Posted on 11/14/2009 3:58:16 PM PST by Swordmaker
Oh please you sound like an Apple kool aid drinker, trekkie or Obama voter. Windows and LINUX works too. It is just a computer not a cult. My guess is Psystar may win in other courts which if upsets the Trekkies then I am all for it.
Rush is a great guy but he still pushes the NFL after they smeared him which is dumb.
My first Apple was a IIc. I had a 286 PC laptop, then a 386, then a Mac 165c laptop, a Centris and a PowerPC. Ran a law office on the Mac, was featured in some articles about how I did it. Went back to PCs when the Pentium IIIs came out, and still dabbled on the Macs. Bought a MacBook for my daughter. I now have 3 laptops and 2 desktops running PCs and for fun, learned how to install Mac on my laptop and a desktop. I use whichever one I feel like at the moment. Lately, I find myself using Win7 more. I find it easier to navigate around, and I don't have to worry about whether I have an app for the thing I want to do.
So, I am about as unbiased as you come on the OS wars. I don't think MS would like my views any more than you do.
Your views don't interest me in the least. I just wonder why you feel the urge to get on these threads and unload your baggage?
Actually, you’ve come on threads and attacked me, such as when I let another Freeper know he could install Mac on a PC. I don’t have baggage, I have experience. You, on the other hand, have unresolved issues, as you mentioned, something to do with feeling slighted in an IP case. I am sorry you have suffered problems, but don’t let it govern your life. And someday, maybe, you will learn that it is possible to enjoy the use of a good piece of software without becoming a slave to its creators.
This is about violation of the DMCA, which the courts have already ruled trumps fair use in the case of DVDs. I'm equally as guilty as Psystar.
The basic point of Autodesk was that licenses aren’t all-powerful. They can’t take away rights already given to you by copyright law, because the only reason a content producer can even have a EULA is based on the power copyright gives to him.
We need more decisions that bring EULAs back within copyright. There have been some good decisions, some bad like this one, but I’d like to see it firmly decided at the SCOTUS level — a decision following the original constitutional intent of a balance in copyright.
I don’t care what they put in the license. You have first sale rights, they can’t interfere, period. The judge’s ruling on first sale was unconstitutional.
They argued poorly, and he had poor logic to his decision as I showed. The cases didn't even match.
that a license is not a sale subject to first-sale rights and never has been.
That is disputed in other circuits, and is denied in anti-UCITA states. Imagine the disaster if this concept is allowed to stand. If everything is licensed, then we lose ALL of our rights, the balance of copyright is shifted completely to the copyright cartel.
However, the right of first-sale DOES extend to selling the license... and the media... so the purchaser is allowed to transfer the rights to use the software they have purchased to another purchaser down-line so long as the sold versions still in possession of the seller are destroyed.
And that was Psystar's business model, firmly denied by the judge.
Also testimony was presented and not countered by Psystar that their own books showed they sold more Psystar computer systems than they bought OS X upgrade install disks.
Sounds like they screwed up in those cases. Have them pay damages for those cases and demand better accounting. This is not a reason to shut down a whole business. If you could shut down a business for an "oops" in accounting, Apple would have been shut down a couple of years ago.
Remember, I am an Apple fan and I can't really understand why anyone would buy a Psystar system in the first place. But principle doesn't change no matter who the players are. This is a blow to all consumers, and something that would have Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave.
And there weren't too many of them around back then, were there?
No. Psystar's business model was to ignore all of the provisions of the license. They are the ones opperating unconstitutionally.
I didn't see anything about licenses in the Copyright Clause. Licenses often use the power of copyright to deny the exceptions to copyright. To me it's an absurdity.
Gee I feel all better now, thank you Dr. Laura.
I don't have problems, I have solutions, you have hangups, so don't try to pin them on me.
You get on a pro Mac thread and start attacking the people who have a genuine interest in the topic, and start telling them all the problems they will have. One question, why does it bother you that people are happy with what they have?
Bottom line is Apple feels Psystar is robbing them of sales. And if the Psystar business model disseminates it could get even worse. You are fooling yourself if you don’t think Federal judges can be biased towards businesses in their judicial district. They have to live there too and know that California is on the precipice
IOW Apple would lose in Florida courts
your Apple derangement syndrome is one of the worst cases......
My theoretical answer is you have Gates/Balmer syndrome an affliction of extreme jealousy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.