Maybe, but that generally applies to crisis situations like drastically raising prices on water, batteries, or plywood during a hurricane.
Generally, a company can set whatever price they want (the exception to this is when a company has a monopoly, which we've established that Apple does not have). And customers are free to buy a competing product if they think the price is too high.
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.
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware. If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal. That is what is up for debate. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like to think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
I think some would take issue with "almost no modification" and "flawlessly".
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
This is the very heart of the Tying argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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?
That is for the court system to decide. Personally, I think that, yes, OS X and Apple's hardware are unrelated.
The argument that people make about a game console OS holds no water because nearly all the hardware in a console is custom-made for the unit. There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts! Like I stated in my first post, they use hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... The only bit of uniqueness is in their motherboard layout, which is still based off the same exact specs that Intel provides to all motherboard manufacturers! In fact, Apple contracts companies like ASUStek & Foxconn to produce their motherboards: companies who sell their own - very similar - motherboards in the generic hardware market. The differences between the hardware in your Mac and my Hackintosh are as few as the differences between a Dell and an HP... or a Dell and my Hackintosh, or a Dell and your Mac, even.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
Sorry, but you miss the point that Apple doesn't need to have a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
I never called you an idiot. I said that if you believed "monopoly" = "monopolistic" you'd be an idiot. Besides, I don't think you have any room to accuse me of calling people idiots...
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
I'm not, particulatly since apple isn't engaging in "monopolistic practices" either.
That's you OPINION. A court will decide whether it is correct or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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.
Of course Psystar will be put out of business, but the implications of breaking Apple's EULA would be IMMENSE, and it is what the hackintosh community has been aspiring for since the very beginning. It's not about Psystar. It's about the right of a user to pick his hardware and his software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
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)
I learned early on in my forum-trolling never to quote Wikipedia on legal issues. Unless you or I are the judge or a member of the jury, we have no say in the interpretation of the law. That said, Wikipedia is not a reliable-enough source of legal information.
It would kind of interesting if Psystar wins the suit, and Apple is required to sell non-upgrade boxed copies of OS X. They'd cost $400 (only fair that it costs a bit more than the less-capable VIsta Ultimate), with no bulk OEM discounts, and would be sold "as is" with no guarantee that the OS would even run, no tech support, no guarantee that future updates wouldn't break, and no guarantees that 3rd-party software would run right either.
That way Apple wouldn't have to test and debug for every other hardware maker's machines. And I don't see a court forcing them to do THAT. It would slow OS X development to a crawl and add Windows-style bloats and workarounds. More complexity, more bugs, slower innovation.
Either Apple spends a LOT of time and money making sure their OS runs on non-Apple hardware, or it will not run reliably. Ditto for many 3rd-party apps. So naturally, 3rd-party Mac software would all have the disclaimer "may not be compatible with non-Apple hardware." They'd have to cover themselves in such an unpredictable situation.
And who wants to buy a machine whose OS and apps may or may not run, with every software update being Russian roulette?
I think the user agreement is the LEAST of Psystar's problems if they want a viable business.
Apple offers NO warranty for its software. You only have to hit a problem with anything that is not hardware related and you'll discover that.
I have been struggling with AppleCare support for over a month with networking issues on a brand new iMac. If I take it in for service I stand a very high probability of being charged to fix something that came installed.
Also when I installed Leopard on my G5 iMac it screwed the Firewire in some bizarre erratic manner. Again, no warranty.
I guess Sony is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Sony TV market.
I guess U2 is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they create and sell 100% of the songs made by U2.
I guess Ragu is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ragu Spaghetti Sauce market.
I guess Ford is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ford Focus market.
Geez! Idiotic comments never cease.
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
Now psystar is in the wrong by altering apples OSX so it will run on other hardware, but the court might decide that apple does not have the right to stipulate that once I buy OSX I can only install it on apple hardware.
This is the question, not does apple have a monopoly. Apple makes OSX, it's there product. Just because no other company makes OSX does not mean apple has a monopoly. lets see some discussion on if it's legal for apple to limit the hardware OSX can run on. Thanks
If EULA's aren't enforceable then Upgrade software is a thing of the past. Upgrade software exists purely as a definition in a licensing agreement. End result, full price software for all!
More DRM! It will be the only way. If you can't legally enforce the EULA, then you have to practically enforce it. Expect to see product activation on everything too, just to make sure that you've not installed your 1 license on 12 computers because hey, EULA's can't be enforced.
What a great world we have to look forward to if Psystar win!
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
Yes, but if a company has small market share, they don't have the leverage to do those anti-competitive things. People keep yelling the buzzwords like "monopoly!" and "anticompetitive!" but nobody has listed a single thing Apple is doing that fits those.
By the way, thanks for switching to "anti-competitive", the continued insistence that "monopoly" and "monopolistic practices" were two entirely different things was becoming comical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
And what two unrelated products is Apple tying? You're not seriously suggesting a computer OS and computer hardware are unrelated, are you?
What about game consoles? You really think all those companies are anti-competitive?
Companies sell products bundled all the time, it only becomes anti-competitive in certain limited circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware.
They can make that restriction if the only way to run it on other hardware is by modifying apple's intellectual property and violating copyright law. And you haven't shown why that would be anti-competitive beyond just insisting it over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal.
If the court finds that, a LOT of people are going to be very curious about what the court was smoking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
Is that using EFiX? And how does that tell us that it works "flawlessly"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
A consumer may also want a free pony. Tough shit.
A consumer may also want a Coke, but in a Pepsi bottle. Tough shit.
Since when does a company have an obligation to make their software available for all hardware? Not to mention that "A" runs fine on "B" is not true in this case since OSX doesn't run on generic hardware without hacking, which violates Apple's copyright.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
But that wasn't the case with the original xbox. Not to mention many hardware boxes that are really just generic PCs inside. Just because you can hack together a system that does what one of these system does doesn't give you the right to sell those hacked boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts!
