Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.
I dont think thats monopoly on the basis that the software is something that they create, and softwares are property rights. I think they have a legal right for limiting its software use. Even If they called it a "monopoly", the market is not big enough. Mac only owns barely a third of a percent of the computer market.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
I just realize, if psystar has a "30,000 visits per second" (Appleinsider), then my mac machine with leopard must have worth more..
Btw, that stat, if it is true just justify why Macs are expensive (even the used ones). The demand is there. So why would Apple lower their price? if they do, they will lower the quality of their product and their brand equity.
btw, Apple will not pursue the "Open Computer" users in legal action because of obvious reasons. They want users to try their product. Which means, this is a free publicity for Apple. (Dont know if they need one). Like i said before, this situation just justify why Mac is expensive.
I dont know about you guys, this makes me appreciate my Mac more.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
It's a matter of contract law. Honda can certainly sue you for breach of contract if you install the engine in a Kia. They may be able to compell you to uninstall the engine.
Again, you agreed to the terms of purchase. If you didn't like the terms you should have bought your engine from elsewhere.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
How in the world would they be held liable? They might be able to say you can do it, but the don't tell you that you are not allowed to do it. Again, perhaps you are ok with companies telling you how you are allowed to use your property, I am not. If I accepted the EULA, fine, that was my decision. If the EULA is found to be illegal, then it is not OK. again, maybe that is just me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
If MS said you were only allowed to run IE and no other browser on Windows, or if they took steps, technical and legal to prevent you from running other office productivity suites, they would be investigated or sued. If they were not a monopoly, it would not be an issue. That they are a monopoly, makes it possible that they are behaving illegally.
As for the consoles, if someone else wanted to put the time and money into creating a 100% technically compatible console that was 100% legal in how it was assembled, you would be OK with MS telling you cannot run the xBox OS and games on there? Their EULA might legally prohibit it, but if someone convinces a judge that they are a monopoly and are using that monopoly to stifle competition, then they are an illegal monopoly.
I am a software developer. I understand the issue and try to look at it from both sides.
If Halo could run on a PS3, then you might have an argument. The simple fact that it cannot run on a PS3 make it a pretty lame analogy to software that can run on other hardware but is not allowed.
It's a matter of contract law. Honda can certainly sue you for breach of contract if you install the engine in a Kia. They may be able to compell you to uninstall the engine.
Again, you agreed to the terms of purchase. If you didn't like the terms you should have bought your engine from elsewhere.
Or challenge the terms of the contract...
Actually, I should add, that is a little like your cable company saying you have to use their TV and DVR. Sure, you have other options for television service, no question, but your cable company is still the local monopoly in delivering cable service. But, I guess if you are ok with just saying "yes, please may I have another" you would take the attitude that that is OK..or go elsewhere. Problem is, you want cable. Guess you have no choice. It is their contract after all.
You cannot challenge the contract ones you signed it. In the court of law, you will lose on the basis that you knowingly agreed to abide by the rule given by the company to use its software. Its like saying you have a written contract to pay me money. But you didnt. Instead you challenge the contract.
If Halo could run on a PS3, then you might have an argument. The simple fact that it cannot run on a PS3 make it a pretty lame analogy to software that can run on other hardware but is not allowed.
Halo could be made to run on a PS3 just as OSX can be made to run on non-Apple PCs. The difference is in the level of change required but both require modification.
What? You don't believe that MS has a contractural clause that prohibits porting Halo to other platforms just as it does with Mass Effect and other exclusives?
Clearly, the people running Psystar have no idea what they're doing. They claim Apple is breaking anti-trust laws? Are they insane? Can I run PS3 software on my Mac? Can I run the software that controls my TiVo on a PC? These guys are dumber than a newspaper flak jacket.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
Just so you know, when you purchase something, you do not own the technology, you purchase its right to use it. Its the same thing as you dont own your movies, cd. Thats why a lot of people say they purchase a copy of a movie, you dont owned it. If you owned the movie, then you are entitled to every cent the movie makes from selling the "copy" dvd. When you purchase the right to use it, the company has the right to take that right once you violate the term agreement.
Also, there is no such thing as mac market. its personal computer market (i think).. but in this market, there is obviously all OS (including Linux). In this market, Apple only owned less than a third. I dont think thats monopoly.
Halo could be made to run on a PS3 just as OSX can be made to run on non-Apple PCs. The difference is in the level of change required but both require modification.
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
What? You don't believe that MS has a contractural clause that prohibits porting Halo to other platforms just as it does with Mass Effect and other exclusives?
I am sure they do and I am sure it will never be an issue as long as no one cares to challenge it. But if MS started to say you could not use xBox with a Sony TV, some might consider a legal challenge. Some (most) would go buy a PS3.
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
OS X cannot run on a PC. you have to get an emulator. Same thing with Halo3. you have to write an emulator for PS3.
A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a particular product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
A layman definition of the parts of a word does not equal a legal definition of that word.
