Actually you wouldn't, most PC games are written specifically for Windows, you see there's this little thing called DirectX.
The problem is Direct3D 10 and Direct3D 9 incomparable with each other so you can't run an old Direct3D 9 game on a Direct3D 10 system. Worse the Xbox 360 is stuck in Direct3D 9 land and only with some programing kludging that makes OpenGL as it worst look simple can you get a Direct3D 10 based game to run on it.
Also in terms of the console market OpenGL not DirectX is king. Even the PS3 which has DirectX ready chips used a form of OpenGL.
Good news. I'm sure if they did some digging they could find someone to pay that settlement.
In the end it doesn't matter if they pay or not. it is in the books that Apple's tying is totally legal, that Psystar is violating DMCA with Rebel and soon it will be in the books that the judgments apply to all current and future versions of Apple's software. that was the real goal for Apple,not any money. if they get it great. if not because they bankrupted Psystar, oh well
In the end it doesn't matter if they pay or not. it is in the books that Apple's tying is totally legal, that Psystar is violating DMCA with Rebel and soon it will be in the books that the judgments apply to all current and future versions of Apple's software. that was the real goal for Apple,not any money. if they get it great. if not because they bankrupted Psystar, oh well
One has to wonder why the osx86 community is left alone.
Makes you wonder. Eveyone knows that like every 2-3 out of 10 users ends up buying a mac. I wonder if that's why. Plus in a way, you have a whole dedicated volunteers essentialy, doing beta testing for all these grapic cards.
You know what would be cool. Is you have your laptop then when you get home, you take off you battery and insert a faster gpu/cpu and ram. Connect it to a larger display and you know have a dedicated workstation.
Supposedly, Psystar's legal team was working on a contingency fee basis.
But why would they do such a thing? Certainly they had to have realized that Psystar's case had about as much chance of winning as Medusa becoming Miss America. (ie pretty much nil).
This can't make the law firm that took on this nonsense look good so why do it? It makes the firm look either incompetent (if they honestly thought that there was a change of winning this mess) or publicity hound which makes them look bad. As the fall and eventual demise of Circuit City and the problems Hyatt is going through have shown the odd adage 'any publicity is good publicity' simply doesn't work.
But why would they do such a thing? Certainly they had to have realized that Psystar's case had about as much chance of winning as Medusa becoming Miss America. (ie pretty much nil).
Beats me, but it happens. You might also ask why they'd take on a client who probably couldn't pay them if they didn't take it on contingency. Either way they risk getting nothing for their trouble. It's not like this is a big, reputable law firm -- it's just a couple of lawyers in Texas. They were probably hoping to get lucky.
Beats me, but it happens. You might also ask why they'd take on a client who probably couldn't pay them if they didn't take it on contingency. Either way they risk getting nothing for their trouble. It's not like this is a big, reputable law firm -- it's just a couple of lawyers in Texas. They were probably hoping to get lucky.
And it may be that their sense of the odds of getting lucky was predicated on an imperfect grasp of precedent and case law.
One has to wonder why the osx86 community is left alone.
Makes you wonder. Eveyone knows that like every 2-3 out of 10 users ends up buying a mac. I wonder if that's why. Plus in a way, you have a whole dedicated volunteers essentialy, doing beta testing for all these grapic cards.
You know what would be cool. Is you have your laptop then when you get home, you take off you battery and insert a faster gpu/cpu and ram. Connect it to a larger display and you know have a dedicated workstation.
Partly because they would be difficult to find and persecute, and they aren't selling these hacks for profit.
I was afraid of that. Prosecution is what can happen when you break the law. Persecution is discrimination based on race, ethnicity or belief.
Try looking beyond the first basic definitions:
• harass or annoy (someone) persistently
Apple has already determined they can't or won't do anything legally to OSX86. Reverse engineering is considered a good thing in many instances, and perfectly acceptable under the law.
I am aware of both the primary and secondary definitions, so there's no need to go into lengthy semantical digressions.
