It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
This is your opinion. That doesn't make it true.
What you should say is that you would like the OS to run on other companies hardware.
Theres a big misunderstanding about monopoly.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. The Mac is a subset of the computer industry.
The fact that only Apple makes Macs doesn't make it a monopoly.
The way you, and some others here, are defining monopoly, almost everything is a monopoly. It depends on how finely you want to divide things.
You might as well say that each grain of sand on a beach has a monopoly of its own shape and size, as well as the position it occupies on that beach.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
You're again misusing the word monopoly.
Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s.
That doesn't mean that the product represented by the trademark isn't a monopoly.
The words exclusive and monopoly aren't interchangeable.
You can have a monopoly on computers, or sodas, or cars.
You can't have a monopoly on Macs or Coke or Hondas.
I don't see how that could possibly be any simpler.
The fact is, you have made up your own twisted definition of monopoly. Aside from the fact that you're wrong, the fact that your definition makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly just shows that your interpretation makes no sense (unless you are OK with the notion that every company has a monopoly, which I doubt).
In fact, you haven't answered my question at all, you haven't even tried. And I'm not sure how to interpret your unwillingness to do so other than an admission that you're wrong.
I know you will never change your mind regardless of how wrong you are proved, if it takes you going away to put an end to this, that's fine with me. It's a shame this thread got derailed by someone sticking stubbornly to misinformation.
Really, it's just an excuse for whining that you can't get a cheaper mac.
You have said repedidly that I won't answer your question, but I don't know what your question is. I have also never said anything about the price of Macs and I think I have a valid point be it right or wrong.
My intent is not to derail the thread at all. I am just debating that I believe that there is an Apple market place and that Apple controls it. I further don't think that this is off topic since this is about Psystar Corporation which appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging and in violation of antitrust laws. This isn't the first time that this has happend and as Apple grows there will probably be more cases like this.
I don't agree whith Psystar Corporation and I don't think they have a case. I think this is a PR stunt.
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Tink, just because Apple is the only company that owns, or distributes the Mac OS, and that they do so only on their own machines doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
There is no "Mac market" as such.
I know why you are having a problem with this.
You think that because OS X isn't compatible with Windows, and so because only Apple can sell it and that they do so only on their own machines, it's a monopoly. But, that's just not so.
The OS doesn't have to be compatible. That doesn't make it a separate market. Until Sun decided to make Solaris Open Source (sort of), they could be thought of as a monopoly as well. So could all other companies with their own OS's, such as IBM, with their OS's for mainframes, and minicomputers. The same thing for Hp, with its minicomputers, or Fujitsu, etc.
But, despite the fact that there are still many different OS's, all running only on the machines the manufacturers make and sell, doesn't mean that they are all monopolies.
They are all part of the computer industry, though that is subdivided into smaller categories, such as mainframe, minicomputer, server, workstation, personal computer, etc.
Apple is just another manufacturer of OS's and hardware. Nothing unusual or special.
Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s.
That doesn't mean that the product represented by the trademark isn't a monopoly.
The words exclusive and monopoly aren't interchangeable.
"Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s."
Sorry, I was trying to get out the door when I wrote that. I confussed Patent in that statement and was trying to get to my point that through a combination of Trademark, Patents and Copywrite Apple has built a maketplace that it controls.
Tink, just because Apple is the only company that owns, or distributes the Mac OS, and that they do so only on their own machines doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
There is no "Mac market" as such.
I know why you are having a problem with this.
You think that because OS X isn't compatible with Windows, and so because only Apple can sell it and that they do so only on their own machines, it's a monopoly. But, that's just not so.
The OS doesn't have to be compatible. That doesn't make it a separate market. Until Sun decided to make Solaris Open Source (sort of), they could be thought of as a monopoly as well. So could all other companies with their own OS's, such as IBM, with their OS's for mainframes, and minicomputers. The same thing for Hp, with its minicomputers, or Fujitsu, etc.
But, despite the fact that there are still many different OS's, all running only on the machines the manufacturers make and sell, doesn't mean that they are all monopolies.
They are all part of the computer industry, though that is subdivided into smaller categories, such as mainframe, minicomputer, server, workstation, personal computer, etc.
Apple is just another manufacturer of OS's and hardware. Nothing unusual or special.
That makes sense.
The way I was seeing it Sun would be seen as a monopoly as well, like you point out for example. I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
That's a lie software companies want you to believe. The reality is that you own a copy of that software disc. It is a physical purchase which you are free to do whatever you want with in accordance with the law. If you install Leopard on your toaster oven somehow, you have not violated any copyright law. It doesn't matter what's in the EULA. Simply violating a private agreement is not a criminal act.
