Linked by David Adams on Fri 3rd Oct 2008 15:24 UTC
Gutsy/foolhardy Mac clone maker Psystar responded in August to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit with an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. Earlier this week, Apple's lawyers filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, calling it "deeply flawed." In its statement, Apple contends: "One of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturer's unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act."
Thread beginning with comment 332394
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: A quick whack of the Clue by For.
by melkor on Tue 7th Oct 2008 20:21
in reply to "A quick whack of the Clue by For."
Member since:2006-12-16
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
This must be a troll, because even Apple fanboi are not this stupid, but what the hell, I'm sure I have some point to make somewhere along the line.
No they don't. Intellectual property is treated differently than physical property, which is why you don't have to give your car to the public in 17 years like you do with a Patent.
They don't NEED an 'exploitation license'. If anything they should also charge for the installation as an additional service.
You seem to be very knowledgeable though, so perhaps you can tell me why software is the only copyright protected work that has restrictions on use not backed by actual copyright law, or sometimes even any law at all (ex, restrictions on publishing benchmarks). At least in the United States, we have certain rights to a copyright protected work that EVEN THE CREATOR OF SAID WORK cannot take away.
On the chance that you feel these constitutional rights are immoral, I hear Communist China is nice this time of year, but they're quickly becoming more capitalistic than even the United States.
They must have a great counterfeit facility then, because those boxes and DVDs that come with the machines sure look like they were made by Apple.
Not even Apple claims this. Though for your further legal education, I would head over to wikipedia and look up what 'Libel' is.
As I pointed out before, no it isn't.
I do not need a license to resell a copy of a work I legally purchased. I do not need a license to hang a painting in a house. I do not need a license to teach a song to someone. I do not need a license for my baby to dance to Prince. I DO need a license to make copies of a work for publication, free or otherwise. I DO need a license to use a trademark in any capacity other than to compare with like products or imply compatibility.
The problem is that software is extremely different from any other creative work, and it is ill protected by our current Trademark, Patent, and Copyright laws.
And this is not an anti-trust issue. It really goes much further than that, but with the way Psystar is handling this, they risk setting a precedent that's gonna screw it up for everyone else trying to fix the system.