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 328396
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Broader issue ...
by macUser on Thu 28th Aug 2008 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Broader issue ..."
macUser
Member since:
2006-12-15


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.

What do you mean 'wrong'?
Ofcourse you can do that. Do you think the game creators would mind if you run their game through an emulator or what ever way you wanted to run it in different hardware?
Ofcourse not, as long as you bought their game they are happy as a clam.

But aren't they restricting the hardware I can install it on by not supporting my specific hardware?

Edited 2008-08-28 15:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Broader issue ...
by Alex Vancina on Thu 28th Aug 2008 16:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Broader issue ..."
Alex Vancina Member since:
2006-09-24

But aren't they restricting the hardware I can install it on by not supporting my specific hardware?


No, the game developer is not required to support your hardware. However, if some third-part comes along and provides you with an emulator that you can use to run the game on some hardware that's not officially supported, then the developer can't tell you that you're not allowed to do so.

No one is saying that Apple should be required to support Psystar's computers. Heck, no one's even saying that Apple can't make it difficult to run their software on non-Apple hardware. However, since Psystar has undertaken the development and support of their own Apple-compatible hardware, Apple has no legal grounds for saying that Psystar can't install a legitimately purchased copy of OS X on it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by MattPie on Thu 28th Aug 2008 16:33 in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

Apple has no legal grounds for saying that Psystar can't install a legitimately purchased copy of OS X on it.

That's the rub, I don't think Psystar *can* legitimately purchase copies of the software from Apple to re-sell. If they made you buy OSX and sent it to them to install, they're selling a service; that's OK. If they send you a a computer and a loader disk that requires a copy of OSX that you purchase, also OK. They cannot* sell you a copy of OSX installed on the machine themselves, since Apple isn't selling them redistributable copies.

* This gets back to EULA law. Is it legal for a company (or person) to re-sell anything, or can the original selling company limit re-selling of its products? An individual has fair-use rights and whatnot that cover them, but I'm not sure a company has the same fair-use rights, or that re-selling is fair-use.

Edited 2008-08-28 16:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by macUser on Thu 28th Aug 2008 18:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

"But aren't they restricting the hardware I can install it on by not supporting my specific hardware?


No, the game developer is not required to support your hardware. However, if some third-part comes along and provides you with an emulator that you can use to run the game on some hardware that's not officially supported, then the developer can't tell you that you're not allowed to do so.

No one is saying that Apple should be required to support Psystar's computers. Heck, no one's even saying that Apple can't make it difficult to run their software on non-Apple hardware. However, since Psystar has undertaken the development and support of their own Apple-compatible hardware, Apple has no legal grounds for saying that Psystar can't install a legitimately purchased copy of OS X on it.
"

Okay, I can understand this being true for Joe User at home, but it's a little more difficult to swallow to say that a company can hack the OS (they do have the OS go to them for software updates) and then resell it on their hardware. That's like me throwing a chevy engine in a Lexus and selling it to the masses at a reduced price (not that it would be possible to buy a new lexus without an engine).

Also, I was under the impression that Pystar is using the Netkas bootloader without permission. So I fail to see how Pystar has really developed anything.

What we have is a company taking products without consent and using them for financial gain. If you're going to argue that Apple does the same, they meet the license agreements of the open source projects they use. And if the EULA doesn't hold water then neither do the various open source licenses like the GPL.

I do think that the "buyer beware" argument is a load of crap, because when things do break, Apple will be blamed, not Pystar.

It'll be a interesting battle, but I don't think Pystar is going to come out in this one. A victory for Pystar basically forces Apple to take up the MS business strategy and I don't think that's necessarily a good thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Broader issue ...
by fretinator on Thu 28th Aug 2008 16:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Broader issue ..."
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

But aren't they restricting the hardware I can install it on by not supporting my specific hardware?


Doh! So if I go buy a game, and then try to run it on my 286 and it doesn't work, then they are "restricting" me from running it on my hardware? Give me a break! All software is designed for some target specifications, which may or may not fit the particular machine you are using. It is up to you to get it to run on machines that do not fit the target specifications.

Back to the topic, the situation with Apple is different. Their software may run very well on my machine, but Apple is specifically saying I cannot run it on anything but their hardware. I think that is a grave error that will soon be corrected.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by macUser on Thu 28th Aug 2008 18:42 in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

" But aren't they restricting the hardware I can install it on by not supporting my specific hardware?


Doh! So if I go buy a game, and then try to run it on my 286 and it doesn't work, then they are "restricting" me from running it on my hardware? Give me a break! All software is designed for some target specifications, which may or may not fit the particular machine you are using. It is up to you to get it to run on machines that do not fit the target specifications.
"

Albeit the situation is extreme, its not really that far of a reach in logic. Why shouldn't they be required to support legacy hardware and alternate platforms? I mean, saying that companies can alter and resell your product under their brand sounds just as ludicrous to me.

Pystar isn't a person, they're a company. Apple hasn't gone after the Hacintosh community, (ie individuals hacking their own hardware to run MOSX), they've gone after a company making monetary gain off of their IP.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by alcibiades on Thu 28th Aug 2008 20:22 in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes this is correct. The issue is not whether the software will technically run on some hardware. The issue is whether the vendor of the software can, solely by contractual agreement entered into as a condition of purchase, prevent a buyer from installing on some hardware.

It is not about, can they make the hardware and software incompatible. It is about, if you can do it technically, can they stop you solely by a sales agreement? My contention (and Thom differs on this one in the case of the Netherlands) is that such a contract will not be enforceable. If they sue you, they will not win. This is because they will be trying to enforce a post sales restraint on use, and EC competition law doesn't allow this.

Reply Parent Score: 3