http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf
"Psystar next argues that Apples attempt to use copyright to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware constituted copyright misuse. Put differently, Psystar argues that Apple cannot extend its exclusive rights to control the computers on which Apples customers run Mac OS X. ... Apple has not prohibited purchasers of Mac OS X from /using/ competitors products. Rather, Apple has simply prohibited purchasers from using Mac OS X /on/ competitors products." And hence Apple is not guilty of copyright misuse according to Judge Alsup. Uh drunktard.... The copyright misuse doctrine stems from the patent misuse doctrine. The patent misuse doctrine was first established by the Supreme Court in its 1942 Morton Salt decision, 314 U.S. 488. In that case, Morton Salt had a patent on a machine for depositing salt tablets into canned food (think of Apple OS X product). Licensees of the machine patent (OS X EULA licensees) were required to use Morton Salt's (Apple's) salt tablets (x86 hardware). Ruling that public policy forbids the use of a patent to expand the scope of the claims beyond the patent granted, the Supreme Court held the patent unenforceable until "the improper practice has been abandoned and the consequences of the misuse of the patent have been dissipated." Id. at 493. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
