[dizzle]

First of all, a license has nothing to do with copyright law. Apple owns OS X and therefore has the exclusive right to dictate the terms of use for a product that is only made available to the general public through licensing and is not offered to any OEM in any form whatsoever. The latter is the reason Dell, whose CEO has expressed an interest in doing exactly what Psystar is doing from the day the first Intel Macs were introduced, HP, Sony, Gateway, et al., are not pulling this stunt. The major Wintel OEMs know they would have their behinds handed to them in court; hence the reason many, including Apple, are of the opinion that Psystar is a cover for other parties.

You are correct.

As to the EULA, it is a contract. Contract law is well established. If I write up a document of terms of use for something I own and you agree to those terms by signing the contract, then you are legally obliged to comply with those terms and I have the legal right to enforce those terms or sue you for breech of contract. The only exception would be the enforcement of those terms that are found to be illegal. Should such terms be found, only those terms are invalidated, not the contract as a whole.

You are correct. The controversy here though is "shrinkwrap" licensing which I don't know why software vendors including Apple use. EULAs are contracts; don't like the contract, don't hit the "agree" button. I would bet that Apple would be legally bound to give you a refund if you decided you couldn't agree after purchase since the license is not on the outside of the package. I don't have a Leopard box here, but does it give the link on the outside where the license can be viewed? If so, then maybe even not. I do however think that software vendors should have to provide a copy of the license prior to sale upon request at the store.

As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license.

I am going to read this case later today.

AutoDesk v. Vernor has no bearing on Apple?s case. Apple is not precluding private citizens from selling off an unaltered copy of OS X that they are not using. You have the right to sell a copy of OS X that you purchased to someone else, but because it is copyrighted material, you are also required to transfer the license in full; meaning, you must remove that software from your computer. No matter how many change of hand occur, anyone using that copy of OS X is still bound by the license because Apple still owns the operating system.

This is where things get sticky, and I think the Courts are wrong. I do not believe the first sale doctrine should apply to licenses. I can't sell you my insurance policy. I can't even assign the proceeds in many cases without permission of the insurer. It is because the Courts made a sale doctrine applicable to one form of contract that is causing a great deal of this crap. I can understand why they did it, but it is the source of a great deal of confusion.

Listen, I have an open offer to anyone here. I have all the case law cited by the parties. You can't find it online? I will get it to you.

Here is an image you all might find amusing. If you want to find out what this crazy chick is all about, I am the hostess of MyAppleSpace tv, it is on i-tunes. Anyways here is my frustration photo about the Psystar case. Yes that is me actually covered in about 1/10th of the reading material on this case:

http://www.idrankthe...sytarpapers.png

http://www.idrankthe...starpapers2.png

Then I proceeded to throw it all over the living room. Not smart. Anyways, it made for good video.

And if you think I am just being persnickity here about actually reading the filings,

http://www.idrankthe...aid.com/?p=1230

I still would like a truthful answer here to everyone, including the author. Who has actually read all of the Court filings?

I thought so. I have. My next step is to obtain ALL of the case law cited and read it. Let me give you one howler. Psystar claims that Apple was not a pioneer of the personal computer revolution. Ha! Did you know that? Did you know that they misspelled ?Mac? in one of their filings? Just curious. You see I know these things because I read the material before opening my mouth. Psystar?s attorneys are doing a very good job arguing their case. I am impressed because they have bad material to work with. No matter what the outcome, that firm has some great talent. Apple should recruit some attorneys from there. So this isn?t about everything that Psystar does SUCKS and everything Apple does is wonderful. I read the filings prepared to think Psystar?s attorneys bit, and they didn?t. They did stumble badly in their last filing though. Does anyone here know how? I didn?t think so. Because I would bet my left toe that none of you have read it. The internet is a wonderful thing, but it also sucks in that it is so ignorant to just sit at the keyboard and type in ignorance.

[mdawson]

Quote

fizzle wrote:

>

Quote

This is where things get sticky, and I think the Courts are wrong. I do not believe the first sale doctrine should apply to licenses. I can't sell you my insurance policy. I can't even assign the proceeds in many cases without permission of the insurer. It is because the Courts made a sale doctrine applicable to one form of contract that is causing a great deal of this crap. I can understand why they did it, but it is the source of a great deal of confusion.

