How much work should they do if it's almost certainly not going to gain them anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximara
Microsoft got into the trouble with IE not just because they make it their default browser but that they ALSO integrated IE at the file management level putting other browsers at a disadvantage.
By contrast on the Mac you can download any available browser you want and have it function as good or better than Safari.
I'd say differently, not necessary better or worse. I usually use Firefox because it generally works more like the way I want it to, but I get occasional problems with it too.
Quote:
Media Player is more comparative to Quicktime than iTunes and there are many codecs that Microsoft gives away like free samples on the Windows side but only limited (if at all) on theMac side. There are some codecs that only exist in VLC because the owners will not license to Apple directly.
I think it's just as likely that Apple is choosing to not license codecs. I don't know specifically what codecs you're talking about, but you can install Perian and that adds a lot of codecs to Quicktime. Flip4Mac adds a few more. Both are free.
However if someone is paying full price for some software I think that should then be theirs for them to sell on second hand if they so wish. They would always be at a disadvantage to Apple as they had paid full market price rather than a price you make profit on. The OS is also only 1 part of what there selling so its not the same as a scenario of buying all the parts that make a Toyota and then selling as your own. All the other parts of the machine are not made by Apple making it a different finished product.
Psystar has every right to sell that original retail disc of OSX for what ever they can get for it. Providing they also give up any exact copy made of that disc. The first sale doctrine protects them on this. What Psystar has no right to do is to transfer the copy that is in their PC without permission from Apple. First sale doctrine does not protect this copy. Copyright Laws gives full ownership of that copy to the owner of the software from which that copy was made from. If Apple don't allow Psystar to transfer ownership of the copy of OSX that is in their PC, then Psystar must delete OSX from their PC when they sell (or transfer ownership of) the original retail disc that was used to install that copy or the PC that's it's on. Even if the original disc was sold (or given) to the person that bought the PC.
Apple has every right to allow installed copies of of their OSX to be transfered when installed on a Mac. But not when it's on a PC. Thus used Macs on eBay can still have OSX installed on thier HD. But its still suppose to include an original installation disc.
Quote:
I am also very against the fact it seems to always be 1 rule for MS and another for Apple. If Apple is in a PC market and not a Mac market, why can they force Safari and iTunes on their users in a default install but MS can do the same with IE and Media Player. If its a Mac market then why do they get to force the hardware?
The reason why Microsoft has to play by different rules is because they are a monopoly. And they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly.
When MS denies third party software developers full access to Windows, they are preventing them from competing in 95% of the World market.
If Apple did the same thing, Apple would only be denying third party software developers to 4% of the World market. Thus Apple can include iLife with a new Mac purchase. Where as Microsoft would be given a difficult time if they tried to include a similar suite. Specially in the EU.
However, HP or Dell can include such a suite (whether by MS or a third party) in order to make their PCs more desirable. So long as MS don't abuse their monopoly to influence who's software gets installed.
They also neglected to mention that Psystar cannot actually prove that they've even bought a copy of OS X. Those are some of the 'receipts' that they claim they lost.
How many of you are old enough to remember claims of "SUAIs" (sudden unintended acceleration incidents) in Audis? Many years ago (in the 80s, I think) 60 Minutes did a very slanted piece about it, and Audis began going crazy everywhere, running spouses through garage walls, going off into pools... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
It was such an epidemic, everybody KNEW it had to be real, and the only questions being asked where (1) what causes this dreadful thing where the car suddenly accelerates, usually while the person is stamping on the brake as hard as possible? (2) why is Audi hiding it? and (3) Why can't (or won't) the Department of Transportation get to the bottom of it?
After a $2 million study (1 or 2 million, I can't remember anymore), it was determined that "pedal misapplication" was the cause. Yep, the dumb buggers had stepped on the gas after all.
Why does this exploding iPhone thing reek of that?
In the words of Confuses (correct my spelling...)
"Man who sits on phone, finds ass of fire"
I do remember the Audi issue. Got a GT super cheap afterwards! As did my Cuz and her mom. In the 90's it was the Jeep ZJ with the same problem, same cause, and same outcome.