And yet, you can't install OSX on a generic box without a hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
Sorry, but you miss the point that Apple doesn't need to have a monopoly.
Have you even followed this thread? Someone said apple has a monopoly. I corrected them and explained that they don't. That's it. I don't miss any point, you just haven't followed the flow of conversation here.
Can we agree that Apple is not a monopoly and that they guy who said they are was wrong? Yes? Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
I never called you an idiot. I said that if you believed "monopoly" = "monopolistic" you'd be an idiot.
You didn't use that word, but you made it perfectly clear that you think I'm an idiot. But anyway, please explain how you define "monopoly" and "monopolistic" such that they are completely different, or such that someone with 10% market share could be "monopolistic". Looking them up in the dictionary in OSX, "monopolistic" says "a person or business with a monopoly". But I'm sure the people who wrote the dictionary are idiots too. Can't wait to hear your definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
That's you OPINION. A court will decide whether it is correct or not.
Refresh my memory...what "monopolistic practices" is apple engaged in again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five
I learned early on in my forum-trolling never to quote Wikipedia on legal issues. Unless you or I are the judge or a member of the jury, we have no say in the interpretation of the law. That said, Wikipedia is not a reliable-enough source of legal information.
Sure, then show me a more reliable source of legal information that defines what Apple is doing as anti-competitive or "monopolistic" (not to be confused with "being a monopoly"). Wiki isn't the best source, but it sure beats wild guess/pulled it out of your ass.
If Psystar win. Apple will have no choice but to market Leopard against Vista. To me that sounds like a better world.
C.
They'll never ever compete against Microsoft! Every Mac owner will be frustrated that Apple focuses on PC vendors and "forgets" the Macintosh user (the complains about Apple's focus on the iPhone are nothing compared to what will happen). It's easier to develop "custom" chips or change the way they sell Leopard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Maybe, but that generally applies to crisis situations like drastically raising prices on water, batteries, or plywood during a hurricane.
Generally, a company can set whatever price they want (the exception to this is when a company has a monopoly, which we've established that Apple does not have). And customers are free to buy a competing product if they think the price is too high.
My is based on the case that Psystar wins and Apple has a monopoly. I think then you can call it anticompetive behaviour (at least in Europe).
If Psystar win. Apple will have no choice but to market Leopard against Vista. To me that sounds like a better world.
C.
And with it inherit many of the problems which Vista has to contend with.
Drivers, different system configurations, variable quality of parts etc
Then the question is whether it will be able to compete.
Of course like I said Apple could just stop selling OSX and only provide it with new computers, perhaps include some way to distribute OS updates that are tied to the particular mac.
Many of you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Mac is not just some pricier version of a generic PC. As it stands now, OS X has code that prevents installation on non-Apple hardware by verifying that the hardware is not a generic PC. All people creating "Hackintoshes" (including Psystar's) involve either modifying OS X or installing some other piece of software to fool the OS X installer into believing that it is running on authentic Apple hardware. By doing so, these individuals are in direct violation of the DMCA.
To quote directly from the DMCA Chapter 12 (COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS):
"Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;"
So, by either creating a boot loader or a modding OS X, Psystar is guilty of circumventing a copyright protection system and their practices are in direct violation of US copyright law.
Besides, it seems to me to be rather silly that a court decision in Psystar's favor could somehow force Apple to have to develop, test, and support their own OS on other's hardware. It would be like ruling that you have to aid your competition in trying to drive you out of business.
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
Now psystar is in the wrong by altering apples OSX so it will run on other hardware, but the court might decide that apple does not have the right to stipulate that once I buy OSX I can only install it on apple hardware.
This is the question, not does apple have a monopoly. Apple makes OSX, it's there product. Just because no other company makes OSX does not mean apple has a monopoly. lets see some discussion on if it's legal for apple to limit the hardware OSX can run on. Thanks
Any thoughs on this question? Does Apple have the legal right to stipulate what hardware OSX can run on? I am interested hear what you all think. thanks
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
No offense, but that really isn't a good analogy. Macs use standard, off-the-shelf parts, which users can replace or pay a technician to install. Even if Apple used all custom parts, people have the choice to use Apple's products or not.
Apple has the legal right to do what they're doing because they are the creators of the hardware (the external case, how things are arranged within the case, exactly what components best fit each specification) and the operating system.
They don't have to sell or allow the selling of their own custom operating system to rivals with cloned hardware components. Apple is a hardware company, so licensing out their operating system would impact their hardware sales.
Don't you guys think we would have seen a similar case brought up against Nintendo's handheld or home consoles or Microsoft's Xbox consoles or Sony's PlayStation consoles, all of which are also vertical systems? What about Symbian's smartphones?
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
You don't by OSX, you buy the licence to install one copy of OSX on a Macintosh.
You've the right to paint flowers on the Leopard DVD, but not the right to alter the code (and sell it).
Quote:
Originally Posted by webhead
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
As mentioned above, you buy the permission to use a copy of OS X on a "Apple labeled Computer". The question is, if it's legal to put that restriction into the EULA or if you've to write it onto the Leopard box.
I think it's legal to limit it, but the way Apple does it may be illegal. If they write on the OSX box that you are not allowed to use this product with non Apply hardware, they've every right to do this. Everything else would be against the rules of the free market.
edit: Worst case scenario is that you can use OSX versions sold before xyz on non Apple hardware, but in future versions Apple won't make the same "mistake"
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
Wrong. A company that only owns 10% of a market can try to gain more market share by under selling their competitors (even at a loss). But a company that owns 90% (or just a majority) of a market can not try to do the same as they would be accused of using anti-competitive practice to put their competitors out of business. Even though is the same tactics, it is consider competition in one instance and anti-competitive in the other.
Quote:
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
A Zune is tied to a Windows (XP or Vista.) This is legal because you are not forced to use a Zune when you use Windows. Even though you are forced to use Windows when you buy a Zune. It's Windows that is the monopoly and therefore MS can not force you to use a Zune with Windows. (Though they would have back in their good old days). The Zune is not a monopoly. Therefore MS can force you to use Windows when you buy a Zune.
