Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[IJ Reilly]

I understand that the original counterclaim was that Apple held a monopoly over the "OS X market" and abused that market. I understand how this is a flawed claim, which I stated in my very first post.

The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.

Never did I mention the "ease" of breaking copyright or licenses, or any of the other stuff you invented. In fact, I've stated point-blank in other posts that what Psystar is doing is illegal.

So where exactly is your argument -- other than in your head?

Pleasant, as always.

I was responding to your assertion that if Psystar "was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance."

My response is that whether Apple's hardware is generic or proprietary or some combination of both is not at all relevant, for reasons I explained by way of analogy. Psystar never had any chance, because they'd fabricated a definition of a market which Apple controlled out of whole cloth. Antitrust law doesn't work that way.

 

[Clive At Five]

Pleasant, as always.

I was responding to your assertion that if Psystar "was able to pass the argument that Apple's hardware is equivalent to generic hardware (and subsequently is irrelevant to the bundle) they might have a chance."

My response is that whether Apple's hardware is generic or proprietary or some combination of both is not at all relevant, for reasons I explained by way of analogy. Psystar never had any chance, because they'd fabricated a definition of a market which Apple controlled out of whole cloth. Antitrust law doesn't work that way.

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

Of course this is extremely unlikely, as I've said.

 

[GQB]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there.

I'd agree if you add the addendum "for certain customers or markets" to each of those statement.
People get caught up in their own requirements, while Apple as this thing called a 'business plan' that defines their market.
Second guess as you look at the fact that Apple is the only computer maker currently growing its market in a disasterous economy.
I tend to think their business plan is correct.

 

[sinser]

I think that Apple won't never ever license it's OS. Those that are old enough already know what happened when PowerPC clones where all around and System 8.0 was licensed. I think it would be even worse today. Apple has just 10% of marketshare (in USA, much less worldwide) and would never survive without its hardware. Sure they could gain marketshare, but I don't think that much, MS Windows is a well established entity in the business and administrative world and Mac OS has no chance to change the status quo for the next 20 or more years. As for normal PC guys, most of them would just download Mac OS from some illegal source and then just throw it away as soon as some app or game doesn't run on it. I've always believed that Apple OS and HW are tied and unique, and I still believe and hope so.

 

[gnasher729]

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

"Tying" is absolutely legal as long as you don't have market power. If Apple is tying MacOS X to Apple hardware, then it is completely legal as long as Apple doesn't have market power. As an example, if Microsoft refused to let Dell use Windows, then Dell would be in deep trouble. Apple refusing Dell to use MacOS X is no problem for Dell at all.

 

[dejo]

vista home premium full oem is $109
vista ultimate full oem is $180 - $200

And is the upgrade the same price? If not, you missed their point.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The relevance is in the "tying" argument. It's legal to tie two RELATED products. So if Apple can maintain that their hardware is actually unique and necessary to the performance of OS X then the bundling of OS X & its hardware would be legal. If, however, Apple's hardware was found to be not unique and unessential to OS X's performance, then the Tying argument has ground to stand on.

Of course this is extremely unlikely, as I've said.

At least we agree on the unlikelihood of this being argued successfully. The tying argument is not relevant if only because it is very common for portions of proprietary products to be nonproprietary, as with the book example (and so many others we could mention). They can't be easily teased apart; the maker of the product is going to be given a lot of deference in the rights of ownership because it's the end product which is the protected item, not its constituent bits and pieces. Tying is very common, and certainly not illegal in most circumstances. It only becomes potentially illegal when it's shown to be an anticompetitive activity in a properly defined market. Psystar failed the first test (defining the market), so they don't get to make claims of illegal tying.

 

[icoffee]

So what exactly is an Apple Computer?

There's no doubt that Psystar is a few tacos short of a fiesta, but here's the problem IMO. What exactly is an Apple computer? If you say it's manufactured by Apple with 100% of Apple components, then most Mac users don't own an Apple computer. Hard drive, memory upgrades, video card upgrades etc.

So let's say I wanted to build my own Mac Pro. I find an Apple logic board and case on ebay, buy a hard drive at a local computer shop, buy an aftermarket video card, and a non-Apple monitor. Is it still an Apple computer? Of course it is, as some parts of it were manufactured by Apple, but which parts count?

Take this example to the extreme now. I buy all intel parts and load an open source kext to run Mac OS X, because the motherboard won't run OSX without these few kexts. It seems that the only essential part of a computer being an Apple computer is the motherboard or part that decrypts the protection Apple has put into their OS. Is that how Apple specifically defines Apple hardware, no. By Apple's loose definition of "Apple hardware", owning an Apple keyboard (a keyboard is an essential part to running OS X- Mac OS X won't run without a keyboard at install) might suffice. Is that how the courts are going to interpret this? Probably not.

Now is decrypting the protection illegal? Yes. Is breaking the EULA illegal? Yes. Will the EULA hold? Yes. Will Psystar be shut down? Yes.

 

[Clive At Five]

"Tying" is absolutely legal as long as you don't have market power. If Apple is tying MacOS X to Apple hardware, then it is completely legal as long as Apple doesn't have market power. As an example, if Microsoft refused to let Dell use Windows, then Dell would be in deep trouble. Apple refusing Dell to use MacOS X is no problem for Dell at all.

What is wrong with you people. This is completely unrelated to what I was even saying.

Tying is legal between two related products. Conversely, Tying is illegal between two unrelated products. Some say that only Monopolies can be found guilty of anti-competitive practices and they may be right, even though this is a double-standard in my opinion.

Thanks for reading my posts thoroughly so that you actually understand what I'm saying rather than just blindly attacking me because I built a hackintosh. Boo freaking woo. Go cry to Steve Jobs.

 

[Clive At Five]

At least we agree on the unlikelihood of this being argued successfully. The tying argument is not relevant if only because it is very common for portions of proprietary products to be nonproprietary, as with the book example (and so many others we could mention). They can't be easily teased apart; the maker of the product is going to be given a lot of deference in the rights of ownership because it's the end product which is the protected item, not its constituent bits and pieces. Tying is very common, and certainly not illegal in most circumstances. It only becomes potentially illegal when it's shown to be an anticompetitive activity in a properly defined market. Psystar failed the first test (defining the market), so they don't get to make claims of illegal tying.

Now THERE'S a solid response and one I can agree with.

A+.

 

[robbyx]

IMHO, I think what Apple does actually hurts us the Apple consumers. By locking us into Apple branded hardware, we have very limited options. The OSx86 community has already shown that Leopard works fine on netbooks, tablets, and a variety of other hardware, that Apple refuses to produce. I don't have too much pity for Psystar, but I would like them to force Apple to allow for some sort new products. I've owned quite a few Apple's since they came out with OSX, so I'm obviously not anti-Apple. The fact is people want BluRay, Netbooks, Tablets, TouchScreens, and various other products that Apple isn't making. And from my experience, if people desire something it will create a market for that product, so Apple has created some of this problem themselves.

But where is the problem? A *handful* of vocal nerds wanting more juiced up hardware hardly constitutes a problem. Apple's sales are up every year. They have over 24 billion (!!!) dollars in the bank and no debt. Again, where's the problem?

Apple's model is vertically-integrated simplicity. They make the whole widget and the whole widget just works. You may not agree with their model, but that hardly constitutes a reason to change it. I've been a customer for 25 years and a shareholder for much of those. I *love* simplicity, so I stick with Apple. That's what sells me, not the need for bleeding edge hardware.

Step into the 21st century, people. Computers are APPLIANCES, not black holes for one's time. They should JUST WORK. And that's why Apple is selling more and more Macs than ever before. Customers are wising up and realizing that they don't need to fight with their computer to make them work.

If it makes you feel any better, I've been using genuine Apple products for over 20 years. After all these years, they've managed to alienate a faithful customer like me with terrible hardware offerings and cheap lock-in/lock-out tactics.

Are you kidding???! "Terrible" hardware??? I can't even take a word you write seriously.

The difference between this and my "only chance for Psystar" is the thought that Apple shouldn't have to be a monopoly to be subject to anti-competitive laws. I know people don't think this way, which is precisely why I said that there is a very low probability of success.

They don't think this way because it doesn't make sense!!! Apple designs and builds both the hardware and software. Why should a third party who has invested a BIG FAT ZERO into R&D benefit from the billions Apple has spent? Your blatant disrespect for intellectual property is astounding.

