zzzzz....these people are really testing Apple. I bet in the next OS X Apple will start making it hard for hackintosh users and they will also make it hard for us (current) OS X users to upgrade all thanks to Psycrap. Boo!!!!
I bet the hackintosh community will get worried at how much attention their project is getting now and how bad it falls to the wrong hands. I think Netkas should stop doing what he is doing now or he might be in trouble.
No Apple is not in a weak position. My brothers uses to shimmy up the pole and connect their cable for free. Because they could didn't mean it was legal. Consumer do NOT have the right to deploy OS X on whatever computer they want any more than I can drive my car on whatever road I wish. No one is forcing them to sell the Mac OS but in turn no one is forcing you to buy if you don't like the limitation of the OS being tied to Apple's hardware.
Microsoft does not make hardware and they protect their IP investment with serialization and validation methods that Apple doesn't do. Microsoft and Intel are no more open than Apple. You want open go buy Linux and download the source code of the kernel and apps. Find someone who will open source their hardware.
Psystar will lose this case and the Apple legal team is just looking to make the decision so air tight future cases will be a cakewalk as they'll just refer to the demolition of Psystar as precedent.
Sound.
Psystar is going to get what's coming to them. They are violating Apple's Copyright.
And if anybody is backing them..(because they presumably see Mac Os X as a growth market for a quick buck...) then they're in big trouble.
These 'shadows' may be someone's effort to curb Apple's resurgence against the evil Wintel Hedgemony.
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legal team can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. I'm not sure how the work of ten individuals can be separated out like that without having some knowledge of who they are.
If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legally can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
If Apple is pointing to OSx86, I wonder if the reason for the mention is just to cover their bases in going after Psystar so their legal team can't later point out that Apple is signaling them out and not the ones who made Psystar possible. Attempting to directly prosecute members who aren't making money from their efforts and are currently unknown accept for the pseudonym would be a foul's errand. (just a thought)
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legal team can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. I'm not sure how the work of ten individuals can be separated out like that without having some knowledge of who they are.
If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
That is just accepted legalese boilerplate for listing parties who are of interest but unidentified so far. The number of John Does is generally higher than the real estimate is. And listing John Does also means Apple can start asking the Judge for subpoenas when Apple thinks they found a John Doe. Without adding John Does to the case Apple gets no help from the Judge.
Comments
I bet the hackintosh community will get worried at how much attention their project is getting now and how bad it falls to the wrong hands. I think Netkas should stop doing what he is doing now or he might be in trouble.
No Apple is not in a weak position. My brothers uses to shimmy up the pole and connect their cable for free. Because they could didn't mean it was legal. Consumer do NOT have the right to deploy OS X on whatever computer they want any more than I can drive my car on whatever road I wish. No one is forcing them to sell the Mac OS but in turn no one is forcing you to buy if you don't like the limitation of the OS being tied to Apple's hardware.
Microsoft does not make hardware and they protect their IP investment with serialization and validation methods that Apple doesn't do. Microsoft and Intel are no more open than Apple. You want open go buy Linux and download the source code of the kernel and apps. Find someone who will open source their hardware.
Psystar will lose this case and the Apple legal team is just looking to make the decision so air tight future cases will be a cakewalk as they'll just refer to the demolition of Psystar as precedent.
Sound.
Psystar is going to get what's coming to them. They are violating Apple's Copyright.
And if anybody is backing them..(because they presumably see Mac Os X as a growth market for a quick buck...) then they're in big trouble.
These 'shadows' may be someone's effort to curb Apple's resurgence against the evil Wintel Hedgemony.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Sound.
Psystar is going to get what's coming to them. They are violating Apple's Copyright.
And if anybody is backing them..(because they presumably see Mac Os X as a growth market for a quick buck...) then they're in big trouble.
These 'shadows' may be someone's effort to curb Apple's resurgence against the evil Wintel Hedgemony.
Lemon Bon Bon.
John Does 1 through 10
John Does 1 through 10
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legal team can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. I'm not sure how the work of ten individuals can be separated out like that without having some knowledge of who they are.
If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legally can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
If Apple is pointing to OSx86, I wonder if the reason for the mention is just to cover their bases in going after Psystar so their legal team can't later point out that Apple is signaling them out and not the ones who made Psystar possible. Attempting to directly prosecute members who aren't making money from their efforts and are currently unknown accept for the pseudonym would be a foul's errand. (just a thought)
Interesting. I still don't understand how Apple's legal team can sensibly assert there are 10 unidentifiable people behind Psystar and give no identifying information or other clues as to how they know this. I'm not sure how the work of ten individuals can be separated out like that without having some knowledge of who they are.
If they're OSX86 team members, don't those people have pseudonyms or call signs, or is it improper to put that in a filing?
That is just accepted legalese boilerplate for listing parties who are of interest but unidentified so far. The number of John Does is generally higher than the real estimate is. And listing John Does also means Apple can start asking the Judge for subpoenas when Apple thinks they found a John Doe. Without adding John Does to the case Apple gets no help from the Judge.