and our resentment at having to move on IS the bottom line in stevielee's post.
Honestly, I was looking forward to a post that started with the words "Here is the bottom line in this whole Psystar/Hachintosh/OSX clone battle". I hoped that there might follow an objective, thoughtful guide to the whole confusing mess that is a "Psystar Thread".
And what do we get?
A 1000+ word rant! Just another personal diatribe about the wants and needs of yet another geek who believes that most people think like him... and Apple should think like Microsoft.
I have heard it all before, many times. It's boring. It's incredibly subjective and I don't agree with it.
You aren't "asking" a question at all it seems. Yu are just making a statement that is extreme, and aren't interested in anything that supplants it.
Well, that would be because I've not seen anything that supplants it? So again, why would apple use that terminology when prima facie it is ridiculously simple to circumvent?
Quote:
What you are saying is daft. You know nothing about business, or you would understand something about basic protections business use. Apple stopped using the term "Mac OS", because they are putting the OS into devices other than Macs.
I have zero idea why the name of the operating itself has anything to do with this argument.
Quote:
Apple did license their OS out before, and it's absurd to think that they don't want to protect themselves if they decide to do so again.
Again - conjecture. They could just as easily have taken the decision ten years ago to never license again. You're just guessing.
Quote:
There is a direct relationship. Apple can very fairly claim that a sale to Psystar is a lost sale to them. We say very clearly that the reason why the original cloning didn't work well for Apple was that the clones, less expensive than Apples', took sales away from them. While clone sales rose, Apple's sales fell in almost lock-step.
Wrong. I want OS X with x+y+z hardware. Apple don't sell that configuration. But Company psystar do. *Regardless* of the legality of the notion, I'm not buying the closest Apple thing. In no way does that represent a lost sale to Apple, because I would never have bought the configuration they were offering in the first place.
Quote:
Therefor, in using evidence from that, Apple could show that sales to Psystar are siphoning sales from them. and the term "stealing sales" is entirely appropriate.
Again, you're using the vernacular. I was quite clear in that you *can't steal someone's IP*. If you can steal it, you can give it back. Think about that for a second.
We're just going back and forth here.
Quote:
Even if you refuse to use that time honored term for this, you can use others that essentially mean the same thing, if it make you feel better. There are a lot of synonyms.
It is not a time honoured term at all for this type of infringement. It's simple terminology for simple people pushed by rights holders who are trying to have others to understand what their rights are.
Quote:
A good one would be "misappropriate". It might even be better, but doesn't have the same ring to it.
Exactly - the same ring. The same *emotional* response. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
So that's end of this one for me. My poor little macbook is back in the shop because the twits who fixed it the fourth time obscured the drive opening. So wash your eyeballs, this post was written on a PC.
another geek who believes that most people think like him... and Apple should think like Microsoft. I have heard it all before, many times. It's boring.
Piot, Thanks for the sincerity of your responses. We're having a conversation within a rant. The only reason I posted here is because I believe quite a few Apple people subscribe - and you never know, maybe I can smooth a nerve in a beast I've grown with over the years.
My (unmade?) point is closer to this "there's no reason why Apple has to follow anyone for a business model". In my area theory and experience tell us that post-modernism was the cultural logic of late capitalism. Apple's iTunes business model just leapt over Microsoft - understanding and incorporating our cultural landscape into it's business. This motive to not merely make profit, but contribute to the culture from which one earns a living validates our being and creates new sales.
So my bottom line... Apple can certainly retain it's computer hardware and software business as is and at the same time devise a business model based on iTunes which offers OS X to the world.
After reading through this thread several times, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or puke.
But it did make me wonder.
As in: I wonder how many posters here, who support whatever it is that Psystar is doing, would be really upset and seek legal action in the event anything THEY ever invented or sold was being misused for profit by another?
Over the years I have watched many, many idealists become realists when it's suddenly THEIR property that's up for grabs.
Where Pystar's [backers, investors, partners..] will be named?
I don't think that it would be fair if the bankruptcy filing stays the civil law suit. Apple has probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees at this point, so the case should be allowed to proceed just for its precedential value to Apple. Of course, any judgment against Psytar would then be subject to the bankruptcy filing (priority rules, enforcement, etc).
11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
The automatic stay bars, inter alia:
(1)\tthe commencement or continuation of lawsuits or administrative proceedings against the debtor to recover pre-petition claims;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achiever
You just answered your own question correctly. The suit cannot proceed while the bankruptcy is active per the Bankruptcy Code.
Actually 11 U.S.C. § 362 is unclear as 11 U.S.C. § 362(b) has a host of examples of when a stay does NOT occur. Even with my knowledge of legalese it is not an easy read.
Comments
and our resentment at having to move on IS the bottom line in stevielee's post.
Honestly, I was looking forward to a post that started with the words "Here is the bottom line in this whole Psystar/Hachintosh/OSX clone battle". I hoped that there might follow an objective, thoughtful guide to the whole confusing mess that is a "Psystar Thread".
