I don't know whether or not Psystar is guilty of the many charges Apple makes in the lawsuit it recently filed against the Mac clone maker. But in looking over Apple's filing, there is one particularly dubious argument that I think should concern us all. According to Apple, Psystar users who obtained legal copies of Mac OS X are themselves guilty of copyright infringement, and Apple wants them deprived not only of the software but the computer system as well.

Many of Apple's charges revolve around the fact that the OS X EULA contains a term saying the software cannot be used on any non-Apple-labeled computer. Because Psystar encouraged consumers to acquire Mac OS X to run on their systems, Apple argues that "the Defendant has induced, caused or materially contributed to the infringing conduct of the purchasers." Apple goes on to demand that the court require Psystar to recall all its Mac clones from the public and turn over all the money it received plus penalties to Apple.

But are Psystar users who obtained a legal copy of Mac OS X guilty of copyright infringement just because they ignored the EULA? I don't think they are. As we've discussed here many times, copyright law does not give any force to EULAs - in fact, it tends the other way. The first sale doctrine of copyright law says the copyright holder can't tell a purchaser of a legitimate copy what to do with it other than not make an illegitimate copy.

I think this particular case though is even more clear cut than most others where first sales rights run up against software EULAs. The prohibition on non-Apple-labeled computers is so manifestly anti-competitive that it would be easy to argue that its copyright misuse. So if this case were actually to get to court, Apple could be risking its copyright if somebody could make the copyright misuse argument stick.

Like I say, I certainly don't know all the fact of what Psystar did and did not do. But rather than going after those who choose to purchase a Mac clone with dubious legal arguments, I think Apple would be far better served by competing for those customers fair and square.