Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Thu 26th Nov 2009 22:13 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Well written Thom. You make all this Psystar news (soon to be [insert clone maker name here] news) interesting and worth keeping up with.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by averycfay on Fri 27th Nov 2009 05:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

I agree mostly. This is a decent article. That said, I'd like to hear more about what this case means in terms of software sales/copyright in general (maybe groklaw is a better forum for that?). The 768 figure is interesting and honestly I'm suprised they sold that many... it's enough to keep a small business afloat (meaning psystar could potentially continue on if they didn't have a lawsuit to contend with).

Reply Score: 2

Probably because...
by darknexus on Thu 26th Nov 2009 22:14 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Most people were smart enough to stay away from an obviously shady business like Psystar. I don't mean shady in regards to Apple's os, I mean shady in regards to their convenient lack of record keeping, their obviously huge funding source with no explanation, and their continued incompetent responses to the court. They are either very naive, very stupid, or very dubious, possibly all three.
Consider, as well, that the majority of people who will have heard of Psystar were interested in hackintoshes already, i.e. the more technically-minded people, and they could easily have just done it themselves. It's not as though your average person has heard of Psystar at all. They didn't really have a prospective market for their machines or a marketing strategy to appeal to those who might actually have bought one.
Still, this does make Apple look ridiculous on the face of it. A whopping 768 machines... wow. Do remember though, that just because one clonemaker was unsuccessful and extremely stupid to boot, that doesn't mean others will make the same mistakes, and Apple has every reason to fear a clone maker becoming successful. Their business model isn't set up to handle it, (they've tried it before, after all), and they do not seem to want to change their business model or repeat their mistake.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Very True
by Macrat on Thu 26th Nov 2009 22:43 UTC in reply to "Probably because..."
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

Well said.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Probably because...
by tyrione on Fri 27th Nov 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "Probably because..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Most people were smart enough to stay away from an obviously shady business like Psystar. I don't mean shady in regards to Apple's os, I mean shady in regards to their convenient lack of record keeping, their obviously huge funding source with no explanation, and their continued incompetent responses to the court. They are either very naive, very stupid, or very dubious, possibly all three.
Consider, as well, that the majority of people who will have heard of Psystar were interested in hackintoshes already, i.e. the more technically-minded people, and they could easily have just done it themselves. It's not as though your average person has heard of Psystar at all. They didn't really have a prospective market for their machines or a marketing strategy to appeal to those who might actually have bought one.
Still, this does make Apple look ridiculous on the face of it. A whopping 768 machines... wow. Do remember though, that just because one clonemaker was unsuccessful and extremely stupid to boot, that doesn't mean others will make the same mistakes, and Apple has every reason to fear a clone maker becoming successful. Their business model isn't set up to handle it, (they've tried it before, after all), and they do not seem to want to change their business model or repeat their mistake.


A fool looks at 768 and dismisses the reality of defending your IP and copyrights.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Probably because...
by Tuishimi on Fri 27th Nov 2009 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Probably because..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree. Nip it in the bud.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Probably because...
by shadowhand on Fri 27th Nov 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "Probably because..."
shadowhand Member since:
2005-07-06

... obviously huge funding source with no explanation ...


This is the part that I am really curious about. How can Psystar afford to face Apple in court not just once, but twice? Assuming the financial documents are correct, Psystar should be bankrupt at this point.

Honestly, the case itself is not very interesting and it was obvious what the outcome would be, but the case of where Psystar's money comes from... that is interesting indeed.

Reply Score: 1

And what if...
by mrhasbean on Thu 26th Nov 2009 22:30 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...they'd sold their projected numbers?

Either way, that wasn't what this case was about. Clearly there are two standpoints - those who believe their perceived rights override the rights of others and those who believe that the company who invests their resources into developing a product have the right to protect that product.

Generally those who hold on to the former have never been in the position of the latter...

