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 328376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Broader issue ...
by NathanHill on Thu 28th Aug 2008 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Broader issue ..."
Member since:

Still a terrible reply.

So you are comparing Codeweavers to the right to be able to make any application work on your computer? So, Codeweavers just buys a bunch of EA Games and modifies them to work on Macs? A silly comparison.

Virtualization is another story entirely - you're faking/virtualizing hardware or a specific OS so you can run compatible applications. It still doesn't mean your application is compatible with your hardware.

The truth is there are no real examples of what you folks are asking for. No one is clamoring for Vista to run on PPC machines. It's either up to the OS manufacturer to decide what they support - or the hardware manufacturer can develop drivers. This is how every operating system (minus Linux) works.

And again, if Apple loses, Snow Leopard (and on) will be seriously tied to the hardware. Apple is not going to be forced to sell Leopard for every computer. And even if they do, they don't have to provide drivers for anything other than what they want. So what's the point?

Edited 2008-08-28 12:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -3