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 6

post #201 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?

Totally different thing as the makers of internal harddrive and DVD-R have paid the require royalty fees and what not and passed it on to you. Now if you make a harddrive or DVD-R from stratch and didn't pay the required royality fee you would be in violation of patent law.

Is this clear enough to you or does it need to be explained on a "See Spot, see Spot run" level? I can do that as well:

See designer
See designer build thing that copies other thing
See designer not pay require royal fee.
See designer break the FREAKING LAW.

Sheesh.
post #202 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cglace View Post

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.

Words aren't scarce yet they can be copyrighted and therefore are intellectual property. How do you explain that?

intellectual property
noun Law
— a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.
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 #203 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

You do know that Joe Blow can buy copies of Microsft Windows XP legally, install them on computers he builds himself, and sell those computers legally without being a "licensed OEM partner" or whatever bullshit you come up with, right?

Right but and here is the clincher Joe Blow pays FULL RETAIL PRICE while DELL GETS A DISCOUNT on that version of the Windows OS. I should point out that as mention back in 2006 Microsoft redid the OEMs so that are far more restrictive on what you can and cannot do with them. Doing as little as changing a motherboard can invalidate your Microsoft OEM; isn't that fun?
post #204 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Words aren't scarce yet they can be copyrighted and therefore are intellectual property. How do you explain that?

intellectual property
noun Law
a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.

So because something can be a legal construct it MUST be? I don't follow. . . Providing a definition does not answer the essential question of what, if any, utility IP laws provide.

We are not arguing whether the idea of IP exists. We are arguing whether there is merit to the idea of owning ideas. To put it another way, does the homesteading principle apply to ideas.
post #205 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cglace View Post

So because something can be a legal construct it MUST be? I don't follow. . . Providing a definition does not answer the essential question of what, if any, utility IP laws provide.

We are not arguing whether the idea of IP exists. We are arguing whether there is merit to the idea of owning ideas. To put it another way, does the homesteading principle apply to ideas.

Let's see... words have meaning so I gave you a legal definition that discounted your premise that property must be scarce to be exist. If you don't think that an idea can be owned then there is an entire modern world and an active free market that you disagree with. The idea that anyone should be legally allowed to freely use anyone else's ideas without consequence, which by your definition would also include me republishing any book under my name since words are scarce therefore they can't be intellectual property in any way shape or form.
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 #206 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?

Totally different thing and some books expressly state that cannot legally be sold if the front cover has been removed because they have been marked as destroyed (ie the book is not covered under first-sale doctrine)

Furthermore most software companies have gone to the point where they say you are NOT purchasing their software but a LICENSE to USE their software. The legal merit of this new position is very murky. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913) would seem to indicate this position is nonsense but then you have Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) which validates this.
post #207 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

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

I would claim they are dliverung what the public desires. Affordable osx machines and stand on the fact apple does the same thing by allowing windows to run on mac machines. And of ciudad, the economy. Youllbget laughed out of court with the economy but would use it anyway. LOL.
post #208 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Apple will go to just about any length to prevent competition.

Truly sad. Apple has sunk to new lows.

Troll much? I'll bite... You have like 1 million posts. Not a single one has a positive thing to say about Apple. That's cool I guess, but we could probably sum up your contributions over the past 7 years in three ideas:

"Apple is charging money for their computers and it's more than I want to pay. Apple Sucks."

"Apple doesn't like jailbreaking. Apple sucks."

"Apple doesn't want other companies to sell fake macs. Apple Sucks."

You could save all the readers some time and just say something like, "It's me again! Thanks!"

post #209 of 331
If people think "Apple sucks" . . . for whatever silly, abstract reason, just think of the alternatives. Would you really want those alternatives? Would you really want to be associated with that?

It's one thing to explore ways in which Apple can improve, even though their business model is the most successfu out there, even though their notebooks are the most successful and coveted out there, even though their OS sets the standard - repeatedly, year after year . . . still, there is always room for improvement. But let's not go overboard in trying to somehow emulate Microsoft/ MS is NOT an example for anything except how to destroy your credibility and chrun out derivative products year after year.

Microsoft does not have Apples audience of sophisticated consumers, and its ridiculous that the company keeps trying to pretend that it does. Microsoft serves an installed base of cheapskates through a blackmailed array of PC hardware companies who are forbidden from selling alternative software by exclusive licensing contracts. It also services, at very high cost to companies, a large number of corporate cube-holders who have no voice in the technology decisions forced upon them by corporate IT drones.