They also neglected to mention that Psystar cannot actually prove that they've even bought a copy of OS X. Those are some of the 'receipts' that they claim they lost.
And the same reason the ears at the IRS office just perked up.
Microsoft got into the trouble with IE not just because they make it their default browser but that they ALSO integrated IE at the file management level putting other browsers at a disadvantage.
By contrast on the Mac you can download any available browser you want and have it function as good or better than Safari.
I haven't ever used Safari as my default browser in years and this has been preserved update after update while every time you updated Windows somehow your default browser would magically and conveniently become IE.
Media Player is more comparative to Quicktime than iTunes and there are many codecs that Microsoft gives away like free samples on the Windows side but only limited (if at all) on theMac side. There are some codecs that only exist in VLC because the owners will not license to Apple directly.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
I do find it a bit odd that neither of these guys have tried developing their own OS. I wonder if it's ever even been discussed as an option behind closed doors.
HP has had their own OS for many years. It is a Unix system called HPUX which is currently used primarily on their blade servers but has been marketed as a client/workstation OS in the past.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
Bad analogy. Wheels are essential for the operation of a car. It's more like if a car manufacturer that has a monopoly in cars don't permit anyone to install a third party car stereo because of a special connection to the speakers that only car stereos made by the maker of the car can use. Thus the owner of their cars can only use their brand car stereos if they want to use the speakers that came with the car. This would be an abuse of their monopoly because a car stereo is not essential for the operation of a car. After market car stereos constitute another market. Thus third party car stereo makers should have fair access to that market. So in the US the monopoly car manufacturer may be forced to provide the necessary connection so that any third party car stereo makers can sell car stereos that works in their cars. The EU may force such a monopoly holder to not even include a car stereo when they make the car. Leaving it up to the buyer to specify which brand stereo he wants the dealer to install when he buys the car.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
Would you be so lenient with a company that produced 95% of the worlds food who was found to be blocking, buying out or destroying other food producers ?
Microsoft are and always will be dangerous because the control the progress of the modern world. Even today they should be split into at least five separate companies but that's not ever going to happen.
Microsoft need Apple - they are the only thing that stands between them and total and utter destruction.
If Microsoft set out to destroy Apple - they could do it - it would be messy but they would win, Apple would eventually fall. That's the problem with your views. Microsoft are toxic and they know it - they reign themselves in.
If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either.
Why does this question have to come up every single time there is a Psystar thread?
Tim is it really that hard to see why market share, in relation to monopoly laws, is so important?
Microsoft currently has a 90% share of the US desktop OS market. That is called having "market power".
Apple currently has around 8% of the US desktop OS market.
If Apple were to try and make it difficult for a competitor (in a different market) to actually compete.... then there wouldn't be much of a problem because that competitor could still have a thriving business on the 90% of the Microsoft platform.
Now switch that around! Say it was Microsoft making it difficult. Sure our competitor could still run their product on the Mac platform... but they would end up with a business that cuts out 90% of their potential customers! That might not even be a viable business.
So we end up with a lack of competition... and the consumer/user end up with a lack of choice. All because one company has market power and another company does not.
Look, I realise that it is much more complicated than that. That's why these things can take years to get through the courts.... which in itself can lead to problems because technology can move at a pretty fast rate and the landscape can be very different by the time a judgement is reached. That's just one reason why the EU vs Microsoft case appears to be a bit of a comedy.
Psystar has every right to sell that original retail disc of OSX for what ever they can get for it. Providing they also give up any exact copy made of that disc. The first sale doctrine protects them on this. What Psystar has no right to do is to transfer the copy that is in their PC without permission from Apple. First sale doctrine does not protect this copy. Copyright Laws gives full ownership of that copy to the owner of the software from which that copy was made from. If Apple don't allow Psystar to transfer ownership of the copy of OSX that is in their PC, then Psystar must delete OSX from their PC when they sell (or transfer ownership of) the original retail disc that was used to install that copy or the PC that's it's on. Even if the original disc was sold (or given) to the person that bought the PC.
