We have mixed feelings about the news that
Psystar is going under. On the one hand, it's wonderful having somebody attempt to create powerful, expandable Macs for cheap, on the other hand the company has been generally
abrasive to the grassroots hacker community its work is based on, and pretty bombastic when it comes to Apple and "the law." But hey, everybody needs to make a profit, even companies being sued into oblivion by Apple, and the news of Psystar filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection has interesting legal implications. Not only does it stall Apple's case against the company -- while implying a possibly inevitable defeat -- but Apple has long posited that a
mystery investor behind Psystar has nefarious aims, and the bankruptcy hearing on June 5th will name the creditors behind the company. Our fingers are crossed for a "Dan Brown"-style conspiracy, but we're prepared to be "post-2002 Tom Hanks"-style disappointed.
[Via
SlashGear]
posted May 26th 2009 1:54PM
Must be the Woz!
That would make a lot of sense, because Woz, while brilliant as an engineer, was a horrible businessman. He created a company to make universal remotes after leaving Apple and it folded pretty quickly.
+1 for the Woz conspiracy! He has both money and a personal point to prove
AHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!
So long you Terrorist nubs!!!!
you smelled of Osama anyways...
This is what you get for leaching off the backs of hard working hacker Nerds, Dweebs and Poindexters that would rather spend their friday nights tinkering with iPhone Basebands then driving around in mommy's BMW trying to get an STD from the town shore!!
AHAHAHAH
Zune tattoo guy is behind this, trying to get back at Apple for constant iPod hipster bullying
Re: Paul a. Chapel
You know you want one of those remotes. I know I do. Legend tells they were powerful. Very.
Universal remotes aren't necessary in my world. I watch television through EyeTV on my Mac ;)
"Zune tattoo guy is behind this, trying to get back at Apple for constant iPod hipster bullying"
Aha! Zune tattoo boy and Woz! They are definitely behind it! They have the money and the reason!
Time to go write a book and publish it before the case! :p
hey Forrest Gump was a good movie!
anyway, it's a shame it had to go down.. but it was inevitable, maybe just maybe Apple will start to think about lowering their prices just a bit.
it should be:
hey The Terminal was a good movie!
Remember how we all loved Forest Gump until 2002 when...
...and then we were just disappointed? *sigh* I miss those innocent days.
I don't think they will even start to think about lowering their prices. They are gaining in market share.
toy story 2 was okay
@AMiSH PiRATE..... what happened in 2002?
the pirate lost his salty dog named lieutenant dan?
Hard to feel bad for a bunch of criminals...breaking Apple's licensing policies is small in comparison to their flagrant disregard for the laws of the US. Not complying with the courts demands should void all their rights to protection under different US laws.
Good riddance to these clowns.
This was a wierd pointless company, people can make their own hackintoshes.
"a bunch of criminals"..."their flagrant disregard for the laws of the US.".... "to these clowns"...are you talking about Psystar or our government? Anything you can do I can do better, as long as I don't get caught.
If you had a legitimate copy of OS X is none of Apple's business what I do with it. I don't care what their silly EULAs say. It's like anything else you buy. As long as you're not pirating the thing what business of theirs is it what you do with it. Please.
@Rob
While you are well within your rights to install a personal copy of OS X on any computer you like, once you buy hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X with the express purpose of reselling them to third parties, you become a reseller and as a reseller, you have to get a license from Apple, who owns the rights to OS X. Microsoft does the same thing.
Apple spent millions developing OS X and they deserve the right to control it. Don't like it? Write your own operating system. What's that? You have no programming skills. Well, maybe you should STFU.
Paul, you just came off of a 3 day weeked of nothing but iPhone wet dreams. Why are you so angry? Did Mr. Bob attack you personally? Are you the one who spent millions of dollars developing an OS? You've become so attatched to a company even though the only stock you have in them are all of the products you have purchased, but you will defend their name from being dragged though the mud till your death. There must be something more productive you can do with your life. Go outside, plug in your little white headphones, and enjoy the world. Apple will be around long after you're gone and doesn't give a damn about you. It's ok, you'll live even though Rob is speaking his mind on the internet.
The Mac OS X retail is only valid for upgrades.
Jay...I don't doubt that our government has the unique ability to take a small mistake and turn it into a colossal mistake...
Rob...just because you buy something legally it does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it...
"Microsoft does the same thing"
Not a good example to make your point that Apple isn't being anti-competitive! Remember that Microsoft has just been found guilty by the EU of anti-competitive practices and fined over a billion euros...
@Jay Voorhees
WTF? The iPhone? Who the hell mentioned the iPhone? I made a well reasoned argument about Apple's OS X copyright, as relates to resellers, and you deflect to the iPhone? I don't get your argument.
And by the way, I don't own an iPhone or iPod. So exactly what was your point again?
