Are Psystar's lawyers working on contingency? If not, they get paid whether they win or lose.
Going up against apple would probably cost Psystar millions. While it's possible they're paying, it seems likely that they probably took this on contingency or at least very reduced fees upfront. I don't know how a tiny operation like Psystar would be able to afford a case like this, unless they are funded by a bigger silent partner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
I was being sarcastic.
Ah. Sorry I missed that, I was confused by your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
A monopoly position is achieved not by obtaining some magic market share percentage, but by achieving said majority percentage through anti-competitive means. Microsoft's Windows doesn't have a monopolistic position on the PC desktop because Windows incredibly popular, but because Microsoft's operating system is sold as the default operating system on every new PC sold thanks to their use of exclusive, anti-consumer, anti-competitive OEM licensing deals with third party hardware vendors like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux.
I'd say that market share numbers are at least part of whether a company is a monopoly. Let's also not forget that *having* a monopoly isn't illegal - only using that monopoly as leverage to take over other markets (which is why MS got busted). Market share certainly figured into the MS lawsuits - there's no way they would have faced monopoly penalties if their OS was only on 50% of computers sold instead of 90%+.
Beyond that, I agree with you. My original point is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They are the exclusive seller of OSX, but that isn't a monopoly since there are other OSs to choose from. Just like Pepsico is the exclusive seller of Pepsi, but they don't have a monopoly since people can buy Coke instead.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market.
This nonsense comes up in every thread about this case. APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You just sound like an idiot when you say that.
If apple had a monopoly, then every company would have a monopoly, since every company is the only one selling their own products. Do you really think Pepsi should be able to sell Cokes since it's not fair that Coke has a "monopoly" on the drink? Just moronic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Second I doubt the EULA means much of anything and may even be illegal in some states.
Honestly, I think the EULA is a moot point - even without the EULA apple has an easy case since they are violating Apple's copyright by distributing a hacked version of Apple's OS. Blatant copyright infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful. Apple would likely end up with 100's of government hot shots after them due to atleast a half dozen problem areas. Of course if they (Apple) gets much worst they might draw attention anyways.
And now you're on a political soapbox? Aside from the fact that you're way off topic with your rant, should we really listen to a guy who can't even understand what a monopoly is?
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
republican ass that is funny, considering the ass is the proud logo of the democratic party. Although I doubt the meaning for the selection of the logo back in the 1820's is the same as would be considered today by some people.
And to answer your question, When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?, it was about the same time a democrat spoke of the true reality or acknowledged the facts..
Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything.
Absolutely. But when someone posts off topic, uninformed political rants on a site about a computer company, is it surprising when it gets a reaction like that?
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
And apple isn't "exercising monopoly-like powers" either. They are stopping Psystar from shipping THEIR operating system, which they have every right to do. Apple would be acting like a monopoly if they were trying to push Windows and Linux out of business.
What apple is doing is like if GenericCo started making and selling Pepsi (and telling consumers it's Pepsi to boot). Of course Pepsi would win that lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it?
Nobody has said that at all. If you buy an old mac, it came with OSX orignally so they're happy to sell you an upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
You miss the point - the analogy just shows that when Burger King is the only one selling whoppers, it's not a monopoly. Period.
You don't have a monopoly by being the only one selling whoppers, you are a monopoly if you're the only one selling HAMBURGERS. It's not an oversimplification, you just miss the point of the analogy.
And even if you ignore the EULA, Psystar is screwed since they are violating copyright laws by distributing a hacked version of OSX.
A monopoly doesn't come from having a majority of a market, it comes from having almost all of it, in the range of 90%+. Windows fits that. I don't know the iPod market share, but it's probably pretty close. Wii might be the biggest seller, but they're probably nowhere close to 50 percent of the market much less 90.
You're thinking of one definition of monopoly, but in the context people are using it here, it refers more to anti-competitive practices which prevent other businesses from competing with your products. Apple is not stopping other companies from competing with their products (as Microsoft was striving to do with Internet Explorer and Netscape, among other cases). Psystar is perfectly welcome to develop their own operating system to go into competition with Apple.