Since it's not a criminal act, the only action Apple could take against you is a lawsuit. Should they decide to sue you (anyone can sue anyone for any reason), they would have to prove damages you personally caused them. This isn't possible given this scenario (they can't prove you would have bought a Mac if this option weren't available). And an EULA only proves someone (might not have been you) clicked "Yes" on some nag screen when it was installed. The violation of the agreement does not alter whether or not you caused them damages. So it has almost no use in a civil court.
And of course it's all moot. Since it's not a criminal act, Apple could not produce any admissible evidence that you even did this, since that information could only be obtained by violating your privacy rights.
You're making the lie.
You misconstrue the sale of the physical medium with the copyrighted material stamped on that material.
No one would be stupid enough to pay over $100 for a piece of plastic like a disk.
You are paying, as you very well know, for the right to use the software on that disk.
You are right that you can do whatever you want with the disk itself. You are free to sit on it. You are free to draw on it. You are free to burn it.
What you are not free to do is to give it away without destroying any copies you may have, or to give the copies away, without express consent fron the copyright holder.
I realize that these days, with it being oh so easy to do what one wants with computer files, that it seems as though it's actually all right.
But, it isn't. You do not have the right to install the OS on your toaster, even if it were possible.
That's a civil penalty.
It's not a criminal act unless you sell copies of the software to enough people so that it is constituted a crime.
This is the law on the subject of criminality. You can argue that you don't like it, but you can't argue that it is not the law:
Pretty much everyone is telling you the same thing. You just refuse to even attempt to understand what we are telling you because if you did, you would agree with us. Your interpretation what constitutes a monopoly is simply wrong and are mixing up several distinctly different concepts.
There is nothing wrong with the statement you made (quoted below). However, this isn't what we've been arguing about. A market exists whenever there is demand for a product or service. However, we are talking about the legal definition of the term monopoly, which applies to industries, not markets. As you stated, markets can be subsets of industries. However, when a company controls a market of the company's own branded products, they don't have a monopoly. It is the company's trademark and thus are granted exclusive use and ownership of that trademark. Macs are trademarked computers owned by Apple and thus have exclusive right to use the name and promote the product and services under that name. No company has the legal right to operate under that name or to use their products in an unauthorized manner. This is not because they have a monopoly. It is because they own the product, intellectual property and trademarks associated with that brand.
I sincerely hope that you never develop a copyright-able product with intellectual property rights, because your understanding of these rights is very poor and you will never be able to defend your rights when someone else violates them. Even worse, I hope you don't violate someone else's intellectual property rights because of your inability to understand the concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
1)I am arguing that the Mac OS does create a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the computer industry. I don't think that this is erroneous.
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
I think this Mac clone thing will be interesting.
The difference is that Microsoft has been declared a monopoly by the courts. Why? Because it has more than 70% of the market for personal computer OS's. 70% is usually used as a consideration of monopoly.
Apple has about 6.5% of the market for personal computer OS's. Therefore, not only are they not a monopoly, they are a very small force in the industry, as measured by usage, and dollars.
Monopolies have restrictions put upon them so that they will not abuse their monopoly power, such as lowering prices to drive other makers out of the market, which is what monopolies have done in the past, which is why Teddy Roosevelt was known as the "Trust Buster". He set up many of the laws concerning what constitutes a monopoly, what type of monopoly, and what should be done about it.
While MS making IE free, and thus driving Netscape to make their browser free, thus removing the majority of their income, and making it difficult for them to improve the software, and even staying in business, was the first questionable act, the other, of making it impossible to remove IE, and thus making it more difficult for other browsers to function properly, was the final straw.
MS did the same thing to Adobe. When Powerpoint couldn't make a dent in Adobes industry leading program, Persuasion, they made it free by putting it into Office, thus killing the much superior Adobe product.
The same thing is happening in game consoles. The XBox is a failure. Unlike Sony, and Nintendo, which have made considerable profits on their devices over the years, MS has lost over a billion a year on its entertainment division every year since the first XBox came out. It has no interest in making a profit because it has its eyes on bigger fish.
The only company that can afford that is MS, which makes a far greater percentage of profits on its monopoly products than anyone else makes on any of theirs. Because of that, it can afford to lose vast amounts of money. That is something no one else can do.
While Apple sometimes adds a product to its mix, in general, you certainly can't accuse Apple of using it's exclusivity to undersell Windows machines to drive them out of business.