There really are no "good" examples out there aside from the ones already in Cupertino. Or perhaps Apple just sucks less. Much less. Take your pick.
post #210 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

You do know that Joe Blow can buy copies of Microsft Windows XP legally, install them on computers he builds himself, and sell those computers legally without being a "licensed OEM partner" or whatever bullshit you come up with, right?

Wrong!

If Joe Blow makes it a business of selling computers with a pre-installed version of MS Windows XP. He must seek a license from MS to do so. It may cost him nothing. But he must have permission none the less. It doesn't matter if he buys a full retail version of MS Windows XP. This doesn't give him the right to transfer or profit from any "derivative" (adaptation) of that original copy. He's allow to sell the original (even for a profit if he can.) First sale doctrine only applies to the original copy. He can sell his computer along with that original copy of XP. But once he pre-install it on the computer he has for sale, he needs permission (a license) from MS to transfer that derivative copy (adaptation).

Now he can get away with selling his computer and an original copy of MS XP. And then offer to install it for free after the purchase.

MS doesn't really care if you bought a retail copy of XP to install on your home built computer and then sell it after using it for a period of time. Because you're not going to profit from the sale of that computer (along with the software). And thus not going to make a business out of it. So long as you include the original copy that was used to install the copy in the computer. And the derivative copy (adaptation) in the computer has not been modified in a way the MS disagrees with. MS still retains the right to control who can transfer a derivative copy (adaptation).

Just like Apple doesn't care if you sell a Mac with a different version of OSX than it came with. So long as an original upgrade copy of that OSX is included with the sale. Apple also retains the right to control the transfer of any derivative copy.


It's like this. Suppose your favorite music artist don't have a greatest hits CD. So you go out and buy all of his/her CD's and make your own greatest hits CD from them. Can you make it a business of selling your greatest hits CD of your favorite artist? Not even if you include all of his/her original CD's along with your greatest hits version. You have the right to sell all of those original copies you bought. But that greatest hits version must be destroyed once you do that. You have no right to market a derivative work of some one else's copyrighted music. (Even if all you did was legally copy the songs from the originals that you bought.) You can't do it even if you don't make money from the sale. That derivative work is non transferable. Unless that artist gives you the permission to do so. That greatest hits CD is protected by "fair use" only if it's for personal use.
post #211 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

Wrong!

If Joe Blow makes it a business of selling computers with a pre-installed version of MS Windows XP. He must seek a license from MS to do so. It may cost him nothing. But he must have permission none the less. It doesn't matter if he buys a full retail version of MS Windows XP. This doesn't give him the right to transfer or profit from any "derivative" (adaptation) of that original copy. He's allow to sell the original (even for a profit if he can.) First sale doctrine only applies to the original copy. He can sell his computer along with that original copy of XP. But once he pre-install it on the computer he has for sale, he needs permission (a license) from MS to transfer that derivative copy (adaptation).

Now he can get away with selling his computer and an original copy of MS XP. And then offer to install it for free after the purchase.

MS doesn't really care if you bought a retail copy of XP to install on your home built computer and then sell it after using it for a period of time. Because you're not going to profit from the sale of that computer (along with the software). And thus not going to make a business out of it. So long as you include the original copy that was used to install the copy in the computer. And the derivative copy (adaptation) in the computer has not been modified in a way the MS disagrees with. MS still retains the right to control who can transfer a derivative copy (adaptation).

This.

And this idea has been repeated several times here in one form or another, some people still don't get it.

Oh well. Come November they sure will.
post #212 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by cylack View Post

Big corporations should not be allowed to dictate what we can do once we make a purchase.

I'm sure all the Apple fanboys here would be cool if Sony made you agree to a "license" that said if you purchase a DVD movie made by Sony Pictures Entertainment, then you have to play it only on a Sony DVD player. Same argument goes with music.

I've used Apple computers since the Apple IIGS and they've always been overpriced on the hardware side.

Separator ##################Separator
Last time I looked when you buy something which has an agreement of use enclosed. Is not your purchase a tacit agreement of complacence, If you do not agree with the terms of sale you are usually free to return the product and go elsewhere until you find what you want. Its called " Free Enterprise ".

We all do this to some degree when we modify say our OS or a program in some way. What pystar is doing is gone one step further by trying to make money from it . That is a NO NO) ht
post #213 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

I suppose you're right. If you own Dell stock, I suggest you sell it, since their entire business model is illegal.

