[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:09 -0000

This is telling...

> >
> >
> > (in comments)

Defending Apple 

Authored by: Glenn on Wednesday, July 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT 


I am ambivalent concerning this case. It seems that you are defending
restrictive shrink wrap EULA's and Apple's anti-competitive ways of 
trying to ensure that their operating system only runs on Apple 

It is true that Psystar's motives are pecuniary in nature. That is a 
given for any commercial endeavor. Apple's motives are profit driven 
also. They want everyone to pay for the software and for hardware 
that is more expensive than necessary due to a forced scarcity.

Of course Psystar is trying to build a business model based upon a 
lot of legwork by another company. But that company's operating system 
is built on the backbone of work by many other people, which Apple 
obtained at what cost to them?

If I understand it correctly, Psystar is attempting to install MAC 
OSX on generic computers, and in doing so has to modify some of 
Apple's files which look for an Apple hardware signature when 
booting. They are utilizing legally purchased copies of OSX and the 
modifications are for interoperability purposes.

I though that such modifications for interoperability are part of the 
Fair Use Doctrine.

I don't know how different this is from a case a few years ago where 
Lexmark was selling laser printers that had a startup routine that 
checked for Genuine Lexmark Toner Cartridges and would not operate if 
it did not find it's taletale signature in the cartridges. A company 
found a way to fool the Lexmark printers and produced chips they sold 
to toner cartridge remanufacturers so their cartridges could be used 
in Lexmark Laser printers. 

There are some differences to be sure. This is a hardware to hardware
restriction and there was copying of copyrighted code but no changes, 
as I recall.

Lexmark initially won, but lost on appeal.

I do not think that this case compares very well to the SCOG at all.

I would be open to any enlightenment you or anyone else may care to 
shine my way.

There are legal and ethical issues here, and maybe I have not done 
my homework well enough.

But I do wonder just how much money Apple could make by selling maybe 
several million extra copies of OSX? I do not know if their hardware 
sales would suffer that much because I think that the people who 
could afford a MAC would still buy the real deal and not a clone.


Pee The-Ends-Justify-The-Means Jay did NOT reply...


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]