Well, I didn't think so, but some of the trolls here (including the author of this article - look at the title) claimed that Psystar would be allowed to continue selling clones.
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 to Change Tactics and Sell Mac OS X-Ready Computers?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, I didn't think so, but some of the trolls here (including the author of this article - look at the title) claimed that Psystar would be allowed to continue selling clones.
Your assuming that if MS funded these guys that they wanted them to win.
What if the result is exactly what they wanted, Pystar to loose and loose on very specific points.
Now MS can use the case as precedence in a bid to get their antitrust provisions removed or reduced.
Validate the EULA, and prove that Apple while working on a different and valid model are still competing with MS. Add Apples current finacail position and they have the beginnings of argument that their aren't a monopoly to go to court with.
What better way to get what you want than get a competitor to spend their money to prove what you want?
Wow, genius.
Of course. Government can catch everything. Government anti-trust charges can be established and concluded in minutes. Not.
Let see, it takes time for government to realize that MS is doing something fishy, it takes time to establish the case, discover evidence, it takes time to go to trial, it takes time for appeals, it takes time to throw out appeals.
Fact: Microsoft offers an incentive for PC makers to NOT advertise rival OS such as Linux. Apple does not do such a thing.
Oh man, you are really out of it. The only thing a U.S. citizen can't legally say about a U.S. President is, well, I'm not going to say it, but you can't threaten them with violence. And that limitation of free speech applies to everyone - not just the President. As far as racial slurs go, they happen every day (on the internet, on t-shirts and posters at certain extreme right-wing gatherings and undoubtedly in private conversation) and Obama is often the target. It's childish and disgusting, but definitely not illegal.
Are you implying, then, that post MS DOS, they would ever have come up with their current "Windows" GUI without Apple's (direct) influence?
Would Microsoft ever have developed multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts without Apple's lead?
Do you actually believe that IBM would have even developed the Personal Computer, one which utilized a mouse as an input device, no less, had Apple not first demonstrated its viability first?
Xerox PARC was not going anywhere, as it was an unrefined internal project with no future aspirations. Apple deserves credit for taking their prototypes to the next level, through their own innovations and implementations.
That is not correct. If Psystar had won, the EULA and DMCA would have been thrown out, as well as a large portion of copyright law. Educational institutions would be able to buy Windows for $5 and sell it for retail price to anyone who wanted it. Large corporations would have been able to sell their highly discounted software to anyone who wanted it. People would be able to pay the upgrade or OEM price for any software they wanted - and then use it on a computer which isn't eligible.
For that matter, someone could buy Windows, figure out how to strip out the security key, and sell millions of CDR copies of the disk - and Microsoft wouldn't be able to stop them.
There was no other way this decision could go. If Apple had lost, the entire software industry would have been destroyed - not to mention any other industry that relies on copyrights.
2. I really doubt many people watching those adverts will make the distinction. They probably aren't aware that there are other operating systems, or even know that the hardware in a Mac is pretty much the same as in their PC.
3. Quite apart from the adverts is the prices they charge, the discounts they offer, the general attitude that their product is a "luxury" PC. To me Macs have average hardware, a nice case, some nice screens and an OS that has some advantages over Windows but lags in other areas. I really don't see them as being as special as Apple say they are. Steve Wozniak's own account of the making of Apple, the interviews with Ives also don't impress me.
4. Well I am not referring to you personally but the posters here who continually produce figures like "A refurbished Mac Mini costs $449". Cherry picking information to get their point across and ignoring important facts.
First, there was no chance of the EULA being thrown out. They have been upheld time and again. Second, the validity of the Apple EULA is a different matter than the validity of any other EULA, because every contract or license is construed on its own terms.
I'm a huge Apple fan, but the above overstates the case. There is a principle in science history that when the time is ripe for an invention, the thing would have been invented - even if the actual inventor had never been born. When the technology was ready, relativity would have been discovered by someone else (maybe later, but eventually) if Einstein had never been born. Penicillin would have been discovered if the actual inventor (I forgot his name) didn't have moldy oranges.
Apple certainly influenced the industry and was a major driving force. The industry may be 10-15 years ahead of where it would be otherwise because of Apple's role, but I think it's overstating the case to think that we'd never have proportional fonts or a mouse if Apple hadn't been there.
The cases where Microsoft have been found guilty are cases about their practices after they achieved their marketshare and abused that monopoly.
Apple doesn't do such a thing because they are the only ones making Macs. Think please. What Apple does do is control what software is allowed on their phone, and if there is a competing product they don't allow it to run unless you break your contract.
I'm talking about in advertising and political campaigns. Is it legal to say "Obama is a ____" in an advert? Surely there would be advertising standards against that?
There are no GOVERNMENT standards against it. If I want to take out a full page ad in the NY Times that says that, I can. The NY Times may not want to take my money and run the ad, but that's their decision, not the government's.
In the U.S., while commercial speech (ads) have less protection than other types of speech, such speech is still protected. Pretty much as long as the ad isn't misleading and doesn't advertise an illegal product (or a regulated product), all's fair game.
The type of speech to which you refer (the slur against Obama) is political speech, and is actually entitled to the highest level of protection - I can say and print anything I want about our public officials (ESPECIALLY about our public officials!) and there's little the government can do about it because of our First Amendment. In fact, it's much harder to even be found to have libeled a public official - the official would have to show "actual malice." And, of course, truth is a complete defense (unlike in the U.K. when you say something bad about the monarchy, for example).
Then you should take issue with those posters specifically (by name, individually). If, instead, you are creating some mythical fanboy to argue against, say Hello to the straw-man argument.
