or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Psystar ask court to set trial date for next November
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Psystar ask court to set trial date for next November - Page 3

post #81 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

It died with BHO.

hahahaha.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #82 of 313
Excellent post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You almost have this right. Sure, there is a license between Apple and myself. However, the license is only legally enforceable to the extend Apple's conditions are legal. Copyright allows the fair use of copyrightable software even if the use is prohibited under the license. Fair use generally protects personal use, not commercial use. If I were to take OSX and install it on a hackintosh, Apple would likely have no legal argument against me.

Where Psystar falls into trouble is that it's use is commercial in nature. It is intending to compete with Apple. That is not fair use and under a strict copyright argument Pystar would lose.

Psystar also falls into trouble with Apple's trademark. This is because when people buy a Psystar machine that is unsupported by APple and it has a problem that Psystar doesn't fix, who do you think they are going to get pissed at? Hint it will not be Psystar. This diminishes the good will Apple has built up in it's Trademark.
post #83 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.

You can try and go the Hackintosh route, what you do with whatever you buy in your own home is of no one's business. However, be prepare for Apple to plug it in Snow Leopard although, I don't think it will last too long.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #84 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Actually, there is some history on Psystar's side, but it's quite old, so newer rulings may override them.

In the '70s IBM was forced to allow their operating system, MVS, to run on other manufacturer's hardware. This allowed mainframes from Amdahl and Hitachi as well as IBM to run MVS. In fact, IBM was forced to publish a book (still available today) called "principles of operation, that detailed the requirements from a computer that runs MVS.

That same IBM decided to add file permissions to MVS so that not every user would be able to read or modify every file. Sounds basic enough. Should be in every operating system, right? Wrong, said other software vendors. IBM was forced to modularize the permission subsystem, so that other vendors could compete with IBM. Still today, IBM mainframes (or rather, their administrators) can choose from at least three security packages, only one of which is from IBM.

That last case was the precedent that people thought would lead a court to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. If file permissions are not part of an OS, a browser definitely isn't.

Still, the Microsoft ruling is more recent, so I'm not sure that Psystar has a case. OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.

IMO a legal system that takes so long to start trial is seriously flawed. But that's all legal system all over the world.

Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...
post #85 of 313
[QUOTE=Adjei;1334877]Right I'm sure

I'm still trying to picture a Pystar customer. Not easy, ya know!
post #86 of 313
This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?

This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.

Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?
post #87 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Outside of a historian's intrigue, can you give some examples, some names, past or present, fans of Hitler?

Just curious...

Here's a whole fora: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #88 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?

This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.

Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?

If people, customers in this case, want to be foolish, that's their right. Two words govern this situation. caveat emptor!
post #89 of 313
In case no one has noticed, this whole argument is irrelevant...

... the fact is, the people that really want OSX on their PC have already done it, it's as simple as that.

Whatever the result, you probably have what Psystar are selling in your house right now anyway, a generic PC.
post #90 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Under the US Constitution, Apple has an exclusive right to it's work. So, for instance, it can decide who to distribute it's software.

Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.

If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.

You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.
post #91 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.

For the twelve billionth time, IT'S NOT A MONOPOLY.

I'm annoyed that this case is dragging on so long - I want it to be over so it puts an end to the posts from idiots whining that Apple is a monopoly.
post #92 of 313
Why can't everybody just "assume the position" and take what they have coming to them? Apple was put on this earth for a reason, and no federal judge is going to mess with Steven. He may not have "his guns" anymore but he still has laser wit. Although there is extensive case law some of which written by Thomas Penfield Jackson in the late 90s - early 2000s, again resistance is futile. Bundling for monopoly purposes isn't just illegal because some federal judge says so. So some guy in a silly black robe already ruled on this issue, big deal. AAPL didn't need to go to law school. Nobody can tell AAPL what to do, it is a creative company of important visionaries. Now get out of their way and shut the hell up about case law, freedom of commerce etc. Everybody knows we need a clean environment so the master council can design our computing experience and so we can obey their commands. When people tell you they have the freedom to innovate under established fair access to platforms, you should plug your ears and seek the truth, at apple.com. Also, here is some medicine to help you stay calm, and your dose of anti-fertility pills too.
post #93 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?

This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.

Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?

That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.

(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #94 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.

If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.

You might want to look up the term Tying in wikipedia. It's not always legal.

Com'on! Apple can decide not to sell to Best Buy, or any retailer, at will. Your arguments are ridiculous, nobody is trying to make this a racial or ethnic issue.
post #95 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Then I guess the courts should also decide on whether if I want blackberries OS whether I should buy a blackberry, if I want PS3 OS whether I should have to buy a PS3, if I want an Xbox OS whether...

Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.

The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.
post #96 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.

No one is arguing anything like this.

Quote:
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.

