or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info - Page 5

post #161 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Psystar doesn't have PERMISSION to buy the OS? Are you bonkers?

And you say "at Apple's expense". Do you even know what you are saying? Apple gets paid IN FULL for each copy of Mac OS X it sells to Psystar.

The EULA says what can be done and what cannot be done by agreement. Psystar is in dutch not because they are buying it, but because Apple believes they are in violation of that EULA via the use of the OS. Apple's challenge is in place regardless of how many uninvolved end-users think they like the terms of the EULA or not.

As for Apple's expense, unlike MS and pick-your-nix, also profit from the sale of the Apple computers tied to the OS. In the realm of new computers, yes, Apple additionally profits from the sale of the "whole shebang" NIB units, and originally made money on the Apple branded computer that subsequent OS versions get installed on. Separately, Apple's expenses might also be involved if people with an Apple OS on their machine start marching into Apple's service universe kvetching and demanding satisfaction.

Apple has a user experience reputation to maintain (#1 in laptops & smartphone customer satisfaction), and things like this are seen as a treat. So they respond.
post #162 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Oh my gosh! I accidentally crossed words out in my book! And then I sold it to someone else. I just broke the LAW!!!

If you make a business out of selling edited books without permission from the copyright holder you are breaking the law.
post #163 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilco View Post


Ah wilco, nice of you to join us. Constructive as always!
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #164 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You're not a allowed to modify and re-sell at a profit. Would Psystar be able to sell its machines if they weren't running OS X? OS X is the only remarkable thing about them - without it Psystar is just another box maker and you may as well save some money by getting the same specs for less from DELL.

I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?

Quote:
So Psystar is modifying Apple's IP in order to make a profit; I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Software is like tickets to a baseball game now? Anti-scalping laws for Mac OS X?

Quote:
Even if you don't know anything about law, it's been obvious for a long time now that Psystar is a joke. Just look at the crap they've been coming out with. Read the story that this thread is supposedly about. You cannot be serious if you think these guys have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any legal battle, even if they were right!

I don't think it's crap. They sell cost-effective computers without the stylistic excess from Apple.
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 #165 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

I don't think it's crap. They sell cost-effective computers without the stylistic excess from Apple.

I'm not taking about the product. I'm talking about the way the company is run. They're morons. Can't you see it?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #166 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

When you have to compete with the ridiculously overpriced computers from Apple, you have a lot of room to make a profit.

Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.
post #167 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

If you make a business out of selling edited books without permission from the copyright holder you are breaking the law.

USED BOOK STORES?

Because the copyright holder has the magical power to have sole dominion in deciding who can sell books and who can not?
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 #168 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

I am not allowed to buy a computer, add an internal harddrive and DVD-R, and sell it for a profit? What law is that breaking?

A computer is hardware and not subject to copyright laws.

We're talking about modifying copyright material (software) and re-selling for a profit. That's a potential violation of derivative-work copyright law.

I'll grant you that it's arguable that the modifications made are so minor that the OS on a Pystar is too similar to be considered a derivative work. However, even if that's the case, it's almost certain that Psystar are violating the DMCA by circumventing Apple's anti-copying measures.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #169 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

Ah. You must have been in line behind my colleague who bought a PC laptop at Radio Shack for $700 and beamed about his wisdom. That was before he found out lovely things like the 2 hour battery, no firewire, and a 768v 16" screen. w00t! I feel confident with my $999 white nvidia FW MacBook.

I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.
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 #170 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

You cannot be serious if you think these guys have a snowball's chance in hell of winning any legal battle, even if they were right!

On top of that, I've asked every Psystar supporter on these boards to describe what would happen if Psystar wins and how it would benefit the consumer. I can't get a single answer, but I've thought about it and the answer is that Psystar's business still goes south and the consumer loses.

They never consider why it's only one small shop selling Macs with OS X on it, why Dell and HP with the money for good lawyers having been making their own clones and why the previous cloners didn't just keep making clones with retail copies of OS X if it is perfectly legal (and obvious).

Apple would lose the least is Psystar won because they could up the price of the retail version until it isn't worth the trouble. MS sells stunted versions of Windows for cheap machines but Apple only sells Mac OS X in one flavour so charging $499 for a retail copy kills their business and Apple can offer ways to get it for $129 if you have a Mac.

Microsoft could potentially lose the most as any installation of Mac OS X reduces their sales. Especially if Apple would then, backed into this hypothetically impossible corner, offer Dell and HP versions of the OS for certain machines at a certain price below retail. Psystar couldn't compete with that either.

