Not sure what their idiot lawyer has to do with our gadgets and electronics.
It's a pity Psystar couldn't succeed. More competition for Apple would have been great for consumers of their products.
I'm surprised at all the negative comments directed at Psystar actually. You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you?
There is plenty of competition for Apple. Its called Windows and the numerous flavors of Linux.
Microsoft owns the intellectual property that makes "IBM compatible" machines run. If Microsoft did not want to license their OS and participate in the OEM market they would be free to do so. There is no [i]legal mandate[/i] for Microsoft to run their business the way they do. It's their choice.
Apple's chooses to run their business differently. And unless they have a monopoly on a market (which they don;t... the PC market has plenty of competition) its not the government's responsibility to dictate how apple runs its business.
MS is nothing to do with this, and they don't "hold the IP that makes PCs run". All PC (once IBM-Compatible) makers either are cloners (Compaq, HP, etc) or evolved from cloners.
IBM made the first "IBM-Compatible", and other OEMs copied the hardware, the BIOS, and licenced the same OS from MS. The only difference between Psystar and them is that IBM didn't own the OS they used, so other OEMs had no trouble using it legally. IBM was unlucky. Apple was much luckier/smarter.
Micorsoft has EVERYTHING to so with this. This case was about software, not hardware. Nothing in the ruling stated that Psystar was liable for making the hardware they made. It's all about the software and the fact that they altered and then resold intellectual property that was not theirs to alter and resell.
Just because Microsoft chooses to do business this way does not make such a business model legally mandated. If MS wanted to keep their OS restricted to certain hardware and stopped selling OEM versions they would be totally within their rights to do so.
Bringing MS into an issue that doesn't involve them at all is just bizzare. If MS didn't exist in this world at all, it would make absolutely no difference to this situation whatsoever.
I've never once even suggested that Psystar's business model was legal. I said that I personally am sorry to see them fail, and that anyone who has owned a non-IBM/Lenovo PC criticizing them is being hypocritical.
"You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you?"
You do realize that most of these IBM clone companies would never had existed has Microsoft not been willing to sell their OS in OEM form to any company that wanted to put it on their IBM clone?
Is anyone stopping Psystar from making "Apple clones" as long as they are sold without OSX? The crux of a "clone" is the operating system. Without it you are just buying a box full of parts.
Again, trying to bring MS into a situation that doesn't involve them is ridiculous. For the third time, MS is irrelevant. The point is all "PC" makers (except IBM/Lenovo) are cloners, with the same intentions and goals as Psystar. The reasons for one's success and the other's failure are of no interest. Success and failure are of no interest. The legality of either is of no consequence.
The point is they are all cloners. Psystar set out to do what many cloners had done before it (and failed). To be critical of Psystar but not other cloners is hypocritical.
"To be critical of Psystar but not other cloners is hypocritical."
Another strawman grobbo. Nobody has criticized Psystar for their hardware business (just like the original poster never said buying and selling copyrighted works was illegal but rather copying, modifying and THEN reselling) You are attacking arguments that were never made. The criticisms of Psystar always have always been of their sleazy unauthorized modification and use of another company's IP for profit as well as their abuse of the open source communities work.
IBM cloners never break the law. Psystar did. The hardware is inconsequential.
No, you are reading something that was never written. If you go back to my post at the start of this mini-thread, you'll see that I made no mention of the OP, I in fact wrote about the comments readers had left.
I am not calling the original post hypocritical, and I made no claims, nor refuted any arguments. I am calling commenters critical of Pystar's aims/goals/philosophy who have used non IBM/Lenovo "PC"s hypocritical.
Don't accuse me of strawmen with strawmen of your own. Stay on MY topic.
Correct, IBM cloners cloned legally, Psystar cloned illegally. Irrelevant. I am not interested in legality here. Compaq (and the rest) said "let's clone IBM". They succeeded. Psystar said "let's clone Apple". They failed. Compaq+ cloned against IBM's wishes, and cleanroom copied their proprietary BIOS. IBM had no way to stop them. Because Apple owned their OS (unlike IBM) they DID have a legal avenue to stop Psystar.
"No, you are reading something that was never written. If you go back to my post at the start of this mini-thread, you'll see that I made no mention of the OP, I in fact wrote about the comments readers had left"
Really?
"The author should brush up on his knowledge of the legalities in his post...It is 100% legal, and done by millions of Americans everyday, to resell copyrighted purchases. It's enshrined in the "Right of First Sale" (although that is something different) in the US. Please look it up."
Those are your words grobbo, not mine. Nothing was "imagined". You claimed the author said something he never said and you were promptly called out for it. Denying you ever said such a thing when your original post is right here in the thread for all to see is absurd.