It is indeed a sticky situation, but I would not state that the courts are wrong here because I can see the distinction. Software licensing is a general contract in that the terms are the same for any and all signatories. An insurance policy is a contract that is signatory-specific in some of its terms. That is, there is the general contract that is the same for all signatories and then there are those terms that are signatory-specific. The latter terms may be based on the signatory (e.g., driving record, medical history, etc.), that which is insured (e.g., a luxury car vs. an economy car, a house in an area prone to natural disasters vs. a home in a relatively stable environment, etc.) or opt-ins/outs beyond the basic contract (e.g., minimum required car insurance vs. full coverage, etc.).

I own a used Scion xA ($12,500), am pushing 40 years of age and, barring a few minor traffic violations, have an otherwise clean driving record. Obviously I cannot transfer my insurance policy to a spoiled, reckless, 20-something driving a $50,000 Lexus because my policy does not cover the value of his vehicle let alone the risk.

[dizzle]

It is indeed a sticky situation, but I would not state that the courts are wrong here because I can see the distinction. Software licensing is a general contract in that the terms are the same for any and all signatories. An insurance policy is a contract that is signatory-specific in some of its terms. That is, there is the general contract that is the same for all signatories and then there are those terms that are signatory-specific. The latter terms may be based on the signatory (e.g., driving record, medical history, etc.), that which is insured (e.g., a luxury car vs. an economy car, a house in an area prone to natural disasters vs. a home in a relatively stable environment, etc.) or opt-ins/outs beyond the basic contract (e.g., minimum required car insurance vs. full coverage, etc.).

Let's say it is the same house. I am selling it. The person will use the house in the same way I have (i.e. live it in as their primary residence) and has the same history as I. I still cannot give them my contract. Even worse, in a lot of policies I cannot assign them the proceeds of a pending claim. (though some states do allow that)

I do see the distinction, and I flip flop on it. Here is the problem: bad facts make bad law. And that is what happens so often. You get some really unusual eggregious case that sets some precedent, and before you know it, it is being used for more mundane cases. I live in Florida. There was a horrendous case that let homeowners double-dip on claims. i.e. their could get full face value of their homeowners policy AND their flood policy without aportionment. That means even if the hurricane only caused 1% of the damage and the rest was flood, the hurricane policy was still 100% on the hook. This I believe was due to the emotions involved in catastrophes. Now the catastrophe is over and the insurers were dealing with the fallout. That case has since been reversed but it took several years.

I only used insurance as I am kowledgeable in it. But there are a ton of contracts you can't simply give to someone else, even if everything else is identical. A contract is a bargain. I could bargain with you that when you come clean my house that you wear a Ronald McDonald suit (not meant as an insult that you are a janitor or anything just the most outrageous example I could come up with quickly). We can do that. Now I know some will argue that Apple has a contract of adhesion, ahh but you can't have that without the requisite market share, and we are back into antitrust market theory. And with Linux now available to the masses via Ubuntu, the case is even harder to make that consumers are harmed when there are FREE alternatives that are better than Windows (at least in my opinion).

But I do see your point. It isn't black and white.

[orgopete]

Wondercow said:

> Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?
The court's decision in AutoDesk v. Vernor was that one element and only one element of the EULA was unenforceable; the remainder of the EULA did not infringe on any other rights of the consumer and thus stands in full force.


As a whole, the software can be resold under First Sale Doctrine (FSD). Since FSD doesn't apply to licenses, a distinction must be made with respect to the resale of the software--meaning that in order for Vernor to win on FSD he must own something. Thus, since a portion of the transaction is a sale, resale has to be allowed. However, FSD does not decide whether what is sold contains a license or not, e.g. the software on the disc is licensed while the disk itself is owned. The contention that the package as a whole, including the media, was licensed is invalid, and so it was rejected by the court.

Without getting into the personal side of this discussion, I think what dizzle is suggesting is that people without a background understanding commonly make the error of overextension, i.e applying a law (decision, ruling, etc.) that is narrow or specific in intent to a greater range of circumstances. The language used in the court's decision is "not merely a license" ( emph. mine ). In fact, I'll refer you to the ruling (the PDF to which you linked):
bq. That issue is not to be conflated, however, with whether Mr. Vernor or his customers are bound by the License. Given the ?nontransferable? terms of the License, and Autodesk?s failure to cite authority for the proposition that the License binds downstream transferees, the court will not consider the issue further in this order" ( Order, p. 19, ll. 25-8 ).
The court issued no decision with respect to the EULA because it was not necessary to reach a decision on the complaint. Further, the judge explicitly states that Autodesk loses because they can't sustain their contention that the denial of transfer/resale is valid--nothing more.

