You sound like someone who audited a pre-law class at one time. Get a degree, pass a couple bars, practice for a while, then come back and demand away. In the meantime......while naming John Does clearly is not evidence that such persons and/or corporations exist, aapl legal has been around the legal block many times and did not name John Does in the original pleading. It was only after they dug into the pizza boys' background that they realized that there was no way in hell they had the resources on their own, or from family and disclosed financial resources, to push it as far as they had. And not listing backers as debtors doesn't mean squat, nor would they necessarily have been discovered in the bankruptcy action, which was withdrawn. I suggest you stay tuned because it's going to get more interesting down the line.
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
You sound like someone who audited a pre-law class at one time. Get a degree, pass a couple bars, practice for a while, then come back and demand away. In the meantime......while naming John Does clearly is not evidence that such persons and/or corporations exist, aapl legal has been around the legal block many times and did not name John Does in the original pleading. It was only after they dug into the pizza boys' background that they realized that there was no way in hell they had the resources on their own, or from family and disclosed financial resources, to push it as far as they had. And not listing backers as debtors doesn't mean squat, nor would they necessarily have been discovered in the bankruptcy action, which was withdrawn. I suggest you stay tuned because it's going to get more interesting down the line.
Re: their source of money
I run a small business selling stuff over the Internet. Revenue about the size of Psystar. The whole thing is funded by my American Express card.
Psystar could be running the same way. There's nothing in the business model that says they needed backing from a corporation with deep pockets.
I run a small business selling stuff over the Internet. Revenue about the size of Psystar. The whole thing is funded by my American Express card.
Psystar could be running the same way. There's nothing in the business model that says they needed backing from a corporation with deep pockets.
Get off of yourself. I make a perfectly reasonable request typical in a debate/discussion. I am not asking for much. Turn down the hyperbole and address my request or back down. You are avoiding the issue - I am guessing because you got nothing. I am going to keep drilling the point until you either admit your wrong or provide proof. Not speculation like any idiot can do.
You are still not providing proof, you are providing a logical fallacy that Apple could not make a mistake. The behavior of apple is not atypical of a company that sees unusually bold behavior for a small company. They figured that maybe there might be some backers. Maybe is a far cry. I bet we can find tons of examples of John doe cases where there were no John does in the end. As said before, these cases are filed all the time.
Thank you Matt for providing a good example. We can likely find tons of examples of companies the size of Psystar that operate on a similar budget. The big difference is that Psystar runs their business incompetently with a huge dose of arrogance. That doesnt require mysterious backers. Nobody can provide anything beyond speculation. Its akin to a conspiracy theory like JFK. We dont need all of those crazy unproven theories like it was the Cubans or LBJ or the Pope when the real example of a lone gunman works just fine. A crazy gunman may not be all that sexy, but a conspiracy sounds a lot more appealing. That doesnt mean anything in the world of fact and reason.
Be mindful that Phillips, LG, Samsung, et.al. manufacture different grades of screens - Dell invariably purchases the least expensive of them.
Having a MBP with a SSD drive must be sheer heaven. I'm thinking of swapping the drive of mine with a SSD - the improvement in speed/access time ought to be dramatic.
Again. John Does weren't included in original filing. And while that doesn't mean that they do exist, the fact that haven't been named to date in no way means that they don't exist. You really do have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Not sure why you're having so much trouble, but pay close attention. Based on all the circumstantial evidence, I suggest a strong likelihood, not a certainty, that Psystar has as yet unascertained backers which has enabled it to push this far in the legal arena, without resources. On the other hand, you are taking the closed minded position that the non-naming to date means they don't exist. Which side of that bet would an intelligent person want to take?
That too is meaningless. Apple could have taken a second look at things and decided to be safe just in case there were other defendants that could be included.
You are tying to assert a logical fallacy of saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Sorry, but that is not a valid argument. You cannot argue that your lack of evidence trumps my lack of dependence. The only thing that lack of evidence does is make the argument moot. You cannot raise an argument without proof and use double standards.
The null hypothesis that we are dealing with (since it has been shown to be a much simpler explanation) is that Psystar is run by a bunch of arrogant, ignorant jerks who have access to funding through normal procedures. The chances of that happening are just as likely as them having invisible backers (as you claim). Neither of us can prove either so the chances are default equal. However, we have a problem. Your scenario requires complexity that my scenario does not (the very nature that they are unidentified John Does) such as the backers themselves, the secrecy, etc. My scenario is far less complex than yours it. Pystar has to be dumb, arrogant (not too hard to believe) and they need a simple source of money (which can be done via a credit card or two or a bank loan as we can see by looking at their debtors during their chapter 11 hearing). Your scenario requires a lot more overhead. Occams razor favors the simplest answers whenever possible. My scenario beats out yours unless you can shift the balance of evidence to make it more one-sided. As things stand now, they do not. That's why I reject the conspiracy theory. Sure it's possible, but that's neither here nor there. We need evidence. We have none.
I require strong evidence to override Occams Razor as it stands. Speculation doesn't count. If you cannot provide evidence to the latter, you have to concede that my theory, the former, is more likely to be true.
