The first sentence that you wrote there is correct but ultimately not relevant because it is not generally necessary to refer to a company by name in order to produce a definition of a market that is specific to that company and its products. The exception would be a product that is truly generic and not distingsuishable from competing products in any way. The rest of what you wrote is NOT true and is counter-intuitive and counter-logical, the reason being that if a company totally takes over a particular market, any suitable definition of that market would implicity single out that company's product. This is manifest, and that is why it is preposterous to argue that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product. The argument that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product is every bit as contrived and silly as all of the arguments that people are putting forth in these Psystar threads. I have no doubt that the courts at one point of time, and possibly still, regarded this as a meaningful criteria by which to judge whether a proposed "market" qualifies as a market to which the anti-trust laws would be applied. But even if the courts thought so, that doesn't make it an absolute, objective definition. The legal definitions that courts deal with are quite often contrived, due to the fact that legislators make laws that are poorly defined and formulated, leaving it for the courts to try and figure out what it really means. There was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "market", and there was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "monopoly". The definitions are necessarily contrived, and all of these arguments and analogies that are appearing here add up to nothing but folly.
But laws are not written to cover a single point in time. For sure if a law was written today that pertains to having a monopoly in the "computer operating systems" market, we would all automatically associate Microsoft with that law. But let's say that 10 years from now OSX and Linux take's hold and Microsoft only has 40% of the computer operating system market. That law would be useless if it contains any wording like Microsoft, Windows, Vista, Dos or XP. Laws are written to it's lowest common denominator so that it doesn't have to be re-written every there's a shift in market balance or change in brand name. The laws are written so that it will still apply (if it stills relavant) no matter who may have the monopoly in the comptuer operating system market in the future. A law that cites the "Windows OS market" will always only pertain to Microsoft even if they no longer have a monopoly in the real market.
So any law defining a "Mac" market" can not be used against Dell or HP because they don't make "Macs". Even if they were allowed to make computers that runs OSX. So let say we remedy this by defining the market as "a computer hardware market that uses OSX by Apple". What happens when Apple comes out with OSXI? That law will have to be rewritten every time apple changes the name of their OS. So we go further down and define it as "a computer hardware market that uses an OS made by Apple". Well, now Apple will always have a monopoly in this market as any OS written by any other company will not be included in the "OS written by Apple" market. And any law written for this market will target Apple and not Microsoft, Oracle, RedHat, etc. And what happens if Apple decides to split the software division from the hardware and create a new company call "Pineapple". And Apple has an eclusive contracts with "Pineapple" to write an OS for a Mac. So now a Mac no longer has an OS written by Apple. But who created this monolopy in the first place? Not Apple, but the law that defined a market as "any computer hardware that uses an OS made by Apple". Even if Apple OS is only used on less than 5% of the world computers hardware. It doesn't make sense. Apple will be deem a monopoly when they either control over 75% of the "computer OS market" or "computer hardware market". Not when they control 100% of an artificially created market. And laws written that we associate with Microsoft Windows, will then apply to Apple. Without having to change a word in it.
And another point is that no matter how you define a "Mac" market, Apple had always had a monopoly in this market since 1984. And has never been challenged by IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, etc. Even when Apple had double digit market shares in the computer hardware market and computer OS market. What has changed? Besides that Apple is now in the single digit in terms of market shares. If anything, it proves that Apple having a monopoly in the "Mac" market didn't give it any unfair advantage in gaining market shares. And it didn't hurt any of their competitors. And consumers that didn't want a Mac just went out and got a PC. Maybe Apple wasn't abusive enough.
Well, I'm one of those that want a mid-range Mac tower, or better OS X that will run on any commodity PC hardware...
However, I don't necessarily side with Psystar...
I do think it could be a more complicated case than most here think, but it all depends on how the case is argued.
First of all, Psystar is violating Apple's licensing by installing OS X on commodity PCs. They should and will be fined for this.
