Yes. But what of Apple's case against Psystar? What actually happens next? Is that case heard? Does the judge make a ruling? Arbitration? Or settle out of court?
As someone else said, it continues. Settlement at this point would not be characteristic of Apple, especially given how uppity Psystar has been about the whole thing.
I'd expect Apple to ask for a summary judgement, since Psystar's defense has already been effectively demolished.
Not yet. Procedurally, given the more complex and extensive nature of Apple's direct and contributory claims, summary judgment is premature. PSJ is an option, but Apple's case does not end here if they want to prevail on all claims. I have no doubt that Apple will eventually file an MSJ, but the next move is probably some post-decision discovery.
Oh, Matticus. How you love to not read entire sentences before commenting on them.
On the contrary: "
Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments."
How is it misdirected of them to have pursued the very strategy you suggest? Your "entire sentences" are mutually exclusive. You then move on with the faulty premise that antitrust laws don't apply to Apple, and to say "just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument"--which is
exactly what they did.
And regarding the legal implications of installing OS X on generic hardware in my own home, not being sold to anyone else, not damaging the Apple brand... it was an illustration of how "legal boundaries" set controversial standards for what is "right" and "wrong."
No it isn't. It's an example of someone disregarding the limits of their rights in favor of what they'd rather do and are willing to do because they can rely on not getting caught. What's right is respecting the limits of a work that does not belong to you, even though you don't approve of the limits.
Anything else is simply rationalizing.
do you agree with every law and legal decision as ethically right?
Yes. By definition. That is not to say there aren't cases where the alternative is also ethically right, because there are always competing ethical interests, or that there aren't bad decisions made by judges. What you're talking about, though, is morality, and it's a pointless quagmire because it's entirely individual.
It simply does not matter what you personally believe to be morally justifying your actions. You have no right to OS X, moral, ethical, legal, or otherwise.
Of course I'm aware that I'm violating the license agreement. I just don't feel like I'm doing anything ethically wrong.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not possible. Do you place value on the integrity of your word as a person? On the rule of law? Do you expect to be able to control that which is yours and not to have it taken by someone not entitled to it who thinks they could make better use of it? You are doing many things ethically wrong. It's wrong and you know it's wrong. I'd have more respect if you simply admitted it.
People do things they know are wrong. I don't personally have a problem with the homebrew community, but people who claim they aren't doing anything wrong are simply liars. I exceed the speed limit on a daily basis. I fully admit that it is wrong to do so, and if I get pulled over, I accept the consequences. I don't pretend otherwise or claim that my right to do as I please in my vehicle is being taken. I have no such right on public roads or on private roads belonging to someone else.
It is not yours to take. Period.
Just see my point. I don't think I'm an unreasonable guy.
I see your point. It's just utterly bogus. You have the audacity to claim you're taking the "high road" in a situation involving a consumer product, of all things. It's obscene.
The legal hoopla that you and your kind defend restrict genuine free markets
That's the craziest part of your argument right there. The free market requires that sellers have complete control of what they choose to sell. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite--the non-market-based acquisition of rights and artificial restrictions on the freedom to contract and on the autonomy of ownership.
Edit: For the record, I don't believe the mythical "free market" is a virtue unto itself. But you seem to, all while asking to regulate and restrict a "genuine free market".
