Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.
I agree with this. You don?t need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come. It?s like getting picked on in school and then beat the kid so badly that he can?t ever come back to school and no one will ever fuck with you again. Of course, in this scenario it was the poor little kid picking on the big kid with money.
I agree with this. You don?t need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come.
Maybe, but there's always the risk of losing on a point of law. Apple seems prepared to quit while they are ahead.
I knew I should have addressed that point. Very true, but I am not seeing anything that would favour Psystar?s case.
Neither do I, but I'm not a lawyer. I'd like to see them win on the infringement complaints, which always seemed to me to be the strongest points, but it seems they are prepared to take the win they've already got and call it a day. My fear is that the settlement will be sealed (not made public) and so it may look like Apple capitulated on these points. I'm sure Apple's legal team is weighing all of the risks. They didn't come this far to lose or just break even. In the end, they want the message to other potential cloners to be "don't even think about trying it."
Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.
I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
Quote:
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?
Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?
Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
Gotta love that horrid "I recorded this in a bathroom" sound that you got with the ATRAC format.
Psystar has filed its response in opposition to Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction. In it, it claims a partial agreement has been reached with Apple. I, however, will wait until I hear Apple confirm the terms, not relying on Pystar's representations alone. The response says the partial settlement will be filed with the court tomorrow.
According to Psystar, it has agreed to pay statutory damages for infringing Leopard, and Apple has agreed not to make them pay it until after the appeals. Psystar claims that Apple will drop its trademark and state-law claims. We'll see. But Psystar still asks the court to leave Snow Leopard and Rebel EFI -- its new do-hickey that helps *you* infringe Apple's copyrights and violate its EULA and the DMCA -- out of this injunction, and that tells me that despite the spin Psystar is putting on this agreement, there is no deal as far as the big picture is concerned. This is just telling us that the parties have figured out a sum certain for how much Psystar owes Apple *so far*. This case is not over by a mile. Now Psystar is trying to argue that you and I have the right to use Rebel EFI because we are not commercial users. As you can see, Psystar is still angling to stay in business some way, somehow. Here's their argument:
Quote:
In particular, whether sales of Rebel EFI are lawful or not depends on whether Psystar’s end users have a defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117. This issue has not been litigated in this case at all. Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing. If Psystar’s end users are protected by § 117, then Psystar cannot be violating the DMCA by selling Rebel EFI because Rebel EFI, as used by the end users, does not facilitate infringement. Apple correctly explains that this Court has power “to restrain acts which are the same type or class as unlawful acts which the court has found to have been committed.” M. at 9. But Rebel EFI is a different kind of act altogether.
More cuteness. The end users are not commercial users, but the seller of Rebel EFI is, and he knows exactly what they'll be doing with it, so it's amazing they'd even try this, but somebody behind all this nonsense seems to wants to destroy the US tech market leaders, invalidate the enforceability of licenses on software, and make a bundle on their stuff while doing so. I don't believe for one second that Psystar is about two guys in a basement. I have come to suspect that someone, somewhere behind all this is trying to destroy Apple's business, for personal profit, nothing less, just as SCO has been trying to destroy IBM's and Red Hat's business and Linux, for personal profit. Two strange cases, each threatening damage to major players in the US technology sector -- the two major competitors of Microsoft, actually now that I think of it -- and it's all happening at once.
You obviously don't understand court settlements, do you? Neither party, nor do the courts, want to spend money on going to trial. It is much more expensive than litigation and discovery. Apple can get what it wants without going to trial. Psystar will not be able to continue their business of selling PC's with OS X installed. You don't need a trial to stop someone from doing something.
Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
We don't know precisely what Apple wants out of this. Also, we don't know that Apple truly suspects that Psystar has mystery backers. All we do know is that Apple named John Doe defendants in the complaint, which is standard procedure in lawsuits.
While part of me could believe that Psystar could be lying the other part of me fells they would have to be utterly insane to to do so. However there is one keey thing here--given all the other antics Psystar has done how is Apple going to make Psystar hold up to their end of the agreement?
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?
Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
As I understand it, Psystar uses legal copies of OS X. Apple does get their profits from their OS just like MS does.
The point about Sony is that when you buy a Sony movie (software), you can play it in a non-Sony hardware (Toshiba, Phillips, Denon, etc)
Comments
Yes, but this thread is about an impending settlement. Nothing from Groklaw on that yet.
Nothing shows up on the Docket:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...ase_id-204881/
Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.
I agree with this. You don?t need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come. It?s like getting picked on in school and then beat the kid so badly that he can?t ever come back to school and no one will ever fuck with you again. Of course, in this scenario it was the poor little kid picking on the big kid with money.
I agree with this. You don?t need what little money they could pay you but setting a legal precedence here will work to your favour for decades to come.
Maybe, but there's always the risk of losing on a point of law. Apple seems prepared to quit while they are ahead.
Maybe, but there's always the risk of losing on a point of law. Apple seems prepared to quit while they are ahead.
I knew I should have addressed that point.
THis is what I want to see from Apple?.
I knew I should have addressed that point.
Neither do I, but I'm not a lawyer. I'd like to see them win on the infringement complaints, which always seemed to me to be the strongest points, but it seems they are prepared to take the win they've already got and call it a day. My fear is that the settlement will be sealed (not made public) and so it may look like Apple capitulated on these points. I'm sure Apple's legal team is weighing all of the risks. They didn't come this far to lose or just break even. In the end, they want the message to other potential cloners to be "don't even think about trying it."