You are right when you say that Apple isn't going after the open source people if for no other reason than they are not trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
As a point of comparison, a number of years ago Microsoft thought it was in their best interests to denigrate the open source community. Bill Gates made a number of very critical public remarks about open source. That's what persecution looks like -- kind of ridiculous, really.
I am aware of both the primary and secondary definitions, so there's no need to go into lengthy semantical digressions.
You are right when you say that Apple isn't going after the open source people if for no other reason than they are not trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
As a point of comparison, a number of years ago Microsoft thought it was in their best interests to denigrate the open source community. Bill Gates made a number of very critical public remarks about open source. That's what persecution looks like -- kind of ridiculous, really.
I disagree. Look at the Palm Pre's sync issues. Although it's arguable that Apple broke the Palm by accident, after doing so every new release of iTunes, I have to believe that they will not harass them until they get a clue and write their own software, or pay for licensing, all without any direct lawsuits against them.
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd if they wanted. I can only imagine that they don't consider them enough of a problem to warrant attention.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. Apple has no obligation nor any reason to support Palm devices in iTunes. It's Palm that has elected to go on a wild goose chase. And yes, Apple could potentially harass OSX86, but in fact they have not.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. Apple has no obligation nor any reason to support Palm devices in iTunes. It's Palm that has elected to go on a wild goose chase. And yes, Apple could potentially harass OSX86, but in fact they have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
You stated that Apple must resolve things like OSX86 in a court, when that is obviously not the case. They could harass the OSX86 folks just as they do with the Palm folks. That was my only point. Hopefully that clarifies.
You stated that Apple must resolve things like OSX86 in a court, when that is obviously not the case. They could harass the OSX86 folks just as they do with the Palm folks. That was my only point. Hopefully that clarifies.
I didn't say "must," I just think that's what they'd do most likely. I also don't agree that Apple is harassing Palm. I hope that clarifies my point!
Comments
You would have thousands of gamers buy them.*
Actually you wouldn't, most PC games are written specifically for Windows, you see there's this little thing called DirectX.
The problem is Direct3D 10 and Direct3D 9 incomparable with each other so you can't run an old Direct3D 9 game on a Direct3D 10 system. Worse the Xbox 360 is stuck in Direct3D 9 land and only with some programing kludging that makes OpenGL as it worst look simple can you get a Direct3D 10 based game to run on it.
Also in terms of the console market OpenGL not DirectX is king. Even the PS3 which has DirectX ready chips used a form of OpenGL.
Good news. I'm sure if they did some digging they could find someone to pay that settlement.
In the end it doesn't matter if they pay or not. it is in the books that Apple's tying is totally legal, that Psystar is violating DMCA with Rebel and soon it will be in the books that the judgments apply to all current and future versions of Apple's software. that was the real goal for Apple,not any money. if they get it great. if not because they bankrupted Psystar, oh well
In the end it doesn't matter if they pay or not. it is in the books that Apple's tying is totally legal, that Psystar is violating DMCA with Rebel and soon it will be in the books that the judgments apply to all current and future versions of Apple's software. that was the real goal for Apple,not any money. if they get it great. if not because they bankrupted Psystar, oh well
One has to wonder why the osx86 community is left alone.
Makes you wonder. Eveyone knows that like every 2-3 out of 10 users ends up buying a mac. I wonder if that's why. Plus in a way, you have a whole dedicated volunteers essentialy, doing beta testing for all these grapic cards.
You know what would be cool. Is you have your laptop then when you get home, you take off you battery and insert a faster gpu/cpu and ram. Connect it to a larger display and you know have a dedicated workstation.
Supposedly, Psystar's legal team was working on a contingency fee basis.
But why would they do such a thing? Certainly they had to have realized that Psystar's case had about as much chance of winning as Medusa becoming Miss America. (ie pretty much nil).
This can't make the law firm that took on this nonsense look good so why do it? It makes the firm look either incompetent (if they honestly thought that there was a change of winning this mess) or publicity hound which makes them look bad. As the fall and eventual demise of Circuit City and the problems Hyatt is going through have shown the odd adage 'any publicity is good publicity' simply doesn't work.