The retail copies of OS X are a license for an upgrade of Mac purchased from Apple not a new license for a generic computer that was not purchased from Apple.
post #97 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That may not work, and since Apple is the big company here (read: evil) it would make them look bad. And since the sales of Psystar aren't large enough to affect Apple's bottom line in the short term, it doesn't seem to make sense for Apple to pursue this. This trial is costing Apple a lot more than any profit Psystar's basement business could ever take from Apple.

(Note: I have no knowledge of law, I'm just speculating)

The bottom line here is that when it's all over Pystar will not be able to afford the cost of losing. It will put them out of business, leaving their customers holding the bag.
post #98 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.

The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.

You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital and resources to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?

Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.
post #99 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.

No, it doesn't. I've been running OSx86 machines for years now. They have many, many little issues.

Apple shouldn't be forced by to socialize its IP and support power optimized systems because people who have gotten so used to steal software on the internets want to run on their PC HW but are too lazy or techtarded to build their own systems.

This is a capitalist natiom, which gives Apple the right to license the sale of its IP to anyone it wishes. If Apple doesn't wish to allow clones then it doesn't have to.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #100 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?

Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.

On top of that, Industrial Espionage is a crime. Those that steal from Apple are guilty of it.
post #101 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment.

It sure has something to do with "Nobody said anything about Nazi's.".

If you don't want to talk about Nazis, don't mention one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis.

You mentioned Hitler, who was a Nazi. And I do agree, such a reference IS off the wall in this thread.
post #102 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Com'on! Apple can decide not to sell to Best Buy, or any retailer, at will. Your arguments are ridiculous, nobody is trying to make this a racial or ethnic issue.

As ridiculous as stating that equality for homosexuals is the same as allowing NAMBLA to bugger little boys.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #103 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

The bottom line here is that when it's all over Pystar will not be able to afford the cost of losing. It will put them out of business, leaving their customers holding the bag.

Leaving it's customers holding the bag?!
These computers are generic, they use generic PC components which can be found at low prices all over eBay. Even if Psystar goes under, Hackintosh will continue to update their hacks, and if somehow Hackintosh bites the dust, one can always install Linux, Unix, or Windows.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #104 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

It sure has something to do with "Nobody said anything about Nazi's.".

If you don't want to talk about Nazis, don't mention one.



You mentioned Hitler, who was a Nazi. And I do agree, such a reference IS off the wall in this thread.

He also had a mustache, so does this thread now include all mustachioed people? Don't be dense.
post #105 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

He also had a mustache, so does this thread now include all mustachioed people? Don't be dense.

Watch it. Someone bringing up hitler then saying that nobody mentioned nazis really shouldn't be calling other people dense.

Seriously, if you want to use an example of a person without invoking nazis, maybe you'd be better off mentioning a person who actually isn't a nazi?
post #106 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Leaving it's customers holding the bag?!
These computers are generic, they use generic PC components which can be found at low prices all over eBay. Even if Psystar goes under, Hackintosh will continue to update their hacks, and if somehow Hackintosh bites the dust, one can always install Linux, Unix, or Windows.

Are you dumb enough to pay for a Pystar machine, only to have to later put another OS on it? did you forget the reason that these mental giants bought the Pystar in the first place?
post #107 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Leaving it's customers holding the bag?!
These computers are generic, they use generic PC components which can be found at low prices all over eBay. Even if Psystar goes under, Hackintosh will continue to update their hacks, and if somehow Hackintosh bites the dust, one can always install Linux, Unix, or Windows.

And these customers that decided to pay extra for their Hackintosh, instead of building it their own for hundreds less are "now holding the bag" as they will have to learn to frequent hack sites and torrent sites to get the latest updates as their Software Updater has been redirected to Psystar, which will no longer exist or be updated with the latest hacks for their system.

This is about Psystar's lobotomized consumer base, not about the OSx86 Project community.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #108 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

This seems really odd. Wouldn't apple want to pursue some sort of action to stop sales until this thing is settled?

This seems like they're giving them a whole year of violating their IP.

Can anyone knowledgeable about the law explain?

I don't think Apple has anything to worry about it, I mean anyone foolish enough to buy one shouldn't be crying when the company is out of business, I mean who has even purchased one of these?
post #109 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

For the twelve billionth time, IT'S NOT A MONOPOLY.

I'm annoyed that this case is dragging on so long - I want it to be over so it puts an end to the posts from idiots whining that Apple is a monopoly.

Some people don't know what the word means and tend to use it loosely.
post #110 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

The bottom line here is that when it's all over Psystar will not be able to afford the cost of losing. It will put them out of business, leaving their customers holding the bag.

Isn't this the case with every new business? Not every new idea works. It's about risk and reward. This guy is risking a small business in exchange for a massive payoff that will allow him to buy huge castles all over the world, yachts, fine paintings, wine, and privilege for himself and his heirs. I would take that chance too, after all, small businesses go bankrupt all the time. Most fail but this one has a lot of potential.
post #111 of 313
Psystar has no anti-competitive case. Cant they get a lawyer smart enough to understand the definition of monopoly? Once that's defined the judge has to throw out the case.

