So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.
No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.
Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).
"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".
Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously
OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.
I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.
Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.
Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".
With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.
So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.
Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.
No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.
Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).
"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".
Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously
OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.
I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.
Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.
Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat. But Apple is violating, on a smaller scale, the principle that MS was not allowed to get away with.
Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat.
No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
You're actually looking at it backwards. MS, because of it's market dominance, is barred from various activities which would normally be acceptable.
No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?
It's no different than Verizon locking out the phone manufacturer's code so they could install their crippled store to the phone. You wanted a phone on Verizon, so you dealt with it. You want to run OS X, then you deal with it. Or you hack a junk box and run OS X on it. Apple will not sue you. Just don't f-ing sell it and throw it in their faces. They started out as hackers, they get it.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size.
Again, what does bundling IE have to do with a EULA? Have you even read the anti-trust case against Microsoft?
Microsoft's anti-trust case had nothing to do with licensing at all. I don't know why you seem to think it's even relevant. ANY company that is found to be anti-competitive would be exposed to legal action. Apple is no exception. It requires two things. One has to do with market dominance, and the other involves using that dominance to unfair advantage. If Apple was the defacto PC maker, and they sent out the OS with Safari bunled as they do now, they could potentially be caught in the same trap except for the fact that browsers are easily available with the advent of broadband, and the simply fact that if you didn't like Safari, you simply drag it to the trash. MS claimed you couldn't uninstall IE or it would make the OS unstable and slow, which was proved to be false after they were caught submitting false evidence. MS later dropped that claim as a result.
The catch is there is nothing Apple is doing that is anti-competitive. Apple can't be forced to sell their software to competitors. There's a line between day to day business, and helping your competitors put you out of business. Since Apple does not have a market majority AND they are not using that majority to unfairly compete with competitors, there is no anti-competitive action and no valid comparison between the two.
All of which is irrelevant. This is strictly about licensing and copyright. Psystar claimed that they 'owned' their copy of OS X and as such, under copyright law, they could use it without license from Apple (very much legal for something that you purchase and own). However, they failed to realize (or refuse to acknowledge...I'm not sure which), that they do not own OS X. They own a proprietary license, which basically says that Apple retains all ownership, and that blows a huge hole in Psystar's case.
Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
Maybe you should tell the courts your argument. Would have saved Microsoft millions
Your lack of understanding in regards to anti-trust is amusing.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.
There are plenty of OS choices. Apple even let's you use other OS's on their hardware if you don't want to use OS X. Just don't steal their software and put it on a non-Apple branded machine. Apple is putting in their EULA that you must use OS X on their hardware, not to stop you from using another OS on their hardware, but to stop you from using their software on a non-branded machine.
Their software is tied to their hardware, but their hardware is not tied to their software. You don't have to use OS X at all. But if you want to, it must be used on an Apple machine. It's not the same thing.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
I told you to read the history first. MS case has nothing to do with EULA. Just like LTMP said you are getting it backward. It is perfectly legal to bundle your products together. For example, MS has been bundling Word, Excel, Power Point into Office for years. It becomes illegal when you start to abuse your monopoly and engage in anticompetitive behavior.
By the way, I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy a Mac, do you?!
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
You almost have it, you're just missing the abusive part. Being "big" is not the reason they were punished.
Comments
So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.
http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?...230d0f&type=js
Works best with XP and IE 6.
No because it is illegal for MS and everyone else to use their monopoly in one market (in MS case the OS market) to gain market share in another market (the web browser market). Apple is not a monopoly with their 5% market share.
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
I suggest you go read some history.
So if MS incorporates IE into Windows and includes in their EULA that, according to the terms of the EULA, you must accept IE as the default browser.....is it legal?
No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.
Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".
Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously
OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.
I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.
Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.
Y
Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".
With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.
So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.
Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.
No, because MS used it's market dominance to eliminate browser competition by bundling it into the OS, in a time when modem speeds were common, making it difficult to download competing browsers. They also prevented you from uninstalling IE, and made it the default in the OS as well as making it all to easy to end up resetting it as the default unintentionally. Netscape's downfall was a direct result, and the reason they are no longer allowed to bundle it as they did.
Microsoft lied repeated times during the trial, and submitted false evidence (which they were caught doing twice).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the Intel-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, Real Networks, Linux, and others".
Comparing the two is disingenuous at best. Apple does not have a market majority in the PC market, nor have they tried to force other hardware vendors to release their hardware with OS X. Quite the contrary obviously
OS X is proprietary software, which has a very well established legal precedence. Just because someone thinks they can ignore a license agreement, doesn't make it legal for them to do so, and they do so at their own peril. They will get no sympathy from the court (obviously) as the judges ruling was very clear.
I doubt seriously that anyone at Microsoft is behind Psystar. The Psystar folks are to inept, and challenges to software licensing would be a disaster for Microsoft. Possibly other hardware vendors might have an interest in funding Psystar though.
Psystar's legal defense claimed that they 'owned' the software which allowed them copy right without a license, which simply isn't the case with proprietary software licenses. As a result, 17 U.S.C. § 117 under the Copyright act do not apply since they don't 'own' the software. Apple owns it.
Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat. But Apple is violating, on a smaller scale, the principle that MS was not allowed to get away with.