Apple's iPod was only available for OSX (and thus a Mac) for the first year they were sold. You wanted to use a first generation iPod, you had to use a Mac. This was legal. Neither the Mac or the iPod were considered a monopoly back then,
Quote:
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware. If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal. That is what is up for debate. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like to think.
Want to play Halo3. You have to own and Xbox. Want to run OSX. To have to own a Mac.
Quote:
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
This is the very heart of the Tying argument.
Hardware B has no right to use OS A on their hardware when OS A is the intellectual property of Hardware C. Not without a license.
Apple is not forcing the user of OS A to use Hardware C with the EULA. They are stopping a company from profiting from OS A by selling Hardware B. OS A is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. If the company wants to profit from selling Hardware B, let them write OS C. Apple is not stopping them from doing that.
Quote:
The argument that people make about a game console OS holds no water because nearly all the hardware in a console is custom-made for the unit. There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
You wouldn't need to run the Wii OS. You only need to play the game. There is (or was) software that enable a PC to play Playstation Games. Without ever using the same parts in a PlayStation.
Quote:
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts! Like I stated in my first post, they use hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... The only bit of uniqueness is in their motherboard layout, which is still based off the same exact specs that Intel provides to all motherboard manufacturers! In fact, Apple contracts companies like ASUStek & Foxconn to produce their motherboards: companies who sell their own - very similar - motherboards in the generic hardware market. The differences between the hardware in your Mac and my Hackintosh are as few as the differences between a Dell and an HP... or a Dell and my Hackintosh, or a Dell and your Mac, even.
The hardware is not the issue. Apple doesn't need to own the patents of the parts that makes up a Mac. They only need to own the copyright of the software.
Celebrex is made up of nothing but off the shelf pharmaceutical chemicals. This doesn't give any company the right to manufacture Celebrex. Celebex is the intellectual property of Pfizer. Just because you can get the chemicals needed to make Celebrex doesn't give you the right infringe on Pfizer intellectual property.
Quote:
Of course Psystar will be put out of business, but the implications of breaking Apple's EULA would be IMMENSE, and it is what the hackintosh community has been aspiring for since the very beginning. It's not about Psystar. It's about the right of a user to pick his hardware and his software.
It's about Psyter infringing on Apple copyrighted property, OSX. No one is going after you, the end user. Apple is trying to stop a company from using their copyrigthed property to make money. Without paying for a license to do so. This adversely affect the potential value of Apple OSX. Apple spent billions to develope OSX in order to add value to their Mac hardware. Some one stealing it takes away from that value. Apple has every right to protect what's theirs. A Mac loses value if every JoeShmoe can come along sell hardware that uses OSX. Apple can not stop you from using OSX on a PC. But they can stop a company from making money off of their intellectual property (OSX). That why we have copyright laws.
I also don't want to see this thread degenerate into a political slashfest, but whoever it was that said the political climate can't be ignored in any of this had a point. The only problem is, I think Psystar or their lawyers have misjudged its effect.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, so you can discount what I say if you want to, I'm a flaming lefty. I thought I hated Nixon, and I thought I hated Reagan, but I didn't know what the word "hate" meant until George W. Bush came along!
With that out of the way, I think the mistake Psystar (or their puppetmasters) are making is the same one the Argentine junta made when they seized the Falkland Islands: they expected the British Left to prevent any action against them. Instead, of course, the Right never saw a war they didn't like, and the Left was so enraged by a squalid cabal of tinpot Fascist dictators grabbing British territory and subjecting British subjects to their rule that they were 100% behind the expedition to toss them out.
I think in this case, Psystar's controllers (whatever smelly clique they may be) expects a change in administration in November (Please God!) and they think it will help them in their fight, but in my opinion, they're spectacularly mistaken. Of course, the Right thinks Big Business can do no wrong, but the other side, especially the people who make their policy, are heavily invested in writing, filmmaking, and other creative endeavors, and are dependent on the protection of Intellectual Property to help them make a living. The US couldn't have passed this insane "Death + 70 years" copyright law without strong Bipartisan support. Anyone expecting a shift to the Left in American politics to erode protection for copyright holders is going down the same way the Argentine Dictators did: beset from both sides!
I never mentioned warranties. I mentioned that Apple tests, debugs and patches its software. Which is true, and would become much more complex if Apple had to sell for non-Apple hardware.
(Unless, that is, Apple were permitted to say "may or may not run now, may or may not run after future patches, and may or may not run any software." But I don't think that's the answer Psystar or anyone else is seeking.)
No offense, but that really isn't a good analogy. Macs use standard, off-the-shelf parts, which users can replace or pay a technician to install. Even if Apple used all custom parts, people have the choice to use Apple's products or not.
Apple has the legal right to do what they're doing because they are the creators of the hardware (the external case, how things are arranged within the case, exactly what components best fit each specification) and the operating system.
They don't have to sell or allow the selling of their own custom operating system to rivals with cloned hardware components. Apple is a hardware company, so licensing out their operating system would impact their hardware sales.
Don't you guys think we would have seen a similar case brought up against Nintendo's handheld or home consoles or Microsoft's Xbox consoles or Sony's PlayStation consoles, all of which are also vertical systems? What about Symbian's smartphones?
I wasn't saying Apple had to sell OSX to the competition, only that Apple may not have as clear cut right to specify that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware as has been thought before. Yes we pay for a liscence when we purchase OSX, but is it legal that the liscence specifies what harware we can install OSX on? Your analogy of the Xbox and playstation is flawed as those devices do not sell their operating systems separately as does Apple with OSX. If you could only get OSX by buying a brand new Mac then I would agree with you. But OSX is sold separately. If the Xbox and Platsyation and all the others did sell thier OS publically to any consumer then I bet there would be similar arguments about what hardware that OS could run on. Because Apple sells OSX separately from the mac computer, even as a liscence, does that preclude them from telling me what hardware I can use once I pay my money? I'm not so sure, this is a grey area the courts will have to sort out. If I buy a DVD player from JVC does JVC have the right make me enter into a liscencing agreement that states what TV I can use or what DVD I can watch?