Similarly, the Wii could have 98% of the market, but unless they were specifically doing something to stifle Sony and Microsoft's ability to complete with them, it should not be actionable.
I echo the sentiments of others: Psytar, please just die. Nobody loves you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by breeze
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
Do you have any idea how much an over-generalized statement like that says about your personality, education, and intelligence?
This nonsense comes up in every thread about this case. APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You just sound like an idiot when you say that.
You sound just as wise when you confuse "monopolistic practices" with "monopoly." See my post three above yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Honestly, I think the EULA is a moot point - even without the EULA apple has an easy case since they are violating Apple's copyright by distributing a hacked version of Apple's OS. Blatant copyright infringement.
Two different charges require two different sentences. One can be innocent of one and guilty of another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
And now you're on a political soapbox? Aside from the fact that you're way off topic with your rant, should we really listen to a guy who can't even understand what a monopoly is?
Likewise about someone who doesn't know the difference between "monopolistic practices" and "monopoly."
The copyright issue is a bit different and is where Apple might have a chance. I do not know enough about the specifics here but this will be a case focused on extremely narrow issues and specific pieces of code. Originally I was under the impression that Pystar simply had a utility that enabled installation of OS/X on their machine. I don't see that specifically being a copy right violation. I could be wrong, but the OS is being purchased thru normal Apple distribution channels, one copy per machine, so nothing is being stolen.
"Stealing" isn't the issue here. Copyright law specifically forbids derivative works, meaning taking copyrighted material, making changes, then selling the changed material. That's exactly what Psystar has done, they're selling a hacked version of OSX. As of right now, the only way to install OSX is with a hacked install disk, and the shipped machine will contain a hacked version of the OS as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Yes! It is really a qustion of the applicability of the "right of first sale". That is can a manufacture legally prevent you from reselling some you purchased from them. Mac OS is available on the shelf as a product sold by Apple.
But Psystar isn't just reselling OSX, they're hacking it and reselling a product that includes the hacked version. Apple doesn't sell a version that will install on generic PC hardware. And Apple can absolutely prevent sales of hacked versions of their OS, it's a basic principle of copyright law.
Psystar doesn't say Apple is a monopoly. They say they are monopolistic, i.e. conspiring to monopolize. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use anti-competitive tactics to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This is what Psystar is accusing Apple of.
Since Apple is at under ten percent market share, they would have a LONG way to go to acquire a monopoly. Especially when there's another competitor in the industry that courts have ruled DOES have a monopoly. Seriously, if they go into court and try to argue that apple is "monopolistic" because, even though they sell less than 10% of the computers in the world, they're TRYING REALLY HARD to become a monopoly...they will absolutely get laughed at. For apple to get a monopoly, they have to overtake Microsoft, and that's likely impossible, or at best, decades away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
How might Apple be anti-competitive? Psystar says they are Tying (legal definition) OS X to their own hardware. Tying in and of itself is not illegal unless it is used to promote sales of an unrelated product.
What you fail to mention is that tying is perfectly legal unless you have a monopoly. Since apple has such small market share, they can tie and promote sales of unrelated products all they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Does OS X really necessitate running *only* on Apple's hardware?
I don't see why that's relevant to this case. Even if OSX can be made to run on other hardware, that doesn't stop apple from selling it only for use on apple hardware. Even if it's an arbitrary distinction, apple is still allowed to make it.
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
oreover, the OSx86 community has shown us that with almost no modification whatsoever, they can flawlessly run OS X on third-party hardware.
I think some would take issue with "almost no modification" and "flawlessly".
And apple isn't "exercising monopoly-like powers" either. They are stopping Psystar from shipping THEIR operating system, which they have every right to do. Apple would be acting like a monopoly if they were trying to push Windows and Linux out of business.
You keep mixing the two separate parts of the case. There's a copyright violation claim (Psystar selling modified/"derivative" works) and a EULA violation claim. Psystar is fighting the EULA violation claim with an anti-competition claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
What apple is doing is like if GenericCo started making and selling Pepsi (and telling consumers it's Pepsi to boot). Of course Pepsi would win that lawsuit.