There are two reasons why Apple Macintosh computers cannot be considered a monopoly.
First, monopolies apply to industries, not each competitor within one industry. Apple Macintoshes are in competition with Sony Vaios, Dell Dimensions, etc. Just because they are unique within the industry doesn't mean they don't compete with these other products.
Second, as we've all said repeatedly, Mac is a trademarked brand belonging to Apple. As such, Apple has exclusive right in determining how Mac and Mac products are promoted and in the case of OSX, how it can be used. The exclusivity Apple has with the Mac brand is because of the trademark, not because it has a monopoly. If it helps, think of the trademark as a grant allowing Apple a monopoly of the Mac brand. (Of course, this isn't a correct description because Apple owns the Mac brand and thus can do with it whatever they want. The term monopoly cannot be used... it isn't an applicable term to describe the situation.)
I think we're getting close to helping you understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
That makes sense.
I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
Pretty much everyone is telling you the same thing. You just refuse to even attempt to understand what we are telling you because if you did, you would agree with us. Your interpretation what constitutes a monopoly is simply wrong and are mixing up several distinctly different concepts.
There is nothing wrong with the statement you made (quoted below). However, this isn't what we've been arguing about. A market exists whenever there is demand for a product or service. However, we are talking about the legal definition of the term monopoly, which applies to industries, not markets. As you stated, markets can be subsets of industries. However, when a company controls a market of the company's own branded products, they don't have a monopoly. It is the company's trademark and thus are granted exclusive use and ownership of that trademark. Macs are trademarked computers owned by Apple and thus have exclusive right to use the name and promote the product and services under that name. No company has the legal right to operate under that name or to use their products in an unauthorized manner. This is not because they have a monopoly. It is because they own the product, intellectual property and trademarks associated with that brand.
I sincerely hope that you never develop a copyright-able product with intellectual property rights, because your understanding of these rights is very poor and you will never be able to defend your rights when someone else violates them. Even worse, I hope you don't violate someone else's intellectual property rights because of your inability to understand the concept.
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie. My sticking point as you pointed at above is the definition of monopoly as it relates to Industries not markets. I never heard the term Monopoly limited to an industry as a whole. For example here is the definition of Monopoly from BusinessDictionary.com in full. Nowhere is there reference to Industry as part of the definition.
monopoly
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities). Although monopolies exist in varying degrees (due to copyrights, patents, access to materials, exclusive technologies, or unfair trade practices) almost no firm has a complete monopoly in the era of globalization.
--------
Using the above definition illustrates why someone like myself could resonably see Apple as a producer of a specific good and service that"... controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. "
The way I was seeing it Sun would be seen as a monopoly as well, like you point out for example. I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
We can't make up our own definition of what constitutes a monopoly. The law is pretty clear on what constitutes a monopoly, whether natural, or otherwise.
Individual industries are constituted in ways that usually make it clear as to what a monopoly is in that industry.
You can't subdivide it down to a point where every company in the industry has a monopoly if they have their own products that no one else can make.
You are right that a patent does give (I think you mentioned patents earlier on, if not, then it's for whomever did, for the specified time, the patent holder a monopoly on the production and distribution of that patented good, or process.
But that is a very different kind of monopoly, and mustn't be confused with what we are discussing here.
Many companies may receive patents on goods, or processes, within an industry. None of those companies may have a monopoly on sales or licensing, or one might have. The mere granting of a patent does not assure that the patent holder can protect the IDEA of what resulted from the patent, as patents SPECIFICALLY may not be granted for ideas.
If the granting of a patent means that the entire industry is beholden to the patent holder, who has a 70% or so marketshare, then the holder does indeed have a monopoly. But it may not last if someone finds a way around the patent, or after the patent runs out they can't come up with an improvement that will grant them an extension.
It happened with Honeywell decades ago. They had the patent on how automatic flashes dump energy during the flash. Several other flash makers violated their patent. Honeywell sued, and won. After a lot of money changed hands, the stupid companies all found other ways around Honeywell's patents, which ran out a few years later anyway. Honeywell lost their monopoly.
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie. My sticking point as you pointed at above is the definition of monopoly as it relates to Industries not markets. I never heard the term Monopoly limited to an industry as a whole. For example here is the definition of Monopoly from BusinessDictionary.com in full. Nowhere is there reference to Industry as part of the definition.
monopoly
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities). Although monopolies exist in varying degrees (due to copyrights, patents, access to materials, exclusive technologies, or unfair trade practices) almost no firm has a complete monopoly in the era of globalization.
