[smax013]

Wondercow said:

Without getting too technical tying (or "tying arrangement") is, by definition, an antitrust violation, illegal under both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. Judge Alsup ruled the Apple violates neither Act.

You do touch on what the current counterclaim is about (in a nutshell)--Apple's overreaching copyright claims. However, even if Psystar were to win on that claim it doesn't mean that Apple can't tie the OS to the hardware (they can, see above), it just means that they can't do it that way.

You just kind of contradicted yourself. You first said that (or at least seemed to imply from my perspective) that "tying" is ONLY an antitrust violation and thus, if the judge ruled that Apple did not violate either Act, thus "tying" is permitted.

But, then you basically say that Apple could still lose on how they tied it on other grounds.

My point was that Apple could still lose the case and have their tying deemed invalid. Never said that would mean that they could not tie the two, but more that it is still far from known whether or not Apple's implementation is OK or not. And the judges ruling certainly does not change that aspect...Apple could still lose (personally, I find it rather unlikely).

In the end, we are likely stepping around sematics.

[SlotcarBob]

The courts will decide. Go Psystar! I think they ultimately fail because they can't compete, but anything that kills these EULA's is good by me. I know the difference between buying and leasing. Now let's see what the courts think it means. If nothing else, this is an interesting case, for sure.
What if books were "leased/licensed"? Why not? "You cannot let anyone else read it". LOL. How about recorded music? "No one else can listen to your copy".
For me, this turned when companies like Adobe, MS and Apple started telling me I could only put the software on one of my machines, even if I used them one at a time (work and home). Turned me against them immediately. I think I have waited for 20-25 years for EULA's to die. Or at least start to take some good shots. I'm watching, and hoping.

[Wondercow]

[quote name='smax013']
>

Wondercow said:

> Without getting too technical tying (or "tying arrangement") is, by definition, an antitrust violation, illegal under both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. Judge Alsup ruled the Apple violates neither Act.
>
> You do touch on what the current counterclaim is about (in a nutshell)--Apple's overreaching copyright claims. However, even if Psystar were to win on that claim it doesn't mean that Apple can't tie the OS to the hardware (they can, see above), it just means that they can't do it that way.

You just kind of contradicted yourself. You first said that (or at least seemed to imply from my perspective) that "tying" is ONLY an antitrust violation and thus, if the judge ruled that Apple did not violate either Act, thus "tying" is permitted.

But, then you basically say that Apple could still lose on how they tied it on other grounds.

The operative word being "how", as in "how they tied it". Similarly, being a monopoly is by no means illegal, but abusing that power is. It's all about how a company achieves its ends. One more to drive the point home ;-) The courts and the government agree that selling drugs is not illegal.... unless they are sold without a valid license to sell, or if sold from the trunk of a car or a dark alley....--it's all about how they're sold.

Quote

My point was that Apple could still lose the case and have their tying deemed invalid.

It has already been ruled that their tying is valid :-)

Quote

In the end, we are likely stepping around sematics.

Welcome to law!

[Wondercow]

SlotcarBob said:

>What if books were "leased/licensed"? Why not? "You cannot let anyone else read it". LOL.
They are. The content is licensed to the buyer for his use only. Sure you can give away the book, but you can't copy it and either 1) keep the copy and give away the original, or 2) keep the original and give away the copy. In addition, you would be perfectly within your rights to lend me your book on condition that I lend it to no one else and return it within a day, a week, or "when I'm done". Check the agreement you have with your local library--they probably have a condition that materials borrowed on your card cannot be lent to others. There would be nothing wrong with a publisher operating under the same premise.

Don't make the mistake in logic of thinking that just because something isn't done means that it cannot be done
>How about recorded music? "No one else can listen to your copy".
See above.

Quote

For me, this turned when companies like Adobe, MS and Apple started telling me I could only put the software on one of my machines, even if I used them one at a time (work and home). Turned me against them immediately. I think I have waited for 20-25 years for EULA's to die. Or at least start to take some good shots. I'm watching, and hoping.