Analogy FAIL!
It's like Pepsi selling its syrup off the shelf with an EULA that it can only be used with Pepsi-brand carbonated water, PsystarCola, buying the syrup, adding an ingredient to make it taste right with their own carbonated water and selling it as OpenCola. Pepsi then sues them for reselling a modified version of their syrup and breaking the EULA. PsystarCola is fighting the EULA claim by saying Pepsi doesn't have a right to Tie their syrup to their carbonated water.
Analogy SUCCESS!
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
You miss the point - the analogy just shows that when Burger King is the only one selling whoppers, it's not a monopoly. Period.
You don't have a monopoly by being the only one selling whoppers, you are a monopoly if you're the only one selling HAMBURGERS. It's not an oversimplification, you just miss the point of the analogy.
And even if you ignore the EULA, Psystar is screwed since they are violating copyright laws by distributing a hacked version of OSX.
There are moments when I think you understand the difference between the copyright claim and the EULA claim, but then I read you successive posts and realize I am only fooling myself.
You sound just as wise when you confuse "monopolistic practices" with "monopoly." See my post three above yours.
I'm not, particulatly since apple isn't engaging in "monopolistic practices" either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Two different charges require two different sentences. One can be innocent of one and guilty of another.
While that's true, if apple can win based on copyright laws, they can put Psystar out of business without even mentioning the EULA in court. That's my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Likewise about someone who doesn't know the difference between "monopolistic practices" and "monopoly."
Oh? So show me ONE example of a company with under 10% market share getting busted for "monopolistic practices". Until you do, I'm going to keep assuming that the ones making accusations of "monopolistic practices" are the idiots, m'kay?
You seem convinced that others are confusing monopoly and monopolistic practices...but you seem to think that the two are somehow two utterly different and unrelated things...you might want to look both up. Where exactly did you find a definition of "monopolistic practices" that's much different than "being a monopoly"? Maybe you mean "anti competitive practices" instead of "monopolistic practices"?
"It is usually difficult to practice anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing." (which is immediately followed by a mention of monopolies)
they moved to intel which is cheaper to buy than motorola's G4 Chip because of the bulk rate, and what did Apple do? Rase the price $100, such BS, they should have lowered the price $100 to $899.
I think this is wrong. As I recall, the G4 at the time of transition cost Apple less than half as much as the core duo chips they moved to.
There's no point in trying to "prove" some business or legal issue by analogy to some entirely different product and industry. There may be SOME similarities but OS and CPU is NOT the same situation as any other product, so there are differences too. So you can use an analogy to explain your thinking but you can't use one to prove what Apple is or is not doing.
Two statements to avoid that are very irrational--any form of:
1. What Apple or Psystar is doing is EXACTLY like some other non-computer industry, and this PROVES that Apple or Psystar is in the right.
2. Mac cloning has ONLY positives or ONLY negatives. (An extreme position is never likely to make sense.)
A lot of people are talking about the positives of Mac cloning and pretending the negatives don't also exist--even when those negatives have been clearly stated in the thread. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away
You keep mixing the two separate parts of the case. There's a copyright violation claim (Psystar selling modified/"derivative" works) and a EULA violation claim. Psystar is fighting the EULA violation claim with an anti-competition claim.
Frankly, I don't care what Psystar thinks they are fighting with their anti-competition claim. They have no grounds for that claim since there is plenty of competition from Microsoft and consumers are free to buy Windows if they think Apple is being unfair.
In the case of tying, it's only illegal when unrelated items are tied together, and it happens all the time (look at all the console video games). Do you really think an OS and hardware are unrelated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
It's like Pepsi selling its syrup off the shelf...
Sorry, but you miss the point of the analogy - it just illustrates that Apple doesn't have a monopoly, nothing more. The notion of whether Apple is a monopoly can be addressed with a simple analogy - trying to turn the whole case into an analogy with cars or sodas would be foolish and pointless.
Apple being the exclusive seller of macs/osx isn't a monopoly, the monopoly would be selling all computers/OSs.
