Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones [Archive]

MacRumors

Jan 15, 2010, 03:16 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/15/psystar-files-appeal-in-apple-lawsuit-over-unauthorized-mac-clones/)

The Mac Observer reports (http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/psystar_officially_files_notice_of_appeal_in_apple_lawsuit/) that unauthorized Mac clone make Psystar has officially filed an appeal of an injunction (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/) won by Apple preventing the company from selling computer systems modified to run Mac OS X.Psystar has officially filed its Notice of Appeal in the copyright suit it lost against Apple Inc., according to a court document obtained by The Mac Observer. The step was a formality in the appeals process, but until it was filed, it was unclear if the company would actually mount an appeal.Psystar shut down its sales operation last month in order to comply with the December 31st deadline set in the court ruling, although it continues to sell T-shirts and ask for donations (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/27/pystar-asks-for-donations-sells-i-sued-psystar-t-shirts/) to support its cause as it proceeds through the appeals process. An initial report (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/18/psystar-winding-down-business-as-web-site-goes-dark/) after the injunction was issued suggested that Psystar may have given up the fight and would be shuttered permanently, but a company lawyer quickly refuted (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/19/reports-of-psystars-demise-appear-premature/) the claim, vowing that Psystar would continue to fight on.

Article Link: Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/01/15/psystar-files-appeal-in-apple-lawsuit-over-unauthorized-mac-clones/)

r.j.s

Jan 15, 2010, 03:18 PM

They just can't give up, can they?

fun173

Jan 15, 2010, 03:20 PM

psystar, just stop.

doguhan

Jan 15, 2010, 03:21 PM

All this just makes me "lol"

Minimoose 360

Jan 15, 2010, 03:23 PM

Psystar = FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

swarmster

Jan 15, 2010, 03:24 PM

Was it ever revealed who Psystar's mysterious corporate backers are? I thought that was supposed to come out as part of the lawsuit.

r.j.s

Jan 15, 2010, 03:26 PM

Was it ever revealed who Psystar's mysterious corporate backers are? I thought that was supposed to come out as part of the lawsuit.

No, it has not been revealed yet.

mattwolfmatt

Jan 15, 2010, 03:26 PM

Please give this up. Go away already!

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 03:31 PM

What law firm filed the notice of appeal?

ghostface147

Jan 15, 2010, 03:31 PM

Where's my t-shirt I ordered?

BRLawyer

Jan 15, 2010, 03:36 PM

They just can't give up, can they?

Are these stupid hackers still alive? Or is this just a remake of George Romero's great classic on zombies?

ldkaplan

Jan 15, 2010, 03:36 PM

Please give this up. Go away already!

If you owned a company and hit a roadblock, would you give up? I sure wouldn't.

A world with Pystar is good for consumers.

gudin

Jan 15, 2010, 03:37 PM

Shocker.

bobr1952

Jan 15, 2010, 03:37 PM

I do think this is getting a bit tedious...

Eric S.

Jan 15, 2010, 03:38 PM

Even Rebel EFI didn't work for me.

LaDirection

Jan 15, 2010, 03:39 PM

Play them off, keyboard cat!

BRLawyer

Jan 15, 2010, 03:40 PM

If you owned a company and hit a roadblock, would you give up? I sure wouldn't.

A world with [THIEVES/PIRATES/HACKERS/CRIMINALS/FREERIDERS] is good for consumers.

Edited for better accuracy; feel free to choose whatever term fits best in your opinion.

r.j.s

Jan 15, 2010, 03:40 PM

A world with Pystar is good for consumers.

No. It. Isn't.

Consumers do not benefit from Psystar's underhanded techniques, because if they were to win, Apple will implement draconian hardware checking, or other measures to ensure that you are only able to run OS X on Apple machines.

Consumers only benefit from ACTUAL competition, not bottom feeders that just take what they want and try to make a profit from it.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 03:43 PM

If you owned a company and hit a roadblock, would you give up? I sure wouldn't.

A world with Pystar is good for consumers.

To which roadblock do you refer? The business plan based on theft of intellectual property? The business operations that constitute copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA? The pesky little contracts that are binding on me (EULAs) that prevent me from doing what I'm doing? Or the fact that my product is such crap that even by stealing from another company and using the other company's own products against them at a lower price I still can't manage to sell more than a few hundred boxes?

Consultant

Jan 15, 2010, 03:43 PM

If Microsoft cannot win their appeal against the injunction against word/ office 2007, how can this counterfeit outfit win theirs?

Waste of time.

Are these stupid hackers still alive? Or is this just a remake of George Romero's great classic on zombies?

They are not hackers. They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

*LTD*

Jan 15, 2010, 03:45 PM

Losers looking for more punishment. Love it!

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 03:45 PM

If Microsoft cannot win their appeal against the injunction against word/ office 2007, how can this counterfeit outfit win theirs?

Waste of time.

They are not hackers. They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

Well, for starters Psystar can't afford Matt Powers, who messed up the case for MS :-)

BRLawyer

Jan 15, 2010, 03:48 PM

They are not hackers. They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

I don't care: it's the same crap, just a terminology problem irrelevant in this case:

HACKERS = CRIMINALS = THIEVES

miketcool

Jan 15, 2010, 03:49 PM

Was it ever revealed who Psystar's mysterious corporate backers are? I thought that was supposed to come out as part of the lawsuit.

If I had to guess, I'd say it was backed by lawyers. :D

dasein

Jan 15, 2010, 03:51 PM

Somebody has deep pockets here. These guys aren't in it alone. It isn't lawyers...where would they get paid from with these guys making T-shirts? Someone's pushing the envelope.

ferrous

Jan 15, 2010, 03:54 PM

ggbrown

Jan 15, 2010, 03:56 PM

The reason most enjoy the fruits of Apple's efforts are because they make the operating system AND the hardware. These, subjected to rigorous QA, generally result in very, very reliable machines.

I don't claim they are 100% reliable. Right know I have a co-worker who has purchased a 27' iMac plagued by the 'flickering display' issue. At least he's getting a new machine from Apple.

All technology is subject to failure, regardless of who manufactures it. That said, I think the "hardware and software maker" model works much better than what Microsoft has to contend with (OS manufacturer trying to make an OS that runs on a near infinite combination of hardware components).

Pystar, for me, represents the diluting of the Mac OS experience. I'll happily pay the extra few hundred dollars to have a real Mac....and I have 4 of them in my house....none of which have suffered any hardware failures (G4 -> c2d). I work in IT full time...not having to deal with the issues at home I confront at work with Windows makes it all worth while, and totally puts it in perspective.

G

Prof.

Jan 15, 2010, 03:56 PM

These bitches just don't know when to stop. Holy hell!:eek:

jamesryanbell

Jan 15, 2010, 03:56 PM

Apple created the operating system. Therefore THEY decide EVERYTHING to do with it. Period.

r.j.s

Jan 15, 2010, 03:57 PM

It is so hypocritical to see all of the Apple "Fans" criticize Psystar, how many of you have jailbroken iPhones,

Nope.

stealing Apps from Apple,

No, and not from any other company either.

or downloaded hacked copy on torrents?

Wrong again.

I thought so... who's the hacker now?

What was your point?

Consultant

Jan 15, 2010, 04:00 PM

I don't care: it's the same crap, just a terminology problem irrelevant in this case:

HACKERS = CRIMINALS = THIEVES

Yes agree that they are criminals.

Personally, I would put them as thieves, way below the class of hackers.

macadam212

Jan 15, 2010, 04:02 PM

No one I know has ever heard of them, in-fact if it wasn't for this site and other Apple rumour sites, I don't think I would have ether. So if this is just a publicity stunt, it an't going very well!

Works4Me

Jan 15, 2010, 04:04 PM

ldkaplan

Jan 15, 2010, 04:08 PM

To which roadblock do you refer? The business plan based on theft of intellectual property? The business operations that constitute copyright infringement and violation of the DMCA? The pesky little contracts that are binding on me (EULAs) that prevent me from doing what I'm doing? Or the fact that my product is such crap that even by stealing from another company and using the other company's own products against them at a lower price I still can't manage to sell more than a few hundred boxes?

There are very few IT companies of which cannot be said the same. Look at recent news regarding Apple, Nokia and Kodak. So you've got a little guy doing questionable tactics against a big guy that has made billions off of patent infringements. I'm not going to hold Pystar up to a higher standard than Apple.

And as for EULAs, I can't remember the last time I actually read one. Most people I think are like me, you scroll to the bottom or just click through. It's because we really don't care for them and if we did actually read them and think they were enforceable, we wouldn't buy the products.

For what it's worth I wouldn't by a Pystar box. Nobody who is half way technical would...you could do it yourself. But there is something fundamentally wrong with Apple policing what hardware I can load OSX on. I've been an Apple user for quite a while. I'd say I'm fairly loyal to the brand. But this is the type of strong arm tactic that turns me off. I know I'm in the minority.

I also know this horse can't walk anymore...the courts and Apple's very deep pockets will put the last nail in Pystar soon enough.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 04:10 PM

Love it!

I may be the only one here happy about the news: GO PSYSTAR!!!

It is so hypocritical to see all of the Apple "Fans" criticize Psystar, how many of you have jailbroken iPhones, stealing Apps from Apple, or downloaded hacked copy on torrents? I thought so... who's the hacker now?

GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
:rolleyes::cool::D;):p:o:):rolleyes::cool:;):p:D:o:):cool::rolleyes::):):D:cool:

I've done none of those things. Now may I continue to criticize the thieving Psystar?

You are projecting - you think because you break the law, everyone else does. You also equate jailbreaking with stealing, and that's a tough argument to make. When you jailbreak your own phone you violate the DMCA, but you at least paid Apple for their copy of the OS and paid them for the hardware it's tied to.

Icaras

Jan 15, 2010, 04:11 PM

They should rename themselves to Psyadists.

archipellago

Jan 15, 2010, 04:13 PM

good for them, hope they win. Then I hope both Nokia and Kodak both win and any other litigants in the future....

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 04:14 PM

There's a difference between accidentally infringing a patent (after all, their are millions of them, and you can't possibly check them all every time you do something) which may or may not be valid, and predicating your entire business plan on stealing IP (and having a court adjudicate that you have done so, unlike your Apple/Nokia/Kodak example).

Further, do you really think Psystar was not aware of the EULA? That's just a ridiculous argument. (Also a legally meaningless one).

Apple deciding what hardware its OS can run on is no different than Microsoft saying its xbox OS can only run on its boxes, Tivo saying its OS can only run on its boxes, RIM saying only its hardware can run the blackberry OS, etc.

There are very few IT companies of which cannot be said the same. Look at recent news regarding Apple, Nokia and Kodak. So you've got a little guy doing questionable tactics against a big guy that has made billions off of patent infringements. I'm not going to hold Pystar up to a higher standard than Apple.

And as for EULAs, I can't remember the last time I actually read one. Most people I think are like me, you scroll to the bottom or just click through. It's because we really don't care for them and if we did actually read them and think they were enforceable, we wouldn't buy the products.

For what it's worth I wouldn't by a Pystar box. Nobody who is half way technical would...you could do it yourself. But there is something fundamentally wrong with Apple policing what hardware I can load OSX on. I've been an Apple user for quite a while. I'd say I'm fairly loyal to the brand. But this is the type of strong arm tactic that turns me off. I know I'm in the minority.

I also know this horse can't walk anymore...the courts and Apple's very deep pockets will put the last nail in Pystar soon enough.

baleensavage

Jan 15, 2010, 04:16 PM

Somebody has deep pockets here. These guys aren't in it alone. It isn't lawyers...where would they get paid from with these guys making T-shirts? Someone's pushing the envelope.
My thoughts exactly. You don't take on a high profile case like this without some cash to back it up. It almost seems like Psystar was just a front to push this case into happening. I can't see that they were rolling in the dough by selling cheap Mac clones. It will be interesting to see how it will shake down.

MacVixen

Jan 15, 2010, 04:20 PM

archipellago

Jan 15, 2010, 04:25 PM

Joe The Dragon

Jan 15, 2010, 04:34 PM

Eric S.

Jan 15, 2010, 04:43 PM

Apple created the operating system. Therefore THEY decide EVERYTHING to do with it. Period.

A pretty simplistic statement. Some people who were once at Bell Labs, UC Berkeley, NeXT, Carnegie Mellon, etc., might wish to disagree.

That's not a comment on the legal situation, one way or another.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 04:43 PM

problems with this...

1/ Psystar obviously thought they would win the court case and they based their business model on that, not 'stealing IP'

2/ If Apple had followed the law and not put Nokia's GSM tech BEFORE they had agreed licensing terms in the iPhone then there would be no iPhone.... think that would've hurt them much.?

the blinkered views and sheer double standards on here is frightening.

BTW there is a german compnay doing a 'psystar' but Apple hasn't gone after them..

why?

No chance they would win in Europe...

Psystar lost on SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This means the judge said there was absolutely no factual evidence supporting Psystar's position, and, as a matter of law, they lose. There is no way they could have believed they would win.

As for Apple, who says they didn't follow the law? No court has found them guilty of infringing everything. By law, in fact, Nokia cannot prove its case merely by saying "GSM requires our patents, and Apple is compatible with GSM." If Apple loses, then so be it, but I'm sure Apple's lawyers gave them better advice than did Psystar's lawyers.

Also, copyright infringement for profit is a criminal matter, which makes it quite different than patent infringement.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 04:45 PM

also the law said that psystar can not use images to install os x so Psystar 2 can start up and install os x by hard on each system and be in the law.

No, that's not what the judge said. He upheld the EULA and said not only can Psystar not infringe the EULA, but it can't even assist consumers in doing so.

SiPat

Jan 15, 2010, 04:49 PM

I wonder if Psystar (and those supporting it) know the meaning of the word stupid?

Probably not.

MizuInOz

Jan 15, 2010, 04:52 PM

Love it!

I may be the only one here happy about the news: GO PSYSTAR!!!

It is so hypocritical to see all of the Apple "Fans" criticize Psystar, how many of you have jailbroken iPhones, stealing Apps from Apple, or downloaded hacked copy on torrents? I thought so... who's the hacker now?

GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!! GO PSYSTAR!!!
:rolleyes::cool::D;):p:o:):rolleyes::cool:;):p:D:o:):cool::rolleyes::):):D:cool:

You just may be the only one happy with Piss-Tar's persistence (actually the lawyer's and whom ever is bankrolling this crap).

Not everyone lives by your unethical standards.

I do not have a jailbroken iPhone, nor do I steal apps from Apple, nor do I download hacked copies on torrent. Throw rocks in your own glass house!

Dumb phuque. Cheating, lying and stealing are the business tactics of a lazy fool. I guess you are in good company if you support Piss-tar.

archipellago

Jan 15, 2010, 05:08 PM

Psystar lost on SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This means the judge said there was absolutely no factual evidence supporting Psystar's position, and, as a matter of law, they lose. There is no way they could have believed they would win.

As for Apple, who says they didn't follow the law? No court has found them guilty of infringing everything. By law, in fact, Nokia cannot prove its case merely by saying "GSM requires our patents, and Apple is compatible with GSM." If Apple loses, then so be it, but I'm sure Apple's lawyers gave them better advice than did Psystar's lawyers.

Also, copyright infringement for profit is a criminal matter, which makes it quite different than patent infringement.

think Apple could influence the judge?

wouldn't,put it past them, besides, the fact that they are appealing means they must think 'something'

If Apple loses then they shouldn't have been selling a phone with GSM tech in it.

I assume from your righteous position that you would then support a fine on Apple equal to the profits made by Apple on iPhone? and a ban on sales until due licensing fees are paid.?

archipellago

Jan 15, 2010, 05:10 PM

You just may be the only one happy with Piss-Tar's persistence (actually the lawyer's and whom ever is bankrolling this crap).

Not everyone lives by your unethical standards.

I do not have a jailbroken iPhone, nor do I steal apps from Apple, nor do I download hacked copies on torrent. Throw rocks in your own glass house!

Dumb phuque. Cheating, lying and stealing are the business tactics of a lazy fool. I guess you are in good company if you support Piss-tar.

When Apple get nailed for doing the same to Nokia, Kodak, Qualcomm and......

will you think the same..?

ctt1wbw

Jan 15, 2010, 05:12 PM

It's getting to the point that I no longer say I have to take a ****. I am going to start saying I have take a Pystar.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 05:21 PM

think Apple could influence the judge?

wouldn't,put it past them, besides, the fact that they are appealing means they must think 'something'

If Apple loses then they shouldn't have been selling a phone with GSM tech in it.

I assume from your righteous position that you would then support a fine on Apple equal to the profits made by Apple on iPhone? and a ban on sales until due licensing fees are paid.?

I wouldn't support that "fine" because that's not the law. There is no fine in patent cases. Instead, Apple would have to pay damages to Nokia. The amount of the damages would be determined based on the law. In this case, the damages would most likely be whatever the court finds to be the "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty rate, which certainly would be less than Apple's profits. Alternately the court might find that a so-called "reasonable royalty" is the proper amount. A reasonable royalty would also be far less than Apple's profits. This is not because I am an Apple fan or something - I'm simply stating what the law is.

