Psystar Destroyed Evidence, Apple Claims

Source: Information Week

Apple is claiming that Psystar purposely destroyed evidence relating to Apple's ongoing copyright infringement lawsuit against the Florida-based Mac clone manufacturer.

"Specifically, Psystar has overwritten—i.e., erased—infringing versions of the software code used on computers sold to its customers," Apple alleged in court papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court for Northern California.

Kevin DeMers, Senior Manager of Unified Communications at CDW talks about the benefits of unified communications, some of the technology involved, the typical migration path, several advanced applications, and provides a customer example. To begin his Intel Core i7 quad-core PC build project, Alex unboxes the Thermaltake BigWater 760is liquid cooler. What is cloud computing? What's it for, who might want it, and how does it work? These are just some of the questions that we answer in our brand new format, which includes an introduction by editorial director Manek Dubash, and a forensic examinatio
Kevin DeMers, Senior Manager of Unified Communications at CDW talks about the benefits of unified communications, some of the technology involved, the typical migration path, several advanced applications, and provides a customer example.
"Psystar's failure to preserve and produce this clearly relevant evidence violates both the Federal Rules and this Court's Supplemental Order governing discovery," Apple said in a partially redacted document.

Apple sued Psystar for copyright infringement last year after discovering that the small company, which operates from a non-descript light industrial park near Miami, was selling unauthorized Mac clones over the Internet....

Read more: http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400257

---

Don't ever try to clone a mac!!!!!!

You do know that since Apple went with Intel cpu's they really are just a PC running a proprietary Unix based operating system, right?

face the consequences.

Apple's elitist marketing strategy and pricing is about as non-progressive as you can get.

They make my ear pacifiers.

After decades at 5-6% of the U.S. market, Apple shot up to a 9.5% share last year; but have since fallen back to 8%. They increased their market share, yes. Tripled it? Not. They haven't even doubled it. Even Acer sells more computers than Apple.

As far OS's, with Linux at about 1% these days, that means Windows runs 91% of the U.S.'s computers. See: "Apple's share of US PC market slips to 8%" (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/01/14/apples_share_of_us_pc_market_slips_to_8_at_hands_of_acer.html), and "Linux Reaches 1% Usage Share (http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/01/1443237)

This is in the U.S. only. For the entire world Apple's share is way smaller, thoough their share worldwide has increased as well over the last few years..

Apple is pricing its technology out the the reach of many users, especially out of the US and Western markets. Infusion of technology and information is one of the best ways to empower masses of people. Apple's pricing constructs insure that they will not be part of that.

even if Apple's could do stuff better than my PC could I wouldnt buy one just based on cost alone.

Quad core AMD Phenom CPU, two Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT video cards, 4GB of RAM. It really is a sweet machine; I (re)built it myself. I cannibalized some parts from my old machine- namely, all the drives and externals- and added in the fun new stuff. Of course, I already had a case... but chances are, everyone reading this has one of those, and if you don't, you have a weird exposed-internals mod thing going on.

Anyway, I rebuilt my PC for $460 plus tax, and the machine just rocks.

A Mac Pro starts at $2499 (:wow:, but in fairness, the Mac Pro is more on the level of a development tool than a "personal" computer). The base model of the Mac Mini is about halfway to my PC, and starts at the low, low price of $599. That's with ONE gigabyte of RAM, by the way (RAM is almost free these days- WHY is Apple RAM so suspiciously expensive), one single dual-core CPU (!), a paltry 120GB hard drive, and an absolutely laughable 8X Superdrive.

8x? Seriously? No, that has to be a typo. I didn't think anyone bothered to make 8x drives anymore.

Shame to waste all that beautiful hardware on such a crappy OS.

Oh wait.... :)

unless you've turned it into a Hackintosh. I use Windows, Linux and OSX (which allows me to run a phenomenal music app called Logic), but it kills me to pay Apple's prices for their hardware. I've heard arguments that the hardware is superior, but that's hogwash in my estimation. And the idea of a Mac clone is very appealing to me.