I'd be interested to see Apple's clarification.
Keep your foot on the pedal and don't let up Apple. Destroy them.
I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
I'm a Mac user, and I love OS X as much as anybody, but I can't understand why anyone would want to be so unconditionally subjugated to Apple as to really want this.
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
How would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
IHow would you feel if Sony decided that Sony movies can only be played on Sony hardware?
I would wait until Sony bankrupted itself, and then buy the movies from the companies that buy what remains of Sony's carcass.
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
Gotta love that horrid "I recorded this in a bathroom" sound that you got with the ATRAC format.
Mmmmmm.....ended the Clone Wars have.
Excerpt:
Psystar has filed its response in opposition to Apple's Motion for a Permanent Injunction. In it, it claims a partial agreement has been reached with Apple. I, however, will wait until I hear Apple confirm the terms, not relying on Pystar's representations alone. The response says the partial settlement will be filed with the court tomorrow.
According to Psystar, it has agreed to pay statutory damages for infringing Leopard, and Apple has agreed not to make them pay it until after the appeals. Psystar claims that Apple will drop its trademark and state-law claims. We'll see. But Psystar still asks the court to leave Snow Leopard and Rebel EFI -- its new do-hickey that helps *you* infringe Apple's copyrights and violate its EULA and the DMCA -- out of this injunction, and that tells me that despite the spin Psystar is putting on this agreement, there is no deal as far as the big picture is concerned. This is just telling us that the parties have figured out a sum certain for how much Psystar owes Apple *so far*. This case is not over by a mile. Now Psystar is trying to argue that you and I have the right to use Rebel EFI because we are not commercial users. As you can see, Psystar is still angling to stay in business some way, somehow. Here's their argument:
In particular, whether sales of Rebel EFI are lawful or not depends on whether Psystar’s end users have a defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117. This issue has not been litigated in this case at all. Psystar’s end users do not engage in commercial use of Mac OS X and their use would qualify as use for “internal purposes” even under the standards articulated by Apple in its summary-judgment briefing. If Psystar’s end users are protected by § 117, then Psystar cannot be violating the DMCA by selling Rebel EFI because Rebel EFI, as used by the end users, does not facilitate infringement. Apple correctly explains that this Court has power “to restrain acts which are the same type or class as unlawful acts which the court has found to have been committed.” M. at 9. But Rebel EFI is a different kind of act altogether.
More cuteness. The end users are not commercial users, but the seller of Rebel EFI is, and he knows exactly what they'll be doing with it, so it's amazing they'd even try this, but somebody behind all this nonsense seems to wants to destroy the US tech market leaders, invalidate the enforceability of licenses on software, and make a bundle on their stuff while doing so. I don't believe for one second that Psystar is about two guys in a basement. I have come to suspect that someone, somewhere behind all this is trying to destroy Apple's business, for personal profit, nothing less, just as SCO has been trying to destroy IBM's and Red Hat's business and Linux, for personal profit. Two strange cases, each threatening damage to major players in the US technology sector -- the two major competitors of Microsoft, actually now that I think of it -- and it's all happening at once.
Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...91201131422651
Excerpt:
[?]
Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.
Ditto. Anything less than Psystar closing shop on anything to do with Apple products sounds ?bunk" to me.
Even Groklaw finds this announcement bunk.
More importantly, they have explained that these representations are coming from Psystar, and that Apple's other complaints have not been withdrawn.
You obviously don't understand court settlements, do you? Neither party, nor do the courts, want to spend money on going to trial. It is much more expensive than litigation and discovery. Apple can get what it wants without going to trial. Psystar will not be able to continue their business of selling PC's with OS X installed. You don't need a trial to stop someone from doing something.
Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
WHO dat say they gonna beat dem Saints!
Except Apple does not get what it wanted if this doesn't go to trial. The backers Apple suspect are behind Psystar wanted to know about slink away unknown, and Psystar still cranks out the little installers that by a literally reading are also a violation of the DMCA. Apple really needs something more to prevent the other companies that are also doing this crap (one of them, Quo Computer, being in Apple's own back yard) from think they can get away with this garbage.
We don't know precisely what Apple wants out of this. Also, we don't know that Apple truly suspects that Psystar has mystery backers. All we do know is that Apple named John Doe defendants in the complaint, which is standard procedure in lawsuits.
So Psystar could be lying here?
I'd be interested to see Apple's clarification.
While part of me could believe that Psystar could be lying the other part of me fells they would have to be utterly insane to to do so. However there is one keey thing here--given all the other antics Psystar has done how is Apple going to make Psystar hold up to their end of the agreement?
This isn?t about Apple, it?s about the free market and having the right to your patents, copyrights and trademarks. To suggest that Psystar should be able to sell Mac OS X as their own without licensing from Apple is to suggest that Mac OS X be the first socialized OS. The consumer nor Psystar wins in that scenario.
Here is a list of formats that Sony has created, many that have failed?Note that it doesn?t contain their video game formats. Should these be allowed to be taken at will with other?s HW built around their SW R&D without permission?
As I understand it, Psystar uses legal copies of OS X. Apple does get their profits from their OS just like MS does.
The point about Sony is that when you buy a Sony movie (software), you can play it in a non-Sony hardware (Toshiba, Phillips, Denon, etc)