If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1741
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:26:16 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. You have this funny idea of the role of courts in these difference of opinion. the courts don't come into play. Hoo boy! What an idiot! if jaguar made the car, it's a jaguar. if eric assembled non-jaguar parts to look like a jaguar, it's not a jaguar. it just looks like one. Is it still a Jaguar if I replace the radio? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1742
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:26:17 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Tony Cooper wrote: 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. Don't say "nope" when you are responding to something not written. Calling a Mac case with PC innards a Mac is not a basis for a court case. Nothing in my post said anything about the use of OS X. i didn't say it was. the issue is that it's an eula violation. do try to keep up. 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. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1743
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On 24 Feb 2016 06:16:45 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. Eric Stevens: Surely you are not so naive as to believe that this means that the court will always side with Apple? Sandman: 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. Yet here you are, arguing a definition that only has relevancy in a legal context. Me? I'm not arguing a definition. All along I have been saying that there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand practices. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1744
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. Me? I'm not arguing a definition. 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 -- Sandman |
#1745
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: 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. i didn't say honda factory. honda authorized it, therefore it's a legitimate honda-branded vehicle. Quite true, but it's NOT a Honda manufactured vehicle. so what? the issue is not who made it but what branding it carries. honda can contract out the manufacturing to whomever they want. apple uses foxconn to manufacture macs but it's not a foxconn-branded computer. dell, sony and many others use foxconn too. Nevertheless it's a vehicle which carries the Honda brand. only because it came that way from honda. |
#1746
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: if jaguar made the car, it's a jaguar. if eric assembled non-jaguar parts to look like a jaguar, it's not a jaguar. it just looks like one. Is it still a Jaguar if I replace the radio? is it still an apple-branded computer if you replace the memory simms? you're grasping at straws. |
#1747
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
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. |
#1748
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
After reading many pages to see if there's anything actually
interesting being discussed, I see that Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Me? ... All along I have been saying that there is room for someone to argue a definition which conflicts with the one that you nospam and Whisky-dave think should carry the day. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right definition. But it's a legitimate argument and it all hangs on the details of Apple's brand practices. If I understood correctly, the point of debate is if an Apple case (or perhaps even more subsystems) which contains a clearly non-OEM third party PC motherboard could ... "could" be potentially considered compliant with the EULA's notion of what constitutes 'Apple branding' for compliance. Its an interesting point, particularly since there are some subsystems which one could replace with 3rd party alternatives which probably would not be tripped up, such as RAM, storage, etc. However, I would be inclined to say that because the EULA-based product contains (or can contain) provisions for effectively doing some sort of system verification check (the classical example being proprietary code in ROM firmware), that the motherboard assembly isn't a "Plain Vanilla" commodity with full & transparent interchangeability and as such, is a bridge too far in permissible hardware substitution. OTOH, if the system validation were something like a USB dongle for which one paid for the privilege with it having a $500 replacement price (not dissimilar to dongles used to validate some higher end commercial software products), then if this was the sole means that the company "validates" a system, then a subsystem such as a motherboard could be considered to be an acceptably fungible commodity replacement item that is not noteworthy. However, on a far more pragmatic basis, I have some vague recollections on Apple computer cases -- dimensionally, I think that they're slightly nonstandard such that the premise of installing a conventional (ie, non-Apple) PC motherboard may not be a simple drop-in exercise like it is for conventional Windows PC cases. In this regards, please let us know how the project goes for him. -hh |
#1749
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:10:54 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: 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. i didn't say honda factory. honda authorized it, therefore it's a legitimate honda-branded vehicle. Quite true, but it's NOT a Honda manufactured vehicle. so what? the issue is not who made it but what branding it carries. honda can contract out the manufacturing to whomever they want. apple uses foxconn to manufacture macs but it's not a foxconn-branded computer. dell, sony and many others use foxconn too. Nevertheless it's a vehicle which carries the Honda brand. only because it came that way from honda. All this started when I told you you were wrong when you wrote the simple definition: "an apple-branded computer is one made by apple". Since then there has been an awful lot of kicking and screaming by you as you try to twist your way out of what you are now beginning to realise is an error. I quoted three separate examples from the motor industry, two of which you surreptitiously snipped without saying anything about them. You said I was wrong when I wrote: "There is a vast difference between an Apple branded computer and an Apple manufactured computer". .... so I again cited the example of the Honda Horizon which never went near a Honda factory but was branded as a Honda. Now you have made a 180 degree turn and brought yourself to write (as above): "the issue is not who made it but what branding it carries". Congratulations. You have now reached the point to which I have been trying to bring you to for the last twenty or so message. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#1750
|
|||
|
|||
All-in-One PCs
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:10:54 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: if jaguar made the car, it's a jaguar. if eric assembled non-jaguar parts to look like a jaguar, it's not a jaguar. it just looks like one. Is it still a Jaguar if I replace the radio? is it still an apple-branded computer if you replace the memory simms? you're grasping at straws. I'm just testing your understanding of your own argument. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|