As of the Kodak v. Image Technical Services Inc. case, the Supreme Court no longer considers market share to be relevant when deciding matters related to antitrust.
Instead, the Supreme Court focuses on how information is used to create a monopoly, which is a Section II violation. Apple's end user license agreement (hereafter EULA) prevents the owner of the Macintosh OS from installing the Macintosh OS on any computer other than a Apple made computer.
....
I find it interesting that Apple is suing Psystar for a copyright infringement. Apple sued Microsoft using a similar approach for Microsoft's inclusion of the graphical user interface (GUI) in the Windows OS.
How did that case work out for the geniuses from Cupertino?
Actually, that wouldn't exactly be my interpretation of the Kodak case (which at the Supreme Court level only had to do with the Summary Judgment ruling, and not all the facts of the case, although Kodak eventually lost at trial). Market Power (not equal to, but could be related to, market share) WAS a significant factor in the case. The interesting point of the two cases you mention is that the "market" was NOT the overall market -- in Kodak's case, it was the market just for servicing Kodak copiers. I think this case is different enough that Apple may win the point that the market is the overall computer market. If so, then I think Psystar would have a hard time proving that Apple's practices are anti-competitive. If the market is just Apple computers, then the case is different. Clearly, Apple does have a "monopoly" on both Apple Hardware and Apple software, whether separate, tied, or bundled. So then it's an intellectual property question: do they have the obligation to license their copyrighted software, and, to the extent it's patented (my guess is that it will be highly patented in the near future -- multitouch, etc), do they have the obligation to license their patented hardware? The answer doesn't seem to be clearcut, but there is a lot of precedent that says they don't.
Maybe I'm overestimating Psystar, but I assume they've been preparing for a legal battle from the beginning -- they talked about antitrust issues back in April. Whether there are deep pockets paying the legal bills or they got the commitment from the firm to take the case for publicity and possible big contingency fees, I don't know. They definitely got some sort of advice their first day when they changed the name from OpenMac to OpenComputer. If they have prepared, I assume they DID ask Apple for a license and were turned down. Otherwise, they can't really defend their copyright infringement by saying Apple is breaking AntiTrust laws.
In the end, I think the people that think this will be good for the consumer are being naive. The likelihood of Apple's profits somehow trickling down to the consumer, like some people think, sounds to me just like other "trickle down" theories. If Apple loses this case, they wouldn't necessarily be able to solve their problem by simply "locking down the hardware," because the same criteria would probably apply to patents as copyrights. But they WOULD charge a "real" separate charge for software, with $129 being only the upgrade price. AND they'd charge a licensing fee for whatever patented hardware they use. Psystar started with a price of $400, with ads that the cheapest Mac cost 150% more for much lower specs. Their price has already gone up to $549. For a big box that doesn't have a software license that's valued at the "real price." -- undoubtedly the laptop components in the Mini are more expensive as well, not to mention design costs. I see Apple DECREASING options if they lose this case -- make all their hardware that their software needs more dependent on patented items that they could also charge a license for -- whatever the vocal minority of people who want "headless Macs" say, there is certainly no obligation by any company that they offer a wide variety of products. And, as others have said, there are added costs -- both in quality and economically for having to support a bunch of different hardware vendors. And I'm not sure how any precedent that may be set in this case would have far-reaching implications for consumers in general, like some other antitrust cases.