There's no point arguing with you when you simply fail to read what I write. All the questions you "challenge" me to answer I ALREADY HAVE. Your "arguments" are devoid of logic and packed with opinion. Until you learn how to have a civilized discussion, consider your blabbing ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Wrong. A company that only owns 10% of a market can try to gain more market share by under selling their competitors (even at a loss). But a company that owns 90% (or just a majority) of a market can not try to do the same as they would be accused of using anti-competitive practice to put their competitors out of business. Even though is the same tactics, it is consider competition in one instance and anti-competitive in the other.
I have not heard of any such rule. Please provide court cases of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
A Zune is tied to a Windows (XP or Vista.) This is legal because you are not forced to use a Zune when you use Windows. Even though you are forced to use Windows when you buy a Zune. It's Windows that is the monopoly and therefore MS can not force you to use a Zune with Windows. (Though they would have back in their good old days). The Zune is not a monopoly. Therefore MS can force you to use Windows when you buy a Zune.
Apple's iPod was only available for OSX (and thus a Mac) for the first year they were sold. You wanted to use a first generation iPod, you had to use a Mac. This was legal. Neither the Mac or the iPod were considered a monopoly back then,
Zune software doesn't exist for the Mac. The infrastructure doesn't exist for Zune operability on a Mac. The same can't be said about OS X and hardware. The infrastructure is there, OS X can run on generic hardware, the only thing preventing it is Apple's EULA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Want to play Halo3. You have to own and Xbox. Want to run OSX. To have to own a Mac.
Halo 3 is compiled to work with XBox hardware/software. OS X is compiled to work on the x86 instruction set and, subsequently, any Intel-compatible hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Hardware B has no right to use OS A on their hardware when OS A is the intellectual property of Hardware C. Not without a license.
Apple is not forcing the user of OS A to use Hardware C with the EULA. They are stopping a company from profiting from OS A by selling Hardware B. OS A is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. If the company wants to profit from selling Hardware B, let them write OS C. Apple is not stopping them from doing that.
There are two separate issues here! How many times to do I need to explain that? Copyright infringement? Yes, Psystar is guilty. There's also the conviction of EULA violation, which Psystar is fighting with the anti-competition claim. So, yes, Apple IS forcing the user of OS "A" to use hardware "C" via their anti-competitive EULA, even if the user would rather be using hardware "B." How is this so hard to understand?
I get your Psystar correlation and their lack of a Licensing agreement, but it's only one example of where Apple is preventing hardware sales from other manufacturers by tying OS X to their own HW. I bought my copy of OS X in an Apple Store. I bought my hardware from aBit, Hitachi, ASUS, OCZ, etc. My hardware is as similar to Apple's as any x86 machine is to another. The only thing "legally" preventing me from using one with the other is Apple's EULA.
THAT'S anti-competitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
You wouldn't need to run the Wii OS. You only need to play the game. There is (or was) software that enable a PC to play Playstation Games. Without ever using the same parts in a PlayStation.
First, you WOULD need the Wii OS because the game is compiled for it. You can use an emulator to trick a game into seeing the appropriate sw/hw, which I'm pretty sure is what you're talking about with the PlayStation. Emulators are allowed under fair use if and only if you own the console and you own the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
The hardware is not the issue. Apple doesn't need to own the patents of the parts that makes up a Mac. They only need to own the copyright of the software.
Celebrex is made up of nothing but off the shelf pharmaceutical chemicals. This doesn't give any company the right to manufacture Celebrex. Celebex is the intellectual property of Pfizer. Just because you can get the chemicals needed to make Celebrex doesn't give you the right infringe on Pfizer intellectual property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
It's about Psyter infringing on Apple copyrighted property, OSX. No one is going after you, the end user. Apple is trying to stop a company from using their copyrigthed property to make money. Without paying for a license to do so. This adversely affect the potential value of Apple OSX. Apple spent billions to develope OSX in order to add value to their Mac hardware. Some one stealing it takes away from that value. Apple has every right to protect what's theirs. A Mac loses value if every JoeShmoe can come along sell hardware that uses OSX. Apple can not stop you from using OSX on a PC. But they can stop a company from making money off of their intellectual property (OSX). That why we have copyright laws.
Once again, let's stick to just the EULA portion of the argument. We all know that Psystar is guilty of the copyright portion of the suit.
Besides, owning a copyright on something does not permit you to use it anti-competitively.
I wasn't saying Apple had to sell OSX to the competition, only that Apple may not have as clear cut right to specify that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware as has been thought before. Yes we pay for a liscence when we purchase OSX, but is it legal that the liscence specifies what harware we can install OSX on? Your analogy of the Xbox and playstation is flawed as those devices do not sell their operating systems separately as does Apple with OSX. If you could only get OSX by buying a brand new Mac then I would agree with you. But OSX is sold separately. If the Xbox and Platsyation and all the others did sell thier OS publically to any consumer then I bet there would be similar arguments about what hardware that OS could run on. Because Apple sells OSX separately from the mac computer, even as a liscence, does that preclude them from telling me what hardware I can use once I pay my money? I'm not so sure, this is a grey area the courts will have to sort out. If I buy a DVD player from JVC does JVC have the right make me enter into a liscencing agreement that states what TV I can use or what DVD I can watch?
Actually, Sebastian over at roughlydrafted really cleared this up for me. Check it out.
Comments
Why would it be illegal?
He may be looking at like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
He may be looking at like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging
Maybe, but that generally applies to crisis situations like drastically raising prices on water, batteries, or plywood during a hurricane.
Generally, a company can set whatever price they want (the exception to this is when a company has a monopoly, which we've established that Apple does not have). And customers are free to buy a competing product if they think the price is too high.
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.
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
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.
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
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.
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware. If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal. That is what is up for debate. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like to think.
