I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
I'm still wondering what 'that' is. Are you saying that if Apple raises the price of OS X upgrades that Best Buy will still keep the price at $129?
Quote:
This is not the same apple uses the same hardware has other pc's and useing a lock out chip is like what lexmark did.
I never mentioned a lockout chip. I mentioned using HW that others wouldn't be able to get ahold of. A lockout chip is specifically designed for one purpose and one purpose only.
Quote:
But I'm talking about a PC that can use other os's dell and others where forced to offer pc's with out the cost of the windows os so apple must be able to do the same.
The situation is completely different. MS' Windows EULA stated that you can return the software if you didn't want to accept the software agreement. It might be possible with OS X, too, but it all depends on how the EULA is worded. Feel free to go through the EULA, I'll wait until I have a bout of insomnia before I tackle it.
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
C.
That's because you Brits don't really understand what a free market is. If your government doesn't provide it for you, then it's totally foreign to you.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
C.
To make the exampel apt, your idea of a free market would force BMW to sell their GPS upgrade discs intended to update BMW owners to any other automobile manufacturer because they included HW that it will install on, even it does require these other automobile manufacturers to hack BMWs GPS software to get it running properly.
PS: Why do people sign their posts when their name is right next to each and every one?
That's because you Brits don't really understand what a free market is. If your government doesn't provide it for you, then it's totally foreign to you.
Hmm. You've never been to the UK in the last 30 years have you?
The UK financial markets were so incredibly de-regulated that there was a massive move from New York to London to escape the more regulated and protectionist US markets.
Within Europe the UK is consider to use the "Anglo Saxon model". IE. In other words they consider the UK to be just like the US. While in mainland Europe there is approval for massive subsidies for certain groups (farmers)
In the UK there is a vigorous defense of free markets. Including labour markets. Unions have far less power than their US counterparts, and companies are quite free to hire and fire. Citizens are free to move between European countries to find work.
But back on target...
In Europe generally, there is more legislation to protect the rights of consumers. For example if you buy a product from a vendor it must be of merchantable quality. If it breaks within a year, the merchant must replace it. In the US, consumer protection is somewhat weaker, and companies cry "caveat emptor" a little more often.
Neither model is more "free". In fact if companies can cheat and bribe their way out of delivering real value, then it is certainly *not* a free market. Market forces need some rules to work.
I can't guess why in the US , the rich and powerful corporations are more successful at ..er.. convincing politicians of their case.
Why does Apple have to do any of those options. Apple should be free to dictate how they want to sell and license their property any way they see fit.
There's a force of nature called gravity. It causes stuff to roll down hill. You can't legislate against it. Lawyers will say otherwise, and charge you for it. But they are lying.
You can see this force at work when there is a steep gradient.
The steep gradient here is caused by dirt-cheap PC hardware sitting right next to Apple's best of breed operating system.
Without applying any external force, gravity takes effect. Folks are helpless. They take the OS and "boom". It is installed it on the cheap hardware. You don't actually need to buy a Psystar. It takes 30 minutes to install OS X. Three hours to install Vista.
Of course Apple is free to dictate that users must do this or users must not do that. You can pass a constitutional amendment outlawing tidal motion. But it won't do any good.
Apple does not have to "do" anything.
But remember, Apple once turned digital music piracy into a multi-billion dollar business. They took a scurrilous, semi-legal, grass rootsy activity, and magically converted it into a global business.
Hmm. You've never been to the UK in the last 30 years have you?
The UK financial markets were so incredibly de-regulated that there was a massive move from New York to London to escape the more regulated and protectionist US markets.
Within Europe the UK is consider to use the "Anglo Saxon model". IE. In other words they consider the UK to be just like the US. While in mainland Europe there is approval for massive subsidies for certain groups (farmers)
In the UK there is a vigorous defense of free markets. Including labour markets. Unions have far less power than their US counterparts, and companies are quite free to hire and fire. Citizens are free to move between European countries to find work.
But back on target...
In Europe generally, there is more legislation to protect the rights of consumers. For example if you buy a product from a vendor it must be of merchantable quality. If it breaks within a year, the merchant must replace it. In the US, consumer protection is somewhat weaker, and companies cry "caveat emptor" a little more often.
Neither model is more "free". In fact if companies can cheat and bribe their way out of delivering real value, then it is certainly *not* a free market. Market forces need some rules to work.
I can't guess why in the US , the rich and powerful corporations are more successful at ..er.. convincing politicians of their case.
C.
We are the land of the free, and that's why we excell.
We are the land of the free, and that's why we excell.
I am actually a big fan of the United States.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
People misunderstand the concept of socialism. Socialism is compatible with a representative republic like the US, but not an authoritative regimen like Germany. I think you are also correct, the job of government should be to try and level the playing field of opportunity and to keep the big guys from beating up on the little guys.
The work ethic in the US is also a stereotype as it certainly doesn't apply across the Board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I am actually a big fan of the United States.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
Possibly, but if Microsoft sold a PC already equipped with an OS for one price and then later sold a separately boxed OS designed to update the older software already existing on those earlier machines it wouldn't be illegal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
C.
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
Some in the government want the people beholding to them, that gives the government people power over the lives of the people. No thanks.
There are actually very few things that government does well. The top of that list is national security, and then things start going down hill pretty fast. A good example of that is the US Post Office, what a cluster f---! The private sector out performs government in almost every case.
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
If the government really did what you suggest you wouldn't have a computer or the internet to send your message with.
If the government really did what you suggest you wouldn't have a computer or the internet to send your message with.
Get a clue! The government had nothing to do with any computer that I've ever bought, and they sure as hell don't pay my cable bill. In most cases, government IS the problem. That's why I support smaller government, the way that this country was founded. Government here was never intended to be a nanny state. Get off you ass and make something of yourself, then you won't need so much government in your life.
Get a clue! The government had nothing to do with any computer that I've ever bought, and they sure as hell don't pay my cable bill. In most cases, government IS the problem. That's why I support smaller government, the way that this country was founded. Government here was never intended to be a nanny state. Get off you ass and make something of yourself, then you won't need so much government in your life.
That is because you are not properly informed. All of the technology we have, the government in one way or another supported its development.
The government gives grants to research and development projects that are too expensive for private business to risk money developing. The government buys expensive new technology which allows the technology to continue to develop until it is viable for the consumer market.
In 1890 the government bought analog tabulating machines from Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation for the US Census. Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation later became IBM.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's government supported research at The University of California Berkly brought us the BSD variant of UNIX which is currently used in OS X.
The World Wide Web was developed in the 1980's in Switzerland by an organization called CERN. Which is a government supported organization for nuclear research. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with support from the US Department of Defense.
As I said you likely would not have a computer or the internet if it were not for the government.
That is because you are not properly informed. All of the technology we have, the government in one way or another supported its development.
The government gives grants to research and development projects that are too expensive for private business to risk money developing. The government buys expensive new technology which allows the technology to continue to develop until it is viable for the consumer market.
In 1890 the government bought analog tabulating machines from Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation for the US Census. Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation later became IBM.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's government supported research at The University of California Berkly brought us the BSD variant of UNIX which is currently used in OS X.
The World Wide Web was developed in the 1980's in Switzerland by an organization called CERN. Which is a government supported organization for nuclear research. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with support from the US Department of Defense.
As I said you likely would not have a computer or the internet if it were not for the government.
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
C.
That's not even close.
It's more like BMW includes a BMW GPS with every BMW. The GPS has many features that are not found on any other GPS. And BMW owns the patent on these features. Plus BMW designed their GPS for their BMW's and it only works when connected to a special patented chip found in the dash of a BMW. BMW sells the GPS separately in case a BMW owner needs a new one. A BMW owner is free to use an after market TomTom or Garmin if he wishes. Just like the owners of every other autos.
