You also have laws that inhibit anti-competetive practices. This case is not as clear-cut as people think. If it were, this website would look quite different.
Apple's switch to standard PC hardware has made it very easy to install OSX on a variety of cheap hardware. So in spite of the EULA, it is happening more and more. Even if Psystar loses the case and its offices are burned to the ground, it won't change the fact that OS X has escaped already.
Any legal response will be impotent. Apple needs a technical or a commercial response. And I am guessing we will see something soon.
You also have laws that inhibit anti-competetive practices. This case is not as clear-cut as people think. If it were, this website would look quite different.
Apple's switch to standard PC hardware has made it very easy to install OSX on a variety of cheap hardware. So in spite of the EULA, it is happening more and more. Even if Psystar loses the case and its offices are burned to the ground, it won't change the fact that OS X has escaped already.
Any legal response will be impotent. Apple needs a technical or a commercial response. And I am guessing we will see something soon.
C
Apple has switched to aluminum cases, so does that mean that anyone with an aluminum case is entitled to run any software that will run on an aluminum cased machine?
Anti-competitive does not mean that Apple has to give away their intellectual property. You are wrong, and you don't understand how things work 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.
And you think that Britain doesn't have similar laws?
And you think that Britain doesn't have similar laws?
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
I am very familiar with how things work there, here and in other parts of the world. In England we have these things called passports.
Intellectual property laws were constructed to guarantee that the creators of an intellectual property were properly compensated for their efforts. Everyone agrees that some degree of IP protection is essential.
So for example when BMW designs a car, no one is allowed to copy that car. When it engineers a GPS, no one can copy the code and sell it as their own. BMW are free to only sell the GPS as part of their own cars. They can do what they like...
....EXCEPT
Intellectual property law does not allow BMW to restrict how consumers can act in the free market. BMW would love to slap a EULA sticker over the car door. "By opening this door you agree to never use a 3rd party GPS. To so would be in violation of Bavarian Law"
They are not allowed to do that. Such a EULA would be illegal and anti-competitive. It is not enforceable.
So even though BMW may bitch and moan about it. You can go out, buy a TomTom and stick it in your Beemer. Your TomTom, Your Beemer. Screw paying $6000 for a GPS. Even though this undermines BMW's business model.
Apple is on thin ice with it's tie-in. Because it's a hair's breadth away from the example above.
If Apple EMBEDDED its OS within the Mac, just as the iPhone OS is embedded, then the two could be legally tied. But they do not. Simply printing a EULA saying you may not install this on a non-Mac may not be enforceable by law.
Get it?
HOWEVER....
The legality or lack of legality is not really the point here. OS X has escaped already. And a thousand slick-haired lawyers cannot un-escape it. No one needs Psystar to install OSX, a 5 year old can do it standing on his head whistling the "star spangled banner".
You can tell people that ripping their own CDs is illegal. But it won't stop them.
Companies have to live in the real world. Apple would never prosecute someone who paid full price for OS X and installed it on on a Dell. Imagine the uproar. Man must pay $10,000 fine for using HIS software on HIS computer. Oh the humanity. Where will this crime spree end?
The United States, unfortuntely, has the toughest IP laws on the planet. Every time the copyright to Mickey Mouse is about to expire, Disney's lobbyists make sure Congress extends the copyright term. What used to be 14 years is now over a hundred.
With that said it doesn't matter if OSX is out of the bag. Under current US copyright law it is legal for the owner of a legally acquired Mac to install OSX on any machine he or she desires provided the use is personal. What clearly is not legal is for a company to use OSX to make a profit while directly costing Apple a sale. That is a case of a clear copyright violation that will not be able to successful raise the defense of fair use. You will notice that Apple is not suing consumers.
Moreover, you can tell consumers ripping CDs is illegal, but you'd be lying. Section 1008 of the US Copyright Act allows a CD to be ripped. Moreover, in the US you can legally make copies of CDs that you legally acquired and give these copies to your friends provided the use is personal and not commercial. Of course, the music labels aren't advertising that. Nor are they suing people for doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I am very familiar with how things work there, here and in other parts of the world. In England we have these things called passports.
Intellectual property laws were constructed to guarantee that the creators of an intellectual property were properly compensated for their efforts. Everyone agrees that some degree of IP protection is essential.
