Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[jgrimes80]

If Apple could/would allow it, legally, using their OS's on a "properly equipped" PC would be fine with me.

I do agree with some who said the EULA states "Apple Labeled" means you can make/acquire and slap a sticker on the box. This is the grey area. Who puts the label on, Apple or the user? Good point, there.

 

 

If I used Apple's trademarked logo on a box and profiting from such infringement... wouldn't I stand in violation anyways???

 

And, I don't read "Apple Labeled" as a label of Apple. I read that as an item labeled BY Apple. Apple(subject) Labeled(verb)... Apple does the labeling.

[slacker25]

@mmcnally I do not hate hacks ppl can do them all they want, but i will never trade one over the real thing they just are not as good.... what i do hate is little whine bags that cant accept that they have done something illegal and move on. Instead get this OHHH BUT I DONT WANNA BE TOLD WHAT IM DOING IT ILLEGAL....come on you cant be say a cow isnt a cow just cause you dont want it to be and people use a sence of entitlement that is all wrong .... its this way with every freakin piece of software ... granted not all are locked down like this but they still have some sorta restrictions that the dev has right to do for their work. you didnt create it ... so if you gonna steal it just accept that you stole it and get on with it

 

@Ayce.....Apple was kind enough to make it work on a mac if you dont like maybe they can remove boot camp

 

@jgrimes80 You are exactly right.... trademarks themselves are the sole right of the trademark owner to only use it in their means .. this is why the children in here have to understand that they cant just slap a sticker on it and say its legit

[jaez]

If I used Apple's trademarked logo on a box and profiting from such infringement... wouldn't I stand in violation anyways???

 

If you tried to "sell" that box, suggesting it's an Apple Branded computer it would violate the trademark. But, if you're just sitting there admiring your own Apple Labeled box with your hackint0sh inside, that's fine.

 

And, I don't read "Apple Labeled" as a label of Apple. I read that as an item labeled BY Apple. Apple(subject) Labeled(verb)... Apple does the labeling.

 

If "Apple Labeled" => "Labeled by Apple", why not just say "Labeled By Apple." ?

 

The reason is the same Microsoft gives consumers Labels to stick onto their boxes where Windows is installed. The "user" labels the box.

 

My "Microsoft Labeled" windows Xp pro sp2 box is Labeled by me.

 

The funny thing is that Microsoft "requires me to label" my box where I install Windows.

 

That's part of the Microsoft Windows EULA.

 

If I don't put the Microsoft Label onto my box, then, according to Microsoft, I'd be in violation of the EULA.

 

The difference, of course, is that Microsoft permits me to sell my box with Windows installed, provided that Label is on the box when I sell my machine.

 

But, Apple doesn't allow you to sell the box with your Apple Label on it, even though they require you to label the box where OSX is installed like Microsoft.

 

The Apple EULA clearly says when you sell OSX you must sell it in the same way you yourself bought it, and that doesn't include the label.

 

Apple leaves out the label, because they want to be the only one selling or re-selling the hardware that OSX runs on.

 

That's all.

 

I hope the reason is clear, to all those confused.

[Maxintosh]

if you're just sitting there admiring your own Apple Labeled box with your hackint0sh inside, that's fine.

There's no such thing (legally) as a self-labeled Apple computer

 

If "Apple Labeled" => "Labeled by Apple", why not just say "Labeled By Apple." ?

Because it has to be written in legalese.

[jgrimes80]

If you tried to "sell" that box, suggesting it's an Apple Branded computer it would violate the trademark. But, if you're just sitting there admiring your own Apple Labeled box with your hackint0sh inside, that's fine.

 

If "Apple Labeled" => "Labeled by Apple", why not just say "Labeled By Apple." ?

 

The reason is the same Microsoft gives consumers Labels to stick onto their boxes where Windows is installed. The "user" labels the box.

 

My "Microsoft Labeled" windows Xp pro sp2 box is Labeled by me.

 

The funny thing is that Microsoft "requires me to label" my box where I install Windows.

 

That's part of the Microsoft Windows EULA.

 

If I don't put the Microsoft Label onto my box, then, according to Microsoft, I'd be in violation of the EULA.

 

The difference, of course, is that Microsoft permits me to sell my box with Windows installed, provided that Label is on the box when I sell my machine.

