I don't deny it. One of my two Mbps needed a new mainboard due to nvidia. I've just seen a larger percentage of dells go boom than I have hps, macs, acers, etc.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Agrees to Pay Nearly $2.7 Million in Settlement With Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't deny it. One of my two Mbps needed a new mainboard due to nvidia. I've just seen a larger percentage of dells go boom than I have hps, macs, acers, etc.
It's also in business because when it first started, it accomplished what no one else did. Back then the HP and Compaqs had very average components so people were building their own machines a lot. Dell decided to go the clone route for you, giving you all the best top of the line computers, with the kind of serviceability of the big name brands like compaq and HQ, taking away any motivation to build your own clone. They did great, but after a while, once they became big, their quality just started to drop.
I've had two laptops. One was a dell so poorly designed that it did not ventilate properly so burned out after a year and a half. Was out of warranty so they did not replace it. I then bought a MBP, and it was so poorly designed that there was insufficient thermal paste and it burned out after a year and a half, out of its original warranty. Apple extended that warranty, acknowledged its responsibility, and gave me a new laptop in essence (all new internals). So I can definitely relate to people saying Dells are poorly built. I just hope the same thing doesn't happen to the "top of the line" built Apple products.
PS: pdjudd it was a joke, don't take it all so seriously bro
PS: pdjudd it was a joke, don't take it all so seriously bro
Rule one of the internet: Do not assume everybody can ready your humerus intentions unless you make it obvious. I cannot read minds and humor is very difficult to interpret electronically.
You do realize that the Screens are Phillips, LG, or Samsung. Many of the "Apple Screens" are used in other Laptops and LCD Displays.
One of the things I love about my MBP though is the casing and how quiet it is with my SSD drive.
Zero evidence? Is that why aapl named a bunch of John Does? How did a couple of broke pizza delivery guys get it up and running? What's the competitive advantage of Psystar if it wins, which is what any investor group or angel looks for? How did they get the first group of high priced legal talent? Don't confuse proof and evidence. Of course it should be shut down, but just because they're incompetent doesn't mean Psystar is not a front. But if it was done properly we may never know the identities.
In the end it doesn't really matter what a "Mac" computer really is. Apple's licensing is about Apple Branding. That's what matters. Apple is the one that defines what a Mac is regardless of what the insides are. The mac is not just the hardware inside - Apple calls it a complete package. The line is arbitrary because it's Apple's product to sell. They can define anything as a "Mac" we cannot. It's the whole package and not the independent components hat counts. If is isn't built by Apple or given their stamp of approval, it just is not a Mac.
Naming John Does in a lawsuit is standard practice - it doesn't mean that there are any actual people - if there were we would have names by now - It was just an act of speculation that has never been ruled on.
Claiming the whole John Doe issue is not proof or evidence. Apple was covering their basis very early on. Unless you have specific evidence that Psyatar has investors, name them or concede that there may not be. It's far easier for me to believe that Psystar is nothing more than a couple of guys that are arrogant, stupid about the law, and got money for their business the same way that most other entrepreneurs do (ie loans). Psystar has publicly listed their debtors - There is nothing there.
Of course you can claim that these people are "hidden" but at that point you can claim anything. Provide solid proof with links. If you cannot do that admit that and cede your point. You are making a claim that has not been proven after I have demanded such. I am asking you to throw down. I am calling your bluff. You say that you have a full house? Show me. Prove it. I can tell you that telling me the contents in a deck of cards may be evidence, but its a long way from what I am asking for.
Well since you brought up the car example, I can buy a mercedes engine, mercedes chasis, put it together and sell it and Mercedes won't sue me. I can buy a brand new corvette, put a super charger it in, modify the chassis, and sell it at a premium (like Callaway or Lingenfelter) and GM won't sue me. I guess I have a problem with Apple telling me what I can or can't do once I buy their product. To me that is not right. What psystar is doing may or may not be right, but let me buy a Mac Pro, let me modify it, and let me sell it. From what I understand, I can't. I could do it as a person to person transaction, but I can't establish a business model around it.
It's incredibly common to name john does to cover unidentified vicarious infringers (helping to avoid a "we didn't do all the steps involved in infringing your copyright - the customers do some of the steps"-type defense). It means nothing.
They can if you try to pass it off as a Mercedes. Legally only Mercedes can brand their card - you cannot.
No, but we are not talking about physical property. Operating systems are not physical items that you buy - you license them.
They are not. You do not buy OSX - you license it. That is how software is distributed. The court case clearly states that.
No, that was not determined at all nor was this argued at all. There is nothing illegal with what you intend to do.
Read the case law very carefully and it is clear - the law says that first sale does not allow you to violate copyright. That is what Pystar did. They were guilty because they did not posses the rights to do what they were accused of.
This was about software licensing and copyright - not buying and modifying Apple hardware.
What a bunch of BS. The Xeon and Core i7 are very different processors with different characteristics. Your post is the same as saying you should be able to use a Chevy Corvette to tow a 6 ton trailer since it produces the same amount of horsepower as a Chevy 1 ton pickup.
They are different chips, different hardware, different characteristics. You can argue that for your application, the i7 is good enough, but that doesn't mean it's the same. All you're arguing is that your needs don't require a Xeon. That's fine, but it's not the same as saying that the two are equivalent.