So for example when BMW designs a car, no one is allowed to copy that car. When it engineers a GPS, no one can copy the code and sell it as their own. BMW are free to only sell the GPS as part of their own cars. They can do what they like...
....EXCEPT
Intellectual property law does not allow BMW to restrict how consumers can act in the free market. BMW would love to slap a EULA sticker over the car door. "By opening this door you agree to never use a 3rd party GPS. To so would be in violation of Bavarian Law"
They are not allowed to do that. Such a EULA would be illegal and anti-competitive. It is not enforceable.
So even though BMW may bitch and moan about it. You can go out, buy a TomTom and stick it in your Beemer. Your TomTom, Your Beemer. Screw paying $6000 for a GPS. Even though this undermines BMW's business model.
Apple is on thin ice with it's tie-in. Because it's a hair's breadth away from the example above.
If Apple EMBEDDED its OS within the Mac, just as the iPhone OS is embedded, then the two could be legally tied. But they do not. Simply printing a EULA saying you may not install this on a non-Mac may not be enforceable by law.
Get it?
HOWEVER....
The legality or lack of legality is not really the point here. OS X has escaped already. And a thousand slick-haired lawyers cannot un-escape it. No one needs Psystar to install OSX, a 5 year old can do it standing on his head whistling the "star spangled banner".
You can tell people that ripping their own CDs is illegal. But it won't stop them.
I am not sure making stuff illegal makes a difference either.
It's illegal to rip a CD but that doesn't stop people doing it.
Companies have to live in the real world. Apple would never prosecute someone who paid full price for OS X and installed it on on a Dell. Imagine the uproar. Man must pay $10,000 fine for using HIS software on HIS computer. Oh the humanity. Where will this crime spree end?
By making it easy, Apple made it inevitable.
C.
Now you are arguing something completely different from what Psystar is doing. Everyone here has agreed Apple can do nothing about people installing OS X privately on their computers.
That is completely different from a business that sell machines loaded with OS X, competing directly against Apple, without Apple's permission.
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
Zin, with respect, I disagree with some of Carnephage's reasoning but it has nothing to do with any possible differences between UK and US law. You are the one who brought this subject into the thread.
There's enough crap being talked about regarding Psytar as it is. Can we try and leave UK/US business practice out of it. And Hitler too!
The sad thing about Napster was it never got it's day in court. It ran out of money to defend itself before a ruling on it's activity was made. It filed bankruptcy, and that was the end of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Yes it is comparable. My response was to your assertion that Apple would have to go after the end user because they were the one's violating Apple's EULA, not Psystar. Napster and Grokster are two cases where the RIAA and movie industry went after the people that was encouraging the violation of some ones else's copyright. Thus Apple can go after Psystar even if all they're doing is encouraging people to violate their EULA. And Apple will go after them for sure if Psystar is profiting from it.
Here's another case by Blizzard that I posted earlier for another post.
Now you are arguing something completely different from what Psystar is doing. Everyone here has agreed Apple can do nothing about people installing OS X privately on their computers.
That is completely different from a business that sell machines loaded with OS X, competing directly against Apple, without Apple's permission.
If you pick up on some of my earlier posts, I think the Psystar situation is a sideshow. The real event is how Apple will respond to the escape of OS X.
What clearly is not legal is for a company to use OSX to make a profit while directly costing Apple a sale. That is a case of a clear copyright violation that will not be able to successful raise the defense of fair use.
Back to Psystar, it really is not 100% clear.
Apple SELL stand-alone copies of OSX.
For each computer, Psystar purchase one full-price copy of OSX and install it on the customer's behalf. And then give you the box as the proof. It would be hard to convince a jury that any illegal copying has occurred.
I agree. Inevitable that someone would make a mac clone. It's not inevitable that suddenly it's OK to use that companies IP to create a business that competes with them.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Psystar's counter claim relies on the technical aspect of building a clone. I don't think it relies on any improper wording in the EULA (a la Safari!). Psytar's defence is that they are not really infringing on Apple's copyright because Apple should not be allowed to enforce their copyright.... because Apple is a monopoly.
It's as simple as that. I don't believe it matters what hacks were used. I don't think it matters what hardware platform it is. Or the price of Apple's systems.
Apple either has a monopoly or not.
Next, Apple is either abusing their monopoly power... or not.