Second, the issue of whether there is a Mac market is a rather gray area. There is a UNIX/Linux market, a Microsoft Windows market, and a Mac market. There is no PC market, however there is a computing market of which all of these are a part, but they are all separate segments with their own particulars. The majority just happen to run on Intel compatible hardware due to the commodity cost of the hardware. In the UNIX/Linux market you have competition because no one company can monopolize the UNIX standard. Microsoft and Apple do not have any competition in their markets because no one can, or has tried to create a Microsoft Windows or Macintosh compatible operating system. The question is, is Microsoft or Apple preventing this from happening? If the answer is yes, then they are using an unfair monopoly over their respective markets to squash competition. There is no standing in this case for this argument, but it would be an interesting case if someone tried to create a Windows or Mac compatible operating system and either Microsoft or Apple moved to squash them. Apple would be at a disadvantage in this case, because of the amount of open source software at the root of their operating system. Someone theoretically could take Darwin, do a bunch of development with it to get it to run Apple apps and resell it as a OS X compatible operating system. If Apple were to purposely re-code their operating system to break the compatibility, they'd be violating anti-trust laws.
Microsoft's monopoly conviction (the part that applies to this case) was based on Microsoft actively working to prevent competing operating systems like Novell from being pre-installed by computer vendors. They used their monopoly status in the business computing market to threat revoking PC vendors' licenses to install Windows on their hardware. If the vendor lost their license to install Windows, they would be sure to go out of business, so they had to comply with Microsoft's demands to stay in business. The only way the government could of remedied the situation, would of been to create another Windows compatible operating system company that could compete with Microsoft. However, the government has no power to do this. The market must compete on its own merits.
I must disagree.
There absolutely IS a "Mac market".
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
You're implying that every PMP makes up its own market since they all do things in slightly different but unique ways. Or that notebooks that have the vendor-created firmware that allow for pre-boot operation of media are their own market because it does "things in a unique, identifiable way." The Mac is part of the PC market, but it is not a market in and of itself. Apple's marketing of the Mac has apparently been too successful that some people can't see it a personal computer. There are many high-end, niche companies within a market that aren't considered their own market.
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
There is no "Mac Market" the same way there is no iPhone market, XBoX market, or PS3 market (Mac, iPhone, xbox, and PS3 are all products with integrated HW and SW). Apple Macintosh computer is a product that MUST consists of both Apple assembled computer components and Mac OS. The catch here is that Mac hardware requires Mac OS to work and Apple will never sell you the hardware without Mac OS. You cannot even run Windows on a Mac without Mac OS Leopard. Mac OS is an integrated part of the complete system the same way as the RAM, HDD, or LB.
Microsoft did not force PC manufacturers to install Windows in their computer products. What MS did was using its market share in the OS to increase its market share in the browser and productivity market (IE and Office software). They did that by bundling (or tying) IE to Windows and by giving computer manufacturers discounts for installing MS Office in new computers. This type of product tying, which is using the market share of product "A" to gain market share for product "B" by tying/bundling A and B, was found in many cases to be illegal. In Apple case, the hardware and the software have the same small market share and therefore they are not considered illegal as long as they are both one system. Apple almost went out of business when they licensed their Mac software to others. Apple only gained this market share by integrating both HW and SW.
If MS comes up tomorrow with their own PC and decided to only use Windows with their own PC then the courts will consider it illegal because they will be using their 90% or so market share in the OS market to gain market share in the hardware market, which is 0% at the moment.
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
If I wanted to drive around town in the unique look and features of "The Ultimate Driving Machine" I must buy a BMW. No one would argue that there is a difference between driving a BMW vs a Honda or Toyota. But does the unique look and features of a BMW make BMW a "market"? And when you come down to it, "The Ultimate Driving Machine" doesn't do anything different than a Honda or Toyota. A BMW just does it in a way that makes it seems it's doing something different.
A Mac (with OSX) does nothing different than any other computer running Windows. It may look different and have features not found on a Windows computer. But what a Mac (with OSX) does is no different than a PC with Windows. It just seems that way.
