Would the market benefit? Probably. Would Apple? No. Its their right to choose what happens with the OS here.
Irrelevant - anti-trust laws are there to protect consumers and the market, not companies. Ask Microsoft.
Quote:
Just because you want the OS to be licensable doesn't mean its right for Psystar to win in this case. They are clearly in the wrong and should have the law brought down on them. This actual issue is not of licensing, its about the fact that they are breaking the law, and we can't let that happen and get away with it or what would it mean for the entire market? Chaos.
I agree, which is why I said "the answer is not for companies to just go ahead without permission, as Psystar have done, but to negotiate in the propper manner."
I know actually reading what a person posted can be less interesting than arguing with what you wanted them to say... but I'm all for giving it a go.
Quote:
My personal opinion surrounding the issue of OS X licensing?
No way. You wonder why OS X is so stable? Its cos it doesn't need 100000 drivers built in, it doesn't need to run on any hardware. It doesn't need to account for anything except maybe 40 different setups computer-wise.
This keeps OS X running like magic.
Windows fell prey to the idea of it being on every computer...
To remind you of Steve's quote from Alan K: "People who want to make good software make their own hardware."
There are many, many reasons for this.
I totally agree with this. I am not sure that Windows 'fell prey' to anything, as it has 92% of the market and created a $300bn company. I guess success is relative though.
Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment. He was a criminal. I didn't use Nazi, but I could have instead said "even Nazi's had their fans", but I didn't. You replied to something that wasn't said. Did you miss reading comprehension in school?
Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.
I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.
Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.
I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.
You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.
Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!
You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.
I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?
Quote:
Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!
A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.
he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.
How do you know that the law will support apple? Has a ruling been release. I think not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.
"I'm an ignorant idiot who doesn't think of the long term consequences of Apple allowing such things. I don't want to remember that if Apple allows it the cost of OS X will be far more than Windows, and I want to be ignorant to what a monopoly is. I also want my cake and I want to eat it too, and I want full control of something that is not, technically, mine."
.
heheh so true
Down with this damn parasitic Psystar Nazi company, I hope Apple fry them.
I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?
A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.
Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.
You make dumb remarks, I point them out. Apple has been harmed by the illegal use of it's operating system, which is only intended for Macs. Microsoft makes an OS that can be used on nearly any machine, including Macs. If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.
Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.
Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.
Quote:
You make dumb remarks, I point them out.... If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.
Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.
Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.
Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.
You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.
As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.
"Dispositive motion" == Motion asking the court to preemptively dispose of one or more of the claims (basically a summary judgment in favor of the side making the motion), without the need to present evidence in trial.
You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.
For me, Hitler invokes 'Nazi' much more strongly than 'criminal' and I am sure that if we did an experiment, where we asked people to respond with a single associated word for 'Hitler' that the vast majority would respond with 'Nazi'. So my assuming you meant Nazi, is hardly off the wall, it was an understandable inference. But I was mistaken.
Quote:
As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.
Oh so close... almost an entire paragraph without condescension... almost.
You're right anyway; I already said this 12 posts ago to another poster who was able to make the same point you did, without sounding like a teenager.
Comments
Would the market benefit? Probably. Would Apple? No. Its their right to choose what happens with the OS here.
Irrelevant - anti-trust laws are there to protect consumers and the market, not companies. Ask Microsoft.
Just because you want the OS to be licensable doesn't mean its right for Psystar to win in this case. They are clearly in the wrong and should have the law brought down on them. This actual issue is not of licensing, its about the fact that they are breaking the law, and we can't let that happen and get away with it or what would it mean for the entire market? Chaos.
I agree, which is why I said "the answer is not for companies to just go ahead without permission, as Psystar have done, but to negotiate in the propper manner."
I know actually reading what a person posted can be less interesting than arguing with what you wanted them to say... but I'm all for giving it a go.
My personal opinion surrounding the issue of OS X licensing?
No way. You wonder why OS X is so stable? Its cos it doesn't need 100000 drivers built in, it doesn't need to run on any hardware. It doesn't need to account for anything except maybe 40 different setups computer-wise.
This keeps OS X running like magic.
Windows fell prey to the idea of it being on every computer...
To remind you of Steve's quote from Alan K: "People who want to make good software make their own hardware."
There are many, many reasons for this.
I totally agree with this. I am not sure that Windows 'fell prey' to anything, as it has 92% of the market and created a $300bn company. I guess success is relative though.