I think some would take issue with "almost no modification" and "flawlessly".
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
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.
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
This is the very heart of the Tying argument.
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?
That is for the court system to decide. Personally, I think that, yes, OS X and Apple's hardware are unrelated.
The argument that people make about a game console OS holds no water because nearly all the hardware in a console is custom-made for the unit. There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts! Like I stated in my first post, they use hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... The only bit of uniqueness is in their motherboard layout, which is still based off the same exact specs that Intel provides to all motherboard manufacturers! In fact, Apple contracts companies like ASUStek & Foxconn to produce their motherboards: companies who sell their own - very similar - motherboards in the generic hardware market. The differences between the hardware in your Mac and my Hackintosh are as few as the differences between a Dell and an HP... or a Dell and my Hackintosh, or a Dell and your Mac, even.
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.
Sorry, but you miss the point that Apple doesn't need to have a monopoly.
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.
I never called you an idiot. I said that if you believed "monopoly" = "monopolistic" you'd be an idiot. Besides, I don't think you have any room to accuse me of calling people idiots...
I'm not, particulatly since apple isn't engaging in "monopolistic practices" either.
That's you OPINION. A court will decide whether it is correct or not.
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.
Of course Psystar will be put out of business, but the implications of breaking Apple's EULA would be IMMENSE, and it is what the hackintosh community has been aspiring for since the very beginning. It's not about Psystar. It's about the right of a user to pick his hardware and his software.
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)
I learned early on in my forum-trolling never to quote Wikipedia on legal issues. Unless you or I are the judge or a member of the jury, we have no say in the interpretation of the law. That said, Wikipedia is not a reliable-enough source of legal information.
-Clive
It would kind of interesting if Psystar wins the suit, and Apple is required to sell non-upgrade boxed copies of OS X. They'd cost $400 (only fair that it costs a bit more than the less-capable VIsta Ultimate), with no bulk OEM discounts, and would be sold "as is" with no guarantee that the OS would even run, no tech support, no guarantee that future updates wouldn't break, and no guarantees that 3rd-party software would run right either.
That way Apple wouldn't have to test and debug for every other hardware maker's machines. And I don't see a court forcing them to do THAT. It would slow OS X development to a crawl and add Windows-style bloats and workarounds. More complexity, more bugs, slower innovation.
Either Apple spends a LOT of time and money making sure their OS runs on non-Apple hardware, or it will not run reliably. Ditto for many 3rd-party apps. So naturally, 3rd-party Mac software would all have the disclaimer "may not be compatible with non-Apple hardware." They'd have to cover themselves in such an unpredictable situation.
And who wants to buy a machine whose OS and apps may or may not run, with every software update being Russian roulette?
I think the user agreement is the LEAST of Psystar's problems if they want a viable business.
Apple offers NO warranty for its software. You only have to hit a problem with anything that is not hardware related and you'll discover that.
I have been struggling with AppleCare support for over a month with networking issues on a brand new iMac. If I take it in for service I stand a very high probability of being charged to fix something that came installed.
Also when I installed Leopard on my G5 iMac it screwed the Firewire in some bizarre erratic manner. Again, no warranty.
I guess Sony is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Sony TV market.
I guess U2 is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they create and sell 100% of the songs made by U2.
I guess Ragu is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ragu Spaghetti Sauce market.
I guess Ford is and has engaged in monopolistic practices because they have 100% of the Ford Focus market.
Geez! Idiotic comments never cease.
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
Now psystar is in the wrong by altering apples OSX so it will run on other hardware, but the court might decide that apple does not have the right to stipulate that once I buy OSX I can only install it on apple hardware.
This is the question, not does apple have a monopoly. Apple makes OSX, it's there product. Just because no other company makes OSX does not mean apple has a monopoly. lets see some discussion on if it's legal for apple to limit the hardware OSX can run on. Thanks
If EULA's aren't enforceable then Upgrade software is a thing of the past. Upgrade software exists purely as a definition in a licensing agreement. End result, full price software for all!
More DRM! It will be the only way. If you can't legally enforce the EULA, then you have to practically enforce it. Expect to see product activation on everything too, just to make sure that you've not installed your 1 license on 12 computers because hey, EULA's can't be enforced.
What a great world we have to look forward to if Psystar win!
What a great world we have to look forward to if Psystar win!
If Psystar win. Apple will have no choice but to market Leopard against Vista. To me that sounds like a better world.
C.
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
Yes, but if a company has small market share, they don't have the leverage to do those anti-competitive things. People keep yelling the buzzwords like "monopoly!" and "anticompetitive!" but nobody has listed a single thing Apple is doing that fits those.
By the way, thanks for switching to "anti-competitive", the continued insistence that "monopoly" and "monopolistic practices" were two entirely different things was becoming comical.
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
And what two unrelated products is Apple tying? You're not seriously suggesting a computer OS and computer hardware are unrelated, are you?
What about game consoles? You really think all those companies are anti-competitive?
Companies sell products bundled all the time, it only becomes anti-competitive in certain limited circumstances.
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware.
They can make that restriction if the only way to run it on other hardware is by modifying apple's intellectual property and violating copyright law. And you haven't shown why that would be anti-competitive beyond just insisting it over and over again.
If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal.
If the court finds that, a LOT of people are going to be very curious about what the court was smoking.
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
Is that using EFiX? And how does that tell us that it works "flawlessly"?
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
A consumer may also want a free pony. Tough shit.
A consumer may also want a Coke, but in a Pepsi bottle. Tough shit.
Since when does a company have an obligation to make their software available for all hardware? Not to mention that "A" runs fine on "B" is not true in this case since OSX doesn't run on generic hardware without hacking, which violates Apple's copyright.
There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
But that wasn't the case with the original xbox. Not to mention many hardware boxes that are really just generic PCs inside. Just because you can hack together a system that does what one of these system does doesn't give you the right to sell those hacked boxes.
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts!
And yet, you can't install OSX on a generic box without a hack.
