Quote:
Originally Posted by BeefJerky
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.
|
Agreed, re: Psystar's situation. The whole "licensing" arrangement that has arisen, as compared to the "sale of a copy," has given copyright/patent holders much broader control over their property.
Re: misuse of overly-broad patents, yeah, I don't think the Clayton and Sherman Acts (the main US Antitrust Statutes) specifically reference patents, but I'm pretty sure there is case law that does so in light of these statutes. It seems pretty clear to me that misusing a patent would qualify as "attempted monopolizing." And I'd wager that HTC's answer will include counterclaims for Apple's anticompetitive conduct.