And what do we get?
A 1000+ word rant! Just another personal diatribe about the wants and needs of yet another geek who believes that most people think like him... and Apple should think like Microsoft.
I have heard it all before, many times. It's boring. It's incredibly subjective and I don't agree with it.
You aren't "asking" a question at all it seems. Yu are just making a statement that is extreme, and aren't interested in anything that supplants it.
Well, that would be because I've not seen anything that supplants it? So again, why would apple use that terminology when prima facie it is ridiculously simple to circumvent?
What you are saying is daft. You know nothing about business, or you would understand something about basic protections business use. Apple stopped using the term "Mac OS", because they are putting the OS into devices other than Macs.
I have zero idea why the name of the operating itself has anything to do with this argument.
Apple did license their OS out before, and it's absurd to think that they don't want to protect themselves if they decide to do so again.
Again - conjecture. They could just as easily have taken the decision ten years ago to never license again. You're just guessing.
There is a direct relationship. Apple can very fairly claim that a sale to Psystar is a lost sale to them. We say very clearly that the reason why the original cloning didn't work well for Apple was that the clones, less expensive than Apples', took sales away from them. While clone sales rose, Apple's sales fell in almost lock-step.
Wrong. I want OS X with x+y+z hardware. Apple don't sell that configuration. But Company psystar do. *Regardless* of the legality of the notion, I'm not buying the closest Apple thing. In no way does that represent a lost sale to Apple, because I would never have bought the configuration they were offering in the first place.
Therefor, in using evidence from that, Apple could show that sales to Psystar are siphoning sales from them. and the term "stealing sales" is entirely appropriate.
Again, you're using the vernacular. I was quite clear in that you *can't steal someone's IP*. If you can steal it, you can give it back. Think about that for a second.
We're just going back and forth here.
Even if you refuse to use that time honored term for this, you can use others that essentially mean the same thing, if it make you feel better. There are a lot of synonyms.
It is not a time honoured term at all for this type of infringement. It's simple terminology for simple people pushed by rights holders who are trying to have others to understand what their rights are.
A good one would be "misappropriate". It might even be better, but doesn't have the same ring to it.
Exactly - the same ring. The same *emotional* response. And you fell for it, hook line and sinker.
So that's end of this one for me. My poor little macbook is back in the shop because the twits who fixed it the fourth time obscured the drive opening. So wash your eyeballs, this post was written on a PC.
another geek who believes that most people think like him... and Apple should think like Microsoft. I have heard it all before, many times. It's boring.
Piot, Thanks for the sincerity of your responses. We're having a conversation within a rant. The only reason I posted here is because I believe quite a few Apple people subscribe - and you never know, maybe I can smooth a nerve in a beast I've grown with over the years.
My (unmade?) point is closer to this "there's no reason why Apple has to follow anyone for a business model". In my area theory and experience tell us that post-modernism was the cultural logic of late capitalism. Apple's iTunes business model just leapt over Microsoft - understanding and incorporating our cultural landscape into it's business. This motive to not merely make profit, but contribute to the culture from which one earns a living validates our being and creates new sales.
So my bottom line... Apple can certainly retain it's computer hardware and software business as is and at the same time devise a business model based on iTunes which offers OS X to the world.
But it did make me wonder.
As in: I wonder how many posters here, who support whatever it is that Psystar is doing, would be really upset and seek legal action in the event anything THEY ever invented or sold was being misused for profit by another?
Over the years I have watched many, many idealists become realists when it's suddenly THEIR property that's up for grabs.
"Apple" or "Mac" = ApplePC
"PC" = CustomPC
"PC" = HpPC
"PC" = DellPC
...
...
It would be nice to start calling things correctly, since they are all PCs.
"Apple" or "Mac" = ApplePC
"PC" = CustomPC
"PC" = HpPC
"PC" = DellPC
...
...
Correctly in whose world?
Most Apple fans would never call their Macintosh simply a "PC". That's the whole point.
Then again, most Macintosh owners would say that you forgot one category for "PC"
"PC" = POS (for all the cheap, Windows-based PC's out there)
Correctly in whose world?
In the world where people buy computer hardware to use as doorstops.
Where Pystar's [backers, investors, partners..] will be named?
I don't think that it would be fair if the bankruptcy filing stays the civil law suit. Apple has probably spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees at this point, so the case should be allowed to proceed just for its precedential value to Apple. Of course, any judgment against Psytar would then be subject to the bankruptcy filing (priority rules, enforcement, etc).
11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
The automatic stay bars, inter alia:
(1)\tthe commencement or continuation of lawsuits or administrative proceedings against the debtor to recover pre-petition claims;
You just answered your own question correctly. The suit cannot proceed while the bankruptcy is active per the Bankruptcy Code.
Actually 11 U.S.C. § 362 is unclear as 11 U.S.C. § 362(b) has a host of examples of when a stay does NOT occur. Even with my knowledge of legalese it is not an easy read.