Sorry, but you miss the point that Apple doesn't need to have a monopoly.
Have you even followed this thread? Someone said apple has a monopoly. I corrected them and explained that they don't. That's it. I don't miss any point, you just haven't followed the flow of conversation here.
Can we agree that Apple is not a monopoly and that they guy who said they are was wrong? Yes? Good.
I never called you an idiot. I said that if you believed "monopoly" = "monopolistic" you'd be an idiot.
You didn't use that word, but you made it perfectly clear that you think I'm an idiot. But anyway, please explain how you define "monopoly" and "monopolistic" such that they are completely different, or such that someone with 10% market share could be "monopolistic". Looking them up in the dictionary in OSX, "monopolistic" says "a person or business with a monopoly". But I'm sure the people who wrote the dictionary are idiots too. Can't wait to hear your definitions.
That's you OPINION. A court will decide whether it is correct or not.
Refresh my memory...what "monopolistic practices" is apple engaged in again?
I learned early on in my forum-trolling never to quote Wikipedia on legal issues. Unless you or I are the judge or a member of the jury, we have no say in the interpretation of the law. That said, Wikipedia is not a reliable-enough source of legal information.
Sure, then show me a more reliable source of legal information that defines what Apple is doing as anti-competitive or "monopolistic" (not to be confused with "being a monopoly"). Wiki isn't the best source, but it sure beats wild guess/pulled it out of your ass.
If Psystar win. Apple will have no choice but to market Leopard against Vista. To me that sounds like a better world.
C.
They'll never ever compete against Microsoft! Every Mac owner will be frustrated that Apple focuses on PC vendors and "forgets" the Macintosh user (the complains about Apple's focus on the iPhone are nothing compared to what will happen). It's easier to develop "custom" chips or change the way they sell Leopard.
Maybe, but that generally applies to crisis situations like drastically raising prices on water, batteries, or plywood during a hurricane.
Generally, a company can set whatever price they want (the exception to this is when a company has a monopoly, which we've established that Apple does not have). And customers are free to buy a competing product if they think the price is too high.
My is based on the case that Psystar wins and Apple has a monopoly. I think then you can call it anticompetive behaviour (at least in Europe).
Btw: Apple has a monopoly ... on awesome OSes
If Psystar win. Apple will have no choice but to market Leopard against Vista. To me that sounds like a better world.
C.
And with it inherit many of the problems which Vista has to contend with.
Drivers, different system configurations, variable quality of parts etc
Then the question is whether it will be able to compete.
Of course like I said Apple could just stop selling OSX and only provide it with new computers, perhaps include some way to distribute OS updates that are tied to the particular mac.
To quote directly from the DMCA Chapter 12 (COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS): So, by either creating a boot loader or a modding OS X, Psystar is guilty of circumventing a copyright protection system and their practices are in direct violation of US copyright law.
Besides, it seems to me to be rather silly that a court decision in Psystar's favor could somehow force Apple to have to develop, test, and support their own OS on other's hardware. It would be like ruling that you have to aid your competition in trying to drive you out of business.
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
Now psystar is in the wrong by altering apples OSX so it will run on other hardware, but the court might decide that apple does not have the right to stipulate that once I buy OSX I can only install it on apple hardware.
This is the question, not does apple have a monopoly. Apple makes OSX, it's there product. Just because no other company makes OSX does not mean apple has a monopoly. lets see some discussion on if it's legal for apple to limit the hardware OSX can run on. Thanks
Any thoughs on this question? Does Apple have the legal right to stipulate what hardware OSX can run on? I am interested hear what you all think. thanks
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
No offense, but that really isn't a good analogy. Macs use standard, off-the-shelf parts, which users can replace or pay a technician to install. Even if Apple used all custom parts, people have the choice to use Apple's products or not.
Apple has the legal right to do what they're doing because they are the creators of the hardware (the external case, how things are arranged within the case, exactly what components best fit each specification) and the operating system.
They don't have to sell or allow the selling of their own custom operating system to rivals with cloned hardware components. Apple is a hardware company, so licensing out their operating system would impact their hardware sales.
Don't you guys think we would have seen a similar case brought up against Nintendo's handheld or home consoles or Microsoft's Xbox consoles or Sony's PlayStation consoles, all of which are also vertical systems? What about Symbian's smartphones?
The question isn't if apple has a monopoly on OSX or Mac computers, of course it does not. The question is does apple have the legal right to designate what hardware OSX can be installed on? That is the question. If you bought a Ford car and then ford said it can only run on one particular brand of gasoline, nothing else, you might think that was unfair and some people might even take that to court.
You don't by OSX, you buy the licence to install one copy of OSX on a Macintosh.
You've the right to paint flowers on the Leopard DVD, but not the right to alter the code (and sell it).
The courts need to decide if apple has the right to designate certain hardware for use with OSX. And it's a valid question, If I legally buy OSX, who's to say what computer I install it on.
As mentioned above, you buy the permission to use a copy of OS X on a "Apple labeled Computer". The question is, if it's legal to put that restriction into the EULA or if you've to write it onto the Leopard box.
I think it's legal to limit it, but the way Apple does it may be illegal. If they write on the OSX box that you are not allowed to use this product with non Apply hardware, they've every right to do this. Everything else would be against the rules of the free market.
edit: Worst case scenario is that you can use OSX versions sold before xyz on non Apple hardware, but in future versions Apple won't make the same "mistake"
Incorrect interpretation. Any company is entitled to try to become a monopoly and they can even succeed at becoming a monopoly, but they cannot - at any point - use anti-competitive means to achieve it. Whether it's Mom & Pop's Bakery or Target Corp, anti-competitive practices are ILLEGAL.
Wrong. A company that only owns 10% of a market can try to gain more market share by under selling their competitors (even at a loss). But a company that owns 90% (or just a majority) of a market can not try to do the same as they would be accused of using anti-competitive practice to put their competitors out of business. Even though is the same tactics, it is consider competition in one instance and anti-competitive in the other.
