Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st May 2008 09:10 UTC
The soap surrounding PsyStar, the company that offers a Mac clone for sale, just keeps on running. After the initial launch, the company was plagued by doubt and mystery surrounding its actual existence, but soon after videos started popping up of the OpenComputer out in the wild, beyond the company itself. Thanks to CNet, the company may now have fully redeemed itself.
Thread beginning with comment 312416
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: More to it than horsepower
by Jon Dough on Thu 1st May 2008 20:10
in reply to "RE[3]: More to it than horsepower"
Member since:2005-11-30
I wouldn't be surprised if they avoid litigation altogether and simply let them go out of business
This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright. Another reason to go after infringers is to send a warning to future would-be infringers.
RE[5]: More to it than horsepower
by B. Janssen on Fri 2nd May 2008 10:41
in reply to "RE[4]: More to it than horsepower"
Member since:2006-10-11
RE[5]: More to it than horsepower
by tupp on Sun 4th May 2008 18:08
in reply to "RE[4]: More to it than horsepower"
Member since:2006-11-12
This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright. Another reason to go after infringers is to send a warning to future would-be infringers.
There is no infringement of patent nor copyright in this case. At worst, Pystar is merely reselling legally purchased Apple software, perhaps at a profit.
A patent is a legal monopoly on the manufacture and initial sale of claimed technology. If there were a patent infringement, Pystar would be copying Apple technology and selling the copied technology without paying Apple for it (and claiming/suggesting that Pystar invented the technology). However, Pystar has presumably paid for their OS X copies, and are merely reselling them.
The case would be similar if Pystar was infringing on Apple's copyright, except it would involve just the code in a very literal way. But, again, Pystar is not copying Apple and profiting from it -- Pystar is presumably purchasing individual copies of OS X and reselling those copies individually.
Actually, there is a way that Apple could restrict the use of OS X, but it would be difficult to enforce and Apple wouldn't look very nice if they did.
RE[5]: More to it than horsepower
by sbergman27 on Sun 4th May 2008 19:06
in reply to "RE[4]: More to it than horsepower"
Member since:2005-07-24
This is not an option, because if you don't actively enforce your patent/copyright, then in the eyes of the law, you've effectively abandoned your patent/copyright.
This bit of misinformation comes up again and again, and is seriously in error, so I try to take the time to correct it when I see it. What you are saying is true for trademarks, which are a completely different thing than a copyright or patent. If you do not act to protect your trademark you risk losing claim on it. Patents and copyrights are perfectly enforceable until their expiration date, regardless of whether or not the holder is dilligent in enforcing them. In fact, lying low for years while a technology, like mp3, spreads and becomes indispensible, and then showing up with your patent to collect when you have a captive audience is a popular and effective practice. These are called "submarine patents" for obvious reasons.
Edited 2008-05-04 19:06 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-09-07
This isn't a very good analogy. Power Computing, Motorola, etc. were all legally licensing the Mac OS back in the mid-90's. They didn't have the hardware-software interfacing issues that seem to plague the Psystar computer.
Jobs pulled the plug because the clone makers were only taking market share from Apple and weren't actually growing the user base (ie. the revenue they made on the OS licenses was much much less than what they lost from not selling the hardware). In the case of Psystar, I wouldn't be surprised if they avoid litigation altogether and simply let them go out of business because they're selling a non-updatable, loud, semi-compatible computer that has zero support from the OS developer.