I am not closed minded. I have merely said show me the evidence and do not speculate. Demanding evidence is not being closed minded. Show me proof that goes beyond speculation (in John Doe Cases, if you do not establish the existence of the actual person, they are assumed to not exist) and I will reconsider. You have provided no such evidence. Scientifically you are hypothesizing and not proving a theory backed by evidence. Hypothesis are not enough. I don't have to prove anything, Occams Razor favors my simple explanation. You are making an extraordinary claim. I demand extraordinary proof to coincide. That does not make me closed minded. Intelligent people tend to take positions that are evidence based and logic based.
Overall, gibberish. And "f you cannot provide evidence to the latter, you have to concede that my theory, the former, is more likely to be true" is complete hor$e*****. Wait until it fully plays out.
No. Read what Occams razor says. My answer is much more favorable because its simpler. Mysterious investors we know nothing about with unknown motives are a lot less likely regardless of court filings. Apple just decided to cast a bigger net. We have no proof that they expect to get more fishes.
And according to the summary judgment and the settlement - gee look, it only applies to Psystar. I see no mention of any John Does. Apple is probably pretty confident that they probably don't exist or they would have filed a motion to have them identified by now. If you cannot identify them or establish their existance, they are assumed not to exist.
They haven't dropped anything - permanently. They can still refile if Psystar's appeals process gets grounds (as unlikely as it is to happen). That's what the "without prejudice" means. And really, they only dropped 5 points that were not covered by the Allsup ruling. What Allsup left behind was small compared to the big ones that he did rule on.i'm surprised apple dropped a lot of charges
Read the summary on Groklaw - you can get a better picture of what went on.
What did I steal? I've paid for my OSes since 10.4 to run on my own homebuilt machines. I even paid for my Apple keyboard (ages ago, but it still counts).
The license you paid for does not cover that scenario - since you violated that license you forfeit whatever rights the licensing terms dictated (its even worse when you enter into an agreement on false pretenses). Therefore the only thing you have actually paid for was a plastic disc.
You have stolen Apple's rights to control copyright by asserting through your license violation action that you own Apple's IP and not you. That is of course factually incorrect - at no point do you own any of Apple's code - you license it.
Not such a good thing
I think this is a negative thing. Apple OS should be available to be installed on any computer as long as you purchase your copy legitimately. Whoever Psystar is at least made an attempt to combat Apple's dictatorship over their OS. Now if only they had went about it in a better way (e.g., starting with their AntiTrust lawsuit against Apple)...
I think this is a negative thing. Apple OS should be available to be installed on any computer as long as you purchase your copy legitimately. Whoever Psystar is at least made an attempt to combat Apple's dictatorship over their OS. Now if only they had went about it in a better way (e.g., starting with their AntiTrust lawsuit against Apple)...
If you purchase full rights to OSX than I would agree with you. However that is not what happens when you plop down 30 bucks for a Snow Leopard disc or anything else. Apple does not sell OSX - they license it. The courts have been clear about this many times.
There is no dictatorship. Nobody forces you to use Apple's software - that is a contentious choice that you make. There is no basis whatsoever for any type of anti trust. That has been brought up and dismissed over a ago and was recently affirmed. You are wrong.
Which is a problem don't you think? Someone pays for the right to put the OS on their computer...
Also,
This example is incorrect. A more accurate example would be:
You bought a Maserati and then Maserati told you could could only drive your car on one particular street and no others.
It's a positive thing. You don't buy Apple's software-- you buy a license to use it (under the terms you agreed upon when you installed it). This is all spelled out clearly in the license terms you must agree to when you install the OS.
Don't like the terms? Go purchase something else.
AntiTrust
Psystar actually did try the Antitrust first. The judge said it isn't.
Hugh
Psystar actually did try the Antitrust first. The judge said it isn't.
Hugh
Aside from the fact that the antitrust argument failed, "dictatorship?" Really. So when someone trespasses on my property and I throw them off, am I a "dictator" over my property?
I fail to see the problem. Its perfectly legal. You buy a license. It has terms like any other contract. You don;t like it, don't agree to it.
Cars are physical and tangible items. You can use those in any legal fashion (since you have to be licensed to operate them and they have to be registered). Software is not.
Psystar tried to bring up an argument just like this. The courts rejected it.
no. you pay for the right to put it on your MAC computer. If you wanted the right to put it onto ANY computer, you should have negotiated that deal with Apple. If Apple decided to enter into that contract with you, they undoubtedly would charge you a lot more money in exchange.
Never mind that - there IS an analog - when you rent a car from Avis in san diego, they tell you you can't drive it to mexico. That's a perfectly fine contract clause.
When you "buy" software, you are actually buying the physical medium and buying SOME rights to the data on the disk. When you RENT a car, you are buying SOME rights to the car. In both cases, the seller holds onto certain rights.
Ohh! Good one! I didn't think about that!
We have to stop agreeing with each other. It's much more fun to bicker and argue. Of course you are 100% correct.
True, which is a major problem regarding software. Really EULAs are much too restrictive and they are generally too opaque for common consumers... but this is a whole other discussion that I won't get into...
The problem is they have to be - otherwise people would be able to drive trucks through the loopholes that they would seek out. Legalese is really tough, but it has a goal - so that you have as little wiggle room as possible. Legal speech is known for specificity. Common language tends not to be.
Not to mention that the price of the software 'license' is subsidized, by an understanding that you have already purchased a Mac to install it onto.
Conversely, Apple would logistically adopt the 'Windows' model, and charge substantially more for 'licensing' their OS, the way that Microsoft does.
Two different companies, two contrasting business models, your choice.