 

But, Apple doesn't allow you to sell the box with your Apple Label on it, even though they require you to label the box where OSX is installed like Microsoft.

 

The Apple EULA clearly says when you sell OSX you must sell it in the same way you yourself bought it, and that doesn't include the label.

 

Apple leaves out the label, because they want to be the only one selling or re-selling the hardware that OSX runs on.

 

That's all.

 

I hope the reason is clear, to all those confused.

 

I don't understand how you conclude that a sticker results in a OSX being installed on an "Apple Labeled" product, but to each their own. The outcome, should it actually find its way in court, will be the deciding factor in who has the correct interpretation. My personal opinion is that EULA is clear, justified, and doesn't result in anti-trust issues.

 

Time will tell.

[slacker25]

@ jaez... back with more non-sence great!!!! apple labeled does not mean apple sticker they mean this as a registered trade mark that is theirs and theirs alone to decide what it is and is not worthy of being an apple computer ..... Guess what yuo crapbox does not count.............

 

 

 

Stop pointing out things that only exist in your fantasy world and look at things the way they really are .... you dont get to have things they way you want them just because you want them .... if that was so wouldnt the world be in chaos

[UTisNUM1]

I don't see how Pystar can think that they have any legs to stand on what so ever with this counter suit. Apple only allows OS X to legally run on Apple certified and labeled hardware and they have law protecting that law. It isn't a monopoly, it is common sense in wanting to protect your business. Apple is a Software company. Steve Jobs said "At Apple, we are a software company. The iPhone what we hope it will become is about software. A Mac, is OS X but it comes in a beautiful box."

 

As i see it. If a company makes something, they have a right to do what they want with it because it is their invention and their work that went into it to even make it possible. If Apple wants OS X to run on Apple machines only, they have the right.

 

Apple likes keeping OS X on Apple Hardware because look what happened in the '90s with the Mac OS being open to clone venders, it failed and nobody was making any money. Too many problems between the hardware and software integration that Apple likes to hold on to and what makes the Mac so great. Apple wants people to know that if you are using a Mac, it is on a Apple Machine, it's their right.

[slacker25]

@UTisNUM1 ....Glad to see that some one else here has a sensible train of thought

[jaez]

As i see it. If a company makes something, they have a right to do what they want with it because it is their invention

 

I agree with you there 100%. As long as the product is still in their hands. When the product changes hands, however, the new holder has the right to use it in whatever way its most efficient to actually use. If Apple wants, it can keep all their products in their factories, never let them out, and just hold news conferences to tell the world of the great innovations taking place in their private world. When they ship their product out of their private world into the user's world, the user is in control of the "usage". The user has the right, because the product is now in his private world. It's no longer Apple's private world anymore.

 

The user exists, and has rights too.

[John the Geek]

I agree with you there 100%. As long as the product is still in their hands. When the product changes hands, however, the new holder has the right to use it in whatever way its most efficient to actually use. If Apple wants, it can keep all their products in their factories, never let them out, and just hold news conferences to tell the world of the great innovations taking place in their private world. When they ship their product out of their private world into the user's world, the user is in control of the "usage". The user has the right, because the product is now in his private world. It's no longer Apple's private world anymore.

 

The user exists, and has rights too.

 

That is correct for Apple's "real products" like the Mac Pro and the iPod, but for their software, and EVERY OTHER COMPANY'S SOFTWARE, you don't own the product. You DON'T OWN SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU WROTE IT YOURSELF.

 

Even Linux Freetards know this. That's why they have to GPL everything. You are just licensing it per the terms of the license granted to you by the author.

[Maxintosh]

you don't own the product. You DON'T OWN SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU WROTE IT YOURSELF. You are just licensing it per the terms of the license granted to you by the author.

We've been over this point ad nauseum and jaez incontrovertibly doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) the basics about owning real world products, and licensing a product like software. That's his loss. I wouldn't get an ulcer trying to educate him any further. His view is obviously not going to be represented in court

[slacker25]

@Maxintosh ... but isn't it just So Funny that he must have the education level of a 5th Grader... to be able to put together some of the ..... unbelievable {censored} that he has i mean after all if you rent a power tool its your legal right to ummm .... disassemble it and put in an engine from a BMW after all ... if they didnt want me doing that then there shouldnt be power tool rentals.