Actually, I should add, that is a little like your cable company saying you have to use their TV and DVR. Sure, you have other options for television service, no question, but your cable company is still the local monopoly in delivering cable service. But, I guess if you are ok with just saying "yes, please may I have another" you would take the attitude that that is OK..or go elsewhere. Problem is, you want cable. Guess you have no choice. It is their contract after all.
Actually, they do have that clause...you want to use the Dish Network service you buy Dish network gear. You want to have digital cable you rent a cable box/dvr or a cablecard. Fortunately I have FiOS but I'd still be stuck with a cablecard rental if I wanted to use a real Tivo.
Just so you know, when you purchase something, you do not own the technology, you purchase its right to use it. Its the same thing as you dont own your movies, cd. Thats why a lot of people say they purchase a copy of a movie, you dont owned it. If you owned the movie, then you are entitled to every cent the movie makes from selling the "copy" dvd. When you purchase the right to use it, the company has the right to take that right once you violate the term agreement.
ummm...yeah. But, then it depends on what you are buying. If you buy a car, you are allowed to do with it as you please, so long as it abides local laws. You can sell it too. If you buy media, incuding software, there are more legal restrictions on what it means to own it. Irrelevant. Within the legal restrictions of what it means to 'own' your copy of software, there is a limit to what the owners of the software can do to limit your use of that software. It is a matter of what are those limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ros3ntan
Also, there is no such thing as mac market. its personal computer market (i think).. but in this market, there is obviously all OS (including Linux). In this market, Apple only owned less than a third. I dont think thats monopoly.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
Btw, there is no difference between PC, PS3, XBOX, Macs. They all have an operating system. So i think the analogy does hold.
Comments
Agreed. The question is whether Apple using this software EULA to stifle competitors on their hardware is legal. They are a monopoly on Mac compatible hardware and on the OS. Are they using their monopoly position on the OS to unfairly prevent competition to their hardware? I am not in anyway saying that they are. Just trying to explain why a company that is prevented from selling hardware that is OSX compatible might have a case to argue.
I dont think thats monopoly on the basis that the software is something that they create, and softwares are property rights. I think they have a legal right for limiting its software use. Even If they called it a "monopoly", the market is not big enough. Mac only owns barely a third of a percent of the computer market.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
Btw, that stat, if it is true just justify why Macs are expensive (even the used ones). The demand is there. So why would Apple lower their price? if they do, they will lower the quality of their product and their brand equity.
I dont know about you guys, this makes me appreciate my Mac more.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
Agreed.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
It's a matter of contract law. Honda can certainly sue you for breach of contract if you install the engine in a Kia. They may be able to compell you to uninstall the engine.
Again, you agreed to the terms of purchase. If you didn't like the terms you should have bought your engine from elsewhere.
Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
Exactly.
Honda may not be able to stop you from installing their engine in a Kia. But for sure they can not condone it and must warn you that you are not allow to do it. Otherwise they can be held liable if your modified Kia goes out of control and kills somebody. This way you can't take the ignorance plead and claimed "no one told me I couldn't".
How in the world would they be held liable? They might be able to say you can do it, but the don't tell you that you are not allowed to do it. Again, perhaps you are ok with companies telling you how you are allowed to use your property, I am not. If I accepted the EULA, fine, that was my decision. If the EULA is found to be illegal, then it is not OK. again, maybe that is just me.
By your dweinition an Xbox 360 is a monopoly in the Xbox 360 market. A PlayStaion3 is a monopoly in the PlayStaion3 market. And a Wii is a monopoly in the Wii market. But the only thing that counts is that none of these are monolopies in the gaming console market. And Apple is not a monopoly in the computer market. Prohibiting OSX on other hardware is no more anti competitive than MS prohibiting "Halo" for PlayStation3 or Wii.
If MS said you were only allowed to run IE and no other browser on Windows, or if they took steps, technical and legal to prevent you from running other office productivity suites, they would be investigated or sued. If they were not a monopoly, it would not be an issue. That they are a monopoly, makes it possible that they are behaving illegally.
As for the consoles, if someone else wanted to put the time and money into creating a 100% technically compatible console that was 100% legal in how it was assembled, you would be OK with MS telling you cannot run the xBox OS and games on there? Their EULA might legally prohibit it, but if someone convinces a judge that they are a monopoly and are using that monopoly to stifle competition, then they are an illegal monopoly.
I am a software developer. I understand the issue and try to look at it from both sides.
Exactly.
nope.
If Halo could run on a PS3, then you might have an argument. The simple fact that it cannot run on a PS3 make it a pretty lame analogy to software that can run on other hardware but is not allowed.
It's a matter of contract law. Honda can certainly sue you for breach of contract if you install the engine in a Kia. They may be able to compell you to uninstall the engine.
Again, you agreed to the terms of purchase. If you didn't like the terms you should have bought your engine from elsewhere.
Or challenge the terms of the contract...
Actually, I should add, that is a little like your cable company saying you have to use their TV and DVR. Sure, you have other options for television service, no question, but your cable company is still the local monopoly in delivering cable service. But, I guess if you are ok with just saying "yes, please may I have another" you would take the attitude that that is OK..or go elsewhere. Problem is, you want cable. Guess you have no choice. It is their contract after all.
