All-in-One PCs

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

So they are branded.

If you understood the question and what I have previously written you
could have just answered 'yes'.

some of the chips on the logic board are apple-branded too. so what?

the branding of the individual parts isn't what matters. it's the
*final* *product*.

And where is the final product branded?

you're *so* confused.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2016-02-25 03:46:41 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:14:39 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not? You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

The damn case with the Apple logo prominent is obviously an Apple
branded CASE. That is all it is. It is by no stretch of the imagination
an 'Apple branded computer'.

Now will you two, or is it three or four, just cut this crap and kill
this never ending thread.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:25:56 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:35:11 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

Well, there's a nospamism if there ever was one!

What do you think "branding" is?

Something that is "branded" is a product that is identifiable as
having been produced by a particular company.

If logic boards have the Apple logo and copyright information on them,
they are branded as being Apple products.

Why, though, would they have an Apple copyright on them? The Apple
logo is a registered trademark, and will have the ® symbol, but a
logic board is not copyrightable.

But the circuit diagram is - as a work of art.

Do you mean patent information?

Please twist your statement around so that you at least appear to be
right. We'll know you aren't, but we also know you'll try.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:10:35 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

Well, there's a nospamism if there ever was one!

What do you think "branding" is?

Something that is "branded" is a product that is identifiable as
having been produced by a particular company.

that's why there's a logo on the logic board.

once again, you fail to read.

i didn't say there was no branding at all.

Yes you did. Right above.

nope.

i said "as would be with a computer". in other words, there is branding
but it's different.

I would expect Apple to argue that the branding of the circuit boards
is part of the branding of the computer as Apple. It's not just the
branding on the case which makes an Apple computer branded as Apple.
However there are arguments which potentially rebut that argument,
which is sort of thing that a judge will have to unravel.

i said the branding of the
parts is not the same as that of a completed computer with regards to
the eula, which is what this is about.

No you didn't. You're adding that now as a means to twist away.

nope.

the eula specifies an apple-branded computer, not apple-branded parts.

the branding of the parts does not matter. there are non-apple parts in
there too, including intel, nvidia, samsung and others.

Oh, so branded parts are not important? So if you order a logic board
for your Mac, but it's not branded as an Apple product, you wouldn't
care?

you can't order a logic board for a mac because apple doesn't sell them
to end users.

not that it matters because that does not matter as far as the eula is
concerned.

I suspect you are wrong.

logic boards are copyrightable and have a © with the year the board was
designed.

OK, I was wrong there.

yes you were.

Now you admit you are wrong about the rest.

nope, because i'm not wrong.

i am 100% correct that a hackintosh is not an apple-branded computer,
even if it's in an apple branded box. therefore it's an eula violation.


if you don't believe me, contact apple legal, 408-996-1010.

Don't you think they might be a little prejudiced in this matter?

i'm sure you'll argue with them too.

In court.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

Well, there's a nospamism if there ever was one!

What do you think "branding" is?

Something that is "branded" is a product that is identifiable as
having been produced by a particular company.

that's why there's a logo on the logic board.

once again, you fail to read.

i didn't say there was no branding at all.

Yes you did. Right above.

nope.

i said "as would be with a computer". in other words, there is branding
but it's different.

I love to watch you wriggle around! What "other words" mean branding
is not branding?

i didn't say branding is not branding.

you're the wriggly one trying to twist things.

A computer is branded to show that it is made by a particular company.
A logic board is branded to show that is made by a particular company.
It's exactly the same.

nobody said otherwise.

What do you think the difference is? Smaller letters? Different
font?

whoosh

i said the branding of the
parts is not the same as that of a completed computer with regards to
the eula, which is what this is about.

You didn't say anything about the EULA.

the entire discussion has been about the eula, which clearly states
that mac os x is licensed for use only on an apple-branded computer.

eric is trying to claim that stuffing a pc logic board into a mac case
qualifies as an apple-branded computer. it does not.

No you didn't. You're adding that now as a means to twist away.

nope.

Only in your imagination.

nope. it's reality.

the eula specifies an apple-branded computer, not apple-branded parts.

What makes up an Apple-branded computer?

Are you saying that the Apple EULA permits the replacement of
Apple-branded parts with non-Apple parts?

replacing memory or the hard drive doesn't change the branding.

replacing the logic board with a pc logic board absolutely, without
question, does change the branding. it is no longer an apple-branded
computer.

it's now a hackintosh, although usually they're in generic pc
enclosures, not an apple case.


the branding of the parts does not matter. there are non-apple parts in
there too, including intel, nvidia, samsung and others.

Oh, so branded parts are not important? So if you order a logic board
for your Mac, but it's not branded as an Apple product, you wouldn't
care?

you can't order a logic board for a mac because apple doesn't sell them
to end users.

Now you've introduced a new "in other words": Apple selling direct to
end users.

http://www.welovemacs.com/aplobo.html
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Mac-Pro-L...ds-c-5188.html

that's not apple selling them.

go to the apple store and as if you can buy just a logic board. they'll
tell you 'no'.

a lot of those places part out old computers. those are not necessarily
coming from apple.

not that it matters because that does not matter as far as the eula is
concerned.

logic boards are copyrightable and have a © with the year the board was
designed.

