Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).
It really is that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
They got guts... but it will take a lot more than that to win this one. If they are "pre-pared" who is backing them? Apple just got th top HP attorney, and a pretty big increase in sales. Many court cases don't even need to be one by a verdict, economies of scale and bleeding a defense dry usually does the trick.
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
agreed!
What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.
I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.
Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.
I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.
If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.
Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:
"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."
The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.
Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.
Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.
And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.
Lots of snippy people today.
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.
Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.
Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.
When you buy a copy of software (or music or movies), you DO NOT own it. You've purchased a license to use it and that license comes with terms of usage.
There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.
Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richardlol
If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.
Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
Has anyone notice that according to Google earth psystar is Located on a residential adress i guess it's time to start calling your credit card company, just go to google maps & click on 10645 sw 112 st miami fl 33176 satellite view
Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).
It really is that simple.
It really is. But yet some people can't understand it. I almost feel like some people are intentionally ignoring the facts and just believing whatever supports their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richardlol
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
They're probably fine with selling the box. The problem is telling people they can install OSX, and providing the osx86 hacks that enable the installation. And especially pre-installing it for people - it's one thing for individuals to violate the EULA in their own homes, another for a company to do it on a grand scale.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.
You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.
Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Many are getting confused here regarding monopoly.
Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.
The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"
That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.
You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:
"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."
The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.
Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.
I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.
Okay, you need to learn the meaning of the word brand. Here are a couple of definitions for you:
"A name or symbol used to identify the source of goods or services, and to differentiate them from those of others. Branding protects a seller's products against those marketed by competitors and imitators and helps consumers identify the quality, consistency, and imagery of a preferred source."
or
"A unique and identifiable symbol, association, name or trademark which serves to differentiate competing products or services. Both a physical and emotional trigger to create a relationship between consumers and the product/service."
The Mac is a brand that Apple uses to distinguish it's computers from those of the rest of the market, a market in which it competes. Saying the Apple Macintosh is the same as saying Dell Dimension or Sony Vaio.
Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Sony has a monopoly on Vaios. It's a retarded statement! Just because a Mac is a more unique computer than a Vaio is doesn't change anything. A Mac is a part of a greater industry - personal computers. Macs are not an industry in itself.
I truly hope you understand that. If not, you're really more dense than I originally thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Yes, those examples are trademarks. And they provide exclusive rights to use of that brand, provided by trademark law. But those aren't called "monopoly" rights.
The Operating System / Computer market isn't different just because it's more complicated. A monopoly is defined as control of a commodity. A brand is NOT a commodity, it's one piece of the pie for that given commodity.
Coke has part of the soda commodity pie. Apple has part of the computer commodity pie. Honda has part of the automotive commodity pie. None have a monopoly of any kind.
And please give an example of a product that wouldn't be a monopoly under your definition?
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
The given type of product is a computer.
And there's no question that apple has competition, all the other computers for sale. So by YOUR definition, apple is not a monopoly.
Okay. Yes you did. However, you clearly do not understand what it means. The definition you posted:
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
I've bolded the section you are ignoring or misunderstanding. The market in this case is personal computers, NOT MACs. Because a Mac is part of Apple's brand, it cannot be the industry/market. There is no Honda industry, no XBox industry, no Vaio industry... and there is not Mac industry. There are however, automobile, game console and personal computer industries.
You are missing a huge distinction here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.
Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.
You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.
Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.
That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?
Comments
It really is that simple.
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
Thunk Different.
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
agreed!
What minderbinder is arguing, without even realizing it is that all software should be open.
I like software embedded with my hardware, it always works better. That is in a sense what OS X is. You buy the hardware you get the software.
Why can't I install segway software on my ATV? Why can't I run my iPhone software on other hardware. Pretty much every device has with a microprocessor has software written for it. Why can't I run it on other hardware.
I don't ask these questions, cause I know. That's not how it was designed.
Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."
The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.
Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.
Getting a little snippy aren't we.
Yes, Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. Yes they own the brands. I think everyone has a pretty firm grasp on that, thanks. I'll throw your question back at you; What do you not understand about the definition of Monopoly?