Don't hold your breath. As I, and others, pointed out in previous threads the rights of the IP owner are entrenched in the legal system. The wholesale invalidation of EULAs, SLAs, LAs, and/or leases of any kind would potentially and probably turn the US upside down. People would suddenly be able to take others' works as their own in potentially any field. Don't feel like paying BMW for the use their logo? No problem, use it anyway! Want to cash in on the booming video game market without doing any real work? Just buy a copy of GTA, ignore the agreement, modify the game a little (or not), make copies on your computer, and sell it as your own on a PS3 that you made!

[smax013]

Wondercow said:

It has already been ruled that their tying is valid :-)

But that is not what your previous post said. Your previous said that their tying was valid under anti-trust law, but that their tying method under copyright law could still be deemed improper. And as case if point, if their tying was complete valid, then the judge would have made a summary judgement in Apple's favor and the case would be over...and that did not happen to my knowledge...the case still goes forward at this point, which means Apple could still lose and have their tying ruled invalid/illegal/improper.

The sematics that we are dancing around is that you are saying that Apple can tying and be legal from the perspective of anti-trust. Thus, there can be ways that they can tie the two together and be legal. And I am not disputing that. I am saying that their current method of tying might still be deemed improper/illegal under DIFFERENT legal principals than anti-trust, which unless I misunderstood what you said in the previous post, you agreed with in the context of the copyright arguement. Thus, while Apple might be able to legally tie the two, they could still lose the case based upon HOW they tied the two or how they are arguing they tied the two. And the end result could be that Apple would not be able to go after Pystar until they changed HOW they tie the two to a method that is legal/permitted.

[smax013]

SlotcarBob said:

What if books were "leased/licensed"? Why not? "You cannot let anyone else read it". LOL. How about recorded music? "No one else can listen to your copy".

But, books and music are leased/licensed. When you buy a book, you do NOT own the contents of the book (i.e. the thoughts, story, themes, etc expressed on the pages), you own the physical copy of the book (i.e. the pages of paper, the ink on those pages, etc). When you buy a music CD, you do NOT own the music on the CD, you own the physical CD (i.e. the plastic disk). You are purchasing the right (i.e. licensing) the right to read the contents of the book or listen to the contents of the CD. You can pass those rights onto someone else by selling/giving them the original book or CD. You do NOT have the right to copy the book or CD and give someone else the copy while retaining the original (except for limited rights under the Fair Use exceptions of copyright law).

In the case of a book, it is very difficult to have more than one person "use" the book at once. Thus, copyright violations tend to mainly be in the form of copying the material.

Music is a bit tougher to deal with...after all, you can easily assemble a group of people together, pop that CD in a stereo and have a large group of people listen to the music. But, you WILL get into trouble if you do such things in a public forum and charge for listening and the RIAA finds out about it...and you will lose in court most likely. CDs are sold for personal use only.

This site might help shed some light for music:

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.php

In particular:

Quote

"Authors own the exclusive rights to their compositions. This is called a copyright, and the composition is protected for many years--even if the copyright is never registered with the copyright office. A composition is considered to be "intellectual property" The copyright may be sold, transferred, or inherited--but the copyright still endures. If any music or lyrics are still under copyright protection

>
>you CANNOT reproduce the music or lyrics
>you CANNOT distribute the music or lyrics either for free, for no profit, or for profit
>you CANNOT perform the music or lyrics in public
>you CANNOT play a recording of the music or lyrics in public--even if you own the CD
>you CANNOT make a derivative work or arrangement for public use in any form
>
>Legally a copyright means that a musician, author, or artist has a "limited duration monopoly" on anything he creates. The US Constitution grants the government power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." (Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution). To legally enforce an author's claim to his copyright, his work must be registered with the copyright office. Registering a composition provides public notification of copyright, and you cannot use the composition publicly unless you pay royalties--which can be substantial. If you use a song under copyright without the owner's permission, you are subject to legal repercussions."

[Wondercow]

[quote name='smax013']
>

Wondercow said:

> It has already been ruled that their tying is valid :-)

But that is not what your previous post said. Your previous said that their tying was valid under anti-trust law, but that their tying method under copyright law could still be deemed improper. And as case if point, if their tying was complete valid, then the judge would have made a summary judgement in Apple's favor and the case would be over

Tying is legal and Apple has ever right to do it. Period, full stop, end of point. That doesn't mean that they can go about it any way they see fit. That is what I said in my first reply to you; tying is legal.