 

[robbyx]

Take this example to the extreme now. I buy all intel parts and load an open source kext to run Mac OS X, because the motherboard won't run OSX without these few kexts. It seems that the only essential part of a computer being an Apple computer is the motherboard or part that decrypts the protection Apple has put into their OS. Is that how Apple specifically defines Apple hardware, no. By Apple's loose definition of "Apple hardware", owning an Apple keyboard (a keyboard is an essential part to running OS X- Mac OS X won't run without a keyboard at install) might suffice. Is that how the courts are going to interpret this? Probably not.

Now is decrypting the protection illegal? Yes. Is breaking the EULA illegal? Yes. Will the EULA hold? Yes. Will Psystar be shut down? Yes.

Apple doesn't care about the Hackintosh community. In fact, I bet Jobs is kind of flattered. I sincerely doubt that Apple will ever challenge Hackintosh builders legally, despite the very clear language in the EULA. They simply don't care about the HANDFUL of people who want to build their own Macs.

Look at the Apple TV. How many hacks are available? Businesses have cropped up based around hacking the Apple TV. And guess what? Not a peep from Apple. Why? Because you still have to buy the Apple TV to hack it!

They want you to buy their hardware. They're hardly going to chase you down for building your own computer, but if you try to make a business out of it, as Psystar did, you can rest assured they will be all over you.

 

[Clive At Five]

Are you kidding???! "Terrible" hardware??? I can't even take a word you write seriously.

Compared with Gateway, Dell, eMachines, yes, Apple's hardware is superior... but if you honestly think Apple's offerings represent the greatest, most reliable technologies, you need to get out more... or maybe get out less if it means learning about what technology is available that Apple doesn't employ.... LIKE CHEAP, FAST DESKTOP-GRADE CPUs!!!!!!!!!!!

They don't think this way because it doesn't make sense!!! Apple designs and builds both the hardware and software. Why should a third party who has invested a BIG FAT ZERO into R&D benefit from the billions Apple has spent? Your blatant disrespect for intellectual property is astounding.

Just because Apple developed both doesn't make them bundle-able. Say Logitech develops an amazing computer mouse which it sells for $40. In the meantime, Logitech also sells an crappy Ice Cream maker bundled with the mouse for $400. You can buy a their mouse alone if you want, but you can only use it if you've bought the ice cream maker. The mouse works independent of the ice cream maker, but Logitech FORCES you to buy two unrelated products in order to use the one you want. ~THIS IS WHAT APPLE IS DOING~ It is also an illegal anti-competitive practice (Tying) which our legal system only imposes on monopolies.

So I ask you: Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the software works perfectly on its own, and the hardware is unimpressive?

My respect ("disrespect" as you call it) for Apple's wonderful software is exactly why I BOUGHT a copy of Leopard instead of downloading it for free, like I easily could have done.

My disrespect for their lousy hardware is why I DIDN'T buy a Mac.

How is this so hard to understand?

 

[Hugh]

Huh?

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.

Hmmm.. You do know that MS had nothing to do with the DOS on the Apple //. Apple wrote their own DOS: DOS 3.2, DOS 3.3, ProDOS. Apple also had a pascal OS too, but I don't think that was all Apple. :/

Hugh

 

[mccldwll]

Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the hardware itself is lackluster in comparison?

How is this so hard to understand?

Because it's aapl's intellectual property, and you can't legally, ethically get the software without buying the hardware. It's aapl's call, not your call. How is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[robbyx]

Compared with Gateway, Dell, eMachines, yes, Apple's hardware is superior... but if you honestly think Apple's offerings represent the greatest, most reliable technologies, you need to get out more... or maybe get out less if it means learning about what technology is available that Apple doesn't employ.... LIKE CHEAP, FAST DESKTOP-GRADE CPUs!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure, you can build a better box yourself. But that hardly qualifies Apple's hardware as "terrible." Geez.

Why should Apple benefit from hardware sales just because its bundled with a fantastic piece of software, especially when the hardware itself is lackluster in comparison?

Because that's what the Apple license says? Just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't change a thing. You're whining.

