appleinsider.com — Florida's now well-known unofficial Mac clone maker has modified its counterclaim against Apple to drop some of the riskier assertions of anti-competitive behavior, but has similarly added new sections that refute allegations of violating the DMCA.
Dec 10, 2008 View in Crawl 4
mrsteveman1Dec 10, 2008
That wasn't sarcasm, i don't think you know what that word means.That was relatively simple questioning of you implying that they are somehow losing money by not selling a separate OS.Sarcasm = "OMG I KNOW THEY ARE LOSING *SO* MUCH MONEY!" in a jackass tone of voice, admittedly difficult to do in text :D
tao52nycDec 10, 2008
Careful what you wish for...as you may have unreasonable expectations for the performance of OS X on kludged-together cheap crap hardware.
erfonhDec 10, 2008
A - MS doesn't make their own hardware like apple doesB - It's not a monopoly if there are other similar products you can use. That's like saying not licensing the iphone OS is a monopoly.... no one NEEDS apple's OS.
mrbitchDec 11, 2008
@dhughes, you are confused. That's not what this case is about.webhead says it best with this post :" Apple has never tried to stop the hackintosh home industry, but Apple will not provide support for your hackintosh computer and they can not be forced, legally, to provide support for hackintoshes. Once you buy a bottle of Coke a cola you can take it home and do whatever you want with it, drink it, pour it into different bottles, spray it on your lawn, who cares. But if you pour it into a different bottle, and then SELL it to someone else that is illegal.It's the same with Psystar. It's illegal for them to SELL a computer with the Max OSX installed, they don't have the license to do that and Apple does not have to provide them with a special license to do so. End of story. "
banshieDec 11, 2008
Your all wrong, cite your sources.
sexyboboDec 12, 2008
"Apple could throw a kill switch and nuke every unauthorized copy of THEIR software if they wanted to"Which is one of the major problems with the software industry to day. Psystar is installing legal copies of OSX as in they pay for each copy of osx they install the only thing "illegal" about it is that they are breaking the EULA by installing it on something besides a mac. Once you buy software it should be your software not "their software" that they can kill anytime they want to."Apple is the only company that sells Macs." so a monopoly? "They build the computers" as much as dell builds a pc they buy the parts from another company and put them together in a box. "They have retail stores and online sales." and bestbuy. "They take care of their customers." No they want to make a profit and they think making you happy is the way to make you buy more stuff from them"Let's say someone buys a cheap Psystar instead of a real Mac. Who do they call for support?" Well since it is a legal copy of OSX that they paid for i would guess apple? just like if i pay for portal i would call valve if i payed for windows i would call microsoft.
mrbitchDec 16, 2008
@MacParrot RE: " The difference is that you're still buying the product you are reselling. You can't sell Coke for less than Coke can. "With all due respect, whether I sell my re-bottled " Clone-a-Cola " for the same price or more (or less than) Coke sells their soft drink... I am pretty sure Coke will be throwing their lawyers at me...
mhmdkhamisFeb 4, 2009
Your guys's argument that NOT EVEN MICROSOFT makes you use particular hardware is completely flawed. They are like the garmin's of the SatNav industry. Their whole business <a class="user" href="http://g9g.biz/">http://g9g.biz/</a> model is to sell OS licenses. Apple's is to sell packages of hardware and software. If apple didn't go after these companies using their OS, they would lose many copyrights. You have to be actively protecting it.