http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/ Engadget Comments for Apple's lawsuit against Psystar examined http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 3:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/

*]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 3:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 5:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 7:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 17th 2008 12:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 3:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Too much Guitar Hero Nilay?

Haha just kidding, gotta love your disclaimers.]]>Jul 16th 2008 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://h70s.com/ )

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!]]>Jul 16th 2008 5:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 17th 2008 7:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 7:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
The copyright infringement is easy. Psystar is done.]]>Jul 16th 2008 3:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
I'd like to err on the side of free markets in this instance because there's clearly a void in Apple's lineup of computers for a headless mid-range tower. If Apple won't develop a machine with those specs than someone else out there should be allowed to. I don't think the Apple brand will be less respected because clones are falling apart, it just teaches those who desire quality to purchase quality, thats all.

With that being said...Psystar is about to get sodomized by Apple's legal team. ]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/They could've sold a machine "optimized for OSX", or something to that effect, probably without any action by Apple. When they violate EULA and start playing as an Apple source without license, that's where they crossed the legal line (my opinion).

It doesn't matter if a company manufactures the exact product you want - you can't just take their IP and resell it with that kind of justification. If they don't sell what you want, buy something else, or modify it yourself. When you resell the package commercially, it reflects on the original manufacturer when it ceases to function.

]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
The point here is that the decision to offer a headless midrange mac is Apple's to make. Just because there is demand for a product, doesn't give just anyone the right to offer it in violation of IP law.]]>Jul 17th 2008 9:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
a) psystar is a bunch of idiots who deserve what's coming for blatant disregard and rampant violation of U.S. copyright law...

and

b) i think they should be allowed to violate whatever law they want because apple doesn't do things exactly the way i think they should...

i'm an 'a' stuck in a world full of 'b's... and i totally get tired of their lack of thought. it's asinine to think that if they were the ones creating the product being infringed upon that they'd be like 'oh yeah, that's cool, anarchy, rock on dude'... idiots.

if apple doesn't make a mid-size tower for you... go buy something else... they don't have to make what you want and you don't have to buy their product...

there is also no 'free-market' argument that applies here... because it already is a free-market... apple sells computers... you buy computers... the government doesn't regulate the business transaction or dictate who can buy and who can sell (i'm not talking about business laws governing the corporation, just the uniform commercial code). that argument is completely irrelevant.

finally, the little guy can sell computers and an OS... but he can't infringe upon the copyrights/trademarks of one companies to the benefit of himself and/or to the detriment of the other company.

it's like hearing a bunch of 12 year olds whine because they can't have their way... it's like stealing and it is still wrong, nut jobs, whether you feel like it should be or not!

CRUSH THEM, APPLE! PROTECT YOUR BRAND!


]]>Jul 16th 2008 7:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
I'd like to err on the side of free markets in this instance because there's clearly a void in Apple's lineup of computers for a headless mid-range tower. If Apple won't develop a machine with those specs than someone else out there should be allowed to.

No one is preventing them from selling headless mid-range towers. You can find those all over in fact. What they aren't (and shouldn't and won't) be allowed to do is to sell a mid range tower with MacOS X. I'd love a cheaper PS3, but just because Sony doesn't make one doesn't give someone else the right to do so. Toyota doesn't sell a hybrid sports car, doesn't mean someone can plop a Toyota Hybrid motor in a sports car and start selling it.

Apple makes a product that is hardware + software. Other people also make products that are hardware + software. Anyone is free to sell that type of product in fact. Or they can just sell hardware. Or just software. Or bananas. But its wrong to take part of someone else product without their permission, pack it in with your own product and sell it. You want to hack your OWN machine to run OS X? Great, more power to ya. But to sell that to people? Nope, sorry, thats a lawsuit (and an easily winnable one at that)]]>Jul 16th 2008 7:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
The only thing this shows is just how over-priced Apple branded computers are and how anti-competitive Apple is for not wanting to face any competition.

Their EULA is a joke. Imagine if the DVD's you bought from Sony had an EULA that said you could only play their DVD's on a Sony DVD player. I don't see this as being any different.]]>Jul 16th 2008 7:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Every lemonade stand is a felony crime ring under your legal brilliance. Seriously, coudl you make a more-sweeping statement without having a clue?

I didn't think so.]]>Jul 17th 2008 12:14AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Congratulations to those people who aren't low ranked.]]>Jul 17th 2008 9:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Well I guess that depends, doesn't it? Did the stand operators make the lemonade directly from fresh lemons, water and sugar? Did they utilize a lemonade mix with artificial sweetener ala crystal light? Probably fine in either of those cases. Now did they buy Minute Maid lemonade and sell it as such? If so, did they purchase it as a reseller? Still.. probably okay.