So, that leaves us with Mr Vernor allowed to resell the software but anyone to whom Mr Verner sells his legal copies is still bound by the EULA. Thus, Psystar's customers are still bound by Apple's EULA.

The remainder of this section that wondercow has quoted.
>C. Autodesk Has Not Established that Its License Binds Mr. Vernor or His Customers.
>
>Although Mr. Vernor?s resale of AutoCAD packages is not a copyright violation, he is concerned that Autodesk asserts he is contractually bound by the License. In reviewing Autodesk?s motion and its reply, the court finds a few suggestions that Autodesk believes that the License binds Mr. Vernor. See Autodesk Mot. at 2 (intimating that Mr. Vernor is a ?subsequent licensee?). In support of its belated contributory infringement contentions, it also suggests that Mr. Vernor?s customers are bound by the Autodesk License. Reply at 8 (arguing that Mr. Vernor?s customers would make more copies than permitted by the Autodesk License).
>
>Autodesk contends that ?the law clearly rejects? Mr. Vernor?s claim that he is free from the Autodesk License. Autodesk Mot. at 13-14. In doing so, however, it relies solely upon Novell, a case that provides no support for Autodesk?s argument. Novell, like every other case the court has discussed in its order today, is concerned solely with whether a license makes the transaction between a copyright holder and the first transferee a ?first sale.? 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16861 at *22-39. Nothing in Novell supports the notion that downstream purchasers of software are bound by the terms of a license between the copyright holder and the first licensee.
>
>Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself. The Autodesk License is expressly ?nontransferable.? License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees.
>
>The court cannot be certain if Autodesk actually asserts that its License binds Mr. Vernor or his customers. Autodesk certainly contends that the License negates a sale between itself and CTA. That issue is not to be conflated, however, with whether Mr. Vernor or his customers are bound by the License. Given the ?nontransferable? terms of the License, and Autodesk?s failure to cite authority for the proposition that the License binds downstream transferees, the court will not consider the issue further in this order.
>
>If Autodesk believes that the License binds Mr. Vernor or his customers, it must file a new motion addressing that argument.
>
>D. With One Possible Exception, Mr. Vernor?s Unfair Competition Claims Withstand Dismissal.
>
>? As to Mr. Vernor?s claim that the License itself is per se unlawful, he may lack standing. If, as the court discussed in Part III.C, infra, the License does not bind Mr. Vernor, then the court queries whether Mr. Vernor has standing to challenge Autodesk?s use of the License.

[orgopete]

Nothing can tell reader about me or about us except what we write. I knew I was in a weak position, hence I started with dizzle's quote.
[quote name='dizzle']
>

dizzle said:

> Ahh the ad hom attack. First, it is you my blustery ignorant friend that doesn't understand LAWFUL ?
Clearly, I am not a lawyer and will be outmatched.

> FYI Apple has just filed its Answer to Psystar's Counterclaims.
>
> http://news.worldofa...-counterclaims/
Filing 55: "Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions" order of judge Alsup,
Am I missing something?

This is what I had found.
>For the reader?s reference, copies of the filings in the case may be accessed here. (<- link to Justia)
I think you forgot to tell me that it would be $200 for it to be current.

Quote

Clearly, I am not a lawyer and will be outmatched.

Since I am not an attorney that statement is meaningless.

Filing 55: "Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions" order of judge Alsup,
Am I missing something?

Obviously you didn't go to the article. Until you can be bothered to actually DO something that is directly related to this case, I am not going to go out of my way to spoon-food you. Hint: Justia.com is not up to date. It takes about a week for it to catch up to real-time. I pay for up to the minute updates. However, I give you the benefit of my wallet by providing copies of up to the minutes pleadings, and filing 56 is available at that article if you bothered to read it.

I concede dizzle is the expert.

I have no tolerance for passive aggressive crap. I never said I was an expert. I am not. Do not concede I am something I don't claim.

I will not answer your questions in any detail until you get up off the pot and tell me if you have read the actual filings? Yes or no. It isn't difficult.

Now to the questions. I understand the prevailing opinion is that Psystar is the underdog and unlikely to win. The IP lawyer at the University of Buffalo that MacWorld quoted also confirmed this opinion. I did not ask any further questions of him.

