Originally Posted by piot
Yes I am. And If you could only understand the salient facts, that you yourself keep repeating, you might even agree with me!
Here I rewrote the sentence for you ".... just because the market share isn't big enough to ACTUALLY BE BREAKING THE LAW."
You check it out! Because you don't appear to have understood it. It's not the best explanation of tying that I have seen, but it will do. Look at the first paragraph... the bookstore example.... and here's another....
Your local bookstore, Acme Books, is selling the latest 'Harry Potter' book.
However, they will only sell it to you if you ALSO buy a copy of "A History of Dental Decay"
That is tying!
You, and everyone else, go and buy the Harry Potter from any one of a hundred other bookshops.
Acme Books has done nothing wrong.. or illegal. Stupid, maybe ... but not illegal.
Acme Books does not have sufficient market power
But what if Acme Books owned ALL the bookshops?
What if you couldn't buy 'Harry Potter' anywhere else?
Can you see the difference Ottway?
thanks for your patronising response and your superb example...
i knew it was going to be a good one when you called your bookstore "acme"
if you read any law article regarding Apple and tying (just type it into google)
you'll see that apple have used this model on a number of their products
in fact all their prominent products
ipods / itunes (legal proceedings underway)
iphone (legal proceedings finished against apple in some countries)
and now mac / OS (legal proceedings ongoing
so it appears that Apple wants to use this business model for most things
whether or not their model is currently
legal remains to be seen
as I stated before Psystar still has until December 8th to reply
regardless of the "salient" facts as market share increases, this business model will become less and less acceptable
that it is currently 'legal' (since it hasn't yet been declared illegal by a court) or that Psystar's claim has been initially rejected is not really the point
(although you can make it your point if you only want to state the obvious)
have a good read of this article
and you might understand why Psystar 'lost' their first round
claiming that Mac OS is a single product market
was a risky tactic, which obviously didn't work that judge
however, have no doubt that as Apple's market share increases more challenges will arise and most likely stick
you do understand that i'm not declaring apple's OS business model currently
illegal right? - i agree that it's for a court to decide the legality of Apple's business models
i am saying that their current business model is unsuitable for significant market share growth (ie >30%)
Apple have already lost their battles in some countries over both the iphone (now sold without contract)
and iTunes (now selling songs without DRM)
the other things waiting in the wings are their professional software tools such as Logic and Final Cut
once that market share grows significantly (and I have no idea what the figures currently are)
expect some legal issues to come out - because this software can only be currently used on Apple hardware