• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 4 of 4

My comments

• Yes, Pystar is SELLING OSX and NewEgg is SELLING OSX and MacMall is SELLING OSX and on and on and on .....
  
  Pystar is SELLING Winsows and NewEgg is SELLING Windows and MacMall is SELLING Windows and on and on and on .....
  
  Pystar is GIVING AWAY Linux !!!!
  
  
  Would you like quote what statue Pystar has violated by selling Mac OSX? In reply to: "Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled"

  July 16, 2008

  0 replies

• The filing appears to be a red herring, According to Apple's own filing, Phystar violated Apple's Software End User Agreement.
  
  From this violation of Apple's Software End User Agreement flows Apple's other claims including copyright claims as stated in Apple's own filing.
  
  Unfortunately for Apple, Software End User Agreement is an agreement and NOT a contract (you need a signature on a contract, no signature, no contract). Violation of an agreement is not even a tort, therefore no tort - Apple's remaining claims including copyright violation.can be sustained.
  
  Apple's claim of violation of the Software End User Agreement against Phystar should also fail. Phystar is not the party of interest, they didn't buy the software. The end user - Apple's own customer - bought the software, therefore Apple's customer, not Phystar is in violation of Apple's Software End User Agreement.
  
  I'll bet Apple and it's attorneys know all of this, perhaps they hope that 1) Phystar will fail to respond and Apple will get a default judgment or 2) Drowned Phystar with needless attorneys fees by throwing as much paper as possible at Phystar forcing Phystar out of business.
  
  if this *is* the case, I hope the DOJ is watching. It could result in costs to Apple they never expected, predatory practices.
  
  The first thing Phystar should do is file for a change of venue to the Florida district, it's very suspicious that Apple filed in the California District and not Florida forcing Phystar's cost to defend itself to be as high as possible.
  
  Apple has physical offices in Florida and has been doing business in Florida for 30 years, Phystar has no offices in California and been in business less than 1 year. I think Phystar filing for a change of venue has a good chance of prevailing.
  
  If Apple wants to defend their Software License agreement, they need to sue the party of interest, Apple's customers, not Phystar.
  
  Case law Apple hopes Physar's counsel *won't* find ...
  
  Brower vs. Gateway
  
  http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/cases/brower.htm
  
  Specht v. Netscape Communications
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specht_v._Netscape_Communications_Corp. In reply to: "Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled"

  July 16, 2008

  1 reply

• The filing appears to be a red herring, According to Apple's own filing, Phystar violated Apple's Software End User Agreement.
  
  From this violation of Apple's Software End User Agreement flows Apple's other claims including copyright claims as stated in Apple's own filing.
  
  Unfortunately for Apple, Software End User Agreement is an agreement and NOT a contract (you need a signature on a contract, no signature, no contract). Violation of an agreement is not even a tort, therefore no tort - Apple's remaining claims including copyright violation.can be sustained.
  
  Apple's claim of violation of the Software End User Agreement against Phystar should also fail. Phystar is not the party of interest, they didn't buy the software. The end user - Apple's own customer - bought the software, therefore Apple's customer, not Phystar is in violation of Apple's Software End User Agreement.
  
  I'll bet Apple and it's attorneys know all of this, perhaps they hope that 1) Phystar will fail to respond and Apple will get a default judgment or 2) Drowned Phystar with needless attorneys fees by throwing as much paper as possible at Phystar forcing Phystar out of business.
  
  if this *is* the case, I hope the DOJ is watching. It could result in costs to Apple they never expected, predatory practices.
  
  The first thing Phystar should do is file for a change of venue to the Florida district, it's very suspicious that Apple filed in the California District and not Florida forcing Phystar's cost to defend itself to be as high as possible.
  
  Apple has physical offices in Florida and has been doing business in Florida for 30 years, Phystar has no offices in California and been in business less than 1 year. I think Phystar filing for a change of venue has a good chance of prevailing.
  
  If Apple wants to defend their Software License agreement, they need to sue the party of interest, Apple's customers, not Phystar. In reply to: "Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled"

  July 16, 2008

  0 replies

• Get the facts straight.
  
  !. RIM (Blackberry) has by far the largest market share in the smart phone market, always has.
  
  2. Form January 'tll June of the year, Blackberry's market share has INCREASED while IPhone's market share has DECREASED.
  
  3. For every *one* Iphone sold, *3* Blackberrys are sold.
  
  4. Blackberry's continuing market share INCREASE since the Apple Iphone was introduced demonstrates Apple has *YET* to compete with Blackberry. Try to justify it all you want, it won't change tthe FACTS.
  
  5. Apple chose to enter *Blackberrys* market, not the other way around. Apple is the new kid on the block. It's Apple that has the up hill battle, not Blackberry, Apple's DECREASE in market share and Blackberrys INCREASE shows that Apple HAS FAILED so far to compete with Blackberry
  
  Blackberry doesn't need and "Iphone" killer, Blackberry's market SHARE continues to INCREASE despite the Apple Iphone. Instead it's. Instead Apple needs a "Blackberry" killer.
  
  6. Apple is a Religion, a CULT. Apple fanatics are nothing more that cultists.
  
  You have a better chance of getting a Branch Davidian to come out of the burning building than an Apple Cultist to consider any product that doesn't say :"designed by David Koresh .. errr Steve Jobs"
  
  Apple Cultist continue to drink the Cool Aid and no one cares. Who cares if Apple Cultists buy Iphones?
  
  Finally, where do you even get the notion that the Thunder is designed to be an Iphone "killer. Where's the quote from RIM staing this claim? You don't have it because it dosn't exist. Instead you make false claims in an attempt to support your false assumtions. You should be in politics. This isn't news, it's lies, a red herring.
  
  First, Blackberry HAS NO NEED for an "Iphone killer". Second, the Thunder project PREDATES the Iphone. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT. It's APPLE fighting the up hill battle, not RIM. Argue all you want, it can't change the facts.
  
  Terrible article, biased author, lack of facts, false assumptions, a red herring article . Yet another Apple cultist author who refuses to see the facts. In reply to: "Touchscreen BlackBerry not an iPhone killer (not even close)"

  July 14, 2008

  2 replies