I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
-- Apple owner and shareholder
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on Pystar's "right to build hardware and sell the mac OS" for this simple reason. Apple would not be able to control the quality of the hardware running it's Mac software and therefore any negative consumer experience (because of low quality hardware) would reflect badly on Apple .... why should Apple's reputation be damaged because of Pystar? Why do you think Microsoft has several versions of it's OS? ..... dumbed down versions to go on cheap PC's. Apple has always said it's goal is not necessarily to be in every computer ... but to give every customer the best computing experience possible and I, for one, am glad of that commitment.
Apple would not be able to control the quality of the hardware running it's Mac software and therefore any negative consumer experience (because of low quality hardware) would reflect badly on Apple .... why should Apple's reputation be damaged because of Pystar?
I don't see how bad Psystar hardware (which I have no idea about) should reflect badly on Apple. I would always buy Apple because I like Apple. However I find it suspicious and humorous that other hardware vendors just don't seem to exist. Instead of risking someone's existing firm, an upstart -- a trojan called Psystar -- evolved to test the legal waters. I think it is fun to watch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee
Apple has always said it's goal is not necessarily to be in every computer ... but to give every customer the best computing experience possible and I, for one, am glad of that commitment.
Apple's corporate goals and gauzy dreamscapes of uniform Designed in California computers playing Steve Jobs' favorite songs are one thing. I think it is great that Apple has such a high opinion of themselves. They are indeed stylish and I enjoy using Apple designed hardware. But why can't Psystar make compatible hardware... it's a question somebody needs to ask. A tailor-made firm has been spawned that is dragging the issue out. I am glad. Eventually the issue is going to come up.
I don't see how bad Psystar hardware (which I have no idea about) should reflect badly on Apple. I would always buy Apple because I like Apple. However I find it suspicious and humorous that other hardware vendors just don't seem to exist. Instead of risking someone's existing firm, an upstart -- a trojan called Psystar -- evolved to test the legal waters. I think it is fun to watch!
And why do you think it's suspicious? Other companies have been respecting the EULA , copyrights, etc . All established companies have IP they need to protect this way. If they all started to challenge the basic protections, they might all lose. That's what the protections are there for.
Quote:
Apple's corporate goals and gauzy dreamscapes of uniform Designed in California computers playing Steve Jobs' favorite songs are one thing. I think it is great that Apple has such a high opinion of themselves. They are indeed stylish and I enjoy using Apple designed hardware. But why can't Psystar make compatible hardware... it's a question somebody needs to ask. A tailor-made firm has been spawned that is dragging the issue out. I am glad. Eventually the issue is going to come up.
Apple is the only one who has the right to decide the direction the company and ts products are headed. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to buy its products.
No one is saying that Psystar can't make hardware that is as close as possible, without using any proprietary parts, if any.
I've already explained that. Its the rest that's the problem.
Apple is the only one who has the right to decide the direction the company and ts products are headed. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to buy its products.
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
I'm confused. The article says Psystar's Chapter 11 filing was "dismissed" by the court. Usually in legal lingo, that means it was not allowed. Unless I'm missing something, I think the correct term is "emerged" from Chapter 11.
Moran Law Group has an online glossary of Bankruptcy terms. "Dismissed" is a proper legal term while "emerged" is not. Also emerged implies that the bankruptcy went through while dismissed means the case was effectively thrown out.
Dismissal can also be a penalty for minor infractions of bankruptcy procedures. (Another possible indication the court is not happy with Psystar.)
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
I hesitate to respond to such tortured logic, but it does always seem to come down to something like this -- an emotional argument lacking any factual or legal support. Fair use has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and nothing to do with the rights Psystar asserts. Apple is protected by their copyrights, patents and trademarks -- just as you would be in the same situation.
Moran Law Group has an online glossary of Bankruptcy terms. "Dismissed" is a proper legal term while "emerged" is not. Also emerged implies that the bankruptcy went through while dismissed means the case was effectively thrown out.
Dismissal can also be a penalty for minor infractions of bankruptcy procedures. (Another possible indication the court is not happy with Psystar.)