LondonConsultant: Are you sure you aren't thinking of Intel? The EU fined Microsoft for anti-competitive practices long ago, with Intel it was much more recent.
Anyway, Apple is being very anti-competitive with their EULA, even though it may be complying with the law - they are limiting the hardware you can run OSX on to their own, squashing all competition wanting to make OSX compatible hardware. This was somewhat okay during the PowerPC era but nowadays OSX can technically run on the vast majority of consumer PCs out there. Apple limits it in order to sell more of their own hardware... Microsoft, on the other hand, doesn't.
(Sorry for the repost under the correct thread, Engadget's software hard at work again...)
"Hard to feel bad for a bunch of criminals"
...
"should void all their rights to protection under different US laws"
As per Wipedia, "Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States." Thus, Innocent until proven guilty. Since the US Constitution is the final say in US law, isn't your very claim contradictory? You are first calling them criminals (they have not yet been convicted), then saying that Apple deserves protection of law, and that protection should not be afforded to another company when said company has yet to be found guilty. If you wish to follow law, then follow it complete, not special consideration to protect Apple and Apple only.
@Paul, you claimed not too long ago that when Win7 reaches final release, you will torrent a copy and not pay for it. So people reselling a copy of OSX is evil, immoral, etc. but you stealing a copy of Windows is OK because it is Microsoft and you hate them. The Apple hypocrisy well at work.
@cheddar
Say what? That's the dumbest thing i ever read on engadget, and believe me I've read alot. You're a champ, I mean chump.
"...just because you buy something legally it does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it..."
Is that not one of the complaints against Microsoft in their trial? Microsoft was selling software to Dell, HP, etc. and those companies wanted to modify the installs to have links to Netscape, Real, etc. on the desktop. Microsoft told them no, and it was a complaint in front of the court. It was declared that those companies could modify the software and add desktop icons. The anti-MS fans cheered it, because when somebody buys software they should be able to modify it any way they wish.
But, I suppose, you will have some random argument that Apple is special, and should not be held to the same standard.
I keep hearing people make this argument:
"Well, if I buy OS X I should be able to do with it whatever I want."
Well, that's fine and all, but that isn't the argument. The argument is this:
"Should a company besides Apple have the right to resell thousands of copies of an operating system that they didn't design?"
What you can do with a personal copy is not the issue. What you do in your home is your business. Once you try to sell hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X on the open market, you have to get a reseller license, because Apple owns the copyright on OS X. Microsoft does the same thing. They have sued people for selling Windows on the internet without having a proper resell license.
Holy crap Paul, I think you just stumbled onto something incredibly profound here.
'Well, that's fine and all, but that isn't the argument. The argument is this:
"Should a company besides Apple have the right to resell thousands of copies of an operating system that they didn't design?"'
You just accurately described college book stores, disk replay, game stop, and now amazon and TRU. Why should apple be any diffrerent than game designers and authors. Theoretically if Apple sold me OSX then i inturn sold it to Psystar, Psystar installs it into a computer and sells the computer. I make money off of something I didnt design as does Psystar. Same damn thing.
Paul, the counterargument would go: if Apple doesn't want Psystar to resell OS X, they have the choice to not sell it to them in the first place.
That being said, Psystar's booboo is modifying OS X (to run on their hardware) before reselling. That's a derivative work and requires explicit permission. They should have gone the EFI emulation route.
You guys don't understand copyright laws. When you buy a copy of OS X in the store, that's considered a personal copy and fair use laws allow you to resell that copy to a third party. Once you establish a corporation (which is what Psystar did) and buy hundreds or thousands of copies of OS X, you become a reseller and the laws governing fair use do not apply to you.
No one buys thousands of copies of OS X for personal use. The only reason to buy that many is to start a business. And fair use isn't set up to protect businesses. It's set up to protect the rights of individual consumers. A corporation doesn't receive the same protections.
So all your arguments to the contrary are fairly specious.
And remember I correctly predicted that Psystar would be out of business this year. But that's because I understand copyright law.
@Paul
So now you are a lawyer that knows copyright law? Can I see your credentials?
"No one buys thousands of copies of OS X for personal use."
So a company that has 1000s of Macs and want to upgrade so they buy Snow Leopard when it is released. They automatically became a reseller by your argument. What is the cutoff between a reseller and a user? 2 copies, 3, 10, 50, 100, 1000?
Then again, which company has 1000s of Macs to upgrade.
@Nohone
Businneses that need bulk copies of OS X get their licenses through Apple's volume licensing program.
http://www.apple.com/au/software/volumelicencing/
They aren't reselling them on the open market, so no they don't qualify as resellers. Apple has a reseller program. In many cities that don't have an Apple Store, you can find mom and pop business licensed to sell OS X.
Psystar never did that.
Paul, again, I ask you, so now you are a lawyer that knows copyright law? Can I see your credentials?
