EULAs are not legally binding
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You've got it completely backwards--EULAs are
valid and legally binding
everywhere. The reason you know this is that every case overturning provisions in them looks specifically
into the EULA and its effects; no court has ever said, "look, a EULA, case dismissed".
Copyright laws, however, would not stop a vendor who has discovered how to install an unmodified OS X on 3rd party hardware, nor should they!
Of course it would. Apple has the sole authority to control reproduction and
distribution of its products. Psystar is not packaging retail DVDs. It is distributing OS X, which is unlawful without authorization--and distributing a cracked version, at that.
Because then copyright laws would then be facilitating Apple's anti-competitive means to bind customers of one product to another... which is illegal, by the way.
No, it's not. Tying is the forced purchasing of a
third-party's products at the time of sale of your own, or the requisite purchase of other products as a "bundle."
It is not, however, the sale of a product based on a prior purchase. It is not unlawful to condition the purchase of spare parts, optional components, and certain accessories on having a particular product already. In fact, this is quite common.
This is why people are legally allowed to unlock their iPhones.
No, people are allowed to unlock their phones because carrier locks apply beyond the scope of the contract agreement. If the user pays the entire stipulated value of the contract, successful termination means that the carrier no longer has a right to impose restrictions on the device. It is not an antitrust consideration.
The sake of preserving Apple's "good name" does not allow them to be anti-competitive.
Using your oversimplified binary, that's the
only way. Denying expansion of use is the only way to maintain that protection. Doing so, however, is not anticompetitive, despite your proclamations.
And if they're worried about R&D costs or whatever, they should charge more for the product.
And who exactly would choose a $500 copy over a $129 copy? The people who have no compunction about stealing it for themselves now would not suddenly change their tune.
There would be nothing then to stop Microsoft locking their sw down to their own hw.
There's nothing stopping them now. In fact, if they did so, courts would rejoice--they'd lose their monopoly overnight.
Of course they are. They are stealing Apple's exclusive right to market, sell, and set the terms of sale of Apple's wholly-owned product.
Apple benefits fairly for each and every Psystar sale - Apple are unfairly trying to prevent this.
No they don't. The price of OS X contemplates the existence of prior licensing fees (when you bought your Mac). It's not just a kind heart that makes OS X less than half the price of Windows on the shelf.
Psystar is taking a copy of OS X licensed to upgrade specific hardware and then using it on unlicensed hardware.
