Pystar is alleging that Apple is a monopoly, according to BetaNews.com, in their latest counter complaint in the lawsuit recently launched against them.
Does anyone remember when Microsoft sued MP3.com founded for coming out with a linux distribution called Lindows? The judge questioned the validity of Microsoft's Windows trademark, and so Microsoft jumped to quickly end the trial as fast as possible, in turn paying dearly to get Lindows changed to Linspire.
In Apple's case, I still feel that the stakes are higher. I blogged about the licensing issues over at Informed Licensing, and will again raise this issue that Apple's underlying operating system is released under an open source license. In light of that fact, the claim of copyright infringement (Pystar didn't illegally copy any of their software), or breach of the end-user's-license-agreement might not be so clear cut.
The question boils down to: "Can a software license restrict the licensee to only install the software upon branded hardware?" I'm not so sure - I think they'd be required to say that only their machines are supported, but the hardware restrictions may go too far.
UPDATE: I think I read recently that PyStar's counterclaim against Apple was thrown out - that's gotta hurt.