I'm not really sure where Apple has a legal leg to stand on here. Aren't all PCs clones? Doesn't the industry have a long history of borrowing technology and ideas from one another? How does creating a patch to allow their operating system to be installed on a low cost PC violate their rights? You could point to the EULA, I suppose, but most EULAs are laughable, and there are those who say Apple's version wouldn't stand up in court. I guess we'll see.

I love my Mac. My iPhone. I think Apple makes beautiful eye candy.

But I hate like hell having to pay a premium to get it.

They're one of the last traditional computer companies, in that they make computers along with operating systems and peripherals for those computers. They're not as traditional as they used to be; back in the day all Mac printers, speakers and other peripherals were made by Apple. However, their greatest skills are not in designing computer hardware, but in interface design, industrial engineering and marketing.

So over the years they've abandoned all their unique hardware conventions and now sell a PC with a few bits of proprietary silicon and Mac OS. Some say that the logical thing for them to do would be to allow clones and make money by selling Mac OS, but they've always fundamentally been a hardware company and they don't want to abandon that business model. They'll always have customers with their high-end, walled garden approach, but they'll never take over the computing world like the PC did. That happened because IBM opened up the PC specs for anyone to use.

You are comparing "Apples" and "Oranges"

Anyway if you compare brand name machines, the prices are very competitive.

However you have to be a smart shopper, like anything else. I would ----> never <----- buy a mac mini for example.

And it pays to visit the shopping sites to see who has bargains.

Additionally while the prices on base machines are competitive, Apple makes money on extras like adding more RAM. That is why I always get any additional RAM from a vendor like newegg.com

Your machine sounds great. I like PC's too.

I could be at a 12 person conference table and there will be 11 identical MacBook Pros. (Except me - I have a Sony PC laptop) Sometimes people at those meetings will walk away with other people's Macs and not realize it -- because all their computers look exactly alike.

I'll sit down at these meetings look at a table full of identical 15" MacBook Pros and say to myself "Think Different? -- riiiiight."

That is funny! :)

-- Apple's prices are equivalent to comparably spec'ed Windows machines from name brand vendors. The sony vaio equiv to the macbook costs about 50.00 less at my best buy, Or is it the other way around?

-- Apple has some of the best customer satisfaction numbers out there

-- Apple was one of the first companies to provide full partnership benefits to employees in same sex couples

As to "elitist marketing strategy" -- that is just silly, every tech company aspires to market their products as cool. Additionally Apple markets its computers as computers for regular folk, not the techno literate. I fail to see how that is "elite"

So you hate apple, we get it. Don't buy their products.

No need to spread teabagger type disinformation.

Apple runs a monopoly. Try using a streaming music service like Napster or Yahoo Music on an iPod. Why give them a pass?

How can Apple be a monopoly if there are so many competitive computer companies?

You will claim that Apple has a monopoly on Macs, but that is just as wacky as saying Ford has a monopoly on Ford Cars!

Think about it and be rational.

As to running a "streaming music service like Napster or Yahoo Music" on an iPod, most iPod users don't care to. I know I don't give a shit about it. If I did I would by another player that did. And since there are many other players to choose from, then Apple isn't a monopoly there either.

As to music you can put on your iPod, it supports many audio formats including MP3, WAV, etc none of which are proprietary. Of my 30 gigs of music on mine, I doubt more that 5 gigs came from the Apple store or use an Apple codec.

So yes, that is disinformation, and it is just silly!

I can install Opera on my iPhone or Google Voice? How about OSX on my PC? Imagine if MS led the MP3 player market and required that you use MSTunes. I'm sure you'd be gung ho about that. :eyes: Imagine if MS decided tomorrow to not allow iTunes to run on PC's like OSX cannot EVER run on a PC. Would pretty much kill the iPod and iPhone in moments.

There are plenty of successful computer companies that provide alternatives to Apple's computer offerings. Therefore it is not logical to claim that Apple is a monopoly in the computer industry.

Ditto for music players. You have a choice of which music player to buy. There are plenty of alternatives out there.

If you want a phone you can install Opera on, buy one! If you want an iPhone, buy one! There are lots of choices out there in the smart phone category.

OSX is Apple's OS it is up to them to decide how to market it, and they have chosen to market it bundled with machines. That's their perogative. Your "outrage" over that makes about as much sense as if I were "outraged" that I couldn't install Sony's Playstation OS on my Nintendo.