Pepsico being the exclusive seller of Pepsi isn't a monopoly, the monopoly would be selling all sodas.
That's it, nothing more.
Actually, I explained this to you already, but instead of responding to the explanation, you just called me an idiot. Hope I made it more clear this time around.
Ah. Sorry I missed that, I was confused by your post.
No worries. I was a bit too dry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
I'd say that market share numbers are at least part of whether a company is a monopoly. Let's also not forget that *having* a monopoly isn't illegal - only using that monopoly as leverage to take over other markets (which is why MS got busted). Market share certainly figured into the MS lawsuits - there's no way they would have faced monopoly penalties if their OS was only on 50% of computers sold instead of 90%+.
I should have said simply due to a majority share of some market. Oops. Obviously you need control of the market in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Beyond that, I agree with you. My original point is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They are the exclusive seller of OSX, but that isn't a monopoly since there are other OSs to choose from. Just like Pepsico is the exclusive seller of Pepsi, but they don't have a monopoly since people can buy Coke instead.
Ok, I think we're on the same page, but what about your comment that I was originally responding to (namely the underlined part)?:
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
In the OS market, Apple is under 10 percent, pretty much the opposite of a monopoly.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
All your examples are (in my opinion) nonsense: You can't compare Software (intellectual property) with Hardware. You are allowed to modify and sell Hardware (unless you aren't breaking patents), but not Software.
And selling your OS X for 750$ to other manufactures, but selling your product (OSX + hardware) for 500$ would be illegal and should be forbidden.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
I meant that for Apple to have a monopoly, it would take a multibillion dollar company with 90% market share to vanish off the face of the earth (and then some). My point was merely to point out that things would have to be hugely different for Apple to even have a shot at being a monopoly, not that MS going away would automatically turn Apple into a monopoly. Basically I was trying to say that it would take an event of biblical scale for Apple to end up a monopoly any time soon - obviously I did a poor job of getting that across.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Seems like we're on the same page and just misunderstanding each other, thanks for the clarification.
Absolutely. But when someone posts off topic, uninformed political rants on a site about a computer company, is it surprising when it gets a reaction like that?
When it comes to talking about anti trust actions of the federal government you can not disconnect what happens or is possible from the political environment. The two are intimately tied together. If you don't believe that then frankly you haven't been around 45 years to watch the ebb and flow. You simply can't talk about anti trust enforcement without considering the political landscape, so politics is always part of the discussion.
Now you can take the position that politics should never be a factor and you might be right in a lofty sense. On the other hand the administration in charge at the moment needs to have some control over the bureaucrates. If not you get situation like we have with the EPA over stepping it's bounds set by congress. It just isn't a perfect world.
As to Obama well he is on record as being somewhat anti business. That is one strike. The second issue is the record companies, allied electronics manufacture and artists. There are many a business right now that is not happy with Apples ITunes & IPod line up. Like it or not they may consider a political solution to Apples success a good form of payback. It may be school yard thinking to get the big bully to beat up on the guy you are loosing out too, but is often common in the business world.
I meant that for Apple to have a monopoly, it would take a multibillion dollar company with 90% market share to vanish off the face of the earth (and then some). My point was merely to point out that things would have to be hugely different for Apple to even have a shot at being a monopoly, not that MS going away would automatically turn Apple into a monopoly. Basically I was trying to say that it would take an event of biblical scale for Apple to end up a monopoly any time soon - obviously I did a poor job of getting that across.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Seems like we're on the same page and just misunderstanding each other, thanks for the clarification.
Ah, I get your point now. I also made the mistake of not reading the entirety of your post when I responded. I actually thought you were one of those arguing for Psystar's success.
Comments
Are Psystar's lawyers working on contingency? If not, they get paid whether they win or lose.
Going up against apple would probably cost Psystar millions. While it's possible they're paying, it seems likely that they probably took this on contingency or at least very reduced fees upfront. I don't know how a tiny operation like Psystar would be able to afford a case like this, unless they are funded by a bigger silent partner.
I was being sarcastic.
Ah. Sorry I missed that, I was confused by your post.
A monopoly position is achieved not by obtaining some magic market share percentage, but by achieving said majority percentage through anti-competitive means. Microsoft's Windows doesn't have a monopolistic position on the PC desktop because Windows incredibly popular, but because Microsoft's operating system is sold as the default operating system on every new PC sold thanks to their use of exclusive, anti-consumer, anti-competitive OEM licensing deals with third party hardware vendors like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. that stifle competition from alternatives like Linux.
I'd say that market share numbers are at least part of whether a company is a monopoly. Let's also not forget that *having* a monopoly isn't illegal - only using that monopoly as leverage to take over other markets (which is why MS got busted). Market share certainly figured into the MS lawsuits - there's no way they would have faced monopoly penalties if their OS was only on 50% of computers sold instead of 90%+.
Beyond that, I agree with you. My original point is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They are the exclusive seller of OSX, but that isn't a monopoly since there are other OSs to choose from. Just like Pepsico is the exclusive seller of Pepsi, but they don't have a monopoly since people can buy Coke instead.
First; Apple is and has engaged in monopolistic practices, there os no way to come to any other conclusion. They have 100% of the Mac OS market.
This nonsense comes up in every thread about this case. APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You just sound like an idiot when you say that.
If apple had a monopoly, then every company would have a monopoly, since every company is the only one selling their own products. Do you really think Pepsi should be able to sell Cokes since it's not fair that Coke has a "monopoly" on the drink? Just moronic.
Second I doubt the EULA means much of anything and may even be illegal in some states.
Honestly, I think the EULA is a moot point - even without the EULA apple has an easy case since they are violating Apple's copyright by distributing a hacked version of Apple's OS. Blatant copyright infringement.
Which brings up a point don't vote for Obama if you want to see companies like Apple continue to be successful. Apple would likely end up with 100's of government hot shots after them due to atleast a half dozen problem areas. Of course if they (Apple) gets much worst they might draw attention anyways.
And now you're on a political soapbox? Aside from the fact that you're way off topic with your rant, should we really listen to a guy who can't even understand what a monopoly is?
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
republican ass that is funny, considering the ass is the proud logo of the democratic party. Although I doubt the meaning for the selection of the logo back in the 1820's is the same as would be considered today by some people.
And to answer your question, When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?, it was about the same time a democrat spoke of the true reality or acknowledged the facts..
Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean they're wrong, stupid, poor or rich, or anything.
Absolutely. But when someone posts off topic, uninformed political rants on a site about a computer company, is it surprising when it gets a reaction like that?
They're not saying Apple has a monopoly (which isn't illegal, btw.) They're saying Apple is exercising monopoly-like powers to unfairly push competitors out of the market... which is quite illegal. (See: Microsoft.)
And apple isn't "exercising monopoly-like powers" either. They are stopping Psystar from shipping THEIR operating system, which they have every right to do. Apple would be acting like a monopoly if they were trying to push Windows and Linux out of business.
What apple is doing is like if GenericCo started making and selling Pepsi (and telling consumers it's Pepsi to boot). Of course Pepsi would win that lawsuit.
If I buy an old Mac on eBay with the hard drive wiped clean but without the original install CDs, you're saying its illegal for me to buy OS X off the shelf and install it?
Nobody has said that at all. If you buy an old mac, it came with OSX orignally so they're happy to sell you an upgrade.
Burger King makes the Whopper and they put a special Burger King branded ketchup on it that they don't sell to competitors but is for sale on the shelves of your local grocery store. A local burger joint decides to start selling a new burger that is pretty much the same ingredients as the Whopper, including some of the off-the-shelf Burger King ketchup if the customer requests it. They're not calling it a Whopper, but they do advertise the fact that you can get some of that off-the-shelf Burger King brand ketchup on it so it tastes a lot like the original.
You miss the point - the analogy just shows that when Burger King is the only one selling whoppers, it's not a monopoly. Period.
You don't have a monopoly by being the only one selling whoppers, you are a monopoly if you're the only one selling HAMBURGERS. It's not an oversimplification, you just miss the point of the analogy.