FWIW Psystar's amended complaint accuses Apple of "misuse of copyright" in that they have attached something to which a valid copyright applies (the OS) to something that does not have copyright protection (the hardware). It's not really about "tying" in the technical sense (that was already dismissed) but the term is used because the OS is tied (read: attached) to the hardware.

Reasons why there hasn't been summary judgement (at least to my knowledge) include 1) Apple hasn't made a motion for such and 2) judge Alsup sees Psystar's amended complaint as a valid complaint--though that doesn't mean that it will hold water, as judge Alsup himself notes:

Psystar argues that the alleged misuse is, "at the least, unfair in that Apple has attempted (and continues to attempt) to extend the reach of its copyrights by tying them to computer hardware not otherwise protected by the Copyright Act." (Reply at 12). It fails to explain, however, how this conduct constitutes harm to competition or a violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws.

In the context of single-firm conduct, tying requires monopolization. Psystar has identified none--other than the limited monopolies inherent in the copyrights themselves.

Notice where he states "tying requires monopolization. Psystar has identified none . . ." :-)
>. . . that did not happen to my knowledge...the case still goes forward at this point, which means Apple could still lose and have their tying ruled invalid/illegal/improper.
This is all exactly why I previously said "without getting too technical". Apple cannot, under the current case and Psystar's current counter-complaint , have their "tying" ruled invalid in any way. This has already been ruled upon when judge Alsup dismissed the antitrust violation counterclaim. It came up (in the above quote) when judge Alsup allowed the "misuse of copyright" counterclaim and again favoured Apple.

I'll agree that this is largely semantics, but that's the name of the game in law. "Robbery" and "theft" are two very different creatures (not just in law but also in general English) and, for good or bad, the semantics are important--just as they are here :-) I could have better explained my usage of "tying" or I could have gone into more detail previously. I was trying to keep it brief, but, well, here we are now.... I hope I've clarified some of the (admittedly semantical) confusion.

(To address your remaining paragraph I'll just refer back to what I've already said re: tying. The current method can't be deemed illegal since it's already been declared legal. Psystar's claim is "misuse of copyright". I again apologize for my sloppy wording and structure which led to us both dancing around the same point.)

[People_Eater]

patrickmacworld said:

Is Psystar to blame or the people who buy Psystar systems? A gun by itself is not dangerous, but people who buy them are, because they will be the ones pulling the trigger.

Well, if somebody sells illegal drugs, then both the dealer and buyer get arrested. The drug dealer usually gets punished more heavily than the buyer. Same with prostitution, file-sharing and just about everything else. The distributor trying to make profit from an illegal or unethical activity is almost always held more culpable.

The gun example is silly, because selling guns is usually legal - unless of course, you are selling illegal or unlicensed weapons. In which case, you get in big trouble.

[People_Eater]

SlotcarBob said:

What if books were "leased/licensed"? Why not? "You cannot let anyone else read it". LOL. How about recorded music? "No one else can listen to your copy".

They are. Does the Amazon Kindle ring a bell? Or the Apple iPod?

It doesn't mean you can't let anyone else use it, any more than a vendor can prohibit someone else using your licensed installation of Mac OS. That's not the issue.

What it does prevent, is you installing a copy of said book or music on somebody else's devices which are registered to that user. You could let someone else read your Kindle book, but you'd have to loan them your Kindle device. And you can't sell the electronic books on the used market. It's tied to your user account.

I'm not sure why you think it's so funny (other that your totally off-the-mark interpretation of it). Welcome to DRM and the DMCA.

[mdawson]

Others have quite thoroughly covered this matter so I will simply state that as you are so dead set against copyright protection, why not move to China where such things are not respected because rights in general are an alien concept. Then you can engage in all the illegal piracy and plagiarism that some East Asian cultures seem to feel is acceptable behavior.

Quote

SlotcarBob wrote:

>

Quote

I know the difference between buying and leasing.

Clearly you do not as you keep making this absurd posts about the need to abolish EULAs. Copyright holders have the right to dictate the terms of use for that which they license you to use within the bounds of the law. Again, as you have such issues with this long practiced principle in Western society, Beijing awaits you.