And, clearly, Apple doesn't care one bit about Hackintosh builders. They just don't want lame opportunists like Psystar ripping them off. Pretty easy to understand.

My respect for Apple's wonderful software is exactly why I BOUGHT a copy of Leopard instead of downloading for free, like I easily could have done.

No problem there!

My disrespect for their lousy hardware is why I DIDN'T buy a Mac.

First, their hardware is anything BUT lousy. I mean, really. It may not be bleeding edge, but who cares. I love my iMac. It's silent. It looks beautiful on my desk. The screen is nice and bright. Video looks great. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Could you build a better box, spec-wise? Sure. But going on and on about how Apple's hardware is "terrible" and "lousy" just makes you look foolish. Apple is about the PACKAGE: a great OS, beautiful hardware design, and competitive hardware offerings. You can't, under any circumstances, make a case for Apple's hardware being "terrible." That's just nerdy hyperbole.

 

[Clive At Five]

Because it's aapl's intellectual property, and you can't legally, ethically get the software without buying the hardware. It's aapl's call, not your call. How is this so hard for you to understand?

Untrue. I bought my copy of Leopard from an Apple store. If you think installing it on 3rd-party hardware is unethical, sorry, but I don't share your ethical compass.

Sure, you can build a better box yourself. But that hardly qualifies Apple's hardware as "terrible." Geez.

"Terrible" is my description and you don't have to agree. If you want clarity, the MacPro is too much power, and everything else is too weak. They have a bad array of hardware, they overcharge for RAM, they use old hardware in "new" computers GMA 950 in the 1+ year old MacMini, and they use mobile grade processors in desktop computers for the vain pursuit of making them thinner.

I summarize this as "terrible"

Because that's what the Apple license says? Just because YOU don't like it, that doesn't change a thing. You're whining.

No, I'm not whining, I'm standing up for what I believe to be right. (By the way, I added to my above post to respond more closely to your post.)

And, clearly, Apple doesn't care one bit about Hackintosh builders. They just don't want lame opportunists like Psystar ripping them off. Pretty easy to understand.

I'm not debating this. As I've said, probably a hundred times, what Psystar is doing is illegal!

First, their hardware is anything BUT lousy. I mean, really. It may not be bleeding edge, but who cares. I love my iMac. It's silent. It looks beautiful on my desk. The screen is nice and bright. Video looks great. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I am very glad your Mac serves you well. Apple's offerings are perfect for 95% of users. I wish I was one of those users. Unfortunately I'm not. I do enough Garage Band/Logic/Photoshop/gaming that I need something better than an iMac, but doesn't justify a Mac Pro. I did the iMac thing twice and I regretted it.

Could you build a better box, spec-wise? Sure. But going on and on about how Apple's hardware is "terrible" and "lousy" just makes you look foolish. Apple is about the PACKAGE: a great OS, beautiful hardware design, and competitive hardware offerings. You can't, under any circumstances, make a case for Apple's hardware being "terrible." That's just nerdy hyperbole.

It doesn't make me foolish, it's not a nerdy hyperbole, it just means I have higher standards than most. Like I said, I wish Apple made a package for me. I've been a long-loyal Apple user and the reason I put the time and effort into building a hackintosh is because I wanted to stay with Apple!!!

 

[matticus008]

It seems to me that you have no problem with people doing 'wrong' e.g. your speeding, but that it's ok if the person admits that it's wrong / not moral.

No. I have no problem with people accepting responsibility for their actions. I have a huge problem with rationalization that you're not doing anything wrong when you so plainly are.

Which is a bit of a paradox - you're saying it's ok to do wrong, AS LONG as you realise you are doing so, and are happy to be punished for it.

No, it's wrong to do wrong. But reality dictates that it will happen, and people sometimes make choices they know are wrong on some level. An adult worthy of respect accepts that reality and its consequences because of the greater driving force compelling them to act in the wrong.

A person who denies their wrong or attempts to deflect with what they perceive as a "wrong" on the other side when it clearly is has neither principles nor respect.

It boils down to the old saying, "two wrongs don't make a right". It is never right to violate someone else's rights. If you are starving and take a loaf of bread, you absolutely did something wrong, but you are justified by a greater need. That does not make it right to do.

