Psystar countersues Apple for anticompetitive business practices

Good points...: Your right, its not in direct correllation with the lexmark case, but think of it this way:

They say you have to buy apple hardware in order to run apple software. It would be like MS saying i have to buy a system they made in order to run windows. MS would lose that arguement in court. The fact that they are already selling the machines with apple running on them tells us that their requirement is not an operational one, but a money driven one, thus anti-competitive.

I dont know what apple does to check if the hardware is apple, but because they use that hardware lock, it makes it easy to use the lexmark case as a precedence.

I think its great that you can load other OS's on their hardware, but you cant load thier software on another piece of hardware? Their case may be that they are infringing by reselling something that is not meant for resale, but i could of sworn they were just buying an off the shelf copy of osx and loading it on a system. Does that count as resale, maybe.; Posted by: Been_Done_Before Posted on: 08/27/08 (Edited: 08/27/2008 @ 02:13) You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Reply to Story Reply to Message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Oh this is going to be good D. T. Schmitz | 08/27/08

Probably something like frgough | 08/27/08

Still laughing frgough | 08/27/08

They may have a good point Been_Done_Before | 08/27/08

Good points... Been_Done_Before | 08/27/08

.... isulzer | 08/28/08

What do you think?

Thought-provoking progressive ideas on diverse topics that intersect with technology, business, and life, and matter to the world at large. Visit SmartPlanet
More from IBM
Innovate your business' process model, play against the market, compete against others on our scoreboards and WIN! Try INNOV8 2.0: A BPM Simulator
Enabling Real-World Business Transformation through IBM Service Management Read the EMA Analyst Report