BTW, I am not completely disagreeing with you on all points, just that you are fighting so hard to defend Apple, but have a different attitude when these issues are faced by **other** software manufacturers. And no, for the record, I am not a lawyer. My bit about innocent until proven guilty is something that you learn in 3rd grade, and something that all citizens should know.
I don't recall saying I was a lawyer and be that as it may, why do I need to prove myself to you? If I made a error on the provisions of fair use in the copyright law, then prove it. Otherwise, what are you arguing about?
Is this simply a case of your reactionary Apple hate?
Whatever I pay with my hard earn money is mines and mines only, I could do what the f#@$ i want with it, if they don't want you to resell than don't sell more than a person can use, it is cool to take my money but not cool if i do the same with the product i just purchase. Every companies I know are doing it, even apple.
Nohone: Get a new schtick already. The issue is not whether he's a lawyer, the issue is if he's RIGHT. Stop asking stupid questions like "are you a lawyer" and ask some intelligent ones instead. Make some points, maybe. Do something other than questioning his credentials.
Thanks, Zak. The guy admits I'm right, but he still wants to argue with me, just because it's Apple.
"You just accurately described college book stores, disk replay, game stop, and now amazon and TRU."
Those companies bought their products from distributors or individual sellers. they have a LICENSE from the original publishers to sell the games regardless of WHERE they got the games/books/whatever from.
They still need PERMISSION to sell large quantities of product.
"Theoretically if Apple sold me OSX then i inturn sold it to Psystar, Psystar installs it into a computer and sells the computer. I make money off of something I didnt design as does Psystar. Same damn thing."
Not the same as gamestop or what have you. Those companies have PERMISSION from the publishers to sell the games. They also have PERMISSION to buy the games off of a individual and resell them. They have to sell the games within certain criteria and the whole nine yards.
As a business, they need PERMISSION form Apple to buy or sell OSX as a means of making profit. There's NO way around it.
Once they have the intent to make profit from it in large quantities, they need permission.
By YOUR logic, I can offer my neighbors Wi-Fi service and charge them for it. Nevermind that my broadband provider will make less money at the end of the day, it's ok for me to do whatever I want. screw their rights!
Paul is claiming that we do not understand copyright law, claims he does ("But that's because I understand copyright law") then gives advice on copyright law. The only way to give advice on copyright law is to be a lawyer. In fact, they have a term for giving legal advice when you are not a lawyer, or giving incorrect information if you are a lawyer - malpractice. You neeed to be a licensed lawyer to give legal advice. He also claims that he is making reasoned arguments ("I made a well reasoned argument about Apple's OS X copyright"). So if we do not know copyright law but he does, then he must be a lawyer to give legal arguments. If he is not a lawyer, then his arguments are invalid and for the courts to decide - which they have not yet done (hence, my "Innocent until proven guilty" statement earlier). Any argument to the contrary, claiming that Phystar was in violation of Apple copyrights, is, to quote Paul with a small tweak, Is this simply a case of your reactionary anybody but Apple hate? Not only this, but he has said (comment now long gone, since he has been banned so many times), that he will Torrent Win7 when it is released, because he should not have to pay for it. If he is knowledgeable in copyright law, he should know that Torrenting Win7 RTM is a violation of copyrights. So he is able to give sound copyright law arguments, but he himself willingly violates said law? If he violates that law, then he is saying it is OK to protect one company but disregard rights of another, because it is a company he dislikes.
Zak, you have the biggest little "schtick" [sic] going around here. Put anybody down if they disagree with you, ignore parts of qestions when you are backed into a corner (just as Paul did, answer one part of what I wrote, but ignore the "are you a lawyer" question because it could be used to invalidate his argument), cherry-pick specific words from one person to "prove" you arguments, and claim that your word is the final, unquestionable truth - even if it contradicts something you may have said before. Get over it yourself, before you say somebody else is doing it.
And no, Paul, I did not admit you are right. I said I agree with some of what you are saying. This is what I mean when I say cherry-pick, you use portions of what I write, twist it to your fitting, and use it to claim that I hate Apple. My argument is that we need to protect copyrights of all people, not of just one company. But I guess in your little world that me saying we should protect the rights of Microsoft in addition to Apple, is an affront to Apple, since I am also arguing for Microsoft.
Who again is showing the hating hate?
What? This is so stupid!
First of all, I'm going to say right now that I have no idea what the rightful outcome of this trial should be, and have no CLUE as to whether or not Psystar or Apple is in the right.
However, I will say this.
@Paul
The question remains. Did you or did you not claim that torrenting an illegal copy of Windows 7 was ok because it was Windows, whereas when someone else legally buys a copy, they automatically are criminals without even hearing both sides of the argument?
Everyone knows that both you and Zak are Apple lovers. That's fine. But don't think you have to internalize everything that happens against Apple and make it your personal crusade. I happen to be doing the same thing, buy my personal crusade is for logic and reasoning. I'm pretty sure Nohone just checkmated you about the legality of downloading a torrented copy of Windows 7.
