

Microsoft cites Apple Macs as a defense in Xbox antitrust case - cwan
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/01/microsoft_uses_mac_clone_defense_vs_xbox_antitrust_charges.html

======
drewcrawford
Looks to me like we're slowly making "interference with a business model"
either a crime or a civil tort. Consider:

* The slow progress of patents from protector of innovation to anticompetitive weapon

* The music industry's legal wins, i.e. "contributory copyright infringement" in some jurisdictions

* DMCA, which in large part criminalizes the breaking of an EULA

* US v. Lori Drew, where we actually convicted a person of a computer trespass felony for breaking an EULA

* Psystar case, where the ruling was based on the DMCA and a legal fiction of how software works, instead of how it actually works

The thing about all of these legal constructs is, the bits don't care.

I'm not saying piracy or whatever is _morally_ right or anything. But I am
saying, as a practical matter, it is impossible to regulate this sort of
thing, whether it's made illegal or no. The practice of making it illegal will
not (much) reduce what actually happens. The business models are still dead,
even if the competition is the black market.

~~~
epochwolf
Wasn't PyStar nailed for producing and distributing a modified copy of OSX?
(Which would fall under general copyright. PyStar didn't have the rights to
OSX to make modifications to it's boot-loader)

~~~
drewcrawford
If modifying OSX == installing software, then yes. There's a well-written FOSS
bootloader for OSX, Psystar just forked it and preinstalled it.

It's not like they patched the bytes on the disk (but even if they had, that's
really a right you _should_ have, having bought the software).

------
benofsky
> If Apple can prevent another computer maker from selling unauthorized Mac OS
> X machines, then Microsoft should be able to stop another accessory vendor
> from selling unauthorized Xbox 360 plugins loaded with video-game cheats.

Makes sense to me...

EDIT: Clarification.