You're saying that the government has the right to force BMW to make their GPS for other autos just because there are consumers that wants one in their Hondas, Toyotas or Ford? And you can justify this because a BMW is too expensive for most consumers to own?
You're saying that if some one found a way to steal what's on BMW patented chip, they can start a business selling BMW GPS for other makes of autos?
Or that other auto makers can advertise that their autos includes the sought after BMW GPS if they found a way to make it work in their autos.
That's not how a free market works. If you want a BMW GPS then buy a BMW. BMW don't have to make their GPS work on any other auto but a BMW. Either that or buy a BMW GPS separately and try to make it work in your own non- BMW auto. But don't expect BMW to help you or support your BMW GPS after you have modified it. And don't expect BMW to let you start a business selling modified BMW GPS for other autos.
A free market is not a one way street. The government not only protects the consumers but they also protect the companies. If the government is not going to protect a company's right to profit from their IP then what incentive will any company have in developing new technology? Why spend the money in RD to develop new technology (or drugs) if the government can step in and say that you're going to have to share it with a company that wants to start a business that is going to compete against you? Or if the government is not going to stop some one from stealing another company's IP.
What part of a free market does it state that a company must share it's IP with their competitors? A BMW GPS may make the difference between some one buying a $60,000 BMW and a $60,000 Lexus. Why should BMW have to give up it's competitive edge? A competitive edge that they spent money on developing.
What a free market does is that it allows any company to put in their own money for RD and come up new technology so their products is better or cheaper that their competitors. Companies compete by offering something that the others don't have. Competition isn't only about driving the price down to benefit the consumers. It's also about giving a company the incentive to develop new technology and bringing it to market.
In our free market, Psystar is free to develop their own OS to make the computers they sell better than a Mac or PC. Apple is not stopping them from doing that. MS can not stop them from doing that. If the government want to help them with tax breaks and business loans, fine. But the government shouldn't hand them some one else's IP.
The consumers will ultimately benefit because there will be one more choice of an OS in the market. Plus Apple and MS will have to spend money on updating their OS so they stay competitive. They may even have to lower their prices. How does the consumers not benefit from this model?
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
Some in the government want the people beholding to them, that gives the government people power over the lives of the people. No thanks.
I am suggesting that as a citizen I want to buy hardware from vendor A and buy software from vendor B. I then go home and install B on A.
It you that wants the government to interfere and prevent me from doing that.
I am suggesting that as a citizen I want to buy hardware from vendor A and buy software from vendor B. I then go home and install B on A.
It you that wants the government to interfere and prevent me from doing that.
C.
Nope, it's you that has an idealistic attitude here. Perhaps you think that things work here the same way that they work in Britain, and they don't. We have laws that protect intellectual property, and we have laws against industrial espionage protecting business from unscrupulous competitors. There is absolutely nothing compelling Apple to make their software work on a competitors machine. Just because you want something doesn't mean that anyone is mandated to supply it.
Comments
I am still amazed that people think Apple should be the only software developer in existence that should abandon the free market to offer a socialized OS.
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
C.
for point 5 I don't see best buy doing that.
I'm still wondering what 'that' is. Are you saying that if Apple raises the price of OS X upgrades that Best Buy will still keep the price at $129?
This is not the same apple uses the same hardware has other pc's and useing a lock out chip is like what lexmark did.
I never mentioned a lockout chip. I mentioned using HW that others wouldn't be able to get ahold of. A lockout chip is specifically designed for one purpose and one purpose only.
But I'm talking about a PC that can use other os's dell and others where forced to offer pc's with out the cost of the windows os so apple must be able to do the same.
The situation is completely different. MS' Windows EULA stated that you can return the software if you didn't want to accept the software agreement. It might be possible with OS X, too, but it all depends on how the EULA is worded. Feel free to go through the EULA, I'll wait until I have a bout of insomnia before I tackle it.
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
C.
That's because you Brits don't really understand what a free market is. If your government doesn't provide it for you, then it's totally foreign to you.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
C.