There is no scenario, outside of socializing Mac OS X, in which Psystar could possibly come out ahead.
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 #171 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

USED BOOK STORES?

Because the copyright holder has the magical power to have sole dominion in deciding who can sell books and who can not?

Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.

If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.
post #172 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.

If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.

See this wikipedia article on derivative work and its source.

Is the OS on a Psystar a derivative work? Or is it so similar to OS X that it isn't and therefore the first-sale doctrine applies? (In which case, there's no copyright violation). The legal case for copyright infringement isn't as clear-cut as many of you think it is.

What is more clear cut is that Psystar is violating the DMCA (which as far as I can tell is more serious - isn't violating the DMCA a criminal offence rather than just a civil matter?) and is run by morons.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #173 of 331
There's a hell of a lot of over-complication going on here. Forget about the EULA -- it really isn't the critical issue. The important issue is far more straight-forward.

Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #174 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Oh my gosh! I accidentally crossed words out in my book! And then I sold it to someone else. I just broke the LAW!!!



You people will go to any lengths to defend Apple's anti-competitive actions, even if it means abandoning common sense and reason.

It's not the same thing. You keep using the most horrid and inappropriate examples to illustrate your point.

But that's just fine. Come November you'll see exactly where Psystar will end up in this case, and perhaps you'll finally learn what for some reason you're not able to understand yet. Hint: You won't be able to purchase a non-Apple PC with OS X on it in 2010 in the US via public sale.
post #175 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor View Post

Used book stores do not sell modified/edited books. They sell the original work.

If you have not grasped that by now you must be very thick so further discussion with you is pointless.

So you are saying that used book stores do not sell used books which have highlighting in it, underlining, torn pages, missing pages?
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 #176 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

There's a hell of a lot of over-complication going on here. Forget about the EULA -- it really isn't the critical issue. The important issue is far more straight-forward.

Apple makes Macintosh computers. A Macintosh computer isn't just the hardware, and it isn't just the software. It's the combination of the two. Only Apple has the right to make Macintosh computers, because they own the intellectual property. And they don't have to allow anyone else to to make them just because it's possible. Full stop.

A Mac computer is a combination of commonly obtained PC components with proprietary components with a distinct exterior and form factor and Mac OS X.

Another way to think of it is this: is Psystar selling a Mac? Or is it selling a PC with an operating system installed on it sold by Apple?

Psystar is not selling a Mac by that definition. It doesn't even look like one!
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 #177 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

See this wikipedia article on derivative work and its source (still wikipedia, but has external links to full text of ruling).

Interesting case. I am surprised I hadn't heard of it before.
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 #178 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

It's not the same thing. You keep using the most horrid and inappropriate examples to illustrate your point.

It's a comparison of similar principles. Intellectual property law applies to both.

My point stands.
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 #179 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Interesting case. I am surprised I hadn't heard of it before.

Oops, just realised the second link is all wrong. It should be this, which goes straight to the ruling.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #180 of 331
Although I sometimes when in a hurry punctuate incorrectly, I understand the usage. Maybe it has something to do with living in the streets for a good portion of my early schooling when most other kids were solidifying their grammar lessons. I am not complaining though, as I somehow made it through law school and am even making a living at practicing law. To be truthful though, I am not interested in receiving a grammar lesson. I am interested in sharing ideas about intelligence property.

Clearly, I conveyed my thoughts well enough to be understood. Further, I fail to understand what intellectual property has to do with grammar. If I wrote you an email telling you that your house is on fire, I hope you wouldn't give me a grammar lesson before attending to the fire. I was sharing information on copyright. If you failed to find my thoughts compelling enough to address, would it be so hard to pass them over? I wouldn't be offended. Maybe your ego doesn't let you act in such a way.

Finally, perhaps you are to presumptuous. Maybe I am dyslectic. Maybe, English is my fourth language. Maybe, I hit the submit button before I edited my comments. The problem with correcting a stranger's grammar is that there is always somebody out there better at it then you. I probably am not one of those people, but perhaps you could tell me why your sentence fails to include a "that."






Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

If you want to give the impression you know what you're talking about, it helps to get basic punctuation right. Read my signature and learn.
post #181 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

I forgot that Apple has the sole patent on products worthy of purchase by consumers.

Well, no, because that's not true. I merely provided a concrete example in the form of a comparison. His Toshiba now sits in the breakfast nook, unused, while he gets actual work done on his new MacBook. In your attempt at humor, you simply forgot that in the main, once you get a PC ramped up to the specs of a Mac, the price difference is smaller than many are willing to admit.
post #182 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

So you are saying that used book stores do not sell used books which have highlighting in it, underlining, torn pages, missing pages?