--------
Using the above definition illustrates why someone like myself could resonably see Apple as a producer of a specific good and service that"... controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. "
Tink, it's true that the law itself doesn't define "industry" as a controlling factor. But, if you,look at the history of how monopoly regulation came about, you would see that it was because one huge producer, such as Standard Oil, which was the first example, and the reason, at the time, why the monopoly laws came into effect, controlled about all the product in the industry. US Steel was another.
Apple isn't in that position.
So, while the law itself doesn't look at industry, the lawmakers, the federal government, and the courts do. There is no other way to do so.
As Apple is not an industry, but only a very small part of one, they are not considered to be a monopoly.
Tink, it's true that the law itself doesn't define "industry" as a controlling factor. But, if you,look at the history of how monopoly regulation came about, you would see that it was because one huge producer, such as Standard Oil, which was the first example, and the reason, at the time, why the monopoly laws came into effect, controlled about all the product in the industry. US Steel was another.
Apple isn't in that position.
So, while the law itself doesn't look at industry, the lawmakers, the federal government, and the courts do. There is no other way to do so.
As Apple is not an industry, but only a very small part of one, they are not considered to be a monopoly.
You don't have clue what you're talking about. First off, you didn't read my post. If you did you wouldn't be lecturing me on copyright violation. I already said it's against the law. My point is that the EULA has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. Infringing on copyright is against the law. Government laws - not a stupid EULA that Apple or any other company lawyer decides to write. The EULA prevents them from being sued. It does not give them any extra rights to sue you or restrict your usage of the software beyond what the law allows.
You're totally bananas if you think "violating" a EULA by installing OSX on a toaster is a "civil penalty." Are you out of your mind?
I read your post, and I must say that I know far more about this than you do.
Your entire post is wrong.
While you said that you can do what the law allows, you don't bother to spell out what that may be. Otherwise, what you said was nonsense.
The EULA is a recognized contract, recognized by law. It is a statement of copyright, among other matters. It spells out what you may, and may not do to, or with, the product you have licensed. You may not do anything that the company specifies you can not do. You may only do what they allow.
If you don't know that, then don't accuse me of not understanding.
If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.
"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>
If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.
It is one thing if Honda made the car and built the roads, or if Microsoft in making windows owned DELL. Apple works on the hardware and the software. Pretty sure they do alot of hardware dev too. So Im guessing even though its nVidia and Intel at core, Apple still has proprietary hardware. Dell does their own hardware dev and MS does their own software dev they ALL have patents on their technology. It is ridiculous to even make that analogy with Honda and Microsoft. They could get in trouble if they wrote in you could only use it a certain way if it isnt their own property. It is Apple's property which works together. Golly I wouldnt want to pay $600 for the next version of OS X
My statement at the end of my post was not meant to be an insult. It is an honest fear that you and people like you who do not understand intellectual property rights will go out and do things that will 1. damage businesses and 2. put yourself in a situation where you open yourself up to a lawsuit.
I suspect that Psystar is such a company. Their actions indicate they are completely ignorant of the distinctions between what constitutes a legal trademarked product and a monopoly, a distinction you yourself have failed to understand.
It's interesting that you say my last post was the clearest because I've been pretty much repeating myself all along and yes, I got frustrated with the fact that you were not getting it. It's also a personal issue with me because I produce a product that is protected by copyright laws and it scares me how little people understand with regards to intellectual property rules. People, like you, who do not understand the distinction between a legal trademarked brand and a monopoly are the ones who will violate the rights of copyright holders and owners of intellectual property, thus potentially damaging our businesses.
I'm glad you're finally starting to understand what we have all been saying to you all day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie.
Comments
It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!
This is your opinion. That doesn't make it true.
What you should say is that you would like the OS to run on other companies hardware.
Theres a big misunderstanding about monopoly.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. The Mac is a subset of the computer industry.
The fact that only Apple makes Macs doesn't make it a monopoly.
The way you, and some others here, are defining monopoly, almost everything is a monopoly. It depends on how finely you want to divide things.
You might as well say that each grain of sand on a beach has a monopoly of its own shape and size, as well as the position it occupies on that beach.
Those examples are Trademarks and they provide their owner monopoly rights to their brand. That is the right provided by Trademark Law.
The Operating System / Computer market is more complicated because of the crossover between Trademarks, Patents etc.
I didn't make the "definition" and the definition I sited does not make EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly. Some are and some aren't.
You're again misusing the word monopoly.
Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s.
That doesn't mean that the product represented by the trademark isn't a monopoly.
