Apple, Psystar: Purism & Confidence
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.
E-mail Print r 4   · Read More · 192 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ha0
Thread beginning with comment 391068
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Thom has a point...
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 26th Oct 2009 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom has a point..."
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

How nice of you to repeat Thom's "arguments" for him.


How nice of you to reply to a post without actually responding to most of the points raised in it.

So let me sum it up: Apple, a company that keeps pricing their stuff high on a very competitive market is actually cowering in fear, and the people who keep buying their expensive stuff are not actually enjoying the higher quality, they're just brainwashed idiots.

Oh, and breaking copyright law and undermining another company's business is ok because it's "freeing OS X". Rules be damned, the masses want their OS X! Hail Psystar, the champion of the people!


Careful, you'll make yourself dizzy by putting that much spin on a strawman argument.

I happen to believe otherwise. Common sense dictates that Apple products have at least some quality to them that makes people buy it.


And you could say the same thing about microwave dinners or Miley Cyrus albums.

Common sense dictates that if Apple's products were just trendy hype they would have gone under a long time ago. Because trends come and go, but quality endures.


I'm sure that Stephen King and Madonna would be happy to hear you say so.

Finally, common sense also says that if you go head-to-head with established law


There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?

you should be prepared to assume the consequences. "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time", remember?


Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Thom has a point...
by wirespot on Mon 26th Oct 2009 09:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Thom has a point..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?


No and please don't try to twist things around. Apple is not placing restrictions on the "brand of computer used to run their OS". They're placing restrictions on WHO can bundle OS X with ANY computer and WHAT they can and cannot do with it. And for that yes, there is legal precedent. Look up MDY vs Blizzard.

Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.


Has the lawsuit ended? We'll talk when it does. But I suggest in the meantime you look at how well troll lawsuits worked out for SCO. They're currently bankrupt and the pieces are being taken apart by a judge-appointed overseer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

"There's an established law stating that an OS vendor can legitimately use an EULA to enforce post-sale restrictions on the brand of computer that can be used to run their OS?


No and please don't try to twist things around. "

You set the standard, too late to complain about it now.

Apple is not placing restrictions on the "brand of computer used to run their OS". They're placing restrictions on WHO can bundle OS X with ANY computer and WHAT they can and cannot do with it.


Sorry, but that's not any better. That's like a condiment maker telling restaurants "you can only sell our mayonnaise in sandwiches made with our brand of bread."


And for that yes, there is legal precedent. Look up MDY vs Blizzard.


Not the same thing at all. One - Blizzard sells a service and associated software, they don't sell any hardware last time I checked. Two - Blizzard tried to claim that not abiding by the terms of an EULA amounted to copyright infringement, because they equate loading a program into RAM with copying.

You really want to reference something that inane to back up your argument? By that reasoning, you're liable to OSNews for copyright infringement just as a result of viewing this page. After all, your browser had to make a copy of the page and all of its contents in your computer's memory (and you probably have additional cached copies).

"Don't look now, but Psystar doesn't seem to be having much problem dealing with the consequences.


Has the lawsuit ended? We'll talk when it does. "

Funny, it doesn't seem to have stopped you from speculating.

But I suggest in the meantime you look at how well troll lawsuits worked out for SCO. They're currently bankrupt and the pieces are being taken apart by a judge-appointed overseer.


Since Apple and SCO were the parties who initiated the lawsuits, I can only conclude that you're equating Apple with SCO.

Reply Parent Score: 2