Finally, Zak, could you please respond ONLY to this query? Have you ever posted anything other than A: a comment defending Apple or condemning Microsoft in an Apple related post or B: a comment defending Apple or condemning Microsoft in a Microsoft related post?
Thanks
I'm not even going to bother to read what Nohone wrote. Dude, that paragraph is way too long and I'm sure you can't dispute my notions on copyright. You just have a stick in your butt because you thought Psystar was the answer to all your dreams about the destruction of Apple.
Face it, dude. Apple is going to be here for a long time.
@Mike10010100
Dude, the day I buy up thousands of Windows licenses and start a business called OpenWindows and sell Windows 7 without a reseller license, that's the day you can call me a hypocrite. And I never said that pirating Windows was okay, but even if I did, how the hell does that make Psystar right?
In fact, now that I've used the RC edition and didn't like it, I'm definitely not even going to pirate the retail version. My remaining reasons to use Windows, to run Valve games, evaporated when my friend gave me a copy of Crossover Games by CodeWeavers.
Here's a few screen shots of me running Valve games (among others) on my Mac.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/PACMan3000/
Windows is completely worthless to me now.
Mike, you hit on exactly what I am arguing for. I don't know what has been said in court, the arguments given, etc. just some of what has been said here on Engadget. Without hearing all the arguments, without knowing legal precident, etc. saying that Phystar is criminal is, quite simply, foolish.
If you aren't even going to read when Nohone posts something, then why on earth did you tell him to prove his point and make some points.
The fact remains, you are a hypocrite. In fact, when your friend gave you that copy, wasn't he giving out more licenses and cheating Codeweavers out of money that they worked hard for? Copyright law should come down on your ass.
Now I'm not saying I haven't done some torrenting in the past, but then again, I'm not getting all high and mighty in regards to for whom the copyright bell tolls.
Read Nohone's comment. It has to do with the reason why he's been asking you whether or not you were a lawyer.
nohone: You seem to have missed the point. Nobody cares if you want to see his credentials. If you think he's wrong, PROVE IT. How is that so hard for you to understand? You can blather on about what lawyers can or can't say till doomsday but you have yet to come up with a counter argument to what he's saying. Fail more, please.
As far as me, I already know you don't pay attention to what I say here. As always, you are welcome to prove me wrong about anything at any time. The fact that you seem to be incapable of actually doing that isn't really my problem, is it?
Mike - what sort of stupid question is that? Of course I have. The fact that you feel like you have to ask that just means you haven't been paying attention.
It's really simple, guys. Psystar violated Apple's EULA. Apple has a legal system to redistribute their operating system and that's through their reseller program.
http://www.apple.com/au/buy/apr/
Psystar chose to ignore this. And if they ever go to trial, Psystar is going to lose. Your personal feelings have no bearing on this case.
First of all, my comments have had NOTHING TO DO ABOUT THIS CASE!
And, regardless, neither of you are qualified to make this case an open and shut one, because it still has to go through the process of trial by jury and because neither of you are lawyers or judges! Regardless of what process Apple has for granting companies the right to resell their operating system, there could have been extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that Apple could have denied them due to the fact that they would be competitors on the Mac market. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
@Zak
That was a rhetorical question. I'm in the process of finding a single post that you have made that didn't have to do with praising Apple or condemning all their competitors. It's a lot to look through. There's a lot of hate. Almost makes you think that YOU were the one who designed all of Apple's products/ founded Apple.
Paul, debate is where you put out different points of view, and let othes decide. If you don't even read what I wrote, then how do you know I can not dispute your notions on copyright. Debate also requires points of fact. Saying that you understand copyright and no body else does, does not make your notions on copyright correct and invalidate the court's opinion.
Where did I ever say that I want Apple to be destroyed? This is why we dispute your "facts," you simply make up points of argument to back up the little bits that people do agree with you on. Besides, why would I want to see Apple fail? It gives competition to get Microsoft to do more. And it also helps me, being I sent my first iPhone app off to be posted to the AppStore over the weekend. Why would I want to see another of my personal revenue sources fail?
Yes, you did say you were going to Torrent Win7. And you doing it does not give Psystar the right to pirate, nobody calimed that. But on the other hand, they are not pirating, they are reselling something they bought off the shelf. It is up to the courts, not you, not me, not Mike, not Zak, etc. to decide, but the courts to decide if that is wrong.
I once posted a photo of me using an iPhone to post a message here on Engadget. I don't think it was iEye, but one of the other of your ilk (it was the time when iEye was posting here, and it is possible it was you just under one of your many names - I have no proof, but possible). I was told that I borrowed somebody's phone, typed in my message, took a photo, and was lying about it. So can we be sure that you are not lying? I do believe you, but if one person is "lying", then why should we believe you?