Reply Score: 2

RE: And what if...
by NeoX on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:36 UTC in reply to "And what if..."
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Absolutely agree. While the article somewhat mocks Apple for considering Pystar a threat, since they only sold 768 machines, they still have a right to protect their IP. It does not matter if these morons sold 2 machines and made no money, they still did it dishonestly and illegally and could have an impact on Apple's brand name and reputation.

I really do not understand why all the negativeness towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".

If I had created a successful business and brand name, you bet I would protect it from shady outfits like Pystar.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: And what if...
by shadowhand on Fri 27th Nov 2009 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE: And what if..."
shadowhand Member since:
2005-07-06

I really do not understand why all the negativeness [sic] towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".


The negativity is not about Apple, per se, but about software in general. The real issue in question here is whether or not you actually own the software you purchase. Apple is claiming that OSX is licensed, not sold, and therefore it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.

This implies that even though OSX is tangible media (DVD-ROM), the digital contents of the media do not belong to you, and when your purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software.

Psystar is claiming that by purchasing OSX discs, they have the right to install OSX on a non-Apple computer and sell the computer. Thus far, the judges do not agree.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: And what if...
by iFrodo on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And what if..."
iFrodo Member since:
2009-06-01


The negativity is not about Apple, per se, but about software in general. The real issue in question here is whether or not you actually own the software you purchase. Apple is claiming that OSX is licensed, not sold, and therefore it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine.

This implies that even though OSX is tangible media (DVD-ROM), the digital contents of the media do not belong to you, and when your purchase software, you are actually purchasing a license to use the software.

Psystar is claiming that by purchasing OSX discs, they have the right to install OSX on a non-Apple computer and sell the computer. Thus far, the judges do not agree.



Of course judges do not agree. Because it's the whole software industry that works like that, and in fact not only the software industry, but the whole IP legislation that work like that.

You don't own a software, nor you own a music or a movie. The owner of software, musics or movies are ONLY and ALWAYS the author(s). This is the law, and Psystar can't deny it, and that's not what they were fighting against.

What Psystar was denying and so fighting against was the part of the license saying that you can't install Mac OS X on a non-apple hardware. What they wanted to do by making clones was to prove that it was possible to make Mac OS X running on other hardware, and so that the limitation is not justified.

I personally disagree totally with the Psystar point of you, because for me (and I think also for the law), it's the author right to decide which hardware his software target.
If that were not the case, than that would mean that you could force any software maker to port its software to any hardware platform. That would be ridiculous.

If you want a software to be ported to a hardware platform, either you ask the author if he can do it or you ask him if he can give you a license that allows you to do it. But if the author doesn't want to do it or to give you the right to do it, it's his right.

Considering that, Psystar couldn't have won, what it's doing is totally against the Copyright/IP laws. You can't do what you want with an IP work like software, but also musics or movies, because you don't own it (that's the law!!) and so you have to ask the author the authorization for anything not allowed in the license sold with it (if any).
If you disagree with the license, then you can attack the author in court to expect to have the parts of the license you disagree with, invalidated.

But the big mistake of Psystar was to start its activity before having attacked Apple to get the part of the license that disallow it invalidated (even if I don't think they would have won). Because by doing so, and because Mac OS X need modifications to be able to run on a PC, they made them directly guilty of software piracy.

Edited 2009-11-28 10:44 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: And what if...
by DigitalAxis on Sat 28th Nov 2009 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And what if..."
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

So then the issue is, why can you own a power drill when you can't own a record? I'm sure one can draw a line in there, I just don't know where.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: And what if...
by DrillSgt on Sat 28th Nov 2009 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And what if..."
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

So then the issue is, why can you own a power drill when you can't own a record? I'm sure one can draw a line in there, I just don't know where.