If you choose to put together a hackintosh, that's your choice and not at all an earth-shattering event. But OS X is not yours, and it's not a choice you have the legal or ethical right to make. No matter what you do, it will remain wrong--completely wrong legally and mostly wrong ethically. As long as you're adult enough to accept that, you're a reasonable person. You can say it's not an egregious sin, and you'd be correct. It's most certainly not right, though.

But the point here is that the OP doesn't think he's doing wrong, but you're looking at it in a black and white "It's the law so it MUST be wrong and you MUST admit it or you're a liar and I have no respect for you".

It is the law so it is automatically a legal wrong. It's further an ethical wrong because there is no ethical justification for violating the law here. The common morality is similarly clear: it is wrong to take what is not yours to take. The individual morality of the choice is an unresolvable question.

Not every law is a good law or right or wrong because it is the law.

No. Breaking any law is by definition wrong. The rule of law is sacrosanct. That it can simultaneously be justifiable is part of the complexity of life. Claiming you're not doing "anything wrong" when breaking the law is an outright lie.

"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.

You agree with all law because the rule of law is the most essential aspect of a free society. Breaking any law is automatically wrong. Something cannot be devoid of "wrong" if it is contrary to law. It may simultaneously be right in other aspects, but something can only be truly right if it is devoid of wrong.

Do I find my actions to be unethical? No.

So I should feel free to take anything from your house I think you don't need or shouldn't be entitled to keep if I buy something from you that you put on Craigslist?

They should not get my money for something they did not earn my sale.

You should not get the benefit of something you didn't pay for. You didn't pay for a right to install and use OS X on a machine that is 95% the same. Just as they didn't earn your money, you didn't earn their operating system.

No, absolutely not. I'll admit it's illegal, but I will not admit it is wrong.

And again, there is no possible construction of that statement that is not a total falsehood. Of course it is wrong. Something can only be right if it is legal, ethical, and moral all at once. Denying wrongdoing in the clear presence of legal and ethical wrongs is ludicrous. You simply cannot say with a straight face that you're doing the right thing by breaking the law, breaking your word, taking what is not yours to take, fraudulently asserting authority, and denying the autonomy of a rightful owner.

I'm not suggesting we legislate to disallow companies to bundle related products! But to disallow - by force of law - a consumer who has the will, the means, and the way to disassemble that bundle him or herself is wrong in my opinion.

That's asinine. Having "the will, the means, and the way" is not justification for an action. Everyone who seeks to commit an action in violation of the law has the will and the means, or there would be no need for the law.

Nay, I argue. By allowing Apple to bundle the unrelated products which are its hardware and software, you are allowing Apple to steal $500 to $5000 or more from me.

They're not forcing you to buy anything, nor are they reaching into your person and extracting the money against your will.

Why should I be forced to buy it? That is the antithesis of the free market.

No. In a free market, the seller has everything and the buyer gets what he buys. You're not advocating a free market at all, no matter how many times you repeat it.

One wasn't required by law to own a slave, but it would've been within one's rights to do so. Just because it's a right, doesn't make it right.

No. But violating someone else's right is automatically wrong, even if you don't agree they should have that right. If you feel a right is misplaced, then you need to get society to agree with you and change the right.

You do not have the legal or ethical authority to violate someone else's rights, ever. There's nothing more fundamental than that in American society.

 

[dejo]

The mouse works independent of the ice cream maker, but Logitech FORCES you to buy two unrelated products in order to use the one you want. ~THIS IS WHAT APPLE IS DOING~

How are Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on unrelated?

 

[Clive At Five]

"Yes. By definition." Herein lies the problem. You agree with all law because you must, not because your heart tells you that it is a well-founded law.

You agree with all law because the rule of law is the most essential aspect of a free society. Breaking any law is automatically wrong. Something cannot be devoid of "wrong" if it is contrary to law. It may simultaneously be right in other aspects, but something can only be truly right if it is devoid of wrong.

Thank you very much as you have proven without any effort of my own that lawyers don't have hearts. Your "ethics" are based on what has been declared from behind the judicial benches and legislative desks of people who are not you, instead of what would've been dictated by the object that used to inhabit that gap in your chest.

So I should feel free to take anything from your house I think you don't need or shouldn't be entitled to keep if I buy something from you that you put on Craigslist?

