Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Aug 2008 22:21 UTC, submitted by tzineos
Legal Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade", according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages. Psystar's attorneys are calling Apple's allegations of Psystar's copyright infringement "misinformed and mischaracterized". Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.
Thread beginning with comment 328355
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Broader issue ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Aug 2008 09:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Broader issue ..."
Member since:

Yes, this is correct. If you can overcome the technical difficulties, there are going to be no contractual difficulties. Any contract forbidding you to do it is not going to be enforceable. Don't violate copyright, by making unauthorized copies, though you will be able to make as many as are necessary for the installation, and you'll be fine.

It of course depends on your area of jurisdiction. As I showed here [1], in The Netherlands, Apple's EULA is most likely perfectly enforceable. Of course I can't speak for the United States, but it would be nice if someone wrote a similar article to what I did about the Apple EULA in the US.

Shouldn't be too difficult to do. Who's willing to step up?


Edited 2008-08-28 09:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Broader issue ...
by Wondercool on Thu 28th Aug 2008 16:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Broader issue ..."
Wondercool Member since:

Not sure about that Thom, It could be violating other laws like the Mededingings Wet (Competition Law)

Here is a Dutch link to Wikipedia, it's similar to product tying in USA.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by alcibiades on Thu 28th Aug 2008 20:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
alcibiades Member since:

You have to consider EC competition law as well. Post sale restraints on use, and coercive linked sales, are both a no-no.

Reply Parent Score: 2