 

 

Ummm no if you cant ... Rent a power tool and follow the rules or purchase a license and follow the rules... .then keep your self outta the real world and use something else that allows for your rules to exist.

[Maxintosh]

unbelievable {censored} that he has i mean after all if you rent a power tool its your legal right to ummm .... disassemble it and put in an engine from a BMW after all ... if they didnt want me doing that then there shouldnt be power tool rentals.

I think that kind of mentality is more of a generational thing. This video talks about it. People in this age group grew up thinking that they could do "whatever they want" just because they feel like it, and if you read his posts you'll see that expressed between the lines

[BigPimpin]

I think that kind of mentality is more of a generational thing. This video talks about it. People in this age group grew up thinking that they could do "whatever they want" just because they feel like it, and if you read his posts you'll see that expressed between the lines

And then we have you reading "between the lines" because it's the only way you can rationalize away that perhaps it's you who hold to naive legal theories in a fantasy world where people who sell stuff can control - for always and forever - what a buyer may do with the products they sell. In this fantasy world the object of one's affection - Apple - can put whatever they want in a so-called license agreement and everyone MUST OBEY what it says, because Apple says so. Period. And if the actual law seems to say otherwise, why, then it's a generational thing. How DARE those people think they have any kind of freedom or rights?

 

You're pathetic. But I think you know that already.

[Maxintosh]

what a buyer may do with the products they sell.

Since when do buyers sell things?

 

The law is the law. Like they say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law"

[slacker25]

@Maxintosh .... yes the generations to come will be horrible all of them thinking the law doesnt apply to them they should not have to be a part of a Governed Nation .. but yet they want this governed nation to give everything to them with out setting rules or making them work for anything.

[jaez]

That is correct for Apple's "real products" like the Mac Pro and the iPod, but for their software, and EVERY OTHER COMPANY'S SOFTWARE, you don't own the product. You DON'T OWN SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU WROTE IT YOURSELF.

 

Even Linux Freetards know this. That's why they have to GPL everything. You are just licensing it per the terms of the license granted to you by the author.

 

Tell me, smart guy, how is Apple going to know what I do with OSX after I buy it?

 

It's not like a rental where I have to return the power tool and they can examine the tool to see if I disassembled it and put in a new motor or something.

 

They're not getting OSX back. It's forever in my hands.

 

How are they going to "check" what I'm using it for, and how and where I use Leopard?

 

It's a mystery that some of you guys can't see this simple truth.

 

If they can't enforce a rule, that rule is meaningless.

 

Let me explain it this way. I create a rule. I write it down right here. The rule is "nodoby is allowed to use OSX for the next 2 weeks."

 

There, I did it. I made up a rule.

 

What's my problem now?

 

I have to check who is violating my rule.

 

Then, I have to prove that my rule is accepted in a court of law, after I identify a few culprits.

 

I'd have to pay more money to uncover the cheats, who break my rule, and to make them comply with my wish, than I'd ever make from them, if I was the reseller that sold OSX to all these users in the first place.

 

So, what's the point of the rule?

 

It's just somebody's idea of entertainment.

[Maxintosh]

It's just somebody's idea of entertainment.

Your delusion aside, you need to learn the difference between the concept of law, and the rule of law

[jaez]

Your delusion aside, you need to learn the difference between the concept of law, and the rule of law

 

The only thing I need to learn is how to install OSX on my machine.

 

Because, obviously, Apple isn't going to help me to do that just now.

 

And if I don't want to wait 5 years for Apple to figure out its the right way to do things, I gotta learn it myself.

 

If I have a delusion, it's my delusion, and I'll keep my own delusions, thanks.

 

I don't need to add someone elses delusion about law to my own collection of delusional ideas.

 

My own delusions are enough for me.

 

[slacker25]

@ jaez.... so you agree you have a delusion... its the first step towards recovery.

[jaez]

@ jaez.... so you agree you have a delusion... its the first step towards recovery.

 

According to the buddha, everybody in this world is deluded. We have different delusions, that's all.

[Maxintosh]

it's my delusion, and I'll keep my own delusions

Then why have you been posting it here?

 

[slacker25]

@jaez ...buddha so thats whats wrong with ya

[jaez]

Then why have you been posting it here?

 

 

maybe because I own this site...

[admezor]

^5

 

maybe because I own this site...