They sure do. And none of those things are ever objected to by the copyright owner. Copyright concerns the right to copy, not the right to doodle, or wear and tear, or defacing of a copy. Which is an entirely different issue than Psystar using OS X in a manner that breaches the agreement that Apple is within its rights to require of the user.
post #183 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Although I sometimes when in a hurry punctuate incorrectly, I understand the usage. Maybe it has something to do with living in the streets for a good portion of my early schooling when most other kids were solidifying their grammar lessons. I am not complaining though, as I somehow made it through law school and am even making a living at practicing law. To be truthful though, I am not interested in receiving a grammar lesson. I am interested in sharing ideas about intelligence property.

Clearly, I conveyed my thoughts well enough to be understood. Further, I fail to understand what intellectual property has to do with grammar. If I wrote you an email telling you that your house is on fire, I hope you wouldn't give me a grammar lesson before attending to the fire. I was sharing information on copyright. If you failed to find my thoughts compelling enough to address, would it be so hard to pass them over? I wouldn't be offended. Maybe your ego doesn't let you act in such a way.

Finally, perhaps you are to presumptuous. Maybe I am dyslectic. Maybe, English is my fourth language. Maybe, I hit the submit button before I edited my comments. The problem with correcting a stranger's grammar is that there is always somebody out there better at it then you. I probably am not one of those people, but perhaps you could tell me why your sentence fails to include a "that."


Thank you for your reply. Thank you for making it thoughtful rather than bile-filled and pointless. Rest assured that if you let me know my house was burning, I'd tend to the problem immediately and thank you later, and probably not have anything to say about any grammar or punctuation problems that may or may not exist.

In terms of correcting people's mistakes on forums:

1.) Yes, it would get tedious if all we did was correct each other's mistakes all the time and that's why I don't actually do it that often. For some reason apostrophe misuse really pisses me off (hence my signature) but I only flag up posts that are chock-full of errors and/or are from posters who make the mistake on a regular basis.

2.) In terms of the relevance to law: we are talking about an intricate, nuanced subject here and if someone can't grasp (or demonstrate that they can grasp) a concept as simple as the apostrophe, why should anyone pay any attention to their thoughts on a vastly more complex matter?

3.) Presumably, that should be "too" presumptuous? Interestingly enough, I myself am dyslexic. If English is not your first language I'd be impressed and you should be grateful for the opportunity to learn more and hone your skills further.

4.) On the question of others out there better than me: I'm sure of it. I'm aware that my grammar here is often far from perfect. If someone gives me a heads-up on an error I've made, I always hold my hand up and say "my bad!", thank them for the info and correct the mistake I've made. We're all human and we all make mistakes.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #184 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

They sure do. And none of those things are ever objected to by the copyright owner. Copyright concerns the right to copy, not the right to doodle, or wear and tear, or defacing of a copy. Which is an entirely different issue than Psystar using OS X in a manner that breaches the agreement that Apple is within its rights to require of the user.

Psystar is not the end-user. Hence the EULA does not apply to them. As far as I can tell, the only problem area for Psystar in terms of "traditional" copyright law is derivative works, and as I've tried to point out, that's far from clear-cut.

The DMCA however, is a bigger problem for Psystar.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #185 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Whoever bought up Sony as an example chose a pretty poor one, rootkit anyone?

When that happened it the company was only part owned by Sony, hence the name SonyBMG
post #186 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I sell it to someone else.
That's legal.

I buy a book. I tear out 5 pages. I scan it into my computer and print out a copy. I sell it to someone else.
That's illegal.

A company buys 5000 books. The company tears out 5 pages from each book. They sell the books to customers.
That's legal.

A company buys 1 book. The company tears out 5 pages from that book. The company scans it into my computer and print out 5000 copies. They sell the copies to customers.
That's illegal.


And that's intellectual property law.

Wow. You sound just like my old divorce attorney. They lost that case for me too.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #187 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

So, what you are saying is that if I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X from Apple, bring it home, take the DVD out of the box, and install it on my own computer, which I have purchased legally, then what I have done is illegal, and Apple has every right to come at me with the full force of the law?

Are you serious? Are you so blinded by fanaticism that you do not see the ridiculousness of your claim?

Get a grip Pal.
You know exactly what everyone's saying and you're just trolling for attention.
You buy a Mac with with a license to use software provided by Apple that makes the hardware work.
Modifying it to run (and sell) on competing hardware is illegal. QED.
Apple cannot be accused of monopolizing its own product. By definition all companies have a monopoly on their own product.
post #188 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.