Thanks. The problem is, the article refers to it both ways, and doesn't make it clear whether the court threw out the bankruptcy filing or whether Psystar withdrew it. And what is the correct term for when a company's debts are reorganized by the bankruptcy court, and the court withdraws its oversight? The term I've always heard used to describe this is "emerges."
Because you couldn't be bothered to read the post RIGHT BELOW the one you quoted, I'll repeat what melgross said again this isn't a place to discuss politics. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Besides, your diatribe contains a few lies too.
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
We all have rights. but your rights can't trample over the rights of the owner of a copyright or patent. that's pretty universal around the world, and for good reasons.
If you want to live in an anarchy, where everyone supposedly does as they please, you can go to Somalia, or somewhere similar, and claim your "rights". report back to us on how you did.
In countries ruled by law, however, everyone doesn't have the "right" to break the law, even if they don't like it.
There are certain rights Apple has as the developer and owner of certain products. The law allows them to determine certain uses.
It's never been challenged in this way before, so we don't know the outcome, but as experts in this area of law are saying, they expect Apple to win.
I wonder if that's still true if a company has been shown to have committed illegal activities. Perhaps those identities could be revealed. Possibly if it could be shown that there are other entities, Apple could move for them to be unmasked under some area of the RICO Act. Are they using that already?
I also wonder if partners in an LLC would continue to remain anonymous in the case of illegal activity. Then again, a corporation IS a legal "person", so the person in the form of the corporation would be the one accused of illegal activity, correct? I'm not "lawyer" enough to address these issues.
I also wonder if partners in an LLC would continue to remain anonymous in the case of illegal activity. Then again, a corporation IS a legal "person", so the person in the form of the corporation would be the one accused of illegal activity, correct? I'm not "lawyer" enough to address these issues.
The RICO Act, which is used in cases like this allows the telling of concealed partnerships.
The RICO Act, which is used in cases like this allows the telling of concealed partnerships.
The RICO Act seems to be aimed more squarely at racketeering, which (at least on the surface) does not seem to fit in this Psystar case. I just did a cursory glance at the Wikipedia definition...
The RICO Act seems to be aimed more squarely at racketeering, which (at least on the surface) does not seem to fit in this Psystar case. I just did a cursory glance at the Wikipedia definition...
A criminal organization as expressed in the RICO Act as now interpreted, is an organization that engages in criminal behavior. It's self defining.
But, as you can see from the article, while more difficult now, is is frequently used in civil cases.
It's much more difficult to use it for standard breach of contract filings, but this is different.
This web site you cite appears to be the opinion of an attorney who has every incentive to put forth his interpretation of the law. His view may make it seem more attractive to use his services. Doesn't mean it's the definitive interpretation, however, I think at it's essence government's expansion of the Rico Act to prosecute a broader scope of so-called criminal activity is just another sign that government's power and reach continues to expand into every crack and crevice of our lives. Much of what the government claims is illegal activity results in the expansion of government powers and size. I always remember what Ted Coppell said in a moment of unvarnished truth... that government, like many human creations (such as businesses, and even small humans) must grow and "feed" in order to survive. Government activity that includes seizing illicit wealth, property, etc. serves the purpose of feeding itself. Sorry to respond to your reply with a full-on rant, but there you go.
This web site you cite appears to be the opinion of an attorney who has every incentive to put forth his interpretation of the law. His view may make it seem more attractive to use his services. Doesn't mean it's the definitive interpretation, however, I think at it's essence government's expansion of the Rico Act to prosecute a broader scope of so-called criminal activity is just another sign that government's power and reach continues to expand into every crack and crevice of our lives. Much of what the government claims is illegal activity results in the expansion of government powers and size. I always remember what Ted Coppell said in a moment of unvarnished truth... that government, like many human creations (such as businesses, and even small humans) must grow and "feed" in order to survive. Government activity that includes seizing illicit wealth, property, etc. serves the purpose of feeding itself. Sorry to respond to your reply with a full-on rant, but there you go.