Note that it is far from clear that first sale doctrine is applicable to licensed software.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
PS: Are you aware of EFiX? It’s a USB chip that tricks the OS into installing and running on certain MoBos? That is completely legal
that is actually not true. At least potentially not.
if installation of software is considered a copyright issue then that chip is a violation of DCMA and thus very very much not legal. And further laws remove the need for profit by the violator as a condition of punishment. This is part of the core issues with the Psystar case. A part that is currently siding with Apple. Unless Psystar comes up with something better than "EULAs are bogus and I should be able to do what I want", Apple will continue to win (cause frankly an EULA is basically the codification of Apple's rights, which exist even without the written EULA)
The grey area is if I figure out how to make an installation work and I do it for myself and I don't spread around what I did or do for anyone else then who the heck is Apple going to know to come after me. They won't. Psystar on the other hand is blasting it to the world with a big fat finger up at Apple.
The other grey area is the open source elements of OSX. If someone installs only those and nothing from the Apple created GUI then Apple can't do anything cause they don't have a copyright on the open source bits. Nature of the game. Had Psystar 'borrowed' those parts and made their own GUI they would have been fine. But they didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
key points that relate to this issue.
1. There is no such thing as a Macintosh Computer Market. The Judge that tossed the anti-trust case by Psystar clarified this issue.
2. Tying is NOT illegal in and of itself. It is when one uses dominance in one market to increase dominance in another that it is an issue. this is what happened with Micosoft. They were (and still are) THE name in the Personal Computer OS Market. They have something like 85% market share. They had basically no share in the Web Browser Market due to coming in late to that game. They tried, thru various means, to force inclusion of their product and exclusion of competing products as conditions of their OEM license. Big no, no. Apple on the other hand has no dominance in the Personal Computer OS or hardware markets so they can't be abusing anything. They can, at this point, legally restrict to their hearts contents. Unless Psystar can win this flimsy copyright and first sale issue.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
Thank you for the link. It is very very interesting. It is time consuming read but worthwhile. The portion that pertains to Netscape Navigator is why I became disillusioned with MS. Which of course led to my first purchase of an Apple product in 2003.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
Thanks for the link. I'm big on Apple's products and I've never seen this link before. It's Microsoft's legacy of shame - we'll probably see another one of these documents pop up in 10 years ( too late to make any difference but still 'on the record')
Anyone remotely interested in the future of the personal computer system should read this -there's plenty about it's strong arming of Apple.
By no means the best bit or diminishing the importance of reading, but I find this last paragraph telling in that absolutely NOTHING has changed since these findings.
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.
I don't seen anything changing in the next 10 years either - in fact I see Microsoft positioning itself to be even stronger than ever before. Windows 7 marketing hyper-bollox will generate as much as two hundred billion dollars of revenue in that period despite it being a typically average Microsoft product.
(P.S - There behavior in these findings actually tells me exactly how it is that Nokia and Yahoo are doomed by their recent 'partnering' with MS - they're using exactly the same set of tricks on them as they did on Netscape - incredible. Ballmers a fricking genius!!)
How much work should they do if it's almost certainly not going to gain them anything?
Now you are their personal workload consultant / mom figure? That's all you can say? They are running a business and just asking for their right to exist. It's not my job to decide whether they have this right or not. But I have often thought about it. I am glad they are going through the effort to push the matter. And I am an AAPL shareholder and >20 year Mac user. Apple is starting to get too big for their britches. They think they have sideways influence outside of their product sales agreements. This is an intrusion on the privacy of individuals / companies that purchase the Mac OS, in my view. I give Apple all their due credit, but not more.
Now you are their personal workload consultant / mom figure? That's all you can say? They are running a business and just asking for their right to exist. It's not my job to decide whether they have this right or not. But I have often thought about it. I am glad they are going through the effort to push the matter.
Glad for whom? Psystar? That's misguided, because in the highly unlikely event they win, they'll be immediately crushed by the likes of Dell and HP. Who'd buy a $600 Psystar when they could get a $500 Dell or HP with the same specs running OS X?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
They think they have sideways influence outside of their product sales agreements.
No, they think they have the copyright on Mac OS X. And they're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
This is an intrusion on the privacy of individuals / companies that purchase the Mac OS, in my view. I give Apple all their due credit, but not more.
