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 328407
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-27
Why do non-lawyers act like lawyers? A real lawyer will had at least heard of DMCA. As for contract, a real lawyer may understand it is a grey area for EULAs in general, but only because on the count of formation of contract - and not because of the onerous terms. But since Pystar clearly knows about the EULA, they cannot feign ignorance and claim the terms are not included in the contract.
And since the EULA will almost entirely likely be upheld in this case, that's a violation of copyright at that because the contract regulates the distribution of copyrighted material.
Pystar lawyers advise well: that's why they're counter-suing under antitrust laws - what constitutes as anti-competitive is overwhelmingly vague, if a judge sympathize with Pystar and see OS X-Mac as illegal bundling, the rest don't matter.