Your argument of "if apple loses they shouldn't have been selling..." is specious. That's not the way patent law works. If apple loses, they should pay damages, and at that point the court may or may not order an injunction. Much like contract breach, there is no criminal component or "penalty" for patent infringement. This differs from copyright infringement. In copyright infringement you can be penalized above and beyond the damages you caused, including jail time. Unless apple is found to have "willfully infringed" they won't even have to pay treble damages. And since Nokia hasn't asked for a preliminary injunction, under the precedent of In re Seagate there won't be willfulness damages. (Apple certainly had already obtained opinion of counsel, in any case, which would almost certainly have prevented such damages - in other words, lawyers wrote a formal opinion explaining that the nokia patents were invalid or unenforceable or not infringed, and Apple in good faith relied on this opinion).

MacFly123

Jan 15, 2010, 05:24 PM

WOW! Really who are their financial backers? I can't think of a worst investment and better way to throw money away unless they have an agenda!

JUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEE ALREADY! :rolleyes:

archipellago

Jan 15, 2010, 05:34 PM

I wouldn't support that "fine" because that's not the law. There is no fine in patent cases. Instead, Apple would have to pay damages to Nokia. The amount of the damages would be determined based on the law. In this case, the damages would most likely be whatever the court finds to be the "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty rate, which certainly would be less than Apple's profits. Alternately the court might find that a so-called "reasonable royalty" is the proper amount. A reasonable royalty would also be far less than Apple's profits. This is not because I am an Apple fan or something - I'm simply stating what the law is.

Your argument of "if apple loses they shouldn't have been selling..." is specious. That's not the way patent law works. If apple loses, they should pay damages, and at that point the court may or may not order an injunction. Much like contract breach, there is no criminal component or "penalty" for patent infringement. This differs from copyright infringement. In copyright infringement you can be penalized above and beyond the damages you caused, including jail time. Unless apple is found to have "willfully infringed" they won't even have to pay treble damages. And since Nokia hasn't asked for a preliminary injunction, under the precedent of In re Seagate there won't be willfulness damages. (Apple certainly had already obtained opinion of counsel, in any case, which would almost certainly have prevented such damages - in other words, lawyers wrote a formal opinion explaining that the nokia patents were invalid or unenforceable or not infringed, and Apple in good faith relied on this opinion).

surely there is a very strong argument for substantial damages if Apple loses.?

No phone= no marketshare, no app store.... no damage to any other competitor.

If they lose how have they NOT wilfully infringed?

what about the ITC ban as per Nokias request?

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 05:40 PM

surely there is a very strong argument for substantial damages if Apple loses.?

No phone= no marketshare, no app store.... no damage to any other competitor.

If they lose how have they NOT wilfully infringed?

what about the ITC ban as per Nokias request?

Fortunately or unfortunately, damages are not computed that way. They are computed based on what a fair negotiation would have produced, essentially. The patent holder is not entitled to a windfall due to infringement.

Willful infringement requires a mental state of (in layman's terms) I know I'm infringing, but I just don't care. As I pointed out, Nokia isn't even entitled to that without asking for a preliminary injunction (in court. ITC has nothing to do with it). And even if they asked for a preliminary injunction, what typically happens is that when Nokia came to Apple and demanded $$, Apple would hire an independent lawfirm to investigate the patents and produce a formal written opinion as to its validity, as to its enforceability, and/or as to whether there is infringement. Assuming the opinion isn't facially nonsense, Apple is entitled to rely on it, thus they don't have the required mental state.

Almost never is willful infringement actually found in patent cases. It requires particularly bad behavior on the part of the infringer.

gnasher729

Jan 15, 2010, 06:19 PM

BTW there is a german compnay doing a 'psystar' but Apple hasn't gone after them..

why?

No chance they would win in Europe...

Last time I checked PearC operates from a home in a residential area somewhere in Germany, and doesn't have its own phone number. That may have something to do with why they aren't sued.

And knowing a tiny bit about German business laws, you won't believe how dead PearC would be if Apple went to court.

Xavier

Jan 15, 2010, 06:43 PM

They didn't make all that much money im sure, so somebody with the bucks and are out to get Apple are backing them

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 07:02 PM

They didn't make all that much money im sure, so somebody with the bucks and are out to get Apple are backing them

Why? They haven't paid their lawyers, so it's not like this is costing them anything.

cult hero

Jan 15, 2010, 07:11 PM

SandynJosh

Jan 15, 2010, 07:29 PM

Was it ever revealed who Psystar's mysterious corporate backers are? I thought that was supposed to come out as part of the lawsuit.

I really have no idea, but I'd guess this mystery backer can do one hellova monkey dance.

SandynJosh

Jan 15, 2010, 07:37 PM

pdjudd

Jan 15, 2010, 07:37 PM

I really have no idea, but I'd guess this mystery backer can do one hellova monkey dance.

You do realize where Microsoft makes most of it’s money right? Software licensing... The very thing Psystar was trying to claim does not apply...

EDIT: I have said this before and it bears repeating: There never was any evidence of any mysterious backers - none - there is nothing to suggest that Psystar runs their business like any other entrepreneur would - only with less legal sense. Filing cases with John Does happens so frequently that there is nothing that we can imply from it.

None have been named - we have to imply that there are none.

likemyorbs

Jan 15, 2010, 07:56 PM

And knowing a tiny bit about German business laws, you won't believe how dead PearC would be if Apple went to court.

I know, those Germans are total patent nazis... Sorry i had to:D

E.Lizardo

Jan 15, 2010, 08:16 PM

Fortunately or unfortunately, damages are not computed that way. They are computed based on what a fair negotiation would have produced, essentially. The patent holder is not entitled to a windfall due to infringement.

Willful infringement requires a mental state of (in layman's terms) I know I'm infringing, but I just don't care. As I pointed out, Nokia isn't even entitled to that without asking for a preliminary injunction (in court. ITC has nothing to do with it). And even if they asked for a preliminary injunction, what typically happens is that when Nokia came to Apple and demanded $$, Apple would hire an independent lawfirm to investigate the patents and produce a formal written opinion as to its validity, as to its enforceability, and/or as to whether there is infringement. Assuming the opinion isn't facially nonsense, Apple is entitled to rely on it, thus they don't have the required mental state.

Almost never is willful infringement actually found in patent cases. It requires particularly bad behavior on the part of the infringer.

cmaier-You sir have the patience of a saint!Either that or you just like talking to brick walls!
Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the subject.
Cheers!

jav6454

Jan 15, 2010, 08:17 PM

I have come to a conclusion that Psystar is like Herpes... they won't go away. No matter how much you try.

LeoNobilis

Jan 15, 2010, 08:23 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

Psystar is like a squalid masai that by some great injustice survived a Lion attack and now, along with his bloody tribe, desperately seeks revenge.
Well, not quite as ignoble as those erect spaghetti-like worms, but equally persistent in its harrassing antics.

Oh, well… the matter isn't nearly as vile as that. Besides, it's a good thing for Apple to have to confront this: who knows, as a desperate measure our Apple might fill their beautiful cases with powerful, high-quality internals.

LeoNobilis

Jan 15, 2010, 08:31 PM

I have come to a conclusion that Psystar is like Herpes... they won't go away. No matter how much you try.

That's a fine way to put it, jav6454! And most amusing! :D

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 08:37 PM

Chrysaor

Jan 15, 2010, 08:38 PM

They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

Thats what Apple does. Take an open source project, slap apple license on it that doesn't allow anyone with non-apple computer to use it, put a closed source interface on top of it, barely contribute to open source and sell it for profit.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 08:42 PM

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 08:45 PM

Thats what Apple does. Take an open source project, slap apple license on it that doesn't allow anyone with non-apple computer to use it, put a closed source interface on top of it, barely contribute to open source and sell it for profit.

WRONG

If you actually look at apple's opensource components a vast majority of it is Apples own code/project and even if its not GPL, they still give it back.

http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/

"APSL, more than 100 matches"

Mac Kiwi

Jan 15, 2010, 09:26 PM

Why? They haven't paid their lawyers, so it's not like this is costing them anything.

Surely their lawyers would bail no?.....I mean if they thought they were not getting paid.

Thunderbird

Jan 15, 2010, 09:30 PM

I have come to a conclusion that Psystar is like Herpes... they won't go away. No matter how much you try.

More like Zombies. Psystar is the undead, a zombie company staggering around looking for more flesh to feed off of.

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 09:37 PM

Surely their lawyers would bail no?.....I mean if they thought they were not getting paid.

If I recall correctly, they still owe their first lawyers $80,000, and their most recent lawyers are working on some sort of contingency basis (probably to get some notoriety?)

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 09:56 PM

If I recall correctly, they still owe their first lawyers $80,000, and their most recent lawyers are working on some sort of contingency basis (probably to get some notoriety?)

Yep

LeoNobilis

Jan 15, 2010, 10:07 PM

The reason most enjoy the fruits of Apple's efforts are because they make the operating system AND the hardware. These, subjected to rigorous QA, generally result in very, very reliable machines.

That said, I think the "hardware and software maker" model works much better than what Microsoft has to contend with (OS manufacturer trying to make an OS that runs on a near infinite combination of hardware components).

Psystar, for me, represents the diluting of the Mac OS experience.
G

Pardon, mate, I have to disagree with you here and there. I'll go a little further than just confront you and claim that the Apple's software-and-hardware model doesn't contribute to the reliability of the system. I'll say - and I've not a shadow of a doubt here - that that very model (aided greatly by wide-spread publicity; cult-like regard and fanatical pushing to anyone those obsessive poor Buy-a-Mac hype-zombies encounter) in fact guarantees that the computer briskly becomes unusable (and is, of course, dismissed as the most evident of truths from Apple's list of support-worthy systems) or passes away altogether! Because, you see, the more computers sold, the more money for Apple! If their systems were genuinely reliable (I support my standpoint empirically, by the way), they would last properly long and work properly well throughout much of their life.
Apple has learnt one thing: after buying a Mac and using it for a while, one has to lack taste considerably to buy an ugly computer with both hardware and software designed by a group of brainstorming construction workers! Thus, idiots (like myself) will go and buy another beautiful Macintosh after its 2 or 3 year old once €2.500,- predecessor stops working properly or crashes for life. Why do I, then, persist buying Macs? Because I'd be ashamed to death (and, really, it doesn't matter if I'm ever seen working on that system - I'd just find it very inappropriate, very hideous for me - to own an ugly computer with a vile - that was at least the case before Windows Vista - operating system)! I'm human, and my patience has limits - and I wonder how long I'll effectively carry on fooling myself into overpaying for overly underpowered beauties designed to automatically end with God from within in a preposterously short term!

I'll stop complaining - Steve Jobs would make my ideal listener, but well… Instead, let me conclude with the following notion:
Apple's control over both software and hardware is the exact reason why Macs are not intended to last! That's the capitalist premise (I believe, it's called "The American Dream") Apple executes even better than Micro$oft at the present: to rip customers, overuse natural resources, ideally sell every generation of their computer to every single person in existence, create a global monopoly and become rich ad infinitum! That's what it is, and that's a shame!

oldwatery

Jan 15, 2010, 10:23 PM

PYSTAR go away ...please!

charlituna

Jan 15, 2010, 11:04 PM

Was it ever revealed who Psystar's mysterious corporate backers are? I thought that was supposed to come out as part of the lawsuit.

my secret insider sources (who also showed me the tablet but wiped my mind of all the details) revealed to me who the power behind Psystar is

http://www.crystalinks.com/qstartrek.jpg

No. It. Isn't.

Consumers do not benefit from Psystar's underhanded techniques, because if they were to win, Apple will implement draconian hardware checking, or other measures to ensure that you are only able to run OS X on Apple machines.

uh no.

If Psystar had prevailed, Apple would not be legally able to control the hardware that the OS runs on. in effect they would be forced to allow cloning.

Forcing Apple into supporting more possible configurations, making testing and technical support much harder, eventually resulting in an OS that would be a total mess and Apple unable to provide the level of support they do now (which is rumored to be somewhere between unprofitable and a serious money drain)

They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

depending on one's operating definition, those 'open-source people' are hackers as well. but at least they did their own work and didn't cheat off the kid at the next desk

problems with this...

1/ Psystar obviously thought they would win the court case and they based their business model on that, not 'stealing IP'

yes but the smart move would have been to sue and get the right first. instead of flipping the finger etc.

2/ If Apple had followed the law and not put Nokia's GSM tech BEFORE they had agreed licensing terms in the iPhone then there would be no iPhone.... think that would've hurt them much.?

you so sure that is how things went down.

How do you know, for fact that Apple didn't agree to the standard licensing terms and paid them. If you look at Apple's comments it sounds as though they did and then when the iphone was bigger than anyone expected, Nokia suddenly claimed that 'the same as everyone else' wasn't fair and they should get a cut of the profits. To which Apple said no (and frankly some legal minds say that making that demand violates the laws for licensing). Nokia tried to counter by saying they would drop the demand if Apple would give them free access to certain of the non GSM patents from the iphone but no way was Apple going to do that. So Nokia filed a suit.

BTW there is a german compnay doing a 'psystar' but Apple hasn't gone after them..

why?

No chance they would win in Europe...

so you are also an expert on German copyright etc.

Apple can't apply US laws overseas. they have to determine what rights they have and how to pursue them. Unless you work in Apple's legal department you can't really claim to know that they aren't doing that research with intent to pursue with all allowed vigor.

also the law said that psystar can not use images to install os x so Psystar 2 can start up and install os x by hard on each system and be in the law.

sorry try again.

the laws, as validated by the courts in all the various cases in this matter are that

1. Apple and their computers are part of the personal computing system market and are not a market of their own. As they lack any significant share of the market, the tying of the Mac OS software to those systems designed and created by Apple is totally legal

2. Regardless of the validity of the EULA, numerous copyright laws including the DMCA prohibit any other company from installing Mac OS X on non Apple machines or assisting, via knowledge or technological means, anyone else from installing Mac OS X on non Apple machines

thus no matter how Psystar was installing the software, it was illegal. as was and is the whole Rebel EFI.

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 11:32 PM

http://www.crystalinks.com/qstartrek.jpg

Get it right

http://jc1701.com/peterwilliams_as_apophis_x.jpg

charlituna

Jan 15, 2010, 11:38 PM

I have come to a conclusion that Psystar is like Herpes... they won't go away. No matter how much you try.

sorry man but psystar is nothing like herpes.

you get herpes there's like 10 pills AND a cream

you get a case of psystar and it never goes away. neither does the itching, the burning or the rash.

Get it right

okay Morph. I will see your

http://jc1701.com/peterwilliams_as_apophis_x.jpg

and raise you a

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Jar-Jar-Binks-Poster-Card-C10227315.jpeg

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 11:40 PM

cmaier

Jan 15, 2010, 11:42 PM

thus no matter how Psystar was installing the software, it was illegal. as was and is the whole Rebel EFI.

Indeed. That particular piece of jackassery (using a single copy to install on multiple machines, without even being able to prove they purchased multiple copies) was just another nail in the coffin.

AidenShaw

Jan 15, 2010, 11:43 PM

sorry man but psystar is nothing like herpes.

you get herpes there's like 10 pills AND a cream

you get a case of psystar and it never goes away. neither does the itching, the burning or the rash.

You're not a doctor, and you don't play one on the internet.

If you think that there is a cure for herpes, please enlighten us.

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 11:51 PM

You're not a doctor, and you don't play one on the internet.

If you think that there is a cure for herpes, please enlighten us.

The best hope for you if you have herpes is that you have White Blood Cells and Anti-Bodies on steroids or you become Asymptomatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptomatic

There are anti-bodies for HSV-2 but they are a genetic thing. The immune system itself doesn't know how to illiminate the herpes virus. Gene therapy has been considered but the exact Gene still isn't really known.

MorphingDragon

Jan 15, 2010, 11:58 PM

sorry man but psystar is nothing like herpes.

you get herpes there's like 10 pills AND a cream

you get a case of psystar and it never goes away. neither does the itching, the burning or the rash.

okay Morph. I will see your

and raise you a

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Jar-Jar-Binks-Poster-Card-C10227315.jpeg

Except he isnt evil.

cmaier

Jan 16, 2010, 12:02 AM

Except he isnt evil.

Oh yes, he's evil. Seeing him actually ruined the original movies for me.

r.j.s

Jan 16, 2010, 12:10 AM

uh no.

If Psystar had prevailed, Apple would not be legally able to control the hardware that the OS runs on. in effect they would be forced to allow cloning.

I dont think a judge would have gone that far. They may have ruled that Psystar could install OS X and sell it, because the measures they did have were easily defeated - but not so far as to say that Apple cannot control it.

BUT, that is not the case and Psystar lost, rightfully so.

macnerd93

Jan 16, 2010, 01:45 AM

A world with Pystar is good for consumers.

yeah all 700 of them who actually bought a Psystar product LOL. Face it, there's no market for a mac clone, Apple tried it in the 90s legally it didn't work. All that clones appeal to is a very small majority of hobbyists. I've seen OS X running on PC's its a joke, so many things not working. I find it funny sometimes, when people say ohh everything works perfect like a normal mac accept the sound, enthernet, graphics & system updates LOL. Nothing is EVER quite as good as the real thing.

If the 768 number is true about the actual sales for Psystar, thats pretty poor since they've been open well over 18-19 months. The iMac G3 way back in 1998 when launched most likely sold more in 15 min, than Psystar sold in almost 2 years LOL

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 02:24 AM

Oh yes, he's evil. Seeing him actually ruined the original movies for me.

George likes killing his own creations doesnt he?

Oh yes, he's evil. Seeing him actually ruined the original movies for me.

I actually don't remember starwars that well.

So i raise this,

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/3/3d/DancingHitler.gif

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 02:59 AM

...
They are not hackers. They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.
I keep reading about "stealing" when in fact the APSL allows one to sell software licenses based on Open Source code, just like Apple itself is doing with OS X. Or are you telling me that Apple is stealing Open Source code?

Boot-123 -> Chameleon -> Rebel EFI

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 03:03 AM

I keep reading about "stealing" when in fact the APSL allows one to sell software licenses based on Open Source code, just like Apple itself is doing with OS X. Or are you telling me that Apple is stealing Open Source code?

Boot-123 -> Chameleon -> Rebel EFI

steal |stēl|
verb ( past stole |stōl|; past part. stolen |ˈstōlən|)
1 [ trans. ] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it : thieves stole her bicycle | [ intrans. ] she was found guilty of stealing from her employers | [as adj. ] ( stolen) stolen goods.
• dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own : accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying.
• take the opportunity to give or share (a kiss) when it is not expected or when people are not watching : he was allowed to steal a kiss in the darkness.
• (in various sports) gain (an advantage, a run, or possession of the ball) unexpectedly or by exploiting the temporary distraction of an opponent.
• Baseball (of a base runner) advance safely to (the next base) by running to it as the pitcher begins the delivery : Rickey stole third base.
• attract the most notice in (a scene or a theatrical production) while not being the featured performer : why not be a big ham, and steal as many scenes as possible.
2 [ intrans. ] move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously : he stole down to the kitchen | figurative a delicious languor was stealing over her.
• [ trans. ] direct (a look) quickly and unobtrusively : he stole a furtive glance at her.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 03:11 AM

Please Delete

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 03:14 AM

steal |stēl|
verb ( past stole |stōl|; past part. stolen |ˈstōlən|)
1 [ trans. ] take (another person's property) without permission or legal right...
You don't need any kind of permission because source code covered by the APSL opens all the doors you need. No wonder of course since it is Apple who needs it most.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 03:20 AM

You don't need any kind of permissions because source code covered by the APSL opens all the doors you need. No wonder of course since it is Apple who needs it most.

You fail at realizing that words have more than one meaning in different situations. Read the highlighted meaning.

"dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own"

Collins Dictionary:
"To use somebody else's work without acknowledgement."

I'm sorry but the dictionary clearly disagrees with you.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 03:56 AM

uh no.

If Psystar had prevailed, Apple would not be legally able to control the hardware that the OS runs on. in effect they would be forced to allow cloning.

Forcing Apple into supporting more possible configurations, making testing and technical support much harder, eventually resulting in an OS that would be a total mess and Apple unable to provide the level of support they do now (which is rumored to be somewhere between unprofitable and a serious money drain)

Uh.. no. Psystar's claim was that the provision about installing OS X only on an Apple computer in their EULA was anti-competitive. If the court had ruled in their favor and voided the clauses in the EULA, that wouldn't force Apple to add drivers or support anything else. It just means that the clause in the EULA is voided and Apple wouldn't be able to make you agree to not installing OS X on something other than a Mac.

However, at that point, it would still be possible to tie OS X and Macs through technological means (ie, DRM) like the original poster said and not go against the judgment against them. So yes, a win for Psystar would have meant Activation Schemes, DRM and extra draconian verifications in OS X in order to prevent cloning.

The only difference would be that if you could bypass all those checks, you'd just be breaking the DMCA and not the EULA. In other words, Psystar just couldn't win and neither could the consumer from all this.

I keep reading about "stealing" when in fact the APSL allows one to sell software licenses based on Open Source code, just like Apple itself is doing with OS X. Or are you telling me that Apple is stealing Open Source code?

Boot-123 -> Chameleon -> Rebel EFI

The APSL probably has attribution clauses (I'm not as familiar with that license as I am with the BSD, MIT and GPL licenses), which means that if you distribute a derivative work, you have to maintain the original copyright. Rebel EFI has no copyright notice other than their own and has tried to obfuscate its origins as much as possible.

So they are breaking the APSL, which means they now don't have a license to distribute Rebel EFI. They aren't "stealing" per say but infringing on the copyright of the original author. The APSL is the permission btw, without it, you can't distribute the open source work you are using for your project.

Open Source doesn't mean Public Domain.

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 04:33 AM

You fail at realizing that words have more than one meaning in different situations. Read the highlighted meaning.

"dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own"
What they did was lame, yes, but it does not qualify as "theft" which is what I was replying to. That and the fact that you can sell free (OSS) software, which appears to be news to many people.

Winni

Jan 16, 2010, 04:41 AM

Apple created the operating system. Therefore THEY decide EVERYTHING to do with it. Period.

No, they haven't. The operating system core was created by the FreeBSD foundation, and they've decided to give it away for free to anybody who wants to use it. Apple just customized it and called it "Darwin" and then added a GUI framework on top of it.

But that is besides the point. The point is that common sense alone dictates that an operating system manufacturer cannot be allowed to impose the restrictions on the customer that Apple tries to impose: The choice of hardware on which the customer wants to sue that software, for example.

How would you like it if all movie companies belonging to Sony would tell you that you can only watch their DVDs and BluRays on players with a Sony logo? Just dump your Toshiba, Philips or Matsushita players - you -have- to buy a Sony DVD player if you want to watch a movie from Columbia Tristar or Sony Pictures or whatever else. Really, let me know, how would you like that?

How would you like it if Joanne Rowling told you that you can only read a Harry Potter book in a coffee shop owned by her or her publishers?

Apple tries to do the VERY same thing with OS X. It is proven that their unmodified operating system can run on commodity PC hardware. After all, a Mac is just a regular PC with EFI firmware, and that firmware wasn't invented by Apple either.

There must be limits to which conditions and restrictions a copyright owner can impose on the customer who PAID for the right to use the software.

In the year 2000, Microsoft found out that their OEM and Systembuilder EULAs, which tried to impose similar restrictions on the customer, were illegal by German laws. Since then, customers can officially re-sell bundled Microsoft OEM software or transfer the license to another computer system. Some judges showed common sense here, and they made it very clear in their statement that a copyright owner has limits as to how far he can go.

I cannot wait for the day when Apple sues the German Mac cloner PearC. But apparently, Apple's German legal department has already decided that they cannot win this case, otherwise they would have already shown the bullish behavior Apple is so notorious for.

Feek

Jan 16, 2010, 05:00 AM

I'm bored with this now.

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 05:03 AM

The APSL probably has attribution clauses (I'm not as familiar with that license as I am with the BSD, MIT and GPL licenses), which means that if you distribute a derivative work, you have to maintain the original copyright. Rebel EFI has no copyright notice other than their own and has tried to obfuscate its origins as much as possible.
Listen. We all know that Psystar and Co sucks at best, but speaking about theft here is a step too far. Also, adding a copyright notice does not change the fact that you can sell it, which was a main point for the author of fakeSMC.kext [Netkas] who complained about it (and why I made my post here).

And I guess that the Rebel EFI folks knew that he [Netkas] wasn't going to pursue "his rights", and that was why they walked away with it. I mean it was obvious that he wasn't going to do anything, since he himself could end up in trouble with Apple [hello DMCA]. Which means what? Right! You cannot claim rights for software that is illegal to start with i.e. Apple basically already owns "his rights".

Which begs the question, really: "Who is being dishonest here?".

ratGT

Jan 16, 2010, 05:56 AM

It's obvious that there's something underlying here and it surely smells foul.

How else could you explain the continuation of crawling of this little cockroach,
especially after all this stomping upon it (almost non-existing sales, no further
investors or company-expansion strategies, bad press, lost trials, etc.) :rolleyes:

the vj

Jan 16, 2010, 08:18 AM

Psystar

"A looser is some one who like to loose"

Even it sounds so simple, some people just do not get it. What a geeks fighting for a lost couse.

OllyW

Jan 16, 2010, 08:27 AM

Psystar

"A looser is some one who like to loose"

Even it sounds so simple, some people just do not get it. What a geeks fighting for a lost couse.

Do you mean 'loser' or do you think Psystar are a bit slack or not properly attached? ;)

gerardr

Jan 16, 2010, 08:38 AM

In the early years of mainframe computing, IBM tried to force customers to buy their mainframe in order to get their OS, so that they could eliminate competition from the so-called "plug-compatible mainframes". The US Justice Department pursued this case, and had a long-running consent decree against IBM for anti-competitive practices.

Just because the computer's size has changed, doesn't mean it's a different issue. Just because there are other options, doesn't mean it's not anti-competitive, as there were other computing options back then as well.

There should be no reason for the US to keep retesting and relearning these lessons from the past. If someone creates a "plug-compatible macintosh", then the rules that applied to PCMs 40 years ago should apply to PCMs today.

This is one of the many "neutrality issues" that are coming more to the forefront today:
- The FCC desires "net neutrality" to keep your ISP from favoring their own or favorite (read "promotional payment received") sites, over others (potentially even blocking competitive web sites entirely).
- The FCC is also looking at "cellphone neutrality" to, for example, allow an Apple iPhone to be available in areas where AT&T feels it's unprofitable to build out their network.
- Computer OS neutrality: For a while, Microsoft was being heavily scrutinized for their licensing practices, and in fact signed some form of consent decree with the US Justice Dept. The idea was that an end-user should be able to acquire any computing hardware unencumbered by an OS license. Today, that's disappeared. I should be able to buy any system without an OS in order to run Linux (or MacOS or Windows) on it. Maybe I like Mac/HP hardware, but not MacOS/Windows, and want to run only Windows/MacOS on it ... not possible right now.
- Browser neutrality: Well, we've at least made some progress here, but more in Europe than in the US, I think.

Glideslope

Jan 16, 2010, 08:54 AM

Somebody has deep pockets here. These guys aren't in it alone. It isn't lawyers...where would they get paid from with these guys making T-shirts? Someone's pushing the envelope.

...and anyone that follows this closely knows exactly who they are. Reminds me of the poster from despair.com of the woman being chased by the man with the quote "just give it up, it's over man". :apple:

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 08:57 AM

Do you mean 'loser' or do you think Psystar are a bit slack or not properly attached? ;)

All of his posts are like that.

...and anyone that follows this closely knows exactly who they are.

Elevation Partners. ;)

Bill&Rose

Jan 16, 2010, 09:05 AM

No. It. Isn't.

Consumers do not benefit from Psystar's underhanded techniques, because if they were to win, Apple will implement draconian hardware checking, or other measures to ensure that you are only able to run OS X on Apple machines.

Consumers only benefit from ACTUAL competition, not bottom feeders that just take what they want and try to make a profit from it.

Apple already acts that way, proof, look at how they acted over the Palm device being able to connect to iTunes, Apple allows no one to connect to their iTunes.

Apple would control everything if they could and they seem to want to. What if Toyota told you that you could only put in a Toyota battery in your car? What if their batter was twice the cost of the battery down the street that did the same thing? What if Toyota told you you can only run Mobil gas and that gas was twice the cost as Chevrons gas yet Chevrons gas did the same thing.

Now stop and think a moment, OSX will run on any intel based system, who really is apple to say that I have to use only an Apple based system to run the OS?

I have three Apple computers right now and two Windows based systems.

Apples actions make your argument void.

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 09:21 AM

Apple would control everything if they could and they seem to want to.

So what? When it comes to their OS, sure. And I'm glad they do. Seems to be working out beautifully for the consumer. Witness how the rest of the industry is doing due to *lack* of control. Apple's control over their OS and other aspects of their products is precisely the reason they are so wildly successful and why they are acknowledged as the Gold Standard in nearly every area in which they compete.

Now stop and think a moment, OSX will run on any intel based system, who really is apple to say that I have to use only an Apple based system to run the OS?

The owner of OS X. Who happens to be protected by IP law. If you still don't get it after about a hundred threads on this subject since 2008, there are plenty of resources scattered across the internet.

I have three Apple computers right now and two Windows based systems.

Cool. I have some Apple devices, as well as a few electric shavers I don't really use. I've got a Yamaha generator at the cottage. Works well in the cold. Oh, and I have a GE toaster.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 09:26 AM

No, they haven't. The operating system core was created by the FreeBSD foundation, and they've decided to give it away for free to anybody who wants to use it. Apple just customized it and called it "Darwin" and then added a GUI framework on top of it.

Ignorance is bliss. The "core" (it's called a Kernel btw) was created by Carnegie Mellon University in the 80s and was called Mach. It's a micro-kernel architecture, something very different from whatever the FreeBSD foundation started putting out in 1993. OS X was actually born before FreeBSD, in 1987, when NeXT first released their NeXTSTEP OS. Guess who was behind this ? Steve Jobs.

NeXT did a lot of work on their OS and the kernel is just a fraction of the system. They invented a new type of display engine (display postscript) instead of using the then new and state of the art X protocol and created a big GUI paradigm in the creation of the dock.

Apple has been no slouch either, picking up the fledgling KHTML engine and making it a world class rendering engine for browsers in the form of Webkit, buying up CUPS and paying for its developement and making sure to respect and follow every license under which code it used was distributed under.

To compare Apple's work on OS X and Psystar's is truly a remarkable act of bad faith. Apple followed every license to the letter, took and gave back as much. Psystar and PearC just take.

Seriously, I can't wait for PearC to get sued out of existence so that you will stop posting your ignorant drivel in these threads. You have no clue about Unix and Apple's history and have shown so many times. At least get your facts straight before starting to bash. :rolleyes:

In the early years of mainframe computing, IBM tried to force customers to buy their mainframe in order to get their OS, so that they could eliminate competition from the so-called "plug-compatible mainframes". The US Justice Department pursued this case, and had a long-running consent decree against IBM for anti-competitive practices.

The problem was IBM had a monopoly over mainframe computers at the time. Thus they were in breach of anti-trust laws.

You also ignore the fact that many Unix vendors today still tie their OS to their hardware platform. HP (HP-UX only runs on Integrity and PA-RISC platforms), Sun (sure you can get Solaris for free, but you need Sun hardware to get support), IBM (AIX for POWER ? IBM only hardware please!) and Apple all share the same model of business, vertical integration. There is nothing illegal about tying together 2 related products (the hardware and the software, one cannot exist without the other).

Again, facts people. Use them.

This is one of the many "neutrality issues" that are coming more to the forefront today:

No, it's not. At least not until you can come up with better examples of why it is.

- Net Neutrality : The Internet is not a model of vertical integration. It's not AOL or MSN or any other closed network (that weren't illegal in any way). It's a collaborative effort by thousands of enterprise and individuals. To block some of these out for lack of funds is the destroy the very idea of the Internet. This has nothing to do with OS X at all.
- Cellphones. The FTC isn't trying to create "cellphone neutrality", it's simply doing its job in managing the airwaves used. The FCC isn't trying to block any carriers from entering into exclusivities either.
- MS. Oh please. Anti-trust rules. There's no such thing as OS neutrality. MS had a monopoly over desktop operating systems. It abused it to gain market share in other markets and to prevent competition in desktop operating systems. This is illegal. They got called on it.

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 09:29 AM

Ignorance is bliss. The "core" (it's called a Kernel btw) was created by Carnegie Mellon University in the 80s and was called Mach. It's a micro-kernel architecture, something very different from whatever the FreeBSD foundation started putting out in 1993. OS X was actually born before FreeBSD, in 1987, when NeXT first released their NeXTSTEP OS. Guess who was behind this ? Steve Jobs.

NeXT did a lot of work on their OS and the kernel is just a fraction of the system. They invented a new type of display engine (display postscript) instead of using the then new and state of the art X protocol and created a big GUI paradigm in the creation of the dock.

Apple has been no slouch either, picking up the fledgling KHTML engine and making it a world class rendering engine for browsers in the form of Webkit, buying up CUPS and paying for its developement and making sure to respect and follow every license under which code it used was distributed under.

To compare Apple's work on OS X and Psystar's is truly a remarkable act of bad faith. Apple followed every license to the letter, took and gave back as much. Psystar and PearC just take.

Seriously, I can't wait for PearC to get sued out of existence so that you will stop posting your ignorant drivel in these threads. You have no clue about Unix and Apple's history and have shown so many times. At least get your facts straight before starting to bash. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Apple contributed an enormous amount of code back into FreeBSD. FreeBSD wouldn't be where it is today without Apple.

Bill&Rose

Jan 16, 2010, 09:56 AM

Bill&Rose

Jan 16, 2010, 10:03 AM

- MS. Oh please. Anti-trust rules. There's no such thing as OS neutrality. MS had a monopoly over desktop operating systems. It abused it to gain market share in other markets and to prevent competition in desktop operating systems. This is illegal. They got called on it.

Talk about calling the kettle black, is what Apple doing anything different? In fact what Apple is doing is even worse then what Microsoft did, at least Microsoft's OS ran on any computer.

Apple is a true monopoly with their desktop operating system. If not for Microsoft there would be no Apple today, it was Microsoft's money that saved Apple.

If you want to run Windows you have many options, but if you want to run OSX you have only one option.

Now tell me again who is acting like a monopoly.

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 10:06 AM

If you want to run Windows you have many options, but if you want to run OSX you have only one option.

LOL, who gives a sweet damn that you can run Windows on any hardware? Certainly not consumers - that is, the consumers that continue to hand Apple record Mac sales, quarter after quarter. Expect another record-breaker for this quarter as well.

Your arguments don't reflect reality.

If not for Microsoft there would be no Apple today, it was Microsoft's money that saved Apple.

You mean that settlement deal where Apple had MS over a legal barrel for stealing Quicktime code and MS thought it best to quit before they were going to lose their cases with Apple over other patent claims? You mean that?

