But of course you see the double standard here. Microsoft wanted to control the 'whole experience' by tying in IE with Windows, in order to create a system that integrates the OS with web use for what they determined to be a better experience. And they were forced to break it up. They were told they didn't have the right to control the whole experience.
That's why I find this to be a strange double standard. Apple gets to control the whole experience of hardware and OS, and isn't forced to open their system up to competition, where MS, just because they're bigger, is forced to.
So you see, 'your ideal of any kind of technology' -- this whole integrated system -- was seen as anti-competitive in both the U.S. and the E.U. Apple has just flown under the radar since they're relatively smaller. But I don't think their anti-competitive practices will last for long.
Only a legal monopoly is forced to have a certain amount of openness. That's law pretty much everywhere. There's a good reason for those laws. Apple has about 8.7% of the market in the US, and about 4% worldwide. They don't approach any definition of size that would qualify for being treated the way MS is.
I did mean it the way I wrote it, in the context of where I wrote it. I'm not sure I see your point. I'm sure I don't, actually.
Then go back and read that entire paragraph again. You said that EULA mattered to individuals, but not to commercial interests.
If I misunderstood what you wrote, then please clear that up.
Quote:
It seems to me that the major misunderstanding is that the EULA is somehow central to this case.
It is a central issue. If there was no copyright on an OS, OS X in particular here, then none of this would have come up. Psystar, and no doubt hundreds of companys for years would have already been making clones of Apple's products. Apple would have no power to prevent that. They would have no control over the products distribution at all.
Quote:
We could all probably think of dozens if not hundreds of patented or copyrighted products that are made up of nonproprietary parts, all of which would we could buy individually. Does that give us the right to assemble those parts and sell the product? No, because that combination of parts is copyrighted or patented. Likewise, a Mac is a combination of the hardware and the OS. Neither by itself is functionally a Mac. The pervasive fallacy is that because it's possible to buy these parts individually, that it is somehow legal to combine them and sell the functional result -- a Macintosh. Completely irrespective of what the license agreement says or doesn't say, you can't do that.
I understand what you're saying, but it's only partially true.
Unless Apple buys parts that are made for them alone, with an agreement from another manufacturer, then anyone can buy the same parts Apple does, and make an exact copy of it.
But Apple has copyrights on their mobos as well, so it's not that simple.
But when I had my manufacturing company, I designed equipment any way I, or the rest of my engineers though necessary, and bought whatever parts we thought would work best. There are no restrictions on how the parts you buy are used. That's a true first sale industry.
If you're saying that another company can't copy Apple's "dress", the way the product looks, that's true, though some products come awful close. Sometimes Apple chooses to sue, and sometimes not.
But, another company can make another computer functionally equivalent to a Mac, and do it legally. Apple has no control over that.
It's the final step of installing Apple OS that makes it a Mac.
Hackintoshes are getting better all the time. They violate the EULA, but Apple can't prevent those hardware manufactures from making machines that duplicate the Mac's functions so well that OS X will install as a native OS.
I would imagine that even if Psystar loses this case cold, and the other company in California that's just been announced, and the one in Russia are all stopped, that in a year or so, some company will be smart enough to make a machine that will allow the simple, and complete install of OS X without any screwing around.
If that company is smart enough to just sell their machines with Linux, and not discuss OS X at all, they will survive. As long as they do nothing to encourage customers to install OS X, they can't be held responsible for what happens later, just as Hp, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc. aren't held responsible when people make a Hachintosh out of their most compatible machines.
Apple would have a hard time proving that they are violating anything Apple.
I am not attempting to give a prediction as to the outcome of the lawsuit. If I had to, I'd say Psystar will lose. Right now, Apple is legally right in suing Psystar. I believe Psystar is right, not legally, but morally (and therefore should be right legally, sadly they are not).
As for the industry for Mac clones, the only reason there isn't one is because everyone's afraid of Apple's legal team in the first place :P If Psystar should win this, there will be an "industry" overnight. IMHO.
I don't see how you can go from legally wrong to morally right here.
Are you saying that just because some people might want a cheaper Mac, any company that might illegally provide one is morally correct?
That's a pretty twisted argument.
You could make that argument with any product at any time. It wouldn't be right no matter where you applied it.
There's also the theory of "first refusal". That is, you chose to not buy that product when it is presented to you.
Didn't your mom teach you that you had to work for what you wanted, and that if you couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have it?
I don't understand why some people feel that if they can't afford something they deserve it anyway. Or if they don't want to pay the price they should deserve it anyway.
I don't see how you can go from legally wrong to morally right here.
Are you saying that just because some people might want a cheaper Mac, any company that might illegally provide one is morally correct?
That's a pretty twisted argument.
You could make that argument with any product at any time. It wouldn't be right no matter where you applied it.
There's also the theory of "first refusal". That is, you chose to not buy that product when it is presented to you.
Didn't your mom teach you that you had to work for what you wanted, and that if you couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have it?
I don't understand why some people feel that if they can't afford something they deserve it anyway. Or if they don't want to pay the price they should deserve it anyway.
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning The only thing I've said about price is that it's evidence of Apple's monopoly, that Apple is able to charge a premium on their hardware, because there's no other legal hardware out there capable of running OS X. I have never bought a Mac myself, and never will, at least not from Apple as it is today. I prefer building my own PCs anyways
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something? It has its place, but it's not all-important. Not that I think it should be up to the individual to say "I deserve this couch" and steal it, of course.
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning The only thing I've said about price is that it's evidence of Apple's monopoly, that Apple is able to charge a premium on their hardware, because there's no other legal hardware out there capable of running OS X. I have never bought a Mac myself, and never will, at least not from Apple as it is today. I prefer building my own PCs anyways
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something? It has its place, but it's not all-important. Not that I think it should be up to the individual to say "I deserve this couch" and steal it, of course.
You keep incorrectly using the word monopoly. You can't make up your own use for a word.
And, yes, it is your reasoning. It's what you've been stating.
What makes you think that you should get what you can't afford, or don't want to pay for? Why are you so special? You are talking about stealing, even you don't seem to understand that.
You're saying that everyone should get the same pay and benefits no matter what they do (or don't do)? Because that would be the same thing as saying that if you can't afford something you should get it anyway.
Then go back and read that entire paragraph again. You said that EULA mattered to individuals, but not to commercial interests.