Whether or not he was a Nazi, had no bearing on my comment. He was a criminal. I didn't use Nazi, but I could have instead said "even Nazi's had their fans", but I didn't. You replied to something that wasn't said. Did you miss reading comprehension in school?
Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.
I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.
I was just refering to its instability
I know, and agreed - if clone makers built unstable systems endorsed by Apple, then Apple's reputation could be harmed.
Do you have to resort to personal insults? Considering on two threads last night you boasted about your maturity and your Christian morality, you seem very quick to both display incredible lack of maturity, and distinctly unpalatable values.
I think you're allowing your feelings from yesterday's discussions to taint your comments in this thread.
You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.
Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!
Yes it does, it means that you don't support the law as it exists. As long as you get what YOU want, you DGAFRA.
You still can't read and respond to what was posted without inventing things that weren't said.
I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?
Moreover, you cannot force Apple to negotiate for the use of an operating system that they clearly own, unless they want to, and by now it should be obvious to you that they don't want to. The Mac OS is 100% proprietary!
A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.
You are a idiot. I haven't broken any laws.
he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.
he didn't say you did... he just said that you disagree with the law as it exists surrounding this issue. The law supports Apple in this case. You disagree with that.
Translation:
"I'm an ignorant idiot who doesn't think of the long term consequences of Apple allowing such things. I don't want to remember that if Apple allows it the cost of OS X will be far more than Windows, and I want to be ignorant to what a monopoly is. I also want my cake and I want to eat it too, and I want full control of something that is not, technically, mine."
.
heheh so true
Down with this damn parasitic Psystar Nazi company, I hope Apple fry them.
I'm trying to be reasonable with you, but you seem to lack the capacity for a normal conversation. A quick glance through your post history shows a very high level of anger and antagonism towards other board members. Perhaps you should take up meditating or something, before you do yourself harm?
A judge can. The only reason Apple has not been subject to the kind of anti-trust laws that MS has, is because of their relatively small market share. As they grow, this may change. It remains to be seen.
Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.
You make dumb remarks, I point them out. Apple has been harmed by the illegal use of it's operating system, which is only intended for Macs. Microsoft makes an OS that can be used on nearly any machine, including Macs. If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.
Judges aren't supposed to legislate, that's the job of legislators. Judges interpret, and this law is as plain as the nose on your face.
Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.
You make dumb remarks, I point them out.... If you can't understand the difference, then this thread is over your head.
Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.
Well there are two apparently contradictory laws here, aren't there, hence the sue and counter-sue. In this case, the judge will effectively determine which law is upheld; and for all intent and purpose, effectively decide future disputes such as this.
Yesterday you claimed to be 3x older than a 23 year old, putting you comfortably into your late 60's. Given your age, why don't you stick to the points and keep the little snipes to yourself. They don't add to the value of your arguments and make you sound like a 14 year old, rather than a 69 year old.
You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.
As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.
You are a idiot. I haven't broken any laws.
Another one that can't read what was posted!
"Dispositive motion" == Motion asking the court to preemptively dispose of one or more of the claims (basically a summary judgment in favor of the side making the motion), without the need to present evidence in trial.
Ahh. thanks
still an awful sounding word though.
Ahh. thanks
still an awful sounding word though.
By any definition, it simply means that Pystar is clutching at straws. A sure sign that they're in panic mode.
You'll say anything except that your Nazi reference was off the wall, as nobody was talking about Nazis. That must mean that you cannot admit a mistake. If you continue to post irrelevant remarks, than I'll continue to point them out.
For me, Hitler invokes 'Nazi' much more strongly than 'criminal' and I am sure that if we did an experiment, where we asked people to respond with a single associated word for 'Hitler' that the vast majority would respond with 'Nazi'. So my assuming you meant Nazi, is hardly off the wall, it was an understandable inference. But I was mistaken.
As for this case, let me remind you, that anyone can sue anyone else, at any time, but that does not mean that they will prevail. Pystar counter-sued in a defensive move, but the law is still on Apple's side in this. Apple owns the damn OS, okay? Pystar stole it for their own use, got it now? When all of this is said and done Pystar will be little more than a bad memory for those who were gullible enough to buy their machines.
Oh so close... almost an entire paragraph without condescension... almost.
You're right anyway; I already said this 12 posts ago to another poster who was able to make the same point you did, without sounding like a teenager.
Even Hitler had fans.
Outside of a historian's intrigue, can you give some examples, some names, past or present, fans of Hitler?
Just curious...