Apple played MS like a violin. It was beautiful. Only Apple can make legitimized extortion look so good. ;)

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 10:14 AM

Talk about calling the kettle black, is what Apple doing anything different?

Yes, it is.

In fact what Apple is doing is even worse then what Microsoft did

Only for a very strange definition of worse.

at least Microsoft's OS ran on any computer.

Apple is a true monopoly with their desktop operating system.

You need to read up on what a monopoly is. You can't have a monopoly on your own product. McDonald's doesn't have a monopoly over Bigmacs.

Monopolies are on markets and market segments. Operating systems is a segment. OS X, Windows, Ubuntu are products.

When you have a monopoly, you play by different rules. Apple is a niche player with low market share, thus they can proceed to do things that Microsoft can't being in a monopoly position.

If not for Microsoft there would be no Apple today, it was Microsoft's money that saved Apple.

It's especially ironic that you would say this because Apple at the time was dying because it was being open with MacOS and letting clone makers make Apple clones. So basically, you fault Apple for not allowing clones, but then you remind everyone that doing so almost killed them.

Wow. Seriously. You did this on purpose right ?

Now tell me again who is acting like a monopoly.

That one is easy, Microsoft.

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 10:24 AM

Apple could put a turd in a hotdog bun and most of you Apple fan boys would say it was the best hotdog ever.

I hope Nokia gets their injunction against Apple and shuts down Apples ability to import their product, that seems to be the only thing that is going to wake Apple up.

Apple is acting far worse then IBM ever did and is that not what Steve Jobs claimed he was against?

Jobs is disingenuous at best. I came over to Apple with an open mind, but Apples core groupies really turn a lot of people off to Apple.

Disingenuous?? What?

You want to talk about lies, predatory practices, and downright contempt for the legal process? Look no further than Micro$oft. Yes, the dollar sign was deliberate. IBM was never as bad as M$.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

The trial started on May 18, 1998 with the U.S. Justice Department and the Attorneys General of twenty U.S. states suing Microsoft for illegally thwarting competition in order to protect and extend its software monopoly. Later, in October the US Justice Department also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software. During the antitrust case it was revealed that Microsoft had threatened PC manufacturers with revoking their license to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the initial desktop, something that Netscape had requested of its licensees.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by a source present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition.[2] He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we".[3] BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received."[4] Intel Vice-President Steven McGeady, called as a witness, quoted Paul Maritz, a senior Microsoft vice president as having stated an intention to "extinguish" and "smother" rival Netscape Communications Corporation and to "cut off Netscape's air supply" by giving away a clone of Netscape's flagship product for free. The Microsoft executive denied the allegations.[5]

A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. In the videotaped demonstration of what Microsoft vice president James Allchin's stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified.[6] Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff "They ended up filming it -- grabbing the wrong screen shot," he said of the incident. Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed. Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production."[7] Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first. The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC. Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop. The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it. Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified.[8]

The only thing Apple has a monopoly on is compliments.

BaldiMac

Jan 16, 2010, 10:27 AM

How would you like it if all movie companies belonging to Sony would tell you that you can only watch their DVDs and BluRays on players with a Sony logo? Just dump your Toshiba, Philips or Matsushita players - you -have- to buy a Sony DVD player if you want to watch a movie from Columbia Tristar or Sony Pictures or whatever else. Really, let me know, how would you like that?

Ironic example. Effectively, you can only watch Sony Blu-ray discs on players with a Sony logo. Regardless, of who manufactures the player, they all pay royalties to Sony.

Apple tries to do the VERY same thing with OS X. It is proven that their unmodified operating system can run on commodity PC hardware. After all, a Mac is just a regular PC with EFI firmware, and that firmware wasn't invented by Apple either.

No, a Mac is a PC manufactured by Apple. EFI has nothing to do with it.

But apparently, Apple's German legal department has already decided that they cannot win this case, otherwise they would have already shown the bullish behavior Apple is so notorious for.

Wow. That's a fairly huge jump in logic.

Germany must have an RDF to rival that of Steve Jobs. All of these software companies selling billions of dollars of software in Germany, and almost none of them realize that the license agreements are not binding in that country.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 10:31 AM

Ironic example. Effectively, you can only watch Sony Blu-ray discs on players with a Sony logo. Regardless, of who manufactures the player, they all pay royalties to Sony.

Actually, royalties are paid to the Blu-Ray consortium. Blu-ray is a design by committee, with Sony occupying a large part of said committee. Like DVD before it, which was not a Sony exclusive either.

Formats are not products though, so the analogy is flawed.

BaldiMac

Jan 16, 2010, 10:51 AM

Apple tries to do the VERY same thing with OS X. It is proven that their unmodified operating system can run on commodity PC hardware. After all, a Mac is just a regular PC with EFI firmware, and that firmware wasn't invented by Apple either.

Also, it was proven in a court of law that an unmodified copy of OS X cannot run on commodity PC hardware. Replacing Apple's bootloader and kernel extensions were ruled to be modifications of OS X that result in a derivative work.

ju5tin81

Jan 16, 2010, 11:00 AM

ffs :rolleyes:

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 01:31 PM

What a stupid analogy, I have to say...unless you work for Foxman's ADL, of course.
Right. A stupid analogy. Just like your: "HACKERS = CRIMINALS = THIEVES" which is just as flaky (at best) [and that is why I used it].

We Open Source developers call our selfs "Hackers" too, which makes us what? Thieves? Thank you very much.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 01:46 PM

We Open Source developers call our selfs "Hackers" too, which makes us what? Thieves? Thank you very much.

He's using Hackers to describe what open source and old Unix types refer to as crackers. Of course, it's over, we lost. Hacker doesn't mean what it used to mean, and it has now replaced cracker.

You trying to insinuate hackers aren't what he says they are only shows that you are out of touch with the modern use of the word (who knew a word could change meaning in only 30 or so years...).

cmaier

Jan 16, 2010, 01:49 PM

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 02:17 PM

I blame War Games.

Ahh, those were the days. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/trivia

WarGames trivia:

Graphics on the large NORAD war room screens were rendered in advance by an HP 9845C desktop computer running BASIC. In 1982 the 9845C was comprised of a base with built-in keyboard and a 14" color monitor that mounted on top. Cost of a 9845C was about $90,000 (inflation-adjusted) and the entire "desktop" computer weighed about 100 pounds. The computer's resolution was not good enough to project on a large screen or to be filmed from directly, so a high-resolution monochromatic display was connected. The images were filmed from the display, one frame at a time, one color at a time, using filters for red, green, and blue. The process took about 1 minute per frame of film.

http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=149

HP 9845:

Name: 9845
Product Number: 9845
Introduced: 1977
Division: Calculator Products :D
Price: $11500 :eek:
Catalogue Reference: 1978, page 583

The 9845 was HP's high-end technical desktop computer of the 1970s until the introduction of the 200 Series in 1981. The 9845 was the first HP computer to incorporate a twelve-inch CRT screen. Previous computers had only one or three line screens. The large monitor of the 9845 made program debugging and program listing much more convenient. It also provided (optional) graphics display for the first time, with a resolution of 560 x 455 dots. The 9845A came standard with a built-in mini-cartridge tape drive (217K capacity). A second tape drive was optional as was a built-in thermal printer (80 characters wide, 480 lines per minute and graphics capable).

The 9845A shipped with 13K RAM standard, expandable to 62K. The computer came standard with four I/O slots and used the same interfaces as the 9825. The 9845S came standard with the additional tape drive, printer and graphics package. The 9845B replaced the 9845A in 1979. It came standard with 56K RAM, expandable to 449K. The 9845T also arrived in 1979. It came standard with 186K RAM and included the optional printer, both tape drives and the graphics package. The 9845C was introduced in 1980. It was the first computer from HP with a color screen. The 13-inch screen could display 4,913 colors. It also included both tape drives, the internal printer and a light pen. The monitor for both the 9845C and 9845T had eight programmable function keys. Click here to see this original green screen drawing the SINX/X function (file size 1.5 Mb):

http://www.hpmuseum.net/upload_htmlFile/Web9845SinX.mpg

The 9845 was HP's number one revenue producing product in fiscal year 1980.In the previous two years since its introduction, the 9845 had also been one of the company's top five products.

Introduction of the 200 Series computers in 1981 affected sales of the 9845. The 9845C was discontinued in April of 1984. The remaining 9845 models were obsoleted in May of 1985.

In short: it won't run Crysis.

localoid

Jan 16, 2010, 02:36 PM

He's using Hackers to describe what open source and old Unix types refer to as crackers. Of course, it's over, we lost. Hacker doesn't mean what it used to mean, and it has now replaced cracker.

You trying to insinuate hackers aren't what he says they are only shows that you are out of touch with the modern use of the word (who knew a word could change meaning in only 30 or so years...).

Umm, no... he's "not out of touch." At least not according to Merrian-Websters (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker) which places the hacker=cracker interruption in 4th place:

Main Entry: hack·er
Pronunciation: \ˈha-kər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 03:05 PM

Umm, no... he's "not out of touch." At least not according to Merrian-Websters (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker) which places the hacker=cracker interruption in 4th place:

Main Entry: hack·er
Pronunciation: \ˈha-kər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

I'd even turn to Wikipedia way before I'd turn to a copy of the Merriam-Webster. The REAL English language is in the OED, anyway. If you want to learn about how the term "hacker" is used in popular culture, turning to a dictionary is not your best course of action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)#cite_note-crackdown-0

In common usage, a hacker is a person who breaks into computers, usually by gaining access to administrative controls.[1]

1. ^ a b Sterling, Bruce. "Part 2(d)". The Hacker Crackdown. McLean, Virginia: IndyPublish.com. p. 61. ISBN 1-4043-0641-2.

The subculture that has evolved around hackers is often referred to as the computer underground. Proponents claim to be motivated by artistic and political ends, and are often unconcerned about the use of illegal means to achieve them.[2]

2. ^ Blomquist, Brian (May 29, 1999). "FBI's Web Site Socked as Hackers Target Feds". New York Post. Retrieved on October 21, 2008.

Other uses of the word hacker exist that are not related to computer security (computer programmer and home computer hobbyists), but these are rarely used by the mainstream media. Some would argue that the people that are now considered hackers are not hackers, as before the media described the person who breaks into computers as a hacker there was a hacker community. This community was a community of people who had a large interest in computer programming, often creating open source software. These people now refer to the cyber-criminal hackers as "crackers".

Better yet, all you have to do is glance at the news:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9538/hack1w.png

localoid

Jan 16, 2010, 03:20 PM

I'd even turn to Wikipedia way before I'd turn to a copy of the Merriam-Webster. The REAL English language is in the OED, anyway. If you want to learn about how the term "hacker" is used in popular culture, turning to a dictionary is not your best course of action.

The language of "popular culture" often spells "no one" as "noone"...

So thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with a credible authority, such as Merriam-Webster, vs. your "street wise" opinion on the subject based purely on your (limited) personal experience.

In regards to your Wikipedia reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)#cite_note-crackdown-0):

It helps if you read the entire article rather than simply cherry-picking small sections that support your opinion. Quoting a section of the article you missed (or chose to ignore):

Other uses of the word hacker exist that are not related to computer security (computer programmer and home computer hobbyists), but these are rarely used by the mainstream media. Some would argue that the people that are now considered hackers are not hackers, as before the media described the person who breaks into computers as a hacker there was a hacker community. This community was a community of people who had a large interest in computer programming, often creating open source software. These people now refer to the cyber-criminal hackers as "crackers".

hachre

Jan 16, 2010, 03:29 PM

I hope Psystar wins.

cmaier

Jan 16, 2010, 03:35 PM

I hope Psystar wins.

The court of appeals won't even accept the appeal since there's no basis for it.

hachre

Jan 16, 2010, 03:37 PM

The court of appeals won't even accept the appeal since there's no basis for it.

You are a lawyer?

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 03:38 PM

It helps if you read the entire article rather than simply cherry-picking small sections that support your opinion. Quoting a section of the article you missed (or chose to ignore):

Other uses of the word hacker exist that are not related to computer security (computer programmer and home computer hobbyists), but these are rarely used by the mainstream media. Some would argue that the people that are now considered hackers are not hackers, as before the media described the person who breaks into computers as a hacker there was a hacker community. This community was a community of people who had a large interest in computer programming, often creating open source software. These people now refer to the cyber-criminal hackers as "crackers".

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, for your pleasure and edification:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9538/hack1w.png

More:

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=hacker&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=HDRSS5PXMdGylAftvqC9Cg&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQsQQwAA

I know all the Open Source folks would just love everyone to be nice and equate "hacker" with sugar and spice and everything to do with "smart guys who know how to program computers and solve problems" etc., but it just isn't happening. So sorry. And you know who ruined the word? Hackers.

hachre

Jan 16, 2010, 03:41 PM

You are a lawyer?

Never mind, I just read your profile.

localoid

Jan 16, 2010, 03:59 PM

I know all the Open Source folks would just love everyone to do the politically correct thing and equate "hacker" with sugar and spice and everything to do with "smart guys who know how to program computers and solve problems" etc., but it just isn't happening. So sorry.

The people who use use "copywrite" rather than "copyright" would likely agree with you. They'd also argue "it's close enough" or say "well, you know what I mean"...

Personally, I believe that the use of precise language is critical in intelligent debate. In case you haven't noticed, "mainstream media" rarely engages in that level of discourse...

Why not choose one's words carefully, in an effort to avoid misunderstanding and confusion? You seem to be arguing the opposite...

hachre

Jan 16, 2010, 04:01 PM

Just because the dumb majority of people are misusing a term it doesn't make it right.

hachre

Jan 16, 2010, 04:04 PM

Just because the dumb majority of people are misusing a term it doesn't make it right.

And yes, the popular media can be counted into the same group.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 04:11 PM

And you know who ruined the word? Hackers.

So the general public are now hackers? Are you seriously trying to equate hacking to public stupidity?

Dude there is such a thing as a good hacker. They develop firewalls, anti-credit card fraud and other such things. I'm sorry LTD thats just empty headed of you. My old computing teacher, she's a hacker. She used to work for the Police developing firewalls to stop chinese hackers. Now she's a teacher.

The damned evil "Datamining" professors at Universities use their time to research security algorithms.

Glideslope

Jan 16, 2010, 04:14 PM

Well, all I can say is that we need a BIG GROUP HUG in here.

"arms reaching out" :apple:

r.j.s

Jan 16, 2010, 04:14 PM

Apple already acts that way, proof, look at how they acted over the Palm device being able to connect to iTunes, Apple allows no one to connect to their iTunes.

Actually ... Apple does allow anyone to sync with iTunes, they just have to do it the right way, using the xml files. Palm tried to pose as an iPod and sync, which is abuse of their USB license.

Check your facts next time.

*LTD*

Jan 16, 2010, 04:26 PM

So the general public are now hackers? Are you seriously trying to equate hacking to public stupidity?

Dude there is such a thing as a good hacker. They develop firewalls, anti-credit card fraud and other such things. I'm sorry LTD thats just empty headed of you. My old computing teacher, she's a hacker. She used to work for the Police developing firewalls to stop chinese hackers. Now she's a teacher.

The damned evil "Datamining" professors at Universities use their time to research security algorithms.

Yes, there are good hackers, with the misfortune of having labelled themselves with that term. Oh well. Them's the breaks. Hopefully the public will catch on. I believe your teacher would prefer the term "security consultant" more than anything else. Ask her. "Hacker" is still a pejorative, any way you slice it.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 04:30 PM

Umm, no... he's "not out of touch." At least not according to Merrian-Websters (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hacker) which places the hacker=cracker interruption in 4th place:

Main Entry: hack·er
Pronunciation: \ˈha-kər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

The fact that a dictionary added the 4th definition which is now the accepted one in the public view makes what I said more true. The word doesn't mean an expert at programming anymore. People who use it in that sense when talking about computers is just going to introduce confusion.

I bet it'll take sometime before the Mirriam webster removes that 3rd definition, but they eventually will. Of course, dictionaries tend to be a bit conservative about language evolution.

The people who use use "copywrite" rather than "copyright" would likely agree with you. They'd also argue "it's close enough" or say "well, you know what I mean"...

Why not choose one's words carefully, in an effort to avoid misunderstanding and confusion? You seem to be arguing the opposite...

You do understand that you're making opposite arguments here. "The people who use copywrite and say well, you know what I mean" like you say are popular culture.

And if you want to avoid confusion, you need to bend over to these people, because unfortunately, they are the ones that have evolved the language and you will be the one to introduce confusion if you try to stick to old ways.

So the general public are now hackers? Are you seriously trying to equate hacking to public stupidity?

Dude there is such a thing as a good hacker. They develop firewalls, anti-credit card fraud and other such things. I'm sorry LTD thats just empty headed of you. My old computing teacher, she's a hacker. She used to work for the Police developing firewalls to stop chinese hackers. Now she's a teacher.

The damned evil "Datamining" professors at Universities use their time to research security algorithms.

See, even you are confused. What you're describing isn't hackers, they are crackers by the proper terms. You're alluding to white hats vs grey hats vs black hats, pointing out your professor as a white hat.

Hackers in the old definition, the 3rd one pointed by localoid are people that develop OS kernels, GUIs, media players, firewalls, computer games, bittorrent clients, file manipulation utilities, etc... It wasn't necessarily tied to computer security. In fact, quite the opposite, hackers had nothing to do with computer security going by that definition.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 04:37 PM

Yes, there are good hackers, with the misfortune of having labelled themselves with that term. Oh well. Them's the breaks. Hopefully the public will catch on. I believe your teacher would prefer the term "security consultant" more than anything else. Ask her. "Hacker" is still a pejorative, any way you slice it.