Then go ahead and look it up somewhere else. this isn't secret information. It's well known. The government had been bringing RICO cases against businesses for years.
I'm not interested in your political philosophy. We all know that you are a libertarian.
That has nothing to do with what actually happens, only your opinion of it. And we're not discussion our opinions here, just the facts of what's happening.
Then go ahead and look it up somewhere else. this isn't secret information. It's well known. The government had been bringing RICO cases against businesses for years.
I'm not interested in your political philosophy. We all know that you are a libertarian.
That has nothing to do with what actually happens, only your opinion of it. And we're not discussion our opinions here, just the facts of what's happening.
Ah, but Mel... they have not been prosecuted under the Rico Act. That was a theory. An interesting one, but still a theory.
Ah, but Mel... they have not been prosecuted under the Rico Act. That was a theory. An interesting one, but still a theory.
Yes, it was a question. Thats all. I believe that the government has to do that. As this is a private civil case, it's different. That's why I was wondering. I think Apple would have to ask the feds to look at it for that, or the feds would have to decide.
But as this is between companies, and not a company and the public, the feds wouldn't always want to get involved.
Comments
I support Psystar's right to build hardware and sell the Mac OS. They need not pre-load the OS but I do believe it is permissible for them to build compatible hardware. That they also have the right to sell the OS, boxed, has never been a debate. Maybe they should fall back from the provocative pre-loading of the OS and just sell hardware. The essential hardware business is a needed realm of competition. A computer should be an appliance, not a protected locked device. If Apple wants to sell hardware, let them do it on the merits, not because of some contrived lock their marketing dept cooked up. The pejorative "Hackintosh' is really getting old.
-- Apple owner and shareholder
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on Pystar's "right to build hardware and sell the mac OS" for this simple reason. Apple would not be able to control the quality of the hardware running it's Mac software and therefore any negative consumer experience (because of low quality hardware) would reflect badly on Apple .... why should Apple's reputation be damaged because of Pystar? Why do you think Microsoft has several versions of it's OS? ..... dumbed down versions to go on cheap PC's. Apple has always said it's goal is not necessarily to be in every computer ... but to give every customer the best computing experience possible and I, for one, am glad of that commitment.
Apple would not be able to control the quality of the hardware running it's Mac software and therefore any negative consumer experience (because of low quality hardware) would reflect badly on Apple .... why should Apple's reputation be damaged because of Pystar?
I don't see how bad Psystar hardware (which I have no idea about) should reflect badly on Apple. I would always buy Apple because I like Apple. However I find it suspicious and humorous that other hardware vendors just don't seem to exist. Instead of risking someone's existing firm, an upstart -- a trojan called Psystar -- evolved to test the legal waters. I think it is fun to watch!
Apple has always said it's goal is not necessarily to be in every computer ... but to give every customer the best computing experience possible and I, for one, am glad of that commitment.
Apple's corporate goals and gauzy dreamscapes of uniform Designed in California computers playing Steve Jobs' favorite songs are one thing. I think it is great that Apple has such a high opinion of themselves. They are indeed stylish and I enjoy using Apple designed hardware. But why can't Psystar make compatible hardware... it's a question somebody needs to ask. A tailor-made firm has been spawned that is dragging the issue out. I am glad. Eventually the issue is going to come up.
I don't see how bad Psystar hardware (which I have no idea about) should reflect badly on Apple. I would always buy Apple because I like Apple. However I find it suspicious and humorous that other hardware vendors just don't seem to exist. Instead of risking someone's existing firm, an upstart -- a trojan called Psystar -- evolved to test the legal waters. I think it is fun to watch!
And why do you think it's suspicious? Other companies have been respecting the EULA , copyrights, etc . All established companies have IP they need to protect this way. If they all started to challenge the basic protections, they might all lose. That's what the protections are there for.
Apple's corporate goals and gauzy dreamscapes of uniform Designed in California computers playing Steve Jobs' favorite songs are one thing. I think it is great that Apple has such a high opinion of themselves. They are indeed stylish and I enjoy using Apple designed hardware. But why can't Psystar make compatible hardware... it's a question somebody needs to ask. A tailor-made firm has been spawned that is dragging the issue out. I am glad. Eventually the issue is going to come up.