No, Psystar is unlikely to win because they are WRONG. It has nothing to do with them being the underdog.

Perhaps you (dizzle) could explain how or why in the description of "copyright misuse" by Frischmann and Moylan, they say, "For example, copyright holders who use their copyrights to gain leverage through licensing provisions that broaden the scope of their copyright may be misusing their copyright even if the leveraging is insufficient to raise antitrust concerns." (page 10)

You did not even bother to see if I wrote on this already have you? I am not going to spoon-feed you. Here is a hint: the relevant case law on leveraging is completely factually distinguisable. For example the case of Triad Systems (I purposefully did not insert the citation since it is in the filings, and I want to see if you are familiar with the filings). You are aware of that case right? If you haven't read the cases that Psystar is using, why do you think law review/law treatise articles are relevant. They are secondary sources to be used AFTER the case law is analyzed.

I believe Judge Alsup already ruled that this was not an antitrust issue. I agree. However, F and M are stating in their opinion that if the Apple is using their copyright and EULA to leverage their license beyond copyright law, antitrust issues needn't be established. I do not dispute that Psystar is violating the terms of the EULA, but is the EULA enforceable? Why?

You again have shown you haven't read squat. Psystar is still back-dooring in anti-trust issues because they can't establish leveraging without showing applicable markets, and they are relying upon theories of markets and sub-markets that the Court has rejected so far. Further, they are not using their EULA to limit the use of its hardware which is required for Psystar's argument to work that they are using their software copyright to extend to hardware. They aren't. It is creative, but it is false. They are attempting to create new law. Yes the EULA can be enforceable. Why? Because it is a contract.

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?

Legal cite please? You do know that simply saying Jones v. Smith is dumb right? Please give me the citation so that I can read the case for myself. Also do you think you are more qualified than Psystar's lawyers? Why would you argue a case that they haven't even cited? Oh yeah, that's because you have no idea what cases they cited. Gotcha. I have read each and every case they cited.

Give me a correct citation for that case, and I will read it. Is it a state case? Is it a Federal case? What level of Court is it? You do realize that all of the makes a difference right? What jurisdiction is it in? You are regurgitating crap you read on the Interwebz. It might be right, but I am not interesting in interacting with ignorant copying and pasting.

I am aware that copyright misuse is a rarely used precedent and is not codified by state or federal law. Therefore, as others have suggested, that even if the legal issues favor Psystar, the court may well rule against them. Also, as others have already stated, Apple has developed the software and may be entitled to reasonable measures of protection.

You are wrong. Copyright misuse is a very common affirmative defense. You keep saying that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means (thank you Montoya!). Do you even know what precedent means? Because if you did, you wouldn't have used it in that statement. And what do you mean by Federal law? Simply legislation? Or common law? Or court law? The legal issues DON"T favour Psystar. Fact. Now there is an area where there is controversy in this case concerning copyright misuse that is rare, and in which this Court set itself up for an automatic appeal by Apple once the case is done, but I am not going to spoon-feed you.

Let me help you again.

http://news.worldofa...tegory/psystar/

That is everything I have written on the subject. You don't need to read each article. You could bother to read the ones where I went into detail on the issue of copyright misuse and gave summaries of the case law that the actual parties are using. What a concept!

CORRECTION: I see you did provide a link to the case you cited. I apologize for missing that. I will print out that case from work and read it. I am still an old-fashioned legal assistant, I hate reading case law online. I need either the Case Reporter or some physical feel of paper in my hands. I have to be able to write on it.

I thought I had asked a pretty simple question. Frischmann and Moylan outlined a principle. It is easy for me to understand. If you feel that principle does not apply, you could have simply explained why? (It is at this point that I am inclined to repeat the quote at the top. You could not have expressed yourself more clearly.)

[dizzle]

You have a low context reading ability. That quote you lifted was in the context of reading the PREVIOUSLY filed documents that I had just discussed. Thank you for proving you didn't read the article (or even the previous pleadings) because the article ended with:

"A copy of Apple?s Answer may be found here."

With a link.

As far as your "simple" question, I don't find it to be what it appears for reasons I already said.

1. You didn't bother to read the actual arguments in the case. If you did, you would have your answer. I am not obligated to do your work for you when you are not showing even any attempt to find out what is going on in this case.