No it isn't. It's called the right to private property.

Yes you can. You simply can not copy the original and distribute copies of it, whether for free or for sale. You are able to transfer ownership of the property however if only one copy is being used.

No, you don't even know what intellectual property rights are when it comes to this. You are saying that it is ILLEGAL for a customer of a music CD to import their music into iTunes because it is against the EULA of the CD. Which, of course, is simply not true.

Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

From section 117 of the US Copyright Code

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.— Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

What it is saying is that you are allow to make an exact copy of your software for archival purpose (back up) and a copy for the purpose of using it on your machine (computer). The copy in your machine is an adaptation of the original. It has been modified to make it work on your specific machine (computer). You are allow to make modification of the original. Even if those modifications are not expressly allowed by the copyright owner. Providing those modifications are for the sole purpose of getting the software to work on your specific machine (computer).

What is not allow is the sale (or transfer) of that modified copy of the original that is in your machine (computer). Not even it you give up the original copy and the machine (computer) it's on. You must have the authorization of the original copyright owner in order to transfer any adaptation.

Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc., CAN NOT sell their computers with a copy of MS Windows pre-installed in their computers WITHOUT MS authorization. Even though they provide you an original copy with each computer sold. The copy in their machine is an adaptation. They must seek (and pay for) a license from MS to do so.

If you buy a computer from Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, etc., and resell it. You must return MS Windows (and any other modified software) to the way it was when you bought the computer. You are not allow to sell your computer with any modification (adaptation) done to the original software. Unless you have authorization from of original copyright owner.

It doesn't matter if you bought an original copy of the software. You are NEVER the copyright owner. You only own the physical media it's on.

Psystar if in violation of Copyright Laws because they are selling an adaptation copy of OSX in their machines (computers). Apple did not give them any authorization to sell or transfer an adaptation copy of OSX.
post #189 of 331
I had tried reading through all the g3pro $hit and finally gave up on this page.

Can someone please just delete this guy.


I think my cat understands this case better than he does.
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
MacBook Pro 17" Glossy 2.93GHz, iPad 64GB, iPhone 4 16GB, and a lot of other assorted goodies.

If you're a troll and you have been slain. Don't be a Zombie.
Reply
post #190 of 331
I wonder how many of those who are eager to complain about Psystar's MOD have also downloaded, I mean stolen music via peer-to-peer networks?

Oops...
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #191 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

My first reaction is this sounds like undiluted hogwash. My second reaction is that there's probably some truth to Psystar's claim that they're run by a bunch of amateurs.

Dr. Millmoss,
I spoke with a current business partner about that, he's run two different C-Corporations which he's now shut down. And... the reports that Apple is asking for are totally Legit. They are normal reports anyone can generate if using the most basic form of quickbooks or even a high end ERP program like SAP and Oracle offer. And they are still an important part of doing business. A P&L report is a "Profit and Loss" report, which by some strange coincidence is used to FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU PAY IN CORP. TAXES.... not used? What a crock of shit.

This is one seriously weak ass argument on the part of Psystar's lawyers.

The sad thing is that it's a lame ploy for public sympathy based on the general public's ignorance.... and in general.... it's just a total crock of SHIT. Psystar deserves to have their ass handed to them on a plate and I can't wait to see Apple put them out of business.

Ask any accountant you know, or ask another business owner you know.... these are reports that can be generated in the most basic financial program/software.

I half way want to go to their web site and start ordering machines to be sent COD..... to addresses that don't exist.....LOL. Psystar is a bunch of idiot communists that seem to think that when you do business in America, you just make crap up as you go. Kind of like BO and the democrats....LOL.

Later,
Z
post #192 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I wonder how many of those who are eager to complain about Psystar's MOD have also downloaded, I mean stolen music via peer-to-peer networks?

Oops...

WRONG ASSUMPTION DUDE..... I will complain and bash Psystar any chance I get.... and I have NEVER downloaded illegal music files..... I just have a few free downloads from iTunes and about 5000 songs from my personal CD collection.

You're logic is seriously flawed. Now if you were to put your brain to use you might connect the dots and think about people supporting Psystar and illegally downloading music....

You know..... LIKE YOU PROBABLY DO..... since it sounds like you know where to go and all..... I never knew you could steal music via peer-to-peer networks..... does it feel good to own illegally copied music?
post #193 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsNly View Post

I had tried reading through all the g3pro $hit and finally gave up on this page.