[orgopete]

[quote name='Wondercow']
> [quote name='smax013']
> >

Wondercow said:

> > It has already been ruled that their tying is valid :-)
> Your previous said that their tying was valid under anti-trust law, but that their tying method under copyright law could still be deemed improper. And as case if point, if their tying was complete valid, then the judge would have made a summary judgement in Apple's favor and the case would be over
Tying is legal and Apple has ever(y) right to do it. Period, full stop, end of point. That doesn't mean that they can go about it any way they see fit. That is what I said in my first reply to you; tying is legal.

FWIW Psystar's amended complaint accuses Apple of "misuse of copyright" in that they have attached something to which a valid copyright applies (the OS) to something that does not have copyright protection (the hardware). It's not really about "tying" in the technical sense (that was already dismissed) but the term is used because the OS is tied (read: attached) to the hardware.

Is this confusing? Tying is legal. It's not really about tying. The OS is tied to the hardware.

Quote

Reasons why there hasn't been summary judgement (at least to my knowledge) include 1) Apple hasn't made a motion for such and 2) judge Alsup sees Psystar's amended complaint as a valid complaint--though that doesn't mean that it will hold water, as judge Alsup himself notes:

In Justia Apple v Psystar, page 7, claim one, item 30 "Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 502, Apple is entitled to an injunction?" and page 16, Prayer for Relief, item 2, "Awarding Apple a permanent injunction?"

Quote

Psystar argues that the alleged misuse is, "at the least, unfair in that Apple has attempted (and continues to attempt) to extend the reach of its copyrights by tying them to computer hardware not otherwise protected by the Copyright Act." (Reply at 12). It fails to explain, however, how this conduct constitutes harm to competition or a violation of the spirit of the antitrust laws.

In the context of single-firm conduct, tying requires monopolization. Psystar has identified none--other than the limited monopolies inherent in the copyrights themselves.

Notice where he states "tying requires monopolization. Psystar has identified none . . ." :-)
>. . . that did not happen to my knowledge...the case still goes forward at this point, which means Apple could still lose and have their tying ruled invalid/illegal/improper.
This is all exactly why I previously said "without getting too technical". Apple cannot, under the current case and Psystar's current counter-complaint , have their "tying" ruled invalid in any way. This has already been ruled upon when judge Alsup dismissed the antitrust violation counterclaim. It came up (in the above quote) when judge Alsup allowed the "misuse of copyright" counterclaim and again favoured Apple.

(To address your remaining paragraph I'll just refer back to what I've already said re: tying. The current method can't be deemed illegal since it's already been declared legal. Psystar's claim is "misuse of copyright".

I am going to copy and paste an excerpt from Frischmann and Moylan's 47 page review of "misuse of copyright".

A. U.S. Supreme Court Opinions

1. Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger (1942)

Although the holding in Morton Salt is limited to patent misuse, the Court?s commentary laid the foundation for a comparable defense in copyright law. The Court cited two circuit opinions ?for application of the like doctrine in the case of copyright,? suggesting the Court?s belief that misuse principles can apply generally to intellectual property.

In 1942, the Supreme Court firmly established the patent misuse doctrine. Although courts have applied patent misuse since 1917, pre-1942 patent misuse resembles today?s copyright misuse?evolving doctrinally with an uncertain future. Morton licensed its patented salt-depositing machine with a condition that licensees exclusively use Morton?s salt tablets. The Court found that using the patent to restrain competition in a market for unpatented goods (i.e., the salt tablets) was patent misuse. The Court stressed that the public policy behind the patent system involved a delicate balance between the social benefits of improved progress in ?Science and the useful Arts? and the social costs of granting a ?limited monopoly.? Tipping the balance by using the ?granted monopoly? to ?secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted? is forbidden and contrary to the public policy behind the system. Courts of equity ?may rightly withhold assistance from such use of the patent by declining to entertain a suit for infringement, and should do so at least until it is made to appear that the improper practice has been abandoned and that the consequences of the [patent misuse] have been dissipated.?