"I am not calling the original post hypocritical, and I made no claims, nor refuted any arguments. I am calling commenters critical of Pystar's aims/goals/philosophy who have used non IBM/Lenovo "PC"s hypocritical."
Care to point out these posts you claim you are responding too or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Of course the posters have to specifically be complaining specifically about Psystar and their HARDWARE (and not about the misuse of intellectual property). Because the OS has absolutely nothing to do with this, right?
" Not sure what their idiot lawyer has to do with our gadgets and electronics. It's a pity Psystar couldn't succeed. More competition for Apple would have been great for consumers of their products. I'm surprised at all the negative comments directed at Psystar actually. You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you? "
I'd be happy point out the posts I claim "I'm responding too" just as soon as you can point out where I claim that (I don't BTW. It's just another of your strawmen.)
I'll repeat myself, for your benefit: I wasn't replying to the OP in particular., Nor was I replying to a reader comment in particular; if I was, I wouldn't have started a sub-thread, I would have continued one. Do yourself a favour, and don't bring up ay more strawmen arguments about who I'm replying to, etc. Stay on track.
My point, as it always was, is that anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did. Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Psystar wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what APPLE wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
Oh please, stop dodging the subject on BS technicalities about me drawing from the "wrong subthread". It just looks desperate and your words are still there lear as day. It couldn't get any clearer than this"
"The author should brush up on his knowledge of the legalities in his post... It is 100% legal, and done by millions of Americans everyday, to resell copyrighted purchases. It's enshrined in the "Right of First Sale" (although that is something different) in the US. Please look it up."
You said it. Nilay Patel called you on it. I called you on it. Keep denying it or changing the subject if you must. But the post speaks for itself.
"My point, as it always was, is that anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:"
Dodging again. There are only 61 posts in this whole thread. Just quote one, any damn one, that is specifically critical of Psystar's "goals and philosophy". If you can't, then you are attacking words that were never said... which is the very definition of a "strawman argument".
Is it too difficult to argue against my point? You need to bring up other things to argue against? Even other threads? Check the definition of "strawman". Don't worry, I'll help you stay on subject:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did. Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
As you can see it's a blanket criticism that applies to anyone fitting the description, so pointing out which comments fit is unnecessary, but it's so easy I will anyway:
"The criticisms of Psystar always have always been of their sleazy unauthorized modification and use of another company's IP for profit as well as their abuse of the open source communities work."
"They're stone cold, bat shit crazy."
"These guys need their heads tested."
"Why wont it die!"
"PSYTAR XVIII: Dead Horse Assault!"
"Damn Psystar. Just go out of freakin' business already..."
"Heh, pirating from a company thats leeching from another. "
"psystar needs to stop walking around with a chip on their shoulders, thinking they didnt anything wrong here!"
Of course a whole lot more comments put Psystar in a negative light too, as anyone can plainly see, but these are the best.
Remember now, no strawmen, stay on subject. It might be a little extreme to put it in one post twice, but I think you need it:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did. Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
Thanks for at least trying this time by supplying some actual quotes. But not one of the quotes you list above actually criticize Psystar's "goals and philosophy" ... at least insofar as it pertains to the simple cloning of HARDWARE. Remember, you keep claiming the OS on a clone is irrelevant so people being angry at the way Psystar broke the law to copy, modify and illegally leech off of Apple has nothing to do with this argument.
People aren't pissed at the "goals and philosophy" of Psystar. They are pissed about Psystar's illegal ACTIONS and their sleezy justifications for those actions. Big difference. There is no hypocrisy in calling out someone for for their behavior even if their heart was in the right place. IBM cloners didn't break the law to build IBM clones. Psystar did. Its pretty simple, really.
Still hanging on to that "but its part of another subthread" excuse, to avoid owning up to your own words, huh?. It won't change the fact that you were condescendingly called out by Nilay Patel for what you said about his post. At first I thought the tone of his reaction was over the top but I am beginning to think you might have deserved it now.
!!! An actual argument against me!: " There is no hypocrisy in calling out someone for for their behavior even if their heart was in the right place. IBM cloners didn't break the law to build IBM clones. Psystar did. Its pretty simple, really. "
You think following the law is the same as having your heart in the right place? You think Compaq+ had their heart in the right place when they cleanroom copied IBM's BIOS? Do you know what cleanroom copying is? It uses a loophole in the law to copy IP that the owner doesn't want copied.
As for the rest of it, still addicted to strawmen I see. You didn't even attempt to call my point wrong, instead you talk about the comments I quoted.