Can someone please just delete this guy.


I think my cat understands this case better than he does.

It's probably because you cat doesn't smoke nearly as much weed as that guy seems to.....and man... you aren't kidding..... I think that guy has cooked a few too many of the synaptic connections that used to be in his noggin.

Once again.... I hate to get political....LOL.... but this guy is going by what he "feels" is right.... and not what the letter of the law is or the letter of the EULA is..... this is a typical liberal thing. For your average fascist liberal, not your old fashioned, JFK kind of liberal.

Either way.... it comes down to this. The guy is in no state to have an intelligent debate with you because, quite frankly.... you're carrying a gun and he's got a paper clip....LOL
post #194 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

Wow. You sound just like my old divorce attorney. They lost that case for me too.

LOL.... you're a riot man.... luckily I haven't experience that yet......but good point
post #195 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

A Mac computer is a combination of commonly obtained PC components with proprietary components with a distinct exterior and form factor and Mac OS X.

Another way to think of it is this: is Psystar selling a Mac? Or is it selling a PC with an operating system installed on it sold by Apple?

Psystar is not selling a Mac by that definition. It doesn't even look like one!

G3Dud,
Are you retarded or something? What part of what the Doc said did you not grasp? Your logic is so flawed it's really quite funny.

Apple created the software and hardware..... they own the package.... and they own the LEGAL RIGHTS TO HOW THE SOFTWARE is USED OR NOT USED. It's their decision, it's their property..... what part of that can you not grasp. Your argument is solely based on your emotions and a complete ignorance of contract law and rights of use.

Psystar has NO RIGHT.... to do what they're doing.... PERIOD... END OF STORY.....

And guess what... they're gonna LOOSE in court......mark my words.

I need to stop now.... because just responding to your posts is making my brain feel stupider....

Why don't you take some time and read up on property rights. Do you have a car? You know.... I have a key... and a key should go to a car right? Why shouldn't my key just allow me to help myself to your CAR? I think that's reasoning you could agree with right? I own a key... so it must go to a car.... why not your car... even though I didn't pay for it.... I think I'll see if I can just borrow your car, take it home.... and pull the engine out or something fun like that.... Wait? you don't think that's right? Why's that? You think you own your car just because you paid for it? Man.... what's wrong with you?

You've got to be a liberal to think like this.
Z
post #196 of 331
[QUOTE=g3pro;1414930]Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW."

BZZZ WRONG. Intellectual property law covers copyrights AND trademarks, patents, and industrial design rights as well as trade secrets..

Psystar is using Apple's trademark without permission to sell their goods so they are in trouble right there. Then there is Apple's patent 20070288886 granted in 2008 which makes Psystar position real shaky; that patent allows Apple to make sure its software run only on the hardware it wants it to run on. There is no way Psystar or who every is backing them can win.
post #197 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

You've got to be a liberal to think like this.

I'm liberal and disagree with Psystar's actions.
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 #198 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm liberal and disagree with Psystar's actions.

LOL!!! You must be a communist totalitarian fascist then, LOL!! Just like Hussein Obama!!!

Rush told me so!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! Liberals! Bees! In my head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #199 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

What competition???

A "small startup company with limited resources" that is consistently violating Apple's Intellectual Property. This isn't about the EULA, it's about Apple's rights under Intellectual Property law. Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. Buying OS X does not give the user the automatic right to do with it what they wish, especially not making modifications to Apple's property and then reselling it at a profit while running a business behind it.

There is no such thing as "competition" when it's Apple's software. And by law they have a right to lock their own property down to their own hardware. And they do this for valid reasons.

Psystar is engaged in theft. And these missing documents, which also seems to include invoices for their alleged purchases of OS X, also suggests the possiblity they have, and are currently engaging in piracy.


Intellectual property is hogwash. For property to exist there must be scarcity. It is ridiculous to speak of scarcity of ideas. Therefore it is ridiculous to speak of the creation of an artificial monopoly of a non scarce resource.

You should check out Against Intellectual Monopoly by economists Boldrin and Levine for an in depth study of IP.
post #200 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Then there is Apple's patent 20070288886 granted in 2008 which makes Psystar position real shaky; that patent allows Apple to make sure its software run only on the hardware it wants it to run on. There is no way Psystar or who every is backing them can win.

From what I can tell the patent you mention is only a method to allow future versions of Mac OS X to have DRM. The circumventing may not be something the court would concern themselves against the patent, only if someone used Apple's patent in the same way.
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20070288886
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 › Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info