Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Are you talking about the hardware or the operating system that Apple stole from the open source linux community?

OS X is NOT Linux, It NEVER WAS Linux. It will probably NEVER BE Linux. It is a certified UNIX distribution based on BSD UNIX. Apple didn't steal anything.

Don't confuse idiots like Anonymous with minor things like facts, it spoils perfectly good hating.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I have nothing against Apple products, even though I've never had a reason to try them, but Apple is the one holding Apple back. Their biggest downside when it comes to their OS is compatibility and cost. With virtual desktops, they've gone a long way towards solving the former, and companies like Psystar can force Apple to fix the latter.

Also, I'll be happy to see a victory in the law books against license agreements that force you to give up all rights to your soul.

Don't hold your breath waiting on that "victory," smart guy. And you only further prove your utter ignorance with your "Apple is the one holding Apple back" comment. Go check out the company's annual reports and balance sheet for the past couple years and learn something before you spout off nonsense.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I am very confident that this company will either win, or most likely go silent with a hefty bribe from apple not to pursuit their product. Apple has no right whatsoever to deny use of their product on other systems. Just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's legally binding. This has been the case time and time again. Just look at Napster all those years ago.
I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing blows up in Apple's face and turns into an antitrust case, forcing Apple to remove the blocks that deliberately prevent their OS from running on generic systems, dispite the fact that it's perfectly capable of it.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Remember the old Wall Street adage "Greed is Good" well it finally caught up to Apple, 'bout time too.

Thanks for the brilliant analysis, Sparky. Aren't you late for your fingerpainting class?

...to change its questionable practice of tying its software to its hardware. Apple doesn't want to compete head to head with MS Windows on generic hardware. So why should it prevent others from taking on that headache? Let Psystar make cheaper box and resell OS X. Apple pockets the revenue from the OS sales. Psystar has the headache of dealing with unsupported hardware, troubleshooting, support, etc. Geeks and tinkerers may be willing to put up with the headaches to save a few bucks. For me, I'll pay a little more for a Mini or iMac just to do without the problems. Letting Psystar sell will not cannibilize Mac hardware sales!

Quote

darkone wrote:
Apple stole the idea of the "Graphical User Interface" and the mouse from Xerox. Check your history books. Xerox demonstrated the Xerox Star system to Apple employees, who then took the concept and wrote their own OS, the Lisa (remember that one?). Xerox never licensed or sold any technology to Apple. No one had successfully sued over "look and feel" at this time and Xerox evidently did not want to be the first. Funny because later Apple tries this suit against Microsoft and loses. If they had won, maybe Xerox would have come back at Apple.

I'm sorry, but again, this is incorrect. Apple sold Xerox $1M in pre-IPO stock (worth about $18M) for 3 days of access to the PARC facilities and projects. It was the Xerox Alto that was shown. Star came later. Apple did not steal code from them, nor reverse engineer their software and hardware. They did hire some of the engineers for the Mac and Lisa teams from PARC. Xerox knew full well what Apple was going to do (i.e. create a GUI operating system). Was the Macintosh interface influenced by PARCs work? Definitely. Did they steal it from PARC? Definitely not.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
...to change its questionable practice of tying its software to its hardware.

In what way is it questionable? Sun and SGI did it for years. You may not like it, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

I'm surprised Apple hasn't commented (come down with a massive hammer) yet. This company is an affront to everything decent that we as Mac users stand for. They are cheaptards and anyone who would consider buying from them is also a contemptible cheaptard. I want this crushed so I don't have to hear about it anymore.

No need to insult people who are interested in buying this product. It is uncalled-for.

Quote

darkone wrote:
Apple stole the idea of the "Graphical User Interface" and the mouse from Xerox. Check your history books. Xerox demonstrated the Xerox Star system to Apple employees, who then took the concept and wrote their own OS, the Lisa (remember that one?). Xerox never licensed or sold any technology to Apple. No one had successfully sued over "look and feel" at this time and Xerox evidently did not want to be the first. Funny because later Apple tries this suit against Microsoft and loses. If they had won, maybe Xerox would have come back at Apple.

Wrong!

