Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 08:44 UTC, submitted by Cytor
There are several options out there if you wan to run Mac OS X on your non-Apple labelled computer, but one of them appears to be in serious trouble. It has been uncovered that the EFI-X module is nothing more than a USB stick with a DRM chip, with code from the hackintosh community on it - without attribution. On top of that, its firmware update utility uses LGPL code - again, without attribution.
Thread beginning with comment 385280
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[6]: strange situation
by DrillSgt on Mon 21st Sep 2009 18:10
in reply to "RE[5]: strange situation"
Member since:2005-12-02
How is that true in the US? I was under the impression it'd have to explicitly be part of the judgment for that to happen, or you have to separately sue for court costs. As an example, the RIAA lawsuits that were dropped when they realized they had the wrong person or were going to lose typically left the loser footing the legal bill of defending themselves up to that point.
It has to be a part of the suit, which any lawyer usually makes sure is in the case. Of course the RIAA did not have it put in the suit, and the lawyer for the person was not smart enough to have it put in apparently. Any lawsuits I have seen that were successful, the loser ended up paying the legal costs. You are correct that it is not automatic, and the party must ask for the coverage of legal costs.
RE[7]: strange situation
by tyrione on Mon 21st Sep 2009 18:25
in reply to "RE[6]: strange situation"
Member since:2005-11-21
The difference is that in Germany, Austria and other countries this is part of the Law, not an action a litigant may add as part of their counter claim.
This cuts down on Prosecutions being taken forth knowing that if they lose the Government [City, County, State, etc.] will be obligated to pay out for the costs of the trial.
In the US, when a Defense attorney proclaims they will counter sue the Judicial system often works in tandem to make sure they don't lose the case. This is quite common in District Courts.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-09-14
That is true in the US as well. However, in the US at least the lawyers still need to be paid first before they will take the case. Basically when the losing party has to pay for legal costs, it is more of a reimbursement to the winner. The money and time are already spent, so without having the money up front to pay for the lawyers, they will not touch the case unless it is a sure victory.
How is that true in the US? I was under the impression it'd have to explicitly be part of the judgment for that to happen, or you have to separately sue for court costs. As an example, the RIAA lawsuits that were dropped when they realized they had the wrong person or were going to lose typically left the loser footing the legal bill of defending themselves up to that point.