The words exclusive and monopoly aren't interchangeable.
Nope, I'm making things simple as can be.
You can have a monopoly on computers, or sodas, or cars.
You can't have a monopoly on Macs or Coke or Hondas.
I don't see how that could possibly be any simpler.
The fact is, you have made up your own twisted definition of monopoly. Aside from the fact that you're wrong, the fact that your definition makes EVERY product from EVERY company a monopoly just shows that your interpretation makes no sense (unless you are OK with the notion that every company has a monopoly, which I doubt).
In fact, you haven't answered my question at all, you haven't even tried. And I'm not sure how to interpret your unwillingness to do so other than an admission that you're wrong.
I know you will never change your mind regardless of how wrong you are proved, if it takes you going away to put an end to this, that's fine with me. It's a shame this thread got derailed by someone sticking stubbornly to misinformation.
Really, it's just an excuse for whining that you can't get a cheaper mac.
You have said repedidly that I won't answer your question, but I don't know what your question is. I have also never said anything about the price of Macs and I think I have a valid point be it right or wrong.
My intent is not to derail the thread at all. I am just debating that I believe that there is an Apple market place and that Apple controls it. I further don't think that this is off topic since this is about Psystar Corporation which appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging and in violation of antitrust laws. This isn't the first time that this has happend and as Apple grows there will probably be more cases like this.
I don't agree whith Psystar Corporation and I don't think they have a case. I think this is a PR stunt.
Yes there is lots of confusion over what constitutes Monopoly. I am not using the casual definition.
I am taking about the Mac OS market worth billions of dollars annually where there is only one player with a monopoly who controls the whole market.
There is no competition in the market and the monopoly is maintained through Trademark, Copywrite and Patents. Through the use of Trademark, Copywrite and Patents no other company can make a product to run the OS that is protected by Trademark, Copywrite and Patents.
Many, many companies would like a piece of this market (like the one this article is about) but they are not allowed to compete. This is the textbook definition of Monopoly...
Tink, just because Apple is the only company that owns, or distributes the Mac OS, and that they do so only on their own machines doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
There is no "Mac market" as such.
I know why you are having a problem with this.
You think that because OS X isn't compatible with Windows, and so because only Apple can sell it and that they do so only on their own machines, it's a monopoly. But, that's just not so.
The OS doesn't have to be compatible. That doesn't make it a separate market. Until Sun decided to make Solaris Open Source (sort of), they could be thought of as a monopoly as well. So could all other companies with their own OS's, such as IBM, with their OS's for mainframes, and minicomputers. The same thing for Hp, with its minicomputers, or Fujitsu, etc.
But, despite the fact that there are still many different OS's, all running only on the machines the manufacturers make and sell, doesn't mean that they are all monopolies.
They are all part of the computer industry, though that is subdivided into smaller categories, such as mainframe, minicomputer, server, workstation, personal computer, etc.
Apple is just another manufacturer of OS's and hardware. Nothing unusual or special.
You're again misusing the word monopoly.
Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s.
That doesn't mean that the product represented by the trademark isn't a monopoly.
The words exclusive and monopoly aren't interchangeable.
"Trademarks give a company the exclusive right to the trademark. That doesn't constitute a monopoly. No where will you find a definition that includes trademarks as monopolies.s."
Sorry, I was trying to get out the door when I wrote that. I confussed Patent in that statement and was trying to get to my point that through a combination of Trademark, Patents and Copywrite Apple has built a maketplace that it controls.
Tink, just because Apple is the only company that owns, or distributes the Mac OS, and that they do so only on their own machines doesn't mean that they have a monopoly.
There is no "Mac market" as such.
I know why you are having a problem with this.
You think that because OS X isn't compatible with Windows, and so because only Apple can sell it and that they do so only on their own machines, it's a monopoly. But, that's just not so.
The OS doesn't have to be compatible. That doesn't make it a separate market. Until Sun decided to make Solaris Open Source (sort of), they could be thought of as a monopoly as well. So could all other companies with their own OS's, such as IBM, with their OS's for mainframes, and minicomputers. The same thing for Hp, with its minicomputers, or Fujitsu, etc.
But, despite the fact that there are still many different OS's, all running only on the machines the manufacturers make and sell, doesn't mean that they are all monopolies.
They are all part of the computer industry, though that is subdivided into smaller categories, such as mainframe, minicomputer, server, workstation, personal computer, etc.
Apple is just another manufacturer of OS's and hardware. Nothing unusual or special.
That makes sense.
