Comments on: What Psystar needs now is lawyers, sweet lawyers

By: Podesta

Podesta — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:12:06 +0000

What the people at Psystar really need is common sense. Their previous businesses were either extant for a few months or never got off the ground. One suspects that is because it does not take long to set up an operation, collect funds from an initial surge of marks and then go out of business while holding the loot. However, Psystar, which appears to consist of three people, has miscalculated its ability to carry out pyramid schemes posing as businesses in this episode. It will not have trouble making money off several thousand clueless customers, but Apple will act to protect its work product and brand.

By: Kai

Kai — Fri, 02 May 2008 18:52:21 +0000

It was a joke… :D

I was just wondering why Apple’s SLA is quite concise compared to other SLAs I’ve seen (there’s no definition of Apple-labeled), unlike other terms like: Apple Inc. (“Apple”), … on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”), etc.

I thought there should be a definition like: …on a single computer sold by Apple (“Apple-labeled computer”)…

I don’t know anything about law, so… just for fun :D

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:57:01 +0000

When they refer to the Apple label they are referring to it being labeled by the company Apple. Funny though if all they had to do is paint a small Apple on it.

By: Kai

Kai — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:21:50 +0000

Based on the SLA I found here: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

(I don’t have a Mac)

but apparently there is no definition of what is an “Apple-labeled computer”. So Psystar can simply stick the word “Apple” or a generic apple picture (to avoid legal issues, don’t use the Apple Inc. logo), and voila, it’s an “Apple-labeled computer”!

It would have an Apple label :D