If I misunderstood what you wrote, then please clear that up.
I see. My point was that the EULA is meant to control non-trade use (whether it can in reality is debatable, which is why companies are not anxious to have their EULAs tested in court). But once someone attempts to trade on someone else's IP (make product, sell it), then that's a separate issue for which the EULA doesn't need to be in play. That would a violation of basic IP protections, EULA or no EULA. Clearer?
Quote:
It is a central issue. If there was no copyright on an OS, OS X in particular here, then none of this would have come up. Psystar, and no doubt hundreds of companys for years would have already been making clones of Apple's products. Apple would have no power to prevent that. They would have no control over the products distribution at all.
I'm not so sure that's true. First, the EULA and the copyright are two different animals. Second, as I pointed out earlier, proprietary products can and often are made up of combinations of nonproprietary pieces. The fact that the pieces are not themselves patented or copyrighted does not mean that the whole cannot be. The product Apple is trying to protect here is the Mac. It doesn't really matter how many pieces of the Mac are or are not protected IP, because the thing as a whole is protected.
I think this is a key point, if only because so many people have the discombobulated view that if they can obtain the parts for a proprietary product that they have the right manufacture and sell that product. In this case, "we bought copies of OSX, now we have the right to make and sell Macintosh computers." This is Psystar's twisted logic. No go.
Quote:
But, another company can make another computer functionally equivalent to a Mac, and do it legally. Apple has no control over that.
ONLY if it's reverse-engineered, within the limited tolerance of legal reverse engineering. As you pointed out, even a perfectly reverse-engineered Mac would almost certainly violate Apple's trade dress, over which they would sue. Now try to imagine the difficulty of duplicating the functionalities which define a Mac at all, let alone without violating trade dress. If it could be done, it probably would have been done by now. Either way, we know that this is not what Psystar is attempting to do.
You keep incorrectly using the word monopoly. You can't make up your own use for a word.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
What makes you think that you should get what you can't afford, or don't want to pay for? Why are you so special? You are talking about stealing, even you don't seem to understand that.
You're saying that everyone should get the same pay and benefits no matter what they do (or don't do)? Because that would be the same thing as saying that if you can't afford something you should get it anyway.
What?? Where are you getting this? And where is the theft? I haven't seen any discussion of theft in this entire article. "Stealing" "intellectual property" (again, see here, here, and here) is impossible, if that is what you mean, because intellectual property is a misnomer. There is no such thing as _owning_ a non-physical concept. There are certain rights granted to creators of works for limited periods in order to boost the production of said works -- copyright, trademarks, and patents. This is _not_ the same as ownership, although the term intellectual property is used to help people think that way.
Furthermore, I believe very strongly that the creators of works which I use and find value in should receive compensation, usually monetary. I reject that they have the right to demand such compensation, not that they should receive such compensation. And again, I am applying none of this to Apple (yet). It is unrealistic to ask a company to completely switch track from the life of trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, software patents, etc. etc... I just ask that Apple be somewhat less over-the-top about their restrictions for now.
As I explained before, Apple has a monopoly over OS X -capable hardware. They have market power there.
Yes and many armchair lawyers have explained it before you did. And Psystar's original lawyers used it as a defense. And the Judge tossed it. So why do you keep repeating it? It's not relevant.
Quote:
This is evident by the fact that they inflate prices compared to equivalent PC hardware (usually!), when their OS costs less than most Windows variants.
Most preposterous 'evidence' of monopoly I have ever heard. Have you seen the price of Sony computers? They tend to be more expensive than their competitors. I suppose that means that they are a monopoly too? Ridiculous!
Quote:
Apple hasn't used this strategy for thirty years, and they are growing right now.
Apart from Apple's own cloning fiasco in the 90s, they have always restricted their OS to their own hardware. Unless we now have to use your new definition of the word "hasn't".
Quote:
They do fly under the radar -- Apple is much more vertically integrated and monopolistic than MS, MS is just bigger
Perhaps if we could make up a fictitious radar, we could catch your fictitious monopoly.
This isn't really about morality like you claim. (Still no response to my earlier post on that argument!) This is about your own quasi political ideology.
There is no point to continue trying to explain copyright law to those here who do not respect that law. There is no use trying to get across a rational argument to someone who rationalizes their unethical behavior with unsupported or delusional facts.
It's akin to telling someone who believes that Aliens abducted Elvis, that he really died from an drug overdose and he won't be brought back. Or like telling a priest there is no god.
I wish for the days at CompuServe where they at least had an "ignore this individual" button for the trolls, kids, and delusional.
But of course you see the double standard here. Microsoft wanted to control the 'whole experience' by tying in IE with Windows, in order to create a system that integrates the OS with web use for what they determined to be a better experience. And they were forced to break it up. They were told they didn't have the right to control the whole experience.
That's why I find this to be a strange double standard. Apple gets to control the whole experience of hardware and OS, and isn't forced to open their system up to competition, where MS, just because they're bigger, is forced to.
So you see, 'your ideal of any kind of technology' -- this whole integrated system -- was seen as anti-competitive in both the U.S. and the E.U. Apple has just flown under the radar since they're relatively smaller. But I don't think their anti-competitive practices will last for long.
You (and others) still don't get it. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. At the time they did not have a monopoly in the browser market. They were using their monopoly in the OS market to gain control of another market. The browser market.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the computer hardware market. Apple do not have a monopoly in the OS market. Apple can not leverage their market share in one market to gain control of another.
Apple only has a "monopoly" when you combine their OSX with their computer hardware to sell a Mac. But a Mac is not a "market" in itself. That's like saying that Windows and IE is a "market" and Microsoft also has a "monopoly" in that. Or that a Cadillac with On Star is a "monopoly" market.
Apple computer hardware is open. Apple does not limit you to OSX. Apple will not stop you from writing an OS that will run on their hardware.
Microsoft OS is suppose to be open to third party software to begin with. They weren't forced to open it up. Running third party software is what's their OS is suppose to do. Third parties pays Microsoft a development software license for just that purpose. If Microsoft wanted to, they could limit their OS to run only their software. But who in the name of hell would install an OS that only ran programs made by the OS maker? Therefore Microsoft business model is to open up their OS to third parties.
Microsoft was told that they couldn't use thier OS monopoly to hinder other third party software that competed with their's.
