Psystar is clear that they are not affiliated with Apple, so that's not an issue.

I missed this before. I think you're wrong here. I think it would be easy to prove in court that most people don't know what an OS is. After proving that, Apple could easily prove that anything that runs the Apple OS is likely to be seen as an Apple product.

No matter how clear PsyStar is about their affiliations, the general public will think these computers are Apple computers. Having proven that, Apple can claim that PsyStar's operations could damage the value of the Apple brand, and shut them down.

Reading over all your stuff, I get the impression that you think that there are no laws that grant entities the right to protect their brand's value. Or maybe you think that, where such laws exist, they are very much biased in favor of the general public.

I don't think that's quite the case.

Okay, well, we have to define your venue. If you did this in a bar for a laugh no one cares. Yes, you *could.*

If you did it on a large scale and posted ads for it, I don't think you'd get away with it. The point is not that you paid for the papers, and your rights as master of your own personal property is immaterial. The point is that you've created the impression that the Times and the Post have united to be "The Times/Post."

Neither of them would care for that. I think, as the laws stand today, they could claim you were tarnishing their brands, and they'd win.

Actually, it'd be a lot easier to use those Apple stickers. Smiley.

See, I don't think that's right. Again, if you're just doing this for your pot-smoking Aunt Zimmy, no, they can't stop you. But if you put in SkyMall an ad for your Guernica Bong, I think the owner of Guernica has a say.

The fact that you can legally and physically obtain a reproduction of a printed or graphic work does not give you the unhindered right to create commercial products from it. At least, I think.

Again, I'm not sure you're right. Of course, if you're just talking about just selling something out of your basement, that's different. But if you're talking about creating a legally-defined company that has advertisements that are potentially seen by millions of people, you come under different restrictions, some of which dictate how you can and can't use the product names of other companies.

And the reason NEXTSTEP was a failure in the marketplace was that it was an attempt to turn NEXT into something that could run on generic hardware.

i.e., a validation of the original point.

By the way, o.p.: by what standard is a free OS "successful"?

The argument is irrelevant, because monopolies aren't illegal. What is illegal is using a position of monopoly to unfairly stifle competition.

Say there's a company with a monopoly on steel. Say I want to start a car company. The company's monopoly is perfectly legal as long as I can buy steel at the same price as everyone else. But if there's no way I can start a car company because the steel monopoly will only sell to existing big companies, the steel company is using their position of monopoly to unfairly stifle competition.

Apple is definitely trying to stifle competition. Whether they're doing it unfairly or not is all that is material.

Okay, but could you buy, say, a copy of the New York Times and a copy of The Washington Post, staple them together, and sell it under the name "The Times/Post"? You are associating two entities that would rather not be associated. Could they prevent this? I think they could.

Okay, but that's a whole different matter, because I think in that case you technically own an implied copyright on reproductions of the work. The better analogy is that you buy prints of the painting from the owner, and then you use the prints to decorate and re-sell bongs. Suddenly you're doing national business because everyone wants the Guernica Bong. Again, you're creating a public association between two things. Can whoever owns Guernica put a stop to this? I think they can.

Not sure you're right. By advertising your product using terms that are trademarked by Edelbrock and WorldPort, you are creating a public association of your product with theirs. I think they get a say in that.

If only...

Everyone here should be required to state their attitude towards Apple before posting anything on this thread. Guess what? 95% of the people who hate Apple would say this is about "fairness."

And before saying anything else, I'll follow my own suggestion: I love Apple.

Now, I'll admit that the most convincing argument I've heard so far is "wouldn't it be legal if PsyStar just sold the computers along with a legally-purchased boxed copy of OS X?" I don't like it, because I want Apple to win, but I can't see a logical flaw in the argument.

The only real rebuttal, I think, is based on trademark.

Imagine a fancy-shmancy high-end restaurant--let's call it McGinty's. One of the prestige things about McGinty's is that they sell a special drink, the McGinty Spritz, that you can only get when you dine there. In addition, guests can buy individually-bottled boxes of the stuff, if they want.

So, now, some enterprising young lads open a bar across town called Flotsam Cabin. What they do is go eat at McGinty's and order lots and lots of boxes of the Spritz, which they then take to the Cabin and re-sell. And why not? It's perfectly within their rights, they paid for it fair and square, right?

Maybe. I'm no patent attorney, but as I understand it, McGinty's can make a case that the McGinty Spritz is a crucial element of the McGinty's brand, and that the material value of the McGinty's brand is tied to the exclusivity of the Spritz. By making the Spritz available at the Flotsam Cabin, those young lads are using a McGinty product in a way that lowers the value of the McGinty brand.

I believe the US courts would allow McGinty's to put a stop to it.

To make the point in a more obvious way, say a bunch of strippers started selling posters of themselves wearing nothing but Luis Vitton bags. In the eyes of the court, I think (I'm not a lawyer), Luis Vitton has the right to say, no thank you, we don't want our brand being associated with strippers. You may have legally bought our products, but you're using them in a way that lowers their value. Quit it.

Apple, likewise, has carefully cultivated a brand, and have the right to protect brand awareness. One aspect of the public's brand awareness is the fluid performance of OS X, which is tied to Apple's ability to control the hardware it runs on. If other vendors could to choose to sell it on any hardware they like, the value of the Apple brand would be in jeopardy.

So granted, I like Apple and I want them to win. That's my bias. And I admit that re-selling OS X in and of itself doesn't seem like a crime. And it doesn't seem like a crime to sell a computer that is capable of running OS X. So how can it be a crime to sell them together? I can't see how.

And that said, I believe that US Courts have upheld the idea that a trademark holder has the right to bar others from using trademarked products in ways that threaten the value of the trademark. If I'm interpreting that correctly, doesn't it seem obvious that letting PsyStar put OS X on any old hardware threatens the value of OS X? It does to me.

And anyone out there more knowledgeable about trademark law, do please chime in.