You actually do own the record. You can sell that record or use it as a frisbee, and no one will care. What you do not own is the content of the record, the actual music or whatever plays when you put it on a record player. You can listen to it all you want, but it is not in your rights to then go out and perform the same thing without prior permission.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: And what if...
by Calipso on Sun 29th Nov 2009 12:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And what if..."
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

"If that were not the case, than that would mean that you could force any software maker to port its software to any hardware platform. That would be ridiculous."

No one is forcing Apple to do anything. People just want to install a copy of software that they legally purchased from a store on what ever they want. They don't want help/support from Apple. They just want to use their legally purchased software how they want and don't want to be sued for using it that way.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And what if...
by r_a_trip on Fri 27th Nov 2009 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE: And what if..."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

...could have an impact on Apple's brand name and reputation.

I really do not understand why all the negativeness towards Apple protecting their IP, especially from so called "journalists".


I can't speak for all of us, but I know why Apple has lost a lot of the magic for me.

Back when Apple was on PPC and their marketing machine (and the Apple community) was going full force in bombarding x86 as slow, cumbersome, inferior and boring, one could almost suspend disbelieve when one heard that a 800 MHz PPC was somehow magically soooo much better than a 1.2 GHz Intel processor. Most computer users never touched an actual PPC machine, so there was a huge lack of hands on knowledge to make a fair comparison. Their exotic architecture protected them.

Then the bombshell dropped that Apple was going to use x86 processors. That is when the shroud of mystery started to unravel. Apple is a regular x86 peddler now, save some outlandish case design and what Apple sells is mostly midrange hardware at highend prices. I know that Apple fans try to convey the image that the complete Apple experience is larger than the sum of its parts, but it's more wishful thinking than reality.

We can compare the innards of a Mac one on one with the equivalent off the shelf x86 kit. OS X, while decent, is just another UNIX with monolithic kernel. Aqua looks pretty, but one menu bar and a dock simply doesn't make computing heaven. Having app bundles is nifty, but installing software is mostly a one time affair, so that too doesn't really tip the scales. Technologically Apple isn't really different from say Dell or HP in the home computing market.

It doesn't stop Apple marketing from yelling "We're unique, we're different, we're better!" Sorry, no your not. You are just 80% marketing and 20% technology and 200% more control freakish than Microsoft. I think a lot of the negativity stems from the fact that Apple is carrying on like nothing ever changed, but most of the world has seen the man standing behind the curtain.

The only thing that makes Apple unique these days is the artificial limit on OS X and their banking on the waning image of being the hip, magical technology company.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: And what if...
by shadowhand on Sat 28th Nov 2009 07:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And what if..."
shadowhand Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple may no longer be unique, but they don't need to be. OSX has gotten to the point that a wide range of people can use it and be comfortable, as well as secure.

Let's face it... Microsoft is losing the consumer base and the Linux community still hasn't figured out a way (or doesn't really want to) to break into the preinstalled market, netbooks aside. I think the numbers have shown that Apple is gaining a lot of popularity and will continue to do so. They simply have a better product, end of story.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And what if...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 27th Nov 2009 00:50 UTC in reply to "And what if..."
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

[what if]...they'd sold their projected numbers?


Ooooh, I've got one: and what if ....they had built their headquarters out of 100% Belgian Chocolate?

Pointless speculation sure is fun!

Clearly there are two standpoints - those who believe their perceived rights override the rights of others and those who believe that the company who invests their resources into developing a product have the right to protect that product.


Wow, that has to be the most long winded expression of a false dichotomy that I've ever read. Congratulations, I guess.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Big Al
by Big Al on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:11 UTC
Big Al
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think some of this discussion is invalid because Apple didn't know how many computers were sold until legal action was taken. Psystar made a very big noise that was basically begging Apple to come after them. Not to be an Apple apologist but I don't think they had much of a choice.

I doubt Apple minds people screwing around with hacking OS X on their own because most hackers understand that things won't work perfectly. Another company selling their OS on noisy, less than quality hardware reflects badly on Apple whether they're responsible or not. They really didn't have much choice but to take legal action.

