Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms - Page 3

I hope they start selling Nokia phones with apple software on them too.

And when can I get nokia software on my PC?

Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).

It really is that simple.

They got guts... but it will take a lot more than that to win this one. If they are "pre-pared" who is backing them? Apple just got th top HP attorney, and a pretty big increase in sales. Many court cases don't even need to be one by a verdict, economies of scale and bleeding a defense dry usually does the trick.

Thunk Different.

And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.

Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?

How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.

agreed!

What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.

I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.

Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.

I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.

If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.

Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.

I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.

Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?

You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:

"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.

Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.

Lots of snippy people today.
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.

Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.

Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.

When you buy a copy of software (or music or movies), you DO NOT own it. You've purchased a license to use it and that license comes with terms of usage.

There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.

Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.

Many are getting confused here regarding monopoly.

Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.

The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"

Has anyone notice that according to Google earth psystar is Located on a residential adress i guess it's time to start calling your credit card company, just go to google maps & click on 10645 sw 112 st miami fl 33176 satellite view

No you don not. You simply have a license to use that OS in accordance with that license

It really is. But yet some people can't understand it. I almost feel like some people are intentionally ignoring the facts and just believing whatever supports their position.


They're probably fine with selling the box. The problem is telling people they can install OSX, and providing the osx86 hacks that enable the installation. And especially pre-installing it for people - it's one thing for individuals to violate the EULA in their own homes, another for a company to do it on a grand scale.

Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.

The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.

I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.

That's your problem right there.

Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.

You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.

Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.


That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.

I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.

Okay, you need to learn the meaning of the word brand. Here are a couple of definitions for you:

"A name or symbol used to identify the source of goods or services, and to differentiate them from those of others. Branding protects a seller's products against those marketed by competitors and imitators and helps consumers identify the quality, consistency, and imagery of a preferred source."

or

"A unique and identifiable symbol, association, name or trademark which serves to differentiate competing products or services. Both a physical and emotional trigger to create a relationship between consumers and the product/service."

The Mac is a brand that Apple uses to distinguish it's computers from those of the rest of the market, a market in which it competes. Saying the Apple Macintosh is the same as saying Dell Dimension or Sony Vaio.

Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Sony has a monopoly on Vaios. It's a retarded statement! Just because a Mac is a more unique computer than a Vaio is doesn't change anything. A Mac is a part of a greater industry - personal computers. Macs are not an industry in itself.

I truly hope you understand that. If not, you're really more dense than I originally thought.

Yes, those examples are trademarks. And they provide exclusive rights to use of that brand, provided by trademark law. But those aren't called "monopoly" rights.

The Operating System / Computer market isn't different just because it's more complicated. A monopoly is defined as control of a commodity. A brand is NOT a commodity, it's one piece of the pie for that given commodity.

Coke has part of the soda commodity pie. Apple has part of the computer commodity pie. Honda has part of the automotive commodity pie. None have a monopoly of any kind.

And please give an example of a product that wouldn't be a monopoly under your definition?

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

The given type of product is a computer.
And there's no question that apple has competition, all the other computers for sale. So by YOUR definition, apple is not a monopoly.

Okay. Yes you did. However, you clearly do not understand what it means. The definition you posted:

"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

I've bolded the section you are ignoring or misunderstanding. The market in this case is personal computers, NOT MACs. Because a Mac is part of Apple's brand, it cannot be the industry/market. There is no Honda industry, no XBox industry, no Vaio industry... and there is not Mac industry. There are however, automobile, game console and personal computer industries.

You are missing a huge distinction here.

Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.

I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.

Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...

I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.

Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?

You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...

And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)

Really, why can't you answer that simple question?

Also, although I am a very happy Apple user and have introduced them into the company I work, as the purchaser of hardware and software for the company I am beholden to Apple for all Hardware for the software I have purchased.

As far as windows computers I've switched between Dell, HP and even Gateway in the last few years. The software purchased runs on all. If I choose not to run Apple Hardware now I will be out thousands of dollars of Mac OSX specific software that runs nowhere else but on Apple Hardware.

