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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-12
There is a clause in Vista Home, which forbids running it on a virtual machine. I think this is probably unenforceable too, at least with retail purchased copies. Office used to have, maybe still does have, a clause prohibiting installation on non-Windows OSs. This is probably unenforceable. They will not be able to stop you running a retail copy of Office under Wine or Crossover. Or in a VM. Assuming in all cases you do not violate copyright by making multiple unauthorized copies except as needed to do the install. Some server licenses forbid the installation on virtual machines or the movement of one of these VMs from one bit of hardware to another. No-one is going to go to court over this, but I doubt whether this would be enforceable either, assuming retail purchased copies.
I think installing OSX in a virtual machine will also not be preventable. One copy, from a retail purchased copy. This too is a post sale restraint on use, and probably won't fly.
Member since:2007-11-29
Yes, but my question was: shouldn't it then be also allowed to sell an emulator ALONG with Mac OS? Because Mac OS wouldn't have to be modified for that, it's the Emulator that makes it possible.
So if that would be legit, selling HARDWARE (instead of an Emulator) and a still untouched OS should be the same, or not?
Member since:
2007-11-29
What's the situation like with Emulators or Virtual Machines? Aren't there Mac Emulators out there? I thought so. So is it legal to use Mac OS inside a Mac Emulator, and don't you think it would be legit to sell an Emulator along with Mac OS in a bundled package? No modification is made to the OS, of course.