Apple haven't gone after any individual who's built a Hackintosh, and there are plenty of folk who've blogged about it such that Apple could pursue them if they so desired.
It's Apple defending their copyright against blatant infringement by a company trying to profit from Apple's hard work. Nothing more.
Note that it is far from clear that first sale doctrine is applicable to licensed software.
So far the first sale doctrine has held up with music CDs, DVD movies and game console games. Those too are licensed software. The only difference being that, unlike most computer software, they don't have to be copied on to a device in order for the buyer to use it.
Unless specificly stated in the EULA, you are allowed to sell your used original computer software disc. Providing certain conditions are met. And it's questionable as to whether the EULA can prevent you from doing so. As the EULA can not take away (or limit) any rights you have under Copyright Laws.
Whichever set of idiots is backing Psystar are playing a very dangerous game because if Apple does lose the lawsuit they will have no alternative but to instantly and immediately license OSX to all PC hardware vendors at $29 a copy. It is precisely this move that could end Microsoft's dominance of the middle market desktop OS forever. Apple's high end hardware sales would likely be unaffected since they are so different and superior to anything offered by any other hardware vendor, and the iPod/iPhone sales will keep them massively liquid.
This could well be the event that causes Apple to go 'all out' to win...
If this is a little bit of Redmond subterfuge they are very likely to end up regretting it.
I don't think that would end MS dominance, though it would grow number of OSX in homes. For business, much more is required than just a cheaper Mac.
On other topics... even if Apple is forced to sell OSX to the others, they can always find a way to sell it much more expensive to non-Mac users. For example, they can give vouchers for 5 OSX upgrades with 90% discount with every Mac computer sold, and push price (without voucher) to $299... or something else in that line. As long as people can put OSX on cheaper, or custom-made hardware, I think many would gladly pay price comparable to that of Windows. I know I would.
Comments
So what if they are? What do they have to lose?
How much work should they do if it's almost certainly not going to gain them anything?
Microsoft got into the trouble with IE not just because they make it their default browser but that they ALSO integrated IE at the file management level putting other browsers at a disadvantage.
By contrast on the Mac you can download any available browser you want and have it function as good or better than Safari.
I'd say differently, not necessary better or worse. I usually use Firefox because it generally works more like the way I want it to, but I get occasional problems with it too.
Media Player is more comparative to Quicktime than iTunes and there are many codecs that Microsoft gives away like free samples on the Windows side but only limited (if at all) on theMac side. There are some codecs that only exist in VLC because the owners will not license to Apple directly.
I think it's just as likely that Apple is choosing to not license codecs. I don't know specifically what codecs you're talking about, but you can install Perian and that adds a lot of codecs to Quicktime. Flip4Mac adds a few more. Both are free.
However if someone is paying full price for some software I think that should then be theirs for them to sell on second hand if they so wish. They would always be at a disadvantage to Apple as they had paid full market price rather than a price you make profit on. The OS is also only 1 part of what there selling so its not the same as a scenario of buying all the parts that make a Toyota and then selling as your own. All the other parts of the machine are not made by Apple making it a different finished product.
Psystar has every right to sell that original retail disc of OSX for what ever they can get for it. Providing they also give up any exact copy made of that disc. The first sale doctrine protects them on this. What Psystar has no right to do is to transfer the copy that is in their PC without permission from Apple. First sale doctrine does not protect this copy. Copyright Laws gives full ownership of that copy to the owner of the software from which that copy was made from. If Apple don't allow Psystar to transfer ownership of the copy of OSX that is in their PC, then Psystar must delete OSX from their PC when they sell (or transfer ownership of) the original retail disc that was used to install that copy or the PC that's it's on. Even if the original disc was sold (or given) to the person that bought the PC.
Apple has every right to allow installed copies of of their OSX to be transfered when installed on a Mac. But not when it's on a PC. Thus used Macs on eBay can still have OSX installed on thier HD. But its still suppose to include an original installation disc.
I am also very against the fact it seems to always be 1 rule for MS and another for Apple. If Apple is in a PC market and not a Mac market, why can they force Safari and iTunes on their users in a default install but MS can do the same with IE and Media Player. If its a Mac market then why do they get to force the hardware?
