Dear pystar
you suck
that is all.
Which begs the question, why did Apple spend tens of thousand of dollars in legal fees for every Psystar sold?
Either Psystar was a threat to Apple's business by selling less than a thousand somputers or they weren't and Apple is just another control freak, corporate bully with $35 billion in the bank.
So which was it?
Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.
Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.
Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.
Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.
Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
Serious question. How do you pronounce "Pwned"?
No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.
Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.
Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
It does bring up an interesting point though: why has Apple not sued to stop Hypermeganet from doing exactly what they sued Psystar for doing?Ahhhh. The mythical German loophole that no software company is aware of. It lets businesses benefit from consumer protection laws. Invalidates copyright. Mocks software companies who bother to translate their licenses into German. Confounds Apple's lawyers. Slices. Dices. And can be brought up whenever all other arguments fail.
The lawyers told Hypermeganet that buyers of Apple computers were confronted with the restrictions of Apple’s end-user licence agreement only after they unpacked their gleaming new toys – a retroactive restriction explicitly barred by German law.
i don't see psystar winning the florida case. hasn't there already been a similar court case in the past where apple won?
It does bring up an interesting point though: why has Apple not sued to stop Hypermeganet from doing exactly what they sued Psystar for doing?
Here's an interesting read on it all (and fairly recent, as it's from September): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb5dc348-9bf1-11de-b214-00144feabdc0.html?catid=99&SID=google
What I find of interest is this quote:
You'd have thought that Apple would have taken some type of action against them in the past 9-10 months (they started selling systems in February).
Edit - Also, someone can correct me on this, but I heard that under German law, if any part of the EULA is invalidated, the entire EULA is invalided. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
Close but not quite. It wasn't that Microsoft was requiring OEMs include licenses on systems that then didn't actually have Windows installed. It was that Microsoft had negotiated royalties so that, even on systems where Windows wasn't installed (and no license was present), Microsoft was still getting a royalty payment, even though they had no legal right to one.Actually you are mistaken.
Microsoft got slapped down because they made a deal with all OEMs to include a Windows Licence even if Windows was not supplied on the computer.
That is anticompetitive and illegal in all states.
Germany has very stringent consumer-protection laws, something which the European Commission doesn't really touch upon. It would be interesting to see which would take precedent.BTW if the German supreme court ruled one way, then all Apple would have to do is appeal to the EU courts which would uphold the EU Copyright directive, effectively overturning the German court.
Well, according to the limited reading I did, the EULA has to be present at the time of sale between retailer and customer. This is in order to protect the consumer against any changes that may have been made to the EULA.I cut off here to debunk Hypermeganet’s claim - The license is not only available after opening the box - it is available at any time before purchase at Apple’s website. They can make any claim they want - it doesn’t mean that it’s actually going to float.
While exclusive licenses are almost as powerful as copyright transfer, the author always retains some rights to the work, including the right to prevent defacing and to be identified as the author. Employment agreements are frequently construed as granting the employer an exclusive license to any works created by the employee within the scope of his obligations. For computer software, the copyright act expressly provides that all economic usage rights (as opposed to personality rights) belong to the employer.
Defendant has infringed on the copyright of plaintiff by offering the software 'netfilter/iptables' for download and by advertising its distribution, without adhering to the license conditions of the GPL. Said actions would only be permissible if defendant had a license grant... This is independent of the questions whether the licensing conditions of the GPL have been effectively agreed upon between plaintiff and defendant or not. If the GPL were not agreed upon by the parties, defendant would notwithstanding lack the necessary rights to copy, distribute, and make the software 'netfilter/iptables' publicly available.
Here is a Wiki article on German copyright. I highlight the big ones:
Bolds mine. This seems to mean to me that Apple as the owner of OSX retains some rights such as the rights to derivatives (defacement). Apple would also be the only one that could profit from OSX...
Here is another case regarding the GNU license in Germany:
That sounds like you can only copy or modify or distribute with a licence from the owner. No license, no copying. It doesnt matter if the conditions were agreed to or not. And this was upheld on appeal.
Well, according to the limited reading I did, the EULA has to be present at the time of sale between retailer and customer. This is in order to protect the consumer against any changes that may have been made to the EULA.
One thing of curiosity though: you mentioned that it took Apple 4-5 months to finally sue Psystar. If Hypermeganet is in fact essentially carrying out the same process, you'd have thought it wouldn't have taken Apple nearly as long to try and stop them, especially given their experience with Psystar. They sued Psystar after 4 months. Hypermeganet has been selling their systems for 10 months now, and Apple hasn't so much as peeped. :?
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9530/4.7.0.109 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
So how can psystar afford more potential law suits when they have only sold 768 machines?
2.7 million $ and 768 machines. Hmm..
I asked about this before, nobody can provide me anything on this statement other than that blanket statement. I dont think its that simple.
No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.