Psystar Files Reply Brief
Hot on the heels of my last report, Psystar has filed its Reply Brief in response to Apple.
Copyright Misuse
Psystar asserts that copyright only governs copying and not restrictions on use. Even at first blush, this appears absurd. I cannot play a non-copied movie for a public audience at a theater. Psystar (in my opinion) deceptively spins Alcatel in claiming:
Here is a link to the case. Read it for yourself. Psystar conveniently ignores the fact that the case deal with hardware components (replacement parts).
It pulls a similar sleight of hand with the Practice Management case. In that matter, the AMA tried to prohibit the use of competing medical codes, not to control the use of their own medical codes. Psystar remarkably tries to claim that this is even more damning to Apple. Huh? Once again, please go read the case for yourself.
Stifling Creativity
Of course Psystar denies Apple's position that their copyright restrictions do not stifle creativity. But once again Psystar falls into dysfunctional thinking. Apple's claim was that there is no dampening of creativity to create competing operating systems. Psystar claims that it stifles competition creativity in hardware systems that can run Apple's work. But that is not the focus in determining copyright abuse.
Tying
At last! Psystar makes a relevant and accurate representation. It states that Triad (link to case) is distinguishable since the Triad software was never sold apart from the hardware while Apple does sell the operating systems separately and wants to control after-purchase use.
But then they straight into Oz:
Hot on the heels of my last report, Psystar has filed its Reply Brief in response to Apple.
Copyright Misuse
Psystar asserts that copyright only governs copying and not restrictions on use. Even at first blush, this appears absurd. I cannot play a non-copied movie for a public audience at a theater. Psystar (in my opinion) deceptively spins Alcatel in claiming:
For all Apple's attempts to distinguish that case, R. Br. at 35-37 — the only case about use of a copyright in an operating system to control the user's choice of hardware, and thus the only case squarely on point – Apple must admit that the Fifth Circuit held that it was misuse to prevent a competitor from offering compatible, cheaper hardware for use with a copyrighted operating system.
Here is a link to the case. Read it for yourself. Psystar conveniently ignores the fact that the case deal with hardware components (replacement parts).
It pulls a similar sleight of hand with the Practice Management case. In that matter, the AMA tried to prohibit the use of competing medical codes, not to control the use of their own medical codes. Psystar remarkably tries to claim that this is even more damning to Apple. Huh? Once again, please go read the case for yourself.
Stifling Creativity
Of course Psystar denies Apple's position that their copyright restrictions do not stifle creativity. But once again Psystar falls into dysfunctional thinking. Apple's claim was that there is no dampening of creativity to create competing operating systems. Psystar claims that it stifles competition creativity in hardware systems that can run Apple's work. But that is not the focus in determining copyright abuse.
Tying
At last! Psystar makes a relevant and accurate representation. It states that Triad (link to case) is distinguishable since the Triad software was never sold apart from the hardware while Apple does sell the operating systems separately and wants to control after-purchase use.
But then they straight into Oz:
Read the full story at World of Apple...