OSX belongs to Apple and only runs on their hardware (Which by itself is not a monopoly.). IE belongs to Microsoft and only runs in their OS (Which is a monopoly by itself.). You can not force Apple to write OSX so that it can run on a Dell or HP. Just like you can't force Microsoft to write IE to run in OSX or Linux. Or Microsoft to port Halo3 to the PlayStation. Or Apple to write iLife for Windows. Or Adobe to write a Linux version of Photoshop. The Copyright Laws give all software owner the right to have a "monopoly" with their own software. And full control on how their software can be used.
Yes and many armchair lawyers have explained it before you did. And Psystar's original lawyers used it as a defense. And the Judge tossed it. So why do you keep repeating it? It's not relevant.
I disagree with said judge. Because a judge ruled it does not necessarily make it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Most preposterous 'evidence' of monopoly I have ever heard. Have you seen the price of Sony computers? They tend to be more expensive than their competitors. I suppose that means that they are a monopoly too? Ridiculous!
This must be taken into consideration with other factors... Sony makes very high-quality PCs compared to a lot of their competitors. I agree, Apple also makes very high-quality hardware (usually) -- but there is absolutely no one legally making hardware that can run OS X targeting the budget crowd (as compared to Apple hardware pricing), because Apple decrees it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Apart from Apple's own cloning fiasco in the 90s, they have always restricted their OS to their own hardware. Unless we now have to use your new definition of the word "hasn't".
They were much more lax about clones even before that, and I'm not just talking about clones, I'm talking about overall policy of vertical integration. And it appears you cannot debate using only logic... Keep your discussion to the actual subject matter, please. I have no interest in being the only one actually interested in a true debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Perhaps if we could make up a fictitious radar, we could catch your fictitious monopoly.
Same as above. Being a smart-ass does not make you right, it makes you a smart-ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
This isn't really about morality like you claim. (Still no response to my earlier post on that argument!) This is about your own quasi political ideology.
I'm making comments to a news article, where I focus on morality. Morality is in everything. If you want to talk about a different aspect, do so, but stop trying to argue with me, who is talking about something different. If you want to lable my efforts as something they're not... well, sorry, but I don't much care. In the comments thread of a news article, the article is up for debate -- not the commenter.
I won't reply to any further smearing or such, I came here for a debate. Not a flame war.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the computer hardware market. Apple do not have a monopoly in the OS market. Apple can not leverage their market share in one market to gain control of another.
I disagree here. The sole (or nearly sole) purpose of hardware is to run software. Correct? At the lowest level, an OS. And an OS, the *true* OS part of it (low-level APIs (Carbon and Cocoa in OS X's case), kernel, very basic userland) simply functions as a platform for other software on top of it.
I argue that in the case of products whose nearly-sole purpose is to serve as a platform for other products, they have created new "markets", or segments. Think about it. Windows is annoying not just because businesses, etc. demand it in many cases, it has become a "standard" by virtue of massive market share (traditional monopoly), but because applications written for Windows are in general non-portable to other platforms, like Mac and GNU/Linux. There is, effectively, a "market" for software that can run on Windows, that is quite separate from the market for OS X -compatible software. A customer will see it as a necessity that the software run on one particular platform.
I don't think I phrased the above too well... I shall think it over and perhaps write something a bit more organized, etc. Thanks for hearing me out.
So, Psystar is not free to create hardware capable of running OS X and sell it, because Apple doesn't like it when they do that (because Apple likes charging a premium). Correct? Bullcrap. If MS made a hardware division and told all other PC makers they couldn't resell PCs with Windows anymore, they'd be attacked. Why? Because they are a monopoly in the OS segment. I think of Apple as having a monopoly in a separate segment -- the hardware segment which can run OS X. And because of that monopoly, there is inflation of price, which Psystar is cutting away in their offering. There is a demand for OS X -capable hardware, but Apple is the sole maker of such hardware (besides Psystar), and therefore controls the price of it. Besides, this reinforces what I have believed for a long time -- Microsoft may be the monopoly, but Apple is _far_ more monopolistic. I hope to "god" that Apple does not achieve a majority share in the general OS segment (competing with Microsoft is very good though, and drives them to improve, which they do only when forced, like all public companies).
Psystar is free to create hardware that is capable of running OSX. If they can find all the right parts. Which shouldn't be a problem if a Mac is made from the same parts as a PC. (Like most of those don't know any better people seems to think.) Right? They could also pay to reverse engineer any parts that were specially made for Apple. Which would drive up the cost of their hardware. No one is telling Psystar they can't sell computer hardware that runs OSX.
What Psystar can not do is to sell their hardware with OSX pre-installed. Regardless if they didn't have to "hack" their purchased retail copy of OSX to get it to install. They need permission from Apple to transfer ownership of that installed copy of OSX. Plus they can't legally install OSX on to their hardware from the retail copy of OSX that Apple now sells. Those copies are licensed to be install only on a "Mac". And a "Mac" is a computer sold by Apple that orginally had an Apple OS on it. A "Mac" is not just the hardware that runs OSX. It's the combination of both Apple OS and hardware.
And Apple don't "inflate" their hardware prices any more than Dell, HP or Acer. Apple GROSS margin for ALL products is about 35%. They do not break down to individual product lines. 35% GROSS margin means the average margin for ALL products sold is 35%. IT DOES NOT mean the average margin for each product sold is 35%. It is common knowledge that the iPod and iPhone has margins in the high 40% to low 50% range. iPods and iPhones accounts for nearly 40% of all revenues. And since Apple GROSS margin for ALL products sold comes in at 35%, this means that their Mac revenue got to be closer to 2o% to 25% margins. Mac revenue accounts for nearly 60% of total revenues. So if Macs were marked up much more than 25%, Apple Gross margin would be closer to 40%. And if Macs had a margin of 35%, like many uninformed thinks, Apple GROSS margin for ALL products would easily over 45%.
Dell gross margin for their computers (Dell do break down their margins for individual product lines) is about 17%. But over half of Dells revenue for computers comes from the under $1000 hardware. Which is known to have margins in the 10% and under range. This means that in order for Dell to get to 17% gross margin, their other hardware must also have margins at about the 20 to 25% range.