Apple is the only one who has the right to decide the direction the company and ts products are headed. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to buy its products.
No one is saying that Psystar can't make hardware that is as close as possible, without using any proprietary parts, if any.
I've already explained that. Its the rest that's the problem.
Apple is the only one who has the right to decide the direction the company and ts products are headed. You don't have to agree, and you don't have to buy its products.
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
I'm confused. The article says Psystar's Chapter 11 filing was "dismissed" by the court. Usually in legal lingo, that means it was not allowed. Unless I'm missing something, I think the correct term is "emerged" from Chapter 11.
Moran Law Group has an online glossary of Bankruptcy terms. "Dismissed" is a proper legal term while "emerged" is not. Also emerged implies that the bankruptcy went through while dismissed means the case was effectively thrown out.
Dismissal can also be a penalty for minor infractions of bankruptcy procedures. (Another possible indication the court is not happy with Psystar.)
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
I hesitate to respond to such tortured logic, but it does always seem to come down to something like this -- an emotional argument lacking any factual or legal support. Fair use has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and nothing to do with the rights Psystar asserts. Apple is protected by their copyrights, patents and trademarks -- just as you would be in the same situation.
Maybe it would help to read Apple's complaint.
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apple_vs_ps...iling_35-2.pdf
Moran Law Group has an online glossary of Bankruptcy terms. "Dismissed" is a proper legal term while "emerged" is not. Also emerged implies that the bankruptcy went through while dismissed means the case was effectively thrown out.
Dismissal can also be a penalty for minor infractions of bankruptcy procedures. (Another possible indication the court is not happy with Psystar.)
Thanks. The problem is, the article refers to it both ways, and doesn't make it clear whether the court threw out the bankruptcy filing or whether Psystar withdrew it. And what is the correct term for when a company's debts are reorganized by the bankruptcy court, and the court withdraws its oversight? The term I've always heard used to describe this is "emerges."
***snipped***
Because you couldn't be bothered to read the post RIGHT BELOW the one you quoted, I'll repeat what melgross said again this isn't a place to discuss politics. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. Besides, your diatribe contains a few lies too.
Ah yes, I know there is an altar where one can kneel. I just wonder if the judge kneels at the that same altar, or maybe he has a different set of principles such as fair use. I do not recall a specific law saying Apple enjoys a right to a comfortable existence and full control of its destiny, as it sees fit. Apple has rights but so does everyone else. I have a lot of rights too. And so does Psystar, or a company i name after my dog. America is a neat country that way.
We all have rights. but your rights can't trample over the rights of the owner of a copyright or patent. that's pretty universal around the world, and for good reasons.
If you want to live in an anarchy, where everyone supposedly does as they please, you can go to Somalia, or somewhere similar, and claim your "rights". report back to us on how you did.
In countries ruled by law, however, everyone doesn't have the "right" to break the law, even if they don't like it.
There are certain rights Apple has as the developer and owner of certain products. The law allows them to determine certain uses.
It's never been challenged in this way before, so we don't know the outcome, but as experts in this area of law are saying, they expect Apple to win.
We'll see, maybe you'll get your wish.
I wonder if that's still true if a company has been shown to have committed illegal activities. Perhaps those identities could be revealed. Possibly if it could be shown that there are other entities, Apple could move for them to be unmasked under some area of the RICO Act. Are they using that already?
I also wonder if partners in an LLC would continue to remain anonymous in the case of illegal activity. Then again, a corporation IS a legal "person", so the person in the form of the corporation would be the one accused of illegal activity, correct? I'm not "lawyer" enough to address these issues.
I also wonder if partners in an LLC would continue to remain anonymous in the case of illegal activity. Then again, a corporation IS a legal "person", so the person in the form of the corporation would be the one accused of illegal activity, correct? I'm not "lawyer" enough to address these issues.
The RICO Act, which is used in cases like this allows the telling of concealed partnerships.