I say, for the pleasure of living in this country, you must be able to give the meaning of 100 random words. Screw the PC Bull.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 04:44 PM

What they did was lame, yes, but it does not qualify as "theft" which is what I was replying to. That and the fact that you can sell free (OSS) software, which appears to be news to many people.

OMG

Theft

"The act or crime of stealing. See Steal"

localoid

Jan 16, 2010, 04:44 PM

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 04:48 PM

We might as be arguing that "Jack is always disruptive" is a true statement even though any reasonable minded person would agree that it's impossible for Jack to always be disruptive.

Again, precise language fosters intelligent debate.

Sure, but what are going to do, revert to Ye Olde English ? Language has evolved, and unfortunately for people stuck in the old ways, they just sound like elite snobs when they refuse to evolve along with it.

You could've just added people that say "I could care less", when it's obvious they wanted to say "I couldn't care less".

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 04:50 PM

No, they haven't. The operating system core was created by the FreeBSD foundation, and they've decided to give it away for free to anybody who wants to use it. Apple just customized it and called it "Darwin" and then added a GUI framework on top of it.

OMFG Winni, do your research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP

Sure, but what are going to do, revert to Ye Olde English ? Language has evolved, and unfortunately for people stuck in the old ways, they just sound like elite snobs when they refuse to evolve along with it.

You could've just added people that say "I could care less", when it's obvious they wanted to say "I couldn't care less".

The trick is to learn when to use slang and when not too.

IMO, I generally follow the Collins Dictionary.

nick9191

Jan 16, 2010, 05:02 PM

Why can't they just give up? Even despite the alleged illegality, they sold less than a 1000 units, they estimated they would sell hundreds of thousands. No one wants their junk, they want the real McCoy.

localoid

Jan 16, 2010, 05:04 PM

Sure, but what are going to do, revert to Ye Olde English ? Language has evolved, and unfortunately for people stuck in the old ways, they just sound like elite snobs when they refuse to evolve along with it.

You could've just added people that say "I could care less", when it's obvious they wanted to say "I couldn't care less".

Um, you haven't established "refusal to evolve" as fact. That's merely your opinion regarding future events.

This "debate" is beginning to remind me of the "fanboy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=847475)" thread... Is it that difficult for some here to avoid using words as pejoratives, and by doing so avoid statements and remarks that some consider might consider to be inflammatory or offensive?

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 05:45 PM

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 05:52 PM

Um, you haven't established "refusal to evolve" as fact. That's merely your opinion regarding future events.

Except it's not my opinion regarding future events, it's my observation of current events. Hacker as skilled computer programmer is dead and buried. Only skilled computer programmers in certain circles still use it that way.

The general public and media have voted and unfortunately, they are the majority. "They could care less" what you think.

In all of this, you've never stopped to wonder why I know the proper usage of the word but still argued for its new usage ? I've been through that phase already. I have accepted that it doesn't mean what I taught it meant anymore.

Master Chief

Jan 16, 2010, 06:00 PM

Except it's not my opinion regarding future events, it's my observation of current events. Hacker as skilled computer programmer is dead and buried. Only skilled computer programmers in certain circles still use it that way.

The general public and media have voted and unfortunately, they are the majority. "They could care less" what you think.

In all of this, you've never stopped to wonder why I know the proper usage of the word but still argued for its new usage ? I've been through that phase already. I have accepted that it doesn't mean what I taught it meant anymore.
That's because too many people keep quiet. Like the slowly "evolving" privacy rules... which appears to be next. Just a matter of time, and you write: "The majority has spoken". Which doesn't make it acceptable to me. Luckily not.

KnightWRX

Jan 16, 2010, 06:07 PM

That's because too many people keep quiet. Like the slowly "evolving" privacy rules... which appears to be next. Just a matter of time, and you write: "The majority has spoken". Which doesn't make it acceptable to me. Luckily not.

There's about 3 levels of difference between evolving languages (which is a natural part of life) and erosion of privacy rights. There are some things that should be denounced. Others you just need to accept and move on.

Hacker/cracker is something people need to accept and move on. Erosion of privacy rights should be strongly denounced and opposed.

Stately

Jan 16, 2010, 08:41 PM

Appeal what, their request to steal ?!?!

marksman

Jan 16, 2010, 09:03 PM

Stately

Jan 16, 2010, 09:04 PM

If not for Microsoft there would be no Apple today, it was Microsoft's money that saved Apple.

If you want to run Windows you have many options, but if you want to run OSX you have only one option.

If all it took was money to run a business that would make consumers happy with a product, Microsoft wouldn't need to try to copy Mac OS, they wouldn't need to copy our store layout, our sayings, our employee style of dress along with fake happy dances to copy the joy and uniqueness in Apple employee expression when people were on line for the iphone for the first time and they were clapping and cheering, or when you go to the store, the smiles and cordiality because people are usually happy to work there.
Calling people fanboys is inaccurate. Loyalist is more like it and it's because the products work and they work well. Few companies can claim such things nowadays. Many companies are out for the buck and if you do find a truly good product, it usually costs an arm and a leg.
In reference to running windows and having many options as opposed to our one option, what option would you be referring to? A computer that works and never has any real problems for at least 3 years after purchase, can be worked on and fixed inside of a week if problems do occur, and a vast array of native software, that no other companies can even fathom, let alone touch. We have a complete nice neat solution. Thank you for stopping by, I suggest you truly try Apple out to see what it is they offer and if it could accommodate you before jumping on the haterboy bandwagon.

cmaier

Jan 16, 2010, 09:08 PM

If all it took was money to run a business that would make consumers happy with a product, Microsoft wouldn't need to try to copy Mac OS, they wouldn't need to copy our store layout, our sayings, our employee style of dress along with fake happy dances to copy the joy and uniqueness in Apple employee expression when people were on line for the iphone for the first time and they were clapping and cheering, or when you go to the store, the smiles and cordiality because people are usually happy to work there.
Calling people fanboys is inaccurate. Loyalist is more like it and it's because the products work and they work well. Few companies can claim such things nowadays. Many companies are out for the buck and if you do find a truly good product, it usually costs an arm and a leg.
In reference to running windows and having many options as opposed to our one option, what option would you be referring to? A computer that works and never has any real problems for at least 3 years after purchase, can be worked on and fixed inside of a week if problems do occur, and a vast array of native software, that no other companies can even fathom, let alone touch. We have a complete nice neat solution. Thank you for stopping by, I suggest you truly try Apple out to see what it is they offer and if it could accommodate you before jumping on the haterboy bandwagon.

That's the least of the problems with that logic. If Microsoft wasn't there, Apple wouldn't have to compete against its own stolen technology. If Microsoft hadn't stolen quicktime, they wouldn't have paid the money to Apple. etc.

Stately

Jan 16, 2010, 09:12 PM

Sony could do that if they wanted to, for sure. There are historical attempts by companies to capture such markets on both ends with their own equipment. Sony could create a new specification for carrying media that they would not license for anyone else to use and could be the only ones to make machines to watch it.

They choose not to do it, because they would be competing against others who are sharing a specification and providing choice to the consumer, which means the other side wins.

Ever heard of beta vs vhs?

Besides that, lay people to Apple somehow forget that there's a host of things that don't run on our systems either. If you have a Sony, HP, Dell etc . . you get your music for instance, somewhere online. Apple has their own store, so what? It's more about innovation, not necessarily cornering a market. People are seeing it as a cornering of a market because no one has ever stuck it to the music industry the way Apple has. It makes it more difficult for them to exercise their greedy tactics and steal money from people that buy the music and the artists that work really hard to create it.

That's the least of the problems with that logic. If Microsoft wasn't there, Apple wouldn't have to compete against its own stolen technology. If Microsoft hadn't stolen quicktime, they wouldn't have paid the money to Apple. etc.

It's pretty disgusting to say the least. Whenever a true innovator or someone with true talent comes along, so many try to take from and or jump on the bandwagon.

MorphingDragon

Jan 16, 2010, 09:54 PM

It's pretty disgusting to say the least. Whenever a true innovator or someone with true talent comes along, so many try to take from and or jump on the bandwagon.

Bandwagons themselves arent that bad.

HyperX13

Jan 16, 2010, 10:32 PM

Go psystar!!!!

hachre

Jan 17, 2010, 01:57 AM

Hacker/cracker is something people need to accept and move on. Erosion of privacy rights should be strongly denounced and opposed.

And why should I accept changes in language introduced through it's misuse by a majority of people who can't even speak it right? Because you say so?

KnightWRX

Jan 17, 2010, 08:31 AM

And why should I accept changes in language introduced through it's misuse by a majority of people who can't even speak it right? Because you say so?

Because it's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a spoon. Languages change and evolve over time. That is a fact. Most of it is through misuse or popular culture. Again, you want to revert to Ye Olde English ?

You go on fighting it. Waste energy all you want. Me I'm just going to move on. It's just a word.

hachre

Jan 17, 2010, 09:03 AM

Because it's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a spoon. Languages change and evolve over time. That is a fact. Most of it is through misuse or popular culture. Again, you want to revert to Ye Olde English ?

You go on fighting it. Waste energy all you want. Me I'm just going to move on. It's just a word.

There's a difference between making things easier and more direct and changing their meaning because the general population is uneducated.

If we follow your logic we will be at "ugga ugga" as our primary language in a few hundred years.

KnightWRX

Jan 17, 2010, 09:08 AM

There's a difference between making things easier and more direct and changing their meaning because the general population is uneducated.

If we follow your logic we will be at "ugga ugga" as our primary language in a few hundred years.

Except that uneducated use of certain words is how the language has evolved over hundreds of years and we aren't at "ugga ugga". Your contempt for the masses betrays a sort of elitism on your part. Not to mention that education is now widespread vs what it was for the biggest part of our history.

Again, go on fighting it if you wish. I like seeing people getting all red in the face, trying to insist it's everybody else who's wrong and only they are right. Tidal wave with a spoon.

hachre

Jan 17, 2010, 09:16 AM

Except that uneducated use of certain words is how the language has evolved over hundreds of years and we aren't at "ugga ugga". Your contempt for the masses betrays a sort of elitism on your part. Not to mention that education is now widespread vs what it was for the biggest part of our history.

Our evolution has been slow as a snail for the past thousands of years. Only in the last few decades the speed has gone up rapidly.

It's not up for debate whether the masses are stupid or not. More than 70% of the earths population are almost completely uneducated.

Even in modern western countries there is a percentage of around 5% of people who can't read and write. A far bigger percentage is uneducated about the past and therefore is bound to make the same mistakes again others have done in the past. I won't even start with topics like geography, politics, or anything related to stuff happening outside your own country.

Again, go on fighting it if you wish. I like seeing people getting all red in the face, trying to insist it's everybody else who's wrong and only they are right. Tidal wave with a spoon.

I'm not fighting, just stating my opinion - just like you are. None of us are going to win because we both can't see the future.

*LTD*

Jan 17, 2010, 10:39 AM

In any case, I still cringe when I hear "irregardless."

cmaier

Jan 17, 2010, 02:31 PM

I'll just write it.. ****** Aple, can't compete in business so it shut down pystar with a lawsuit.

Let's say you sold bread for a living. Someone breaks into your bakery, steals a bunch of loaves, and sells them at half what you charge. Are they "competing" with you?

Or what if you paint houses. You paint a house, and on the last day, before you can get your check, someone else shows up and collects the money. Did that guy "compete" with you?

Or what about if you ran a cable company. Someone rents a bunch of your cable boxes, sticks them in a building, and re-broadcasts all your stuff to thousands of people at a cost less than you charge. "Competing" with you?

Because that's exactly what Psystar is doing.

If Psystar wants to compete then they should go write their own g---d-mned operating system.

azurehi

Jan 17, 2010, 02:38 PM

Linux = Choice and Freedom

twilson

Jan 17, 2010, 05:36 PM

And as for EULAs, I can't remember the last time I actually read one. Most people I think are like me, you scroll to the bottom or just click through. It's because we really don't care for them and if we did actually read them and think they were enforceable, we wouldn't buy the products.

The fact that read isn't important. You scroll down, and you click "I Accept", so you have agreed to the terms of the contract. Same goes for mobile phone contracts. People hardly ever read them, they just sign them (I know I do), they are still legally binding contracts.

MorphingDragon

Jan 17, 2010, 05:49 PM

If we follow your logic we will be at "ugga ugga" as our primary language in a few hundred years.

Text language isn't already Ugga Ugga? Some people already use it in speech and it just pisses everybody off in the conversation.

ChazUK

Jan 17, 2010, 05:59 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.6; en-us; Archos5 Build/Donut) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

And as for EULAs, I can't remember the last time I actually read one. Most people I think are like me, you scroll to the bottom or just click through. It's because we really don't care for them and if we did actually read them and think they were enforceable, we wouldn't buy the products.

The fact that read isn't important. You scroll down, and you click "I Accept", so you have agreed to the terms of the contract. Same goes for mobile phone contracts. People hardly ever read them, they just sign them (I know I do), they are still legally binding contracts.

I wonder if this would stand up in court: http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay006.htm

It may be a solution. :)

cmaier

Jan 17, 2010, 06:14 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.6; en-us; Archos5 Build/Donut) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

I wonder if this would stand up in court: http://www.ohesso.com/essays/essay006.htm

It may be a solution. :)

Not in the U.S. or U.K., it wouldn't.

*LTD*

Jan 17, 2010, 08:23 PM

I'll just write it.. ****** Aple, can't compete in business so it shut down pystar with a lawsuit.

Selling 768 units in nearly two years isn't competing. It's failing.

There's no market for Psystar's junk. And now it's just a sad circus act.

MorphingDragon

Jan 17, 2010, 08:46 PM

Selling 768 units in nearly two years isn't competing. It's failing.

There's no market for Psystar's junk. And now it's just a sad circus act.

1024x768 :D

AidenShaw

Jan 17, 2010, 08:53 PM

Because it's like trying to hold back a tidal wave with a spoon. Languages change and
evolve over time. That is a fact. Most of it is through misuse or popular culture. Again, you want to revert
to Ye Olde English ?

Nowhere is this more obvious than in areas where a language has been geographically isolated from the parent
tongue. Over just a few centuries it can evolve into a unique branch (either a dialect or distinct language).

Some examples:

Québécois - based on what we now call Old French spoken by the New World French settlers in Canada - sounds
to modern French speakers similar to how Elizabethan English would sound to us (but spoken with an
odd English-like accent).
Catalan - based on Vulgar Latin and Old French, official language in Catalunya and some surrounding areas.
Romansch - another language based on Vulgar Latin, predominate in some isolated mountain valleys in Switzerland
English/French/German/Spanish/Italian/Swedish/Norwegian/Dutch/... - many common roots, as well as frequent cross-pollination

Consistency in language is a peculiar byproduct of modern instant global communication. Historically, languages
that immigrants (or conquerors) bring to a region evolve naturally so that a few hundred years later the language may be quite different.

Look at how the television anchors from the midwest, speaking a "neutral American English", have established the "standard
American English" accent. (The uproar over the comment that Obama normally speaks midwestern American rather than an ethnic patois a case in point.)

Having lived/traveled in France for about a decade, I experienced firsthand how limited my "Parisian French" training really was....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Langues_de_la_France1.gif (click to enlarge) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France

gary taylor

Jan 19, 2010, 01:36 AM

it's all about the money.

pdjudd

Jan 19, 2010, 08:52 AM

it's all about the money.
I severely doubt it - Psystar has already gone through bankruptcy once and they have huge ammounts of hedbt already - not to mention their settlement with Apple that they owe. Apple has already conceded that they are unlikely to get anything from Psystar with whom they already have a permanent restraining order on.

Who exactly is getting any money from this?

charlituna

Jan 19, 2010, 06:31 PM

I dont think a judge would have gone that far. They may have ruled that Psystar could install OS X and sell it, because the measures they did have were easily defeated - but not so far as to say that Apple cannot control it.

saying who can and can't install a particular software IS saying who controls it. Particularly in the case of Apple since their vote is NO to everyone.

George likes killing his own creations doesnt he?

I actually don't remember starwars that well.

best commentary i've heard in a while

"In Empire, Luke found out Vader was his father, but instead of putting away his lightsaber and talking about it, he overreacted and got his hand cut off. I mean, they worked it out eventually, but at what cost? Another Death Star was destroyed, Boba Fett got eaten by the Sarlacc, and we got the Ewoks. It all could've been avoided if they'd just, you know, communicated. And let's face it. The Ewoks sucked, dude."

Now stop and think a moment, OSX will run on any intel based system, who really is apple to say that I have to use only an Apple based system to run the OS?

Apple is. And the current laws back them up.

Apple is a true monopoly with their desktop operating system.

Not at all.

To be a monopoly one has to hold the dominant market power. The market is 'personal computing systems' NOT Macintosh computers. And Apple has only perhaps 8-10% of the market (Linux/Unix has like 5% and Windows the rest)

Also tying is NOT inherently abusive. So provided that Apple lacks market power and isn't using their power to shove unrelated products on folks (as Microsoft did), tying is copacetic. As ruled by the Judge in Psystar's first attempt. One they dropped because they knew it was pointless to continue and tried to pull off "EULAs are illegal" (ignoring that copyright was still in the mix as was the DMCA)

I severely doubt it - Psystar has already gone through bankruptcy once and they have huge ammounts of hedbt already - not to mention their settlement with Apple that they owe. Apple has already conceded that they are unlikely to get anything from Psystar with whom they already have a permanent restraining order on.

