Apple wins total, permanent injunction against Psystar(Groklaw)

But, it is an antitrust issue here.

If Apple can preclude Psystar from doing business or selling products that permit consumers from using the Mac OS, certainly IBM can do the same with their mainframe OS and Microsoft with their Windows, right?

Is not IBM being charged with antitrust violations as we speak? Yes, they are. And what do they (IBM) want to do? They want to not permit their OS to be used on non-IBM hardware. How does that possibly help consumers? It does not. It precludes competition in hardware in precisely the same way that Apple is trying to do.

And what about Microsoft? The law is the law, right?

Does this case give a reason for Microsoft to decide to only permit its OS to be installed or run on Microsoft hardware? What the difference? We are talking about copyright law, right? And copyright law does in fact give certain monopoly like powers.

So what happens in a Microsoft case if the MS OS is a dominant OS and Microsoft decides it wants to be the sold distributor of hardware for its OS? Antitrust law and copyright law are on equal footing, not?

Apple is in fact using copyright law to preclude competition in hardware. And that is an antitrust issue. Same with IBM. Same with Microsoft.

Can IBM decide to restrict the use of its mainframe OS to run only on IBM hardware? IBM has been under a consent degree until recently suggesting that it can not.

The issue is not really about the EULA. Federal and state antitrust laws do trump contract terms that a vendor may dream up. Copyright law could be different. And it should in fact be different. Apple is not suing Psystar because it does not want Psystar to be reselling Apple software. Rather it is clearly securing this injunction because it wants to be the sole distributor of Apple compatible hardware. It really has nothing to do with the copyright of the software. That is a ruse.

The Apple v Psystar case is an antitrust issue through and through. So is the IBM case. And so is a potential case with Microsoft. The use of a EULA contract or even the copyright laws should not be capable of creating a monopoly in hardware. Consumers in no way benefit from that. Apple may benefit. It gets a monopoly. But, consumers loose out big time. They lose by having fewer choices in the marketplace. And they lose out by having Apple products cost more. There is absolutely no benefit to consumers because of this injunction. None.