The Morton Salt misuse defense was based in equity and did not mirror the statutory antitrust law. Notably, the Court distinguished the patent misuse defense from traditional antitrust analysis under the Clayton Act and reversed the Seventh Circuit opinion which relied on a finding that the patent did not substantially lessen competition for salt tablets. Thus, although patent misuse in tying cases was later modified by legislation to resemble an antitrust-based defense, the original basis in equity may also apply to copyright misuse today. Moreover, the two copyright cases cited by the Court are both copyright infringement actions wherein a defense based in equity prevailed. Neither case involved antitrust law nor anticompetitive behavior that would rise to the level of an antitrust violation today.

B. Public Policy-Based Copyright Misuse

Courts and commentators have attempted to distinguish the copyright misuse defense from antitrust law by focusing on the equitable nature of the doctrine as a clean hands defense and on the scope limitation function that it provides. Inequitable conduct on the part of the copyright holder need only offend the public policy behind the copyright system to trigger the defense. As the Fourth Circuit noted in Lasercomb:

[A] misuse need not be a violation of antitrust law in order to comprise an equitable defense to an infringement action. The question is not whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of antitrust law (such as whether the licensing agreement is ?reasonable?), but whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright.

Courts applying this rationale have looked specifically at copyright licensing provisions and decided whether the scope of the private rights granted by the copyright is being improperly expanded.

The three circuit court decisions affirming findings of copyright misuse, discussed supra, are illustrative. In Lasercomb, the licensor restricted the licensee?s ability to develop similar software, effectively expanding the scope of the copyright beyond the protected expression to the unprotected idea. Similarly in Practice Management, license provisions restricting the licensee?s ability to use competing products were found to be expansive and thus misuse. Finally, in Alcatel, license provisions that restricted a licensee?s ability to develop products to compete with the licensor?s uncopyrighted products similarly were found to be misuse. In all three cases, copyright owners? used their copyright to constrain licensees? productive/competitive activities and gain advantages in areas beyond the scope of the limited privileges conferred by the copyright.

In all three cases, the courts focused on the first step of the analysis? asking whether the restraint within the scope of the copyright, whether the copyright owner used the copyright to control unprotected subject matter or to restrict legitimate third party activities?and did not proceed to evaluate net effects. Both the Fourth and Ninth Circuits stopped well short of the second prong of the rule of reason test. The Fifth Circuit in Alcatel, on the other hand, emphasized the restrictive effect that DSC?s behavior had on DGI?s ability to compete. Still, none of the three circuit courts considered the potential positive effects of the licensing provisions in question. Thus, it seems that in Lasercomb, Practice Management, and Alcatel, the public policy approach reduced the rule of reason approach to a single step, which is akin to a per se rule. Although no court explicitly declared the particular licensing practice to be per se misuse, the absence of any weighing of effects and the lack of additional guidance leaves little room for distinction.

In establishing these per se rules, the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits were not creating per se antitrust rules based on the conclusion that in the general run of cases the questioned conduct is presumptively anticompetitive on the whole. Instead, the courts were creating per se rules that keep intact the socially acceptable trade-off manifest in the copyright law. In a sense, the circuit courts were safeguarding the public interest in maintaining a copyright of limited scope while at the same time coordinating the various intellectual property systems.

Q: While I agree with the court deciding it is not an anti-trust issue, the court allowed Psystar to reframe their countersuit with the misuse of copyright defense. While the court did rule on anti-trust, the court did not rule on misuse of copyright. I don't see why the court could not determine that Apple has misused its copyright by extending its x86 OS EULA to Apple x86 processors. If I am wrong in applying F and M's analysis, in what way is this wrong. If you believe F and M are wrong in their analysis, how did they err?

[mdawson]

Do not quote my words out of context, ogropete. I clearly stated that, ?the boxed copies of OS X are not upgrades in the sense of the holdover definition of a software upgrade that precedes Internet-based update releases.? Your attempt to make it appear that I stated or implied otherwise is blatant misrepresentation. I also stated that Apple has the full OS on the DVD to facilitate a clean install and thoroughly explained why the boxed copies are upgrades.

[mdawson]

Don?t look into the crazy eyes. Don?t look into the crazy eyes.

Quote

smax-13 wrote:

>

Quote

?what if Micro$oft decided "we only want to deal with Dell" and thus entered into a contract to that effect for all future Windoze OSs and made a business decision that they would not longer offer retail sales of their OS.