Thank you, you're helping to make my point. Some folks here think that just because an exclusivity is written into Apple's EULA, that it's legal. The difference between MS and Apple has to do with their size, not how EULAs can be used. Apple's getting away with it only because they're less of a threat.
No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
You're actually looking at it backwards. MS, because of it's market dominance, is barred from various activities which would normally be acceptable.
You're actually looking at it backwards. MS, because of it's market dominance, is barred from various activities which would normally be acceptable.
Microsoft anti-trust case had nothing to do with licensing at all. I don't know why he seems to think it's even relevant.
No, they 'get away with it' because it's perfectly legal to do so. Kindly point out the ruling that states that software licenses and software copyrights are illegal?
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
Give me a friggin break! These guys just don't know when to quit.
Their theme song must be that of the movie "Rocky"!
Stupid is as Stupid does!!
Psystar is about as useful as a one tit "Octomom" at feeding time!
So since MS is larger (not quite a monopoly) and Apple is smaller, Apple can just get away with it because they're not perceived as a threat. Apple can control both their OS AND the hardware, but a blind eye is turned because they have 5-10% of the market. MS isn't allowed to control even the browser within their own OS, much less the hardware. But only because they're bigger.
Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?
It's no different than Verizon locking out the phone manufacturer's code so they could install their crippled store to the phone. You wanted a phone on Verizon, so you dealt with it. You want to run OS X, then you deal with it. Or you hack a junk box and run OS X on it. Apple will not sue you. Just don't f-ing sell it and throw it in their faces. They started out as hackers, they get it.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size.
Again, what does bundling IE have to do with a EULA? Have you even read the anti-trust case against Microsoft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Microsoft's anti-trust case had nothing to do with licensing at all. I don't know why you seem to think it's even relevant. ANY company that is found to be anti-competitive would be exposed to legal action. Apple is no exception. It requires two things. One has to do with market dominance, and the other involves using that dominance to unfair advantage. If Apple was the defacto PC maker, and they sent out the OS with Safari bunled as they do now, they could potentially be caught in the same trap except for the fact that browsers are easily available with the advent of broadband, and the simply fact that if you didn't like Safari, you simply drag it to the trash. MS claimed you couldn't uninstall IE or it would make the OS unstable and slow, which was proved to be false after they were caught submitting false evidence. MS later dropped that claim as a result.
The catch is there is nothing Apple is doing that is anti-competitive. Apple can't be forced to sell their software to competitors. There's a line between day to day business, and helping your competitors put you out of business. Since Apple does not have a market majority AND they are not using that majority to unfairly compete with competitors, there is no anti-competitive action and no valid comparison between the two.
All of which is irrelevant. This is strictly about licensing and copyright. Psystar claimed that they 'owned' their copy of OS X and as such, under copyright law, they could use it without license from Apple (very much legal for something that you purchase and own). However, they failed to realize (or refuse to acknowledge...I'm not sure which), that they do not own OS X. They own a proprietary license, which basically says that Apple retains all ownership, and that blows a huge hole in Psystar's case.
Seriously? For all of the companies to ask that question of, there is too much history to ignore why MS was an abusive monopoly. MS tied their browser to their OS so you had no choice in installing it or not. They gave it away for free so Netscape and other competitors would die off. They made it so IE wasn't standards compliant in an effort to control the entire web industry, such that web designers would have to code to MS's browser. We are still dealing with the fallout, and necessary code hacks for that stupid browser and you want to defend this practice?
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
Maybe you should tell the courts your argument. Would have saved Microsoft millions
Your lack of understanding in regards to anti-trust is amusing.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.
There are plenty of OS choices. Apple even let's you use other OS's on their hardware if you don't want to use OS X. Just don't steal their software and put it on a non-Apple branded machine. Apple is putting in their EULA that you must use OS X on their hardware, not to stop you from using another OS on their hardware, but to stop you from using their software on a non-branded machine.
Their software is tied to their hardware, but their hardware is not tied to their software. You don't have to use OS X at all. But if you want to, it must be used on an Apple machine. It's not the same thing.
I didn't say that they were illegal. I'm just saying that you can't assume something is legal just by packaging it in an EULA. An EULA doesn't make it legal. MS tried it with IE and were forced to not tie IE in with Windows.
The only difference is size. MS and Apple did the same thing, it's just that MS was forced to take IE out of its EULA because MS is huge. Apple is making an anti-competitive environment in that they are forcing you to buy bundled hardware and OS from them, but since they're 'small fish', it's legal.
But it only comes down to size. Apple is violating the same principle, and so I applaud Psystar for challenging the double standard.
I told you to read the history first. MS case has nothing to do with EULA. Just like LTMP said you are getting it backward. It is perfectly legal to bundle your products together. For example, MS has been bundling Word, Excel, Power Point into Office for years. It becomes illegal when you start to abuse your monopoly and engage in anticompetitive behavior.
By the way, I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy a Mac, do you?!
MS makes software. Whether it's 'liked' or not, if they integrate their browser into the OS, that's their right, isn't it? The government said no, because they were big. Not that the principle of tying the two together was inherently wrong. Apple is tying their OS and hardware, but it's only because they're small that it's legal for them.
You almost have it, you're just missing the abusive part. Being "big" is not the reason they were punished.