No, but if I sold you my JAE 50 Cable on Craigslist, it would be wrong of me to dictate the conditions under which you can use it, even if I was slimy enough to make you sign a license for a specific use with the ultimate goal of guaranteeing myself more money.

I know that it's slimy and wrong, which is why I would never do it, even though the law would support me in doing so.

With your Black & White view of right and wrong, it hardly makes sense to even argue with you, but I AM morbidly curious to see how soulless you actually are. So please do go on.

 

[IJ Reilly]

It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law. If you believe that, then you believe that Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus. OTOH, I have a problem with those who'd argue that they have some moral authority to violate Apple's intellectual property rights. The sole justification for doing so is that it's a convenience for them. They may be able to convince themselves that they're making some sort of principled, ethical statement by doing so, but not me. All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down. We often hear the same rationale coming from people who believe that recorded music should be free, when the decision they really should be making is to not buy a product if they don't like the price or the way it's sold.

 

[Clive At Five]

How are Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on unrelated?

OS X does not require Apple's hardware to run flawlessly. Apple's technology is 95% equivalent to generic hardware.

Juxtapose that with the oft-used XBox OS example: The hardware used for the XBox is unique, not commercially available, and the software is written for that unique hardware set. The hardware and software combination is essential for the performance of the device, ergo the bundling of the two is legally justified.

Versus Apple's hardware, it is not essential to the performance of OS X as the hackintosh community has shown us.

 

[IJ Reilly]

OS X does not require Apple's hardware to run flawlessly. It's technically 95% equivalent to generic hardware.

Not only is this not necessarily true, it would be completely irrelevant if it was true.

 

[Clive At Five]

It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law. If you believe that, then you believe that Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus. OTOH, I have a problem with those who'd argue that they have some moral authority to violate Apple's intellectual property rights. The sole justification for doing so is that it's a convenience for them. They may be able to convince themselves that they're making some sort of principled, ethical statement by doing so, but not me. All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down. We often hear the same rationale coming from people who believe that recorded music should be free, when the decision they really should be making is to not buy a product if they don't like the price or the way it's sold.

RE: price convenience. Not true. I don't want the excessive energy consumption of the Mac Pro. I don't want the noise or the heat. While the reduced price is an obvious benefit, it was made more on the basis on responsible spending than on the basis of penny pinching. The power consumed and delivered by my hackintosh are exactly what I need and nothing more. It's the perfect solution for my computing needs.

Certainly this doesn't make it legal, but it does support the ethicality of it since I made responsible use of the funds I use to also pay the rent and feed my family. Could I have purchased a Mac Pro? Yes, but it would've been a waste of money and energy.

That may not justify it for you but that's not my problem.

 

[matticus008]

Your "ethics" are based on what has been declared from behind the judicial benches and legislative desks of people who are not you

No, "my" ethics are those endemic to society, which includes respect for the rule of law. It is not defined by any ruling or statute.

No, but if I sold you my JAE 50 Cable on Craigslist, it would be wrong of me to dictate the conditions under which you can use it, even if I was slimy enough to make you sign a license for a specific use with the ultimate goal of guaranteeing myself more money.

Well, you could make no such restriction by license, for starters, but rolling with it for the moment, you've failed to make a distinction. Why do you get to put caps on what you're selling, but others do not? Why do you get to restrict the choices an owner has to sell what and how he sees fit? What justifies your failure to use the market you so worship to find a product that meets your needs within the bounds of law and ethics?

With your Black & White view of right and wrong

There's nothing black and white about it. You're the one flatly denying wrongdoing in the clear presence of wrongdoing. I am not denying the presence of elements that are right or justified in the process. You cannot say there is no wrongdoing in taking what is not yours to take.

It's not inherently "immoral" to do something which is against the law.

Absolutely. And where your fundamental rights are violated, it is entirely justified to stand up for them, sometimes even when there are ethical and legal wrongs that must be committed in the process. The difference here being that there is no fundamental right to the property of others.

All that's really being said here is that the product's cost is more than they want to pay, so they believe that they're entitled to shave it down.

Precisely. It's simple greed and false entitlement, not a moral crusade or a response to a moral or ethical wrong.