So it safe to assume that Dell makes about the same margin on their $1500+ hardware as Apple does on their's. The main difference is that Apple don't dilute their margins selling a ton of low margin cheap hardware. Not only that, Dell sells more hardware in a quarter than Apple does in a year. Dell can get better prices for the parts they need to make their hardware. And they have very little R&D expense. So it's not that Apple "inflate" their Mac prices more than Dell. It's just that it cost Apple more to make a Mac than it does Dell to make a similarily spec Dell. But both will make about the same 20 to 25% margin. I'm willing to bet that Dell makes over 30% margin on their AlienWare hardware.
I disagree here. The sole (or nearly sole) purpose of hardware is to run software. Correct? At the lowest level, an OS. And an OS, the *true* OS part of it (low-level APIs (Carbon and Cocoa in OS X's case), kernel, very basic userland) simply functions as a platform for other software on top of it.
I argue that in the case of products whose nearly-sole purpose is to serve as a platform for other products, they have created new "markets", or segments. Think about it. Windows is annoying not just because businesses, etc. demand it in many cases, it has become a "standard" by virtue of massive market share (traditional monopoly), but because applications written for Windows are in general non-portable to other platforms, like Mac and GNU/Linux. There is, effectively, a "market" for software that can run on Windows, that is quite separate from the market for OS X -compatible software. A customer will see it as a necessity that the software run on one particular platform.
I don't think I phrased the above too well... I shall think it over and perhaps write something a bit more organized, etc. Thanks for hearing me out.
People don't buy a computer to run just an OS. They buy a computer to run other apps. Therefore, market wise, a Mac (with OSX) is no different than a PC (with Windows). They are both in the same market. So long as there are comparable software on both paltforms.
If you want to claim that a Mac is a separate market because it's both hardware and OS. Then so is a Dell, Sony and HP. It shouldn't make a difference that Dell, Sony and HP don't own or control the OS in their hardware.
Take away OSX from a Mac and install Windows (or Linux). Do you still have a Mac? Technically, no. If you buy software that states it's the "Mac" version. It will not run on your Apple hardware with Windows (or Linux) installed. You have to reinstall (or boot to) OSX before that "Mac" version software recognizes that it's a "Mac".
You can't create a separate market just because one platform is perceived to be better or different than another. So long as there are enough software on each platform so that they can perform the same basic functions that the majority of the consumers needs, a Mac is no different than a Dell, HP or Sony. All are just hardware with an installed OS to run software.
A BMW looks, performs and drive better than a Kia, Honda, Toyota, and Saturn. Does than mean that a BMW should be placed in a market of it's own? And since they would have a monopoly in that market, should they be forced to supply BMW engines to Kia, Honda, Toyota, and Saturn. All autos are in the same market regardless of how different they are. There is no SUV market, sport car market, cars with BMW engines market, mini-van market, Toyota market, Saturn market, ect. All autos do the same basic function. No matter how better one looks, performs or drives when compared to another. However, there is a market for SUV, sports cars, cars with BMW engine, mini-van, Toyota, Saturn, etc.. And just because BMW is the only company selling cars with BMW engines don't make them a monopoly.
Now if BMW started selling their engines so that other makers can start making autos with BMW engines. And 80% of the autos sold has a BMW engines. Then we can start talking monopoly.
I see. My point was that the EULA is meant to control non-trade use (whether it can in reality is debatable, which is why companies are not anxious to have their EULAs tested in court). But once someone attempts to trade on someone else's IP (make product, sell it), then that's a separate issue for which the EULA doesn't need to be in play. That would a violation of basic IP protections, EULA or no EULA. Clearer?
Ok, I understand your position better. We still have some disagreements, but I think we're closer than before.
Quote:
I'm not so sure that's true. First, the EULA and the copyright are two different animals. Second, as I pointed out earlier, proprietary products can and often are made up of combinations of nonproprietary pieces. The fact that the pieces are not themselves patented or copyrighted does not mean that the whole cannot be. The product Apple is trying to protect here is the Mac. It doesn't really matter how many pieces of the Mac are or are not protected IP, because the thing as a whole is protected.
The difference between a EULA and copyright holder rights is that the EULA generally goes beyond those rights in the form of a contract. So that's where the difference lies.
It begins with the rights granted the copyright holder, and then extends them.
The problem is that even if the EULA isn't allowed, it still can't break the copyright holders right to control distribution. That's an important point here.
Quote:
I think this is a key point, if only because so many people have the discombobulated view that if they can obtain the parts for a proprietary product that they have the right manufacture and sell that product. In this case, "we bought copies of OSX, now we have the right to make and sell Macintosh computers." This is Psystar's twisted logic. No go.
ONLY if it's reverse-engineered, within the limited tolerance of legal reverse engineering. As you pointed out, even a perfectly reverse-engineered Mac would almost certainly violate Apple's trade dress, over which they would sue. Now try to imagine the difficulty of duplicating the functionalities which define a Mac at all, let alone without violating trade dress. If it could be done, it probably would have been done by now. Either way, we know that this is not what Psystar is attempting to do.
I would agree if the parts do something that can't be done otherwise. But is that true with a Mac? Is there something in the computer hardware that precludes this?
The only possibility that I can think of is a modified EFI. There's nothing else in the machine that's not standard.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
LOL. That has got to be the most awesome comment I've read... and when I say awesome, I am using my own, non-dictionary definition where awesome = moronic.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
But you can't base an argument on your incorrect definitions. You may like them, but they're still incorrect.
Quote:
What?? Where are you getting this? And where is the theft? I haven't seen any discussion of theft in this entire article. "Stealing" "intellectual property" (again, see here, here, and here) is impossible, if that is what you mean, because intellectual property is a misnomer. There is no such thing as _owning_ a non-physical concept. There are certain rights granted to creators of works for limited periods in order to boost the production of said works -- copyright, trademarks, and patents. This is _not_ the same as ownership, although the term intellectual property is used to help people think that way.
Your ideas are seriously messed up. You misinterpret things. most people would at least give up when they're wrong. Even when you agree you are, you persist.
Lemley is about as biased as you are about this. He's known for his views which are at odds with most everyone else.
I'm not interested in the "free culture movement" either. Amazingly simplistic ideas.
Why don't you quote some mainstream sources? Don't like them, eh?
Quote:
Furthermore, I believe very strongly that the creators of works which I use and find value in should receive compensation, usually monetary. I reject that they have the right to demand such compensation, not that they should receive such compensation. And again, I am applying none of this to Apple (yet). It is unrealistic to ask a company to completely switch track from the life of trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, software patents, etc. etc... I just ask that Apple be somewhat less over-the-top about their restrictions for now.