The way I was seeing it Sun would be seen as a monopoly as well, like you point out for example. I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
That's a lie software companies want you to believe. The reality is that you own a copy of that software disc. It is a physical purchase which you are free to do whatever you want with in accordance with the law. If you install Leopard on your toaster oven somehow, you have not violated any copyright law. It doesn't matter what's in the EULA. Simply violating a private agreement is not a criminal act.
Since it's not a criminal act, the only action Apple could take against you is a lawsuit. Should they decide to sue you (anyone can sue anyone for any reason), they would have to prove damages you personally caused them. This isn't possible given this scenario (they can't prove you would have bought a Mac if this option weren't available). And an EULA only proves someone (might not have been you) clicked "Yes" on some nag screen when it was installed. The violation of the agreement does not alter whether or not you caused them damages. So it has almost no use in a civil court.
And of course it's all moot. Since it's not a criminal act, Apple could not produce any admissible evidence that you even did this, since that information could only be obtained by violating your privacy rights.
You're making the lie.
You misconstrue the sale of the physical medium with the copyrighted material stamped on that material.
No one would be stupid enough to pay over $100 for a piece of plastic like a disk.
You are paying, as you very well know, for the right to use the software on that disk.
You are right that you can do whatever you want with the disk itself. You are free to sit on it. You are free to draw on it. You are free to burn it.
What you are not free to do is to give it away without destroying any copies you may have, or to give the copies away, without express consent fron the copyright holder.
I realize that these days, with it being oh so easy to do what one wants with computer files, that it seems as though it's actually all right.
But, it isn't. You do not have the right to install the OS on your toaster, even if it were possible.
That's a civil penalty.
It's not a criminal act unless you sell copies of the software to enough people so that it is constituted a crime.
This is the law on the subject of criminality. You can argue that you don't like it, but you can't argue that it is not the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...6----000-.html
There is nothing wrong with the statement you made (quoted below). However, this isn't what we've been arguing about. A market exists whenever there is demand for a product or service. However, we are talking about the legal definition of the term monopoly, which applies to industries, not markets. As you stated, markets can be subsets of industries. However, when a company controls a market of the company's own branded products, they don't have a monopoly. It is the company's trademark and thus are granted exclusive use and ownership of that trademark. Macs are trademarked computers owned by Apple and thus have exclusive right to use the name and promote the product and services under that name. No company has the legal right to operate under that name or to use their products in an unauthorized manner. This is not because they have a monopoly. It is because they own the product, intellectual property and trademarks associated with that brand.
I sincerely hope that you never develop a copyright-able product with intellectual property rights, because your understanding of these rights is very poor and you will never be able to defend your rights when someone else violates them. Even worse, I hope you don't violate someone else's intellectual property rights because of your inability to understand the concept.
1)I am arguing that the Mac OS does create a "market" that exist separately from the larger context of the computer industry. I don't think that this is erroneous.
Regarding the term 'BRAND':
Microsoft was trying to integrate their IE browser to the Windows OS and basically saying "This is Microsoft's BRAND. We have a right to do what we want with our software."
To those of you who are arguing that Apple has a right to keep a lock on both hardware and software because it's the Apple BRAND -- do you then agree that Microsoft has a right to integrate IE into the Windows OS as part of their BRAND?
The anti-trust regulators didn't think Microsoft had the right to make IE part of their BRAND.
I think this Mac clone thing will be interesting.
The difference is that Microsoft has been declared a monopoly by the courts. Why? Because it has more than 70% of the market for personal computer OS's. 70% is usually used as a consideration of monopoly.
Apple has about 6.5% of the market for personal computer OS's. Therefore, not only are they not a monopoly, they are a very small force in the industry, as measured by usage, and dollars.
Monopolies have restrictions put upon them so that they will not abuse their monopoly power, such as lowering prices to drive other makers out of the market, which is what monopolies have done in the past, which is why Teddy Roosevelt was known as the "Trust Buster". He set up many of the laws concerning what constitutes a monopoly, what type of monopoly, and what should be done about it.
While MS making IE free, and thus driving Netscape to make their browser free, thus removing the majority of their income, and making it difficult for them to improve the software, and even staying in business, was the first questionable act, the other, of making it impossible to remove IE, and thus making it more difficult for other browsers to function properly, was the final straw.
MS did the same thing to Adobe. When Powerpoint couldn't make a dent in Adobes industry leading program, Persuasion, they made it free by putting it into Office, thus killing the much superior Adobe product.
