Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Aug 2008 22:21 UTC, submitted by tzineos
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 328402
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by macUser on Thu 28th Aug 2008 18:42
in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
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.
RE[5]: Broader issue ...
by alcibiades on Thu 28th Aug 2008 20:22
in reply to "RE[4]: Broader issue ..."
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
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.