Dell has an OEM agreement with Microsoft. Psystar does NOT have an OEM agreement with Apple. NO AGREEMENT = Big difference.
post #214 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

Doing as little as changing a motherboard can invalidate your Microsoft OEM; isn't that fun?

not if your are replacing a dead / not working one.
post #215 of 331
I think some of you have gotten off the mark. I thought that the Mac OS EULA forbid installing the Mac OS in a non-Apple computer. And that's [that is] one of the major points of the law suit. Patents have a place in society, preventing other companies from using another's hard work for profit, which would lead to a decrease in profit by the patent holder. The holder deserves it and no one else does.
In pharmaceuticals, patents expire and other can make generics, which markedly decreases profits form the original patent holder. It's probably one of the reasons why the greedy jerks charge so much at the start.
Now Microsoft has an interesting practice. If you replace the motherboard on your retail computer, you may not install Windows on it as it is another computer in their eyes. A new drive, vid card or CPU is OK. This is what a Microsoft customer support person informed me, that the OS is married to the mobo. A computer builder told me that the OEM version does not apply to this rule, and that this does apply to retail copies of Windows. She seemed to know a lot about it as she builds and sells computers in her small company, but I have not personally looked in to this. The support guy from MS just told me to go ahead and install any way. Of course, replacing with an identical mobo does not require a reinstall, but using a different mobo does. If you are out of activation attempts, you can just select repair after you select install, rather than selecting repair at the start of Windows installation. BTW, this was with XP, and I don't know the facts of Vista, but she was telling me these facts recently, so I would bet that the OEM stuff also applies.
post #216 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

My feeling is Psystar knows their case is a lost cause of the highest order and is in delay mode. As an accountant I know that the "documents for balance, profit-and-loss, or other characteristics of its finances simply don't (and don't need to) exist" is total garbage and would be one of the first things the IRS would want to see if they audited these guys.

In a way it is a pity that the False Claims Act (Lincolns law) is so limited in situations like as being able to sue on behalf of the IRS would shut this latest nonsense down in a heartbeat.

I am also an accountant and will back this statement 100%

The documents they claimed they didn't need copies of are business 101 taught to maintain.

And ALL financial documents must be kept a minimum of 7 years.

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, psystar has just defaulted, and to be honest, lost, their entire case and should probably fire their attorneys for advising them to make a statement like that.

Not only are they questionable, but their attorneys are apparent idiots.

And lets not all forget this came about (Though I could be wrong) by Psystar initiating this legal action, not the other way around. And now they are on the defensive?

Oh well.......
post #217 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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

You're probably not as "Liberal" as you think you are... And this is a good thing

Z
post #218 of 331
harleighquinn, it may be the stall tactic to keep business going for a while longer, before the ends comes. The longer they stall, the more money they can make. They seem to be out of moves at this point.
post #219 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you fathom that what you just posted here, makes about as much sense as opening a snow cone stand in the middle of siberia?

Do you smoke a lot of weed?

Z
post #220 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by WAMBO View Post

harleighquinn, it may be the stall tactic to keep business going for a while longer, before the ends comes. The longer they stall, the more money they can make. They seem to be out of moves at this point.

Good point
post #221 of 331
My father always told me that when engaged in a battle of wits, that it was always polite to check to see whether or not your opponent was armed.

In the case of 3Gpro? I would appear they came to a gun fight armed only with a broken pen knife and a large supply of spitwads.
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 #222 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Can you fathom that what you just posted here, makes about as much sense as opening a snow cone stand in the middle of siberia?

Do you smoke a lot of weed?

Z

In all fairness, I'm pretty sure they were responding to the poster who made reference to Osama/Obama a few pages back. I responded by giving that poster the link to Rush's bile-filed home page.

Hence the sarcasm....
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 #223 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.

A book is a combination of commonly obtained words printed on generic paper with generic ink. Does that mean you have the right to copy and sell someone else's book?

The simple fact you are apparently failing to grasp is that a proprietary product can be and often is the combination of non-proprietary elements. The fact that any of the elements are non-proprietary is irrelevant to the question of whether the product so created can be duplicated by someone other than the owner of the property.

The Mac is Apple's intellectual property. Only they have the right under the law to decide who can make and sell a Mac. You can't slice or dice it any other way that respects intellectual property.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #224 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

Look, if Apple can run windows is then an end user should be able to out the os on any hardware they want. In fact, this day will come, not if, but when. Apple OS is already becoming a commondity. I remember saying one day it would be in x86 and got laughed out but it happened didn't it.

