Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 352486
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[3]: What about if intent to profit - change argument
by GCrain on Tue 10th Mar 2009 16:46
in reply to "RE[2]: What about if intent to profit - change argument"
"Another car analogy (since I work for an automotive company): A small company reversed engineered the engine controller code, made modifications and was reselling the code as a performance upgrade. It bypassed many safety and emissions related functions...
If Psystar were bypassing OSX's consumer safety features or EPA regulated specs, you'd have a good point. LOL. " How do you know what Psystar is doing? In essence, they are bypassing processes (safety?) in OSX to redirect updates to their own hacks. They are NOT using OSX unaltered. It would be different if they sent you a empty harddrive and the sealed box and let you install it. Psystar is only in this for the short haul and to make a quick buck off of Apple.
RE[4]: What about if intent to profit - change argument
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 10th Mar 2009 16:56
in reply to "RE[3]: What about if intent to profit - change argument"
Psystar is only in this for the short haul and to make a quick buck off of Apple.
Yeah, that's probably why they went into a complicated lawsuit with multiple high-profile lawyers against one of the richest companies in the world.
Yeah, they're really in for the short haul and quick buck. Give me a break.





Member since:
2006-01-27
If Psystar were bypassing OSX's consumer safety features or EPA regulated specs, you'd have a good point.
LOL.