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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
WRONG ASSUMPTION DUDE..... I will complain and bash Psystar any chance I get.... and I have NEVER downloaded illegal music files..... I just have a few free downloads from iTunes and about 5000 songs from my personal CD collection.
You're logic is seriously flawed. Now if you were to put your brain to use you might connect the dots and think about people supporting Psystar and illegally downloading music....
You know..... LIKE YOU PROBABLY DO..... since it sounds like you know where to go and all..... I never knew you could steal music via peer-to-peer networks..... does it feel good to own illegally copied music?
Wow, that was a rather petulant and defensive over-reaction on your part...perhaps a sign of a raw nerve being jangled? The fact that you go and wildly extrapolate that I am "a music thief"... is that not a sign of guilt? Attack is the most effective form of defense?
My post was a simple question based on the knowledge that there is a large body of people out there who regard music as a "free" commodity, ever since the p2p practise exploded some years back. There is a difference between an assumption and a question, learn it. You may never have illegally downloaded music, but the chances are you probably know people who do, and have. The music piracy statistics would make that a near certainty.
Both copyrighted music and software are the intellectual property of their owners and copyright law protects both.. in theory. Apple is flexing its corporate muscle by stomping on the little guy, courtesy of their army of lawyers. That is their right, if their copyright is being infringed. Let the court decide.
Maybe Apple could respond in a more positive way...rather than kneejerking and engaging their school of sharks by emptying large amounts of capital into the black hole of legal action to destroy Psystar, they could invest in developing a similar line of products, especially that 19 inch rack-mount computer with a great spec. For a large and healthy company like Apple, awash in cash and the appropriate technical resources, such would be like a petty cash project, but insodoing they could clean up in the lucrative market for home/project/professional recording studios, theaters etc (in other words, anywhere involved in audio production) as well as any touring entertainment act as well. But I do realize that is not the way that large corporations work in the US today... rather than acknowledge someone's potentially good idea and go into competition against it (more than likely wining) they would instead prefer to wipe out the competition with lawsuits and then bury the product... in the end achieving nothing except a big rush of testosterone and a bunch of lawyers with even fatter wallets.....
Comments
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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???!!!
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.
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.
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.
You're probably not as "Liberal" as you think you are...
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.
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?
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.
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
Apple will go to just about any length to prevent competition. What Truly is sad. Apple has sunk to new lows.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
WRONG ASSUMPTION DUDE..... I will complain and bash Psystar any chance I get.... and I have NEVER downloaded illegal music files..... I just have a few free downloads from iTunes and about 5000 songs from my personal CD collection.
You're logic is seriously flawed. Now if you were to put your brain to use you might connect the dots and think about people supporting Psystar and illegally downloading music....
You know..... LIKE YOU PROBABLY DO..... since it sounds like you know where to go and all..... I never knew you could steal music via peer-to-peer networks..... does it feel good to own illegally copied music?
Where have you been living the last decade? Ask any student who owns a PC/mp3 player at any college in any state.
Wow, that was a rather petulant and defensive over-reaction on your part...perhaps a sign of a raw nerve being jangled? The fact that you go and wildly extrapolate that I am "a music thief"... is that not a sign of guilt? Attack is the most effective form of defense?
My post was a simple question based on the knowledge that there is a large body of people out there who regard music as a "free" commodity, ever since the p2p practise exploded some years back. There is a difference between an assumption and a question, learn it. You may never have illegally downloaded music, but the chances are you probably know people who do, and have. The music piracy statistics would make that a near certainty.
Both copyrighted music and software are the intellectual property of their owners and copyright law protects both.. in theory. Apple is flexing its corporate muscle by stomping on the little guy, courtesy of their army of lawyers. That is their right, if their copyright is being infringed. Let the court decide.
Maybe Apple could respond in a more positive way...rather than kneejerking and engaging their school of sharks by emptying large amounts of capital into the black hole of legal action to destroy Psystar, they could invest in developing a similar line of products, especially that 19 inch rack-mount computer with a great spec. For a large and healthy company like Apple, awash in cash and the appropriate technical resources, such would be like a petty cash project, but insodoing they could clean up in the lucrative market for home/project/professional recording studios, theaters etc (in other words, anywhere involved in audio production) as well as any touring entertainment act as well. But I do realize that is not the way that large corporations work in the US today... rather than acknowledge someone's potentially good idea and go into competition against it (more than likely wining) they would instead prefer to wipe out the competition with lawsuits and then bury the product... in the end achieving nothing except a big rush of testosterone and a bunch of lawyers with even fatter wallets.....