Apple does not have a monopoly on OSX.
Amiga, Inc does not have a monopoly on AmigaOS
Sun does not have a monopoly on Solaris OS
Be Inc does not have a monopoly on BeOS.
Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Windows.

MS doesn't have to license Windows to Psystar if they don't want to.
Apple does not have to license OSX to anyone. Hell, Apple can license Windows for its hardware if it wanted to.

Lenovo, Dell, Toshiba, Sony can all develop their own OS if they want to put in the resources and use it with their own brand of hardware.

Amiga, Sun, IBM sell or sold their own OS on their hardware just like apple.

Apple computers are part of the personal desktop computer industry. If you dont like its product you choose a computer from other manufacturers. But MS's OS dominates this industry, which Apple choose not install on its computers.
post #112 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Not quite. Apple cannot decide that it doesn't allow black people to use its software. Similarly, it can't decide that Jews are prohibited from installing Mac OS X.

If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it.

You have got to be kidding.
First off, you comparing it to a racial issue just confirms your ignorance and self-respect.

Second, Apple does not "sell" OSX to the general public. It's only for installation as an "upgrade" to an existing Apple system. The fact that one can walk into a retail store and purchase it does not grant you the ability to install it on your non-Apple machine and try to sell it to the public.

Third: Apple is an equal-opportunity company and I'm sure has sold their systems to people of African, Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic descent. I'm sure they have even sold systems to individuals with physical and mental disabilities. Rumor has it they have even sold systems to Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and agnostic folks too. However I would only partially agree with you on one portion in that while they should be free to sell their systems to anyone i just mentioned above, Apple should outlaw selling their systems to individuals of "moronic" descent like those that try to justify their violation of IP rights by playing the race card.

You have serious issues.
post #113 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Some people don't know what the word means and tend to use it loosely.

Monopoly and obsolete get thrown around on the sites a lot incorrectly. The latter is a pet peeve of mine.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #114 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp View Post

Well, it is up to a court to decide whether the OS and hardware are components of a single product (like the blackberry and PS3 and Xbox) or two separate items that are only sold together to gain an unfair advantage for the vendor.

The case for Mac OS and Macs is far weaker than MVS and file permissions. Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes, and Windows runs very well on Macs. Their marriage is not technical necessity, but still, it's for a court to decide.

Dude if Psytar were to win, the reprecussions for the tech industry would be huge, I mean all those cases of products tied to their OS would also be affected (iphones, blackberries, ipods, zune, televisions, vcrs, dvd players, etc.) Which is one of the reasons they won't.
post #115 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Some people don't know what the word means and tend to use it loosely.

And they usually still insist on using it wrong even after it has been explained to them. Unfortunately people find it a catchy buzzword and tend to throw it at any company they don't like whether it fits or not.

Seriously, a company with market share under TEN PERCENT, and some morons still insist that it's a "monopoly".
post #116 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You seem to miss the fact that Apple put up its own capital and resources to produce and maintain OS X. How do you force a company to share a product that they used their own resources to produce? How is it an unfair advantage if said company refuses to share its products with a competitor?

Psystar is perfectly free to develop their own OS and compete against Apple.

That's the main point, Apple spent their money and resources developing the OS and Psystar feel they should entitled to it, how much of their resources was involved in creating Mac OSX, as you said if they want to compete they should develop their own OS and sell it with their computers to compete against Apple.
post #117 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

Isn't this the case with every new business? Not every new idea works. It's about risk and reward. This guy is risking a small business in exchange for a massive payoff that will allow him to buy huge castles all over the world, yachts, fine paintings, wine, and privilege for himself and his heirs. I would take that chance too, after all, small businesses go bankrupt all the time. Most fail but this one has a lot of potential.

You obviously don't know it, but you're in desperate need of someone with a marketing degree. Preferably an MBA to offset your ignorance. Nobody, with an ounce of sense, goes into business without a business plan, and yours stinks. HTH
post #118 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Some people don't know what the word means and tend to use it loosely.

I know exactly what it means! I've been waiting for someone to buy my Park Place property for ages!!!

No if you'll excuse me, I just passed "Go" and am waiting to collect my $200.00.
post #119 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

I wouldn't call collaborators 'fans'.


Is this some of your "experience" speaking?
post #120 of 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

And they usually still insist on using it wrong even after it has been explained to them. Unfortunately people find it a catchy buzzword and tend to throw it at any company they don't like whether it fits or not.

Seriously, a company with market share under TEN PERCENT, and some morons still insist that it's a "monopoly".

"Apple has a Monoploy on Macs!"

Even if Apple had a monopoly, that wouldn't necessary make it an illegal monopoly. On a related note, their is evidence that Apple doubled the capacity, at the last minute, of the iPod Nano from 4/8GB to 8/16GB to match the Zune, which points to Apple not even having an exclusive possession in that market if it has to go such lengths to prevent another digital media player from gaining ground. Of course, that is speculation, but the delay of the 16GB model doesn't seem to point to it being true.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple, Psystar ask court to set trial date for next November