Here's one of your main problems. YOU don't have to think that something is of value for someone else to buy it. If you want it, then it has value. If it costs to much, then it doesn't have enough value to you, and you shouldn't get it.
It's like saying that you won't pay a fine because you don't like it. You still have to pay it.
And as I said before, if you don't think something is of value to you, then you aren't being forced to buy it.
You can always buy a $350 computer using Linux or Windows XP.
Comments
But of course you see the double standard here. Microsoft wanted to control the 'whole experience' by tying in IE with Windows, in order to create a system that integrates the OS with web use for what they determined to be a better experience. And they were forced to break it up. They were told they didn't have the right to control the whole experience.
That's why I find this to be a strange double standard. Apple gets to control the whole experience of hardware and OS, and isn't forced to open their system up to competition, where MS, just because they're bigger, is forced to.
So you see, 'your ideal of any kind of technology' -- this whole integrated system -- was seen as anti-competitive in both the U.S. and the E.U. Apple has just flown under the radar since they're relatively smaller. But I don't think their anti-competitive practices will last for long.
Only a legal monopoly is forced to have a certain amount of openness. That's law pretty much everywhere. There's a good reason for those laws. Apple has about 8.7% of the market in the US, and about 4% worldwide. They don't approach any definition of size that would qualify for being treated the way MS is.
If anything, it would be the opposite.
I did mean it the way I wrote it, in the context of where I wrote it. I'm not sure I see your point. I'm sure I don't, actually.
Then go back and read that entire paragraph again. You said that EULA mattered to individuals, but not to commercial interests.
If I misunderstood what you wrote, then please clear that up.
It seems to me that the major misunderstanding is that the EULA is somehow central to this case.
It is a central issue. If there was no copyright on an OS, OS X in particular here, then none of this would have come up. Psystar, and no doubt hundreds of companys for years would have already been making clones of Apple's products. Apple would have no power to prevent that. They would have no control over the products distribution at all.
We could all probably think of dozens if not hundreds of patented or copyrighted products that are made up of nonproprietary parts, all of which would we could buy individually. Does that give us the right to assemble those parts and sell the product? No, because that combination of parts is copyrighted or patented. Likewise, a Mac is a combination of the hardware and the OS. Neither by itself is functionally a Mac. The pervasive fallacy is that because it's possible to buy these parts individually, that it is somehow legal to combine them and sell the functional result -- a Macintosh. Completely irrespective of what the license agreement says or doesn't say, you can't do that.
I understand what you're saying, but it's only partially true.
Unless Apple buys parts that are made for them alone, with an agreement from another manufacturer, then anyone can buy the same parts Apple does, and make an exact copy of it.
But Apple has copyrights on their mobos as well, so it's not that simple.
But when I had my manufacturing company, I designed equipment any way I, or the rest of my engineers though necessary, and bought whatever parts we thought would work best. There are no restrictions on how the parts you buy are used. That's a true first sale industry.
If you're saying that another company can't copy Apple's "dress", the way the product looks, that's true, though some products come awful close. Sometimes Apple chooses to sue, and sometimes not.
But, another company can make another computer functionally equivalent to a Mac, and do it legally. Apple has no control over that.
It's the final step of installing Apple OS that makes it a Mac.
Hackintoshes are getting better all the time. They violate the EULA, but Apple can't prevent those hardware manufactures from making machines that duplicate the Mac's functions so well that OS X will install as a native OS.
If that company is smart enough to just sell their machines with Linux, and not discuss OS X at all, they will survive. As long as they do nothing to encourage customers to install OS X, they can't be held responsible for what happens later, just as Hp, Dell, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc. aren't held responsible when people make a Hachintosh out of their most compatible machines.
Apple would have a hard time proving that they are violating anything Apple.
You are misunderstanding me now
I am not attempting to give a prediction as to the outcome of the lawsuit. If I had to, I'd say Psystar will lose. Right now, Apple is legally right in suing Psystar. I believe Psystar is right, not legally, but morally (and therefore should be right legally, sadly they are not).
As for the industry for Mac clones, the only reason there isn't one is because everyone's afraid of Apple's legal team in the first place :P If Psystar should win this, there will be an "industry" overnight. IMHO.
I don't see how you can go from legally wrong to morally right here.
Are you saying that just because some people might want a cheaper Mac, any company that might illegally provide one is morally correct?
That's a pretty twisted argument.
You could make that argument with any product at any time. It wouldn't be right no matter where you applied it.
There's also the theory of "first refusal". That is, you chose to not buy that product when it is presented to you.
Didn't your mom teach you that you had to work for what you wanted, and that if you couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have it?
I don't understand why some people feel that if they can't afford something they deserve it anyway. Or if they don't want to pay the price they should deserve it anyway.
I don't see how you can go from legally wrong to morally right here.
Are you saying that just because some people might want a cheaper Mac, any company that might illegally provide one is morally correct?
That's a pretty twisted argument.
You could make that argument with any product at any time. It wouldn't be right no matter where you applied it.
There's also the theory of "first refusal". That is, you chose to not buy that product when it is presented to you.
Didn't your mom teach you that you had to work for what you wanted, and that if you couldn't afford it, then you shouldn't have it?
I don't understand why some people feel that if they can't afford something they deserve it anyway. Or if they don't want to pay the price they should deserve it anyway.
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something?
I believe US laws relating to electronics and computers are very seriously messed up, but Psystar is in the moral right. No, that is not my reasoning
And on the "Mom" comment, I must protest. It's unrelated, but since when is price the sole determinant of whether one should or should not have something?
You keep incorrectly using the word monopoly. You can't make up your own use for a word.
And, yes, it is your reasoning. It's what you've been stating.
What makes you think that you should get what you can't afford, or don't want to pay for? Why are you so special? You are talking about stealing, even you don't seem to understand that.
You're saying that everyone should get the same pay and benefits no matter what they do (or don't do)? Because that would be the same thing as saying that if you can't afford something you should get it anyway.
Then go back and read that entire paragraph again. You said that EULA mattered to individuals, but not to commercial interests.
If I misunderstood what you wrote, then please clear that up.