Where can you by another computer running Mac OSX. Apple has the monopoly for the Mac market. I've only been able to by Macs running the Mac OS from Apple since my first Mac in 1987. ( Except for that 1 Power Computing box back 11 years ago or so), but...
The car analogy is getting old and never worked for me. Honda doesn't have a monopoly on the roads or the gas they operate on, just their brand. Dell or HP doesn't have a monopoly on the operating system they run on, just their brand. Apple has a monopoly on the operating system and they have their brand. No other brand drives on the Mac OSX road, no other brand runs on that Mac OSX fuel.
That's just stupid.
The "given TYPE of product" is a computer. Not a mac - if you don't want a mac, you just buy a PC which serves the same purpose.
Aside from that, doesn't your logic imply that EVERY company has a monopoly if "type of product" is defined as the brand of product? Of course there's competition in the mac market. It's called a PC, and it's the reason Macs have single digit market share.
And for the record, I didn't say it was bad/illegal/whatever. I'm just saying it simply IS NOT a monopoly.
Lots of snippy people today.
I don't think anything about this is stupid. You cannot buy a Mac OS computer from anywhere but Apple. I cannot just by a Dell or an HP to run the Mac OS on. If I want to run the Mac OS I have to buy Apple, thus the monopoly.
Companies can have a monopoly on their brand. That is the purpose of Trademark law and Tradedress both provide an effective monopoly for that branding that does not expire unless challenged an overturned by USPTO.
Once again there is no competition in the Mac market for other systems running the Mac OS. If I have tens of thousands invested in Mac software I cannot buy hardware for the OS from anyone else but Apple.
There are way too many people who do not understand the concept of copyright or intellectual property and I think that is where the problem lies. You can try to challenge the laws (as this company is trying to do with their Open Computers) but until the laws change (and they are not likely going to be), you need to understand how these laws work.
Again, you are buying the right to use ... you do not buy ownership of the product.
If I buy this box made with standard components then I own it. If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too. If I then pay a contractor a fee to install software I own on a box that I own then the only entity voilating anything is ME for not following the terms of the user agreement. As long as the company is a legit OSX reseller, then I don't see how they are in trouble.
Now Apple can surely come after ME, but that's a losing game. Or Apple could alter new versions of OSX and OSX updates so they would not work on my machine - but it seems like the risk here is on the consumer - Apple could try to enforce the user agreement or make their box a brick.
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.
The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"
If If I buy a legal retail copy of OSX from them then I own that too.
No you don not. You simply have a license to use that OS in accordance with that license
Okay, a monopoly has to be for an industry that is not owned by any one company or individual. It cannot be for a brand. A brand, by definition, is owned by the creator of the brand and has exclusive rights to how that brand is used and promoted (unless they grant those rights to a third party).
It really is that simple.
It really is. But yet some people can't understand it. I almost feel like some people are intentionally ignoring the facts and just believing whatever supports their position.
I just don't see the legal problem with selling the box itself. Standard components, nothing risky there. And I don't see a problem with selling a retail copy of OSX. Lots of places sell OSX so as long as they are a legit retailer then no prob. The only sticky area seems to be installing OSX on the box, but as an agent of the buyer, it seems like the buyer bears that risk as long as they complete the purchase of both items before doing the install.
Depending upon the marketing, maybe Apple could go after the manufacturer for encouraging others to violate their user agreement?
They're probably fine with selling the box. The problem is telling people they can install OSX, and providing the osx86 hacks that enable the installation. And especially pre-installing it for people - it's one thing for individuals to violate the EULA in their own homes, another for a company to do it on a grand scale.
And Coke has the "monopoly" for the Coke market. And McDonalds has the "monopoly" for the Big Mac market.
Where can you buy another can filled with Coke other than the Coke company?
How can you possibly claim to understand what monopoly really means when your "definition" makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly? If you're going to keep insisting that Apple has a monopoly, please stop ignoring this question and answer it.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Companies can have a monopoly on their brand.
That's your problem right there.
Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.
You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.
Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.
Many are getting confused here regarding monopoly.
Monoplies are not inherently bad nor are they illegal. It is the "abuse" of monopolistic powers that draw the ire of our legal system.