Reply Score: 0

That's it?
by dnstest on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:14 UTC
dnstest
Member since:
2006-06-11

How in the world were they going to make it anyways selling so few machines? There is so little profit in this business to begin with, you really need to move a lot of product to stay afloat these days!

Reply Score: 0

ALMOST a genuine news article Thom
by haus on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:23 UTC
haus
Member since:
2009-08-18

>"So, this is the company that Apple is so afraid of. A company that sold only 768 machines in over a year. In roughly the same timespan (Apple's 2009 fiscal year which ended September 30) Apple sold 768 machines every 40 minutes. Dangerous, those clone makers. They are destroying Apple!"

If not for that last paragraph, I would have stated that this was a relatively even handed analysis of the situation.

You ruined it by editorializing what might have been your first actual news piece.

Anyways, in response... Apple was (rightfully mind you) afraid because a lack of response to Psyster's illegal behavior sets a precedent for other companies... including large ones (who COULD have actually sold more).

Edited 2009-11-26 23:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You ruined it by editorializing what might have been your first actual news piece.


"You ruined it by not taking Apple's side in what might have been your first actual news piece I agreed with."

Fixed it for you.

Reply Score: 7

Blomma Member since:
2005-07-06

"You ruined it by editorializing what might have been your first actual news piece.


"You ruined it by not taking Apple's side in what might have been your first actual news piece I agreed with."

Fixed it for you.
"


Really thom, this is how you want to behave.

You did editorialize and parents response about apple's motivation was spot on. And you somehow made that into him being an apple fanatic.

If you cant keep a level head when replying then maybe you should refrain from it altogether.

Reply Score: 2

This is about projected damages
by th3rmite on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:28 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

So what if Psystar only sold 768 machines Thom. All of a sudden it matters to you how many machines they sold? Even still, from Apple's point of view this is about the future, we all know this. If Psystar were to win what would stop a Dell or Toshiba from selling mass amounts of OSX machines? You can talk and spew all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is Apple WOULD be hurt by these "cloners" if they actually sold machines in the millions. What the real argument is to people like you is that you think it would be ok to hurt Apple's business like this. Whether you agree with American copyright law or not, that is not the issue. The issue in America is damages. Thus in order to sue you have to prove damage of some sort. Apple will eventually win because they definitely would be damaged if this was left to go unchecked.

Personally I think there should be nothing wrong with making a Hackintosh for personal use, which Apple has not tried to hinder, but for someone to make a profit of of it, now that is another question all together. I believe corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thus in order to sue you have to prove damage of some sort.


Funny, then, that Apple specifically retracted its claim for damages... Only now that they have won, they reignite the damages claim.

Shouldn't that be impossible in a court of law? I mean, retract a damages claim only to bring it back once you know you've won? That's like making a bet where you can wait for the outcome before making a commitment.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

.. motivate Apple to compete further through the products.

The outcome could just as easily be osX available from more than one vendor with that one original vendor getting the software sales profits along with profits from there own hardware sales.

Do the Apple faithful really not have that much confidence in the Apple brand and products they cling too? The only way Apple can survive is to artificially limit software through litigation?

Reply Score: 4

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

Sure, Apple won 1 case, but the case in Floriduh could likely go the other way, knowing Floriduh's legal system. That's probably why they want California to rule on it.

Further though, will this affect the company in Germany that was/is in the business of clones? I believe that the ruling wouldn't be so easily decided since Apple tends to work from a U.S. point of view on everything.

In the end, it all comes down to how much potential there is to hurt the company. Whether you like the company or not, your product could be the next to be used against your wishes. So, in a way, this is a look at how any of us might react.

Reply Score: 4

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Sure, Apple won 1 case, but the case in Floriduh could likely go the other way, knowing Floriduh's legal system. That's probably why they want California to rule on it.

Further though, will this affect the company in Germany that was/is in the business of clones? I believe that the ruling wouldn't be so easily decided since Apple tends to work from a U.S. point of view on everything.