And even if you ignore the EULA, Psystar is screwed since they are violating copyright laws by distributing a hacked version of OSX.
A monopoly doesn't come from having a majority of a market, it comes from having almost all of it, in the range of 90%+. Windows fits that. I don't know the iPod market share, but it's probably pretty close. Wii might be the biggest seller, but they're probably nowhere close to 50 percent of the market much less 90.
You're thinking of one definition of monopoly, but in the context people are using it here, it refers more to anti-competitive practices which prevent other businesses from competing with your products. Apple is not stopping other companies from competing with their products (as Microsoft was striving to do with Internet Explorer and Netscape, among other cases). Psystar is perfectly welcome to develop their own operating system to go into competition with Apple.
Similarly, the Wii could have 98% of the market, but unless they were specifically doing something to stifle Sony and Microsoft's ability to complete with them, it should not be actionable.
I echo the sentiments of others: Psytar, please just die. Nobody loves you.
You are a true republican ass. When was the last time a republican knew the true reality or facts?
Do you have any idea how much an over-generalized statement like that says about your personality, education, and intelligence?
This nonsense comes up in every thread about this case. APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY. You just sound like an idiot when you say that.
You sound just as wise when you confuse "monopolistic practices" with "monopoly." See my post three above yours.
Honestly, I think the EULA is a moot point - even without the EULA apple has an easy case since they are violating Apple's copyright by distributing a hacked version of Apple's OS. Blatant copyright infringement.
Two different charges require two different sentences. One can be innocent of one and guilty of another.
And now you're on a political soapbox? Aside from the fact that you're way off topic with your rant, should we really listen to a guy who can't even understand what a monopoly is?
-Clive
The copyright issue is a bit different and is where Apple might have a chance. I do not know enough about the specifics here but this will be a case focused on extremely narrow issues and specific pieces of code. Originally I was under the impression that Pystar simply had a utility that enabled installation of OS/X on their machine. I don't see that specifically being a copy right violation. I could be wrong, but the OS is being purchased thru normal Apple distribution channels, one copy per machine, so nothing is being stolen.
"Stealing" isn't the issue here. Copyright law specifically forbids derivative works, meaning taking copyrighted material, making changes, then selling the changed material. That's exactly what Psystar has done, they're selling a hacked version of OSX. As of right now, the only way to install OSX is with a hacked install disk, and the shipped machine will contain a hacked version of the OS as well.
Yes! It is really a qustion of the applicability of the "right of first sale". That is can a manufacture legally prevent you from reselling some you purchased from them. Mac OS is available on the shelf as a product sold by Apple.
But Psystar isn't just reselling OSX, they're hacking it and reselling a product that includes the hacked version. Apple doesn't sell a version that will install on generic PC hardware. And Apple can absolutely prevent sales of hacked versions of their OS, it's a basic principle of copyright law.
Psystar doesn't say Apple is a monopoly. They say they are monopolistic, i.e. conspiring to monopolize. It's not illegal to be a monopoly, but it IS illegal to use anti-competitive tactics to acquire or maintain a monopoly. This is what Psystar is accusing Apple of.
Since Apple is at under ten percent market share, they would have a LONG way to go to acquire a monopoly. Especially when there's another competitor in the industry that courts have ruled DOES have a monopoly. Seriously, if they go into court and try to argue that apple is "monopolistic" because, even though they sell less than 10% of the computers in the world, they're TRYING REALLY HARD to become a monopoly...they will absolutely get laughed at. For apple to get a monopoly, they have to overtake Microsoft, and that's likely impossible, or at best, decades away.
How might Apple be anti-competitive? Psystar says they are Tying (legal definition) OS X to their own hardware. Tying in and of itself is not illegal unless it is used to promote sales of an unrelated product.
What you fail to mention is that tying is perfectly legal unless you have a monopoly. Since apple has such small market share, they can tie and promote sales of unrelated products all they want.
Does OS X really necessitate running *only* on Apple's hardware?
I don't see why that's relevant to this case. Even if OSX can be made to run on other hardware, that doesn't stop apple from selling it only for use on apple hardware. Even if it's an arbitrary distinction, apple is still allowed to make it.
M
oreover, the OSx86 community has shown us that with almost no modification whatsoever, they can flawlessly run OS X on third-party hardware.
I think some would take issue with "almost no modification" and "flawlessly".
And apple isn't "exercising monopoly-like powers" either. They are stopping Psystar from shipping THEIR operating system, which they have every right to do. Apple would be acting like a monopoly if they were trying to push Windows and Linux out of business.
You keep mixing the two separate parts of the case. There's a copyright violation claim (Psystar selling modified/"derivative" works) and a EULA violation claim. Psystar is fighting the EULA violation claim with an anti-competition claim.
What apple is doing is like if GenericCo started making and selling Pepsi (and telling consumers it's Pepsi to boot). Of course Pepsi would win that lawsuit.
Analogy FAIL!
It's like Pepsi selling its syrup off the shelf with an EULA that it can only be used with Pepsi-brand carbonated water, PsystarCola, buying the syrup, adding an ingredient to make it taste right with their own carbonated water and selling it as OpenCola. Pepsi then sues them for reselling a modified version of their syrup and breaking the EULA. PsystarCola is fighting the EULA claim by saying Pepsi doesn't have a right to Tie their syrup to their carbonated water.
Analogy SUCCESS!
You miss the point - the analogy just shows that when Burger King is the only one selling whoppers, it's not a monopoly. Period.
You don't have a monopoly by being the only one selling whoppers, you are a monopoly if you're the only one selling HAMBURGERS. It's not an oversimplification, you just miss the point of the analogy.
And even if you ignore the EULA, Psystar is screwed since they are violating copyright laws by distributing a hacked version of OSX.
There are moments when I think you understand the difference between the copyright claim and the EULA claim, but then I read you successive posts and realize I am only fooling myself.
-Clive
You sound just as wise when you confuse "monopolistic practices" with "monopoly." See my post three above yours.
I'm not, particulatly since apple isn't engaging in "monopolistic practices" either.
Two different charges require two different sentences. One can be innocent of one and guilty of another.
While that's true, if apple can win based on copyright laws, they can put Psystar out of business without even mentioning the EULA in court. That's my point.
Oh? So show me ONE example of a company with under 10% market share getting busted for "monopolistic practices". Until you do, I'm going to keep assuming that the ones making accusations of "monopolistic practices" are the idiots, m'kay?
You seem convinced that others are confusing monopoly and monopolistic practices...but you seem to think that the two are somehow two utterly different and unrelated things...you might want to look both up. Where exactly did you find a definition of "monopolistic practices" that's much different than "being a monopoly"? Maybe you mean "anti competitive practices" instead of "monopolistic practices"?
You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
Particuarly note this:
"It is usually difficult to practice anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing." (which is immediately followed by a mention of monopolies)
they moved to intel which is cheaper to buy than motorola's G4 Chip because of the bulk rate, and what did Apple do? Rase the price $100, such BS, they should have lowered the price $100 to $899.
I think this is wrong. As I recall, the G4 at the time of transition cost Apple less than half as much as the core duo chips they moved to.
Two statements to avoid that are very irrational--any form of:
1. What Apple or Psystar is doing is EXACTLY like some other non-computer industry, and this PROVES that Apple or Psystar is in the right.
2. Mac cloning has ONLY positives or ONLY negatives. (An extreme position is never likely to make sense.)
A lot of people are talking about the positives of Mac cloning and pretending the negatives don't also exist--even when those negatives have been clearly stated in the thread. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away
You keep mixing the two separate parts of the case. There's a copyright violation claim (Psystar selling modified/"derivative" works) and a EULA violation claim. Psystar is fighting the EULA violation claim with an anti-competition claim.
Frankly, I don't care what Psystar thinks they are fighting with their anti-competition claim. They have no grounds for that claim since there is plenty of competition from Microsoft and consumers are free to buy Windows if they think Apple is being unfair.