And it just happens to be irrelevant. You don't have any more right to demand that Apple produce a product from you or you'll steal it than you have the right to demand that Maserati must sell a car for under $20 K or you'll steal it.
No hypocrisy at all. Apple supports intellectual property rights and following software licenses. The fact that Microsoft uses a different business model is irrelevant.
Maybe YOU should look it up - since you're defining terms contrary to normal English. Hypocrisy would be if Apple sued Psystar and then started selling Macs with Windows preloaded - without paying Microsoft for the software.
Yes. In intellectual property law, if you don't defend your rights, you lose them. So if Apple didn't go after Psystar, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, Acer, Asus, and 2 million smaller vendors could have started selling systems with Mac OS installed from $29 Snow Leopard upgrade DVDs. That would have absolutely destroyed Apple's business model.
Really? Where can I buy a Dell with the MacBook Pro's case? Or a Toshiba with the Mac Pro's power supply? Or an HP with the iMac's motherboard?
Not to mention the little issue of specs and binning. Even though Apple uses 'standard' components, Apple is known to use tighter specs than industry average on at least some components (RAM, for example).
Well, there's always a gap when one system is upgraded before the other. A few months ago, there was a big reason to buy the Mac Pro. In the first quarter when Mac Pros come out with Gulftown processors, there will be a big advantage again (not to mention the obvious advantage of the Pro if you need huge amounts of RAM or lots of hard disks).
Then don't buy one. No one is forcing you.
The fact is that Apple has demonstrated an exceptional ability to predict what the market will buy and to plan their product lineup accordingly. Clearly, they have made the decision that the cheap tower is not a market they are interested in. I tend to agree. Who needs a cheap tower?
- Must need more power than the Mini
- Must be opposed to a built-in monitor for some reason
- Must need hard disks that are internal rather than Firewire
- Must be too cheap to buy a full performance system.
Basically, the only people who fit that category are gamers and cheap geeks - a market Apple has not shown much interest in.
What does his funny bone have to do with it?
It's really not worth discussing it until you learn the difference between licensing a copyrighted product and purchasing a physical product. Once you've learned that, feel free to post an intelligent question (if you can formulate one). Until then, just stay out of a discussion that is clearly over your head.
I do not know what the humerus bone has to do with anything. I certainly didn't get what he claimed to be a joke though.
Actually, only trademarks have to be policed. You don't lose patent or copyright rights by failing to assert them.
That is only partially correct.
Your patent or copyrights don't become unenforceable, but you DO lose the ability to collect damages - which amounts to almost the same thing.
Prove it and I'll gladly concede that.
Which are? Besides power consumption, and support for dual processors, what's the diff? Really, this is no argument. Inform me and I'll happily absorb the info.
They look pretty similar here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#45_nm_processors
Besides, it's the only thing Apple has to compare with.
My post is BS, but you're the one comparing computer performance and car performance? Heh. The tea pot calling the kettle black, I guess.
I don't suppose you own a MacPro...
No, you don't lose the ability to collect damages. Are you thinking of marking and registration requirements or something (or are you outside the U.S.?)
Since you refuse to provide evidence, than we can assume you are wrong. I on the other hand do have evidence and therefore unless there is any proof otherwise we can conclude I am right and you are wrong.
Or are you just being a troll?
Oh really? You have evidence that Psystar has no as yet ascertained, but named in a pleading as John Does 1-10, backers? By all means, present that evidence.
I looks like I answered my own question by looking on intel's forums:
Apple definitely couldn't have Psystar putting out core i7 machines with Mac OS installed that cost a third of the Apple's Mac Pro single Xeon offering. Apple's reasons are numerous and justified under the law, but I still hope Psystar puts up a good fight.
Apple definitely couldn't have Psystar putting out core i7 machines with Mac OS installed that cost a third of the Apple's Mac Pro single Xeon offering. Apple's reasons are numerous and justified under the law, but I still hope Psystar puts up a good fight.
Citing John Does is not “evidence” of anything - its common procedure. Since it’s not proof that there are mysterious backers the null assumption is that there are none. My job is not to prove that there are no mysterious backers - you assert that they exist and I demand proof of that. Nobody cab prove formally that these so called backers really exist. If they did, Psystar would have to have to revealed them during their bankruptcy hearing.
There is no proof of mysterious backers beyond wild speculation. When we have no proof of something we do not debunk the claim, we ignore the claim. You are trying to ask me to prove a negative. I will not fall into that trap.
ETA: my proof from :
and
[URL="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fictitious+defendants"]Cite
The usage of fictitious defendants is not proof that they actually exists. Apple may at one point believed that there were backers, but that doesn’t mean anything. Its a very common phenomenon as any google search will prove. Speculation without proof is meaningless. I can speculate that you are actually jack the Ripper. Without proof though its a baseless accusation and has no bearing.
MacMini and Windows
My roommate has a MacMini and only runs Windows on it. So don't be so sure about the gamers. I play Win games on my iMac and program on my Macbook using Windows. :/
Hugh
My roommate has a MacMini and only runs Windows on it. So don't be so sure about the gamers. I play Win games on my iMac and program on my Macbook using Windows. :/
Hugh