OK, I was wrong there.

yes you were.

Now you admit you are wrong about the rest.

nope, because i'm not wrong.

i am 100% correct that a hackintosh is not an apple-branded computer,
even if it's in an apple branded box. therefore it's an eula violation.

Neither is a Dell an Apple-branded computer. But, that's not what's
being discussed in this part of the thread.

actually it is what's being discussed.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But is it a EULA violation in spite of the Apple brand? You are
welcome to place bets but it is not within your competence to make a
binding decision.

there's no need to make a decision.

it's an eula violation if you run os x on a computer that's not
apple-branded, whose meaning is very, very clear.

Haw.

Wait until the lawyers get hold of it.

what for? it's clear as can be.

You really think I'm just being difficult, don't you?

looks that way.

how can anyone possibly claim that a computer cobbled together by a
third party is an apple-branded computer, particularly when hacks must
be done for mac os to even run?

The question is, is it Apple-branded or is it not?

the answer is without question, no.

You want to claim
that it is not but, if you are right, what is the meaning of the
factory embossed logo on the case which holds it all together?

it means that the *case* was made by apple. that's all.

stuffing a pc logic board inside an apple case is without question, not
an apple-branded computer. not even close.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I would be more concerned about the nature of the branding carried by
Apple mother boards. Are they branded? Are they all branded?

apple doesn't sell logic boards separately so there's no branding as
would be with a computer, but they do have the apple logo and copyright
on them.

So they are branded.

If you understood the question and what I have previously written you
could have just answered 'yes'.

some of the chips on the logic board are apple-branded too. so what?

the branding of the individual parts isn't what matters. it's the
*final* *product*.

And where is the final product branded?

apple.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I would expect Apple to argue that the branding of the circuit boards
is part of the branding of the computer as Apple. It's not just the
branding on the case which makes an Apple computer branded as Apple.
However there are arguments which potentially rebut that argument,
which is sort of thing that a judge will have to unravel.

there are no arguments that need to be unraveled. the issue is clear as
can be.



i am 100% correct that a hackintosh is not an apple-branded computer,
even if it's in an apple branded box. therefore it's an eula violation.


if you don't believe me, contact apple legal, 408-996-1010.

Don't you think they might be a little prejudiced in this matter?

no, because there's nothing to be prejudiced about.

an apple-branded computer is *not* a pc logic board stuffed into an
apple case.

i'm sure you'll argue with them too.

In court.

go for it.

nobody would waste their time taking it to court because the answer is
clear as can be.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

i said the branding of the
parts is not the same as that of a completed computer with regards to
the eula, which is what this is about.

You didn't say anything about the EULA.

the entire discussion has been about the eula, which clearly states
that mac os x is licensed for use only on an apple-branded computer.

The thread itself is long, boring, and without merit.

yet you keep posting, so it's obviously not that boring.

Within a thread
are posts, and if a the post contains a misstatement - as the one of
yours did that I replied to - then that post is in error. I didn't
comment on the thread. I commented on the post.

stick to the topic, which is apple's eula and what constitutes an
apple-branded computer.

Oh, so branded parts are not important? So if you order a logic board
for your Mac, but it's not branded as an Apple product, you wouldn't
care?

you can't order a logic board for a mac because apple doesn't sell them
to end users.

Now you've introduced a new "in other words": Apple selling direct to
end users.

http://www.welovemacs.com/aplobo.html
http://www.dvwarehouse.com/Mac-Pro-L...ds-c-5188.html

that's not apple selling them.

You are moving the goalposts. They are available. They are sold to
end users. They are made by Apple.

Your statement that "you can't order a logic board for a mac" is
false.

that's not what i said, which is still quoted above.

i specifically said apple doesn't sell parts to end users, and they
don't.

this is a verifiable fact. call or visit an apple store and ask.

Just another stumble and an attempt at a cover-up on your part.

nope. it's a blatant example of you twisting things.

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

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

Sandman:
Yet here you are, arguing a definition that only has
relevancy in a legal context.

Eric Stevens:
Me? I'm not arguing a definition.

Sandman:
Incorrect:

"Nowhere that I can see does the license prevent anyone from
running Windows. The terms of the license apply only if one
chooses to run Apple software. If he chooses to run Apple
software (Hackintosh) he *will* be running it on an
"Apple-branded computer"."
/ Eric Stevens- 02/19/2016

So. As again you have to lie by misquoting what I said to put
yourself in an apparent position of proving me wrong. Note that: I
am calling you a liar.

I didn't just write the simple denial "Me? I'm not arguing a
definition" which is all that you have quoted (above). I actually

You did write exactly what I quoted above. The fact that you wrote even more
doesn't mean the quote is "misquoted" nor that I am a liar. Indeed, it makes
*you* a liar for making in incorrect and explicit statement about my actions.

Eric Steven lie #1:
"again you have to lie"

Eric Steven lie #2:
"...by misquoting"

--
Sandman