Who exactly is getting any money from this?

Psystar cancelled the bankruptcy attempt when it turned out that not all debts would be covered.

also it really is about money. if Psystar wins this appeal they could argue that Apple has to pay all legal fees from this whole issue. which covers their lawyers. also as part of the 'damages' they could be granted a free license to install Mac OS X which in their eyes would be invaluable.

pdjudd

Jan 21, 2010, 11:39 AM

Psystar cancelled the bankruptcy attempt when it turned out that not all debts would be covered.

They also emerged from it right after the judge ruled that the lawsuit could go on despite bankruptcy - something that would not ordinarily be the case. It was widely suspected that going into bankruptcy was a delay tactic that ultimately failed.

also it really is about money. if Psystar wins this appeal they could argue that Apple has to pay all legal fees from this whole issue. which covers their lawyers. also as part of the 'damages' they could be granted a free license to install Mac OS X which in their eyes would be invaluable.

Assuming Psystar wins the only things that can get overtuned would be the summary judgment and the injunction. That doesn't mean that Psystar is automatically ruled not guility - All that would happen would be that the settlement is nulled and Apple's suit would continue.

Psystar's suits have all been dismissed - I don't see any avenue for them to collect damages unless they refile and are successful - something that we all know won't happen. The only money that this would be about is Psystar thinking that they can gain something - the whole point of a civil suit. At this point they loose nothing.

cmaier

Jan 21, 2010, 11:56 AM

They also emerged from it right after the judge ruled that the lawsuit could go on despite bankruptcy - something that would not ordinarily be the case. It was widely suspected that going into bankruptcy was a delay tactic that ultimately failed.

Assuming Psystar wins the only things that can get overtuned would be the summary judgment and the injunction. That doesn't mean that Psystar is automatically ruled not guility - All that would happen would be that the settlement is nulled and Apple's suit would continue.

Psystar's suits have all been dismissed - I don't see any avenue for them to collect damages unless they refile and are successful - something that we all know won't happen. The only money that this would be about is Psystar thinking that they can gain something - the whole point of a civil suit. At this point they loose nothing.

Even if Psystar wins they don't get attorneys' fees - this isn't Britain. And they certainly don't get a free license. And they haven't even asked for damages, and they have no basis for damages, so they don't get that, either.

gnasher729

Jan 21, 2010, 12:13 PM

Even if Psystar wins they don't get attorneys' fees - this isn't Britain. And they certainly don't get a free license. And they haven't even asked for damages, and they have no basis for damages, so they don't get that, either.

Just remembered a very good reason for Psystar to appeal: There is an agreement between Apple and Psystar that Psystar has to be about two million in damages, payment due _after any appeals_. If Psystar didn't appeal, they would have to pay right now. Because of the appeal, they can delay payment.

cmaier

Jan 21, 2010, 12:26 PM

Just remembered a very good reason for Psystar to appeal: There is an agreement between Apple and Psystar that Psystar has to be about two million in damages, payment due _after any appeals_. If Psystar didn't appeal, they would have to pay right now. Because of the appeal, they can delay payment.

Since they don't have $2M, it's moot. What's going to happen is the appeals court will not accept the appeal, so the delay will be short in any case. (I'm not saying they'll lose the appeal - I'm saying the court of appeals won't even listen to them make their argument).

charlituna

Jan 22, 2010, 11:55 AM

Just remembered a very good reason for Psystar to appeal: There is an agreement between Apple and Psystar that Psystar has to be about two million in damages, payment due _after any appeals_. If Psystar didn't appeal, they would have to pay right now. Because of the appeal, they can delay payment.

it is closer to $3 mil and Apple won't get the money. and they know this. For them it was never about money. it was about the courts validating their legal right to tie and to control installation of the OS software. Until the entire anti-trust, copyright etc gets a from scratch overall, Apple will be able to use this case as precedent to stop any other US companies from trying the same thing (so long as they lack the market share). That is if anyone is that crazy.

haveagoal

Feb 3, 2010, 04:27 AM

While many have good ideas and concepts, there are issues not factored in to offered opinions.

A claim that apple has not done anything wrong is unsubstantiated and short-sighted for anyone to conclude they haven't.

The DMCA has clauses that protect a consumers rights and provides provisions that permits bypassing locks and security features, also, stating that a EULA is a binding and enforceable contract is nothing more than ignorance.

Apple is not required to provide drivers for non-supported hardware and they are not obligated to provide support for the software if used with non-apple branded equipment so many or the proposed arguments don't have any standing.

They provide iTunes, Quicktime, Safari and other software that run in various flavors of windows and the distributed license agreement you click through has the same apple-branded stipulation so use of this software based on the general opinion of many people here is that it is illegal because the included EULA says so.

The benefit for apple in open-sourcing software is for several reasons, one that comes to mind is the compliance obligation to do so based on the terms of an open source license for the software they are using.

Darwin is supposed to be open-source but even the darwin devel team only supports the software on apple-branded computers and much of this software comes in source form with an APSL.

I have examined many substitute boot loaders used in the hacintosh community and I don't find anything illegal in them, they are open source which allows you to modify them, distribution requires an inclusion of the original license, emulating EFI is not illegal and apple certainly couldn't sue anyone or any company and win because they do.

Another thing to note, the key/poem used in Mac OS X is not copyrightable and any competent attorney can figure out why without too much effort.

Psystar was within their rights to (counter) sue apple and the recent apple win was not based on the law and having the ruling over-turned is very likely to occur.

Poor planning (or lack of) and lack of preparation is a contributing factor in the ruling and didn't help their case, they should not have waited for apple to sue them, all the wait-time did was allow apple time to better prepare themselves to go after Psystar and those who are aware of the details regarding the landmark Lexmark case have a better understanding of why apple should not have won or that Psystar counter-sued poorly.

Over the last 4 years apple has threatened to sue one of my clients on more than one occasion and after submission of a written response the matter seems to go away.

The apple legal department has a tendency to intimidate and it is easier for them to bleed a smaller business dry and force out the competition than risk a serious ruling against them.

I have first-hand knowledge that apple will be in a Florida and Michigan court defending themselves in 2 separate lawsuits within the next eleven months, one based on the EULA itself so don't be surprised when the news finally breaks.

hachre

Feb 3, 2010, 04:30 AM

gnasher729

Feb 3, 2010, 05:28 AM

I have examined many substitute boot loaders used in the hacintosh community and I don't find anything illegal in them, they are open source which allows you to modify them, distribution requires an inclusion of the original license, emulating EFI is not illegal and apple certainly couldn't sue anyone or any company and win because they do.

Thanks for your opinion. Did you by any chance notice that there is a 64 bit key in a hardware chip that is required for MacOS X to decode several important files at boot time, which would have to be emulated by the boot loader, constituting a DMCA breach?

It's rather stupid when a company does A, B and C to say that you can't find anything illegal in A and B and therefore it must be all legal. Especially when a company just was ordered by a court to pay about two million dollars for exactly what you think is legal.

hachre

Feb 3, 2010, 05:32 AM

Lorenz0

Feb 3, 2010, 06:18 AM

Its all a load of balls really.

While you're at it, lets go after samsung for not letting me install their TV OS on my sony.

My false sense of entitlement demands satisfaction!

No wait, I was right the first time - Its a load of balls.

Gasu E.

Feb 3, 2010, 08:27 AM

Creating an artificial bondage like that between the software and hardware is itself illegal in most countries of the EU.

I'm sure it's legal in Amsterdam. ;)

cmaier

Feb 3, 2010, 09:08 AM

"The DMCA has clauses that protect a consumers rights and provides provisions that permits bypassing locks and security features, also, stating that a EULA is a binding and enforceable contract is nothing more than ignorance."

it's not ignorance. It's the law. And it's been affirmed by courts time and again. There are people who insist federal income tax isn't the law, too. They make all sorts of fancy arguments and can point at all sorts of law. They all go to jail.

And since you didn't find the obvious dmca violation pointed out by a subsequent poster, it's clear that the rest of your analysis is equally lacking. And lexmark not only doesn't mean what you think it means, but it is of dubious precedential value. Finally, the DMCA does have safe harbors, as you mentioned, but they are enumerated. You don't get to make up new ones. And psystar didn't fall into any of these safe harbors.

gnasher729

Feb 3, 2010, 10:52 AM

Creating an artificial bondage like that between the software and hardware is itself illegal in most countries of the EU.

Not in Germany and not in the UK. I don't know anything about the laws of other countries.

BTW. You mean "bond" and not "bondage". "Bondage" doesn't mean what you think it means. :D

The DMCA has clauses that protect a consumers rights and provides provisions that permits bypassing locks and security features, also, stating that a EULA is a binding and enforceable contract is nothing more than ignorance.

You are completely misunderstanding the role of the SLA. The contract between Apple and the customer is a _sales contract_. Apple offers for sale a box with the software and the right to install that software on one computer, but makes it clear that the sale is only legally effective if the customer accepts the SLA. As the customer, you have two choices: Don't accept the SLA, and return the software for a refund. Or accept the SLA, which means you can only do what it allows you to do.

If you don't the SLA, then there is no sale, and therefore you have no right to do anything. Whether the SLA is enforceable or not doesn't matter here at all because by not accepting it you lose all your rights to use the software.

The situation would be different if the SLA said "You may install on copy on a Macintosh, and any number of copies on Psystar computer, but you have to pay Apple $10,000 for each copy installed on a Psystar computer". If you then installed ten copies on ten Psystar computers and Apple asked you for $100,000, then we could discuss whether the SLA was binding (in that case you would probably say you never accepted the SLA, so we just have ten cases of copyright infringement).

pdjudd

Feb 3, 2010, 12:05 PM

Creating an artificial bondage like that between the software and hardware is itself illegal in most countries of the EU.

Since you make such an absolute statement with such authority I am betting that you can cite references with specific statutes that could explain how Apple and several other companies that sell hardware and software combination (like Pro Tools for example) are able to conduct business globally.

In short, cite please.

Bill&Rose

Feb 3, 2010, 12:13 PM

If Microsoft cannot win their appeal against the injunction against word/ office 2007, how can this counterfeit outfit win theirs?

Waste of time.

They are not hackers. They steal the work of open-source people and sell the free work for profit.

Kind of the same way Steve Jobs did in the beginning with Apple Computer.

Funny how Steve Jobs is now just like, no strike that, is even worse then the IBM he so much hated.

Bill&Rose

Feb 3, 2010, 12:15 PM

it is closer to $3 mil and Apple won't get the money. and they know this. For them it was never about money. it was about the courts validating their legal right to tie and to control installation of the OS software. Until the entire anti-trust, copyright etc gets a from scratch overall, Apple will be able to use this case as precedent to stop any other US companies from trying the same thing (so long as they lack the market share). That is if anyone is that crazy.

And tell me how this is any different from Microsoft has done and got sued for by the government.

cmaier

Feb 3, 2010, 12:16 PM

Kind of the same way Steve Jobs did in the beginning with Apple Computer.

Funny how Steve Jobs is now just like, no strike that, is even worse then the IBM he so much hated.

1) what was wrong with IBM?
2) what makes you think he hated IBM?

And tell me how this is any different from Microsoft has done and got sued for by the government.

Apple is not a monopoly, so they are allowed to tie products. And Apple hasn't done anything like what microsoft has done.

pdjudd

Feb 3, 2010, 02:56 PM

And tell me how this is any different from Microsoft has done and got sued for by the government.
For one thing , MS actually utilized their monopoly in an anti-competitive way. Read the actual USA v Microsoft case.

In short (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft):
The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

Microsoft had a monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. There is no such market that Apple has a monopoly in which they have engaged in anti-competitive behavior.

Apple is not preventing anybody else from making or selling a legally licensed computer system like they do nor do they have any market power to prevent this and they cannot be fount do have an illegal monopoly over their own product that they own.

cmaier

Feb 3, 2010, 02:57 PM

Apple is not preventing anybody else from making or selling a legally licensed computer system like they do nor do they have any market power to prevent this and they cannot be fount do have an illegal monopoly over their own product that they own.

"Macmillan has a monopoly on their books" :)

MorphingDragon

Feb 3, 2010, 04:20 PM

1) what was wrong with IBM?
2) what makes you think he hated IBM?

Jobs only vocal displeasure of a company is Microsoft and how bad DOS was.

cmaier

Feb 3, 2010, 04:33 PM

Jobs only vocal displeasure of a company is Microsoft and how bad DOS was.

Indeed. Does no one remember the AIM alliance? (Though I guess some of that was when Jobs was in exile).

pdjudd

Feb 3, 2010, 06:32 PM

"Macmillan has a monopoly on their books" :)

*GROAN* I remember Amazon making that comment. I literally yelled “Of course they do! They are the publishers! That’s their right!”

People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the terms “Monopoly” “Anti-trust” and the nature of “US v. Microsoft” amongst other things.

haveagoal

Feb 3, 2010, 10:58 PM

Thanks for your opinion. Did you by any chance notice that there is a 64 bit key in a hardware chip that is required for MacOS X to decode several important files at boot time, which would have to be emulated by the boot loader, constituting a DMCA breach?

It's rather stupid when a company does A, B and C to say that you can't find anything illegal in A and B and therefore it must be all legal. Especially when a company just was ordered by a court to pay about two million dollars for exactly what you think is legal.Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways, starting with the fact that the DMCA explicitly does not authorize the creation of these types of "product monopolies" nor does enabling OS X circumvent any copyright protection per se.

It would be a travesty of justice if the ruling is not appealed since it's very foundation is shaky at best.

Let's look at an aspect of the ruling, "(3) adding non-apple kernel extensions" is now illegal and enforceable at apple's sole discretion.

This can be interpreted to mean that apple can now control who it accepts kernel extensions for software and hardware by suing those it wishes to prevent the hardware use based on this ruling so, if you purchased a HighPoint RocketRaid adapter card and apple decides they don't want you to use it, they sue HPT and will win based on this ruling because the card requires a non-apple kernel extension and by providing it to the consumer they are effectively promoting and authorizing illegal activity.

OS X client has no copy protection, nothing stops a Mac owner from duplicating or installing it on more than one computer.

A 64bit key in a hardware chip???

I've examined apple's open-source boot loader and found no such key, I've examined several of the currently used boot loader sources including the one used by Psystar and found no such 64bit key.

I think you are referring to the key/poem and a competent attorney can explain why this is not copyrighted material and the key/poem is encoded in the main-board's firmware (what is commonly referred by many as BIOS).

For example, lock-out codes are not copyrightable, that is obviously what the key/poem is, in fact, the idea of such a key/poem is even explicitly raised in the Lexmark case/ruling.

The key/poem has no other value, it certainly is not a legitimate literary work and hence not copyrightable.

Now, with the exception of an EFI based boot loader (bootldr.efi) the use of apple's own open-source boot loader (boot-132) is the foundation for most of the current boot loaders and was specifically developed to load the darwin kernel yet this detail seems to have escaped Psystar's defense team.

Not in Germany and not in the UK. I don't know anything about the laws of other countries.

BTW. You mean "bond" and not "bondage". "Bondage" doesn't mean what you think it means. :D

You are completely misunderstanding the role of the SLA. The contract between Apple and the customer is a _sales contract_. Apple offers for sale a box with the software and the right to install that software on one computer, but makes it clear that the sale is only legally effective if the customer accepts the SLA. As the customer, you have two choices: Don't accept the SLA, and return the software for a refund. Or accept the SLA, which means you can only do what it allows you to do.

If you don't the SLA, then there is no sale, and therefore you have no right to do anything. Whether the SLA is enforceable or not doesn't matter here at all because by not accepting it you lose all your rights to use the software.

The situation would be different if the SLA said "You may install on copy on a Macintosh, and any number of copies on Psystar computer, but you have to pay Apple $10,000 for each copy installed on a Psystar computer". If you then installed ten copies on ten Psystar computers and Apple asked you for $100,000, then we could discuss whether the SLA was binding (in that case you would probably say you never accepted the SLA, so we just have ten cases of copyright infringement).apple's EULA is provided "after" the sale/purchase has occurred and at the P.O.S. there is no contract or agreement other than you cannot return the product if you open it (unless it is physically defective) and this is not disputable (but you can try).

It says on the box there is a EULA inside the box, you open it and it cannot be found in printed format, you run apple's boot loader and boot the DVD, select your language, pick your drive and then you are presented with the EULA, most people never read it and just click through it however, now, accepting the terms means you cannot install it on the computer because it is not apple branded and you can't return it because you opened the package and attempted to install it when you were presented with the EULA.

Your claim that this "after" sales contract tactic is legal and binding has little validity, that's like buying a ford truck, paying for it, receiving it, told that you are bound by their EULA and once you drive off the lot you can't return it, when you stop to add fuel inside the fuel door it stipulates you can only use Shell petroleum.

What about the "first sale doctrine" or the "interoperability clause", these were not offered in defense yet they are very valid.

Also note, there is a difference between enabling a functionality and bypassing or over-riding a functionality.

A kernel extensions that provides a decryption method to allow Mac OS X to run is circumventing the built-in decryption routines, an example of this is dsmos.kext, a kernel extension that enables the built-in decryption by making available non-copyrighted data is enabling it, an example of this is fakesmc.kext.

I do not dismiss that there are enforceable portions of the EULA, commercial 3rd party installation and redistribution clauses, these things Psystar did which do violate the terms of the EULA but to claim that the EULA is completely and unequivocally legally binding and enforceable is utter nonsense.

Mac OS X is in part based on the works of FreeBSD and other open-source operating systems and apple has never denied this, this does not prevent apple from selling the derivative work and there are many in the hacintosh community who have tried to benefit financially off of the work of others and some are never credited for the work they have contributed.

To think that the community would not benefited from the results of Psystars efforts is ludicrous, now, Psystar did not steal the works of others, claim it as their own and sell it, clearly from looking at it's source the bulk of the work was done by David Elliot (DFE) and there are several other individuals listed along with their contribution code yet you do not see them listed or named as codefendants.

Psystar spent time, probably provided equipment to aid in development and might have even paid some individuals a fee of some kind, to say that they can't sell it is not entirely correct, they don't have to sell the works, the source is/was freely available for download, they can sell the distribution package which is nothing less than what apple is doing with Mac OS X which is based on darwin and it is a free open-source OS.

apple's support obligation can be bound by any terms and conditions they choose and they are not required by law to support any specific hardware or provide drivers for hardware they don't wish to support, there are many competent individuals who are capable of creating drivers for hardware and if the hardware is mainstream it will most likely be supported.

Oh, and to claim that all PC's require a modified boot loader to run Mac OS X is also false.

In my preparation and research, I have seen an EFI enabled i5 based PC boot the install DVD without pre-loading any drivers or pre-booting any environment and I have seen other machines boot the install DVD without a swap disk while other computers can't because they have a lot of unsupported onboard hardware that prevents it from loading or operating properly.

It's a very complicated matter and everything is not as cut and dry as everyone would like it to be, a lot is based on interpretation and this is never considered by the majority of readers or those reporting it.

To claim that apple makes superior hardware is unfounded, their laptops are plagues with all kinds of hardware failures, even the new iMac has serious issues, many were exchanged, the second release still has video issues that are not entirely fixed with the offered BIOS update (apple's attempt to see what they can get away with without actually fixing it properly).

There is white-listing in the firmware to prevent a machine from starting up if you install better quality but non-apple branded components and is another control tactic that the consumer is never informed of.

cmaier

Feb 3, 2010, 11:02 PM

Sigh. Pretty much every single paragraph is either factually or legally incorrect. I'd point out why, but these fallacies have already been debunked a zillion times in this and other threads. I mean, any argument that starts "the dmca doesn't explicitly allow [X]" is facially illogical. And to say the first sale doctrine wasn't argued (it was, and it was earlier rejected) just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

charlituna

Feb 3, 2010, 11:17 PM

And tell me how this is any different from Microsoft has done and got sued for by the government.

1. Microsoft was the dominant market power
2. they used that power to force an unrelated product on folks by making installation of IE a condition of a Windows OEM license
3. they attempted to block competition by prohibiting the installation of any other web browser by licensees and by blocking attempts by the companies to reverse engineer Windows for compatibility.

Mac OSX as an operating system is in fact a related product to hardware since without an OS the hardware is just a box of wires and such. Apple is not a dominant power in the market (which is NOT Mac Computers as Psystar tried to claim) and tying is not inherently abusive outside of that dominance.

and on the issue of an EULA. Apple's is just the codification of rights given to them by other laws, which is why Psystar couldn't use it as a defense for what they were doing, even if you toss the EULA, copyright etc had Apple covered.

MorphingDragon

Feb 3, 2010, 11:57 PM

cmaier

Feb 4, 2010, 12:00 AM

I tend to ignore posts >2 paragraphs.

I should, but sometimes you just can't look away.

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2010, 02:38 AM

Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways, starting with the fact that the DMCA explicitly does not authorize the creation of these types of "product monopolies" nor does enabling OS X circumvent any copyright protection per se.

I'll just respond to the first sentence, since you repeat the same old arguments that come up all the time.

First, Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways: Sorry, mate, but how can you say with a straight face that you know better than a man doing this job for many years, who has several helpers (qualified lawyers themselves) finding relevant case law for him, who also had the help of Psystar's lawyers who helpfully pointed out anything that was in their favour, and all we have here is your word that you know better?

Second, the DMCA explicitly does not authorise the creation of product monopolies: What product monopoly? That was the first item that Psystar lost; their claim that Apple's ownership of MacOS X constituted a monopoly. Apple has the copyright on MacOS X. Copyright law gives Apple the right to control who can make or own copies of MacOS X or not. Apple always had the right to use technological measures to prevent copying of MacOS X. The DMCA makes it a crime to circumvent such copying. So here you are completely wrong.

Enabling OS X does not circumvent any copyright protection per se: Excuse me, but MacOS X doesn't run on any computer that doesn't have the right chip with the right 64 bit encryption code inside _unless the copy protection is circumvented_. That's what Apple said, and if it wasn't true then surely Psystar's lawyers would have pointed that out to the judge. So what is it: Is it copyright circumvention, or are Psystar's lawyers complete and utter idiots? There are no other possibilities. Well, we know already that according to you all lawyers are clueless.

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2010, 02:43 AM

2. they used that power to force an unrelated product on folks by making installation of IE a condition of a Windows OEM license

That is an important point here: Apple uses copyright law to control copying of _Apple's_ product. That is exactly what copyright law is for. If Apple tried to tell you what you can do with someone else's software, that would be against copyright law. That is exactly what Microsoft did: They tried to prevent copying and use of their competitors' products.

hachre

Feb 4, 2010, 04:00 AM

That is an important point here: Apple uses copyright law to control copying of _Apple's_ product. That is exactly what copyright law is for. If Apple tried to tell you what you can do with someone else's software, that would be against copyright law. That is exactly what Microsoft did: They tried to prevent copying and use of their competitors' products.

LOL!!! Yeah right...

I'm sorry guys but it's absolutely clear here that anything someone says AGAINST Apple is immediately dismissed with arguments like "You don't know what you're talking about" while at the same moment things no matter how wrong that are being said about it's competitors are absolutely accepted.

As thousands of people have said before. These aren't simple matters. Why can a Judge make a wrong ruling? Because of that. Simple! Also what is right and wrong lies in the eye of the observer. There is no absolute right and wrong.

Please, people that have nothing more to say than "What you say is wrong", "You don't know what you're talking about", etc - just don't post. Nobody wants to hear your fanboy uproars and you are cluttering a thread that contains like 12 interesting posts total up to over 12 pages.

Fanboy is not an insult btw. But it's obvious here that some people clearly dismiss anything anyone says against Apple but on the other hand accept every negativity as absolute truth that is said about Microsoft or other competitors.

MorphingDragon

Feb 4, 2010, 04:52 AM

As thousands of people have said before. These aren't simple matters. Why can a Judge make a wrong ruling? Because of that. Simple! Also what is right and wrong lies in the eye of the observer. There is no absolute right and wrong.

We have our Law system for a reason, so that everybody is judged the same under the same rules.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_game_t_shirt-p23527370240773099733av_400.jpg

Lorenz0

Feb 4, 2010, 04:53 AM

MorphingDragon

Feb 4, 2010, 04:55 AM

None of this is for the likes of us to decide anyway. Why bother arguing over it.

I would add that my subjective opinion (and thats all that it is) is that Psytar can go suck balls. I am 100% behind the manufacturer/ IP creator on this one...

I think I found the Meme motivating Psystar!

http://memegenerator.net/Instances/78/Courage-Wolf-IF-YOU-NEVER-GIVE-UP-YOU-NEVER-LOSE.jpg

gnasher729

Feb 4, 2010, 04:57 AM

So let me summarise what you are saying: Judge Alsup is an idiot who can't get anything right if it is just slightly complicated. You are a genius who looks through all of this and knows the truth without a shadow of a doubt. And any who contradicts you is a fanboy.

Yeah, right.

pdjudd

Feb 4, 2010, 12:00 PM

I'm sorry guys but it's absolutely clear here that anything someone says AGAINST Apple is immediately dismissed with arguments like "You don't know what you're talking about" while at the same moment things no matter how wrong that are being said about it's competitors are absolutely accepted.
No that is patently false. We have had several people on here who have a great deal of legal experience that has agreed with Alsup including multiple third party sources. You are trying to complain based on false logic - we are calling you out on it because you are wrong, not because of fanboyism.

As thousands of people have said before. These aren't simple matters. Why can a Judge make a wrong ruling? Because of that. Simple! Also what is right and wrong lies in the eye of the observer. There is no absolute right and wrong.

Judges can make wrong rulings here, but there are tons of legitimate news sites and lawyers who will agree on the basic concepts. The definition of "monopoly" and "anti-trust" are well understood and very basic concepts of law. You don't need to be an expert here.

Why can't you accept the fact that you could be wrong. Alsup made a summary judgment - the only reason those get handed down when the facts are obvious. Alsup knows his stuff here. check out his Wiki entry - I quote relevant sections:

He returned to his private practice in San Francisco from 1980 to 1998, when he briefly served as a special counsel in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in 1998.

I think we can assume that he is not going to make such as basic error here. Give it up, your outclassed.

Please, people that have nothing more to say than "What you say is wrong", "You don't know what you're talking about", etc - just don't post. Nobody wants to hear your fanboy uproars and you are cluttering a thread that contains like 12 interesting posts total up to over 12 pages.
We are correcting your incorrect statements - we can back them up by factual cites. Return the favor and we might take you seriously.

Fanboy is not an insult btw. But it's obvious here that some people clearly dismiss anything anyone says against Apple but on the other hand accept every negativity as absolute truth that is said about Microsoft or other competitors.

It is an ad hominum attack. If you cannot face your detractors seriously and choose to dismiss them, that is your fact. It does not give your arguments any additional weight.

cmaier

Feb 4, 2010, 12:25 PM

Eh. I'm an intellectual property lawyer, and I can make mistakes. But his arguments don't even rise above the level of conspiracy theory. Not worth even pointing out the flaws. When someone insists that black is white, what's the point in arguing?

No that is patently false. We have had several people on here who have a great deal of legal experience that has agreed with Alsup including multiple third party sources. You are trying to complain based on false logic - we are calling you out on it because you are wrong, not because of fanboyism.

Judges can make wrong rulings here, but there are tons of legitimate news sites and lawyers who will agree on the basic concepts. The definition of "monopoly" and "anti-trust" are well understood and very basic concepts of law. You don't need to be an expert here.

Why can't you accept the fact that you could be wrong. Alsup made a summary judgment - the only reason those get handed down when the facts are obvious. Alsup knows his stuff here. check out his Wiki entry - I quote relevant sections:

I think we can assume that he is not going to make such as basic error here. Give it up, your outclassed.

We are correcting your incorrect statements - we can back them up by factual cites. Return the favor and we might take you seriously.

It is an ad hominum attack. If you cannot face your detractors seriously and choose to dismiss them, that is your fact. It does not give your arguments any additional weight.

pdjudd

Feb 4, 2010, 12:47 PM

Eh. I'm an intellectual property lawyer, and I can make mistakes. But his arguments don't even rise above the level of conspiracy theory. Not worth even pointing out the flaws. When someone insists that black is white, what's the point in arguing?

Oh I am not saying that you are immune from error, I am simply pointing out that in this case, especially with the experience that Judge Alsup has, that it is extremely unlikely (read near zero) that it is the case here.

And maybe I am arguing because I am a glutton for punishment. Probably just like Psystar's lawyers are too! :D

ETA: I knew you were a lawyer, but I had no idea that you specialized in IP law. Nice!

cmaier

Feb 4, 2010, 12:51 PM

ETA: I knew you were a lawyer, but I had no idea that you specialized in IP law. Nice!

Yep. My second career. I used to work at AMD (designed Athlon 64/Opteron) and prior to that Sun, and prior to that at Exponential Technology where I designed PowerPC's for Apple (who shut us down when Steve Jobs came back).

charlituna

Feb 4, 2010, 11:28 PM

Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways,

what do you know, we have an expert in the house.

just to eliminate anyone telling you that you are full of crap, a few details should probably be shared with the group

1. what law school did you graduate from again. and for the sake of completeness what year
2. how long has intellectual property been your focus of practice. and how long has that been focused on IP in the Digital Realm

since you have so much expertise I'm sure that you can provide us with the pertinent code and case law references for your statements. That way everyone can see that you are speaking the truth.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 02:40 PM

since you have so much expertise I'm sure that you can provide us with the pertinent code and case law references for your statements. That way everyone can see that you are speaking the truth.

And just to add before he brings that up, - No it is not our responsibility to do that work - the onus is on the claimant. In this case haveagoal needs to put up or shut up.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 03:31 PM

I have several things to reply to here, written by several people but my answer to all of you is the same:

Just because you "cite" someones position in his job and the company he works for it doesn't make him more able in my eyes to judge right.

Someone said we have laws so that everyone is judged by the same rules or something like that. I haven't laughed harder in my life. There are no laws for everything. Laws are up for interpretation. If it were that obvious we wouldn't need lawyers, all we would need is a computer to make the rulings.

Someone said why can't I admit that I'm wrong. How the hell am I wrong? I'm not Psystar or Apple or their lawyers. I'm just someone stating his opinion on things. There is no right and wrong in opinions. Opinions are on things that aren't fact so nobody can be right or wrong. And there is no fact here just because a hot shot judge has ruled on something. Otherwise there would be no way to appeal - what would be the point if anything he says is the god given truth?

The people I see that voice their opinions here on behalf of Apple do so in the same way as me, claiming the opposite. I haven't seen any "cite" of fact here that proofs that Apple is right and Psystar is wrong. And no, a judges ruling that is being questioned through an appeal right now is not the fact that I'm looking for.

So let's just stop the fight here please and accept that there are different people here with different opinions on things and there is no use trying to "correct" them. Opinions are just that, opinions. We will see what happens in the future.

I hope Apples EULA will be ruled void, together with all that crap that binds OS X to Apple Hardware. Others might hope for another turn out. We will see.

cmaier

Feb 5, 2010, 03:58 PM

Just because you "cite" someones position in his job and the company he works for it doesn't make him more able in my eyes to judge right.

The kinds of cites we are looking for are legal citations. Citations to statute or case law that support your opinion.

Someone said we have laws so that everyone is judged by the same rules or something like that. I haven't laughed harder in my life.

That's too bad, because that is how the law works. It's the principal of stare decisis that makes the British common law system so unique.

There are no laws for everything.

What does this sentence even mean?

Laws are up for interpretation.

Yes, by judges. Not by you. Judge Alsup has done so.

Someone said why can't I admit that I'm wrong. How the hell am I wrong? I'm not Psystar or Apple or their lawyers. I'm just someone stating his opinion on things.

You didn't state opinions. You stated facts. You stated things were wrongly decided.

There is no right and wrong in opinions. Opinions are on things that aren't fact so nobody can be right or wrong.

Nonsense. If your opinion is that black is white, up is down, and the world is made of crushed turtle shells, your opinion is wrong. The idea that opinions cannot be wrong is new age silliness. Your opinions are wrong.

And there is no fact here just because a hot shot judge has ruled on something. Otherwise there would be no way to appeal - what would be the point if anything he says is the god given truth?

There is always "a way to appeal." The appeal has not been granted. In other words, all that has happened is that Psystar has said to the court "we intend to appeal." They have no actually appealed. They have not stated a basis for an appeal. If they appeal, the appeals court will likely refuse to even hear the case (most attempts at appeals are not heard by the appeals court - meaning the lower court's ruling is final).

The people I see that voice their opinions here on behalf of Apple do so in the same way as me, claiming the opposite. I haven't seen any "cite" of fact here that proofs that Apple is right and Psystar is wrong. And no, a judges ruling that is being questioned through an appeal right now is not the fact that I'm looking for.

The judge's ruling states his basis in fact and in law very clearly. He cites cases, applies facts to the rules created by those cases and by statute, and explains himself. You just say "alsup was wrong" without explaining what, in his ruling, is actually wrong.

I hope Apples EULA will be ruled void, together with all that crap that binds OS X to Apple Hardware. Others might hope for another turn out. We will see.
The EULA has already been ruled NOT void. There is not going to be any appeal. Give it up.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:10 PM

The kinds of cites we are looking for are legal citations. Citations to statute or case law that support your opinion.

I didn't see any from you either.

That's too bad, because that is how the law works. It's the principal of stare decisis that makes the British common law system so unique.

What law system? Yours?

You didn't state opinions. You stated facts. You stated things were wrongly decided.

Now you're just lying.

Nonsense. If your opinion is that black is white, up is down, and the world is made of crushed turtle shells, your opinion is wrong. The idea that opinions cannot be wrong is new age silliness. Your opinions are wrong.

Did you ever stop to think that it is you who might have the distorted opinion? Aren't you the black and white one, who takes anything 100% for granted after one judge on this earth has made a ruling on it?

The EULA has already been ruled NOT void. There is not going to be any appeal. Give it up.

In your country maybe. There are others, too, you know?

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 04:23 PM

I didn't see any from you either.

Except we are not the ones saying that "Alsup is wrong" - You are. Unless you can provide a basis to establish this, we have to assume that he is correct.

The rules of debate are - if you make a claim contrary to the status quo., you have to provide proof. We really aren't really making any claims about Alsup - his statements and judgments are considered valid until someone else overturns them. You are making a claim. We want proof. It's not our job to prove that he is right.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:24 PM

Except we are not the ones saying that "Alsup is wrong" - You are. Unless you can provide a basis to establish this, we have to assume that he is correct.