You said I claim OS's the OS on clones are irrelevant, which (surprise, surprise) I've never written. Please point it out if you can find it.
Not sure what your obsession with hardware is, cloners don't clone hardware and try to sell it without an OS. Wouldn't be much of a clone now would it? Most consumers need the whole package.
Compaq+ didn't break the law to copy, modify and legally leech off IBM. (not that I have any problem with that, or with Psystar)
Whether you agree or not, I'm going to go ahead and assume the authors of those quotes ALL dislike Psystar's goals and philosophy (I never said "pertaining to hardware". YOU said that). I think most people would come to the same conclusion, and I doubt the authors themselves would say otherwise - I doubt even you would say you agree with Psystar's goals and philosophy (you were one of the quote authors).
Here's the point again, see if you can hit it with your next volley of strawmen:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did. Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
Remember, you're in this sub-thread to tell me why my OP/point is wrong. You haven't been able to even come close yet.
You, know, Grobbo. Nilay Patel was was pretty much right in his assessment of you to begin with. You're a prickly troll who doesn't offer others respect so you don't deserve to be shown respect yourself.
You think you don't have to own up to your words on some bullshit procedural grounds that if its in another sub-thread you don't have to be accountable for things you said. I've posted the relevant quotes several times yet you just keep dancing around them like an evasive politician. And like a child that eternally changes his story or who denies he wrote something when he has been shown the evidence, you are a waste of time to argue with.
Have fun jousting your own windmills, Grobbo. We are all "hypocrites" because we think Psystar deserved what they got and you have exposed us. Now I'm sure you'll want to get the last word (and I'm sure it will be long and rambling and incoherent. Knock yourself out.
You're right, there was a lot of dancing going on, but you were leading, not me.
My first, and last word, and the point of this subthread, that you managed to avoid almost entirely while trying to prove it wrong (!) was:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did. Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Not sure what their idiot lawyer has to do with our gadgets and electronics.
It's a pity Psystar couldn't succeed. More competition for Apple would have been great for consumers of their products.
I'm surprised at all the negative comments directed at Psystar actually. You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you?
@grobbo
There is plenty of competition for Apple. Its called Windows and the numerous flavors of Linux.
Microsoft owns the intellectual property that makes "IBM compatible" machines run. If Microsoft did not want to license their OS and participate in the OEM market they would be free to do so. There is no [i]legal mandate[/i] for Microsoft to run their business the way they do. It's their choice.
Apple's chooses to run their business differently. And unless they have a monopoly on a market (which they don;t... the PC market has plenty of competition) its not the government's responsibility to dictate how apple runs its business.
@minimalist
"Plenty" is never enough.
MS is nothing to do with this, and they don't "hold the IP that makes PCs run".
All PC (once IBM-Compatible) makers either are cloners (Compaq, HP, etc) or evolved from cloners.
IBM made the first "IBM-Compatible", and other OEMs copied the hardware, the BIOS, and licenced the same OS from MS.
The only difference between Psystar and them is that IBM didn't own the OS they used, so other OEMs had no trouble using it legally.
IBM was unlucky. Apple was much luckier/smarter.
@grobbo
Micorsoft has EVERYTHING to so with this. This case was about software, not hardware. Nothing in the ruling stated that Psystar was liable for making the hardware they made. It's all about the software and the fact that they altered and then resold intellectual property that was not theirs to alter and resell.
Just because Microsoft chooses to do business this way does not make such a business model legally mandated. If MS wanted to keep their OS restricted to certain hardware and stopped selling OEM versions they would be totally within their rights to do so.
@minimalist
Bringing MS into an issue that doesn't involve them at all is just bizzare. If MS didn't exist in this world at all, it would make absolutely no difference to this situation whatsoever.
I've never once even suggested that Psystar's business model was legal. I said that I personally am sorry to see them fail, and that anyone who has owned a non-IBM/Lenovo PC criticizing them is being hypocritical.
@grobbo
"You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you?"
You do realize that most of these IBM clone companies would never had existed has Microsoft not been willing to sell their OS in OEM form to any company that wanted to put it on their IBM clone?
Is anyone stopping Psystar from making "Apple clones" as long as they are sold without OSX? The crux of a "clone" is the operating system. Without it you are just buying a box full of parts.
@minimalist
Again, trying to bring MS into a situation that doesn't involve them is ridiculous.
For the third time, MS is irrelevant.
The point is all "PC" makers (except IBM/Lenovo) are cloners, with the same intentions and goals as Psystar.
The reasons for one's success and the other's failure are of no interest. Success and failure are of no interest.
The legality of either is of no consequence.