"Jobs approached the Xerox Development Corporation, the venture capital branch of the copier giant, and boldy told them, "I will let you invest a million dollars in Apple if you will sort of open the kimono at Xerox PARC. "
--snip--
"Xerox signed an agreement never to purchase more than 5% of Apple's shares and invested $1 million by buying 100,000 shares at $10 each (within a year these split into 800,000 shares worth $17.6 million when Apple went public)."
- Owen W. Linzmayer, "Apple Confidential" - first printing, p.53

Now, please, everyone, pipe down about Apple STEALING anything from Xerox.

Don't you see that this is offensive? Everything about the site and the product is cheap and ugly. Only people who are, frankly, cheap, would consider this. This viewpoint cheapens the Mac.

It is no more acceptable than calling Mac owners elitist snobs. Some people want a cheap Mac. More power to them. I don't see this path as being a particularly good one, but to each their own.

first the Mac air was the first to get hacked in the contest and now someone dares to challemge mighty Apple for ripping people off with hardware prices.......

the whole thing is probably sponsored by Apple to try and get more publicity after their questionable behavior with things like pushing Safari to Windows users.....

As long as my boss keaps paying I keep using apple

Quote

Guest wrote:
As long as my boss keaps paying I keep using apple

I mean, as long as my boss keeps paying for my computer

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
first the Mac air was the first to get hacked in the contest and now someone dares to challemge mighty Apple for ripping people off with hardware prices.......

the whole thing is probably sponsored by Apple to try and get more publicity after their questionable behavior with things like pushing Safari to Windows users.....

Ummm...yeah. How's that tin foil hat working for ya?

Of course anyone who purchases the Psyster computer is going to be on their own when it comes to support, upgrades, and testing for software and hardware compatibility. Apple's Discussions specifically forbid mentioning illegal activities, including breaking their license agreement. Thus someone who wants support is going to have to speak to other Psyster users off official pathways. And forget Applecare, the serial number won't be there to register your machine. The Genius Bar might get a few attempts at service, which they'll promptly wave when they see the machine that comes in. And if they don't, they'll be holding up all the legitimate Mac users. Anyone who wants to buy such a machine should not be surprised if they'res is the first whose security is compromised if a Mac hack is discovered, as security updates won't be able to be applied after awhile. Risky is hardly the word.

People, please look up the definitions of

they're
their
there

'Apple stole the idea of the "Graphical User Interface" and the mouse from Xerox. Check your history books.'

Consider the history books checked: No they didn't. Xerox had a nicely-realized convergence of ideas that were already publicly known. Apple drew some inspiration from that, with the knowledge and approval of Xerox management, and expanded on it greatly.

'Xerox demonstrated the Xerox Star system to Apple employees, who then took the concept and wrote their own OS, the Lisa (remember that one?). Xerox never licensed or sold any technology to Apple.'

Actually, Xerox did receive compensation from Apple (in the form of stock worth $100M) in exchange for access to Palo Alto and the right to use some of what was there.

'No one had successfully sued over "look and feel" at this time and Xerox evidently did not want to be the first. Funny because later Apple tries this suit against Microsoft and loses. If they had won, maybe Xerox would have come back at Apple.'

Actually, Xerox *did* come back at Apple. The suit was thrown out primarily because they had waited too long to complain. And Broderbund sued Unison World over look and feel issues before Apple went after MS over a putative contract violation, not simple trademark or copyright issues.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

I'm sorry, but again, this is incorrect. Apple sold Xerox $1M in pre-IPO stock (worth about $18M) for 3 days of access to the PARC facilities and projects. It was the Xerox Alto that was shown. Star came later. Apple did not steal code from them, nor reverse engineer their software and hardware. They did hire some of the engineers for the Mac and Lisa teams from PARC. Xerox knew full well what Apple was going to do (i.e. create a GUI operating system). Was the Macintosh interface influenced by PARCs work? Definitely. Did they steal it from PARC? Definitely not.

I admit I was being facetious when I used the word "steal". They obviously did not steal any more than Microsoft stole for Windows. I just have a problem when someone give others complete credit for an idea (A common problem among some Windows users).

Thanks for correcting me on the historical points. I was completely unaware of the Alto. I had seen a Star about a year prior to the Macintosh's appearance. I was just getting involved with the Apple Lisa at the time. It amazes me that Xerox could create such a great system an then fail to successfully market it, but I guess that's what sets one company apart from another.

Apple sure knows how to market something.