I see. My point was that the EULA is meant to control non-trade use (whether it can in reality is debatable, which is why companies are not anxious to have their EULAs tested in court). But once someone attempts to trade on someone else's IP (make product, sell it), then that's a separate issue for which the EULA doesn't need to be in play. That would a violation of basic IP protections, EULA or no EULA. Clearer?
It is a central issue. If there was no copyright on an OS, OS X in particular here, then none of this would have come up. Psystar, and no doubt hundreds of companys for years would have already been making clones of Apple's products. Apple would have no power to prevent that. They would have no control over the products distribution at all.
I'm not so sure that's true. First, the EULA and the copyright are two different animals. Second, as I pointed out earlier, proprietary products can and often are made up of combinations of nonproprietary pieces. The fact that the pieces are not themselves patented or copyrighted does not mean that the whole cannot be. The product Apple is trying to protect here is the Mac. It doesn't really matter how many pieces of the Mac are or are not protected IP, because the thing as a whole is protected.
I think this is a key point, if only because so many people have the discombobulated view that if they can obtain the parts for a proprietary product that they have the right manufacture and sell that product. In this case, "we bought copies of OSX, now we have the right to make and sell Macintosh computers." This is Psystar's twisted logic. No go.
But, another company can make another computer functionally equivalent to a Mac, and do it legally. Apple has no control over that.
ONLY if it's reverse-engineered, within the limited tolerance of legal reverse engineering. As you pointed out, even a perfectly reverse-engineered Mac would almost certainly violate Apple's trade dress, over which they would sue. Now try to imagine the difficulty of duplicating the functionalities which define a Mac at all, let alone without violating trade dress. If it could be done, it probably would have been done by now. Either way, we know that this is not what Psystar is attempting to do.
You keep incorrectly using the word monopoly. You can't make up your own use for a word.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
What makes you think that you should get what you can't afford, or don't want to pay for? Why are you so special? You are talking about stealing, even you don't seem to understand that.
You're saying that everyone should get the same pay and benefits no matter what they do (or don't do)? Because that would be the same thing as saying that if you can't afford something you should get it anyway.
What?? Where are you getting this? And where is the theft? I haven't seen any discussion of theft in this entire article. "Stealing" "intellectual property" (again, see here, here, and here) is impossible, if that is what you mean, because intellectual property is a misnomer. There is no such thing as _owning_ a non-physical concept. There are certain rights granted to creators of works for limited periods in order to boost the production of said works -- copyright, trademarks, and patents. This is _not_ the same as ownership, although the term intellectual property is used to help people think that way.
Furthermore, I believe very strongly that the creators of works which I use and find value in should receive compensation, usually monetary. I reject that they have the right to demand such compensation, not that they should receive such compensation. And again, I am applying none of this to Apple (yet). It is unrealistic to ask a company to completely switch track from the life of trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, software patents, etc. etc... I just ask that Apple be somewhat less over-the-top about their restrictions for now.
As I explained before, Apple has a monopoly over OS X -capable hardware. They have market power there.
Yes and many armchair lawyers have explained it before you did. And Psystar's original lawyers used it as a defense. And the Judge tossed it. So why do you keep repeating it? It's not relevant.
This is evident by the fact that they inflate prices compared to equivalent PC hardware (usually!), when their OS costs less than most Windows variants.
Most preposterous 'evidence' of monopoly I have ever heard. Have you seen the price of Sony computers? They tend to be more expensive than their competitors. I suppose that means that they are a monopoly too? Ridiculous!
Apple hasn't used this strategy for thirty years, and they are growing right now.
Apart from Apple's own cloning fiasco in the 90s, they have always restricted their OS to their own hardware. Unless we now have to use your new definition of the word "hasn't".
They do fly under the radar -- Apple is much more vertically integrated and monopolistic than MS, MS is just bigger
Perhaps if we could make up a fictitious radar, we could catch your fictitious monopoly.
This isn't really about morality like you claim. (Still no response to my earlier post on that argument!) This is about your own quasi political ideology.
It's akin to telling someone who believes that Aliens abducted Elvis, that he really died from an drug overdose and he won't be brought back. Or like telling a priest there is no god.
I wish for the days at CompuServe where they at least had an "ignore this individual" button for the trolls, kids, and delusional.
But of course you see the double standard here. Microsoft wanted to control the 'whole experience' by tying in IE with Windows, in order to create a system that integrates the OS with web use for what they determined to be a better experience. And they were forced to break it up. They were told they didn't have the right to control the whole experience.
That's why I find this to be a strange double standard. Apple gets to control the whole experience of hardware and OS, and isn't forced to open their system up to competition, where MS, just because they're bigger, is forced to.
So you see, 'your ideal of any kind of technology' -- this whole integrated system -- was seen as anti-competitive in both the U.S. and the E.U. Apple has just flown under the radar since they're relatively smaller. But I don't think their anti-competitive practices will last for long.
You (and others) still don't get it. Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. At the time they did not have a monopoly in the browser market. They were using their monopoly in the OS market to gain control of another market. The browser market.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the computer hardware market. Apple do not have a monopoly in the OS market. Apple can not leverage their market share in one market to gain control of another.
Apple only has a "monopoly" when you combine their OSX with their computer hardware to sell a Mac. But a Mac is not a "market" in itself. That's like saying that Windows and IE is a "market" and Microsoft also has a "monopoly" in that. Or that a Cadillac with On Star is a "monopoly" market.
Apple computer hardware is open. Apple does not limit you to OSX. Apple will not stop you from writing an OS that will run on their hardware.
Microsoft OS is suppose to be open to third party software to begin with. They weren't forced to open it up. Running third party software is what's their OS is suppose to do. Third parties pays Microsoft a development software license for just that purpose. If Microsoft wanted to, they could limit their OS to run only their software. But who in the name of hell would install an OS that only ran programs made by the OS maker? Therefore Microsoft business model is to open up their OS to third parties.
Microsoft was told that they couldn't use thier OS monopoly to hinder other third party software that competed with their's.
OSX belongs to Apple and only runs on their hardware (Which by itself is not a monopoly.). IE belongs to Microsoft and only runs in their OS (Which is a monopoly by itself.). You can not force Apple to write OSX so that it can run on a Dell or HP. Just like you can't force Microsoft to write IE to run in OSX or Linux. Or Microsoft to port Halo3 to the PlayStation. Or Apple to write iLife for Windows. Or Adobe to write a Linux version of Photoshop. The Copyright Laws give all software owner the right to have a "monopoly" with their own software. And full control on how their software can be used.