The rules of debate are - if you make a claim contrary to the status quo., you have to provide proof. We really aren't really making any claims about Alsup - his statements and judgments are considered valid until someone else overturns them. You are making a claim. We want proof. It's not our job to prove that he is right.

Agreed, however my statements are based on my own opinion and not any facts. This is what a forum is for. We aren't in a court room here.

cmaier

Feb 5, 2010, 04:25 PM

I didn't see any from you either.

Read the judge's opinion, which, as I pointed out, cites each relevant case, and each relevant statute. If you'd prefer, I'm happy to copy them here.

What law system? Yours?

I said what law system - the British common law system. The one that is the basis of U.S. law (as well as Canada, Australia, and many other countries).

Did you ever stop to think that it is you who might have the distorted opinion? Aren't you the black and white one, who takes anything 100% for granted after one judge on this earth has made a ruling on it?

I'm an intellectual property attorney, which means I have years of training and experience at reading judicial opinions and determining whether they are clearly right, clearly wrong, or somewhere in-between. How about you?

In your country maybe. There are others, too, you know?
But the case was tried in the U.S., under the laws of the United States. The only laws that matter with respect to Psystar are U.S. laws.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 04:25 PM

I didn't see any from you either.

He referred you to Alsup's ruling. Look it up.

What law system? Yours?

In your country maybe. There are others, too, you know?

Since we are all discussing the Psystar case, US law seems to be the only applicable one.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:34 PM

Why the hell is everyone against me here? I would like to see a quote of me where I stated that the ruling is WRONG in a law sense of the term.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 04:36 PM

Agreed, however my statements are based on my own opinion and not any facts. This is what a forum is for. We aren't in a court room here.

If your opinions are not based on any facts...

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:37 PM

He referred you to Alsup's ruling. Look it up.

The very ruling that I don't agree with is hardly something that will make me change my mind.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:39 PM

If your opinions are not based on any facts...

Then I'm not allowed to bring them up?

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 04:41 PM

The very ruling that I don't agree with is hardly something that will make me change my mind.

But the ruling contains all the legal cites that you just asked about.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 04:42 PM

Why the hell is everyone against me here? I would like to see a quote of me where I stated that the ruling is WRONG in a law sense of the term.

We never claimed that. We are calling you on the statement you did make which you said that Alsup was wrong. Right here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9215231#post9215231):
Judge Alsup's ruling is seriously flawed in a number of ways,
Along with other very odd statements in other threads.

We want proof of that. Cmaier is an IP lawyer and says you are wrong. Alsup is a State Judge and has worked on Anti-trust with the US government. Where is your relevant proof to back your claims up. Remember the only evidence that matters is US law here - you can't just say "on planet X anything goes - you're wrong" or the like.

Either provide evidence to back your claims up like Judge Alsup has or admit you are wrong. So far I am concluding that you are way out of your league here.

Then I'm not allowed to bring them up?
If they contradict established fact then they are not relevant. Just saying "it's my opinion" doesn't excuse you of anything and you can still be wrong.

cmaier

Feb 5, 2010, 04:42 PM

The very ruling that I don't agree with is hardly something that will make me change my mind.

You cannot agree with gravity, either, but that doesn't enable you to fly. Nor does it make your opinion valid. An opinion absent a reason is not worth having.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:43 PM

But the ruling contains all the legal cites that you just asked about.

Let's not turn the tables here. I was asked for cities in the first place and argued that the defendants of this ruling haven't cited anything themselves. Quoting the ruling is hardly a cite.

Also why in the hell should I cite anything? I'll repeat we aren't in a court room here. We are in an internet forum that is about posting opinions on things from different people.

My opinion is that once this comes to the EU it will be ruled on differently. And that is what I hope for. Nothing else.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 04:45 PM

Then I'm not allowed to bring them up?

Of course, you are!

But voicing an opinion that you admit is based on ignorance is asking for a pointed rebuttal.

cmaier

Feb 5, 2010, 04:47 PM

Let's not turn the tables here. I was asked for cities in the first place and argued that the defendants of this ruling haven't cited anything themselves. Quoting the ruling is hardly a cite.

Is this bizarro world? There are DOZENS of citations in the order. Here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091114101637997

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:48 PM

We never claimed that. We are calling you on the statement you did make which you said that Alsup was wrong. Right here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9215231#post9215231):

Along with other very odd statements in other threads.

We want proof of that. Cmaier is an IP lawyer and says you are wrong. Alsup is a State Judge and has worked on Anti-trust with the US government. Where is your relevant proof to back your claims up. Remember the only evidence that matters is US law here - you can't just say "on planet X anything goes - you're wrong" or the like.

Either provide evidence to back your claims up like Judge Alsup has or admit you are wrong. So far I am concluding that you are way out of your league here.

If they contradict established fact then they are not relevant. Just saying "it's my opinion" doesn't excuse you of anything and you can still be wrong.

What the hell, you are quoting a post by someone else and trying to tell me that's me?!?! And that's what you are arguing with ME about??! What someone else said??? I'm very confused right now...

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:50 PM

Of course, you are!

But voicing an opinion that you admit is based on ignorance is asking for a pointed rebuttal.

It's based on the hope that things go differently in other countries and on the fact that I think how it went in the US was not right in the original sense of the word not in the right-by-law sense

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:51 PM

You cannot agree with gravity, either, but that doesn't enable you to fly. Nor does it make your opinion valid. An opinion absent a reason is not worth having.

Gravity is a fact of nature. Laws are made by people. There is a distinct difference. Maybe not for practicing lawyers though, which I am not however.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 04:53 PM

Let's not turn the tables here.

You are turning the tables on things by not providing anything beyond "I think I am right" we are calling you on it.

I was asked for cities in the first place and argued that the defendants of this ruling haven't cited anything themselves. Quoting the ruling is hardly a cite.

Read the case files. The ruling and the summary judgment cites many other precedents that Alsup based his judgment on. Anyways, you are not the defendant so the fact that they haven't cited anything is irrelevant. They are not going to do your homework for you. Are you admitting that you have no proof?

Also why in the hell should I cite anything? I'll repeat we aren't in a court room here. We are in an internet forum that is about posting opinions on things from different people.
Rules of debate. You make a claim, you provide evidence. You fail to do so you should either admit that or expect criticism of the highest. That applies everywhere debates are held. Not just courts.

My opinion is that once this comes to the EU it will be ruled on differently. And that is what I hope for. Nothing else.
And what basis do you have for this opinion and what makes you think that this case will ever be heard in the EU or anywhere else. Apple's lawsuits have been US based thus far and nobody else besides PerC in Germany is commercially selling hackintoshes,

What the hell, you are quoting a post by someone else and trying to tell me that's me?!?! And that's what you are arguing with ME about??! What someone else said??? I'm very confused right now...
You're right - apologies. Wrong post. You have however have stated that you think Alsup was wrong or at least implied it. Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9215941&postcount=203), you imply that Alsup is wrong. You also make some other false statements that you have been called on.

Gravity is a fact of nature. Laws are made by people. There is a distinct difference. Maybe not for practicing lawyers though, which I am not however.

Doesn't matter. You cannot deny facts by saying up is really down and try to say "It's my opinion" without getting called on it.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 04:56 PM

Delete

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:56 PM

The ignorance in this thread is beyond me.
I have said several times by now: I HAVE NOT MADE ANY CLAIMS.
When I asked you for a quote of me doing that you failed to provide one.

Please get your own facts straight, I'm not debating this anymore.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 04:59 PM

You're right. Wrong post. You have however have stated that you think Alsup was wrong or at least implied it. Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=9215941&postcount=203), you imply that Alsup is wrong. YOu also make some other false statements that you have been called on.

I replied to someones hypothesis that a judge by definition can't be wrong. I didn't necessarily refer to this specific case just like he wasn't talking specifically about this case.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 05:00 PM

It's based on the hope that things go differently in other countries and on the fact that I think how it went in the US was not right in the original sense of the word not in the right-by-law sense

If you said that you were talking about what you were going to do with your three wishes in the first place, this whole misunderstanding could have been avoid. We thought you were discussing facts and opinions, not hopes and dreams.

Gravity is a fact of nature. Laws are made by people. There is a distinct difference. Maybe not for practicing lawyers though, which I am not however.

Metaphors are made by people too. They require a bit of interpretation and are not always perfect analogies.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 05:02 PM

I replied to someones hypothesis that a judge by definition can't be wrong. I didn't necessarily refer to this specific case just like he wasn't talking specifically about this case.
I don't think that was implied there though, I will have to check, but the implication is that the Judges decision is considered valid and standing until it is overturned, not that they can never be wrong (which I don't think anybody would seriously claim).

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 05:04 PM

If you said that you were talking about what you were going to do with your three wishes in the first place, this whole misunderstanding could have been avoid. We thought you were discussing facts and opinions, not hopes and dreams.
.

I don't see how my original post could have been misinterpreted as anything else. I still think the whole misunderstanding comes from you all thinking I'm the dude who stated law stuff who was obviously wrong.

pdjudd

Feb 5, 2010, 05:53 PM

I don't see how my original post could have been misinterpreted as anything else. I still think the whole misunderstanding comes from you all thinking I'm the dude who stated law stuff who was obviously wrong.

No, You also made some pretty bazaar claims without any basis in reality like:

Creating an artificial bondage like that between the software and hardware is itself illegal in most countries of the EU.

Which you never backed up or showed relevance to.

I'm sorry guys but it's absolutely clear here that anything someone says AGAINST Apple is immediately dismissed with arguments like "You don't know what you're talking about" while at the same moment things no matter how wrong that are being said about it's competitors are absolutely accepted.

Which we called you on too...

As thousands of people have said before. These aren't simple matters. Why can a Judge make a wrong ruling? Because of that. Simple! Also what is right and wrong lies in the eye of the observer. There is no absolute right and wrong.

Which makes no logical sense to me or anything else - especially with an IP lawyer in the house...

Just because you "cite" someones position in his job and the company he works for it doesn't make him more able in my eyes to judge right.

Which is truly bizarre (rejecting authority for no logical reason whatsoever is never a good thing)

There is no right and wrong in opinions. Opinions are on things that aren't fact so nobody can be right or wrong.

Which is patently false.

And so on. Having opinions is very fine and acceptable. The problem is that you cannot just leave it at that. If you make statements that don’t make sense, we call you on it and start demanding some proof. Any delusional loon (I am not calling anybody that) can spew out random junk. We aren’t going to accept it even if they call it opinion. Opinions have to have some basis in logic. So far, I have seen very little logic in your arguments.

All you are saying is “it’s an opinion”. That’s not enough though - when you make a statement (opinion or not) you expose yourself to criticism. If you want to classify what you say as opinion, fine. Be prepared to face heat for it.

ETA: I am the only one by the way that misquoted you. I apologized for that and retract that quote. I urge that you do not accuse anybody else for that action without proof. I made the mistake and acknowledged that.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 06:04 PM

I'm too annoyed and too tired to continue this nonsense. I'm not here to defend every single word I say. My opinion stands if you like it or not. I'm not trying to make you think the same way. Therefore I don't have to justify anything I said.

The meaning of the word "opinion" as explained here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

My usage of the term is based on 1, 2, 5 and 6.

From the moment everyone started jumping me (before I had even said much) I was puzzled as to why people take so much of an interest in my statement of opinion all of the sudden. The fact that you have mixed me up with someone else explains it all. I believe that's what happened to the others who chimed in too.

If you're not willing to let it rest at that it's your problem. I'm leaving this discussion and forum now. I'm not interested in a forum-community that is unwilling to accept any opinions that are against Apple. That's what my post you quoted mainly from was about - AFTER this discussion had already started. Usually when stating an opinion on an internet forum you don't have to justify it with court-room-precise language in order not to get jumped by several people. I don't have the time or nerve to discuss things of zero importance with you here. All I wanted to do was add my opinion to a thread. I'm sorry that it was the opposite of yours. You are just going to have to live with it.

This has wasted enough of my time already.
Have a nice life.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 06:22 PM

I'm not interested in a community that is unwilling to accept any opinions that are against Apple. Usually when stating an opinion on an internet forum you don't have to justify it with court-room-precise language in order not to get jumped by several people.

What does our opinions have to do with Apple? Who has even brought up Apple in this discussion. I suppose you just wanted to get in one last fanboy dig before departing.

Personally, my interest in this topic has to do with copyright and IP law. My livelihood is based on the commitments that society made to people who produce IP. People like you want to overturn my rights to my IP based on nothing more than "I want a cheaper Mac configured exactly as I want it regardless of Apple's desire to produce or sell such a thing."

cmaier

Feb 5, 2010, 06:25 PM

What does our opinions have to do with Apple? Who has even brought up Apple in this discussion. I suppose you just wanted to get in one last fanboy dig before departing.

Personally, my interest in this topic has to do with copyright and IP law. My livelihood is based on the commitments that society made to people who produce IP. People like you want to overturn my rights to my IP based on nothing more than "I want a cheaper Mac configured exactly as I want it regardless of Apple's desire to produce or sell such a thing."

Agreed. I am a fan of Apple (mostly because I appreciate them for giving me a beautiful OS that lets me run tcsh when I need to), but there are many things I dislike about them (app store shenanigans - why do they get to review my apps for iPad at all, in fact - there's no danger of "bringing down the network," etc.). However, I see nothing admirable about psystar at all. They are nothing more than IP thieves.

hachre

Feb 5, 2010, 06:38 PM

Agreed. I am a fan of Apple (mostly because I appreciate them for giving me a beautiful OS that lets me run tcsh when I need to), but there are many things I dislike about them (app store shenanigans - why do they get to review my apps for iPad at all, in fact - there's no danger of "bringing down the network," etc.). However, I see nothing admirable about psystar at all. They are nothing more than IP thieves.

I'm a fan of Steve Jobs. In my opinion he has been the driving force behind anything revolutionary that Apple has put out in the last decade. Therefore I also like Apple.

I disliked his recent quote of saying that Googles mantras was ********, though. I also dislike the App Store thing you mentioned, it makes Apple look more and more like a greedy company that wants to get a cut from everything. One other thing I hate is the fact that they try to bind Mac OS to Apple-only Hardware.

Since the bind is of artificial nature (read: not a technical necessity) I think that something like that should not be allowed. That doesn't mean I want them to actively support Mac OS on other platforms. I'm not a fan of Psystar but they have been the only ones recently who have tried to challenge that, so I took an interest in anything they did.

THIS was everything I ever wanted to say here. Sorry I offended you all.

Personally, my interest in this topic has to do with copyright and IP law. My livelihood is based on the commitments that society made to people who produce IP. People like you want to overturn my rights to my IP based on nothing more than "I want a cheaper Mac configured exactly as I want it regardless of Apple's desire to produce or sell such a thing."

I am departing because of the striking ignorance in this forum. You are a perfect example of it. I have stated around 3-4 times now that I have not made any statement of fact in this entire thread.

I have even quoted the dictionary on the word opinion because some people here are trying to convince me that it means something else than it really does.

You have no clue what my motivations are. The fact that nobody of you asked why I think the way I do but rather started creating a big pointless hollow discussion on linguistics and other unimportant banalities out of this leads me to my next conclusion: I believe you don't want to accept the fact that there are people out there who believe the that the whole concept of IP is ********.

I'm sorry that your job hangs in the balance but lying to yourself about the fact that people like me exist, or their motivations for thinking like I do won't make it any better for you.

The fact that you think my motivation stems from something as trivial as spending less money on a Mac is just an insult.

I am generally rather unimpressed by the fact that almost every post that was directed at me contained an insult at a personal level. I don't care if you are the President of the United States, if you can't discuss things in a mature way I'm just going to leave.

I'm unsubscribed from this thread now.

BaldiMac

Feb 5, 2010, 07:33 PM

I am departing because of the striking ignorance in this forum. You are a perfect example of it. I have stated around 3-4 times now that I have not made any statement of fact in this entire thread.

You have made many statements of fact, both correct and incorrect, but that is really besides the point.

I have even quoted the dictionary on the word opinion because some people here are trying to convince me that it means something else than it really does.

What does that have to do with anything?

You have no clue what my motivations are. The fact that nobody of you asked why I think the way I do but rather started creating a big pointless hollow discussion on linguistics and other unimportant banalities out of this leads me to my next conclusion: I believe you don't want to accept the fact that there are people out there who believe the that the whole concept of IP is ********.

Sorry, I couldn't think of any other motivation for hoping Psystar prevails against Apple other than the hope to install OS X on a PC. I suppose I should have considered the idealist argument against IP as a whole. But that's all unicorns and rainbows to me.

I'm sorry that your job hangs in the balance but lying to yourself about the fact that people like me exist, or their motivations for thinking like I do won't make it any better for you.

My job does not hang in the balance. I know people like you exist and have never lied to myself about it.

The fact that you think my motivation stems from something as trivial as spending less money on a Mac is just an insult.

But then, that's what this thread is about. Psystar vs Apple. Not IP law as a whole.

I am generally rather unimpressed by the fact that almost every post that was directed at me contained an insult at a personal level. I don't care if you are the President of the United States, if you can't discuss things in a mature way I'm just going to leave.

I did not insult you at a personal level a single time. You, however, called me a perfect example of striking ignorance. Yet another opinion with no basis in fact.

I'm unsubscribed from this thread now.

You've already claimed to be done with discussion two or three times before this one. Do you mean it this time? Or do you have to try and get in the last word one more time?