I think Apple will have much it more difficulty trying to stop PearPC (I think that was their name?). The validity of EULAs in Germany is very doubtful. Apart from the way of agreeing to the EULA which is highly suspect under German law, EULAs are also considered to be an "unfair" contract. Essentially they don't give the person who bought the software anything above what he could do without the EULA (installing the software is what you are allowed by law). Therefore EULAs are onesided and the law essentially says that nobody would agree to such a contract. AFAIK, software in Germany is considered sold not licensed. I think there was even a court case where MS tried to prevent the resell of OEM licences but did not succeed.

This is the reason why I thought the whole "software being sold will kill FOSS" argument (especially from PJ) was rubbish. If this was the case a lot of companies would have taken advantage of it in Germany, but instead FOSS is arguably stronger in Germany than in the US.

IANAL though, this is all what I gather from reading about the topic in Germany.


In the end, it all comes down to how much potential there is to hurt the company. Whether you like the company or not, your product could be the next to be used against your wishes. So, in a way, this is a look at how any of us might react.

Reply Score: 3

NOW it's clear
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 27th Nov 2009 00:43 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

In the past, I've asked why the Apple fanboys are so throughly-incapable of grasping the difference between purchasing software and pirating it (based on their constant attempts to spin the Psystar case as if it were about software piracy).

But after reading the statement from Apple, I now understand: even the people RUNNING Apple are apparently too stupid to understand the difference (or just too dishonest to acknowledge it).

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since the common iApologist doesn't have a single idea in his head except direct quotes from Apple marketing copy.

Reply Score: 7

Reality however is Fair
by kaelodest on Fri 27th Nov 2009 04:32 UTC
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

As a long-time Apple owner, Apple Developer and Apple stockholder. And the son of two lawyers I see this case from an enlightened and biased POV. Apple likely does not mind the Hackintosh effort. If that was the case it would not be beyond the companies resources to stop it. As a matter of fact it still is not. When OS X first came out there was a utility called Unsupported Utility X or something like that allowed user to install OS X on Beige Units and clones (with a least a real G3 or G4 upgrade card) This provided many users the ability to get a feel for the OS and to understand it on a technical level without buying a new Mac. Apple did not go after the users or make it hard because many of the people who would run Unsupported Utility X build a clone will buy an entry level machine next go around. C'mon anybody can afford a Mini, and the iMac is a lot of bang for the buck. But if you do not want to and you have the skills then you can install OS X on a generic PC. However if you have those skills then you should also understand that Apple owes you nothing in the way of support. This doesn't dilute the brand. One does not reasonably expect a crApple to work like an Apple or put it into production work.
However that expectation of Hackintosh == future sales is silly if there are licensed clones and even sillier if there are unlicensed cloners. Yes Apple Makes a lot of Macs and makes a lot of money selling them. Millions of dollars flow back into Research and Development. That is the nature of Business and that is the reward for having to dance in the same Bullring with both Microsoft and Dell (or 2 separate rings). Which is why Apple needs R&D. As a programmer I do not expect that all of my code can be GPL some is corporate, some is 'korny kludges & an hairy hax'/Dice Raw and Functional but I do not desire that someone can take my product and sell it as their R&D. What Apple is doing is legal and sensible and I would expect anyone who had a brand to protect to make the same decision. Apple has a strong brand that is why you might want to have on or sell one. And there is a lot a value in that brand. The issue is not how many units they sold or planned to sell or were capable of selling. The issue is weather a closed source OS is protected by the same copyrights as any other product. Apple is Apple the same way that Nike is Nike and Guinness is Guinness.
Bottom line and I think it is really quite fair. If you can afford the real thing then get one if you cannot then make a Hackintosh. If you like it then you next machine might be a Mac -- But do not try to make a Business Model out of it. Would it be cool and legal to take an XP or Vista Disk from a Dell and install it on a Compaq? How about starting a store to sell them and plan on selling them by the millions? Theft is theft. If you like a company support it if you do not like a company ignore it (Microsoft is not exactly relevant to where I am going)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Reality however is Fair
by Slambert666 on Fri 27th Nov 2009 07:02 UTC in reply to "Reality however is Fair"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

The issue is not how many units they sold or planned to sell or were capable of selling. The issue is weather a closed source OS is protected by the same copyrights as any other product. Apple is Apple the same way that Nike is Nike and Guinness is Guinness.


You are allowed to buy a pair of Nike shoes and resell them to anyone, they are a product, you can buy it and sell it again. You can likewise wear those Nike shoes with any pants of your choice.

The issue here is if an OS is licensed or not. Apparently in the US it is licensed and therefore not a product like anything else.

If Apple were selling shoes they would be restricting the choice of pants to only "Apple pants" and sue retailers that were selling pants not approved by Apple together with their "Apple shoes".

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Reality however is Fair
by sphexx on Fri 27th Nov 2009 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Reality however is Fair"
RE[3]: Reality however is Fair
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 27th Nov 2009 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reality however is Fair"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But you are not allowed to remove the Nike trademark, attach it to a generic pair of shoes and sell them as Nike. If we are going to use these ridiculous analogies then that would be a better one.


???

That makes no sense, and isn't IN ANY WAY like what clone makers are doing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Reality however is Fair
by Budd on Fri 27th Nov 2009 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Reality however is Fair"
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

IT IS EXACTLY what this specifically clone maker did. Whether you like it or not,is your problem.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If this is exactly like taking the Nike logo off a pair of shoes so a pair of converse can be sold with it; why did the vendor put the iron on logos on store shelves for any of the public to buy?

I'd say it's more like Gap selling geans with Ykk zippers. Someone else comes along and buy Ykk zippers off the shelf to put in there own geans. If Gap owned Ykk, it to would have to choice of selling zippers separately on store shelves or only to owners of Gap branded pants.

Reply Score: 3

sphexx Member since:
2005-07-06

"If this is exactly like taking the Nike logo off a pair of shoes so a pair of converse can be sold with it; why did the vendor put the iron on logos on store shelves for any of the public to buy? "

That would be like making a hackintosh for your own use. But Nike will not be happy if you then sell your Nike logo'd converse as Nikes.

Reply Score: 1

Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

But Psystar is not selling their clones as "Mac's". They're selling them as PC's with OSX on them. So to use the shoe analogy, it would be you selling Converse shoes with Nike symbols but calling them 'Converse shoes with Nike symbols'

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Reality however is Fair
by kaelodest on Fri 27th Nov 2009 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Reality however is Fair"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

Si - My bad I got lazy at midnight with a belly full of American turkey and wine. I expected the average reader could extrapolate based on context, poor editing choice.
Apple is not nor has ever claimed to be a FOSS Company/Entity. They have no obligation to please everyone all the time. Apple has been a HW company longer than many of the readers and viewers here have been alive. Hardware has vastly different realities than software. If you feel like the Mac Pro Tower is not enough machine for the price (then you are right) then do not buy one.
However back on point I am not debating weather the SW is licensed I am calling 'foul' when some other company tries to force that decision for apple.
What is it with all the Psystar Love? Have they done anything that made the OS ecosystem better. Has Psystar written any real programs, were anyone sane really expecting them to win? How much Coke do you have to to in Florida to come up with projected sales numbers like that?

Well I am going to stick a Nike logo on my coffee mug and see if it smells like the Gym.

Reply Score: 1

3/4 of a kilo
by SuperDaveOsbourne on Fri 27th Nov 2009 10:05 UTC
SuperDaveOsbourne
Member since:
2007-06-24

Not much to worry about, apple is clearly about making sure others don't do this in the future. If you don't protect it, you can't claim it later. Its simply a matter of what Apple had to do. As for Pystar, they are less than noble, hardly worth the time I type, and clearly a failed business attempt.

Reply Score: 1

Well, yeah...
by frood on Fri 27th Nov 2009 16:23 UTC
frood
Member since:
2005-07-06

Since it's inception, Psystar has been the subject of relentless court appearances and publicity. Who's going to buy a PC from a company that may very well be dead in a year? Psystar OSX owners rely on the company for updates.

Only after a court win in their favour will they be able to get the backing from investors, etc they need to really start a sales campaign.

Edited 2009-11-27 16:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Hypocritical...
by JonathanBThompson on Sat 28th Nov 2009 02:12 UTC
JonathanBThompson
Member since:
2006-05-26

First, you feel Apple has no right to enforce their rights, and that Psystar, regardless of how much/little they profit, shouldn't pay for their violation of Apple's rights.

Then, you go into another thread about Apple and warranties related to smoke, and you completely censor (not vote down, but censor) 2 posts that remotely criticize your hypocrisy in your thoughts that corporations have less rights than any individual if the individual (less powerful than they are, or perhaps a corporate individual that's not remotely as strong financially) and think that's all well and good, and then you go and stomp all over those that would object (those that have lesser power than you in your representation of OSNews) and go and rewrite what they say, attempting to force words down their throat, or completely censor them: wait, and you even deign to consider yourself remotely journalistic? You promote hypocrisy with your editorializations where you put deliberate slants on everything, and then you go forth and practice it in censoring/smashing anything that remotely sounds too close to an inconvenient truth.

It's one thing to say things that cause people to hate you: what you're also doing is guaranteed to make people disrespect you, deeply, in addition. At least, in most cases, people learn to hate others but still respect them, because at least they have principles: you are demonstrating that you do not, and you're attempting to write the opinions of others that dissent. Your behavior is absolutely disgusting.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hypocritical...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 28th Nov 2009 09:50 UTC in reply to "Hypocritical..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You have some nerve calling ME a hypocrite.

OSNews, I, and the team have been VERY honest and open about how we moved from RSS-feed mode into a site where yes, we editorialise. We've never denied that, we've never been sneaky about it.

The real crux of the matter here is that you simply disagree with me. More specifically, you disagree with me one some matters relating to Apple. That's it.

Why do you never comment on any of the positive Apple stories? Why do you never complain when David or Kroc editorialise? Why do you never complain about me editorialising on the various other subjects that we cover day in, day out? Now who's the hypocrite here?

Yes, I removed those two comments. You want to know why? They were solely attacks on me, with NO substance whatsoever, no relation to the actual story at hand. That puts me, runner of this site, well within my rights to remove them. I'd do it again a million times if necessary.

Look, it's fine with me that you disagree with my views on specific matters relating to Apple - that's the whole point here, to discuss our differences of opinion. However, please do not make it seem as if OSNews claims to be completely unbiased and impartial and objective, when it is 100% clear to everyone - as we've said quite clearly - that we do not aspire to be any of those things.

This is only about your love for Apple, and how my differing opinion does not fall within your paradigm. Don't try to make it any more glamorous than it is.

Edited 2009-11-28 09:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hypocritical...
by frood on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Hypocritical..."
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Well said. The editor bashing that goes on round here is getting tedious.

The news is always presented as a short summary and a link to the external source with next to no opinion. You can read the news and even comment on the story without ever clicking the "Read More" link. If you click that link, you should expect to read Thom's opinion on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hypocritical...
by helf on Sat 28th Nov 2009 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Hypocritical..."
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

Honestly, even if they are attacks on you, you would probably be better off burying them instead of completely deleting them. There have been several times where I've seen posts disappear before I could actually read them, and that is very off putting.

Reply Score: 2

The issue is not about apple
by alcibiades on Sat 28th Nov 2009 10:04 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

The issue is not about apple. It is whether any maker of software has or should have the right to sell copies at retail, which will install technically on a variety of hardware from different sources, but to limit, solely by EULA clause, what hardware you may install on.