With regard to osx86, they have come a long way and I know many people that got a real mac after tweaking the kext, plist and device to get the gpu to work but those days are long gone. In fact, I was just there a few weeks ago and these days, all you need to do is download this tiny efi emulator and use any OS X disk, and you're done. Including updates. No more tedious hacking required. And had machines are just as stable. Further, it's hard to justify $3000, after taxes, when you can build a raid machine, i7 for 1/4th the price not to mention any GPU you desire. It's very, very cost effective, especially fir media, audio, rendering and now, the end user can download the updates. It's getting harder for Apple, not easier, to control how the OS is used. Personally, if apple sold the OS,and iLife as seperate components with a reasonable display price, they would gain a huge market share motto mention all the new Apple only apps. All they would have to do in order to make up fir lost revenue hardware sales, is this combined with a percentage if the developers apps pricing. If Apple starts manipulating hardware prices, ala $999 MBAir, and gets ready for a netbook, this could become more reality than fiction. Apple then reduces prices, still making a decent margin, but more mainstream in price but better hardware. Or packaging.

If Apple moves into the TV business, then this is happening sooner as all if Apples money will be iTunes, iPhone, TVA, apps, 35% os marketshare plus almost tripple hardware sales but 1/3 lower priced. So a mbp sells for $1200 but 3 x more. This is a great business model where Apple could really dominate, especially getting into and controlling the cloud and app store markets, only now, the apps store includes 1000's if new programs while still giving the user an experince. Plus all the millions in licensing fees they would receive from Dell, HP, the stock would reach $500 in a few years. The premium experience would still exist, just at a lower price point. This really should be a no brained plus real mac enthusiasts, still win with more affordable devices. The only thing lost us the snobbery which is sort of to e now anyway as the creatives, audio, video, arestill there, but not catered to nearly as much as the barking dog, louis vatton iLife "how to I do an email attachment" one to one crowd. LOL.

Exactly how much blow did you do before you typed this up? It is fundamentally impossible to portend your users with the same premium experience they have now while dealing with OEMs.

To begin with, you have to code for every piece of hardware under the sun and, to say the least, that results in a monstrous amount of bloat. Then, you have to continue to support these overblow amounts of hardware for atleast a decade and a half, which results in more bloat.

Next, you have to deal with OEMs that have an entirely different strategy in terms of their hardware than you do with your software. You wanna implement a new feature hardware wise and then have to force each one down the line to adapt what they may or may not see as bad for their bottom line. These same OEMs will attempt to make your system cheaper by filling it with difficult to remove adware, the most annoying of which will be a trial for Norton anti-virus, a piece of software that any Mac user with half a brain doesn't need.

Next, these OEMs will try to appeal to the basic market by putting your software on hardware that's entirely underpowered to use it. This hardware will be as ugly to look at as it is slow to use. These OEMs will also shun your built-in software because 1) the EU will call it anti-competitive and 2) they will get more money from allowing third party software onto the system.

Finally, these OEMs will eat into your hardware sales substantially, as they continue to sacrifice quality simply to meet a price point, which will make your otherwise reasonably priced wares seem egregious.

This is not to mention the fact that all of the retarded masses that believe Macs have compatibility issues with Windows will continue to stick with that system and its already developed business user community, who will, of course, start a whisper campaign against this new threat.

The only thing opening up OS X to other hardware would do is kill quality and customer service in order to turn OS X into just another Windows. If creating a premium experience is so friggin' easy in a multi-vendor solution, why the hell has Microsoft never once been able to do it?

Don't ever call OS X a commodity ever again.
post #225 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Sony licenses Blu-Ray to authorized manufacturers. Apple does not want to pay the licensing fees as they are set now. This is why Apple currently does not sell a computer with a Blu-Ray drive or functionality.

This is not too difficult to understand.

Apple sees Blu-Ray as pointless because has picked almost no treads in the market since it won the format with HD-DVD a year and a half ago. Meanwhile, iTunes movies and shows are booming, as are several other digital download services. And in terms of Apple's lap-tops, there simply isn't enough space, as no vendor makes a BD drive as thin as the DVD drive it's currently using.

I will say one thing, though: this is Sony, the company that thinks it's some kind of privilege to use it PS3. The licensing fee for Blu-Ray is likely as astronomical as every other pointless format Sony has ever invented.
post #226 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?



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



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

They sell computers cheaper because they don't have to pay for the research & development or even a basic licensing fee to Apple. They also use third rate off-the-shelf parts.
post #227 of 331
What a shame Dilbert couldn't write this piece. It surely would have been a bit longer. Then again maybe he did write it? Question: why does Dilbert's about page list one somewhat unreal and four totally made-up people but only Dilbert has anything to say? And it's all "I" and "me" but never "we" and "us"? Oops, Dilbert! LMAO
post #228 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

Apple will go to just about any length to prevent competition.