To make the exampel apt, your idea of a free market would force BMW to sell their GPS upgrade discs intended to update BMW owners to any other automobile manufacturer because they included HW that it will install on, even it does require these other automobile manufacturers to hack BMWs GPS software to get it running properly.
PS: Why do people sign their posts when their name is right next to each and every one?
Psystar is a sideshow here.
Apple's options are
1) Wave the EULA a lot.
2) Embed more "security" - ie. Macintosh Genuine Advantage.
3) Adjust the business model.
Bill Gates would pick number 2.
Steve Jobs might just pick number 3.
C.
Psystar is more than a side show. If Apple let them get away with this then others would begin to try.
Why does Apple have to do any of those options. Apple should be free to dictate how they want to sell and license their property any way they see fit.
That's because you Brits don't really understand what a free market is. If your government doesn't provide it for you, then it's totally foreign to you.
Hmm. You've never been to the UK in the last 30 years have you?
The UK financial markets were so incredibly de-regulated that there was a massive move from New York to London to escape the more regulated and protectionist US markets.
Within Europe the UK is consider to use the "Anglo Saxon model". IE. In other words they consider the UK to be just like the US. While in mainland Europe there is approval for massive subsidies for certain groups (farmers)
In the UK there is a vigorous defense of free markets. Including labour markets. Unions have far less power than their US counterparts, and companies are quite free to hire and fire. Citizens are free to move between European countries to find work.
But back on target...
In Europe generally, there is more legislation to protect the rights of consumers. For example if you buy a product from a vendor it must be of merchantable quality. If it breaks within a year, the merchant must replace it. In the US, consumer protection is somewhat weaker, and companies cry "caveat emptor" a little more often.
Neither model is more "free". In fact if companies can cheat and bribe their way out of delivering real value, then it is certainly *not* a free market. Market forces need some rules to work.
I can't guess why in the US , the rich and powerful corporations are more successful at ..er.. convincing politicians of their case.
C.
Why does Apple have to do any of those options. Apple should be free to dictate how they want to sell and license their property any way they see fit.
There's a force of nature called gravity. It causes stuff to roll down hill. You can't legislate against it. Lawyers will say otherwise, and charge you for it. But they are lying.
You can see this force at work when there is a steep gradient.
The steep gradient here is caused by dirt-cheap PC hardware sitting right next to Apple's best of breed operating system.
Without applying any external force, gravity takes effect. Folks are helpless. They take the OS and "boom". It is installed it on the cheap hardware. You don't actually need to buy a Psystar. It takes 30 minutes to install OS X. Three hours to install Vista.
Of course Apple is free to dictate that users must do this or users must not do that. You can pass a constitutional amendment outlawing tidal motion. But it won't do any good.
Apple does not have to "do" anything.
But remember, Apple once turned digital music piracy into a multi-billion dollar business. They took a scurrilous, semi-legal, grass rootsy activity, and magically converted it into a global business.
Perhaps it's time to react to the escape of OS X.
C.
Hmm. You've never been to the UK in the last 30 years have you?
The UK financial markets were so incredibly de-regulated that there was a massive move from New York to London to escape the more regulated and protectionist US markets.
Within Europe the UK is consider to use the "Anglo Saxon model". IE. In other words they consider the UK to be just like the US. While in mainland Europe there is approval for massive subsidies for certain groups (farmers)
In the UK there is a vigorous defense of free markets. Including labour markets. Unions have far less power than their US counterparts, and companies are quite free to hire and fire. Citizens are free to move between European countries to find work.
But back on target...
In Europe generally, there is more legislation to protect the rights of consumers. For example if you buy a product from a vendor it must be of merchantable quality. If it breaks within a year, the merchant must replace it. In the US, consumer protection is somewhat weaker, and companies cry "caveat emptor" a little more often.
Neither model is more "free". In fact if companies can cheat and bribe their way out of delivering real value, then it is certainly *not* a free market. Market forces need some rules to work.
I can't guess why in the US , the rich and powerful corporations are more successful at ..er.. convincing politicians of their case.
C.
