Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
I have to disagree with that.
If Apple doesn't like what you are doing with OSX, they have every right to stop selling it to you. But they have no right to tell you how you can and can't use it after you buy it. Once you buy it, it's yours. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.
Apple has every right to void the warranty, cut off support, and stop selling it to you. But they have no right to force you to use it a certain way.
I hope the courts put a stop to all of this "Apple rules the world" madness. They are seriously getting out of hand.
|
This is wrong on so many levels. Simply put, you do not own the software, you only buy a license for it. As such, you are subject to the terms of the license agreement (or EULA). If the license says that you cannot install it on 3rd party hardware, than you cannot. As an analogy, a software license is akin to having a drivers license. You can get one, but you are subject to very specific terms and conditions regarding what you can do with it. You are limited in what rights you have, and can also also get the license revoked. The reality is that this is a very cut-and-dry case, and no court of law will take Psystar's side in this.
On the other hand, using overly broad patents to try to eliminate competition is more of a gray area. While there are laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, I'm not aware of any that specifically refer to patents. At the same time, I'm quite sure there are precedents set from previous court cases of this nature. These are quite often decided unfavorably for the business that chooses to employ these kinds of tactics. The likelihood of Apple actually being the victor in one of these lawsuits is very small. Apple doesn't necessarily care about winning, and may simply hope to force the other business to concede to licensing agreements for fear of bankruptcy.