They own about 90% of the MP3 player market. That's pretty much a monopoly. As far as their computer manufacuturing goes, they engage in monopilistic practices, but can't seem to break the 10% mark.

Considering the way that Apple responded to MS just including IE with Windows that is laughable.

Like I said, just like if MS said tomorrow that it would no longer be able to run or Macs or allow iTunes to run. That would be their right.

Let an admitted Apple fan explain it you. http://calacanis.com/2009/08/08/the-case-against-apple-in-five-parts/

I run XP on the gaming rig.

The mac runs firefox thank you, just as the windows machine.

You really are talking out of your ass

You hate Mac, we get it, but here is a hint. Why did I get the Macbook? Windows Vista. Why did we "upgrade" to xp after way too many headaches? Windows Vista.

Oh and my gaming rig with the exact same stats as yours, from a retailer, (didn't feel like putting it together myself) was priced about 100 MORE than the equivalent mac. There is more... you are screaming about the 1 RAM on a mac... here is a hint buddy. my Macbook has one gig... boots faster than the XP machine. Get over yourself.

Oh and find out what monopoly means.

Oh and since MS never does things like you describe for MAC, that is why the EU told MS, you want to sell system seven in Europe, you CANNOT bundle IE with it, and make it INTEGRAL to the OS. You try to figure this out, ok.

BTW: You mean "think different, be rational". :D

and I say iPods are monopoly. Macs are just overpriced. :)

;)

What is elitist about Apple's marketing? Care to explain?

What's wrong with their pricing? Why is it too high? Maybe Apple doesn't want to deal with subsidized crapware of the sort that gets put on by Sony, HP, and so on? How's that for a perspective? If these other companies didn't install the adware and other garbage, their prices would be on par.

Apple's a friggin' steal. Especially if you knew 1/10th of how Windows works and the ramifications of putting on any software, how it works with the registry, how the registry works, and basic FAT32 or NTFS theory... in short, you put on an app, even removing it doesn't put everything back into a "virgin" state. The registry cannot be compressed; removed apps can have invalid entries cleaned but the registry SIZE remains just as big - and more vulnerable to corruption.

I could spend a day going into VALID technical details as to why Windows isn't worth ten cents...

Excuse me while I go spank the monkey.

Wait. I think that paragraph might be some sort of an accidental copy of another article, or the article has already been edited.

No, now I don't know what the hell is going on. Nevermind.

My 24" iMac with 4GB of RAM, 2.93GHz dual core CPU, and 7200RPM hard drive (640MB), 200 watts, GTX 120

My Vista 64-bit PC with 6GB of RAM, 3.6GHz quad core CPU (3.0GHz o/c to 400MHz FSB), and 10000RPM hard drive (300GB), 700 watts, GTX 260

(needless to say, my electric bill plummeted... you bet I'm happy.)


Boot time:
Mac: 15 seconds
Vista: 90 seconds

GUI fluidity:
Mac: Smooth
Vista: Often sluggish

RAM usage:
Mac: 500MB
Vista: 1860MB

:wow:

I saw a Photoshop comparison benchmark between OS X 10.5 and Vista 64-bit... OS X was faster with CS4 in ALL tests, except the 3x10 foot banner -- that was the ONLY time that 64-bit Vista took the lead. I suspect OS X 10.6 with CS5 (64-bit) will readily reclaim the title of being the faster OS.

I also need to dig up an article on mouse precision. OS X was far more precise than Vista. (not much of a shock either)

The 24" imacs have an integrated H-IPS panel. A standalone monitor, 24 inch, would be rather more than $500. (every monitor at best buy that's 24 inch is a cheap TN panel, complete with color shift, 6-bit dithering, and the usual garbage that renders any rubbish claim of "93% NTSC gamut" down the toilet where it belongs, and costs ~$500.) Anyone wanting GOOD color levels should avoid those pieces of landfill-ready rubbish.

I could go on for days...

What I want is something that Apple almost offers: the chance to build a system that can efficiently run multiple OSes. Then I could run my audio and video work through OS X, my games through XP, and my pornography viewing through Linux.

