My biased take on Apple's complaint
Curious people can read the text and legal interpretation of Apple's shutdown of Win2OSX.net blogsite on Chilling Effect.
I think the lawyers examining this case are objective, and generally seem to indicate Apple is pushing the limits of what a copyright holder may ask in protection of their rights. I side with the legal precedent that says linking to sites that may represent a threat to a copyrighted work are not in themselves illegal. The law isn't broken when people follow these links. And there are circumstances (noted as the exceptions to what DMCA may forbid) where even following "circumvention measures" against a copyrighted work can be legal.
Think back to when IBM dominated the computer market. They invented some of the most horrific data communications protocols, obfuscated operating systems and hardware functionality - all to make sure nobody else could sell a product that inter-operated with theirs, or could in some cases supplant their products as a lower-cost alternative. We know what happened - the government made several laws in Anti-trust specifically regarding IBM. Some of these laws now apply to Microsoft, and in the case of OS X, apply to Apple Computer, Inc.
Please do read each of the points raised about this filing. The more of it you're familiar with, the more Apple will smell like the old IBM to you. And in 1984, Apple painted IBM as "Big Brother" - well, they've become the monolithic totalitarian state now as regards their OS and their hardware.
I want to draw special attention to the 7 exceptions in which "copyright circumvention" is legal, or cases where the DMCA (which is the big stick Apple legally brandishes) cannot be enforced: Libraries, archives, and educational institutions for acquisition purposes; Law enforcement and intelligence gathering activities; Reverse engineering in order to develop interoperable programs; Encryption Research; Protecting minors from material on the Internet; Protecting the privacy of personally identifying information; Security Testing.
When Maxxuss made Mac OS X work on a regular PC, he decrypted part of it. Therefore, IMHO, he was working on Encryption Research. Apple whines about how damaging it is to decrypt their OS, but nowhere do they acknowledge this is a natural and normal function of "Encryption Research." Already, they are crying foul without checking any possible cases where the wrongdoer actually is working well within their rights. His achievements prove the strength of Apple's Security, therefore by definition he has conducted a Security Test.
Remember IBM and their impossible-to-figure-out software and hardware? This is where the exception for "reverse engineering" comes in. Again, Maxxuss as well as most anybody else who has a use for the PC compatible OS X has a valid use case for this software. Every developer will agree that you cannot simply test software against the Open Source Darwin operating system and expect it to run well on a Mac. The only solution Apple approves of is buying their computer(s), using their development tool(s) - some are freely distributed, and testing on various models of their product. Notice how closed this development and testing process is. If I create Windows software, I can use any brand PC, even make my own, and use one of dozens of developer tools, commercial and non, and test it on Windows (even "illegal" unregistered copies of Windows because of the 30-day grace period).
In no way has Apple provided alternative means of testing software against OS X short of paying for their expensive computers, and in some cases, enrolling in a very spendy developer program. Therefore, it is natural that there are going to be relatively poor people who cannot afford a Mac, but have a compatible PC they own or can acquire cheaply, and armed with the decryption and reverse-engineering efforts of Maxxuss, see if software they are developing will run, as well as seeing if applications they enjoy on a PPC based mac perform well.
Nowhere in buying an Apple iMac Core Duo do I remember seeing a satisfaction clause. If it doesn't run a given program, your recourse is the same as with Windows. Too bad, bub. Fitness for a particular use is not part of your equipment warranty.
Windows users usually can find people who know what programs run better and worse on a PC. There are fewer sources to discover how well, or if at all, certain programs run on an Intel-based Mac. Yes, there's VersionTracker.com - good effort, guys. But does this mean I have no right to find out for myself the proof of the pudding? I think not!
I submit to you that reverse engineering of Apple OS X is necessary. Without it, there are few avenues in which to explore inter-operability. Safari is a prime example. Where else but under OS X does this web browser exist?
With an encrypted operating system, how can you use the encrypted system to test security? At what stage do you have a definite idea that a security flaw exists in the OS protection itself, OTHER THAN BY CIRCUMVENTING COPYRIGHT? Apple does not make an un-encrypted version of their OS publicly available. Therefore, all research on the OS security must be performed on an unknown quantity to begin with - the TPM inside the Mac. How much "in-the-field" data do we have to draw on for trusting this technology? How can you find its faults without circumventing some or all of its functions? THESE ARE LEGAL PURSUITS.
The fact that a site (Maxxuss) has circumventions for the encryption and hardware-reliance of OS X actually serves the public interest. The censorship of this based on short-sighted commercial concerns is founded, but not solidly - not even solidly in the letter of the DMCA law. The fact there are VALID use cases for OS X in a decrypted, reverse-engineered form means Apple PRESUMES criminal use for each and every application of the circumvention procedure. This is not the case, nor ever will be. But they allege this is so. And because their allegations are not challenged (yet), they feel they can get away with their iron-boot approach to discussions about OS X for non Apple owners.
Apple, the sledgehammer will crash through your screen sooner than you think. The defenders of free speech, scientific research, and investigatory procedures are lined up to break down this wall you wish to maintain around your precious Operating System product.
I guess when your hardware sucks that much, you have to make a big deal about something unique about it, like OS X.
For those of you skipping the cut:
* Apple admits OS X is encrypted.
* Apple persecutes individuals pursuing interoperability and security of OS X.
* Apple censors hyperlinks without regard to fair use of the information they point to.
* Apple ignores legal precedent for reverse engineering of OS X.
* Apple insists you only use their OS on their computers, denying legal investigations of its function on other hardware.
* Apple acknowledges none of the valid and legal circumventions of OS X patching.
* Apple now wants to be the IBM-like monopolist over their software and hardware technologies.