The point is they are all cloners. Psystar set out to do what many cloners had done before it (and failed).
To be critical of Psystar but not other cloners is hypocritical.
@grobbo
"To be critical of Psystar but not other cloners is hypocritical."
Another strawman grobbo. Nobody has criticized Psystar for their hardware business (just like the original poster never said buying and selling copyrighted works was illegal but rather copying, modifying and THEN reselling) You are attacking arguments that were never made. The criticisms of Psystar always have always been of their sleazy unauthorized modification and use of another company's IP for profit as well as their abuse of the open source communities work.
IBM cloners never break the law. Psystar did. The hardware is inconsequential.
@minimalist
No, you are reading something that was never written. If you go back to my post at the start of this mini-thread, you'll see that I made no mention of the OP, I in fact wrote about the comments readers had left.
I am not calling the original post hypocritical, and I made no claims, nor refuted any arguments. I am calling commenters critical of Pystar's aims/goals/philosophy who have used non IBM/Lenovo "PC"s hypocritical.
Don't accuse me of strawmen with strawmen of your own. Stay on MY topic.
Correct, IBM cloners cloned legally, Psystar cloned illegally. Irrelevant. I am not interested in legality here.
Compaq (and the rest) said "let's clone IBM". They succeeded.
Psystar said "let's clone Apple". They failed.
Compaq+ cloned against IBM's wishes, and cleanroom copied their proprietary BIOS. IBM had no way to stop them.
Because Apple owned their OS (unlike IBM) they DID have a legal avenue to stop Psystar.
@grobbo
"No, you are reading something that was never written. If you go back to my post at the start of this mini-thread, you'll see that I made no mention of the OP, I in fact wrote about the comments readers had left"
Really?
"The author should brush up on his knowledge of the legalities in his post...It is 100% legal, and done by millions of Americans everyday, to resell copyrighted purchases.
It's enshrined in the "Right of First Sale" (although that is something different) in the US. Please look it up."
Those are your words grobbo, not mine. Nothing was "imagined". You claimed the author said something he never said and you were promptly called out for it. Denying you ever said such a thing when your original post is right here in the thread for all to see is absurd.
"I am not calling the original post hypocritical, and I made no claims, nor refuted any arguments. I am calling commenters critical of Pystar's aims/goals/philosophy who have used non IBM/Lenovo "PC"s hypocritical."
Care to point out these posts you claim you are responding too or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Of course the posters have to specifically be complaining specifically about Psystar and their HARDWARE (and not about the misuse of intellectual property). Because the OS has absolutely nothing to do with this, right?
@minimalist
You're in the wrong sub-thread. Try this one:
" Not sure what their idiot lawyer has to do with our gadgets and electronics.
It's a pity Psystar couldn't succeed. More competition for Apple would have been great for consumers of their products.
I'm surprised at all the negative comments directed at Psystar actually. You do realise that any "IBM-compatible" computer you've ever used that wasn't IBM/Lenovo branded also came from cloner companies just like Psystar, don't you? "
I'd be happy point out the posts I claim "I'm responding too" just as soon as you can point out where I claim that (I don't BTW. It's just another of your strawmen.)
I'll repeat myself, for your benefit: I wasn't replying to the OP in particular., Nor was I replying to a reader comment in particular; if I was, I wouldn't have started a sub-thread, I would have continued one.
Do yourself a favour, and don't bring up ay more strawmen arguments about who I'm replying to, etc. Stay on track.
My point, as it always was, is that anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Psystar wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
@edit
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what APPLE wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
@grobbo
Oh please, stop dodging the subject on BS technicalities about me drawing from the "wrong subthread". It just looks desperate and your words are still there lear as day. It couldn't get any clearer than this"
"The author should brush up on his knowledge of the legalities in his post... It is 100% legal, and done by millions of Americans everyday, to resell copyrighted purchases. It's enshrined in the "Right of First Sale" (although that is something different) in the US. Please look it up."
You said it. Nilay Patel called you on it. I called you on it. Keep denying it or changing the subject if you must. But the post speaks for itself.
"My point, as it always was, is that anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:"
Dodging again. There are only 61 posts in this whole thread. Just quote one, any damn one, that is specifically critical of Psystar's "goals and philosophy". If you can't, then you are attacking words that were never said... which is the very definition of a "strawman argument".
@minimalist
Is it too difficult to argue against my point? You need to bring up other things to argue against? Even other threads? Check the definition of "strawman".