2. The very fact that Psystar didn't use that case should have been a huge honkin' clue to you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

Lastly, you betray your ignorance by saying "I asked a simple question, sniffle, sob, and you didn't answer it." I said that I would do what you are unwilling to do. I am going to print out the case and actually sit down with pen in hand and analyze it! What a concept!

Have you YET read any of the substantive filings in this case? Yes or no. Why is nearly everyone (MacPro answered) dodging this question. You are taking the time to go run off to secondary sources but haven't read the primary ones! Heck why don't we just use Wikipedia if we aren't going to bother to read the primary material.

I gave you a link. The titles describe which filing is being discussed. Find the one that discusses Psystar's Amended Counterclaims. Hint: It is the one where I talk about Apple's Opposition to Psystar's Motion for Leave and then Psytar's Reply to Apple's Opposition. A VERY detailed analysis is provided giving both sides as neutrally as possible and cornering my editorial comments into their own sections so the reader knows what is fact and what is opinion.

You can't be bothered. Why should I hold your hand? Show some minimal effort.

After I read that case I will let you know what I think though if Wondercow and Dawson have understood it properly (and it seems just on common sense that they have understood it correctly) you have already been answered.

I find it takes great chutzpah that you think you found some ringer case that Psystar's $500/hour attorneys (guestimate at what they get paid) didn't find. Why don't you argue the cases THEY think support their cases?

[comedontgo]

Let's speculate what may happen assuming the verdict rules Psystar as the winner.

1)Now the Mac Clone is legal (actually I have a big question mark here. Maybe even Apple lost the case, it still has the leverage to put a hold to the situation before it spins out of control, similar to what Steve Jobs did in 1997 - killing the clone program by changing the software version number), and OEMs such as DELL and HP will start produce Mac computers with similar or better performance compared to those from Apple, but only a fraction of the price. AAPL sees the revenue from selling Apple branded computers nose dive.
2) Computer operating system development may be the business with the highest entry threshold in human history - the profit only starts flowing in after burning billions of dollars. Now Apple, with an OS that already cost it billions, sees the high margin from bundling it with the hardware vanish, the only option left is to sell more OS licenses, i.e., increase the market share, i.e., a face-off with Microsoft.
3) Nothing depicts the picture of the competition between MSFT and AAPL better than the TV commercials from Apple. Two friendly guys jump on the scene, greeting you with warm and breezy words, 'Hello I am a Mac', and 'Hello I am a PC'. You saw the PC guy got trashed every time but shrug it off and come back with a smile, a little dumb but sure with a big heart. It is wrong if you come to the conclusion that MSFT doesn't take AAPL seriously, the fact is that they play in two different market zones, with MSFT in a broad one and AAPL in a niche one. Now with AAPL forced out of its traditional zone and positioned to fight MSFT in its backyard, there is no reason to expect MSFT to be that big-hearted dude anymore. Remember how it crashed Netscape years ago? That is the exact MSFT that Apple has to fight.
4) AAPL is going to be squeezed from another side. In the sweet old times, their software engineers only need to make sure their code is compatible with a specified range of hardware, which, Apple has absolute control. Now the pressure to increase the market share will force Apple to consider compatibility issues with a range of hardware 10 times wider. Then adding the derivative support and maintenance issues, don't be surprised if you see the cost rocket.
5) You got used to see an Apple that is creative and elegant, but remember nothing comes without a cost. When AAPL has full control over its products and its market, it can afford the luxury to be creative and elegant. However, if it is constantly
under the amounting pressure of the competition and the market, can it still sustain this elegance and innovation? I doubt it. More likely,the constant pressure will exhaust their energy and patience to be innovative, drive the change of the company culture, and eventually, lead to the disappearance of their competitive advantage.

Read the full article here

[MacPro2007]

dizzle,
Thank you for your explanation. I was feeling a bit of a sting over what you said in your initial response. Not that I don't have counter-points to what you wrote, it's that I appreciate your adherence to non-confrontational dialogue.

I'm "late" responding myself because of similar outside pressures to which you are subject and I'll have to limit even this response because I have but a couple minutes. (I want to elaborate but will have to save it for - probably - tomorrow.)

