. Their software and hardware INNOVATION is first rate. The MacBook Air with the solid Aluminum case is a great example of innovation in design. But, under the pretty facade is a simple motherboard, not unlike what you would find in any low cost PC or laptop.

[Star Traveler]

Well, Apple is a hardware company that specializes in synergy and supports it all with excellent software and good customer service...

“Synergy” is the keyword for the hardware aspect of Apple. No one has it beat there. And no one exhibits *any clue* as to “getting it” any time soon (to be able to compete effectively against Apple).

[RegulatorCountry]

“The whole widget” was mantra at Apple until the bad old days of dull product and clones, and it’s mantra again. I bought a Mac clone from Power Computing, headquartered in Round Rock, TX, back in the day. Still have it, somewhere, gathering dust in the attic probably. Ran Mac OS 7.3, if I’m not mistaken, and I saw that cute little bomb more often than I cared to see it.

If Apple is to get entangled in supporting every hardware manufacturer, they’ll be on their way to becoming Microsoft. They’re not a software company though, nice as their OS may be.

I’m not particularly enamored of the idea, of Apple becoming Microsoft. I’m not sure why you are, either. If you want the Mac OS experience, get a Mac. You don’t even have to ditch the old software, it’s bootable in either Win or Mac.

And, it’s not as if they’re all that much more expensive anymore. Much better conception, design, materials and ergonomics than any Windows PC I can think of, too. IBM occasionally came sort of close, maybe Compaq, in the past. Not a one holds a candle now.

[Terpfen]

If you can purchase Mac OS off the shelf, and if you can install it on hardware - I just don’t see how Apple can file suit.

When you buy either Windows or Mac OS, you aren't buying the operating systems themselves: you're buying a license to operate that OS. My understanding is that Psystar is violating the terms of that license by a) reselling OS X b) on unauthorized hardware. (This is why Apple doesn't go after people who put their Macs on eBay, for example.)

Way back when, Apple allowed clones to be made; and they discovered that the clones did not expand marketshare, but rather it cannibalized their over-priced hardware sales.

Macs are not overpriced: Apple simply does not compete in the low price/low margin tier of the PC OEM industry. Just as BMW does not overcharge relative to Toyota, neither does Apple overcharge relative to Dell. They're just competing in different markets.

[Natty Bumppo@frontier.net]

Pystar's investors are getting schooled in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Pystar's "investors" would rather quietly continue to lose money than be forced into the open during the discovery phase of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Given the mostly nonexistent, and incredibly poor state of the few financial records introduced into court by Pystar to date; Pystar appears to be hollow and a sham. Separate from any civil or criminal issues regarding Apple's Intellectual Property, Pystar is so poorly managed and administered that open perusal of their records will generate a continuous stream of serious violations of Federal and State laws.

The usual protections afforded to investors by a Corporation may be tissue paper thin in this case. Pystar's "investors" are likely to find they are fully and individually liable for the outcome of any civil or criminal proceedings that may result from discovery.

The case is no longer about Intellectual Property or restructuring Pystar's debts so it an continue operations. It is about protecting the "investors" from a broad range of extremely adverse civil and criminal sanctions that are a direct result of their own corruption and stupidity.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You said — Now that they use the same hardware as Dell, Gateway, HP and everyone else - I think Apple is making a huge mistake by not competing directly with Windows in the OS market.

—

That’s where all the analysts and pundits and so-called experts all make their mistake. Apple is not a software company, but a hardware company that uses software to support its hardware. That’s pretty much the way Steve Jobs has made it clear to everyone, too. But, still others “don’t get it”...

So, no..., Apple does not need to compete with Windows in the OS market. it needs to continue to exclusively make their excellent hardware, giving excellent support and providing their excellent software that backs up everything that they make.

If someone else wants to take their software and refuse to abide by Apple’s stated requirements for use of it — then they deserve to be sued “out of existence”... which doesn’t seem to be too far away for Psycho-star... (as they are already mentally unstable at this point in time, by what they’ve just said... LOL...).

6 posted on July 6, 2009 12:23:54 AM EDT by Star Traveler

Apple's iPhone and iPod products are examples of hardware with excellant softare. However, the PC motherboard is just a standared Intel reference design. Apple's computer hardware, especially their hardware designs have nothing really great to brag about. They have been well behind the industry in their bus speeds for decades. Their software and hardware INNOVATION is first rate. The MacBook Air with the solid Aluminum case is a great example of innovation in design. But, under the pretty facade is a simple motherboard, not unlike what you would find in any low cost PC or laptop.

You have stated the truth, and don't know it. Apple's products are examples of excellence in system design. They make some good hardware (well, they contract out the fabrication to China, like most companies do) and they make some excellent software with which to add value to the hardware. Apple is a systems design house which makes Microsoft type money on a modest market share. They couldn't make the same money just selling software, and their CEO is a visionary for systems. He sees the big picture, and produces synergies among hardware - not only electronic but physical - and software. A system which even includes the store not just to sell the products but to add value by connecting the potential/actual customer to the capabilities of Apple's products.

