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 328388
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Redistributing
by yoursecretninja on Thu 28th Aug 2008 14:16 UTC
yoursecretninja
Member since:
2006-01-02

I think the case here is not whether or not it is legal to install OS X on to non-apple hardware, but whether or not it is legal for a commercial enterprise to distribute another company's product without an agreement or license to do so. Companies can and do control the distribution of their products. You want to control who sells your product because having poor vendors sell your product can damage your brand equity. Seeing is how Pystar is buying copies of OS X intended for end-use only and commercially distributing those copies without an agreement stating that they can do so, does not seem like a legitimate way to operate.

I would equate this to video rentals. Video rental outlets, like Blockbuster, or even your corner store, have to purchase licenses to distribute the videos. The license costs far more than the cost of the DVD. Blockbuster can't go to Wal-mart and buy copies of a DVD meant for end-use and then rent or sell those DVDs in their store.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Redistributing
by apoclypse on Thu 28th Aug 2008 15:11 in reply to "Redistributing"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Bingo. You hit it right on the head.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Redistributing
by alcibiades on Thu 28th Aug 2008 20:45 in reply to "RE: Redistributing"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, he did not hit the nail on the head. Its not comparable at all. On the user's behalf, Psystar buys a retail copy of the OS, and installs it, in accordance with his wishes, on the hardware of his choice. They then pass the package on to him, and title changes hands. Its a straightforward resale and service business. They don't need anyone's permission to do it.

Not comparable to video rentals at all. Perfectly straightforward sales transaction. Notice that you can if you want buy just about anything at retail and sell at retail in general, in all jurisdictions, if there is a market, if you can make money at it, or if you just feel like doing it as a service to your customers.

The exception is some state liquor controls, which mandate purchasing at certain licensed outlets by bars. But there are not many of these.

Reply Parent Score: 5