In RE: your reference to Ayn Rand (the nom de plume of Alissa - possibly Alice - Rosenbaum) - I first read Atlas Shrugged 44 years ago. At that time, she was also giving talks at Ford Hall Forum in Boston. A close friend who was attending MIT taped those talks (with permission) and those of her associate, Nathaniel Brandon. I got to listen to her - so at least it was the next-best to actually meeting her. I did meet others in her original circle: Alan Greenspan (whose name everyone should recognize) and Leonard Piekoff. I read pretty much all of her work, including the pamphlets she had published while just getting established on the national scene.

So, yes, my use of "egoism" is also informed in that way.

All for now, I've got to run.

[jman3001]

I see where Psystar has the Intel Core i7 line of processors for their latest machines out and ready to purchase. All we need to do now, is wait for Apple to catch up to the latest technology and build the OS that can handle those machines.

Cost for the latest Psystar beauty - $1777.00. Can't wait to get one.

Psystar, always one step ahead of the competition.

Like I said, "Supply & Demand".

[dizzle]

Question two. As another option for resolution, in AutoDesk v Vernor, the court found that first sale doctrine should be applied to the sale of AutoDesk software and thus the license agreement on its use (subject to copyright law) did not bar Vernor from reselling the software in direct opposition to the AutoDesk license. Does this mean that Psystar or its customers not be bound by the Apple license agreement (while remaining consistent with copyright law)?

Okay I have read the case. It is completely and utterly not the issue before the Court in this cases. So explain why YOU think it applies here. Please apply specific facts and arguments made in the Psystar filings to this case. Of course that means you have to read the facts and arguments. Are you under the mistaken belief that Apple is simply claiming that Psystar cannot resell copies of retail boxes of Leopard? Seriously?

Second that case, even it were applicable, is a thin reed to clutch unto. I believe that Court was wrong. It admitted that there was one case, Wise, which said one thing, and a trio of more recent cases that say something else. The more recent cases are the ones cited to by both Apple and Psystar. The Autodesk Court admitted that there was irreconcilable conflict in the 9th Circuit, and then said, without citing any case law or otherwise, that it must follow the earlier case. I am completely baffled (since they did not justify it) why the Court felt that way. Typical, newer cases trump older cases. However, one unusual circumstance here is that these newer cases which contradicted Wise did not explain why nor did they cite Wise. So this Court seems to implicitly claiming that the newer trio of cases ignored past precedent without explanation, thus, this Court is free to go past them.

As others have noted, this case dealt with one provision of the EULA, and did not speak at all to the validity of EULAs in general. It is possible that I missed it - can you show me where Apple is claiming that Psystar could not sell/transfer the license? I am not being sarcastic in saying that perhaps I missed it. There is a lot of information in this case, but I am not aware they ever made that argument.

But then again, you haven't yet bothered to read the actual filings in this case rather than traipzing around the interwebz. Get back to me after you have.

[dizzle]

I see where Psystar has the Intel Core i7 line of processors for their latest machines out and ready to purchase. All we need to do now, is wait for Apple to catch up to the latest technology and build the OS that can handle those machines.

Cost for the latest Psystar beauty - $1777.00. Can't wait to get one.

Psystar, always one step ahead of the competition.

Like I said, "Supply & Demand".

I nearly choked. Beauty? Dude, I am convinced you are a Psystar shill. Do you live in Miami? Is your last name Pedraza? You really should learn to be less obvious.

Since you are so enamoured with Psystar and seem to have the "in," can you explain to me why the prior psystar website before they starting stealing from Apple had associations with a name that was part of a securities fraud ring called RAZORFX? IRC the name on the Psystar website had a different extension, .com instead of .net or something but the exact same name prior to the extension. I have really been dying to know, and you seem like just the person to ask. Was it coincidence? Like the poor guy who's name happened to be Roger Rabbit when the film came out? Groklaw did extensive research and found insufficient evidence to show there was a connection, but did note that the coincidence was quite odd. Maybe you can explain? Is it just coincidence? I have been seriously curious about that, especially since the addition of the ten John Does to this case.

The "supply and demand" comment has already been addressed. You can't just plug your ears and go "lalalalalalala" as if it weren't.

Now if you think I am on Apple's payroll, and your last name is not Pedraza, go ask them. They know who I am and that everything I have done on this case has been sheerly volunteer work, and that I go out of my way to protect them from misrepresenations such as the stupid allegation that some sites made saying Psystar claimed that Apple didn't copyright OSX. If they chose, they could pick up the phone right now and call me. I asked for comment on the Razorfx situation and was declined. If Rudy or Robert want to call me and tell me, I am all ears, and I will faithfully report on what they say if they want to put that to rest.