Comments
The first sentence that you wrote there is correct but ultimately not relevant because it is not generally necessary to refer to a company by name in order to produce a definition of a market that is specific to that company and its products. The exception would be a product that is truly generic and not distingsuishable from competing products in any way. The rest of what you wrote is NOT true and is counter-intuitive and counter-logical, the reason being that if a company totally takes over a particular market, any suitable definition of that market would implicity single out that company's product. This is manifest, and that is why it is preposterous to argue that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product. The argument that the definition of a market cannot single out any one company's product is every bit as contrived and silly as all of the arguments that people are putting forth in these Psystar threads. I have no doubt that the courts at one point of time, and possibly still, regarded this as a meaningful criteria by which to judge whether a proposed "market" qualifies as a market to which the anti-trust laws would be applied. But even if the courts thought so, that doesn't make it an absolute, objective definition. The legal definitions that courts deal with are quite often contrived, due to the fact that legislators make laws that are poorly defined and formulated, leaving it for the courts to try and figure out what it really means. There was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "market", and there was never, ever any absolute, objective way to define what constitures a "monopoly". The definitions are necessarily contrived, and all of these arguments and analogies that are appearing here add up to nothing but folly.
But laws are not written to cover a single point in time. For sure if a law was written today that pertains to having a monopoly in the "computer operating systems" market, we would all automatically associate Microsoft with that law. But let's say that 10 years from now OSX and Linux take's hold and Microsoft only has 40% of the computer operating system market. That law would be useless if it contains any wording like Microsoft, Windows, Vista, Dos or XP. Laws are written to it's lowest common denominator so that it doesn't have to be re-written every there's a shift in market balance or change in brand name. The laws are written so that it will still apply (if it stills relavant) no matter who may have the monopoly in the comptuer operating system market in the future. A law that cites the "Windows OS market" will always only pertain to Microsoft even if they no longer have a monopoly in the real market.
So any law defining a "Mac" market" can not be used against Dell or HP because they don't make "Macs". Even if they were allowed to make computers that runs OSX. So let say we remedy this by defining the market as "a computer hardware market that uses OSX by Apple". What happens when Apple comes out with OSXI? That law will have to be rewritten every time apple changes the name of their OS. So we go further down and define it as "a computer hardware market that uses an OS made by Apple". Well, now Apple will always have a monopoly in this market as any OS written by any other company will not be included in the "OS written by Apple" market. And any law written for this market will target Apple and not Microsoft, Oracle, RedHat, etc. And what happens if Apple decides to split the software division from the hardware and create a new company call "Pineapple". And Apple has an eclusive contracts with "Pineapple" to write an OS for a Mac. So now a Mac no longer has an OS written by Apple. But who created this monolopy in the first place? Not Apple, but the law that defined a market as "any computer hardware that uses an OS made by Apple". Even if Apple OS is only used on less than 5% of the world computers hardware. It doesn't make sense. Apple will be deem a monopoly when they either control over 75% of the "computer OS market" or "computer hardware market". Not when they control 100% of an artificially created market. And laws written that we associate with Microsoft Windows, will then apply to Apple. Without having to change a word in it.
And another point is that no matter how you define a "Mac" market, Apple had always had a monopoly in this market since 1984. And has never been challenged by IBM, Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Sony, etc. Even when Apple had double digit market shares in the computer hardware market and computer OS market. What has changed? Besides that Apple is now in the single digit in terms of market shares. If anything, it proves that Apple having a monopoly in the "Mac" market didn't give it any unfair advantage in gaining market shares. And it didn't hurt any of their competitors. And consumers that didn't want a Mac just went out and got a PC. Maybe Apple wasn't abusive enough.
Well, I'm one of those that want a mid-range Mac tower, or better OS X that will run on any commodity PC hardware...
However, I don't necessarily side with Psystar...
I do think it could be a more complicated case than most here think, but it all depends on how the case is argued.
First of all, Psystar is violating Apple's licensing by installing OS X on commodity PCs. They should and will be fined for this.
