All-in-One PCs

On 21 Feb 2016 22:29:12 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
You haven't read many of these things very thoroughly, have you?

See clause 12 of
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx107.pdf

Even Apple knows that ultimately the interpretation of the EULA
is up to a judge. That's what I have been saying all along.

Sandman:
And that's what I said above as well. Remember the "you wouldn't
stand a chance in a court".

But then you wrote "... what the words mean is for Apple to
determine, not you.". My point is that the ultimate determination of
meaning is made by a court.

No, the legal application of Apple's definition is determined by the court, but
Apple and Apple alone is the sole arbiter of what the words entail.

Sandman:
Other have tried, companies like Psystar for instance have tried.
They were shut down. Eric Stevens would pay a couple of hundred
thousands dollars to bring this to court and it would be over in a
heartbeat.

Don't be silly. I'm not putting myself in that position in the first
place.

Of course you're not, so you'd be silly posting to usenet claiming that any
other definition than one that is 100% beneficial to Apple is applicable.

It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's lawyers
have worked hard on it to make sure that it means exactly what Apple
intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are two parties to a contract
and they both can quite sincerely have different interpretations of
what the words mean. God knows, we see examples of this often enough
in this news group. The solution to this problem is having a judge
rule on exactly what the contract means and how it applies in this
particularly situation. It is quite possible that in the end a judge
might interpret the EULA in a way which is not 100% beneficial to
Apple.

I'm not taking sides. I'm just saying that the situation is not as
clear cut as some here would have it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Of course you're not, so you'd be silly posting to usenet claiming
that any other definition than one that is 100% beneficial to
Apple is applicable.

It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's
lawyers have worked hard on it to make sure that it means exactly
what Apple intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are two parties
to a contract and they both can quite sincerely have different
interpretations of what the words mean.

Of course, and my point is - good luck with that. You may have any wacky
interpretation you like, you wouldn't stand a chance in court to enforce your
interpretation however. Others, more well funded, have tried and failed.

--
Sandman

On 22 Feb 2016 05:35:01 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Of course you're not, so you'd be silly posting to usenet claiming
that any other definition than one that is 100% beneficial to
Apple is applicable.

It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's
lawyers have worked hard on it to make sure that it means exactly
what Apple intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are two parties
to a contract and they both can quite sincerely have different
interpretations of what the words mean.

Of course, and my point is - good luck with that. You may have any wacky
interpretation you like, you wouldn't stand a chance in court to enforce your
interpretation however. Others, more well funded, have tried and failed.

That's interesting. Are you able to give me a reference?

Just to save you the trouble, I will point out that while you are
pretending to respond to what I said, you have snipped a great deal of
it and are actually responding to something else altogether.

Here is what I wrote in it's entirety:

"It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's
lawyers have worked hard on it to make sure that it means exactly
what Apple intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are two parties
to a contract and they both can quite sincerely have different
interpretations of what the words mean. God knows, we see examples
of this often enough in this news group. The solution to this
problem is having a judge rule on exactly what the contract means
and how it applies in this particularly situation. It is quite
possible that in the end a judge might interpret the EULA in a way
which is not 100% beneficial to Apple.

I'm not taking sides. I'm just saying that the situation is not as
clear cut as some here would have it."

Would you like to have another crack at it? To respond to what I
actually wrote without wandering off into the wilderness? Would you
mind doing that? Do you actually have anything intelligent to
contribute without wandering off the subject?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Of course you're not, so you'd be silly posting to
usenet claiming that any other definition than one that is
100% beneficial to Apple is applicable.

Eric Stevens:
It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's
lawyers have worked hard on it to make sure that it means
exactly what Apple intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are
two parties to a contract and they both can quite sincerely have
different interpretations of what the words mean.

Sandman:
Of course, and my point is - good luck with that. You may have any
wacky interpretation you like, you wouldn't stand a chance in
court to enforce your interpretation however. Others, more well
funded, have tried and failed.