[dizzle]

Hi MacPro, I am a partial fan of Rand's works. Her economic theory is spot on. Her hatred of religion is irrational, which is odd, considering how highly she valued rationality. In Galt's long speech in Atlas Shrugged he completely misrepresented orthodox Christian belief, instead railing against some sort of gnostic "Christianity" - and I would agree with Galt that gnosticism is crap. Not to sidetrack the conversation, I just wanted to note that. I don't think she misrepresented Christianity purposefully, but ran into some ignorant or heretical Christians.

But her economic insights are sharp. I had thought I was the only one really seeing terrible parallels between crap going on today and in Atlas Shrugged but apparently there is a small grassroots movement now who are "going Galt," and doing the minimum they can and/or circumventing the system so that their money doesn't go government looters. There is a great picture of a lady holding a sign saying "Your Mortgage is not my Problem." And I agree. Viva la socialism!

I read the story of her childhood and how her father was turned nearly overnight into a pauper after being well-off by the Russian socialists.

I think Atlas Shrugged is a must read for anyone today. Agree with it or not. Obviously I disagree with portions of it. But you read that one section of Shystar's filing where they whine that they could not create a competing product on their own, and all I hear is the whining tones of Wesley Mooch, Orin Boyle, and James Taggert, and I want to laugh like Dagney.

The funny thing is that the Pedraza brothers are lucky that Apple is a publicly traded company. Steve Jobs would definitely go Galt if the force of law required him to give his efforts to those who lack ability. And they aren't even ashamed to admit that is their motivation. I don't know what is sicker.

Also Psystar is a bit truth-impaired. Did you read the howler in their filing where they claimed that "OpenMac" was never really the name of their "product" but rather was just a "colloquial" name. I am in the process of obtaining one of their official press releases to show that is crap. I will forward a copy to Apple's attorneys though I am sure they are obtaining that in discovery. I posted some screenshots at World of Apple showing how truth-impaired they were in one of their filings. Check this out:

http://news.worldofa...nded-complaint/

I hope Apple nails them to the wall on that. I hate really blatant spin in filings.

[mdawson]

Quote

dizzle wrote:

>

Quote

You can't just plug your ears and go "lalalalalalala" as if it weren't.

Wow, you figured him out already! :D

Just a heads up for you as you were not here back in September, no matter how much evidence you state, cite and link facts to counter jman3001?s dribble he will continue to ramble on ceaselessly. As you saw, he continues to falsely claim that he can get a more powerful system from Psystar than Apple can provide for substantially less when the big players on the Wintel platform cannot do so. Many of us posted linked references to Dell, HP, et al., so that people could configure systems to match comparable Macs and see for themselves. We even posted linked to articles dispelling the myth about Macs being more expensive than (comparable) PCs from the PC press. Yet here we are 6+ months later and jman3001 is still pushing the price myth.

Supply and demand. I am not even going to waste my time on that one, as jman3001 already proved half a year ago that he does not understand basic economics or anything else even remotely related to this case. He is the king of the iWants? and refuses to admit that he is completely wrong on every point despite the fact that his posts have been repeatedly shot down with cited counter responses to his FUD, mistruths and misinformation.

[dizzle]

Dude that is awesome. Well when another person comes in and makes the exact same observation, that is pretty strong evidence and confirmation that you were right.

But I am tickled pink to have a genuine Psystar apologist on my hands. I wonder why he doesn't go to World of Apple and try to make these lame arguments? I would gladly shred him there AND here.

So Mr. Apologist, in addition to the RAZORFX issues, can you please justify the issues I noted here:

http://news.worldofa...nded-complaint/

Why doesn't Psystar's attorneys proof-read their work? How in the world did they misspell "Mac" in two pleadings? Especially since after the first time they did it, I alerted Psystar about it. I didn't keep it in my hip pocket as a "gotcha." I immediately notified Psystar as to all the grammatical errors. They now know to read World of Apple for further alerts. Now the firm they hired is an expensive one, but there is no way that the experienced partners put out that shoddy work product. Is their own lawyer sending out the signal that the case is such an elephant hurl that they put inexperienced and sloppy writers to work on the filings? I particularly loved:

"Psystar like denies...."

And I was like, gag me with a spoon, that filing was like, so grody, I am so sure.