Since you will no longer be using Windows, there is no point in you arguing in future Microsoft threads. If you will be missed in those threads, only time will tell.
@Mike10010100, who said: "if you aren't even going to read when Nohone posts something, then why on earth did you tell him to prove his point and make some points."
I skimmed Nohone's rather long paragraph and didn't see anything about copyright. It just seemed to be some belly aching about me not being a lawyer or something, so I didn't read it in depth. I never claimed to be a lawyer. I said that I understood copyright law, which means I have read the laws and none of the claims that people keep making about Psystar's right to resell OS X, will hold up in court. They're making completely irrelevant emotional arguments about the issue.
"The fact remains, you are a hypocrite. In fact, when your friend gave you that copy, wasn't he giving out more licenses and cheating Codeweavers out of money that they worked hard for?"
No, CodeWeavers gave out FREE copies of their software back in October. See here:
http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/20081027/
"Now I'm not saying I haven't done some torrenting in the past, but then again, I'm not getting all high and mighty in regards to for whom the copyright bell tolls."
Here again. You are missing the big point. Psystar isn't accused of pirating software. Psystar is accused of violating Apple's copyright and making a profit off an operating system they didn't design. I haven't resold anything I've pirated in the past, so you're comparing apples to oranges.
"Psystar violated Apple's EULA."
No, they did not violate the EULA. That is what Apple claims, but it is not for you to decide if they violated the EULA. You may have your opinion, and nobody is saying you cannot have that opinion. But the only opinion that counts is the court. If the court says they violated the EULA, and Psystar appeals but loses, or does not appeal at that time, then yes they violated the EULA and you will not get any objection from me. But for you to say you are right, for you (and Zak) to say I am not giving proof you are wrong, cannot be done at this time. The court has not ruled, so your theory is just that, a theory. I am not saying Apple is right, that Psystar is right (although I think that it would be best if there was competition - you know, that thing you Microsoft haters want all the time except when it is competition with Apple), that you cannot say one way or the other, until the courts rule.
Codeweavers gave out a code for ONE free copy of their software for the redeemer. This does not mean that the person who got that free copy can turn around and give it to someone else. That's called software sharing, and if anybody but the people who got the code is using the software received by redeeming the code, in addition to the original people, then that is considered a loss to the Codeweaver's company, as they could have made more money by you buying your own copy.
Good job posting a harshly worded reply in my mistakenly posted comment so that nobody else would see it. Just so that everyone can, here it is:
"Sorry if you don't like it, but like they say, tough crap. Like nohone, you are welcome to prove anything I say wrong at any time. And if I'm actually right about everything I say, then what exactly are you complaining about?
Also, feel free to ignore what I say if you don't like comments that don't involve the bashing of Apple, which is what the majority of commenters here do. I know Apple bashing is oh so chic and trendy, and who likes a party pooper?"
I believe I recall you not too long ago saying that someone was classifying you as an Apple fanboy, when you in fact claim that you weren't. In this case, you seem to be classifying me as an "Apple basher" when in fact I am doing nothing of the kind. I'm bashing your logic, not Apple. Don't deflect.
The problem is that Nohone IS disproving you, you just aren't seeing it. You say, "prove me wrong about copyright law", we say that not only can we not prove you wrong, as we are not lawyers, but that you cannot make the case sound so absolute, as it has yet to go through the system. Also, it's pretty hard to disprove personal insults. Let me try. No we are not failing. Yes we are proving you wrong. There we go. I just disproved something you said.
@Nohone, who said: "Since you will no longer be using Windows, there is no point in you arguing in future Microsoft threads."
When was the last time you saw me in a Microsoft thread? I haven't been in any recent Microsoft threads because I decided a few weeks ago that I was no longer using Windows. This was around the time when I bought an iMac and my friend gave me a copy of Crossover Games. All this literally happened in a matter of days. Before, I was hanging on to Windows because of games, but once that option was finally removed, there was really no reason for me to use Windows, hence, there is no reason for me to complain about Windows anymore.
That doesn't mean I won't be in any Microsoft thread, because this is a free country, but it's going to be an extremely rare occurrence.
"Yes, you did say you were going to Torrent Win7. And you doing it does not give Psystar the right to pirate, nobody calimed that. But on the other hand, they are not pirating, they are reselling something they bought off the shelf. It is up to the courts, not you, not me, not Mike, not Zak, etc. to decide, but the courts to decide if that is wrong."
I never said that Psystar was a pirate. Psystar is a reseller without a reseller license. There is no protection for them in the current copyright law. And I can agree with you on the courts deciding this issue, but unless you get a really corrupt judge on the case, Psystar is going to lose.
"I once posted a photo of me using an iPhone to post a message here on Engadget... I was told that I borrowed somebody's phone, typed in my message, took a photo, and was lying about it. So can we be sure that you are not lying? I do believe you, but if one person is "lying", then why should we believe you?"