Then Microsoft and Dell would have their hindquarters handed to them by the courts for collusion to control the Wintel platform in clear violation of anti-trust laws as I pointe out previously.

Quote

smax-13 wrote:

>

Quote

The Mac platform only becomes "proprietary" due to the Mac OS and the locking/locking method with the Mac OS. Most of the hardware used in a Mac is no more proprietary than similar hardware in a Windoze box.

Whether or not Apple makes the individual parts for the hardware is a completely moot point. Computers are not just the sum of their parts. The Macintosh platform is proprietary because it is owned by a single company. Compatibility or the use of standard parts has no impact on that fact. Also where compatibility is concerned, it is facilitated and not inherent.

You cannot simply put an NTFS volume with Windows installed in a Mac as a boot drive; it will not work. Windows does not run natively on Macs as has often been erroneously cited. You must have OS X installed and you must use OS X?s Boot Camp to facilitate Windows as the primary operating system. Once implemented, the presence of OS X is transparent to the user, but booting into Windows is facilitated by Apple?s OS at boot time not automatic simply because Macs now happen to have the same processors as Wintel PCs. On the flip side, you cannot install OS X on any Wintel PC without illegally altering the OS as Psystar has done.

Quote

smax-13 wrote:

>
They can potentially tie their OS to one brand of PeeCee. There might be some reasons due to where they are now that might prevent (i.e. the monoply thing). If we temporarily ignore the monoply bit for the moment, then they could certainly make a business decision that they only want to sell their OEM licenses to one company and not sell retail licenses anymore

The simple fact of the matter is that Microsoft is a monopoly and therefore cannot do such a thing. You are also continuing to fail to recognize that Apple and Microsoft are two completely different kinds of companies and therefore have differing interests. Microsoft is a software company that does not and never has manufactured PCs. Hardware is of no concern to them. So there is no reason why Microsoft would ever care about which OEM?s hardware you install your software on as long as you are buying their software. Hardware has zero impact on Microsoft?s bottom line because revenue earnings for Microsoft is in the sale of software.

smax-13 wrote:
>
Not quite completely true. They don't design various key components and they don't own every facet of the platform. They do own the overall design of the platform (i.e. the completed product), but that is different than owning "every facet" and designing "every aspect".

The platform is the completed product. Again, the parts do not play into this.

smax-13 wrote:
>
It is certainly true that they have not be "officially" rules a monoply (at least in the US...some other locations have come closer when talking iPod/iPhone/iTunes Music Store tie-ins).

Apple is in not a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. Even where the iPod/iTunes/iTunes Store is concerned?the iPhone does not have the kind of market infiltration that the iPod does within its respective market?Apple is not a monopoly because Apple does not own or control the content. If Apple and its products were to disappear off the face of the Earth tomorrow you could still view and listen to the content on your hard drive. You could also still buy new content that can be used on any device designed to play that content just as you can now.

Apple as a lock on their products that they designed to work as an integrated suite, but no one has to use Apple?s products to listen to music or watch movies/shows. You can buy any portable digital music player you wish to play whatever music you wish, as there are several on the market, you simply cannot interface that player with iTunes or directly download music from the iTunes Store to that device. You can choose to manage your music with WMP, WinAmp or RealPlayer?Apple is not stopping anyone because again they do not own the content and have no means to do so if they so wished?but you cannot manage an iPod with those other applications. You can buy music or video from countless distributors as people did for decades before the iTunes Store existed. No one is obliged to purchase music from the iTunes Store including iPod owners.

In order for Apple to be found guilty of monopoly abuse, content would have to be tied exclusively to Apple media products. Such a state of affairs does not exist. You have several choices on the media management/playback front, but if you choose to buy an iPod then you buy into the package deal with iTunes for managing your collection. As a iPod owner, you also earn the privilege of having the iTunes Store as an additional source for acquiring content.

[stolaas]

It would be smart if Apple owned Psystar. This way they could test the market for mac clones themselves without letting anyone do so. The lawsuit would just act as cover and threat to anyone else making clones. In order to compete with Microsoft business wide, Apple will eventually have to license out its operating system. This is a perfect way to test if consumers are willing to purchase just a Mac OS and not care what computer it comes in. Dell could soon be selling Mac OSX its computers, then the tables would turn...