Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Sep 2009 16:09 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 387128
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
The Apple-Psystar is already much more complicated, involving hardware, third party software used to install Leopard, copyright/trademark questions, modification to software, and so on. I just don't see the similarity.
Nothing ever stopped Pystar from selling computers with compatible EFI firmware (obviously without any Apple trademarks or decompiled/reverse engineered code) that coincidentally happened to be compatible with Mac OS X but were pre-loaded with Windows or Linux. It would be the easiest way to get around the whole issue without running into any problems.
The people who run Pystar are just plain dumb - as dumb as those who went and bought EFI-X only to find out it was an over priced thumb drive with open source components. I want to see Apple's feet put to the fire but those who go about it need to be smart instead of attempting to take on the IT giant head first.
If they did the above we'd be talking about the latest Pystar laptop running Snow Leopard instead of a law suite that could easily have been avoided.