But why would they do such a thing? Certainly they had to have realized that Psystar's case had about as much chance of winning as Medusa becoming Miss America. (ie pretty much nil).
Beats me, but it happens. You might also ask why they'd take on a client who probably couldn't pay them if they didn't take it on contingency. Either way they risk getting nothing for their trouble. It's not like this is a big, reputable law firm -- it's just a couple of lawyers in Texas. They were probably hoping to get lucky.
What happened to we will fight Apple to the end?!
What happened is, we've reached the end. It's over. Buh-bye now.
Beats me, but it happens. You might also ask why they'd take on a client who probably couldn't pay them if they didn't take it on contingency. Either way they risk getting nothing for their trouble. It's not like this is a big, reputable law firm -- it's just a couple of lawyers in Texas. They were probably hoping to get lucky.
And it may be that their sense of the odds of getting lucky was predicated on an imperfect grasp of precedent and case law.
And it may be that their sense of the odds of getting lucky was predicated on an imperfect grasp of precedent and case law.
It's certainly not the first time that someone had exaggerated their odds of getting lucky.
One has to wonder why the osx86 community is left alone.
Makes you wonder. Eveyone knows that like every 2-3 out of 10 users ends up buying a mac. I wonder if that's why. Plus in a way, you have a whole dedicated volunteers essentialy, doing beta testing for all these grapic cards.
You know what would be cool. Is you have your laptop then when you get home, you take off you battery and insert a faster gpu/cpu and ram. Connect it to a larger display and you know have a dedicated workstation.
Partly because they would be difficult to find and persecute, and they aren't selling these hacks for profit.
Partly because they would be difficult to find and persecute, and they aren't selling these hacks for profit.
I take it you meant "prosecute."
I take it you meant "prosecute."
Actually, no. I meant persecute.
I was afraid of that. Prosecution is what can happen when you break the law. Persecution is discrimination based on race, ethnicity or belief.
Try looking beyond the first basic definitions:
• harass or annoy (someone) persistently
Apple has already determined they can't or won't do anything legally to OSX86. Reverse engineering is considered a good thing in many instances, and perfectly acceptable under the law.
You are right when you say that Apple isn't going after the open source people if for no other reason than they are not trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
As a point of comparison, a number of years ago Microsoft thought it was in their best interests to denigrate the open source community. Bill Gates made a number of very critical public remarks about open source. That's what persecution looks like -- kind of ridiculous, really.
I am aware of both the primary and secondary definitions, so there's no need to go into lengthy semantical digressions.
You are right when you say that Apple isn't going after the open source people if for no other reason than they are not trading on Apple's patents and trademarks. But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
As a point of comparison, a number of years ago Microsoft thought it was in their best interests to denigrate the open source community. Bill Gates made a number of very critical public remarks about open source. That's what persecution looks like -- kind of ridiculous, really.
I disagree. Look at the Palm Pre's sync issues. Although it's arguable that Apple broke the Palm by accident, after doing so every new release of iTunes, I have to believe that they will not harass them until they get a clue and write their own software, or pay for licensing, all without any direct lawsuits against them.
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd if they wanted. I can only imagine that they don't consider them enough of a problem to warrant attention.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with me about. Apple has no obligation nor any reason to support Palm devices in iTunes. It's Palm that has elected to go on a wild goose chase. And yes, Apple could potentially harass OSX86, but in fact they have not.
But if they were to go after them, the method they'd use would be based in the law, not on some desire to annoy or humiliate them.
You stated that Apple must resolve things like OSX86 in a court, when that is obviously not the case. They could harass the OSX86 folks just as they do with the Palm folks. That was my only point. Hopefully that clarifies.
You stated that Apple must resolve things like OSX86 in a court, when that is obviously not the case. They could harass the OSX86 folks just as they do with the Palm folks. That was my only point. Hopefully that clarifies.
I didn't say "must," I just think that's what they'd do most likely. I also don't agree that Apple is harassing Palm. I hope that clarifies my point!