We are the land of the free, and that's why we excell.
We are the land of the free, and that's why we excell.
I am actually a big fan of the United States.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
C.
The work ethic in the US is also a stereotype as it certainly doesn't apply across the Board.
I am actually a big fan of the United States.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
C.
That's fine. But if MS added the following, it would be illegal.
MS-branded computer + Windows XP $250
If they did that, it would mean they're selling the computer at a loss, and that is called predatory pricing.
Apple can sell a full version for more than the upgrade version. What they can't do, is sell the OS for more than what they charge for the Mini bundled with the OS.
If they did offer the Mini without the OS (say, for running LInux or Windows), they could even charge less for the Mini+OS bundle than they do for both products sold separately. But they can't use pricing to drive Psystar out of the market. That's anti-competitive, and it is not allowed in a properly-regulated free market - only in protectionist markets.
A company may not price its products so as to drive competition out of the market. I'm not claiming that PsyStar are going to prevail, and that Apple will be forced to sell its OS to OEMs. I'm saying that if they do, then they will have to price their OS fairly.
No, but I'm getting that feeling about you.
I am actually a big fan of the United States.
I love the work ethic, and the entrepreneurialism. And I agree the worst thing in Britain is the sense of entitlement some people have.
BUT
Isn't it the job of government to try sometime help the little guy from being crapped on by the wealthy and powerful? Even things up a bit? Create a leveler playing field? Or is that just socialism?
C.
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
Some in the government want the people beholding to them, that gives the government people power over the lives of the people. No thanks.
There are actually very few things that government does well. The top of that list is national security, and then things start going down hill pretty fast. A good example of that is the US Post Office, what a cluster f---! The private sector out performs government in almost every case.
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
If the government really did what you suggest you wouldn't have a computer or the internet to send your message with.
If the government really did what you suggest you wouldn't have a computer or the internet to send your message with.
Get a clue! The government had nothing to do with any computer that I've ever bought, and they sure as hell don't pay my cable bill. In most cases, government IS the problem. That's why I support smaller government, the way that this country was founded. Government here was never intended to be a nanny state. Get off you ass and make something of yourself, then you won't need so much government in your life.
And quit whining! Be a man for crying out loud.
Get a clue! The government had nothing to do with any computer that I've ever bought, and they sure as hell don't pay my cable bill. In most cases, government IS the problem. That's why I support smaller government, the way that this country was founded. Government here was never intended to be a nanny state. Get off you ass and make something of yourself, then you won't need so much government in your life.
That is because you are not properly informed. All of the technology we have, the government in one way or another supported its development.
The government gives grants to research and development projects that are too expensive for private business to risk money developing. The government buys expensive new technology which allows the technology to continue to develop until it is viable for the consumer market.
In 1890 the government bought analog tabulating machines from Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation for the US Census. Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation later became IBM.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's government supported research at The University of California Berkly brought us the BSD variant of UNIX which is currently used in OS X.
The World Wide Web was developed in the 1980's in Switzerland by an organization called CERN. Which is a government supported organization for nuclear research. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with support from the US Department of Defense.
As I said you likely would not have a computer or the internet if it were not for the government.
That is because you are not properly informed. All of the technology we have, the government in one way or another supported its development.
The government gives grants to research and development projects that are too expensive for private business to risk money developing. The government buys expensive new technology which allows the technology to continue to develop until it is viable for the consumer market.
In 1890 the government bought analog tabulating machines from Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation for the US Census. Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation later became IBM.
In the late 1970's and early 1980's government supported research at The University of California Berkly brought us the BSD variant of UNIX which is currently used in OS X.
The World Wide Web was developed in the 1980's in Switzerland by an organization called CERN. Which is a government supported organization for nuclear research. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was established at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with support from the US Department of Defense.
As I said you likely would not have a computer or the internet if it were not for the government.
Adios!
Your idea of free market and my idea of a free market differ.
In your world, people have to buy BMW's GPS because it would be illegal to use a TomTom.