The reason why Microsoft has to play by different rules is because they are a monopoly. And they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly.
When MS denies third party software developers full access to Windows, they are preventing them from competing in 95% of the World market.
If Apple did the same thing, Apple would only be denying third party software developers to 4% of the World market. Thus Apple can include iLife with a new Mac purchase. Where as Microsoft would be given a difficult time if they tried to include a similar suite. Specially in the EU.
However, HP or Dell can include such a suite (whether by MS or a third party) in order to make their PCs more desirable. So long as MS don't abuse their monopoly to influence who's software gets installed.
How many of you are old enough to remember claims of "SUAIs" (sudden unintended acceleration incidents) in Audis? Many years ago (in the 80s, I think) 60 Minutes did a very slanted piece about it, and Audis began going crazy everywhere, running spouses through garage walls, going off into pools... dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
It was such an epidemic, everybody KNEW it had to be real, and the only questions being asked where (1) what causes this dreadful thing where the car suddenly accelerates, usually while the person is stamping on the brake as hard as possible? (2) why is Audi hiding it? and (3) Why can't (or won't) the Department of Transportation get to the bottom of it?
After a $2 million study (1 or 2 million, I can't remember anymore), it was determined that "pedal misapplication" was the cause. Yep, the dumb buggers had stepped on the gas after all.
Why does this exploding iPhone thing reek of that?
In the words of Confuses (correct my spelling...)
"Man who sits on phone, finds ass of fire"
I do remember the Audi issue. Got a GT super cheap afterwards! As did my Cuz and her mom. In the 90's it was the Jeep ZJ with the same problem, same cause, and same outcome.
They also neglected to mention that Psystar cannot actually prove that they've even bought a copy of OS X. Those are some of the 'receipts' that they claim they lost.
And the same reason the ears at the IRS office just perked up.
Microsoft got into the trouble with IE not just because they make it their default browser but that they ALSO integrated IE at the file management level putting other browsers at a disadvantage.
By contrast on the Mac you can download any available browser you want and have it function as good or better than Safari.
I haven't ever used Safari as my default browser in years and this has been preserved update after update while every time you updated Windows somehow your default browser would magically and conveniently become IE.
Media Player is more comparative to Quicktime than iTunes and there are many codecs that Microsoft gives away like free samples on the Windows side but only limited (if at all) on theMac side. There are some codecs that only exist in VLC because the owners will not license to Apple directly.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
I do find it a bit odd that neither of these guys have tried developing their own OS. I wonder if it's ever even been discussed as an option behind closed doors.
HP has had their own OS for many years. It is a Unix system called HPUX which is currently used primarily on their blade servers but has been marketed as a client/workstation OS in the past.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
Bad analogy. Wheels are essential for the operation of a car. It's more like if a car manufacturer that has a monopoly in cars don't permit anyone to install a third party car stereo because of a special connection to the speakers that only car stereos made by the maker of the car can use. Thus the owner of their cars can only use their brand car stereos if they want to use the speakers that came with the car. This would be an abuse of their monopoly because a car stereo is not essential for the operation of a car. After market car stereos constitute another market. Thus third party car stereo makers should have fair access to that market. So in the US the monopoly car manufacturer may be forced to provide the necessary connection so that any third party car stereo makers can sell car stereos that works in their cars. The EU may force such a monopoly holder to not even include a car stereo when they make the car. Leaving it up to the buyer to specify which brand stereo he wants the dealer to install when he buys the car.
Irrespective of what originally got them in trouble, we now have a situation in the EU where MS are having to produce a copies of their OS which don't include these programs whereas Apple are fine to list them as features of a their OS. If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either. It would be like telling a car manufacturer if they ever got to be a monopoly that they could no longer have wheels on their cars as that give's their wheels an unfair advantage over people who just make wheels.
Would you be so lenient with a company that produced 95% of the worlds food who was found to be blocking, buying out or destroying other food producers ?
Microsoft are and always will be dangerous because the control the progress of the modern world. Even today they should be split into at least five separate companies but that's not ever going to happen.
Microsoft need Apple - they are the only thing that stands between them and total and utter destruction.