And before you decide on the above... you have to define the market that Apple has a monopoly in. Everything else is just a distraction.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Psystar's counter claim relies on the technical aspect of building a clone. I don't think it relies on any improper wording in the EULA (a la Safari!). Psytar's defence is that they are not really infringing on Apple's copyright because Apple should not be allowed to enforce their copyright.... because Apple is a monopoly.
I think Psystar's counterclaim asserts that Apple's EULA is unenforceable.
Apple say "You can't install this on a computer that isn't a Mac"
But are Apple legally entitled to make that stipulation?
Are Epson entititled to say, you can't put 3rd party ink in our printers?
Are BMW entitled to say you can't use a TomTom in this car?
I think Psystar's counterclaim asserts that Apple's EULA is unenforceable.
Yes. But they are saying that it is unenforceable because Apple is .... a monopoly! And if they are a monopoly.... then their EULA would be an abuse of monopoly power.
Is Apple a monopoly?
Quote:
Are Epson entititled to say, you can't put 3rd party ink in our printers?
Are you entitled to build a printer, chuck an Epson cartridge in it... and sell is as as "Epson Cartridge Compatible"?
Yes. But they are saying that it is unenforceable because Apple is .... a monopoly! And if they are a monopoly.... then their EULA would be an abuse of monopoly power.
Is Apple a monopoly?
Apple is obviously not a monopoly.
I think they are saying Apple are using monopolistic methods.
ie. restricting consumer freedom which is probably true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot
Are you entitled to build a printer, chuck an Epson cartridge in it... and sell is as as "Epson Cartridge Compatible"?
You probably can do this... but you got it the wrong way round.
Epson ink is *expensive* so no one wants to buy a 3rd party printer and plug in expensive Epson ink. Turn it around.
People want the excellent Epson printers and then want to use cheap 3rd party ink.
Just like people want the excellent Apple OS and want to plug it into cheap 3rd party hardware.
re My Epson example. Maybe not that great! One point though. Printers are cheap. They make their money on the ink.... then someone else comes along and takes the money... not sure where that leads to. (?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Apple is obviously not a monopoly.
I think they are saying Apple are using monopolistic methods.
ie. restricting consumer freedom which is probably true.
The thing is I don't think there is anything wrong (legally) with "monopolistic methods" when you are not a monopoly. Companies are allowed to compete. They are allowed to try and gain a competitive advantage. They are allowed to protect their interests.
When they grow to have a controlling share and massive influence of the market (eg Microsoft) the rules change. There's nothing wrong in making your company a monopoly. More power to you. Literally! It's what you do with that power that might get you into problems.
If Apple had 70%, 80%, whatever it takes, of the OS Market .... and they still insisted that you had to buy their hardware... then they would run into trouble. Big trouble.
Apple has less than 10% (US) of both the OS and computer hardware market. Microsoft has no problem competing with Apple. Dell and HP et all compete very well also. They even sell many more systems than Apple.
Is it really restricting consumer freedom? The reality is that most consumers are choosing to buy hardware.... and software made by other companies. Apple is not stopping them from doing so. Although the "getamac" campaign is trying to persuade them to stop.
In the PC market, Apple is the only company that also makes it's own OS. That gives them a competitive advantage. They would like to keep that advantage. They have worked long and hard to make it. They don't have to give it away... or even sell it ... and allow their real competitors to negate that advantage.
There have been rumours that HP has been working on their own OS. What if that turns out to be true? What if it's fantastic? Do they immediately have to licence it to Dell? Or can they start marketing their systems as the only ones that run the "Fantastic HPX OS"?
The sad thing about Napster was it never got it's day in court. It ran out of money to defend itself before a ruling on it's activity was made. It filed bankruptcy, and that was the end of that.
Yes, but Napster already saw the writing on the wall. A court ruled that Napster knew that their users were violating copyright laws and did nothing to stop it. Thus may be liable for billions of dollars in fine. Eventually Bertelsmann, an initial investor in Napster, acquired Napster and paid out over $400 million to settle the suit with the other Music labels. Because the other labels claimed that Bertelsmann was the one financing Napster when they were helping their users steal music.
Comments
We have laws that protect intellectual property.
You also have laws that inhibit anti-competetive practices. This case is not as clear-cut as people think. If it were, this website would look quite different.
http://store.psystar.com/
Apple's switch to standard PC hardware has made it very easy to install OSX on a variety of cheap hardware. So in spite of the EULA, it is happening more and more. Even if Psystar loses the case and its offices are burned to the ground, it won't change the fact that OS X has escaped already.