"That violates BMW's EULA and undermines their business model".
C.
That's not even close.
It's more like BMW includes a BMW GPS with every BMW. The GPS has many features that are not found on any other GPS. And BMW owns the patent on these features. Plus BMW designed their GPS for their BMW's and it only works when connected to a special patented chip found in the dash of a BMW. BMW sells the GPS separately in case a BMW owner needs a new one. A BMW owner is free to use an after market TomTom or Garmin if he wishes. Just like the owners of every other autos.
You're saying that the government has the right to force BMW to make their GPS for other autos just because there are consumers that wants one in their Hondas, Toyotas or Ford?
You're saying that if some one found a way to steal what's on BMW patented chip, they can start a business selling BMW GPS for other makes of autos?
Or that other auto makers can advertise that their autos includes the sought after BMW GPS if they found a way to make it work in their autos.
That's not how a free market works. If you want a BMW GPS then buy a BMW. BMW don't have to make their GPS work on any other auto but a BMW. Either that or buy a BMW GPS separately and try to make it work in your own non- BMW auto. But don't expect BMW to help you or support your BMW GPS after you have modified it. And don't expect BMW to let you start a business selling modified BMW GPS for other autos.
A free market is not a one way street. The government not only protects the consumers but they also protect the companies. If the government is not going to protect a company's right to profit from their IP then what incentive will any company have in developing new technology? Why spend the money in RD to develop new technology (or drugs) if the government can step in and say that you're going to have to share it with a company that wants to start a business that is going to compete against you? Or if the government is not going to stop some one from stealing another company's IP.
What part of a free market does it state that a company must share it's IP with their competitors?
What a free market does is that it allows any company to put in their own money for RD and come up new technology so their products is better or cheaper that their competitors. Companies compete by offering something that the others don't have. Competition isn't only about driving the price down to benefit the consumers. It's also about giving a company the incentive to develop new technology and bringing it to market.
In our free market, Psystar is free to develop their own OS to make the computers they sell better than a Mac or PC. Apple is not stopping them from doing that. MS can not stop them from doing that. If the government want to help them with tax breaks and business loans, fine. But the government shouldn't hand them some one else's IP.
The consumers will ultimately benefit because there will be one more choice of an OS in the market. Plus Apple and MS will have to spend money on updating their OS so they stay competitive. They may even have to lower their prices. How does the consumers not benefit from this model?
The job of the government is to get out of the way so that people and business can operate unimpeded. Government provides security for the country, the rest is up to the citizens. Personally, I don't want anything from the government, I'll take care of myself.
Some in the government want the people beholding to them, that gives the government people power over the lives of the people. No thanks.
I am suggesting that as a citizen I want to buy hardware from vendor A and buy software from vendor B. I then go home and install B on A.
It you that wants the government to interfere and prevent me from doing that.
C.
That's not even close.
It's more like BMW includes a BMW GPS with every BMW.
No, its not like that at all.
BMW sells an over-priced GPS for their cars.
EPSON sells over priced INK for their printers.
Apple sells over-priced hardware for their OS.
For obvious commercial reasons they would all prefer us to use their in-house products.
Many chose to do that but for some 3rd party solutions come along and give the consumer a choice.
You can stick a TomTom in your Beemer,
You can stick 3rd party ink in your Epson,
and you can buy an MSI Wind to run your OS of choice.
When we have choices, consumer power drives down prices and improves competition.
In a nightmare world, all three would use the almighty EULAs to deny consumers that choice.
C.
I am suggesting that as a citizen I want to buy hardware from vendor A and buy software from vendor B. I then go home and install B on A.
It you that wants the government to interfere and prevent me from doing that.
C.
Nope, it's you that has an idealistic attitude here. Perhaps you think that things work here the same way that they work in Britain, and they don't. We have laws that protect intellectual property, and we have laws against industrial espionage protecting business from unscrupulous competitors. There is absolutely nothing compelling Apple to make their software work on a competitors machine. Just because you want something doesn't mean that anyone is mandated to supply it.