Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 21:44 UTC
Apple The website of a Miami-based networking and security solutions reseller became inaccessible Monday, shortly after the company began advertising an unauthorized Mac clone for a fraction of the cost of Apple's cheapest system. Dubbed OpenMac, the USD 400 offering from Psystar Corporation is described as 'a low-cost high-performance computing platform' based on the ongoing OSX86Project - a hacker-based initiative aimed at maintaining a version of the Mac OS X operating system for everyday PCs. The website is back online now, and the machine has been renamed to Open Computer. Update: Psystar says they will continue to sell the Open Computer system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple's EULA. "We're not breaking any laws," they insisted.
Permalink for comment 309640
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yet another stupid company wasting money
by rajan r on Tue 15th Apr 2008 09:28 UTC
rajan r
Member since:
2005-07-27

Antitrust law doesn't work that way. Psystar not only have to prove monopoly (gee, Apple having a monopoly on products it produces? Shock), it has to prove how this monopoly is harmful for competition. Considering that users have more choices than Macs, I don't see how there is unfair co-mingling of products.

The analogy of a car that can only drive on certain roads doesn't exactly stand: nobody is forcing car companies from not doing that. The reason why car companies don't add contractual obligations for their customers restricting where they can drive is purely because it makes no business sense whatsoever.

Judges would be EXTREMELY vary of making such a judgment in favour of Pystar - the precedence would force the entire industry to change business practices. In any case, it is unlikely Pystar would survive, financially, a legal tussle with Apple - especially when they aren't in a significant legal edge here (if they have any).

Their lawyer, had they bothered to hire one, ought to be disbarred for gross negligence.

Reply Score: 2