Oh, and in case it helps: Microsoft does do things right once in a while and there are faults with the iPhone.
No, I wasn't saying that you believed that. I was simply affirming what you were saying.
No way that any terms that Apple agreed to would have changed the injunction filing. This does not mean that Psystar can still sell clones - they pretty much cannot without violating copyright.
Yes but your statements were very VERY general. It was written like you were implying the statement for any country other than America.
Thats why companies and other people can get court orders for the withholding of information?
What do these parts have to do with anything, and this conversation is going nowhere.
There's probably an FCC regulation against it so, on broadcast TV, I suspect that racial slurs are indeed "illegal" in the sense that they violate the rules of an agency authorized to regulate that medium -- but not because they violate an actual law. On cable or any other non-broadcast medium, no, it's not illegal. But, as cmaier said, I can't imagine any company accepting such an ad.
What was your point? Is someone using racial slurs against your favorite operating system or something?
You insensitive bastard, you've utterly destroyed his stereotype! What's the poor guy supposed to do now?
While this is true, MS and IBM were not focused on the 'user experience' as much as they were content with a utilitarian interface, to get the job done. It would be interesting to envision the MS OS today, in the absence of Apple's direct influence.
I imagine that their "it's good enough" vision would have prevailed, and that the realm of personal computing would have remained abstract, for the most part.
Either way, a 10-15 year jump in development and refinement is certainly noteworthy.
Like what? Trade secrets? How is that censorship? If companies or other people try to get a court order to withhold something that the public has the right to know, they can't. Look at the Pentagon Papers incident. If someone breaks into Coke's plant and steals the recipe, yes, Coke can get an injunction (maybe). Courts, in fact, seldom give such injunctions because they are a "prior restraint," instead they award damages after the fact, unless damages would be insufficient to repair the damage.
And no, I didn't write anything "generally" like it applied to other countries. I very specifically wrote about the U.K., and ,in particular, I listed some very specific limitations of free speech in that one country.
No, there is no FCC regulation against it (so long as it isn't obscene) - if it falls into the "dirty words" category, there are regulations as to WHEN you can say it (time of day, etc.), but the FCC is required to provide a "safe harbor" to allow sufficient opportunity for any non-obscene speech (other than speech which is illegal for other reasons, such as libel, incitement to violence, etc.)
GUI - Doug Englebart in the 60's further developed by Xerox (1)
Mouse - First Mouse was on the Xerox 8010 (2)
USB - Created by Compaq, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Northern Telecom (3)
WiFi - Invented by AT&T/NCR (4)
Phone without a 100 Page manual??? If you need a 100 page manual to use any phone you need to put it down.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
(2) http://www.oldmouse.com/mouse/xerox/star8010.shtml
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi
Please just die already, Psystar. Your death-throes are boring. Have a little class and die with dignity before they strap you into the chair.
Please point out where people have claimed that Apple invented these things or used them first. All I have read here were claims that Apples usage of them led to massive industry adoption which is probably more accurate than not.
harbor" to allow sufficient opportunity for any non-obscene speech (other than speech which is illegal for other reasons, such as libel, incitement to violence, etc.)[/QUOTE]
So right off the bat you start with illegal examples to try enforce your argument? Thats weak...
I was talking about the stuff like the exploding iPod/iPhones incidents.
Your message is garbled, so not sure what the first bit is about. But where has a U.S. court granted an injunction restraining someone from talking about exploding iPod/iPhones? I can see Apple buying off customers not to talk, but I can't imagine a court would grant such an injunction.
Update: I just googled the issue, and you misunderstand it. The allegation is that Apple offered to settle with "victims," and as part of the settlement agreement they put in a clause that the party could not talk about it.
Two points. First, the penalties of such agreement would occur AFTER the speech occurs; it's not a "prior restraint." In the U.S., again, you can say what you want, but sometimes you have to pay the consequences (for example if your speech is libelous).
Second, a settlement agreement is a private contract between two parties. If the parties agree that the "victim" can't talk without being penalized, that's up to them. But it's certainly not the government preventing speech. At most it's the gov't enforcing a contract. If the "victim" doesn't like it, she/he doesn't have to enter into the contract, and can just go to court and let the court decide if the exploding iphone deserves compensation.
The closest thing I could think of would be a court ordered gag order but my understanding is that only affects people in the court and they tend to be temporary (lasting for the duration of a trial). If there are any further restraints they would be due to a private agreement or having the court case records sealed. The courts can issue injunctions prevention a person from doing a specific action but thats ex post-facto - meaning that the action has already happened before.
Right. During a trial there can be a temporary gag order. Further, there can be protective orders that prevent one side from revealing trade secrets belonging to the other side (assuming the trade secrets are learned during the normal course of the litigation).
Generally injunctions prevent actions, not speech. Speech will only be very rarely enjoined, and only under exceptional circumstances and only for the shortest time possible. Note, though, that actions that have not yet occurred CAN be enjoined. For example, if I advertise that I am going to sell a widget that infringes your patent, you can sue me to get an injunction preventing me from actually selling the widget. There just has to be an actual "case or controversy," meaning there has to be some likelihood the event might otherwise occur, and that the event would damage me.
In deciding whether to issue the injunction, the court balances the damage to each side if the injunction is issued or not, the effect on the public, whether damages (i.e.: money paid after the fact) would be good enough, or whether the act would cause irreparable harm to the party seeking the injunction, and other "equitable factors" (does the party seeking the injunction come to the court with "clean hands" (i.e.: blameless), etc.)