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 328361
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Broader issue ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 28th Aug 2008 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Broader issue ..."
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

So, if this is true, it means that I can go buy a copy of a PC game and make it run on my PowerPC Mac, right? Cause, a software company cannot restrict what hardware the software runs on, right? Wrong.


Err, you are perfectly free to do that. You are perfectly free to buy an Intel game, and make it run on a PowerPC Mac, using virtualisation or whatever. Heck, some companies even make a decent living out of that stuff, such as Codeweaver. They make Windows games run on Linux, and thee has never been a single game company who cried foul over that one.

The same even goes for game consoles. A common "argument" that I've been reading today on Apple websites is that if Apple loses this case, console makers should also make it possible to cross-play games on different consoles.

It's a stupid argument because in fact, there is nothing stopping you from doing so. If you buy an XBox 360 game, and you can make it run on a PS3, then more power to you, nobody is going to stop you. It's most likely impossible, but if you can write an emulator that plays XBox 360 games on a PS3, and you sell that emulator, go ahead. Heck, you can even re-sell games with the emulator included!

The same with phones. The Apple people also say that this also means that phone operating systems should be able to run on other systems. Well, again: go ahead! Be my guest! Make an image out of your phone, and install and run it on your vibrator for all I care - you are perfectly allowed to do so.

It will be nigh-on impossible, but it's not illegal in any way.

A lot of ridiculous comparisons are being drawn in this debate, and it's sickening, especially since people actually seem to believe this crap. People have been so indoctrinated by Apple and other companies, conditioned into believing that they can only use the software in a way that they, the companies, deem fit. However, in you own home, you are allowed to do whatever the frak you want with software, including running it on vibrators and electric toothbrushes. Reselling is also okay, as long as you didn't make any modifications.

People, you have RIGHTS. USE those for frak's sake.

In The Netherlands, it is LEGAL to download music, movies, and other stuff, even if you don't own it, because a levy is being charged on empty media. This is the right of every consumer in The Netherlands. I also have the right to do with software in my own home as I please. And I will do so.

If that includes installing my legally purchased copy of Mac OS X Leopard on an electric feebledwindleretaatushynkioareo-o-mat, than so be it.

Edited 2008-08-28 10:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

v RE[3]: Broader issue ...
by NathanHill on Thu 28th Aug 2008 12:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Broader issue ..."