That's interesting. Are you able to give me a reference?

Look up Psystar

--
Sandman

On 2/12/2016 5:54 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/12/2016 4:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

2. Not all people that live in NY have to register their cars in
NY, or
have them inspected.
they do if they want to drive them on public roads.

They don't have to have them inspected if they use it on private
property so your claim that one requires the other is false, as is
most
of your claims.

you know quite well that the number of people who drive a car
solely on
private property in new york is for all intents, zero.

you're desperately trying to find a lone exception.

It is fairly common to have unlicensed, uninspected vehicles on farms.

peter doesn't have a farm nor is he a farmer and there aren't any farms
on long island and certainly not manhattan (although i'm sure someone
will find one and argue anyway, even if it's just someone growing
tomatoes in their yard).

Your knowledge of Long Island is as accurate as your knowledge on many
other things on which you spout.
Farming is a major industry on Long Island, as is mining.
It also so happens That at one time I owned an interest in a farm in
Suffolk County. What type and what percentage is none of your
business. However I never used any of my cars in connection with farming.

Approximately 50% of Manorville, where I live, is farmland. Instead of
being such a jackass all the time, nospam really ught to educate
him/her/itself.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:32:07 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 19 February 2016 22:36:46 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:26:28 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 18 February 2016 23:01:52 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 02:32:16 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 17 February 2016 21:17:19 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:23:33 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

My son would never touch a Mac because he could never build his own.

I have to freely admit events have just proved me wrong.

My son arrived round for dinner and announced he had just bought a Mac
Pro which he had in the back of his car. (Distant cheers from nospam).

A G4.

mac pros are intel based.

he bought a very old powermac g4.

I thought it was a Power processor model.

it uses a powerpc g4 chip, thus the name powermac g4.

I'm not familar with their
names. As to whether it was 'old' or 'very old' is something neither
of us can tell. All I know is that they were made between 1999 and
2004.

whether it's 'old' or 'very old' doesn't matter.

the point is that it's old and completely unsupported.

But still loved.

That's the thing about Macs, has anyone loved a PC that's that old.
Which is probbaly why people think they are worth more and last longer
than PCs do.

In this case it's loved only for it's case.

I rest my case then.

Don't let my son get near it.

Apple could have put their 'computer' in a crap case that no one really wants
or won;t last making the Apple computer cheaper. But not every one wants a **** looking box at their feet or on their desk, some even want one that opens up easily.
This is also why michelin chefs make their food look nice on the plate rather than thow it all in a carboard box and call it a meal.
But we all know more meals are server in fast food places than michelin resturants, there's a place for both, and we know if we want to make our food look nicers than it really is we arnge it so it;' looks better than it actually is.
Which is why your sons dressing a turd ;-P

But who said he is?

Tell me again what he is usuing a and old G4 mac case for ?

A computer case.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 03:12:24 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 04:09:28 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:58:34 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


an apple-branded mac is one that has an apple logo on the case from the
factory.

putting an apple sticker on the case does not make it apple branded.

nor does gutting a mac and stuffing a generic pc board into it make it
an apple-branded computer.

It would be interesting to argue that in court. All that is required
is that it be a computer carrying an Apple brand, and that is what it
would be.

it would never make it to court.

an apple branded computer is a computer manufactured by apple. end of
story.

if it has been gutted with generic pc parts stuffed inside, it's very
clearly *not* an apple-branded computer.

That would be arguable in court.

it would never make it to court.

an apple-branded computer is one made by apple.

So you keep saying.

He does because he's almost right.
Another company can brand things on apples behalf.

But Apple almost ceretainly copyrighted the brand and registered it as
a trade mark, so no one else can apply the brand without Apple's
written permission.

you should look up what the term branding means.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brand.html
"Unique design, sign, symbol, words, or a combination of these,
employed in creating an image that identifies a product and
differentiates it from its competitors."

it was used for cattle any fool coulod brand any animal as there's but the law didn't always see that as valid did it.

