Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Nov 2009 22:32 UTC
Legal As Murphy's Law dictates, this news was destined to come while I'm down and out with the flu, while being miserable on the couch. Dragged my bum to the computer for this one (my iPhone alerted me, oh the irony): Apple has scored a major win in its case against Psystar. Judge William Alsup more or less agreed with just about everything Apple said, granting Apple's motion for a summary judgement. Instant update: Mind, though, that this ruling only covers Leopard. Snow Leopard will be handled in the Florida case.
Thread beginning with comment 394704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Crushing
by linumax on Sun 15th Nov 2009 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crushing"
linumax
Member since:
2007-02-07

Intertwined?! What does that even mean? As in a judge saying: "Well, we are not sure which law applies here, so we'll just have to pick arbitrary bits of each law to make a ruling on that?" No, that's not how it works.

These are two different sets of laws. One is Copyright law, the other is Contract law. One is unilateral, the other is an exchange of obligations.

Two very different matters and there's no reason to mix them up.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Crushing
by wirespot on Sun 15th Nov 2009 15:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Crushing"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Intertwined?! What does that even mean?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intertwined
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/twine

As in a judge saying: "Well, we are not sure which law applies here, so we'll just have to pick arbitrary bits of each law to make a ruling on that?" No, that's not how it works.


Of course not. He's saying "more than one law applies, so let's see which takes precedence and on what issues". As you can imagine, it's not easy, which is one reason why lawsuits last so long. There's room for a lot of interpretation.

These are two different sets of laws. One is Copyright law, the other is Contract law. One is unilateral, the other is an exchange of obligations.

Two very different matters and there's no reason to mix them up.


But you can't not mix them. Things fall under more than one law all the time.

If an employee of a bookstore steals books and resells them, which law should apply? There's straight out theft, there's breach of copyright, and there's breach of contract as an employee. Each with different penalties.

A judge's work is very hard for exactly this reason. Often they have to slice and dice all things involved incredibly thin to take all aspects into account.

Edited 2009-11-15 15:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Crushing
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 15th Nov 2009 15:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Crushing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If an employee of a bookstore steals books and resells them, which law should apply? There's straight out theft, there's breach of copyright, and there's breach of contract as an employee. Each with different penalties.


Uhm, what? In this example, there is no breach of copyright at all. There's theft, selling of stolen goods, and possibly, depending on the employee contract, breach of contract. The first two fall under criminal law, the third under civil law.

You continuously say I don't know what I'm talking about, yet it is you who continuously show a total lack of understanding about copyright law.

Edited 2009-11-15 15:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2