OSx86 Project Pissed at Psystar

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by DatacomGuy, Apr 16, 2008.

  1. DatacomGuy

    DatacomGuy is moving to Canada

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    16,546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Taken from Engadget..
     
  2. TheWeasel

    TheWeasel Guest

    I foresee this whole thing turning into one giant clusterfuck. Should be interesting to watch.
     
  3. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    the OSX86Project people do NOT have a valid claim. You can't commit one crime and then get pissy when someone else borrows your already-illegal work to commit further crime.


    "waaah waah waaaaah we stole it first!"
     
  4. TheWeasel

    TheWeasel Guest

  5. 5SpeedSER

    5SpeedSER OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    26,622
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    South Florida
    lol

    this is actually kinda funny. i do hope apple cracks down on this, i like the idea but meh
     
  6. dorkultra

    dorkultra OT's resident crohns dude OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    22,743
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    yinzer / nilbog, trollhio
    that hoax thing is hillarious
     
  7. Kortiz-DZ

    Kortiz-DZ Resident Nigerian Lipper OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,293
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Northeastern Indiana
    That reminds me of another fight between MS and Apple back in the day with Xerox....
     
  8. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    That depends on whether the OSx86 people developed any of their own intellectual property over the course of their project, and whether Psystar swiped it.
     
  9. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    not rly. You can't devise a device whose sole purpose is theft and then cry about infringment if someone copies your design for their own theivery.
     
  10. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure you can. Nothing's sole purpose is theft; there is a legitimate use for everything, and an illegitimate use for everything. You could argue that a lockpick's original sole purpose was theft, but then some dude locked himself out of his own house and another dude with a lockpick saved the day.
     
  11. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    if you're a locksmith, maybe. but if you're not, and you're caught with bona-fide lockpicks you're getting shinny bracelets and a free cab ride.
     
  12. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they're sold in tool catalogs. There is nothing illegal about them. It's the intent of the user that matters.

    I've told you about the almost century-old lawsuit against crowbar manufacturers, in which it was determined that OEMs and vendors are not responsible for misuse of their products. The same goes for lockpicks, guns, ROM emulators, and everything else that can possibly be misused for some fell purpose.
     
  13. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    You're in Virginia, right???


     
  14. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    what's wrong deusexaethera.... no comment now???
     
  15. IcyHot4Life

    IcyHot4Life Str8 Ballin'

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    18,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Inquire Within
    No. DeCSS is used to decrypt DVDs, but the source itself is NOT illegal, it's what you do with it that is an illegal act.

    In fact, DeCSS is technically a trade secret. Once a trade secret is out in the open, my understanding is that enjoys very little legal protection from claims like that.
     
  16. IcyHot4Life

    IcyHot4Life Str8 Ballin'

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    18,151
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Inquire Within
    Stop acting like a little bitch. Laws like that are tenuous at best. Do you even know what prima facie even means? For an arrest on those grounds to successfully turn into a conviction, the prosecution would have to prove an obvious (and likely imminent) intent to commit a crime with those tools. All the defendant would have to prove is that he has a reasonable basis for owning and/or carrying lockpicks.

    If the arrest was pursuant to a search at home, the case would probably not stick, if the lockpicks were even admissible as evidence in the first place (which they shouldn't be if their discovery is outside the scope of the warrant, for example).

    If you have them on your person then it becomes harder to justify convincingly, but several people may have jobs where carrying those tools is in fact a reasonable expectation.

    So basically stfu about the law unless you know what you're talking about.

    P.S. that particular law is extremely vague, and owning anything less than very obvious lockpicks would be pretty hard to prove as intended to commit a crime with. I'd bet that a good enough lawyer could build a pretty solid case against that law being unconstitutional as well, but the fact is that this kind of law never gets tested up to high enough courts for that to ever happen.
     
  17. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    Um, no. Actually you're very wrong. Prima ficie means that possession alone demonstrates intent. Basically once the prosecution has prima facie evidence, they have demonstrated all that is neccessary, legally, for conviction. It is now the burden of the defense to demonstrate how possession and INTENT were legal in their insance (for example, being a licensed lock-smith who had the tools in his truck)

    A normal citizen, served a warrant to search their home, once found in possession of a lock-pick in VA would have "prima facie" evidence demonstrating intent to commit burglary -- even if the item was simply in a sock drawer. The buden is on the defense to demonstrate how posession was legal. Simply saying "I wasn't gonna commit burglary" is *not* a sufficient defense.

    That is correct. That is why there is a clause that states "other than a licensed dealer". If you are licensed as a locksmith, then it is reasonable and acceptable to be in possession of a lockpick. However, if you are not licensed, it is not legal.

    It has been demonstrated that I know WAAAAY more about this than you.

    Doubtful. You're not going to get prosecuted for having a paperclip unless you're caught with the paperclip in a lock, or you're asked "whats this for" and you tell the cop that it's to pick a lock. Obviously assuming you're not actively-engaged in the act, haven't already commited the act, the part is not bent into the shape of a tool, and you don't tell them you're going to commit a crime with it, then they're not going to prosecute you for it.
     
  18. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't own a Mac, so I don't come into the Mac Shack very often.

    I've never actually heard of someone being convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime just because they had something that could be used to commit a crime. Hell, just think of the impact that would have on people who own guns, if that law were used as a primary means to charge someone with conspiracy.

    Conclusion: it's only intended to be used as a means to reinforce an existing charge based on other evidence.
     
  19. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    then it wouldn't be prima ficie. But it is prima ficie. You get caught with them, you're fucked.
     
  20. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    There can be all the evidence in the world that you possessed the ability to do something, and it may be taken as prima facie evidence of the intent to do so, but the deciding body in the court still has the final call as to whether the prosecutor is full of shit or not.

    You don't really think evidence decides cases, do you? It doesn't. People decide cases. No, you can't be that naive; I'm sure you already knew that and you were just being obtuse so you could argue about something.
     
  21. dbman96

    dbman96 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2000
    Messages:
    49,996
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think the original question was "is it ILLEGAL to have this" and now your argument is "sure, it's illegal but nobody will actually CONVICT someone for it."
     
  22. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    :werd:
     
  23. P07r0457

    P07r0457 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    28,491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    that's semantics. Legally, it doesn't matter what a juror personally believes they are supposed to make a decision based on the facts presented by both sides within the scope of the law.
     
  24. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    The law only matters if it's enforced.
     
  25. deusexaethera

    deusexaethera OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    19,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you'd spent five minutes in a courtroom you'd know that 99% of what goes on in there is semantics. Lawyers spent months arguing about semantics. They do matter.

    Well...maybe not to you. You have shown a propensity in the past to care only about the letter of the law, despite the fact that laws exist solely to serve as approximations for what people really care about.
     

Share This Page