Part of the excellence in systems design consists in restricting the hardware configurations to control the scope of the task of assuring compatibility of the software with the hardware. Microsoft attempts to be a Jack-of-all-hardware, and the result has been less success in assuring compatibility. That's part of what Snow Leopard is about - pruning off the old PowerPC hardware base in order to simplify software-hardware integration. Painful if you're the prunee, of course . . . but an incentive to customers to upgrade to Intel hardware to participate going forward. Which is what I did to get Leopard, since my G4 wasn't up to spec for Leopard.

[antiRepublicrat]

But, under the pretty facade is a simple motherboard, not unlike what you would find in any low cost PC or laptop.

One big difference is that they use EFI instead of the outdated BIOS on almost all Windows PCs. The system's quite a bit more intelligent before the OS is loaded. Windows x86 just recently got support for EFI.

[Hodar]

One big difference is that they use EFI instead of the outdated BIOS on almost all Windows PCs.

Excellant point. I had neglected to mention that part, no doubt that EFI is superior (basically drivers built into BIOS); and that is a superior technology. However, the PCB and the bill of materials to make the motherboard remain the same. The structure of the firmware (EFI vs BIOS) is different.

My point being that Apple did not re-invent the motherboard to make the x86 leap; this is standard motherboard hardware underneath that sleek external finish, and that same old basic motherboard is doing all the 'work' that makes Apple what it is. In the PC world, Apple is a software company that uses the same basic hardware that everyone else uses.

[antiRepublicrat]

Apple does invent some stuff. Remember that thin-package Intel chip a while back that they needed for the MacBook Air? Apple had a part in it. Apple probably designs their own motherboards, too. Yes, they use the usual chips for the most part, but the arrangement tends to be unique to enable their designs. The innards of an iMac look nothing like a standard PC.

The R&D to do that costs money.

True, they didn’t re-invent the motherboard, but they aren’t exactly taking stock off the shelf either.

[Hodar]

True, they didn’t re-invent the motherboard, but they aren’t exactly taking stock off the shelf either.

That is not an accurate statement. If the designs were unique to Apple - then there is NO WAY that Pystar could buy off-the-shelf ASUS motherboards and boot OS X. When an OS boots, there is a whole lot of fact checking, as far as the component layout is concerned - what is on the motherboard, who made it, what part number, what frequency, memory size and configuration. There is a mess of stuff that happens. If the Apple motherboards were unique in any way, then Psystar would be stopped from the initial starting point, as a unique motherboard would be a patent infringement on anyone attempting to make an Apple clone.

If you look at the schematics on any Apple laptop, or desktop - you will find an Intel reference design, possibly laid out differently to accomodate packaging requirements in an Apple laptop - but the parts, their functionality, frequency, voltage and overall design is the same as what you would buy for your Dell, HP or Gateway laptop. Foxconn makes most of the boards for Apple, they also make them for Dell, HP and Gateway too (plus a few others as well).

[antiRepublicrat]

If the Apple motherboards were unique in any way, then Psystar would be stopped from the initial starting point

They use a hack to get around the checking.

If you look at the schematics on any Apple laptop, or desktop - you will find an Intel reference design, possibly laid out differently to accomodate packaging requirements in an Apple laptop

That's exactly what I was talking about. Except for the EFI they have the same computational functionality, but their design is often quite a bit different and more original than the cheap PCs.

Foxconn makes most of the boards for Apple,

Apple is also known to put much higher demands on, and stretch the technological limits of, their manufacturers than the other OEMs.

[Hodar]

Hmmmm, EFI is a methodology of basically moving the drivers that run your motherboard components from the HAL to the boot layer (ie. Bios), this allegedly makes the boot process more seamless and more robust.

I know for a fact that there is a metric ton of garbage in BIOS that is undocumented and legacy - the BIOS engineers I worked with didn’t know why it was still in there; all they knew was that the system wouldn’t boot without it in there. Gazillions of patches, and patches on top of patches - this is one of the reasons that EFI is being driven forward.

Now, to the best of MY understanding, where the EFI/BIOS chip lives (root PCI bus, SPI bus, ect.) does not change; only the content of the firmware. So, unless I am wrong (and this happens frequently) the schematic for a EFI and a BIOS motherboard will be identical. The only difference between these two boards is the content of the EEPROM that the board boots from.

Hence, my statement that the Apple mobo is identical to the mobo used in any Windows PC. All the EFI would have to do is set up and mimic a BIOS report to WindowsXP somewhere in memory, and Windows would happily boot up on the same hardware.

Now don’t get me wrong, I worked for Motorola for 9 years and did some design work for Apple way back in the PowerPC days. I love and respect the MacIntosh - however, Apple was never at the forefront of motherboard design. Motorola made countless motherboards for Apple, primarily because we had access to fresh silicon (68040, 68LC040, PowerPC family, ect) and we knew our largest customer was Apple. Therefore, it was to our advantage to make the best, fastest motherboard we could make and GIVE it to Apple as a gift - because we knew that every Mac they sold, was a microprocessor we sold.