I'm not sure it is one. Even if the case is published, and I don't believe that is automatic, a subsequent case has to be within the same court jurisdiction, and the facts of the subsequent case similar enough to the prior case for precedent to be successfully cited. What Psystar's loss really does IMO is put anyone else who might try what they did on notice that Apple will take them to the mat.
No, they lied to investors claiming they would sell 12 million Mac Clones in 2010...when they only sold about 700 in their entire business. But no one said thieves that steal were smart.
Based on the Psystar ruling they have to stop making Mac clones too
Not only are forums such as this used as places to discuss issues & ideas, they can also be used as places to go to for one to increase their knowledge. In light of that, I am asking the following because I really want to know. I am in no way challenging you or any one else on this issue. So here goes.
If, as I have been told, Quo computers don't come pre-loaded with any operating system, then where is the problem? Is it illegal for them to build a computer that is capable of running OS X as long as they don't load OS X onto the machine? Who bears the burden of responsibility, Quo or the end user, especially if the end user has the choice to load XP (shudder, shudder), Linux, or OS X?
I just thought of another question that may render my questions above pointless, but I'll leave them anyway just in case.
Could the illegality on Quo's part be because they have to embed something in their system that makes OS X think it is going onto a Mac?
If, as I have been told, Quo computers don't come pre-loaded with any operating system, then where is the problem? Is it illegal for them to build a computer that is capable of running OS X as long as they don't load OS X onto the machine? Who bears the burden of responsibility, Quo or the end user, especially if the end user has the choice to load XP (shudder, shudder), Linux, or OS X?
I just thought of another question that may render my questions above pointless, but I'll leave them anyway just in case.
Could the illegality on Quo's part be because they have to embed something in their system that makes OS X think it is going onto a Mac?
They still run afoul of the EULA, since they're assisting the customer in breaking the license agreement. So I believe there is precedent for that, since if EULAs were ruled invalid, there would be no way for Microsoft to demand that OEM copies would be OEM instead of retail copies that you could move from computer to computer without paying more to Microsoft. So that EULA legal contract is probably only one of the reasons why Quo computers will get sued and lose eventually.
I'm also wondering if the EFI somehow hacks the OS to make it run. Doesn't seem like Apple would just let any EFI run its OS.. assuming there were any from the big PC makers. Which is a good point you bring up there.. they could still run afoul of the DCMA too, because they might be breaking whatever copy protection measures that Apple imposed so that it would run only on their hardware.
No, they lied to investors claiming they would sell 12 million Mac Clones in 2010...when they only sold about 700 in their entire business. But no one said thieves that steal were smart.
Actually they told would be investors that they would conservatively sale 70,000 computers in 2009 and were asking for $24 million. Dr. Matthew Lynde could only find evidence for 768 computers--just a little over 1% what Psystar thought would be its worst sale figures.
Clearly despite the deranged rantings of a few squeaky wheels (likely due to worn bearings) there is next to no market for Mac clones. The netbook market is a profit nightmare even more razor thin than the general PC market so there is no way Apple is going to mess with that at the low end.
They still run afoul of the EULA, since they're assisting the customer in breaking the license agreement. So I believe there is precedent for that, since if EULAs were ruled invalid, there would be no way for Microsoft to demand that OEM copies would be OEM instead of retail copies that you could move from computer to computer without paying more to Microsoft. So that EULA legal contract is probably only one of the reasons why Quo computers will get sued and lose eventually.
It is not so much the EULA they would run afoul of but the DMCA code apple uses to keep MacOS X from being installed on non-Apple hardware. The court doesn't care how weak it is only that it is there. I'm honestly not sure where Microsoft OEMs fit in all this but given Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. showing not able to prove that products sold were lawfully acquired was enough to shoot down First Sale doctrine and the case was in 1994 I have no idea why Psystar even tried that option with the supposedly pathetic state their record keeping was in.
Comments
Finally! It's irritating to see all these little guys drain Apple's resources while the real enemy, Microsoft, continues to grow fatter and fatter.
And lazier and lazier. I used to worry about Microsoft, but not anymore.
And lazier and lazier. I used to worry about Microsoft, but not anymore.
I'd be more wary of Google, these days.
I'd be more wary of Google, these days.
True story, I am.
So can we say the same for Quo computers, who are selling nearly the same product as Apple, somehow without the price tag?
Based on the Psystar ruling they have to stop making Mac clones too
Based on the Psystar ruling they have to stop making Mac clones too
Apple would need to sue them separately.
Apple would need to sue them separately.