In addition based on the Windows Licence I can run Windows on the Apple hardware in emulation,or what ever. I cannot run the Mac OS on any other computer system natively or in emulation.

Again, this is where you are completely mistaken.

There is no Mac OS (OSX) market, PERIOD.

There is a computer operating system market. Competing products are OSX, Windows, Unix, Linux, etc. You can install any operating system on a Mac that you want, however, the Mac OS is made for the Mac (duh!). Apple chooses not to make their OS available for any other computer other than their own. If anything, this limits their market when compared to other options out there.

Many, many companies would like a piece of what market? The Mac Market? There is none. There is only a computer market. The OSX market? There is none. There is only an OS market. Why? Because a Mac and OSX are brands that belong to Apple and therefore cannot be markets in their own right. There are competing products to both Macs and OSX, products that have the same or similar functions as both of these products. Just because they're not as good as Apple's proprietary branded products is not Apple's fault.

What are you saying? Let's pretend you're a computer programmer who developed some application that does what other applications do, but just in a much more productive way. You brand it and put it out to market. Problem is, it only works on PCs (not Macs). Someone says you've got a monopoly on your product and tries to sue you for not making a Mac version. Where do you stand on this issue? You own this product and have the right to develop it however you want. If you don't want to make a Mac version, you don't have to. Nobody has the right to force you to port it over to Mac.

One thing I stated above that would be incorrect would be the assumption that it is possible to have a monopoly on your own product. It isn't. Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs and OSX is simply wrong. Ownership of a product excludes the possibility of a monopoly. The term monopoly doesn't even apply. When you own something, it is yours and yours to do with as you please. When you have a monopoly, you are influencing an entire industry you do NOT own and do not have any rights to (other than the right to compete in that industry).

Apple owns Mac. Therefore the term monopoly isn't applicable.
Apple doesn't own the computing industry and clearly, Apple doesn't have a monopoly there.

LOL! I think you're just as annoyed as I am!

Tink is just not getting it, is s(he)? How many times do we both need to say the same thing for it to sink in?

I suspect we are dealing with actual intellectual deficiencies here.

I think it's just stubbornness and a refusal to accept the facts.

He/she is convinced it must be a monopoly, therefore nothing will ever convince him/her otherwise.

And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and buy purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.

By saying that it's wrong for Apple has a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.

Sorry, it just is.

And that is Apple's fault? You knew what the rules of the game were when you entered into it. Now that you've committed yourself to the platform, you don't like the rules and want to change them. That's fine. However, Apple doesn't owe you anything and by purchasing their hardware/software, you entered into a legal agreement regarding how you will use their software. You might not like it but you agreed to it and therefore have to live with it.

By saying that it's wrong for Apple to have a monopoly on Apple products and therefore, their terms of use should be challenged is a really stupid argument.

Sorry, it just is.

It's preaty simple to me. I think your making things really convoluted. I'm not talking about any other companies, brands, industries, cars, drinks or hamburgers, just the Mac OS market. I'm sorry that I wont be able to answer your question with the answer you would like. I've tried my best. You could try a patent and trademark attorney who maybe better at explaining this.

I've got to get back to work,.


-tink

What the F#@^! How did you read anything I wrote and get that.

I don't think that a monopoly is a bad thing. It's working out fine for Apple right now and I don't think they are doing anything wrong.

I love Apple hardware and software and I have been a shareholder for over a decade.
I have always owned macs and have since the 80's. I have many many friends who work for the mother ship since system 7 and I too may work there someday.

I plan on switching over more of our hardware to the Mac as soon as it's feasible.

but.... Apple is a Monopoly.

LOL! Word.

Whew! What a relief. I was about to suggest we all chip in a few bucks each
so you can swap out your Mac equipment for new PCs.

I spoke too soon. AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.


All the stuff about monopolies is just taking up space and is just so much cr_p. This is about what users want. Booga and Minderbinder have the right idea.