I don't know why you guys keep bringing up the iPhone. I don't even have an iPhone. I haven't even mentioned the iPhone today and yet, you guys keep trying to stick the iPhone in my face. I have no idea what you're talking about. Please remove your tin hat.
I don't know when you were last in a Microsoft thread. You keep your profile private so I cannot easily look up what you post, and Google is useless since you are banned so frequently, none of your posts can be found.
As for my mention of iPhone, I brought it up to point out that you posting a picture, using an Apple fanboy argument that was used against me, does not mean that you are telling the truth. This is your problem, Paul, you think that mention of any Apple product by anyone who is not as "enlightened" as you, is being used to attack. You attacked Rob's programming ability back at the beginning of this thread. His programming ability was not put forth, why did you bring it up? Are you just a hater? You hating hater full of hate. You were the first one to bring up Cross Over Games. Nobody mentioned that before. Are you just throwing it in as a diversion?
As for you calling Psystar a pirate, you linked your potential to pirate Win7 to what Psystar is doing. If A==B, and B==C, then A==C, which is the transitive property, but I guess I don't need to tell you that, because you are a mathematician also, right?
You have also wiped out your argument that you understand copyright law when you wrote "I haven't resold anything I've pirated in the past." If Psystar violating a EULA (which is a civil, mutual contract, not law, BTW) is bad (which, I agree with, BTW, ***IF*** they violated it, that is where the court needs to make the decision), why is you stealing software which is a matter of law, not a civil one, OK. This is where we call you a hipocrite. It is Ok fo you to do wrong, but others doing it, is quite OK. Actually, the issue is that they are doing wrong by Apple, anybody else, and it would be perfectly fine.
BTW, I keep going on because
1) You keep painting yourself deeper and deeper into a corner.
2) You are having a fit, and it is fun to watch.
3) I like filling up Cheddar's mail box.
@coolbho3000 - You're right. I guess my Alzeimer's must be getting worse...
LOL, you're accusing me of hypothetically pirating an operating system that isn't even out yet?
And first of all, YOU brought up the point about pirating Windows 7, not me. You are the guy that mentioned the issue of piracy, not me. You were implying that because I presented a desire to pirate Windows 7 in the future, that it somehow invalidated my argument against Psystar's violation of copyright. But the two are not related. I never accused Psystar of being a pirate. As far as I know, they bought OS X from Apple. My contention has been that fair use arguments don't relate to Psystar's case, because they aren't buying OS X for personal use, they're buying it to resell it and they don't have a reseller license.
So let me stress this again: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PIRACY.
This is about reselling a product that Psystar doesn't have rights to. It's doesn't compare to a hypothetical desire for me to pirate Windows 7 for personal use. There is no profit motive on my side. Microsoft wouldn't even bother to prosecute me if I did hypothetically pirate Windows 7, but they WOULD prosecute me if I tried to sell thousands of copies of Windows 7 for a profit on the internet, without a reseller license.
You're just trying to cloud the issue because you know you're wrong. You haven't discounted my argument on merits. You can't dispute any factual claim I've made about copyright law, so you deflect with this crap about piracy and claiming that I claimed to be a lawyer, when I did no such thing.
And by the way, anyone reading your comments from the past few months can see that you're obsessed with bashing Apple, in articles that have nothing to do with Apple. You're an Anti-Apple Fanboy and I'm pretty sure that you love Microsoft to a fault.
Paul, you arguments are nothing more than you claiming you understand copyright law, and no body else does. That is not an argument, that is being an arrogant twit. You further invalidate your argument that you understand copyright law by violating copyright law - by your own admission. In the past you said you were going to pirate Win7 (which would be a violation of copyright law), and you said in the past you have pirated, which again is a violation of copyright law. Why should we take you as an authority on copyright when you violate it? You are like a minister who says don't cheat on your wife, it is immoral, then cheat on your wife (ooops, sorry, I am just trying to confuse the argument there again, silly me).
See, once again, you are linking piracy to reselling. That is where this link comes up.
You have not put out fact about where Psystar has violated copyright law other than saying they violated the EULA, and Apple has reseller mechanisms. Point me to the specific law they have violated. List the specific section of the EULA they have violated. Pointme to the court ruling that decreed that they violated the law. Simply saying Apple took them to court because they believe Psystar violated the law does not mean they violated the law. BTW, EULAs have specific sections to comply with various state laws (California has the most exclusions, the state in which Apple is located) to protect the consumer - which, by your admission, Psystar is a consumer. They bought copies of OSX.
I did not say you are a lawyer, I said you are giving legal advice, which can only come from lawyers. Twisting what others say to fit your argument, once again.
I say things against Apple, yes. I fully admit to it unlike you, who never says anything anti-Apple and pro-Microsoft. Want a few of my pet peeves just today with MS software?