If Microsoft set out to destroy Apple - they could do it - it would be messy but they would win, Apple would eventually fall. That's the problem with your views. Microsoft are toxic and they know it - they reign themselves in.
If their in the same market then they should have to all play by the same rules.
I also don't see how MS's market share should have an impact on what they do either.
Why does this question have to come up every single time there is a Psystar thread?
Tim is it really that hard to see why market share, in relation to monopoly laws, is so important?
Microsoft currently has a 90% share of the US desktop OS market. That is called having "market power".
Apple currently has around 8% of the US desktop OS market.
If Apple were to try and make it difficult for a competitor (in a different market) to actually compete.... then there wouldn't be much of a problem because that competitor could still have a thriving business on the 90% of the Microsoft platform.
Now switch that around! Say it was Microsoft making it difficult. Sure our competitor could still run their product on the Mac platform... but they would end up with a business that cuts out 90% of their potential customers! That might not even be a viable business.
So we end up with a lack of competition... and the consumer/user end up with a lack of choice. All because one company has market power and another company does not.
Look, I realise that it is much more complicated than that. That's why these things can take years to get through the courts.... which in itself can lead to problems because technology can move at a pretty fast rate and the landscape can be very different by the time a judgement is reached. That's just one reason why the EU vs Microsoft case appears to be a bit of a comedy.
Psystar has every right to sell that original retail disc of OSX for what ever they can get for it. Providing they also give up any exact copy made of that disc. The first sale doctrine protects them on this. What Psystar has no right to do is to transfer the copy that is in their PC without permission from Apple. First sale doctrine does not protect this copy. Copyright Laws gives full ownership of that copy to the owner of the software from which that copy was made from. If Apple don't allow Psystar to transfer ownership of the copy of OSX that is in their PC, then Psystar must delete OSX from their PC when they sell (or transfer ownership of) the original retail disc that was used to install that copy or the PC that's it's on. Even if the original disc was sold (or given) to the person that bought the PC.
Note that it is far from clear that first sale doctrine is applicable to licensed software.
PS: Are you aware of EFiX? It’s a USB chip that tricks the OS into installing and running on certain MoBos? That is completely legal
that is actually not true. At least potentially not.
if installation of software is considered a copyright issue then that chip is a violation of DCMA and thus very very much not legal. And further laws remove the need for profit by the violator as a condition of punishment. This is part of the core issues with the Psystar case. A part that is currently siding with Apple. Unless Psystar comes up with something better than "EULAs are bogus and I should be able to do what I want", Apple will continue to win (cause frankly an EULA is basically the codification of Apple's rights, which exist even without the written EULA)
The grey area is if I figure out how to make an installation work and I do it for myself and I don't spread around what I did or do for anyone else then who the heck is Apple going to know to come after me. They won't. Psystar on the other hand is blasting it to the world with a big fat finger up at Apple.
The other grey area is the open source elements of OSX. If someone installs only those and nothing from the Apple created GUI then Apple can't do anything cause they don't have a copyright on the open source bits. Nature of the game. Had Psystar 'borrowed' those parts and made their own GUI they would have been fine. But they didn't.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
key points that relate to this issue.
1. There is no such thing as a Macintosh Computer Market. The Judge that tossed the anti-trust case by Psystar clarified this issue.
2. Tying is NOT illegal in and of itself. It is when one uses dominance in one market to increase dominance in another that it is an issue. this is what happened with Micosoft. They were (and still are) THE name in the Personal Computer OS Market. They have something like 85% market share. They had basically no share in the Web Browser Market due to coming in late to that game. They tried, thru various means, to force inclusion of their product and exclusion of competing products as conditions of their OEM license. Big no, no. Apple on the other hand has no dominance in the Personal Computer OS or hardware markets so they can't be abusing anything. They can, at this point, legally restrict to their hearts contents. Unless Psystar can win this flimsy copyright and first sale issue.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
Thank you for the link. It is very very interesting. It is time consuming read but worthwhile. The portion that pertains to Netscape Navigator is why I became disillusioned with MS. Which of course led to my first purchase of an Apple product in 2003.
