All-in-One PCs

On 2/23/2016 4:32 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Nor were they selling Apple branded computers.
Further, what Psystar were doing was arguably in breach of
the Apple EULA.

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They wanted to
interpret the EULA in their own way, which was obviously not
what Apple had in mind when they wrote it. The court sided
with Apple, for obvious reasons.

PeterN:
Not obvious at all, unless you know "ALL" of the facts, and the
applicable law of the jurisdiction. Apple uses multiple
agreements, some of which may not be EULAs.

Sandman:
Irrelevant, the Psystar case was in reference to the EULA.

Nice try. You are assuming only one EULA. Without at least knowing
which one, no rational conclusion can be drawn. Some jurisdictions
have some of the finest judges money can buy.

If you have an actual point, state it. As of now, you're only lowering the
signal to noise ratio.


I did. But you made a diversionary statement.

--
PeterN

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:31:44 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you buy a toyota and replace its engine with one from a honda and
the transmission from a chrysler and redo the interior with custom
seats, it is no longer a toyota-branded vehicle anymore. it's a
home-built vehicle.

But it still bears a Toyota brand and therefoe remains a Toyota
branded vehicle.

not if everything other than the shell has been gutted and replaced
with non-toyota parts.

The automobile industry offers some interesting examples. There was a
time when the Holden division of General Motors made cars with Nissan
engines. These still carried the Holden brand. See
http://www.motoring.com.au/holden-vl...-1986-88-3482/

The fact that you made a substantial snip of what I had written at
this point shows that you did not understand the significance of what
I had written. Product brand is much more than who made it.

it has everything to do with who made it.

I shall repeat: At one stage if you wanted a 4-wd Honda you got an
Isuzu branded with a Honda badge.
http://a2goos.com/data_images/models...horizon-05.jpg

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you buy a toyota and replace its engine with one from a honda and
the transmission from a chrysler and redo the interior with custom
seats, it is no longer a toyota-branded vehicle anymore. it's a
home-built vehicle.

But it still bears a Toyota brand and therefoe remains a Toyota
branded vehicle.

not if everything other than the shell has been gutted and replaced
with non-toyota parts.

The automobile industry offers some interesting examples. There was a
time when the Holden division of General Motors made cars with Nissan
engines. These still carried the Holden brand. See
http://www.motoring.com.au/holden-vl...-1986-88-3482/

The fact that you made a substantial snip of what I had written at
this point shows that you did not understand the significance of what
I had written. Product brand is much more than who made it.

it has everything to do with who made it.

I shall repeat: At one stage if you wanted a 4-wd Honda you got an
Isuzu branded with a Honda badge.
http://a2goos.com/data_images/models...horizon-05.jpg

i'll repeat again. that came from the factory that way.

if you bought a honda and then installed isuzu parts yourself, it's not
a honda vehicle anymore. it's a custom home-built.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 16:43:29 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

id doesn;t have to be made by aplpe it has to have aplpes permission for it
to be branded apple.

The case certainly has Apples permission to be so branded. The
question that the judge will have to decide is whether or not the
branding of the case is sufficient to make the whole assembly an
Apple-branded computer. I've tried to give you and nospam some hints
as to the arguments which might be adduced but they seem to pass right
over your collective heads.

there is no question.

nobody would consider a mac case with a pc logic board inside it to be
an apple-branded computer.

nobody would consider a ferrari with chevy parts under the hood to be a
ferrari-branded vehicle.

they're third party mods.

Yet a lot of people consider Jaguars with Chevrolet engines to be
Jaguars. For a while it was a very popular conversion. Most people
couldn't tell the difference. I expect you have seen several and not
realised it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:22:35 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

exactly, which is why someone stuffing a pc board into a mac case is
*not* an apple-branded computer.

I love your logic.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

id doesn;t have to be made by aplpe it has to have aplpes permission for
it
to be branded apple.

