Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
Permalink for comment 352351
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"FYI, there is nothing wrong with tying your product to the products of another company. The console gaming industry proves this point quite nicely.


Oh, you mean like how Sony lost the legal battle against that PlayStation emulator Bleem?
"

I'm sorry, how does that prove that there is something wrong with tying your products? As a matter of fact, it seems your example proves what I'm saying. Sony went out of their way to prevent anyone from being able to play Playstation games on non Sony hardware. Was Sony in some way sanctioned for that behavior? No? Maybe because tying products isn't inherantly illegal?


"Ultimately bleem! won in court and a protective order was issued to "protect David from Goliath".[1] Sony lost on all counts, including bleem!'s use of screenshots of PlayStation games on its packaging. The court noted that bleem!'s use of copyrighted screenshots was considered fair use and should be allowed to continue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Sony_lawsuit
"

Again, I'm not sure how any of that is relevant besides proving my point. Are you trying to say that this is applicable in the Pystar case? How? Which claim of Psystar's would be able to use this lawsuit as precedent?

Reply Parent Score: 2