Yeah but now they can cite precedent.
Yeah but now they can cite precedent.
thats what I mean
Yeah but now they can cite precedent.
I'm not sure it is one. Even if the case is published, and I don't believe that is automatic, a subsequent case has to be within the same court jurisdiction, and the facts of the subsequent case similar enough to the prior case for precedent to be successfully cited. What Psystar's loss really does IMO is put anyone else who might try what they did on notice that Apple will take them to the mat.
http://800beers.com/
BOOOO!!! Apple you whore!
Oh look. It's one of the eight Psystar ex-employees.
Were they even profitable? Ever?
No, they lied to investors claiming they would sell 12 million Mac Clones in 2010...when they only sold about 700 in their entire business. But no one said thieves that steal were smart.
Based on the Psystar ruling they have to stop making Mac clones too
Not only are forums such as this used as places to discuss issues & ideas, they can also be used as places to go to for one to increase their knowledge. In light of that, I am asking the following because I really want to know. I am in no way challenging you or any one else on this issue. So here goes.
If, as I have been told, Quo computers don't come pre-loaded with any operating system, then where is the problem? Is it illegal for them to build a computer that is capable of running OS X as long as they don't load OS X onto the machine? Who bears the burden of responsibility, Quo or the end user, especially if the end user has the choice to load XP (shudder, shudder), Linux, or OS X?
I just thought of another question that may render my questions above pointless, but I'll leave them anyway just in case.
Could the illegality on Quo's part be because they have to embed something in their system that makes OS X think it is going onto a Mac?
If, as I have been told, Quo computers don't come pre-loaded with any operating system, then where is the problem? Is it illegal for them to build a computer that is capable of running OS X as long as they don't load OS X onto the machine? Who bears the burden of responsibility, Quo or the end user, especially if the end user has the choice to load XP (shudder, shudder), Linux, or OS X?
I just thought of another question that may render my questions above pointless, but I'll leave them anyway just in case.
Could the illegality on Quo's part be because they have to embed something in their system that makes OS X think it is going onto a Mac?
They still run afoul of the EULA, since they're assisting the customer in breaking the license agreement. So I believe there is precedent for that, since if EULAs were ruled invalid, there would be no way for Microsoft to demand that OEM copies would be OEM instead of retail copies that you could move from computer to computer without paying more to Microsoft. So that EULA legal contract is probably only one of the reasons why Quo computers will get sued and lose eventually.
I'm also wondering if the EFI somehow hacks the OS to make it run. Doesn't seem like Apple would just let any EFI run its OS.. assuming there were any from the big PC makers. Which is a good point you bring up there.. they could still run afoul of the DCMA too, because they might be breaking whatever copy protection measures that Apple imposed so that it would run only on their hardware.
No, they lied to investors claiming they would sell 12 million Mac Clones in 2010...when they only sold about 700 in their entire business. But no one said thieves that steal were smart.
Actually they told would be investors that they would conservatively sale 70,000 computers in 2009 and were asking for $24 million. Dr. Matthew Lynde could only find evidence for 768 computers--just a little over 1% what Psystar thought would be its worst sale figures.
Clearly despite the deranged rantings of a few squeaky wheels (likely due to worn bearings) there is next to no market for Mac clones. The netbook market is a profit nightmare even more razor thin than the general PC market so there is no way Apple is going to mess with that at the low end.
I didn't realize they only sold 800 clones. With as many times AI reports on this you would think they were going to suprass Apple in sales.
I didn't realize they sold that many.
C
They still run afoul of the EULA, since they're assisting the customer in breaking the license agreement. So I believe there is precedent for that, since if EULAs were ruled invalid, there would be no way for Microsoft to demand that OEM copies would be OEM instead of retail copies that you could move from computer to computer without paying more to Microsoft. So that EULA legal contract is probably only one of the reasons why Quo computers will get sued and lose eventually.
It is not so much the EULA they would run afoul of but the DMCA code apple uses to keep MacOS X from being installed on non-Apple hardware. The court doesn't care how weak it is only that it is there. I'm honestly not sure where Microsoft OEMs fit in all this but given Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Comps. showing not able to prove that products sold were lawfully acquired was enough to shoot down First Sale doctrine and the case was in 1994 I have no idea why Psystar even tried that option with the supposedly pathetic state their record keeping was in.
Finally! It's irritating to see all these little guys drain Apple's resources while the real enemy, Microsoft, continues to grow fatter and fatter.
psystar going down the toilet, a nice hanukkah gift for ballmer
suck on it, you moron
i hope the same happens to microsoft someday