Psystar claims Apple asking for non-existent, redundant info

18911131417

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.
  • Reply 202 of 331
    maximaramaximara Posts: 407member
    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?
  • Reply 203 of 331
    cglacecglace Posts: 4member
    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.
  • Reply 204 of 331
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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.
  • Reply 205 of 331
    maximaramaximara Posts: 407member
    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.
  • Reply 206 of 331
    hiimamachiimamac Posts: 584member
    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.
  • Reply 207 of 331
    donlphidonlphi Posts: 214member
    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!"



  • Reply 208 of 331
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    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 Apple?s audience of sophisticated consumers, and it?s 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.
  • Reply 209 of 331
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,644member
    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.
  • Reply 210 of 331
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    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.
  • Reply 211 of 331
    htoellehtoelle Posts: 89member
    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
  • Reply 212 of 331
    doroteadorotea Posts: 323member
    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.
  • Reply 213 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.
  • Reply 214 of 331
    wambowambo Posts: 4member
    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.
  • Reply 215 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 (Lincoln?s 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.......
  • Reply 216 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
  • Reply 217 of 331
    wambowambo Posts: 4member
    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.
  • Reply 218 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
  • Reply 219 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
  • Reply 220 of 331
    justflybobjustflybob Posts: 1,337member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.