1) Zune search is horribly slow when typing in a artist name. It will start searching half way through typing in a name, causing the software to freeze for a second. I assume this is because most of my media is stored on a WHS and it has to hit the network, but they should do it on a background thread.
2) Text selection in IE8 is horribly messed up.
3) I am finding that I like Vista better than Win7. Some of what they did in Win7 has good intentions, but can be annoying at times - such as when you bump the mouse, and Aero Peek kicks in hiding what I was working on.
Pro Apple stuff:
1) Even though (as somebody who has worked on language design) Objective-C is the worst possible language possible and the submission mechanism needs work (I need to open a new bank account?), the final result of the AppStore is quite good, and no wonder many others are trying to do the same thing.
2) THe iPhone simulator is a cool bit of software, and seems to work a bit better than the Microsoft WinMo simulator, which seems to have problems just starting up some times.
But then again, I am an Apple hating, Microsoft apologist, unlike you who is fair and balanced in everything you say. I expect perfection in everything, be it MS, Apple, etc. Problem is, you want perfection from MS, and willing to settle with decisions Apple has made.
The burden of proof is on you, Nohone. Remember, you attacked me, not the other way around. I have consistently made the point that Psystar can not use fair use as a protection, as many people tried to suggest. Psystar is not licensed to be a reseller by Apple and as a result they are in violation of copyright law. My hypothetical violations have nothing to do with this. Unless you can prove to me that Psystar is in the right, you have lost the argument.
I started this discussion with valid points and nothing you have said proves my point wrong. Where is your copyright evidence that proves that Psystar is in the right?
And now you're resorting to sarcasm and fanboy talk, which is what you do in every conversation. You can't dispute the merits so you appeal to the Anti-Apple crowd that has an overwhelming presence in the comments section, but not the general readership on Engadget.
So before you respond again, let me quickly summarize your next argument and make it easy for you.
Blah, blah, blah... Psystar is good, Apple bad ...blah, blah, blah... you're a pirate ...blah, blah, blah... Apple Fanboy ...blah, blah, blah ....iPhone ....blah, blah... I hate Apple ... blah, blah, blah ...wait, I love Apple, but they suck ...blah, blah, blah ...hey, even though I haven't made one solid point, you're not a lawyer, so I win... blah, blah, blah ...I don't really care about this conversation, which is why I keep talking ...blah, blah, blah ...Fanboy, you're a Fanboy, Fanboy ... blah, blah, blah ...You said something I can't prove in a thread I can't find ...blah, blah, blah ....iPhone ...blah, blah, blah ...I have a Zune, WTF ...blah, blah, blah ...iPhone ...blah, blah, blah ...I only appear to bash Apple, but I'm really, really impartial ...blah, blah, blah ...did I mention that I like Microsoft better? ...blah, blah, blah ...iPhone ...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...
I hope that helps! Just copy and paste it, oh wait, you have an iPhone, right? Use your Zune instead... oh wait.
Paul, I proved you were wrong with one, very well known legal tradition here in the US, "Innocent until proven guilty", but to clarify even more, "Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law." That is not "Innocent until assumed guilty according to Paul A. Chapel". That is all that is necessary to show that you are wrong. But the problem with your "argument" is that you have not proven one thing. In the legal system, the burden lies upon the person making the charges against somebody. A DA cannot walk into a court, and say "Person X comitted a crime. We cannot cite the law they broke [just like you cannot cite the copyright law code - even though you claim to be well versed in copyright law], we have no evidence [just like you cannot give the section of the EULA], but they are violating the law so convict." That DA would be disbarred before the judge could dismiss the case. You have not provided one shread of evidence for me to dispute, just your opinion that Psystar violated the law. And no, I have not proven you wrong, because you cannot prove something wrong when there is nothing you have put before me to disprove.
Again, you are ignoring things so you can go on the attack. I said there are problems with MS software, and benefits to Apple software.
Oh, and one last thing, yes, I have a Zune (again, something you brought up first, trying to disrupt the debate again, eh?). Yes, I have an iPhone and a Touch. Yes, I have a Mac Mini. My touch has the 3.0 software on it, and since I am not bound by the Apple 3.0 EULA in this situation (since it has been publically announced) I have copy/paste on my Touch. So I can copy/paste that argument, but are those not the same arguments you have been using for months now? I will definately say that I preferr MS to Apple. But you have gone on this long, winding argument about how you used Windows, slowly converted over (you still liked and used MS though), and now suddenly, you have completely adopted Apple. So again, those words can be associated with you.
SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!
NERD RAGE 2009
Grab your pen tablets, productivity apps and games computer fans because this is one event you won't soon forget! (until the next flame war that is)
Watch an all-out, no-holds-barred battle royale as the fans take to the field and attempt to prove their loyalty to their chosen platform!
Hacking, crashing, and insane pointless bickering means nothing is safe!
NERD RAGE 2009!!!!!