Now did they buy Minute Maid lemonade, mix it with tap water and a little extra sugar, and sell it as Minute Maid brand lemonade? That might get them shut down.... but maybe they started a whole factory putting this ripped off Minute Maid into their own bottles with the Minute Maid logo on them, but their own crappy kid design? And use crappier material for the bottles creating a worse end user experience? And did they start to sell their "Minute Maid" for half the price of real Minute Maid across the whole country? And claim that they're justified in doing it because Minute Maid is monopolistic by putting its particular mixture of lemon, sweeteners and water only into its own bottles and because there is a market demand for cheap, watered down Minute Maid?


]]>Jul 17th 2008 2:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Every lemonade stand is a felony crime ring under your legal brilliance. Seriously, coudl you make a more-sweeping statement without having a clue?

I didn't think so.

Apparently you can, since you just did. Under your doctrine Sony could copy the xbox OS and sell its own version, Toyota could sell cars using Honda motors, Burger King could start selling McDonald's french fries, and whatever product you make your living selling I could just start selling instead without your permission. What a great idea!

Actually yes lemonade stands COULD be prosecuted and shut down, just because no one does for various reasons (bad press, no significant loss of assets, etc.) doesn't mean its not still technically against the law.

Seriously I hope you haven't actually gone to law school or anything, cause if you have and this is what you learned, you really should demand your money back.]]>Jul 17th 2008 2:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Reminds me of the time when apple bought a ton of reduced flash chips for their ipods while smaller companys got fucked in the ass. Hypocrites.]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
I think it is amazing that Apple has created a culture and fan base that becomes more and more extreme. Just the other day I heard a sales guy in an Apple store tell a customer flat outright lies regarding speed, wireless technology, and some other minor details to a perspective customer. He actually said that you won't find built-in webcams in a PC laptop as a selling point.

Of course Apple has to shut down something like this. They have a fan base that will overlook glaring Apple flaws (like cut/paste on the iPhone). What would happen if the average Joe found out he could be an OS X user at a hefty discount in hardware costs... well, that sounds like a problem. Especially in an recession where people are looking to save any dime possible.
]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Give it up, you're hopeless.]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
http://www.engadget.com/2005/10/09/samsung-and-apple-being-investigated-by-korean-ftc-for-unfair/

http://www.engadget.com/2005/10/27/creative-ceo-upset-that-apple-created-a-flash-memory-shortage/

There were more stories about that in the link found on those pages, which detailed things more so. I wouldnt expect an apple fanboy (idiot) like yourself yourself to think critically and without bias, therefor im not surprised that your offended by my comments bringing up past hypocritical actions of apple.

You calling me pathetic is rather weak, considering youre incredibly delusional.]]>Jul 16th 2008 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
"He's complaining that Samsung gave Apple a "one-sided deal" that no one else the industry has been able to get"

Where in the article does it say Apple FORCED Samsung to give them that deal? You're insinuating that it was Apple and Apple alone that caused the shortage, and apparently the possibility that Samsung may have had something to do with it is beyond your comprehension. Is that about right?

But sure, let's use your logic and just throw common sense out the window. Let's just assume Samsung wasn't capable of just telling Apple "No." Maybe Apple threatened them at gunpoint, or something. How else do you think Apple could have gotten those chips if Samsung didn't agree to it? Please enlighten us, this should be funny.

And the final quote from that article you linked (oh the irony):

"Boo freaking Hoo. Hate to say it, but business is business and as long as no laws are broken (and we'll leave that issue up to the Korean FTC to decide), there's nothing wrong with a company locking down a strategic resource (in this case, flash memory) in order to keep it out of the hands of the competition."

Does the phrase "hoisted on your own petard" mean anything to you?]]>Jul 16th 2008 6:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Yes they do lots of nasty things, but they don't train their employees to blatantly lie. If they did, their brand image would be as low as Microsoft's image minus Real's image.]]>Jul 17th 2008 9:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 21st 2008 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 21st 2008 6:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Should be interesting, the trademark and trade dress claims probably won't amount to much for Apple (trademark because damages are minimal there, and trade dress because the only clear trade dress "infringement" is of the look of the OS itself, but Psystar isn't selling the OS as its own, they are attributing it to Apple).

The copyright and breach of contract claims are the real interesting issues. If it goes to trial (2-3 years from now), and then appeal (another year), this case has the potential to be groundbreaking. *Sigh* too bad it will never get that far.]]>Jul 16th 2008 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/Jul 16th 2008 4:05PM