Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Nov 2009 21:53 UTC
Legal We've got some progress in the other legal case Apple is involved in. The California case, Apple vs. Psystar, is more or less a done deal, but the Florida case, Psystar vs. Apple, is only just beginning. As it promised it would do, Apple has now asked the court in California to either dismiss the Florida case, or transfer it to California. Apple is also asking for a permanent injuction against Psystar. Through this motion, we also gain some juicy insight into Psystar's sales projections - and more interestingly, how many machines the clone maker actually sold.
Thread beginning with comment 396673
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is about projected damages
by th3rmite on Thu 26th Nov 2009 23:28 UTC
th3rmite
Member since:
2006-01-08

So what if Psystar only sold 768 machines Thom. All of a sudden it matters to you how many machines they sold? Even still, from Apple's point of view this is about the future, we all know this. If Psystar were to win what would stop a Dell or Toshiba from selling mass amounts of OSX machines? You can talk and spew all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is Apple WOULD be hurt by these "cloners" if they actually sold machines in the millions. What the real argument is to people like you is that you think it would be ok to hurt Apple's business like this. Whether you agree with American copyright law or not, that is not the issue. The issue in America is damages. Thus in order to sue you have to prove damage of some sort. Apple will eventually win because they definitely would be damaged if this was left to go unchecked.

Personally I think there should be nothing wrong with making a Hackintosh for personal use, which Apple has not tried to hinder, but for someone to make a profit of of it, now that is another question all together. I believe corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thus in order to sue you have to prove damage of some sort.


Funny, then, that Apple specifically retracted its claim for damages... Only now that they have won, they reignite the damages claim.

Shouldn't that be impossible in a court of law? I mean, retract a damages claim only to bring it back once you know you've won? That's like making a bet where you can wait for the outcome before making a commitment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

.. motivate Apple to compete further through the products.

The outcome could just as easily be osX available from more than one vendor with that one original vendor getting the software sales profits along with profits from there own hardware sales.

Do the Apple faithful really not have that much confidence in the Apple brand and products they cling too? The only way Apple can survive is to artificially limit software through litigation?

Reply Parent Score: 4