Because this time....it's PERSONAL...... (though no less entertaining)
That was the most boring thing I didn't read.
Paul, your statement that you "know copyright law" notwithstanding, stating that Psystar has violated Apple's EULA presupposes that the EULA sections in question are in fact valid, which is one of the issues that is being litigated in the lawsuit between Apple and Psystar. This is not as clear of a question as people (particularly Apple) would like you to believe. The restrictions of Apple's EULA raise some questions, and not frivolously in my opinion, about their validity under the present anticompetition law.
Moreover, your cursory "analysis" of Psystar's legal position seriously calls into doubt your claim that you "know copyright law" or at least that you "know anything about how the law works."
And for the sake of full disclosure, I am a lawyer (but like Nilay, I'm not YOUR lawyer).
B-B-B-BOMBO CREAKER!
Wow. Talk about comment rage.
Chill.
I personally don't like Psystar because:
I hate the fact that they're using OS X to sell more of their computers, even though they didn't create the OS.
And mainly, taking the Hackintosh community's work and selling it. Meh.
We all know that the Ballmer is behind
We all know who Jobs is behind.
I think a big part of this is the delay in the lawsuit against them by Apple.
It was Jesus.
Jesus Gonzalez? You know him too? He was in my comp. programing class back in College. I always supsected he was a criminal.
because he's mexican?
he wants his phone back.
Ballmer? Naah. It's Wozniak. I'm serious. That would be hilarious.
Even better? Steve Jobs. That's where he's been...
omg maybe it was Ryan Block?!
@Teej: How dare you. Ryan Block was a kick ass editor here. No blaspheming allowed; I miss those days.
Sidenote, the 2 page argument between nohone and paul is effin ridiculous. I'm not even mad, it's impressive they were able to take up that much space without going "um, this is dumb."
have that exact case and monitor! good thing i dont have that horrible OS, amirite?
amitroll?
skeezle: yes.
It's a shame. OS X runs fine on non-apple computers, and even though these guys were dicks about it, the concept of doing just that is important. Macs dont need to be cheap, customers just need the option of buying a copy of OS X to run on their PCs. As for the mysterious mastermind, sitting in the swivel chair at the heart of this are BillG and SteveW, playing oregon trail
The fact is, if Apple did decide to sell the OS on discs, all claims they have to be superior to windows will go down the drain.
1.OSX is more secure than a PC... wont be, if the OS is main stream and on 10000 different kinds of configurations
2. OSX is faster than PC... wont be, if the manufacturers decide to use lower spec hardware to run OSX
and the most important,
Macs are cooler than PCs... wont be if you have Acer, Dell, Lenovo etc selling laptops with OSX.
OSX just wont be as special anymore if it were ever to become "mainstream" by having an option to simply put it on any computer you want.
But see you don't need 1000 different configs and it already runs pretty well on lower spec PCs, you just need some drivers and software tweaks. Apple fans wouldn't stop buying macs if they were made from arsenic and human skin, and the software sales would only go up. I'm also sure that if anyone can make basic driver inclusions and hardware support seem "beautiful" "genius" and "innovative" to the average consumer, It's Apple...
@y3k.nik:
Exactly! People talk about windows like microsoft makes every single computer it runs on. The fact is Windows is designed to run on a limitless configuration of computer hardware.
@shadoblak
Ever hear of Power Computing? Wake up and find something else to spew ignorant on.
You mean the company that scared Apple into their current turtle shell? Yeah, they created a monster. So what, it was good for consumers and if they can't find a way not to be whupped by a company they pretty much created then they really have no claim to all the beautifulfastestmostadvancedgenus marketing lingo they keep using. Or did you have another point? Or maybe you just wanted to sound like a total dick?
Scared them into their shell? Like Apple is some helpless little animal because they didnt write up their contracts well enough? Give me a break. Apple had the advantage. They were in every single school in the US and they still failed to draw in the brand loyalty. Don't blame Apple's failures on Microsoft.
No. I meant turtle shell as in defensive, not helpless. I also didn't say anything about Microsoft.....
no, I meant as in a response to your ass-ignorant view that "Apple fans wouldn't stop buying macs if they were made from arsenic and human skin"
...speaking of dicks
The Man wins again.
It was steve jobs all along!
I wouldnt be surprised if there isnt a mystery creditor......
Wow - FakeSteveJobs is taking this thing a little too far dontchathink?
i wouldnt be surprised if hte mystery creditor covered their ass and somehow changed the creditor's name to appear in court
Tom Hanks. Money Pit. Those were the days.
BEST ENDLINE EVER
eh.. i'm surprised they lasted so long
WHOOOHOO PARTY!!!
My money is on those damned mutant worm overlords from the 30th century! They have dabbled in our time stream for way too long now and it is about time they were outed.
apple can insert one in their mouths.
condolences to the underdog and best wishes for Psystar's future.
way to pee on the constitution.