Why is it so unreasonable that Apple wishes to protect their business model.
Leopard isn't $129 because that's what Leopard costs. Leopard costs $129 because it runs on hardware purchased from Apple, and the price takes into effect the hardware profits as well. This is quite well understood, I thought.
Apple is in the business of selling a product, which is "a computer with an operating system", and if someone comes along and undercuts with crappy hardware, it hurts Apple's model, and we'll wind up paying more for upgrades.
If you guys want "cheap" at the same time as "quality", then you haven't been in business for yourself yet. There's a saying: Cheap, Quality, Price. You only get to pick two.
And, in the end, if you don't want it, don't buy it. If Honda made cars and built roads, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not let other people on their roads. Ridiculous analogy.
Since when does any company implicitly have the LEGAL right to "protect their business model" ? Do you realize how draconian and monopolistic that sounds?
My guess is you will not even see Apple attempt to fight this in court based on the EULA at all because in all likelihood the EULA will lose. Of course, Apple has enough money to drag this case out on many fronts until this company is broke, but who in their right mind is cheering for that? Geez, that's like cheering for Microsoft IMHO!
Where Apple has a case is with copyright infringement of the Apple or Mac name or DMCA due to the EFI emulator. This is where Apple legal will pounce. But I'm not even sure I'd cheer for Apple in this regard either. What if IBM had attempted to close the PC market from clones based on its copyrights? Of course IBM, unlike Apple, was too stupid to copyright a lot of things they should have back then, but what if they had? Boy would the world be different.
Ultimately, if this machine is a piece of junk, few will sell.
Apple only has something to worry about if the machines are any good.
Can you say PowerComputing?
If Apple were smart from a marketing and PR perspective, they'd get off their asses and just release a similar product that hits this niche market. It's not like people haven't been clamoring for a mid-range, somewhat expandable tower for years! Geesh! That is how Apple got hurt by the previous Mac clone market, not hitting key markets and price points. Then no one will even remember who this Psystar is anymore and no legal challenge will even be necessary. Why would Apple want to even risk losing in court on EULA or anything really. If they did lose, the Mac clone market would once again be wide open and even Dell could jump in if they wanted.
Finally, here's a more interesting scenario...
What if Apple sues them on multiple fronts in such a way that Psystar has no way of fighting from a money standpoint. Then Apple quietly settles the lawsuit by BUYING Psystar for a measly million and then releases a nicer version of the product designed by Apple! Case closed.
.