May they, specifically, restrict your choice of hardware not by specification, but by supplier or brand?

That's the issue. And if they can do that, what other restrictions of the installation environment may they make?

Reply Score: 4

Comment by bongo_x
by bongo_x on Sun 29th Nov 2009 18:26 UTC
bongo_x
Member since:
2006-03-21

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that you have to protect your intellectual property or lose the right. You can't just let one company go because they only sold 700 something machines. The next company that sells thousands of machines will use that in court as a precedent.

bb

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 29th Nov 2009 19:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's when it comes to trademarks, but not IP. IP is always yours, defending or no.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by bongo_x
by bongo_x on Mon 30th Nov 2009 02:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by bongo_x"
bongo_x Member since:
2006-03-21

I wasn't sure, but it seems to me a company could say in court "they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us?".

bb

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by bongo_x
by rhavyn on Mon 30th Nov 2009 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by bongo_x"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I wasn't sure, but it seems to me a company could say in court "they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us?".

bb


They can, the legal term is laches.

And, for anyone reading, I'd highly recommend ignoring anything Thom says regarding legal issues since he's almost certainly going to be wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Nov 2009 09:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong. Laches has nothing to do with the OP's question. You do not have to actively protect IP in order to maintain ownership of it - that is the case for trademarks.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by bongo_x
by rhavyn on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by bongo_x"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong. Laches has nothing to do with the OP's question. You do not have to actively protect IP in order to maintain ownership of it - that is the case for trademarks.


First, IP is generally a meaningless term. So lets talk about specifics.

Trademark law specifically requires that a trademark be vigorously defended or you can lose the mark. So far, so good. But, I'm not talking about statutory defenses.

I'm talking about laches, which is a defense which is, in fact, applicable to patents and copyright infringement. With respect to copyright, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc. held that, "depending on the nature of the relief sought and in compelling circumstances, the defense of laches may bar a copyright infringement claim (or certain remedies) even though that claim is brought within the three-year statute of limitations". With respect to patents, in Troxler Electronic Labs v. Pine Instrument the judge held "[A] laches defense exists precisely to prevent patentees from delaying in filing suit simply because they do not feel "motivated to do so." Accordingly, the undersigned hereby finds that Pine's unjustified five year delay was unreasonable and that Troxler is entitled to summary judgment on the unreasonable delay prong of its laches defense."

What's so comical when dealing with you, Thom, is this statement:

"I think you need to look up laches before claiming I'm wrong."

Just because you make claims with no factual backing doesn't mean others make the same mistake. And thanks for reinforcing my point that you should be ignored when talking about legal issues since you are almost certainly going to be wrong. Like in this case. Wrong again.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by bongo_x
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by bongo_x"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sigh.

You should read the OP original question. He was asking, quite plainly, whether or not Apple could lose the rights to its IP if they do not defend it. The answer to this question is NO. Apple does not lose its patents or copyrights if they do not actively defend them.

He was CLEARLY confusing this with trademarks, which you DO have to actively protect.

Your comment is entirely accurate in that laches may come into play if you f. ex. wait too long, but laches or no, you do NOT lose the IP in question. Your patent is still your patent. This is quite clearly what my comment stated, yet you felt the need to attack me for no apparent reason, just because you failed to read the OP question.

So no, I was not wrong. You just failed to read the question properly.

Edited 2009-11-30 18:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by bongo_x
by rhavyn on Mon 30th Nov 2009 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by bongo_x"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

You are correct, I only read the part where he said "I wasn't sure, but it seems to me a company could say in court "they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us?"." Not the part where he was talking about losing rights. My apologies. You can say in court, they didn't stop Company A, why are they trying to stop us. And the court can, in fact, say, well, they can't stop you. But they court will not simply take your rights.

Reply Score: 2