I'm a pie-star. Steak and kidney is my fave.

I was going to start a company using someone else's work and patents in violation of their terms of service. It's based on social security and it's what's called "a pyramid scheme." What happens is, you send me ...

They'll be gone by Christmas
Psystars had it now
Stealing stuff
And selling cruft
Is not a business plan

They'll be gone by Christmas
Bankruptcy is neigh
The judge has ruled
Against these fools
So Psystar goes By-by

They'll be gone by Christmas
Unemployment soon
That's what you get
When you're a twit
And your lawyers are all fools

They'll be gone by Christmas
(Unless there's an appeal)

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm a pie-star.

I'm a chicken pot py man, myself.

So the judge basically said "Shut your Pyhole."?

I wonder if anyone has ever made a py using star fruit?

My favorite is huckleberry.

Quote

Guest wrote:
So the judge basically said "Shut your Pyhole"?

LMAO

pi man myself

something about the ratio of it all just makes sense...

TRO

Quote

Guest wrote:
So the judge basically said "Shut your Pyhole"?

Oh gosh





*Edited to correct the quotes

I think most of us predicted that Apple would roll over them in this lawsuit. It was a py in the sky business model from the get-go.

Sorry, guys. Couldn't help myself!

I'm still not entirely clear on how this is copyright infringement. Is it because of the fact that OS X is preinstalled on the hard drives? Does it have anything to do with the EULA at all? If Psystar sold their systems with no OS and included a retail copy of OS X, would that be okay?

Or for that matter, with no OS at all? Is there something about the hardware that is illegal, like copied firmware or something? I assume there's something that makes the OpenMacs more like Macs than an ordinary PC.

Basically Apple's OS is for Apple computers only. This isn't that unusual-lots of hardware ships with a proprietary OS. Back in the early days of personal computing, nearly every hardware maker had their own hardware specific OS; game consoles are probably today's equivalent. You can't run the X-Box OS on the PS3, etc., and emulating the OS on other hardware is a no-no (due in large part to the fact that a BIOS file is required and this can't be distributed legally).

All of the hacks for installing OS X on non-Apple machines break the terms of Apple's EULA, though few if any of the folks doing those experiments seek to benefit from it commercially in any way. Thus, Psystar shipping machines with OS X installed was illegal. If they decided to ship non-Apple hardware capable of running OS X, it would imply the aforementioned hacking, regardless of whether or not the OS was installed.

To help those with difficulty pronouncing Psystar, just say ?

"Pissed arse"

NB: the third "s" is silent.

It is copyright infringement because Psystar bought retail packages of MacOS X with a license that allows them to be installed "on one Apple-labeled computer:. Installing the software on a Psystar computer is not covered by the license, because it is not an "Apple-labeled computer", and copying it without license is copyright infringement.

You or I could get away with this because (1) Apple doesn't know, (2) Apple isn't too bothered about a single copy, and (3) there is a chance that there are some consumer protection laws that protects us stupid little consumers who don't understand the big words that Apple uses in its license (I wouldn't want to be the one who finds out). Psystar doesn't get away with it because (1) they stuck it right up in Apple's face, (2) they made a right annoyance of themselves so Apple couldn't possibly ignore it, and (3) they are a company; they are actually one hundred percent bound by such a license, and if they don't understand it, they have to call lawyers to explain it to them.

It's psystar! Stupid Geoff Gamut, hope he didn't get paid for this.

I think part of the copyright infringement claim also had to do with the fact that psystar had a picture of the cover of a Leopard box on it's web site with the OSX logo. Probably a relly smart move on their part... NOT!!! I can hear Homer now.... "Dogh!"

As much as we all like apple and like them to make cool computers, objectively there isn't really a difference on the component level between a Mac and any other PC. The arguments we've been haring for why apple should be exclusive with it's hardware rings hollow in todays world.

Apple owns the Copyright to OSX. That gives it a monopoly to do practically whatever it wants with the software in terms of copying, distributing, and creating derviative works based on the software.

The end user license is what dictates the terms upon which others are allowed to use it's software that is protected by it's copyright. Apple's license prevents the distribution of OSX on non-Apple made machines.

Psystar is clearly violating the license by installing it on non-Apple made machines. That makes Psystar's actions a copyright violation UNLESS it has a legally recognizable defense for it's actions.

If a regular person was to violate Apple's license and put it on a personal machine he or she would likely have the defense of fair-use. Psystar, however, is a business and wouldn't likely have success on those grounds. It is trying to muddy the waters by claiming Apple has monopoly power, and is thus engaging in anti-competitive behavior. That is a very weak argument.

As to your other question, under copyright law Psystar could probably sell the machine with a copy of Leopard that is not installed. Courts allow people to resell software they legally bought. However, here Psystar is modifying OSX to get it to work on non-Apple machines, which is violating Apple's monopoly in the right to modify it's software.