But, and this is the kicker, Apple won't approve a range of hardware so that enthusiasts can build their own systems. Building a computer makes you own the problems, too, and that (I think) makes you a better computer user. It would be really tough to walk away from that now.

but why?

clone
I like the OS, its not bad. It DOES have good points... but the Mac (tm) IS TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE!

Just as I was able to afford one of the original mac clones, Jobs comes in and KILLS them!
THEN he changes the OS so it will be IMPOSSIBLE to run later versions on the clones!!!

NOW....

well... lets just say I have no love for apple.

Like I said above, the Sony Vaio and MacBook equiv are about $50.00 different at my local best buy.

The notion that Apple is somehow required to license clones doesn't make sense. Does Samsung have to license clones? If you want a Samsung monitor you buy a Samsung monitor. If you want a Sony Trinitron TV you buy a Sony Trinitron. Etc.

Anyway I have always been a big bargain hunter. So:

Here are is a good price tracking sites:

http://www.lowendmac.com/deals.shtml

can be used with a PC or a Mac, so your argument fails.

If you're buying Sony Vaio, you're also overpaying. Sony's prices are almost as ridiculous as Apple's.

I can buy a screaming i7 quad core machine with 6 gigs of memory for about $1,200. Good luck finding an equal or better Mac at that low of a price.

When you buy a Mac, you're paying for the cool factor or, in some cases (like mine), Mac specific software.

I have no other complaints about Macs, but they're no better or worse than any of my PCs.

And, by the way, no one is saying that Apple should be required to license clones. But if someone figures out how to do it without violating the law, they should be left alone. If that makes Apple unhappy, then perhaps instead of suing to stifle competition, they should consider lowering their prices so that no one will feel the need to buy a clone.

I love your logic because the marijuana comparison is just as relevant.

Mac clones nearly killed Apple in the 1990s.

They don't need to allow it again.

And I'd question the legality too... never mind the validity of the illegal copies being installed. (Heaven help the fools if the hackers, and they ARE hackers, put in some clandestine spyware... I mean, they have no loyalty to Apple so why the hell anyone thinks they will be loyal to the people they are "helping" by making illicit distributions... :evilgrin: Oh dear, there's a perspective nobody wants to think about... )

The clones were selling APPLE Mac OS, Apple's sales of their operating system were increasing, along with Mac market share.
Apple may have died as a hardware company, but Apple Software would have lived on and increased in market share.

What was killing apple wasn't the clone market, it was the shit Apple was putting out at the time, and the constant changing of hardware and OS compatibility - having had to replace my grandma's complete suite of software every time, i have more than a bone to pick with apple the company.

One thing Jobs did that was good was to clean the slate and start new (with PC hardware no less, but still a Motorola processor). The major problem with this was he also killed the Newton just as 3.0 and a child's version came out.

i saw the child's Newton, and 3.0. It would have been a Palm KILLER. The palm pc market was just starting up, and the kid's newton was really excellent! I was going to buy one, actually, when they killed it.

The death of clones was a purely egotistical move by Jobs - "If I can't control it, i don't want it to exist!" just as this current lawsuit is nothing more than an ego trip.

The people who will and are buying Mac Clones are people that would NOT OTHERWISE BUY MAC PRODUCTS!
Think of clones as a trial run.

I'm happy to pay for the Apple MAC OS... but I want to choose MYSELF what hardware I put it on. I want to be able to choose as lightning FAST video card not the one Apple TELLS me to use.

Apple did the right thing using BSD as the basis of darwin, but they should have understood that being BSD, there are millions of developers around the world, that will find a LEGAL way around their stupid, archaic security.

Selling a clone, is not the same as drugs, or a monitor.

Apple is and always has been a software company.
Microsoft WAS a software company, and is becoming a hardware company.

Which one is worth near countless billions?
Which one has the better interface?

I've never heard of marijuana ever ruining anyone's life, so I'm not sure what your point is. The comparison, if one can be made, is still off the mark.

Mac clones didn't nearly kill Apple in the 1990s, Apple did. And their failure as a competitive company is not anyone's fault but their own.

"Hackers" aside, nobody is saying anything about using illegal copies of the OSX software. The people making clones -- in this case, Psystar -- are not using illegal software.

