Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Thread beginning with comment 341486
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You are kidding i guess. Their filing is full of spelling, grammatical and formal mistakes, how can you call them clever?
Surely you are not suggesting that the misspellings and typos (claimed by anonymous "World of Apple" commenter "dizzle" which you have linked) should have a direct relevance to the case? If a person is murdered and the prosecutor submits documents with grammatical problems, but which are still clearly understandable, should the defendant get off the hook because of it? Besides, "dizzle" had some misspellings just in his commentary, which when pointed out, he claims not to have had his morning coffee or some such.
I think Thom summed up the relevant questions handily here:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?341458
Writing an article focusing upon grammar and spelling says more about the anonymous dizzle's agenda than about the case.
Edited 2008-12-25 19:45 UTC




Member since:
2005-11-16
"but you have to admit, if they pull this one off, they're pretty clever."
You are kidding i guess. Their filing is full of spelling, grammatical and formal mistakes, how can you call them clever?
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/22/a-closer-look-at-a...
Given the outstanding mistakes in the filing, it is clear that their response was written in a hurry which means that they tried to pull off an argument with poor thinking.
More i look at Psystar more it seems that all of this is a joke. They are more and more lacking arguments and they did not find anything better to do than to write a totally flawed filing that a high school student could have written better.
It is not the first time that they come up with a flawed argument, they tried to accuse Apple for anti-competitive practice, argument which was naturally rejected by the judge. And come on, they are trying to support the argument that the Apple's EULA is not valid and that they can sell computers using someone else software, which basically means that they are stealing it. But in the same time, Psystar is having an EULA for its own product. So guys at Psystar think that they can violate someone's else rules, but ask to respect theirs. This single fact puts little credibility on this company and the people behind it.
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/05/amazing-psystar-ha...
Edited 2008-12-25 19:19 UTC