Psystar Mac clone opens Apple's can of worms

Stan Beer
Monday, 21 April 2008 10:28

Opinion and Analysis

First there is the issue of the Mac OS X software license. Anyone who argues that Apple is just a hardware company is plain wrong. Here in Australia, I can walk into any Apple reseller's store and purchase a packaged copy of Mac OS X Leopard no questions asked for AUD$158. Aside from the fact that it's a pretty good bargain compared to the price of a boxed copy of Vista Ultimate, it demonstrates without argument that whatever else it is Apple is also a software company.

Given the fact that Apple sells software separately to hardware, there is a question that must be raised about the Mac OS X software license. Can Apple enforce the bit in the end-user license agreement (EULA) which stipulates that a user cannot run Mac OS X on hardware other than a Mac? Psystar says no because it violates antitrust laws. Apple could no doubt argue the toss and drown Psystar in a sea of litigation. However, Apple would probably rather not go there because it may focus attention on an issue that antitrust regulators in the US and particularly the EU may want to get their teeth into.

If a serious antitrust challenge to Apple's Mac hardware and Mac OS X tie-in ever does see the light of day, the implications for Apple could be far reaching. The Mac OS X EULA could end up being deemed to have some illegal clauses. What's more, Apple could be forced to issue updates to all purchasers of a Mac OS X license, regardless of the hardware.

Apple has been very low key about its response to Psystar to date. Maybe it's preparing to go in boots and all and maybe not. Whatever the case, it's hard to imagine that Apple has not been preparing itself for something like Psystar from the day it decided to move to the Intel platform. Therefore, is it too much of a stretch to believe that Apple could in fact have already been preparing a strategy to take Mac OS X outside the Apple walled garden?