Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 391014
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Abstract
Member since:
2009-10-24

Various judges disagree with you on that one, most recently Vernor vs. Autodesk. Whose word to take...


Had to go look up Vernor vs Autodesk.
Vernor wasn't selling a computer with Autodesk pre installed, Psystar is selling computers with Mac OSX pre-installed. Apple vs Psystar isn't about Psystar reselling copies of Mac OSX, like Best Buy, Amazon, etc.. are doing, its about Psystar selling computers with Mac OSX already installed on it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Do not bother. Myself as well as others have pointed out to him why Vernor vs Autodesk is not similar to Apple vs Psystar. PJ from Groklaw did a pretty thorough analysis and explained why that is not the case, and has offered a more appropriate example (MDY vs Blizzard).
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060

He still keeps going on about it, like a broken record. And it's quite hard to argue sensibly with someone who covers their ears and sings "Twinkle twinkle little star" loudly. Usually they're not adults.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Of course, the massively crucial difference between Bliz and Psy is ignored conveniently:

WoW is a subscription service.

Mac OS X is not.

In fact, in the Autodesk case, this was specifically mentioned - as in, had AutoVAD been a subscription service, Autodesk would have had a much better point to make.

PJ has completely lost it in the Psystar case, as she is convinced it is nothing but an attempt to destroy open source, funded by Microsoft, part of the SCO case. She's gone nutters.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Is someone required to roll over and agree with your point of view because you've cited authority and shown some evidence?

No.

They may have good reasons for still not agreeing with you.

I don't know if that's the case here, but "Because PJ said" is not an answer to anything.

I am another person who thinks Groklaw and PJ have gone rather odd lately so I also pretty much ignore arguments coming from that direction.

Reply Parent Score: 2