Sorry to say that you are wrong again. Tying is illegal when it promotes two unrelated products. It doesn't matter if you have a monopoly or not.
A Zune is tied to a Windows (XP or Vista.) This is legal because you are not forced to use a Zune when you use Windows. Even though you are forced to use Windows when you buy a Zune. It's Windows that is the monopoly and therefore MS can not force you to use a Zune with Windows. (Though they would have back in their good old days). The Zune is not a monopoly. Therefore MS can force you to use Windows when you buy a Zune.
Apple's iPod was only available for OSX (and thus a Mac) for the first year they were sold. You wanted to use a first generation iPod, you had to use a Mac. This was legal. Neither the Mac or the iPod were considered a monopoly back then,
Not if it's anti-competitive. Just because Apple made the hardware and the software does not necessarily give them the right to restrict software that they off-the-shelf to their hardware. If the court finds that OS X and Apple hardware are unrelated, then it would be illegal. That is what is up for debate. It's not as clear-cut as you'd like to think.
Want to play Halo3. You have to own and Xbox. Want to run OSX. To have to own a Mac.
Just yesterday, I burned a CD and started my PC with that CD. It asked me to insert the Mac OS Retail DVD. I did. Up comes the installer. Boom. It just works.
Windows isn't the issue. It's HARDWARE. A consumer may want OS "A," (which is sold off-the-shelf) running on Hardware "B." "A" runs fine on "B" but Apple is forcing a user via EULA to use Hardware "C," therefore taking unwarranted sales from the manufacturer of Hardware "B."
This is the very heart of the Tying argument.
Hardware B has no right to use OS A on their hardware when OS A is the intellectual property of Hardware C. Not without a license.
Apple is not forcing the user of OS A to use Hardware C with the EULA. They are stopping a company from profiting from OS A by selling Hardware B. OS A is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. If the company wants to profit from selling Hardware B, let them write OS C. Apple is not stopping them from doing that.
The argument that people make about a game console OS holds no water because nearly all the hardware in a console is custom-made for the unit. There's no chance you could build a PC from generic parts that will run the Wii OS.
You wouldn't need to run the Wii OS. You only need to play the game. There is (or was) software that enable a PC to play Playstation Games. Without ever using the same parts in a PlayStation.
Macs, on the other hand, are made primarily of generic parts! Like I stated in my first post, they use hard drives from Hitachi & Toshiba, optical drives from Pioneer & Sony, graphics cards from NVidia & ATI... The only bit of uniqueness is in their motherboard layout, which is still based off the same exact specs that Intel provides to all motherboard manufacturers! In fact, Apple contracts companies like ASUStek & Foxconn to produce their motherboards: companies who sell their own - very similar - motherboards in the generic hardware market. The differences between the hardware in your Mac and my Hackintosh are as few as the differences between a Dell and an HP... or a Dell and my Hackintosh, or a Dell and your Mac, even.
The hardware is not the issue. Apple doesn't need to own the patents of the parts that makes up a Mac. They only need to own the copyright of the software.
Celebrex is made up of nothing but off the shelf pharmaceutical chemicals. This doesn't give any company the right to manufacture Celebrex. Celebex is the intellectual property of Pfizer. Just because you can get the chemicals needed to make Celebrex doesn't give you the right infringe on Pfizer intellectual property.
Of course Psystar will be put out of business, but the implications of breaking Apple's EULA would be IMMENSE, and it is what the hackintosh community has been aspiring for since the very beginning. It's not about Psystar. It's about the right of a user to pick his hardware and his software.
It's about Psyter infringing on Apple copyrighted property, OSX. No one is going after you, the end user. Apple is trying to stop a company from using their copyrigthed property to make money. Without paying for a license to do so. This adversely affect the potential value of Apple OSX. Apple spent billions to develope OSX in order to add value to their Mac hardware. Some one stealing it takes away from that value. Apple has every right to protect what's theirs. A Mac loses value if every JoeShmoe can come along sell hardware that uses OSX. Apple can not stop you from using OSX on a PC. But they can stop a company from making money off of their intellectual property (OSX). That why we have copyright laws.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, so you can discount what I say if you want to, I'm a flaming lefty. I thought I hated Nixon, and I thought I hated Reagan, but I didn't know what the word "hate" meant until George W. Bush came along!
With that out of the way, I think the mistake Psystar (or their puppetmasters) are making is the same one the Argentine junta made when they seized the Falkland Islands: they expected the British Left to prevent any action against them. Instead, of course, the Right never saw a war they didn't like, and the Left was so enraged by a squalid cabal of tinpot Fascist dictators grabbing British territory and subjecting British subjects to their rule that they were 100% behind the expedition to toss them out.
I think in this case, Psystar's controllers (whatever smelly clique they may be) expects a change in administration in November (Please God!) and they think it will help them in their fight, but in my opinion, they're spectacularly mistaken. Of course, the Right thinks Big Business can do no wrong, but the other side, especially the people who make their policy, are heavily invested in writing, filmmaking, and other creative endeavors, and are dependent on the protection of Intellectual Property to help them make a living. The US couldn't have passed this insane "Death + 70 years" copyright law without strong Bipartisan support. Anyone expecting a shift to the Left in American politics to erode protection for copyright holders is going down the same way the Argentine Dictators did: beset from both sides!
Apple offers NO warranty for its software.
I never mentioned warranties. I mentioned that Apple tests, debugs and patches its software. Which is true, and would become much more complex if Apple had to sell for non-Apple hardware.
(Unless, that is, Apple were permitted to say "may or may not run now, may or may not run after future patches, and may or may not run any software." But I don't think that's the answer Psystar or anyone else is seeking.)
No offense, but that really isn't a good analogy. Macs use standard, off-the-shelf parts, which users can replace or pay a technician to install. Even if Apple used all custom parts, people have the choice to use Apple's products or not.
Apple has the legal right to do what they're doing because they are the creators of the hardware (the external case, how things are arranged within the case, exactly what components best fit each specification) and the operating system.
