| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) || |
|Apple Wins Like a Champ - Psystar is Toast|
| 12:23 am on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Psystar, who has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and sold them to the public has lost on the whole line in a summary judgment.
|Apple Wins Like a Champ - Psystar is Toast -- What? You're Surprised? |
Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. Here's the order [PDF]. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal.
Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse.
There are still issues remaining for trial, despite Psystar's attempt to present everything now as being moot. Here's what's left to be decided at trial: Apple's allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code; and common law unfair competition. See anything on that list that will be helpful to Psystar?
Psystar could be done with after Apple wins the trial itself.
But how about the customers of psystar?
|2. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. |
Apple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement." See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.
Are the Psystar customers also open to being sued by apple for copyright violation ?
| 5:24 pm on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Hello Im a PC?...and im a PC?
could you go into more detail about the seriously dangerous part?
| 6:25 pm on Nov 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|wow french people must be very smart and love installing a new OS 1st thing when they get their new computer. |
hehehe ..no ..but I think we may have more than the average number of linux users ..and the anti USA ( as the perceived instigator of globalism and free market economic models ) sentiment of many frequently manifested itself against MS ..and or DRM ..
The law which was/is used exists from the time before home computers and was designed so that you could buy just one can at 1/6 of the pack price ..and not have to buy the whole 6 pack ..or buy a house without having to insure it with the same bank that made the loan ..etc ..
That said ..our tech fora are some of the very best in the world ..and some of the very best free software " mint", "xnview" "videolan" and "handbrake" ( and many thousands more superb freeware and paid ware ) are made by French people ..and we aren't even getting into the PC and console games that come from here ..
| 4:55 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)|
^ ah HA! exposed as french! j/k :-P
The only thing I noticed was europe was kinda nit-picking at MS
you can give them the OS but not the web browser OR media player.
to me that just seemed silly, if i don't like IE i use something else, If I don't like WMP I use something else I don't just stick with it cause its on my computer and are magicly forced to use it. In the end it turns out i use a large combination of them all. Don't take it all out on MS guys, you've got chips in your cell phones, computers, and TV that were designed by intel, AMD, and texas instruments
keep it up with videolan! I do remember divx being french but that can't be right cause if i visit their website they are surely trying to sell me something :-P
| 6:20 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The summary judgment was commented in detail here:
|Now that we’ve had time to fully pour over Judge Alsup’s 16-page decision, we’re going to break down much the reasoning behind Alsup’s ruling and pinpoint exactly why Psystar’s legal arguments failed to make an impression. |
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) |