I don't have enough money to buy Rolls-Royce. So, Rolls-Royce should is monopoly and should be sued because they don't allow Kia to use their engines in their cars hence making me afford one.

I really cannot afford to buy a PS3. So, Sony is having a monopoly over their PS3 OS. They should allow cheap Chines hardware to run PS3 OS so I can play PS3 games and watch Blue-Ray movies.

What else? Apple have monopoly over their AppleTV software? iPhone? iPod?

Grow up..

Life is full of disappointment. If you cannot afford a Mac then get a cheap Windows or Linux PC.

OK. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the electricity to run their computer or the Internet used to surf it. Does that make the car analogy work better? Another one is you can use genuine Honda parts or third party stuff; RAM in the computer would be a good example of this.

Oh, wait, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on what type of computer you can run Word, Excel or PowerPoint either! Microsoft decides this by not allowing these applications to run on Linux (if we use the operating-system-as-road analogy) and we already know just how weak "monopoly" laws are about this... Microsoft is still doing what they do best.

OS X the road or the fuel?
OS X is more of a transportation device... like a car!

Never try to force the Windows paradigm on Mac OS X, where game console operating systems apply more appropriately. Hey, don't most game consoles now use those Cell processor (that are PowerPC derivative)? Guess they will all run each other's games right after PsyStar wins the eventual court action.

Nope, I'm making things simple as can be.

You can have a monopoly on computers, or sodas, or cars.

You can't have a monopoly on Macs or Coke or Hondas.

I don't see how that could possibly be any simpler.

The fact is, you have made up your own twisted definition of monopoly. Aside from the fact that you're wrong, the fact that your definition makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly just shows that your interpretation makes no sense (unless you are OK with the notion that every company has a monopoly, which I doubt).

In fact, you haven't answered my question at all, you haven't even tried. And I'm not sure how to interpret your unwillingness to do so other than an admission that you're wrong.

I know you will never change your mind regardless of how wrong you are proved, if it takes you going away to put an end to this, that's fine with me. It's a shame this thread got derailed by someone sticking stubbornly to misinformation.

Really, it's just an excuse for whining that you can't get a cheaper mac.

They should call it a BigMac!

Although there has already been some rejoinder to this comment, and in that Minderbinder and Canucklehead have given excellent examples, they still haven't explained exactly where your reasoning is faulty.

You are making what is called a Category Mistake. You are confusing two different categories as being the same thing when they are not.

To use an example myself; a good friend of mine comes to visit me from out of state, and during his visit I offer to show him the university where I teach and so I take him and show him around. I introduce him to my colleagues and coworkers, I buy him lunch at the faculty club, I show him the interesting architecture of the buildings on campus, etc. At the end of the day, my friend says "You've introduced me to all these nice people, you've shown me some fascinating architecture, but you still haven't shown me the University!"

My friend is making a category mistake; he is assuming there is some thing that exists in and of itself separate from all the buildings and people that is "the university". He is not understanding that all of the buildings and people comprise the university.

You are making the same error in reasoning; you are assuming that Apple products are a a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the industry involved with producing and selling computer products.

To reiterate what both Minderbinder and Canucklehead have already said; there is not Mac (or OS X) market; Macintosh computers are one product that is part of a larger entity that is the computer market.

I suspect that at this point, if you won't accept this, there are three reasons;
1) You're being deliberately perverse to annoy and irritate people.
2) You're refusing to change your position because you have some emotional or psychological investment and admitting you're wrong would create so much cognitive dissonance for you your brain would melt, or you'd have an emotional breakdown.
3) You're just too dense to see plain logic when it's staring you in the face.

Regardless; you are mistaken and the entire basis of your argument is false, even if you think you're right. Lots of people think the world is flat, but that doesn't make them right, and it doesn't make the world flat.

Please, people. Quit using "brand" and "monopoly" in the same sentence. It just does not work.

Why does Steve Jobs still bother trying to increase the Mac's market share, when he already has 100% of the Mac market??