The same thing is happening in game consoles. The XBox is a failure. Unlike Sony, and Nintendo, which have made considerable profits on their devices over the years, MS has lost over a billion a year on its entertainment division every year since the first XBox came out. It has no interest in making a profit because it has its eyes on bigger fish.
The only company that can afford that is MS, which makes a far greater percentage of profits on its monopoly products than anyone else makes on any of theirs. Because of that, it can afford to lose vast amounts of money. That is something no one else can do.
While Apple sometimes adds a product to its mix, in general, you certainly can't accuse Apple of using it's exclusivity to undersell Windows machines to drive them out of business.
First, monopolies apply to industries, not each competitor within one industry. Apple Macintoshes are in competition with Sony Vaios, Dell Dimensions, etc. Just because they are unique within the industry doesn't mean they don't compete with these other products.
Second, as we've all said repeatedly, Mac is a trademarked brand belonging to Apple. As such, Apple has exclusive right in determining how Mac and Mac products are promoted and in the case of OSX, how it can be used. The exclusivity Apple has with the Mac brand is because of the trademark, not because it has a monopoly. If it helps, think of the trademark as a grant allowing Apple a monopoly of the Mac brand. (Of course, this isn't a correct description because Apple owns the Mac brand and thus can do with it whatever they want. The term monopoly cannot be used... it isn't an applicable term to describe the situation.)
I think we're getting close to helping you understand.
That makes sense.
I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
Pretty much everyone is telling you the same thing. You just refuse to even attempt to understand what we are telling you because if you did, you would agree with us. Your interpretation what constitutes a monopoly is simply wrong and are mixing up several distinctly different concepts.
There is nothing wrong with the statement you made (quoted below). However, this isn't what we've been arguing about. A market exists whenever there is demand for a product or service. However, we are talking about the legal definition of the term monopoly, which applies to industries, not markets. As you stated, markets can be subsets of industries. However, when a company controls a market of the company's own branded products, they don't have a monopoly. It is the company's trademark and thus are granted exclusive use and ownership of that trademark. Macs are trademarked computers owned by Apple and thus have exclusive right to use the name and promote the product and services under that name. No company has the legal right to operate under that name or to use their products in an unauthorized manner. This is not because they have a monopoly. It is because they own the product, intellectual property and trademarks associated with that brand.
I sincerely hope that you never develop a copyright-able product with intellectual property rights, because your understanding of these rights is very poor and you will never be able to defend your rights when someone else violates them. Even worse, I hope you don't violate someone else's intellectual property rights because of your inability to understand the concept.
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie. My sticking point as you pointed at above is the definition of monopoly as it relates to Industries not markets. I never heard the term Monopoly limited to an industry as a whole. For example here is the definition of Monopoly from BusinessDictionary.com in full. Nowhere is there reference to Industry as part of the definition.
monopoly
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities). Although monopolies exist in varying degrees (due to copyrights, patents, access to materials, exclusive technologies, or unfair trade practices) almost no firm has a complete monopoly in the era of globalization.
--------
Using the above definition illustrates why someone like myself could resonably see Apple as a producer of a specific good and service that"... controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. "
That makes sense.
The way I was seeing it Sun would be seen as a monopoly as well, like you point out for example. I'm confused why it isn't possible to have smaller monopolies within the larger computer industry.
We can't make up our own definition of what constitutes a monopoly. The law is pretty clear on what constitutes a monopoly, whether natural, or otherwise.
Individual industries are constituted in ways that usually make it clear as to what a monopoly is in that industry.
You can't subdivide it down to a point where every company in the industry has a monopoly if they have their own products that no one else can make.
You are right that a patent does give (I think you mentioned patents earlier on, if not, then it's for whomever did
But that is a very different kind of monopoly, and mustn't be confused with what we are discussing here.
Many companies may receive patents on goods, or processes, within an industry. None of those companies may have a monopoly on sales or licensing, or one might have. The mere granting of a patent does not assure that the patent holder can protect the IDEA of what resulted from the patent, as patents SPECIFICALLY may not be granted for ideas.
If the granting of a patent means that the entire industry is beholden to the patent holder, who has a 70% or so marketshare, then the holder does indeed have a monopoly. But it may not last if someone finds a way around the patent, or after the patent runs out they can't come up with an improvement that will grant them an extension.
It happened with Honeywell decades ago. They had the patent on how automatic flashes dump energy during the flash. Several other flash makers violated their patent. Honeywell sued, and won. After a lot of money changed hands, the stupid companies all found other ways around Honeywell's patents, which ran out a few years later anyway. Honeywell lost their monopoly.