Any legal response will be impotent. Apple needs a technical or a commercial response. And I am guessing we will see something soon.
C
You also have laws that inhibit anti-competetive practices. This case is not as clear-cut as people think. If it were, this website would look quite different.
http://store.psystar.com/
Apple's switch to standard PC hardware has made it very easy to install OSX on a variety of cheap hardware. So in spite of the EULA, it is happening more and more. Even if Psystar loses the case and its offices are burned to the ground, it won't change the fact that OS X has escaped already.
Any legal response will be impotent. Apple needs a technical or a commercial response. And I am guessing we will see something soon.
C
Apple has switched to aluminum cases, so does that mean that anyone with an aluminum case is entitled to run any software that will run on an aluminum cased machine?
Anti-competitive does not mean that Apple has to give away their intellectual property. You are wrong, and you don't understand how things work 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.
And you think that Britain doesn't have similar laws?
Apple's switch to standard PC hardware has made it very easy to install OSX on a variety of cheap hardware.
What difference does that make. Making something easier does not make it less illegal.
"Yes, your honour, but the door was unlocked so I helped myself to the car stereo"
"Yes Bill, I only bought one copy of Vista, but I installed it on 100 PCs because it's .... easy!"
And you think that Britain doesn't have similar laws?
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
I am very familiar with how things work there, here and in other parts of the world. In England we have these things called passports.
Intellectual property laws were constructed to guarantee that the creators of an intellectual property were properly compensated for their efforts. Everyone agrees that some degree of IP protection is essential.
So for example when BMW designs a car, no one is allowed to copy that car. When it engineers a GPS, no one can copy the code and sell it as their own. BMW are free to only sell the GPS as part of their own cars. They can do what they like...
....EXCEPT
Intellectual property law does not allow BMW to restrict how consumers can act in the free market. BMW would love to slap a EULA sticker over the car door. "By opening this door you agree to never use a 3rd party GPS. To so would be in violation of Bavarian Law"
They are not allowed to do that. Such a EULA would be illegal and anti-competitive. It is not enforceable.
So even though BMW may bitch and moan about it. You can go out, buy a TomTom and stick it in your Beemer. Your TomTom, Your Beemer. Screw paying $6000 for a GPS. Even though this undermines BMW's business model.
Apple is on thin ice with it's tie-in. Because it's a hair's breadth away from the example above.
If Apple EMBEDDED its OS within the Mac, just as the iPhone OS is embedded, then the two could be legally tied. But they do not. Simply printing a EULA saying you may not install this on a non-Mac may not be enforceable by law.
Get it?
HOWEVER....
The legality or lack of legality is not really the point here. OS X has escaped already. And a thousand slick-haired lawyers cannot un-escape it. No one needs Psystar to install OSX, a 5 year old can do it standing on his head whistling the "star spangled banner".
You can tell people that ripping their own CDs is illegal. But it won't stop them.
C.
What difference does that make. Making something easier does not make it less illegal.
I am not sure making stuff illegal makes a difference either.
It's illegal to rip a CD but that doesn't stop people doing it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122800693.html
Companies have to live in the real world. Apple would never prosecute someone who paid full price for OS X and installed it on on a Dell. Imagine the uproar. Man must pay $10,000 fine for using HIS software on HIS computer. Oh the humanity. Where will this crime spree end?
By making it easy, Apple made it inevitable.
C.
With that said it doesn't matter if OSX is out of the bag. Under current US copyright law it is legal for the owner of a legally acquired Mac to install OSX on any machine he or she desires provided the use is personal. What clearly is not legal is for a company to use OSX to make a profit while directly costing Apple a sale. That is a case of a clear copyright violation that will not be able to successful raise the defense of fair use. You will notice that Apple is not suing consumers.
Moreover, you can tell consumers ripping CDs is illegal, but you'd be lying. Section 1008 of the US Copyright Act allows a CD to be ripped. Moreover, in the US you can legally make copies of CDs that you legally acquired and give these copies to your friends provided the use is personal and not commercial. Of course, the music labels aren't advertising that. Nor are they suing people for doing it.
I am very familiar with how things work there, here and in other parts of the world. In England we have these things called passports.