Yes and many armchair lawyers have explained it before you did. And Psystar's original lawyers used it as a defense. And the Judge tossed it. So why do you keep repeating it? It's not relevant.
I disagree with said judge. Because a judge ruled it does not necessarily make it right.
Most preposterous 'evidence' of monopoly I have ever heard. Have you seen the price of Sony computers? They tend to be more expensive than their competitors. I suppose that means that they are a monopoly too? Ridiculous!
This must be taken into consideration with other factors... Sony makes very high-quality PCs compared to a lot of their competitors. I agree, Apple also makes very high-quality hardware (usually) -- but there is absolutely no one legally making hardware that can run OS X targeting the budget crowd (as compared to Apple hardware pricing), because Apple decrees it so.
Apart from Apple's own cloning fiasco in the 90s, they have always restricted their OS to their own hardware. Unless we now have to use your new definition of the word "hasn't".
They were much more lax about clones even before that, and I'm not just talking about clones, I'm talking about overall policy of vertical integration. And it appears you cannot debate using only logic...
Perhaps if we could make up a fictitious radar, we could catch your fictitious monopoly.
Same as above. Being a smart-ass does not make you right, it makes you a smart-ass.
This isn't really about morality like you claim. (Still no response to my earlier post on that argument!) This is about your own quasi political ideology.
I'm making comments to a news article, where I focus on morality. Morality is in everything. If you want to talk about a different aspect, do so, but stop trying to argue with me, who is talking about something different. If you want to lable my efforts as something they're not... well, sorry, but I don't much care. In the comments thread of a news article, the article is up for debate -- not the commenter.
I won't reply to any further smearing or such, I came here for a debate. Not a flame war.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the computer hardware market. Apple do not have a monopoly in the OS market. Apple can not leverage their market share in one market to gain control of another.
I disagree here. The sole (or nearly sole) purpose of hardware is to run software. Correct? At the lowest level, an OS. And an OS, the *true* OS part of it (low-level APIs (Carbon and Cocoa in OS X's case), kernel, very basic userland) simply functions as a platform for other software on top of it.
I argue that in the case of products whose nearly-sole purpose is to serve as a platform for other products, they have created new "markets", or segments. Think about it. Windows is annoying not just because businesses, etc. demand it in many cases, it has become a "standard" by virtue of massive market share (traditional monopoly), but because applications written for Windows are in general non-portable to other platforms, like Mac and GNU/Linux. There is, effectively, a "market" for software that can run on Windows, that is quite separate from the market for OS X -compatible software. A customer will see it as a necessity that the software run on one particular platform.
I don't think I phrased the above too well... I shall think it over and perhaps write something a bit more organized, etc.
So, Psystar is not free to create hardware capable of running OS X and sell it, because Apple doesn't like it when they do that (because Apple likes charging a premium). Correct? Bullcrap. If MS made a hardware division and told all other PC makers they couldn't resell PCs with Windows anymore, they'd be attacked. Why? Because they are a monopoly in the OS segment. I think of Apple as having a monopoly in a separate segment -- the hardware segment which can run OS X. And because of that monopoly, there is inflation of price, which Psystar is cutting away in their offering. There is a demand for OS X -capable hardware, but Apple is the sole maker of such hardware (besides Psystar), and therefore controls the price of it. Besides, this reinforces what I have believed for a long time -- Microsoft may be the monopoly, but Apple is _far_ more monopolistic. I hope to "god" that Apple does not achieve a majority share in the general OS segment (competing with Microsoft is very good though, and drives them to improve, which they do only when forced, like all public companies).
Psystar is free to create hardware that is capable of running OSX. If they can find all the right parts. Which shouldn't be a problem if a Mac is made from the same parts as a PC. (Like most of those don't know any better people seems to think.) Right? They could also pay to reverse engineer any parts that were specially made for Apple. Which would drive up the cost of their hardware. No one is telling Psystar they can't sell computer hardware that runs OSX.
What Psystar can not do is to sell their hardware with OSX pre-installed. Regardless if they didn't have to "hack" their purchased retail copy of OSX to get it to install. They need permission from Apple to transfer ownership of that installed copy of OSX. Plus they can't legally install OSX on to their hardware from the retail copy of OSX that Apple now sells. Those copies are licensed to be install only on a "Mac". And a "Mac" is a computer sold by Apple that orginally had an Apple OS on it. A "Mac" is not just the hardware that runs OSX. It's the combination of both Apple OS and hardware.
And Apple don't "inflate" their hardware prices any more than Dell, HP or Acer. Apple GROSS margin for ALL products is about 35%. They do not break down to individual product lines. 35% GROSS margin means the average margin for ALL products sold is 35%. IT DOES NOT mean the average margin for each product sold is 35%. It is common knowledge that the iPod and iPhone has margins in the high 40% to low 50% range. iPods and iPhones accounts for nearly 40% of all revenues. And since Apple GROSS margin for ALL products sold comes in at 35%, this means that their Mac revenue got to be closer to 2o% to 25% margins. Mac revenue accounts for nearly 60% of total revenues. So if Macs were marked up much more than 25%, Apple Gross margin would be closer to 40%. And if Macs had a margin of 35%, like many uninformed thinks, Apple GROSS margin for ALL products would easily over 45%.
Dell gross margin for their computers (Dell do break down their margins for individual product lines) is about 17%. But over half of Dells revenue for computers comes from the under $1000 hardware. Which is known to have margins in the 10% and under range. This means that in order for Dell to get to 17% gross margin, their other hardware must also have margins at about the 20 to 25% range.
So it safe to assume that Dell makes about the same margin on their $1500+ hardware as Apple does on their's. The main difference is that Apple don't dilute their margins selling a ton of low margin cheap hardware. Not only that, Dell sells more hardware in a quarter than Apple does in a year. Dell can get better prices for the parts they need to make their hardware. And they have very little R&D expense. So it's not that Apple "inflate" their Mac prices more than Dell. It's just that it cost Apple more to make a Mac than it does Dell to make a similarily spec Dell. But both will make about the same 20 to 25% margin. I'm willing to bet that Dell makes over 30% margin on their AlienWare hardware.