Under other legal theories, such as Trademark law, Apple might be able to strictly limit the way Psystar markets it's machines because Psystar would have to make clear to consumers that Apple does not endorse the use of it's OS on it's Psystar machines. This is meaningless though if Psystar cannot open the box and modify the software for consumers, which is what it is doing.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm still not entirely clear on how this is copyright infringement. Is it because of the fact that OS X is preinstalled on the hard drives? Does it have anything to do with the EULA at all? If Psystar sold their systems with no OS and included a retail copy of OS X, would that be okay?

Or for that matter, with no OS at all? Is there something about the hardware that is illegal, like copied firmware or something? I assume there's something that makes the OpenMacs more like Macs than an ordinary PC.

I really do not see why this is so difficult to understand. Apple Corp. is in the business of selling computers. That is what they do. They are in competition with others who sell computers. In order to make their computers stand out from the rest of the market, Apple has written a different OS than other computer sellers use. The other computer sellers buy their OS from a software company. Apple wrote their own. OS X is not a separate product from Apple computers. It is a FEATURE of Apple computers to make them stand apart from other brand computers.

If two companies make mouse traps, and company A invents an added feature to their mouse trap, company B has no right to add company A's feature to their own mouse traps - even if they buy the part from company A. That is company A's invention, not company B's.

Not only is copying (buying) the invention/intellectual property of another company in order to sell your own product in competition with the other illegal, it's also pretty darn chicken sh*t.

>> As much as we all like apple and like them to make cool computers, objectively there isn't really a difference on the component level between a Mac and any other PC. The arguments we've been haring for why apple should be exclusive with it's hardware rings hollow in todays world.

Why would it matter what is inside a Mac or a PC? When you buy Leopard, you find that it comes with a license that allows installation on a single "Apple-labeled computer". That is what Apple chose to distinguish where you can install the software: Whether it is Apple-labeled or not.

If the computers are the same internally, that might make it easier for you or for a company like Psystar to install Leopard in breach of that license from a technical point of few; it doesn't make it any more legal.

Gloating zealotry at it's ugliest. It's a shame as some of you guys are actually capable of objective commentary. Flag-bearing and cheer leading multi-billions corps. does not sensible discussion make. It does nothing for MO's image either, if I had just wandered in here, I'd be right out again, never to return. Eugh.

Quote

Nookster wrote:
Gloating zealotry at it's ugliest. It's a shame as some of you guys are actually capable of objective commentary. Flag-bearing and cheer leading multi-billions corps. does not sensible discussion make. It does nothing for MO's image either, if I had just wandered in here, I'd be right out again, never to return. Eugh.

Rooting for those who break the law just because the victim is a multi billion dollar company does not make for intelligent, unbiased discussion either. Wealth does not automatically put one in the wrong. Being the little guy does not automatically put one in the right.

Psystar was violating Apple's OS licensing agreement, and making a profit off of that violation. Apple has every right to defend their intellectual property, which is what is keeping them alive as a company.

Quote

zewazir wrote:

Rooting for those who break the law just because the victim is a multi billion dollar company does not make for intelligent, unbiased discussion either. Wealth does not automatically put one in the wrong. Being the little guy does not automatically put one in the right.

Show me where you got this idea from, it certainly wasn't from my post! Since when does not wanting to act like a jingoistic half-wit become analogous to 'rooting' for anyone else?

The immature attitude on display here glows like a white stripe under UV. Visitors are greeted with rants and chants and petty regurgitation from people who have no involvement with the article beyond being obsessed and devoted, removing any motivation to contribute, or even return.

Quote

Nookster wrote:

Quote

zewazir wrote:

Rooting for those who break the law just because the victim is a multi billion dollar company does not make for intelligent, unbiased discussion either. Wealth does not automatically put one in the wrong. Being the little guy does not automatically put one in the right.

Show me where you got this idea from, it certainly wasn't from my post! Since when does not wanting to act like a jingoistic half-wit become analogous to 'rooting' for anyone else?

The immature attitude on display here glows like a white stripe under UV. Visitors are greeted with rants and chants and petty regurgitation from people who have no involvement with the article beyond being obsessed and devoted, removing any motivation to contribute, or even return.

Since when is pointing out the legal facts in the case "jingoistic"? YOU were the one complaining about people fawning over Apple, pointing out it is a multi billion dollar corporation in the process. It does not take much to understand what that means.

If you have an argument on the legal aspects of the case, perhaps why Psystar should be able to legally and rightfully make a profit through deliberately and knowingly violating Apple's EULA - which is what is being discussed - then by all means let's hear it.

If all you have to add is a criticism of others based on your perception of the tone of the posts so far, don't be a whinin' about being treated like a troll.

