If Apple stopped selling OSX as a retail product, it could invalidate any claims that Apple might be illegally tying the OSX operating system to Apple hardware. Simply, you end up with a product in which the OS is considered just one of the components; i.e. the OS is there to make the product work, just like a keyboard, battery, or screen. So, if the courts ruled that bundling OSX is an antitrust law violation, Apple could just stop selling OSX separately. (Not too good for Apple customers who are then limited to the copy and free upgrades that came with their machine).

The whole antitrust claim is ridiculous anyway. No one is forcing consumers to buy an Apple – there are plenty of other operating systems and hardware out there to choose from that arguably do the same thing. What monopoly?

What Psystar has done is analogous to the following example: a “Mercedes” car called model A1 manufactured by Gigi Cars Ltd. (nobody has heard of them either) advertising that their model A1 runs faster, cheaper, and better that a 300SL Mercedes. Mercedes sues Gigi Cars Ltd for using the Mercedes name to sell their product without licensing or permission. Gigi turns around and sues Mercedes for antitrust law violation because, if a consumer wants a Mercedes engine, they have to buy the whole car and Mercedes doesn’t allow their engines to be used by other manufacturers in their cars without a license from Mercedes.

Perhaps the credit should go to Mercedes for developing such a nice engine and perhaps the courts should recognize that one company’s intellectual property shouldn’t be distributed without the owner’s permission just because everyone likes it so much – that smacks of communism and it will ruin this country. Think about it.

This is just my opinion.