I often suggest that people read the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft. It's long, but very interesting, and explains all of the legal and technical issues. A person reading this could come away with an understanding of why the law applies to Microsoft but not Apple. I wonder if anyone bothers?
Thanks for the link. I'm big on Apple's products and I've never seen this link before. It's Microsoft's legacy of shame - we'll probably see another one of these documents pop up in 10 years ( too late to make any difference but still 'on the record')
Anyone remotely interested in the future of the personal computer system should read this -there's plenty about it's strong arming of Apple.
By no means the best bit or diminishing the importance of reading, but I find this last paragraph telling in that absolutely NOTHING has changed since these findings.
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.
I don't seen anything changing in the next 10 years either - in fact I see Microsoft positioning itself to be even stronger than ever before. Windows 7 marketing hyper-bollox will generate as much as two hundred billion dollars of revenue in that period despite it being a typically average Microsoft product.
(P.S - There behavior in these findings actually tells me exactly how it is that Nokia and Yahoo are doomed by their recent 'partnering' with MS - they're using exactly the same set of tricks on them as they did on Netscape - incredible. Ballmers a fricking genius!!)
How much work should they do if it's almost certainly not going to gain them anything?
Now you are their personal workload consultant / mom figure? That's all you can say? They are running a business and just asking for their right to exist. It's not my job to decide whether they have this right or not. But I have often thought about it. I am glad they are going through the effort to push the matter. And I am an AAPL shareholder and >20 year Mac user. Apple is starting to get too big for their britches. They think they have sideways influence outside of their product sales agreements. This is an intrusion on the privacy of individuals / companies that purchase the Mac OS, in my view. I give Apple all their due credit, but not more.
Now you are their personal workload consultant / mom figure? That's all you can say? They are running a business and just asking for their right to exist. It's not my job to decide whether they have this right or not. But I have often thought about it. I am glad they are going through the effort to push the matter.
Glad for whom? Psystar? That's misguided, because in the highly unlikely event they win, they'll be immediately crushed by the likes of Dell and HP. Who'd buy a $600 Psystar when they could get a $500 Dell or HP with the same specs running OS X?
They think they have sideways influence outside of their product sales agreements.
No, they think they have the copyright on Mac OS X. And they're right.
This is an intrusion on the privacy of individuals / companies that purchase the Mac OS, in my view. I give Apple all their due credit, but not more.
Apple haven't gone after any individual who's built a Hackintosh, and there are plenty of folk who've blogged about it such that Apple could pursue them if they so desired.
It's Apple defending their copyright against blatant infringement by a company trying to profit from Apple's hard work. Nothing more.
Note that it is far from clear that first sale doctrine is applicable to licensed software.
So far the first sale doctrine has held up with music CDs, DVD movies and game console games. Those too are licensed software. The only difference being that, unlike most computer software, they don't have to be copied on to a device in order for the buyer to use it.
Unless specificly stated in the EULA, you are allowed to sell your used original computer software disc. Providing certain conditions are met. And it's questionable as to whether the EULA can prevent you from doing so. As the EULA can not take away (or limit) any rights you have under Copyright Laws.
Whichever set of idiots is backing Psystar are playing a very dangerous game because if Apple does lose the lawsuit they will have no alternative but to instantly and immediately license OSX to all PC hardware vendors at $29 a copy. It is precisely this move that could end Microsoft's dominance of the middle market desktop OS forever. Apple's high end hardware sales would likely be unaffected since they are so different and superior to anything offered by any other hardware vendor, and the iPod/iPhone sales will keep them massively liquid.
This could well be the event that causes Apple to go 'all out' to win...
If this is a little bit of Redmond subterfuge they are very likely to end up regretting it.
I don't think that would end MS dominance, though it would grow number of OSX in homes. For business, much more is required than just a cheaper Mac.
On other topics... even if Apple is forced to sell OSX to the others, they can always find a way to sell it much more expensive to non-Mac users. For example, they can give vouchers for 5 OSX upgrades with 90% discount with every Mac computer sold, and push price (without voucher) to $299... or something else in that line. As long as people can put OSX on cheaper, or custom-made hardware, I think many would gladly pay price comparable to that of Windows. I know I would.