Quote

zewazir wrote:

Since when is pointing out the legal facts in the case "jingoistic"? YOU were the one complaining about people fawning over Apple, pointing out it is a multi billion dollar corporation in the process. It does not take much to understand what that means.

The nature of much of the thread is there for all to see. The 'multi billions' reference (you added the dollar) is there to illustrate how ridiculous human behaviour can be when companies, corps and brand identities get treated like favourite sports teams, despite the fact that these entities do not generally repay the emotional favour, you understand what that means now?

Quote

zewazir wrote:
If you have an argument on the legal aspects of the case, perhaps why Psystar should be able to legally and rightfully make a profit through deliberately and knowingly violating Apple's EULA - which is what is being discussed - then by all means let's hear it.

Considering that I never thought (and do note; NEVER suggested) that Psystar had a leg to stand on, why on earth would I do so? Again you have plucked a conclusion out of thin air based on nothing but your own personal notions.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
If all you have to add is a criticism of others based on your perception of the tone of the posts so far, don't be a whinin' about being treated like a troll.

Oh behave. You are the first and only person so far to mention the 'T' word, I certainly had no thoughts in that direction, this your own fabrication, presumably to make yourself feel better. Clearly these wild and crazy perceptions of mine are on to something, no matter how subtle you try to be

Quote

Nookster wrote:

Quote

zewazir wrote:

Since when is pointing out the legal facts in the case "jingoistic"? YOU were the one complaining about people fawning over Apple, pointing out it is a multi billion dollar corporation in the process. It does not take much to understand what that means.

The nature of much of the thread is there for all to see. The 'multi billions' reference (you added the dollar) is there to illustrate how ridiculous human behaviour can be when companies, corps and brand identities get treated like favourite sports teams, despite the fact that these entities do not generally repay the emotional favour, you understand what that means now?

Quote

zewazir wrote:
If you have an argument on the legal aspects of the case, perhaps why Psystar should be able to legally and rightfully make a profit through deliberately and knowingly violating Apple's EULA - which is what is being discussed - then by all means let's hear it.

Considering that I never thought (and do note; NEVER suggested) that Psystar had a leg to stand on, why on earth would I do so? Again you have plucked a conclusion out of thin air based on nothing but your own personal notions.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
If all you have to add is a criticism of others based on your perception of the tone of the posts so far, don't be a whinin' about being treated like a troll.

Oh behave. You are the first and only person so far to mention the 'T' word, I certainly had no thoughts in that direction, this your own fabrication, presumably to make yourself feel better. Clearly these wild and crazy perceptions of mine are on to something, no matter how subtle you try to be

So, what WAS the point of the first post? was the purpose to ADD something meaningful, one way or the other, to the topic at hand? Because I fail to see where your post addressed the topic in any way, either in favor of the court decision or against it; in favor of Apple's lawsuit, or against it.

As far as I can see, the entire purpose was to make a derogatory remark about a perceived (or is it made up?) attitude of other posters. And that pretty much makes my perception of trolling quite valid.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
So, what WAS the point of the first post? was the purpose to ADD something meaningful, one way or the other, to the topic at hand? Because I fail to see where your post addressed the topic in any way, either in favor of the court decision or against it; in favor of Apple's lawsuit, or against it.

No point copy-pasting, as it's pretty straightforward, go read it again if you didn't grasp it in full.

I addressed the insular, petty reactions this topic appears to invoke, I also hope that any first time visitors reading it don't just close their window and never come back, some of the comments don't give the best of first impressions, sadly.

Does it bother you that I feel no obligation to pitch a camp on one side banners in hand? A bit of common sense just once in a while doesn't hurt.

Quote

zewazir wrote:
As far as I can see, the entire purpose was to make a derogatory remark about a perceived (or is it made up?) attitude of other posters. And that pretty much makes my perception of trolling quite valid.

The attitude is as plain as your annoyed barbs are and both are as obvious as the morning sun, it does you no favours, feel free to validate that too

So you object to the py-puns?

Perhaps it is not zealotry at hand, but a simple lack of appreciation for punning. And I will grant that a poorly executed pun can be psychically painful.

One thing is sure - no one is going to look at those puns and take so much offense they never come back to MO.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I'm a pie-star. Steak and kidney is my fave.

So am I
I love steak and kidney pie chips and mushy peas

Quote

zewazir wrote:
So you object to the py-puns?

Perhaps it is not zealotry at hand, but a simple lack of appreciation for punning. And I will grant that a poorly executed pun can be psychically painful.

One thing is sure - no one is going to look at those puns and take so much offense they never come back to MO.

No, not those puns! I don't think those good/awful puns could manage to do that all by themselves. I thought they were sort of funny, good effort, now the headline can never fixed

Perhaps you need to be Py-eyed to appreciate them fully, um...