Intellectual property laws were constructed to guarantee that the creators of an intellectual property were properly compensated for their efforts. Everyone agrees that some degree of IP protection is essential.
So for example when BMW designs a car, no one is allowed to copy that car. When it engineers a GPS, no one can copy the code and sell it as their own. BMW are free to only sell the GPS as part of their own cars. They can do what they like...
....EXCEPT
Intellectual property law does not allow BMW to restrict how consumers can act in the free market. BMW would love to slap a EULA sticker over the car door. "By opening this door you agree to never use a 3rd party GPS. To so would be in violation of Bavarian Law"
They are not allowed to do that. Such a EULA would be illegal and anti-competitive. It is not enforceable.
So even though BMW may bitch and moan about it. You can go out, buy a TomTom and stick it in your Beemer. Your TomTom, Your Beemer. Screw paying $6000 for a GPS. Even though this undermines BMW's business model.
Apple is on thin ice with it's tie-in. Because it's a hair's breadth away from the example above.
If Apple EMBEDDED its OS within the Mac, just as the iPhone OS is embedded, then the two could be legally tied. But they do not. Simply printing a EULA saying you may not install this on a non-Mac may not be enforceable by law.
Get it?
HOWEVER....
The legality or lack of legality is not really the point here. OS X has escaped already. And a thousand slick-haired lawyers cannot un-escape it. No one needs Psystar to install OSX, a 5 year old can do it standing on his head whistling the "star spangled banner".
You can tell people that ripping their own CDs is illegal. But it won't stop them.
C.
I am not sure making stuff illegal makes a difference either.
It's illegal to rip a CD but that doesn't stop people doing it.
Companies have to live in the real world. Apple would never prosecute someone who paid full price for OS X and installed it on on a Dell. Imagine the uproar. Man must pay $10,000 fine for using HIS software on HIS computer. Oh the humanity. Where will this crime spree end?
By making it easy, Apple made it inevitable.
C.
Now you are arguing something completely different from what Psystar is doing. Everyone here has agreed Apple can do nothing about people installing OS X privately on their computers.
That is completely different from a business that sell machines loaded with OS X, competing directly against Apple, without Apple's permission.
I'm sure that I'm not familiar with how they're applied in Britain, as he isn't familiar with how things work here. Not that the fact keeps him from expounding on the way things work here.
Zin, with respect, I disagree with some of Carnephage's reasoning but it has nothing to do with any possible differences between UK and US law. You are the one who brought this subject into the thread.
There's enough crap being talked about regarding Psytar as it is. Can we try and leave UK/US business practice out of it. And Hitler too!
Yes it is comparable. My response was to your assertion that Apple would have to go after the end user because they were the one's violating Apple's EULA, not Psystar. Napster and Grokster are two cases where the RIAA and movie industry went after the people that was encouraging the violation of some ones else's copyright. Thus Apple can go after Psystar even if all they're doing is encouraging people to violate their EULA. And Apple will go after them for sure if Psystar is profiting from it.
Here's another case by Blizzard that I posted earlier for another post.
http://www.yougamers.com/news/19640_...tting_lawsuit/
Now you are arguing something completely different from what Psystar is doing. Everyone here has agreed Apple can do nothing about people installing OS X privately on their computers.
That is completely different from a business that sell machines loaded with OS X, competing directly against Apple, without Apple's permission.
If you pick up on some of my earlier posts, I think the Psystar situation is a sideshow. The real event is how Apple will respond to the escape of OS X.
C.
What clearly is not legal is for a company to use OSX to make a profit while directly costing Apple a sale. That is a case of a clear copyright violation that will not be able to successful raise the defense of fair use.
Back to Psystar, it really is not 100% clear.
Apple SELL stand-alone copies of OSX.
For each computer, Psystar purchase one full-price copy of OSX and install it on the customer's behalf. And then give you the box as the proof. It would be hard to convince a jury that any illegal copying has occurred.
C.
By making it easy, Apple made it inevitable.
I agree. Inevitable that someone would make a mac clone. It's not inevitable that suddenly it's OK to use that companies IP to create a business that competes with them.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Psystar's counter claim relies on the technical aspect of building a clone. I don't think it relies on any improper wording in the EULA (a la Safari!). Psytar's defence is that they are not really infringing on Apple's copyright because Apple should not be allowed to enforce their copyright.... because Apple is a monopoly.