The case certainly has Apples permission to be so branded. The
question that the judge will have to decide is whether or not the
branding of the case is sufficient to make the whole assembly an
Apple-branded computer. I've tried to give you and nospam some hints
as to the arguments which might be adduced but they seem to pass right
over your collective heads.

there is no question.

nobody would consider a mac case with a pc logic board inside it to be
an apple-branded computer.

nobody would consider a ferrari with chevy parts under the hood to be a
ferrari-branded vehicle.

they're third party mods.

Yet a lot of people consider Jaguars with Chevrolet engines to be
Jaguars. For a while it was a very popular conversion. Most people
couldn't tell the difference. I expect you have seen several and not
realised it.

what does jaguar consider it to be? they're the ones who decide.

a pc logic board inside a mac case that's running mac os x is *not* an
apple-branded computer, even if it fools people using it into thinking
it is.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.

exactly, which is why someone stuffing a pc board into a mac case is
*not* an apple-branded computer.

I love your logic.

excellent.

On 23 Feb 2016 22:31:48 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They wanted to interpret the
EULA in their own way, which was obviously not what Apple had in
mind when they wrote it. The court sided with Apple, for obvious
reasons.

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that this means that the
court will always side with Apple?

This is what you said:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/20/2016

"Only with your definition of 'branded'."

Implying that some other definition of "branded" could make it perfectly legal.
All I said was "well, good luck with that", since other parties, bigger
parties, with lots more money and resources than you, have tried to interpret
the EULA in their own little way only to have the court pound them.

You are free to interpret the EULA in any whacky way you choose, but don't
pretend that it would or could stand a chance in a court of law.

I'm not so foolish or so inexperienced as to pretend that it
absolutely wouldn't stand a chance in a court of law.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Sandman:
Indeed, which is why it's relevant. They wanted to interpret the
EULA in their own way, which was obviously not what Apple had in
mind when they wrote it. The court sided with Apple, for obvious
reasons.

Surely you are not so naive as to believe that this means that the
court will always side with Apple?

This is what you said:

Eric Stevens
All-in-One PCs
02/20/2016

"Only with your definition of 'branded'."

Implying that some other definition of "branded" could make it perfectly
legal.
All I said was "well, good luck with that", since other parties, bigger
parties, with lots more money and resources than you, have tried to
interpret
the EULA in their own little way only to have the court pound them.

You are free to interpret the EULA in any whacky way you choose, but don't
pretend that it would or could stand a chance in a court of law.

I'm not so foolish or so inexperienced as to pretend that it
absolutely wouldn't stand a chance in a court of law.

All this nonsense about it standing up in a court of law. For it to
go to court, there has to be a reason. Your son can put PC innards in
a Mac case and call it a Mac if he wants to. Unless he tries to sell
it as a Mac, there's not basis of court action involved. If so, the
court action would be by the buyer, not Apple.

nope. it's an eula violation to use mac os x on it. apple is not going
to bother chasing him down, but that doesn't make it legal.

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:15:22 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

if you buy a toyota and replace its engine with one from a honda and
the transmission from a chrysler and redo the interior with custom
seats, it is no longer a toyota-branded vehicle anymore. it's a
home-built vehicle.

But it still bears a Toyota brand and therefoe remains a Toyota
branded vehicle.

not if everything other than the shell has been gutted and replaced
with non-toyota parts.

The automobile industry offers some interesting examples. There was a
time when the Holden division of General Motors made cars with Nissan
engines. These still carried the Holden brand. See
http://www.motoring.com.au/holden-vl...-1986-88-3482/

The fact that you made a substantial snip of what I had written at
this point shows that you did not understand the significance of what
I had written. Product brand is much more than who made it.

it has everything to do with who made it.

I shall repeat: At one stage if you wanted a 4-wd Honda you got an
Isuzu branded with a Honda badge.
http://a2goos.com/data_images/models...horizon-05.jpg

i'll repeat again. that came from the factory that way.

It never went near the Honda factory. They were made by Isuzu with
just the badges supplied by Honda.

if you bought a honda and then installed isuzu parts yourself, it's not
a honda vehicle anymore. it's a custom home-built.

You are struggling.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens