Originally Posted by aresee
The problem is that you are seeing this through rose colored glasses and outlining the battle in the way you would like to see it go. Apple will not fight this in a way so that you will win. They will fight it in such a way so that they will win. That is why Apple started with the copyright infringement. Psystar did distribute Apple software and are very vulnerable. And for those of you who say that Psystar was just reselling an off the self copy of Leopard, i think it is very telling that Apple waited until Psystar redistributed an OS update. A product that is not on the retail shelves.
Psystar will go after the EULA where Apple is weakest. But this is not a clear cut winner for Psystar and the courts could say that the EULA exclusivity clause is a valid, legal clause.
The method you espoused was not the one that Psystar chose, so is invalid as an argument in this case. However it appears to be the way that OpenTech has chosen to follow. Time will tell if this is a good method or if Apple could have a case against OpenTech for interfering with the contract between Apple and its customers.
I haven't outlined any specific way, all I've noted was that we'll see what happens when it gets into a courtroom. I've written this phrase a half a dozen times. As far as I can tell, my "rose colored glasses" are not in play here (nor do I own a pair, mine are very dark green, polarized for trout stream flyfishing).
Perhaps you're imagining that because I'm not fawning, gushing and throwing myself all over Apple, I must be rooting for Pystar, and this is simply not true. I earlier wrote that personally, I thought what Pystar was doing was unethical.
However, wading through your personal attacks to search through & distill the rest of your post delivers a few good points, one put eloquently. These probably would have been much more dramatic if you had abandoned the attack on me, and just stuck to the case.
The courts could also say that Apple's EULA is illegal and therefore, invalid. Again, just because a EULA says that up is down does not make it so.
It's not my place to determine whether Apple is doing something illegal or Pystar is doing something illegal. That's why we have courts; I've noted this time and again.
It cracks me up to read posts where people have made a pre-determination as to the outcome of the case before it ever enters a courtroom. 'I have a neighbor who knows a lawyer and...'; 'I'm a lawyer, and....'; 'I may not be a lawyer but I play one on TV...'
Judge and jury, all on a keyboard! It's really hilarious and truly great entertainment value.
Again, I think there's a chance that Apple may be putting themselves at risk by marching this into court. This may have been solved in other ways, through direct dialogue & negotiation instead of through litigation. But we're such a litigious society, aren't we? And Apple has for years
paraded out an army of attorneys to attack anyone
who challenges their little piece of turf (whether it be a tiny company or an on line journalist). So, Pystar will file a counter suit.
There are a number of legal experts who consider the locking of OS X to specific hardware strategy that Apple deploys to be a tying of one product to another in blatant violation of Federal anti-trust statutes. They may have a strong point; again, it will need to be determined and resolved in court.
My experience tells me that such a remarkably high powered law firm would not have taken this case on - considering the short pockets of Pystar & the deep, billion dollar pockets of Apple - if they didn't think an anti-trust tying lawsuit might have a $500 to $750 million dollar chance at success. A big time PR campaign pitting David vs Goliath
will be a big part of this court case.
It will be interesting to watch this case mature and work it's way through the legal system. Apple will not be able to stifle the news emanating out of the courtroom, as they like to do with most of their super, top secret sauces & projects. This has the potential to give them a very public, world-stage black eye that could impact iPhone, iPod and iTunes marketability. I truly hope it doesn't come to that but I can envision such a disaster happening with a few missteps here and there.
Do I perceive a certain outcome? No, of course not. There are too many variables ahead. Even for copyright infringement. Anyone who claims that this or that will definitely happen in a court of law is a fool and not to be trusted.
Do I want a certain outcome? I want justice to prevail. Don't you?