What Truly is sad. Apple has sunk to new lows.

what is truly sad is how some people are so stupid to befooled by a bunch of thieves and knock offs .

apple owes no one shit .

in fact apple has just hit new highs .

with its incedible os-x
with its incredible free i movie i tunes garage
with its up and coming i phone and a billion app store

all of these thing chill my spine

yet what crushes you ms dudes is how seamless it all is .

and now apple makes the finest laptop ever made
the 15 in uni-body mac book pro fully loaded

to walk this earth with a beautiful machine like this .and all the things it can do .

new low's
ha !

new high's i say....
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #229 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Can you fathom that what you just posted here, makes about as much sense as opening a snow cone stand in the middle of siberia?

Do you smoke a lot of weed?

Z

Whats that mean??!! Are you a communist?! You talk like a communist!!! LOL!!!

Probably one of Obama's Nazi thugs spreading lies about conservatives!! You pretend to be stupid conservative instead of commy fascist to make people thing conseratives are stupid!!

Do you even have a birth certificate???!!!
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 #230 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Let's see... words have meaning so I gave you a legal definition that discounted your premise that property must be scarce to be exist. If you don't think that an idea can be owned then there is an entire modern world and an active free market that you disagree with. The idea that anyone should be legally allowed to freely use anyone else's ideas without consequence, which by your definition would also include me republishing any book under my name since words are scarce therefore they can't be intellectual property in any way shape or form.

You still are not showing why there should be consequences for using another persons idea. If you believe it gives an incentive for innovation then you are mistaken. There have been many economic studies that show IP laws actually stifle innovation. If you want a specific case study you can look at James Watt and the steam engine. By using coercive action to enforce IP laws you create an artificial monopoly for something that has an extremely low marginal cost to reproduce. Just because you cannot think of a business plan to make money off an idea that can be copied does not mean it is impossible.

You claim IP laws are a result of the free market but you are sadly mistaken. IP laws actually shift production from areas that cannot be protected by patents or copyrights to areas where they are granted a monopoly. Again, there are plenty of studies that show this.
post #231 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri View Post

Apple sees Blu-Ray as pointless because has picked almost no treads in the market since it won the format with HD-DVD a year and a half ago. Meanwhile, iTunes movies and shows are booming, as are several other digital download services. And in terms of Apple's lap-tops, there simply isn't enough space, as no vendor makes a BD drive as thin as the DVD drive it's currently using.

Apple did publicly state that Blu-ray was a "bag of hurt" followed by the example with the licensing, which is true. However, it seems to have been picked by some as the only truth despite it being an easy answer that takes the blame off Apple and proof that there are many reasons why adopting Blu-ray is more of the challenge for Apple than for other PC vendors.

This year some things had changed. The licensing has loosened up and 9.5mm drives, the kind that fit in pretty much all Macs now exist. However, these are $500+ tray-loading drives for the upgrade. When you go to slot-loading you lose some speed, the ability for dual-layer discs in some cases and the price can go up considerably.

Some will read that last sentence and say "Apple shouldn't make such thin machines" and/or "Apple should just tray-loading drives", despite there being evidence of Apple using a lesser optical drive standard than in previous models in order to go thinner and more streamlined with with their machines.
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 #232 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cglace View Post

You still are not showing why there should be consequences for using another persons idea. [...]

So in your magic world I should be able to take the Harry Potter books word for word append my name to them, lets say JK Solipsism, and then have them published. You honestly think that their should be no consequences for taking someone else's IP. It's your choice not to want a free market, but you are mistaken if you think that their are no consequences for stealing other people's IP. Why would JK Rowling write more books if she could never make a dime off it if toy makers and movie makers and other publishers with capital would just steal it all since, according to you, she can't own any of the IP she wrote? I can't see how you could possibly believe that to be a good thing.
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 #233 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

You're probably not as "Liberal" as you think you are... And this is a good thing

Z

I'm Left-Wing even for a European and I still think what Psystar is doing is wrong.

And do you know why? Because politics has nothing to do with this! We're talking about the legality of business practices. It is open and shut, the law says you can't do that. So they can't do it.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.9
Black/Space Grey iPad Air with Wi-Fi & LTE | 128GB | On 4GEE
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #234 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaphodsplanet View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by WAMBO View Post

harleighquinn, it may be the stall tactic to keep business going for a while longer, before the ends comes. The longer they stall, the more money they can make. They seem to be out of moves at this point.

