What Is the Issue in the Psystar Case?
Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
E-mail Print r 12   · Read More · 113 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ga8
Permalink for comment 352365
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by gcbirzan on Tue 10th Mar 2009 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
gcbirzan
Member since:
2009-03-09

You need to read your own quote. Certain tying arrangements are illegal, however it was also ruled that it is impossible for a company to have a monopoly on their own products. So the Sherman Act simply doesn't apply.

I wasn't talking about Apple here.

Additionally, if you read that strictly (which you apparently want to do), then you have just outlawed accessories since accessories always require the "tied" product in order to function.

It might be required, but it is not illegal for me try it on a different piece of hardware. The fact that I designed my software for Windows doesn't mean I'm tying it to Windows. Saying in the EULA that it cannot be used on anything but Windows is. And, again, that doesn't really apply to Microsoft's Office and IE and whatever else they do, because, as you said, it's their own company.
Please don't move the goal posts. You want to claim that tying is illegal and that companies can't artificially restrict how their products can be used. Both of those claims are, on their face, invalid. There are certain situations where they could be true, but you're going to need to prove that the circumstances in Apple's case meets any of them. And so far you haven't.

No. I said that tying is illegal. I never said what Apple does is tying. I said it might be copyright misuse. Abusing their copyright on OS X to force the buyers to buy their hardware.

Let me post the more details:
Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger, 314 U.S. 488 [52 USPQ 30](1942)[...]. In that case, the plaintiff Morton Salt brought suit on the basis that the defendant had infringed Morton’s patent in a salt-depositing machine. The salt tablets were not themselves a patented item, but Morton’s patent license required that licensees use only salt tablets produced by Morton. Morton was thereby using its patent to restrain competition in the sale of an item which was not within the scope of the patent’s privilege.[...]
Thus, we are persuaded that the rationale of Morton Salt in establishing the misuse defense applies to copyrights. In the passage from Morton Salt quoted above, the phraseology adapts easily to a copyright context:

The grant to the [author] of the special privilege of a [copyright] carries out a public policy adopted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to [Authors] . . . the exclusive Right . . .” to their [“original” works]. United States Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, [17 U.S.C.A. §102]. But the public policy which includes [original works] within the granted monopoly excludes from it all that is not embraced in the [original expression]. It equally forbids the use of the [copyright] to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the [Copyright] Office and which it is contrary to public policy to grant. Cf. Morton Salt, 314 U.S. at 492 .
Having determined that “misuse of copyright” is a valid defense, analogous to the misuse of patent defense [...]

In the original case, one company was doing exactly like Apple: "Morton’s patent license required that licensees use only salt tablets produced by Morton". The courts ruled that they will not aid Morton in enforcing its patent. In this particular case (Lasercomb America Inc. v. Reynolds 911 F.2d 970, 15 USPQ2d 1846), the court ruled that you can apply the same reasoning to copyright infringement cases.

So, my argument is, Apple should not be aided in enforcing its copyright, until it removes the "don't use it except on Apple hardware" clause from its EULA, at which point this whole trial will have no merit.

Edited 2009-03-10 00:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1