I disagree here. The sole (or nearly sole) purpose of hardware is to run software. Correct? At the lowest level, an OS. And an OS, the *true* OS part of it (low-level APIs (Carbon and Cocoa in OS X's case), kernel, very basic userland) simply functions as a platform for other software on top of it.
I argue that in the case of products whose nearly-sole purpose is to serve as a platform for other products, they have created new "markets", or segments. Think about it. Windows is annoying not just because businesses, etc. demand it in many cases, it has become a "standard" by virtue of massive market share (traditional monopoly), but because applications written for Windows are in general non-portable to other platforms, like Mac and GNU/Linux. There is, effectively, a "market" for software that can run on Windows, that is quite separate from the market for OS X -compatible software. A customer will see it as a necessity that the software run on one particular platform.
I don't think I phrased the above too well... I shall think it over and perhaps write something a bit more organized, etc.
People don't buy a computer to run just an OS. They buy a computer to run other apps. Therefore, market wise, a Mac (with OSX) is no different than a PC (with Windows). They are both in the same market. So long as there are comparable software on both paltforms.
If you want to claim that a Mac is a separate market because it's both hardware and OS. Then so is a Dell, Sony and HP. It shouldn't make a difference that Dell, Sony and HP don't own or control the OS in their hardware.
Take away OSX from a Mac and install Windows (or Linux). Do you still have a Mac? Technically, no. If you buy software that states it's the "Mac" version. It will not run on your Apple hardware with Windows (or Linux) installed. You have to reinstall (or boot to) OSX before that "Mac" version software recognizes that it's a "Mac".
You can't create a separate market just because one platform is perceived to be better or different than another. So long as there are enough software on each platform so that they can perform the same basic functions that the majority of the consumers needs, a Mac is no different than a Dell, HP or Sony. All are just hardware with an installed OS to run software.
A BMW looks, performs and drive better than a Kia, Honda, Toyota, and Saturn. Does than mean that a BMW should be placed in a market of it's own? And since they would have a monopoly in that market, should they be forced to supply BMW engines to Kia, Honda, Toyota, and Saturn. All autos are in the same market regardless of how different they are. There is no SUV market, sport car market, cars with BMW engines market, mini-van market, Toyota market, Saturn market, ect. All autos do the same basic function. No matter how better one looks, performs or drives when compared to another. However, there is a market for SUV, sports cars, cars with BMW engine, mini-van, Toyota, Saturn, etc.. And just because BMW is the only company selling cars with BMW engines don't make them a monopoly.
Now if BMW started selling their engines so that other makers can start making autos with BMW engines. And 80% of the autos sold has a BMW engines. Then we can start talking monopoly.
I see. My point was that the EULA is meant to control non-trade use (whether it can in reality is debatable, which is why companies are not anxious to have their EULAs tested in court). But once someone attempts to trade on someone else's IP (make product, sell it), then that's a separate issue for which the EULA doesn't need to be in play. That would a violation of basic IP protections, EULA or no EULA. Clearer?
Ok, I understand your position better. We still have some disagreements, but I think we're closer than before.
I'm not so sure that's true. First, the EULA and the copyright are two different animals. Second, as I pointed out earlier, proprietary products can and often are made up of combinations of nonproprietary pieces. The fact that the pieces are not themselves patented or copyrighted does not mean that the whole cannot be. The product Apple is trying to protect here is the Mac. It doesn't really matter how many pieces of the Mac are or are not protected IP, because the thing as a whole is protected.
The difference between a EULA and copyright holder rights is that the EULA generally goes beyond those rights in the form of a contract. So that's where the difference lies.
It begins with the rights granted the copyright holder, and then extends them.
The problem is that even if the EULA isn't allowed, it still can't break the copyright holders right to control distribution. That's an important point here.
I think this is a key point, if only because so many people have the discombobulated view that if they can obtain the parts for a proprietary product that they have the right manufacture and sell that product. In this case, "we bought copies of OSX, now we have the right to make and sell Macintosh computers." This is Psystar's twisted logic. No go.
ONLY if it's reverse-engineered, within the limited tolerance of legal reverse engineering. As you pointed out, even a perfectly reverse-engineered Mac would almost certainly violate Apple's trade dress, over which they would sue. Now try to imagine the difficulty of duplicating the functionalities which define a Mac at all, let alone without violating trade dress. If it could be done, it probably would have been done by now. Either way, we know that this is not what Psystar is attempting to do.
I would agree if the parts do something that can't be done otherwise. But is that true with a Mac? Is there something in the computer hardware that precludes this?
The only possibility that I can think of is a modified EFI. There's nothing else in the machine that's not standard.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
LOL. That has got to be the most awesome comment I've read... and when I say awesome, I am using my own, non-dictionary definition where awesome = moronic.
Yes... I can. There are several words where I disagree with the dictionary meaning.
But you can't base an argument on your incorrect definitions. You may like them, but they're still incorrect.
What?? Where are you getting this? And where is the theft? I haven't seen any discussion of theft in this entire article. "Stealing" "intellectual property" (again, see here, here, and here) is impossible, if that is what you mean, because intellectual property is a misnomer. There is no such thing as _owning_ a non-physical concept. There are certain rights granted to creators of works for limited periods in order to boost the production of said works -- copyright, trademarks, and patents. This is _not_ the same as ownership, although the term intellectual property is used to help people think that way.
Your ideas are seriously messed up. You misinterpret things. most people would at least give up when they're wrong. Even when you agree you are, you persist.
Lemley is about as biased as you are about this. He's known for his views which are at odds with most everyone else.
I'm not interested in the "free culture movement" either. Amazingly simplistic ideas.
Why don't you quote some mainstream sources? Don't like them, eh?
Furthermore, I believe very strongly that the creators of works which I use and find value in should receive compensation, usually monetary. I reject that they have the right to demand such compensation, not that they should receive such compensation. And again, I am applying none of this to Apple (yet). It is unrealistic to ask a company to completely switch track from the life of trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, software patents, etc. etc... I just ask that Apple be somewhat less over-the-top about their restrictions for now.
Here's one of your main problems. YOU don't have to think that something is of value for someone else to buy it. If you want it, then it has value. If it costs to much, then it doesn't have enough value to you, and you shouldn't get it.
It's like saying that you won't pay a fine because you don't like it. You still have to pay it.
And as I said before, if you don't think something is of value to you, then you aren't being forced to buy it.
You can always buy a $350 computer using Linux or Windows XP.