Second, the issue of whether there is a Mac market is a rather gray area. There is a UNIX/Linux market, a Microsoft Windows market, and a Mac market. There is no PC market, however there is a computing market of which all of these are a part, but they are all separate segments with their own particulars. The majority just happen to run on Intel compatible hardware due to the commodity cost of the hardware. In the UNIX/Linux market you have competition because no one company can monopolize the UNIX standard. Microsoft and Apple do not have any competition in their markets because no one can, or has tried to create a Microsoft Windows or Macintosh compatible operating system. The question is, is Microsoft or Apple preventing this from happening? If the answer is yes, then they are using an unfair monopoly over their respective markets to squash competition. There is no standing in this case for this argument, but it would be an interesting case if someone tried to create a Windows or Mac compatible operating system and either Microsoft or Apple moved to squash them. Apple would be at a disadvantage in this case, because of the amount of open source software at the root of their operating system. Someone theoretically could take Darwin, do a bunch of development with it to get it to run Apple apps and resell it as a OS X compatible operating system. If Apple were to purposely re-code their operating system to break the compatibility, they'd be violating anti-trust laws.
Microsoft's monopoly conviction (the part that applies to this case) was based on Microsoft actively working to prevent competing operating systems like Novell from being pre-installed by computer vendors. They used their monopoly status in the business computing market to threat revoking PC vendors' licenses to install Windows on their hardware. If the vendor lost their license to install Windows, they would be sure to go out of business, so they had to comply with Microsoft's demands to stay in business. The only way the government could of remedied the situation, would of been to create another Windows compatible operating system company that could compete with Microsoft. However, the government has no power to do this. The market must compete on its own merits.
I must disagree.
There absolutely IS a "Mac market".
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
I must disagree.
There absolutely IS a "Mac market".
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
You're implying that every PMP makes up its own market since they all do things in slightly different but unique ways. Or that notebooks that have the vendor-created firmware that allow for pre-boot operation of media are their own market because it does "things in a unique, identifiable way." The Mac is part of the PC market, but it is not a market in and of itself. Apple's marketing of the Mac has apparently been too successful that some people can't see it a personal computer. There are many high-end, niche companies within a market that aren't considered their own market.
I must disagree.
There absolutely IS a "Mac market".
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
There is no "Mac Market" the same way there is no iPhone market, XBoX market, or PS3 market (Mac, iPhone, xbox, and PS3 are all products with integrated HW and SW). Apple Macintosh computer is a product that MUST consists of both Apple assembled computer components and Mac OS. The catch here is that Mac hardware requires Mac OS to work and Apple will never sell you the hardware without Mac OS. You cannot even run Windows on a Mac without Mac OS Leopard. Mac OS is an integrated part of the complete system the same way as the RAM, HDD, or LB.
Microsoft did not force PC manufacturers to install Windows in their computer products. What MS did was using its market share in the OS to increase its market share in the browser and productivity market (IE and Office software). They did that by bundling (or tying) IE to Windows and by giving computer manufacturers discounts for installing MS Office in new computers. This type of product tying, which is using the market share of product "A" to gain market share for product "B" by tying/bundling A and B, was found in many cases to be illegal. In Apple case, the hardware and the software have the same small market share and therefore they are not considered illegal as long as they are both one system. Apple almost went out of business when they licensed their Mac software to others. Apple only gained this market share by integrating both HW and SW.
If MS comes up tomorrow with their own PC and decided to only use Windows with their own PC then the courts will consider it illegal because they will be using their 90% or so market share in the OS market to gain market share in the hardware market, which is 0% at the moment.
I must disagree.
There absolutely IS a "Mac market".
If someone wants to use the unique look and features of the Mac OS they MUST buy an Apple computer.
Even though there are other computers/OSs that do basically the same things, Apple Computer has developed and distributed a product that does these things in a unique, identifiable way.
But Apple is not a monopoly in the way Microsoft is.
Microsoft FORCED the hardware suppliers who wanted to sell their machines with the M$ OS inside, to use their products to the EXCLUSION
If I wanted to drive around town in the unique look and features of "The Ultimate Driving Machine" I must buy a BMW. No one would argue that there is a difference between driving a BMW vs a Honda or Toyota. But does the unique look and features of a BMW make BMW a "market"?
A Mac (with OSX) does nothing different than any other computer running Windows. It may look different and have features not found on a Windows computer. But what a Mac (with OSX) does is no different than a PC with Windows. It just seems that way.