The RICO Act, which is used in cases like this allows the telling of concealed partnerships.
The RICO Act seems to be aimed more squarely at racketeering, which (at least on the surface) does not seem to fit in this Psystar case. I just did a cursory glance at the Wikipedia definition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackete...anizations_Act
On the other hand, if Psystar is backed by a criminal organization, the story could be quite different.
The RICO Act seems to be aimed more squarely at racketeering, which (at least on the surface) does not seem to fit in this Psystar case. I just did a cursory glance at the Wikipedia definition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rackete...anizations_Act
On the other hand, if Psystar is backed by a criminal organization, the story could be quite different.
Screw Wikipedia's definition. If they said that, then they are DEAD wrong. This is not unusual for them.
This website, ricoact.com is considered to be a good source of info:
http://www.ricoact.com/
A criminal organization as expressed in the RICO Act as now interpreted, is an organization that engages in criminal behavior. It's self defining.
But, as you can see from the article, while more difficult now, is is frequently used in civil cases.
It's much more difficult to use it for standard breach of contract filings, but this is different.
Screw Wikipedia's definition. If they said that, then they are DEAD wrong. This is not unusual for them.
This website, ricoact.com is considered to be a good source of info:
http://www.ricoact.com/
A criminal organization as expressed in the RICO Act as now interpreted, is an organization that engages in criminal behavior. It's self defining.
But, as you can see from the article, while more difficult now, is is frequently used in civil cases.
It's much more difficult to use it for standard breach of contract filings, but this is different.
This web site you cite appears to be the opinion of an attorney who has every incentive to put forth his interpretation of the law. His view may make it seem more attractive to use his services. Doesn't mean it's the definitive interpretation, however, I think at it's essence government's expansion of the Rico Act to prosecute a broader scope of so-called criminal activity is just another sign that government's power and reach continues to expand into every crack and crevice of our lives. Much of what the government claims is illegal activity results in the expansion of government powers and size. I always remember what Ted Coppell said in a moment of unvarnished truth... that government, like many human creations (such as businesses, and even small humans) must grow and "feed" in order to survive. Government activity that includes seizing illicit wealth, property, etc. serves the purpose of feeding itself. Sorry to respond to your reply with a full-on rant, but there you go.
This web site you cite appears to be the opinion of an attorney who has every incentive to put forth his interpretation of the law. His view may make it seem more attractive to use his services. Doesn't mean it's the definitive interpretation, however, I think at it's essence government's expansion of the Rico Act to prosecute a broader scope of so-called criminal activity is just another sign that government's power and reach continues to expand into every crack and crevice of our lives. Much of what the government claims is illegal activity results in the expansion of government powers and size. I always remember what Ted Coppell said in a moment of unvarnished truth... that government, like many human creations (such as businesses, and even small humans) must grow and "feed" in order to survive. Government activity that includes seizing illicit wealth, property, etc. serves the purpose of feeding itself. Sorry to respond to your reply with a full-on rant, but there you go.
Then go ahead and look it up somewhere else. this isn't secret information. It's well known. The government had been bringing RICO cases against businesses for years.
I'm not interested in your political philosophy. We all know that you are a libertarian.
That has nothing to do with what actually happens, only your opinion of it. And we're not discussion our opinions here, just the facts of what's happening.
Then go ahead and look it up somewhere else. this isn't secret information. It's well known. The government had been bringing RICO cases against businesses for years.
I'm not interested in your political philosophy. We all know that you are a libertarian.
That has nothing to do with what actually happens, only your opinion of it. And we're not discussion our opinions here, just the facts of what's happening.
Ah, but Mel... they have not been prosecuted under the Rico Act. That was a theory. An interesting one, but still a theory.
Ah, but Mel... they have not been prosecuted under the Rico Act. That was a theory. An interesting one, but still a theory.
Yes, it was a question. Thats all. I believe that the government has to do that. As this is a private civil case, it's different. That's why I was wondering. I think Apple would have to ask the feds to look at it for that, or the feds would have to decide.
But as this is between companies, and not a company and the public, the feds wouldn't always want to get involved.