Or challenge the terms of the contract...
You cannot challenge the contract ones you signed it. In the court of law, you will lose on the basis that you knowingly agreed to abide by the rule given by the company to use its software. Its like saying you have a written contract to pay me money. But you didnt. Instead you challenge the contract.
nope.
If Halo could run on a PS3, then you might have an argument. The simple fact that it cannot run on a PS3 make it a pretty lame analogy to software that can run on other hardware but is not allowed.
Halo could be made to run on a PS3 just as OSX can be made to run on non-Apple PCs. The difference is in the level of change required but both require modification.
What? You don't believe that MS has a contractural clause that prohibits porting Halo to other platforms just as it does with Mass Effect and other exclusives?
? http://www.informationweek.com/blog/...one_maker.html
Clearly, the people running Psystar have no idea what they're doing. They claim Apple is breaking anti-trust laws? Are they insane? Can I run PS3 software on my Mac? Can I run the software that controls my TiVo on a PC? These guys are dumber than a newspaper flak jacket.
No, it is my engine, once I purchase it. I am sorry, but I have to take issue when someone tells me what I can do with my own property. Especially a business. Maybe that is just me.
You know of another company that sells Macs or MacOSX compatible hardware? By definition, they are a monopoly within the mac market. This does not make them an illegal monopoly, and that is an important distinction. What might make them an illegal monopoly, is if they used their monopoly to protect their market share and prevent competition. This what their prohibiting OSX on other hardware could be interpreted as.
Just so you know, when you purchase something, you do not own the technology, you purchase its right to use it. Its the same thing as you dont own your movies, cd. Thats why a lot of people say they purchase a copy of a movie, you dont owned it. If you owned the movie, then you are entitled to every cent the movie makes from selling the "copy" dvd. When you purchase the right to use it, the company has the right to take that right once you violate the term agreement.
Also, there is no such thing as mac market. its personal computer market (i think).. but in this market, there is obviously all OS (including Linux). In this market, Apple only owned less than a third. I dont think thats monopoly.
Halo could be made to run on a PS3 just as OSX can be made to run on non-Apple PCs. The difference is in the level of change required but both require modification.
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
What? You don't believe that MS has a contractural clause that prohibits porting Halo to other platforms just as it does with Mass Effect and other exclusives?
I am sure they do and I am sure it will never be an issue as long as no one cares to challenge it. But if MS started to say you could not use xBox with a Sony TV, some might consider a legal challenge. Some (most) would go buy a PS3.
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
OS X cannot run on a PC. you have to get an emulator. Same thing with Halo3. you have to write an emulator for PS3.
<something about apple having a monopoly>
A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a particular product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product. Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
A layman definition of the parts of a word does not equal a legal definition of that word.
Or challenge the terms of the contract...
Actually, I should add, that is a little like your cable company saying you have to use their TV and DVR. Sure, you have other options for television service, no question, but your cable company is still the local monopoly in delivering cable service. But, I guess if you are ok with just saying "yes, please may I have another" you would take the attitude that that is OK..or go elsewhere. Problem is, you want cable. Guess you have no choice. It is their contract after all.
Actually, they do have that clause...you want to use the Dish Network service you buy Dish network gear. You want to have digital cable you rent a cable box/dvr or a cablecard. Fortunately I have FiOS but I'd still be stuck with a cablecard rental if I wanted to use a real Tivo.
Just so you know, when you purchase something, you do not own the technology, you purchase its right to use it. Its the same thing as you dont own your movies, cd. Thats why a lot of people say they purchase a copy of a movie, you dont owned it. If you owned the movie, then you are entitled to every cent the movie makes from selling the "copy" dvd. When you purchase the right to use it, the company has the right to take that right once you violate the term agreement.
ummm...yeah. But, then it depends on what you are buying. If you buy a car, you are allowed to do with it as you please, so long as it abides local laws. You can sell it too. If you buy media, incuding software, there are more legal restrictions on what it means to own it. Irrelevant. Within the legal restrictions of what it means to 'own' your copy of software, there is a limit to what the owners of the software can do to limit your use of that software. It is a matter of what are those limits.
Also, there is no such thing as mac market. its personal computer market (i think).. but in this market, there is obviously all OS (including Linux). In this market, Apple only owned less than a third. I dont think thats monopoly.
There is no Mac market? There are Mac retailers, Mac after market services and products, specific to the Mac software, Mac development environments, Mac customers, Mac books, Mac websites, Mac professionals and Mac Developers. If that isn't a distinct market, what is? Yes, obviously, the Mac market is a sub-market to the general PC market in most way, that is not in question. But, within the Mac market, are they a monopoly? Yes, obviously they are. Are they an illegal monopoly?
No, the difference is that OSX could run on non-Apple PC's but has been prevented from doing so through software checks and the EULA. Halo cannot run on a PS3 because it was not written to run on a PS3. Nothing to do with amount of changes required to enable it to run. OSX is compatible with PC hardware. Simple. Halo is not compatible with PS3 hardware. Simple.
Btw, there is no difference between PC, PS3, XBOX, Macs. They all have an operating system. So i think the analogy does hold.