Don't worry, I'll help you stay on subject:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
As you can see it's a blanket criticism that applies to anyone fitting the description, so pointing out which comments fit is unnecessary, but it's so easy I will anyway:
"The criticisms of Psystar always have always been of their sleazy unauthorized modification and use of another company's IP for profit as well as their abuse of the open source communities work."
"They're stone cold, bat shit crazy."
"These guys need their heads tested."
"Why wont it die!"
"PSYTAR XVIII: Dead Horse Assault!"
"Damn Psystar. Just go out of freakin' business already..."
"Heh, pirating from a company thats leeching from another. "
"psystar needs to stop walking around with a chip on their shoulders, thinking they didnt anything wrong here!"
Of course a whole lot more comments put Psystar in a negative light too, as anyone can plainly see, but these are the best.
Remember now, no strawmen, stay on subject. It might be a little extreme to put it in one post twice, but I think you need it:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
@grobbo
Thanks for at least trying this time by supplying some actual quotes. But not one of the quotes you list above actually criticize Psystar's "goals and philosophy" ... at least insofar as it pertains to the simple cloning of HARDWARE. Remember, you keep claiming the OS on a clone is irrelevant so people being angry at the way Psystar broke the law to copy, modify and illegally leech off of Apple has nothing to do with this argument.
People aren't pissed at the "goals and philosophy" of Psystar. They are pissed about Psystar's illegal ACTIONS and their sleezy justifications for those actions. Big difference. There is no hypocrisy in calling out someone for for their behavior even if their heart was in the right place. IBM cloners didn't break the law to build IBM clones. Psystar did. Its pretty simple, really.
Still hanging on to that "but its part of another subthread" excuse, to avoid owning up to your own words, huh?. It won't change the fact that you were condescendingly called out by Nilay Patel for what you said about his post. At first I thought the tone of his reaction was over the top but I am beginning to think you might have deserved it now.
@minimalist
!!! An actual argument against me!:
" There is no hypocrisy in calling out someone for for their behavior even if their heart was in the right place. IBM cloners didn't break the law to build IBM clones. Psystar did. Its pretty simple, really. "
You think following the law is the same as having your heart in the right place? You think Compaq+ had their heart in the right place when they cleanroom copied IBM's BIOS? Do you know what cleanroom copying is? It uses a loophole in the law to copy IP that the owner doesn't want copied.
As for the rest of it, still addicted to strawmen I see. You didn't even attempt to call my point wrong, instead you talk about the comments I quoted.
You said I claim OS's the OS on clones are irrelevant, which (surprise, surprise) I've never written. Please point it out if you can find it.
Not sure what your obsession with hardware is, cloners don't clone hardware and try to sell it without an OS. Wouldn't be much of a clone now would it? Most consumers need the whole package.
Compaq+ didn't break the law to copy, modify and legally leech off IBM. (not that I have any problem with that, or with Psystar)
Whether you agree or not, I'm going to go ahead and assume the authors of those quotes ALL dislike Psystar's goals and philosophy (I never said "pertaining to hardware". YOU said that). I think most people would come to the same conclusion, and I doubt the authors themselves would say otherwise - I doubt even you would say you agree with Psystar's goals and philosophy (you were one of the quote authors).
Here's the point again, see if you can hit it with your next volley of strawmen:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.
Remember, you're in this sub-thread to tell me why my OP/point is wrong.
You haven't been able to even come close yet.
@grobbo
You, know, Grobbo. Nilay Patel was was pretty much right in his assessment of you to begin with. You're a prickly troll who doesn't offer others respect so you don't deserve to be shown respect yourself.
You think you don't have to own up to your words on some bullshit procedural grounds that if its in another sub-thread you don't have to be accountable for things you said. I've posted the relevant quotes several times yet you just keep dancing around them like an evasive politician. And like a child that eternally changes his story or who denies he wrote something when he has been shown the evidence, you are a waste of time to argue with.
Have fun jousting your own windmills, Grobbo. We are all "hypocrites" because we think Psystar deserved what they got and you have exposed us. Now I'm sure you'll want to get the last word (and I'm sure it will be long and rambling and incoherent. Knock yourself out.
@minimalist
You're right, there was a lot of dancing going on, but you were leading, not me.
My first, and last word, and the point of this subthread, that you managed to avoid almost entirely while trying to prove it wrong (!) was:
Anyone critical of Psystar's goals and philosophy but not of IBM cloners (Compaq+) is hypocritical, because they have the SAME goals and philosophy:
Compaq+ said "We want to sell 'IBM' boxes with our badge on them", despite what IBM wanted, and they did.
Psystar said "We want to sell 'Apple' boxes with our badge on them", despite what Apple wanted, but because Apple use their own OS, Psystar was able to be stopped in court.