The problem I see is the errorneous correlation that suggests monopoly="bad"
That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.
You seem to be using a Webster's dictionary definition of monopoly to debate your points. This is invalid as we are talking about the legal definition, as it applies to business. Here's one:
"An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."
The specific business or trade here is the computer industry. Legally, there is no such thing as a Mac industry, as that is a brand owned by Apple. The Mac is a part of the free market we know as the computer industry. If you don't want to pay the higher prices (debatable) for a Mac, you have the option to by a PC. You just won't get the benefits associated with buying a Mac.
Apple does not have exclusive power to carry on the computer industry. I has exclusive power over its own brand, and that is the way it should be. That is why it is not a monopoly, in the legal sense.
I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.
"A name or symbol used to identify the source of goods or services, and to differentiate them from those of others. Branding protects a seller's products against those marketed by competitors and imitators and helps consumers identify the quality, consistency, and imagery of a preferred source."
or
"A unique and identifiable symbol, association, name or trademark which serves to differentiate competing products or services. Both a physical and emotional trigger to create a relationship between consumers and the product/service."
The Mac is a brand that Apple uses to distinguish it's computers from those of the rest of the market, a market in which it competes. Saying the Apple Macintosh is the same as saying Dell Dimension or Sony Vaio.
Your saying that Apple has a monopoly on Macs is like saying Sony has a monopoly on Vaios. It's a retarded statement! Just because a Mac is a more unique computer than a Vaio is doesn't change anything. A Mac is a part of a greater industry - personal computers. Macs are not an industry in itself.
I truly hope you understand that. If not, you're really more dense than I originally thought.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
Yes, those examples are trademarks. And they provide exclusive rights to use of that brand, provided by trademark law. But those aren't called "monopoly" rights.
The Operating System / Computer market isn't different just because it's more complicated. A monopoly is defined as control of a commodity. A brand is NOT a commodity, it's one piece of the pie for that given commodity.
Coke has part of the soda commodity pie. Apple has part of the computer commodity pie. Honda has part of the automotive commodity pie. None have a monopoly of any kind.
And please give an example of a product that wouldn't be a monopoly under your definition?
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
The given type of product is a computer.
And there's no question that apple has competition, all the other computers for sale. So by YOUR definition, apple is not a monopoly.
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."
I've bolded the section you are ignoring or misunderstanding. The market in this case is personal computers, NOT MACs. Because a Mac is part of Apple's brand, it cannot be the industry/market. There is no Honda industry, no XBox industry, no Vaio industry... and there is not Mac industry. There are however, automobile, game console and personal computer industries.
You are missing a huge distinction here.
I'm not using Webster's dictionary definition. If you look at my post you will see I linked to the vary same definition your siting.
That's your problem right there.
Companies have a TRADEMARK on their brand. They have EXCLUSIVE USE of their brand. But the use of their brand doesn't constitute a monopoly, at least not by the definition of monopoly used in the legal system.
You're using a casual, non-legal definition of monopoly in a discussion about legality. It just confuses things. "MONOPOLY" has a specific legal definition. If you're not going to stick to that definition, please find a different term to describe what you mean.
Nobody else can make a Mac. Apple has exclusive rights to making Macs. But that doesn't mean they have a monopoly.
That's not the real confusion, it's the people insisting Apple is a monopoly just because they are the only company selling apple products. Such a circular definition would make every company a monopoly.
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Coca Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the Pepsi market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
I am taking about the RC Cola market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
Do you seriously think Pepsi should be able to make and sell Coke?
You're still confused - a monopoly is all of a TYPE OF PRODUCT, not all of a product. Computer is a type of product, mac is a product. With your interpretation, Dell and HP and Gateway all have monopolies as well. Must be nice for them to have no competition since nobody else makes a Dell or HP or Gateway box...
And you still haven't given an example showing that your confused definition doesn't define EVERY product as a monopoly. Why can't you give an example demonstrating that your definition doesn't define everything as a monopoly? (hint: because your definition is wrong, and it DOES do just that)
Really, why can't you answer that simple question?