Good point

I don't see how this makes any sense: "It (Apple) seeks any profits earned by Psystar from its Open Computer, triple damages for willful acts, a permanent injunction against the sale of the product, as well as recall of those units already sold. " (Fried, Ina "Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled" Beyond Binary: CNet news July 15, 2008)

Apple wins and they get ALL profits Psystar has made, get triple damages even if Psystar made no profit, and on top of that Psystar has to recall every unit they have sold. Then thanks to their insane claim they could be looking at possible tax fraud charges by the AG of Florida and the IRS. Tell me how delaying makes any degree of sense under these conditions?
post #235 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara View Post

I don't see how this makes any sense: "It (Apple) seeks any profits earned by Psystar from its Open Computer, triple damages for willful acts, a permanent injunction against the sale of the product, as well as recall of those units already sold. " (Fried, Ina "Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled" Beyond Binary: CNet news July 15, 2008)

Apple wins and they get ALL profits Psystar has made, get triple damages even if Psystar made no profit, and on top of that Psystar has to recall every unit they have sold. Then thanks to their insane claim they could be looking at possible tax fraud charges by the AD of Florida and the IRS. Tell me how delaying makes any degree of sense under these conditions?

I don't see damages won being that big of a deal for Apple in this case. It's not like Psystar customers are Apple's core consumer base and I have a strong feeling that there sales too low to matter even if each Psystar sales would have been purchase a Mac. I think the real benefit of this case is to set a precedence, which may be why Apple waited as long as they did before suing them. I don't think Apple wanted Psystar to just crumble and go away, I think they want this to be a landmark case, especially now that Apple are growing.
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 #236 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

It would appear that you stumbled into the wrong forum.

This forum is about Apple products and services.

The "I'm an idiot who can't think for myself, so I let someone else think for me" forum can be found here:

www.RussLimbaugh.com

That should be "Rush"...but it's probably for the best that the link's wrong anyway
post #237 of 331
What definition of competition are you working with? What company allows another company to use its property against it in the spirit of competition? What business does this?

Quote:
Apple will go to just about any length to prevent competition. What Truly is sad. Apple has sunk to new lows.
post #238 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Whats that mean??!! Are you a communist?! You talk like a communist!!! LOL!!!

Probably one of Obama's Nazi thugs spreading lies about conservatives!! You pretend to be stupid conservative instead of commy fascist to make people thing conseratives are stupid!!

Do you even have a birth certificate???!!!

Wow. You sure sound like you're having a bad day.

Chill out. And keep the politics out of it, if you can.
post #239 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

You mean make modifications to your product, then resell it at a profit as part of a business with you getting nothing for it?? Intellecutal Property is not the same as physical property.

This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.

Quote:
Intellectual Proprety law exists for a reason, and a lot of people are able to make a living thanks to its existence.

The intellectual property laws in the United States provide the owners of intellectual property with discretion to license the right to use that property or to make or sell products that embody the intellectual property.

It however doesn't guarantee them infinite income from a product that has already been sold. It is no different than selling your chain saw sitting in the garage, you would not expect to split the proceeds withthe builder would you?
Quote:

There are limitations and restrictions on that to a certain degree, but what is essentially being argued by some of the Pro-Psystar people here is that Apple shouldn't have any intellectual property rights with respect to OS X to begin with once a sale is made, which is a fallacious argument.

It is a very sound arguement and honestly if you don't get it and defend the concept you are going to get royally screwed in the future. What you aresuggesting is that consummers should give up all rights to the products they buy. Then by extension you want corporations to do the same. Frankly this is no different than buying a ball bearing to stick into the new widget you are about to sell.

Frankly your desire to color the people generally against Apple here is also a mistake. I don't really care if Pystar survives or not what I want to see come to an end is this blatant abuse of power by Apple and other companies. What is really sad about this is that people like you dont seem to realize what you are giving up. If Apple wins here it will change the face of America and not for the better.

Dave
post #240 of 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This is very very wrong, with every Pystar sale Apple is making a profit off the OS/X CD that gets sold with their machine. They get everything they deserve under the doctrine of right of first sale.

That isn't quite true. Those discs are priced based on previous Mac sales. They aren't priced for a non-Mac owners so the price is heavily discounted.

Quote:
If Apple wins here it will change the face of America and not for the better.

If Psystar wins here how does that benefit the consumer in any way?
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