In fact, they're not even making CLONES. They're making Intel machines, just like Dell and HP and every other PC maker out there. They're merely using separate software patches that communicate with the OS and fool it into thinking its installing on an Apple-branded machine. Apple says that's illegal because it violates their copy protection. But nobody's making a COPY of anything, so I'm not sure how valid that argument is.

Microsoft has managed to do just fine selling their OS and allowing it to run on any machine, including Intel Macs (which are the only kind being made anymore). Apple could very easily continue to build what they feel are superior machines, and people will still buy them, but they could also open up their operating system to be sold and run on any machine.

You can thank PC makers for driving down prices by doing cheap end-runs with crapware subsidies, which some doofuses on tech websites write articles begging for the OEMs not to install (D-U-frigging-H, you morons! That's why PC prices are down, because they install that slop!! Without slop, the prices go up. Big time.)

I won't repeat the other reasons, but this one is by far the best. The crapware all the PC users whine and mewl about but can't be bothered to really think.

Oh, here's a good response:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=67940&messageID=1293204

Read the final paragraph:



Ouch. And that IS the truth. (it's on the internet; I'm not doing others' research this time.)

and piggy leeches like Apple with their iPods, iPhones, and iTunes should not be able to run on Windows. Why should they be able to leech onto Windows market dominance. Let them try to turn a profit with 8% marketshare. :rofl:

:P

You do understand my point though. I love my iPhone more than any tech device I have (except maybe my D300), but I have no problem being critical of Apple when I see a problem.

I personally am both.
I think the OS is fine.
I suppose I can understand the premium price for the old G-series Mac's.
Many of those were at least partially made in Cupertino, but now...

it's all just flash on PC parts. It's all made in china.
Chinese made is NOT high quality.

My company charges a premium for their equipment, but we are seeing more and more returns and repairs since we started increasing manufacturing in China...and our stuff really is considered GOLD for our level in the industry.

I mean.. EXPLODING PHONES!?

When Apple starts manufacturing in the USA again, THEN i'll be willing to pay 3x the price of the same piece of PC hardware.

Until then I just want to buy the friggin OS and put it on a PC - the exact same Spec'd one as a "mac" but a hell of a lot cheaper!

As far as quality... we'll see. I am still using regularly a PC I built in 02. I have only changed the hard drive for space considerations. otherwise it works perfectly well with Windows 2000, and I moved it across the planet...TWICE!

They installed legally purchased copies of OSX on computer hardware they assembled themselves, and sold the resulting computers to the public over the Internet. These computers were branded Psystar, and left no question as to the fact that they were cloned.

Their crime? The OSX license prohibits its installation on any hardware that isn't made by Apple. Even if it works fine. Even if you paid for the OS. Even if you already own the compatible hardware. Apple doesn't permit people to install software they PURCHASED, on hardware they OWN, unless Apple first gives their permission to that particular combination.

They didn't leech anything. They just used the software in a way Apple didn't approve of.

BTW, I have OSX running in a VM on my PC. Apple can bite my a$$ if they don't like it. I bought the software in an Apple store, and will use it however I please.

I have been trying to get hackintosh working but have have had no luck!

and yes I DO OWN OSX, I want it running on something so that I can help my clients when they call.
It's easier if it's in a Vbox, but I have had no luck so far =<[br />
And every time I look towards buying a mac just so I'll have one lying around, Either Apple kills the clones, they kill the affordable units (mac mini was almost affordable when the price was 399euros, now it's over 500!!!) or they change hardware!!!

I was about to buy a mac mini when they changed hardware on me!!! AND raised the frelling price!
I'm not going to pay 500+ for what amounts to a diagnostic tool I rarely use.

http://asendure.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/osx86-how-to-install-mac-os-x-on-vmware-server-amd-64/

Just make sure you read through the thread AND all of the comments, since they address several common issues and have fixes for them. It took a few hours, but I had it up and running without a lot of effort.

A couple of minor differences though...I'm running VMWare Workstation on Windows 7 x64 on a Core 2 Duo. The instructions above were written for VMS on AMD64, but the instructions work on other configurations.

you hate Apple, and Chavez... check