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie. My sticking point as you pointed at above is the definition of monopoly as it relates to Industries not markets. I never heard the term Monopoly limited to an industry as a whole. For example here is the definition of Monopoly from BusinessDictionary.com in full. Nowhere is there reference to Industry as part of the definition.
monopoly
Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. Monopolist firms (in their attempt to maximize profits) keep the price high and restrict the output, and show little or no responsiveness to the needs of their customers. Most governments therefore try to control monopolies by (1) imposing price controls, (2) taking over their ownership (called 'nationalization'), or (3) by breaking them up into two or more competing firms. Sometimes governments facilitate the creation of monopolies for reasons of national security, to realize economies of scale for competing internationally, or where two or more producers would be wasteful or pointless (as in the case of utilities). Although monopolies exist in varying degrees (due to copyrights, patents, access to materials, exclusive technologies, or unfair trade practices) almost no firm has a complete monopoly in the era of globalization.
--------
Using the above definition illustrates why someone like myself could resonably see Apple as a producer of a specific good and service that"... controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted. "
Tink, it's true that the law itself doesn't define "industry" as a controlling factor. But, if you,look at the history of how monopoly regulation came about, you would see that it was because one huge producer, such as Standard Oil, which was the first example, and the reason, at the time, why the monopoly laws came into effect, controlled about all the product in the industry. US Steel was another.
Apple isn't in that position.
So, while the law itself doesn't look at industry, the lawmakers, the federal government, and the courts do. There is no other way to do so.
As Apple is not an industry, but only a very small part of one, they are not considered to be a monopoly.
Tink, it's true that the law itself doesn't define "industry" as a controlling factor. But, if you,look at the history of how monopoly regulation came about, you would see that it was because one huge producer, such as Standard Oil, which was the first example, and the reason, at the time, why the monopoly laws came into effect, controlled about all the product in the industry. US Steel was another.
Apple isn't in that position.
So, while the law itself doesn't look at industry, the lawmakers, the federal government, and the courts do. There is no other way to do so.
As Apple is not an industry, but only a very small part of one, they are not considered to be a monopoly.
Cool thanks for the clarification.
You don't have clue what you're talking about. First off, you didn't read my post. If you did you wouldn't be lecturing me on copyright violation. I already said it's against the law. My point is that the EULA has absolutely nothing to do with that fact. Infringing on copyright is against the law. Government laws - not a stupid EULA that Apple or any other company lawyer decides to write. The EULA prevents them from being sued. It does not give them any extra rights to sue you or restrict your usage of the software beyond what the law allows.
You're totally bananas if you think "violating" a EULA by installing OSX on a toaster is a "civil penalty." Are you out of your mind?
I read your post, and I must say that I know far more about this than you do.
Your entire post is wrong.
While you said that you can do what the law allows, you don't bother to spell out what that may be. Otherwise, what you said was nonsense.
The EULA is a recognized contract, recognized by law. It is a statement of copyright, among other matters. It spells out what you may, and may not do to, or with, the product you have licensed. You may not do anything that the company specifies you can not do. You may only do what they allow.
If you don't know that, then don't accuse me of not understanding.
Here is a definition:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/EULA.htm
Idiots
If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.
"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>
If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.
It is one thing if Honda made the car and built the roads, or if Microsoft in making windows owned DELL. Apple works on the hardware and the software. Pretty sure they do alot of hardware dev too. So Im guessing even though its nVidia and Intel at core, Apple still has proprietary hardware. Dell does their own hardware dev and MS does their own software dev they ALL have patents on their technology. It is ridiculous to even make that analogy with Honda and Microsoft. They could get in trouble if they wrote in you could only use it a certain way if it isnt their own property. It is Apple's property which works together. Golly I wouldnt want to pay $600 for the next version of OS X
I suspect that Psystar is such a company. Their actions indicate they are completely ignorant of the distinctions between what constitutes a legal trademarked product and a monopoly, a distinction you yourself have failed to understand.
It's interesting that you say my last post was the clearest because I've been pretty much repeating myself all along and yes, I got frustrated with the fact that you were not getting it. It's also a personal issue with me because I produce a product that is protected by copyright laws and it scares me how little people understand with regards to intellectual property rules. People, like you, who do not understand the distinction between a legal trademarked brand and a monopoly are the ones who will violate the rights of copyright holders and owners of intellectual property, thus potentially damaging our businesses.
I'm glad you're finally starting to understand what we have all been saying to you all day.
I realy don't understand why you have a need to insult me or anyone else for that matter. Besides your insults at the end of your post, I found this post the clearist so far as to where our differnce lie.