You have to own the right to the brand before you can apply it but,
having applied it, you can on-sell the cattle, car, computer through
an indefinitely long chain without any need to remove the branding.
The cattle, car, computer remains a cattle, car, computer carrying the
original brand.


it is *not* a home built computer that happens to use an apple case.

if you put an acer logic board inside a mac case, is it an acer branded
computer? no.

It becomes an Apple branded computer.

The EULA refers to an "Apple-branded computer". It doesn't say
anything about who owned it. If you guys (Whisky-dave, nospam) had any
knowledge or understanding of the subject you wouldn't try to carry
the day by repeated assertion that 'Apple brand' means that it all has
to be made by Apple.

I don't know the internals of Apple computers but I would be surprised
if (for example) the motherboards are not branded 'Apple' and have a
miniscule notice about patents and trademark protection. I would
expect Apple lawyers to argue that all of this consitutes part of the
branding and that the absence of this in my sons construction would
mean that it is not an Apple-branded computer.

No. As apple don't make acer logic boards, they don;t make the sensors for nikon or canon cameras either. So putting the sensor from a camera inside an apple case doesnt change it into a camera or an Apple computer.

This is getting ridiculous.

As far as the generic PC parts are
concerned, is that not the case with many current Apple computers?

definitely not.

How are they different?

Why has yuo son decided on an Apple case and not a generic PC case ?
Once you've worked that out you'd have almost got it, the penny may have dropped

I've already told you at least twice.

See Message-ID:

"He wanted the case. He was shocked at the price he had to pay for
respectable cases over the counter."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:46:58 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 19 February 2016 22:55:25 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:

an apple-branded mac is one that has an apple logo on the case from the
factory.

putting an apple sticker on the case does not make it apple branded.

nor does gutting a mac and stuffing a generic pc board into it make it
an apple-branded computer.

It would be interesting to argue that in court. All that is required
is that it be a computer carrying an Apple brand, and that is what it
would be.

What's that about putting lipstick on a pig.

A remark which would ignored by the judge.

What on earth is it that prevents you from thinking dispassionately
about the matter?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 22 Feb 2016 11:54:43 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Of course you're not, so you'd be silly posting to
usenet claiming that any other definition than one that is
100% beneficial to Apple is applicable.

Eric Stevens:
It's a contract, and EULA is but part of it. No doubt Apple's
lawyers have worked hard on it to make sure that it means
exactly what Apple intends it to mean. Unfortunately, there are
two parties to a contract and they both can quite sincerely have
different interpretations of what the words mean.

Sandman:
Of course, and my point is - good luck with that. You may have any
wacky interpretation you like, you wouldn't stand a chance in
court to enforce your interpretation however. Others, more well
funded, have tried and failed.

That's interesting. Are you able to give me a reference?

Look up Psystar

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation

Irrelevant to the present situation. Psystar did not claim to be
selling Apple branded computers. Nor were they selling Apple branded
computers. Further, what Psystar were doing was arguably in breach of
the Apple EULA.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:57:19 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 00:59:02 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:

an apple-branded computer that's been gutted with its insides replaced
with generic pc parts is no longer an apple-branded computer. it's now
a home-built computer.

It would be interesting to see what a court would make of the
situation.

Pretty easy to ork out how they wouold see it, a joke.
If you tried to sell a piece of dog **** inside and apple case as an apple computer then what do you think would happen.

Does the dog **** run OSX?

Let forget apple let use MS. If yuo tried to sell a computer saying it has MS office installed but installed linux, you couldn still legally sell it as a PC, but not as a PC running windows and office or as a Mac.

I can see you have never studied law. That is quite clearly a
different situation and a different problem.

it;'s not too unlike throwing a porche cars keys fob into the pot and only having a push bike outside.

That would be OK if the bicycle was branded 'Porsche'.
http://www.porbike.com/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens