Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:35:17 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>>>>> They sell a comprehensive solution that is dependent on their
>>>>> hardware, just like Actiontec sells a router as a comprehensive
>>>>> functional device.
 
>>>> No, actually, OS/X isn't dependent on Apple's hardware.  It will run
>>>> happily on a Psystar box.
 
>>> But not legitimately, I understand.
 
>> That's under contention in an American court at the moment.  Should it
>> be legitimate for a software manufacturer to dictate what sort of
>> hardware his software package may be run on?  I don't think it should
>> be.


> Isn't there a ROM chip which validates the hardware to the OS, else the 
> OS won't _____ (?install?).  Psystar reverse engineered that chip?

The actual mechanism Apple uses to screw the buyers of its OS has no
bearing on whether they should permitted to do so.

> -Thufir

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).