It's as simple as that. I don't believe it matters what hacks were used. I don't think it matters what hardware platform it is. Or the price of Apple's systems.
Apple either has a monopoly or not.
Next, Apple is either abusing their monopoly power... or not.
And before you decide on the above... you have to define the market that Apple has a monopoly in. Everything else is just a distraction.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Psystar's counter claim relies on the technical aspect of building a clone. I don't think it relies on any improper wording in the EULA (a la Safari!). Psytar's defence is that they are not really infringing on Apple's copyright because Apple should not be allowed to enforce their copyright.... because Apple is a monopoly.
I think Psystar's counterclaim asserts that Apple's EULA is unenforceable.
Apple say "You can't install this on a computer that isn't a Mac"
But are Apple legally entitled to make that stipulation?
Are Epson entititled to say, you can't put 3rd party ink in our printers?
Are BMW entitled to say you can't use a TomTom in this car?
C.
Are Epson entititled to say, you can't put 3rd party ink in our printers?
C.
Lexmark tried to use the DMCA to do that and lost in court.
I think Psystar's counterclaim asserts that Apple's EULA is unenforceable.
Yes. But they are saying that it is unenforceable because Apple is .... a monopoly! And if they are a monopoly.... then their EULA would be an abuse of monopoly power.
Is Apple a monopoly?
Are Epson entititled to say, you can't put 3rd party ink in our printers?
Are you entitled to build a printer, chuck an Epson cartridge in it... and sell is as as "Epson Cartridge Compatible"?
Yes. But they are saying that it is unenforceable because Apple is .... a monopoly! And if they are a monopoly.... then their EULA would be an abuse of monopoly power.
Is Apple a monopoly?
Apple is obviously not a monopoly.
I think they are saying Apple are using monopolistic methods.
ie. restricting consumer freedom which is probably true.
Are you entitled to build a printer, chuck an Epson cartridge in it... and sell is as as "Epson Cartridge Compatible"?
You probably can do this... but you got it the wrong way round.
Epson ink is *expensive* so no one wants to buy a 3rd party printer and plug in expensive Epson ink. Turn it around.
People want the excellent Epson printers and then want to use cheap 3rd party ink.
Just like people want the excellent Apple OS and want to plug it into cheap 3rd party hardware.
C.
Apple is obviously not a monopoly.
I think they are saying Apple are using monopolistic methods.
ie. restricting consumer freedom which is probably true.
The thing is I don't think there is anything wrong (legally) with "monopolistic methods" when you are not a monopoly. Companies are allowed to compete. They are allowed to try and gain a competitive advantage. They are allowed to protect their interests.
When they grow to have a controlling share and massive influence of the market (eg Microsoft) the rules change. There's nothing wrong in making your company a monopoly. More power to you. Literally! It's what you do with that power that might get you into problems.
If Apple had 70%, 80%, whatever it takes, of the OS Market .... and they still insisted that you had to buy their hardware... then they would run into trouble. Big trouble.
Apple has less than 10% (US) of both the OS and computer hardware market. Microsoft has no problem competing with Apple. Dell and HP et all compete very well also. They even sell many more systems than Apple.
Is it really restricting consumer freedom? The reality is that most consumers are choosing to buy hardware.... and software made by other companies. Apple is not stopping them from doing so. Although the "getamac" campaign is trying to persuade them to stop.
In the PC market, Apple is the only company that also makes it's own OS. That gives them a competitive advantage. They would like to keep that advantage. They have worked long and hard to make it. They don't have to give it away... or even sell it ... and allow their real competitors to negate that advantage.
There have been rumours that HP has been working on their own OS. What if that turns out to be true? What if it's fantastic? Do they immediately have to licence it to Dell? Or can they start marketing their systems as the only ones that run the "Fantastic HPX OS"?
The sad thing about Napster was it never got it's day in court. It ran out of money to defend itself before a ruling on it's activity was made. It filed bankruptcy, and that was the end of that.
Yes, but Napster already saw the writing on the wall. A court ruled that Napster knew that their users were violating copyright laws and did nothing to stop it. Thus may be liable for billions of dollars in fine. Eventually Bertelsmann, an initial investor in Napster, acquired Napster and paid out over $400 million to settle the suit with the other Music labels. Because the other labels claimed that Bertelsmann was the one financing Napster when they were helping their users steal music.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=business
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/....03/index.html
http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/4...suit-for-130m/