Quote

darkone wrote:

Quote

Intruder wrote:

I'm sorry, but again, this is incorrect. Apple sold Xerox $1M in pre-IPO stock (worth about $18M) for 3 days of access to the PARC facilities and projects. It was the Xerox Alto that was shown. Star came later. Apple did not steal code from them, nor reverse engineer their software and hardware. They did hire some of the engineers for the Mac and Lisa teams from PARC. Xerox knew full well what Apple was going to do (i.e. create a GUI operating system). Was the Macintosh interface influenced by PARCs work? Definitely. Did they steal it from PARC? Definitely not.

I admit I was being facetious when I used the word "steal". They obviously did not steal any more than Microsoft stole for Windows. I just have a problem when someone give others complete credit for an idea (A common problem among some Windows users).

Thanks for correcting me on the historical points. I was completely unaware of the Alto. I had seen a Star about a year prior to the Macintosh's appearance. I was just getting involved with the Apple Lisa at the time. It amazes me that Xerox could create such a great system an then fail to successfully market it, but I guess that's what sets one company apart from another.

Apple sure knows how to market something.

Actually, the difference between Apple/Xerox and Microsoft/Apple was that MS was given an early Mac in order to develop for it. They had far more access than Apple did with Xerox. They also had access to low-level code. MS took far more liberties with Apple's IP than Apple did with Xerox's. Apple's mistake was in not locking Microsoft into an ironclad NDA and IP rights contract. A move I'm sure they regret to this day.

Xerox's problem was that they were never good at taking PARCs innovations and making them marketable. Look at the laser printer. PARC was way ahead of everybody else in that arena and Xerox could have made a killing by marketing desktop laser printers. It actually took the Apple LaserWriter (a staple of desktop publishers at the time) to really make laser printers take off.

Yes, Apple sure does know how to market something. They can take the most mundane thing and make it a "must have" item.

The EULA is a *license*. This is why software companies claim they don't sell copies, they sell a license to use.

Copyright prohibits use of software except as expressly authorized by the copyright holder, in this respect it's a lot like public performance of a play.

If you don't agree to the license you aren't granted the right to use it.

License differs from contract in that a license is a *unilateral* grant of permission from the licensor to you. Contract is a *bilateral* grant of valuable considerations. Thus the old "sell me X for a dollar" dodge.

Quote

darkone wrote:
Xerox never licensed or sold any technology to Apple.

Xerox got paid in Apple stock for Apple to learn about and develop a GUI OS.

Why not get a PC!!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The EULA is a *license*. This is why software companies claim they don't sell copies, they sell a license to use.

Copyright prohibits use of software except as expressly authorized by the copyright holder, in this respect it's a lot like public performance of a play.

If you don't agree to the license you aren't granted the right to use it.

License differs from contract in that a license is a *unilateral* grant of permission from the licensor to you. Contract is a *bilateral* grant of valuable considerations. Thus the old "sell me X for a dollar" dodge.

Does a contract really have to be bilateral?

Most references show a EULA to be a memorandum of contract. I suppose by clicking "agree" you have, in essence, completed the negotiation of said contract. Same with clicking "disagree".

Contracts of Adhesion are generally unenforceable here in the United States.

Quote

Intruder wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The EULA is a *license*. This is why software companies claim they don't sell copies, they sell a license to use.

Copyright prohibits use of software except as expressly authorized by the copyright holder, in this respect it's a lot like public performance of a play.

If you don't agree to the license you aren't granted the right to use it.

License differs from contract in that a license is a *unilateral* grant of permission from the licensor to you. Contract is a *bilateral* grant of valuable considerations. Thus the old "sell me X for a dollar" dodge.

Does a contract really have to be bilateral?

Most references show a EULA to be a memorandum of contract. I suppose by clicking "agree" you have, in essence, completed the negotiation of said contract. Same with clicking "disagree".

You are the one that needs to check your history. Apple licensed portions of xerox-parc technologies for the original MacOS. Xerox did nothing with the reseach. From RoughlyDrafted.com:

"Building on ideas originally developed at Xerox PARC, Apple developed a new generation of desktop computers with graphical interfaces: the Lisa and Macintosh. Apple paid Xerox for its technology inspiration using a stock deal. Apple’s products weren’t based on a copy of Xerox code, nor did Apple have any code access."