In the case of tying, it's only illegal when unrelated items are tied together, and it happens all the time (look at all the console video games). Do you really think an OS and hardware are unrelated?
It's like Pepsi selling its syrup off the shelf...
Sorry, but you miss the point of the analogy - it just illustrates that Apple doesn't have a monopoly, nothing more. The notion of whether Apple is a monopoly can be addressed with a simple analogy - trying to turn the whole case into an analogy with cars or sodas would be foolish and pointless.
Apple being the exclusive seller of macs/osx isn't a monopoly, the monopoly would be selling all computers/OSs.
Pepsico being the exclusive seller of Pepsi isn't a monopoly, the monopoly would be selling all sodas.
That's it, nothing more.
Actually, I explained this to you already, but instead of responding to the explanation, you just called me an idiot. Hope I made it more clear this time around.
Ah. Sorry I missed that, I was confused by your post.
No worries.
I'd say that market share numbers are at least part of whether a company is a monopoly. Let's also not forget that *having* a monopoly isn't illegal - only using that monopoly as leverage to take over other markets (which is why MS got busted). Market share certainly figured into the MS lawsuits - there's no way they would have faced monopoly penalties if their OS was only on 50% of computers sold instead of 90%+.
I should have said simply due to a majority share of some market. Oops.
Beyond that, I agree with you. My original point is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They are the exclusive seller of OSX, but that isn't a monopoly since there are other OSs to choose from. Just like Pepsico is the exclusive seller of Pepsi, but they don't have a monopoly since people can buy Coke instead.
Ok, I think we're on the same page, but what about your comment that I was originally responding to (namely the underlined part)?:
In the OS market, Apple is under 10 percent, pretty much the opposite of a monopoly.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
And selling your OS X for 750$ to other manufactures, but selling your product (OSX + hardware) for 500$ would be illegal and should be forbidden.
Apple would only have a monopoly if Windows didn't exist.
I meant that for Apple to have a monopoly, it would take a multibillion dollar company with 90% market share to vanish off the face of the earth (and then some). My point was merely to point out that things would have to be hugely different for Apple to even have a shot at being a monopoly, not that MS going away would automatically turn Apple into a monopoly. Basically I was trying to say that it would take an event of biblical scale for Apple to end up a monopoly any time soon - obviously I did a poor job of getting that across.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Seems like we're on the same page and just misunderstanding each other, thanks for the clarification.
Absolutely. But when someone posts off topic, uninformed political rants on a site about a computer company, is it surprising when it gets a reaction like that?
When it comes to talking about anti trust actions of the federal government you can not disconnect what happens or is possible from the political environment. The two are intimately tied together. If you don't believe that then frankly you haven't been around 45 years to watch the ebb and flow. You simply can't talk about anti trust enforcement without considering the political landscape, so politics is always part of the discussion.
Now you can take the position that politics should never be a factor and you might be right in a lofty sense. On the other hand the administration in charge at the moment needs to have some control over the bureaucrates. If not you get situation like we have with the EPA over stepping it's bounds set by congress. It just isn't a perfect world.
As to Obama well he is on record as being somewhat anti business. That is one strike. The second issue is the record companies, allied electronics manufacture and artists. There are many a business right now that is not happy with Apples ITunes & IPod line up. Like it or not they may consider a political solution to Apples success a good form of payback. It may be school yard thinking to get the big bully to beat up on the guy you are loosing out too, but is often common in the business world.
Dave
I meant that for Apple to have a monopoly, it would take a multibillion dollar company with 90% market share to vanish off the face of the earth (and then some). My point was merely to point out that things would have to be hugely different for Apple to even have a shot at being a monopoly, not that MS going away would automatically turn Apple into a monopoly. Basically I was trying to say that it would take an event of biblical scale for Apple to end up a monopoly any time soon - obviously I did a poor job of getting that across.
Sorry I wasn't clear. Seems like we're on the same page and just misunderstanding each other, thanks for the clarification.
Ah, I get your point now.
And selling your OS X for 750$ to other manufactures, but selling your product (OSX + hardware) for 500$ would be illegal and should be forbidden.
Why would it be illegal?