They don't have to sell or allow the selling of their own custom operating system to rivals with cloned hardware components. Apple is a hardware company, so licensing out their operating system would impact their hardware sales.
Don't you guys think we would have seen a similar case brought up against Nintendo's handheld or home consoles or Microsoft's Xbox consoles or Sony's PlayStation consoles, all of which are also vertical systems? What about Symbian's smartphones?
I wasn't saying Apple had to sell OSX to the competition, only that Apple may not have as clear cut right to specify that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware as has been thought before. Yes we pay for a liscence when we purchase OSX, but is it legal that the liscence specifies what harware we can install OSX on? Your analogy of the Xbox and playstation is flawed as those devices do not sell their operating systems separately as does Apple with OSX. If you could only get OSX by buying a brand new Mac then I would agree with you. But OSX is sold separately. If the Xbox and Platsyation and all the others did sell thier OS publically to any consumer then I bet there would be similar arguments about what hardware that OS could run on. Because Apple sells OSX separately from the mac computer, even as a liscence, does that preclude them from telling me what hardware I can use once I pay my money? I'm not so sure, this is a grey area the courts will have to sort out. If I buy a DVD player from JVC does JVC have the right make me enter into a liscencing agreement that states what TV I can use or what DVD I can watch?
{blah blah blah}
There's no point arguing with you when you simply fail to read what I write. All the questions you "challenge" me to answer I ALREADY HAVE. Your "arguments" are devoid of logic and packed with opinion. Until you learn how to have a civilized discussion, consider your blabbing ignored.
Wrong. A company that only owns 10% of a market can try to gain more market share by under selling their competitors (even at a loss). But a company that owns 90% (or just a majority) of a market can not try to do the same as they would be accused of using anti-competitive practice to put their competitors out of business. Even though is the same tactics, it is consider competition in one instance and anti-competitive in the other.
I have not heard of any such rule. Please provide court cases of this.
A Zune is tied to a Windows (XP or Vista.) This is legal because you are not forced to use a Zune when you use Windows. Even though you are forced to use Windows when you buy a Zune. It's Windows that is the monopoly and therefore MS can not force you to use a Zune with Windows. (Though they would have back in their good old days). The Zune is not a monopoly. Therefore MS can force you to use Windows when you buy a Zune.
Apple's iPod was only available for OSX (and thus a Mac) for the first year they were sold. You wanted to use a first generation iPod, you had to use a Mac. This was legal. Neither the Mac or the iPod were considered a monopoly back then,
Zune software doesn't exist for the Mac. The infrastructure doesn't exist for Zune operability on a Mac. The same can't be said about OS X and hardware. The infrastructure is there, OS X can run on generic hardware, the only thing preventing it is Apple's EULA.
Want to play Halo3. You have to own and Xbox. Want to run OSX. To have to own a Mac.
Halo 3 is compiled to work with XBox hardware/software. OS X is compiled to work on the x86 instruction set and, subsequently, any Intel-compatible hardware.
Hardware B has no right to use OS A on their hardware when OS A is the intellectual property of Hardware C. Not without a license.
Apple is not forcing the user of OS A to use Hardware C with the EULA. They are stopping a company from profiting from OS A by selling Hardware B. OS A is Apple copyrighted intellectual property. If the company wants to profit from selling Hardware B, let them write OS C. Apple is not stopping them from doing that.
There are two separate issues here! How many times to do I need to explain that? Copyright infringement? Yes, Psystar is guilty. There's also the conviction of EULA violation, which Psystar is fighting with the anti-competition claim. So, yes, Apple IS forcing the user of OS "A" to use hardware "C" via their anti-competitive EULA, even if the user would rather be using hardware "B." How is this so hard to understand?
I get your Psystar correlation and their lack of a Licensing agreement, but it's only one example of where Apple is preventing hardware sales from other manufacturers by tying OS X to their own HW. I bought my copy of OS X in an Apple Store. I bought my hardware from aBit, Hitachi, ASUS, OCZ, etc. My hardware is as similar to Apple's as any x86 machine is to another. The only thing "legally" preventing me from using one with the other is Apple's EULA.
THAT'S anti-competitive.
You wouldn't need to run the Wii OS. You only need to play the game. There is (or was) software that enable a PC to play Playstation Games. Without ever using the same parts in a PlayStation.
First, you WOULD need the Wii OS because the game is compiled for it. You can use an emulator to trick a game into seeing the appropriate sw/hw, which I'm pretty sure is what you're talking about with the PlayStation. Emulators are allowed under fair use if and only if you own the console and you own the game.
The hardware is not the issue. Apple doesn't need to own the patents of the parts that makes up a Mac. They only need to own the copyright of the software.
Celebrex is made up of nothing but off the shelf pharmaceutical chemicals. This doesn't give any company the right to manufacture Celebrex. Celebex is the intellectual property of Pfizer. Just because you can get the chemicals needed to make Celebrex doesn't give you the right infringe on Pfizer intellectual property.
It's about Psyter infringing on Apple copyrighted property, OSX. No one is going after you, the end user. Apple is trying to stop a company from using their copyrigthed property to make money. Without paying for a license to do so. This adversely affect the potential value of Apple OSX. Apple spent billions to develope OSX in order to add value to their Mac hardware. Some one stealing it takes away from that value. Apple has every right to protect what's theirs. A Mac loses value if every JoeShmoe can come along sell hardware that uses OSX. Apple can not stop you from using OSX on a PC. But they can stop a company from making money off of their intellectual property (OSX). That why we have copyright laws.
Once again, let's stick to just the EULA portion of the argument. We all know that Psystar is guilty of the copyright portion of the suit.
Besides, owning a copyright on something does not permit you to use it anti-competitively.
-Clive
I wasn't saying Apple had to sell OSX to the competition, only that Apple may not have as clear cut right to specify that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware as has been thought before. Yes we pay for a liscence when we purchase OSX, but is it legal that the liscence specifies what harware we can install OSX on? Your analogy of the Xbox and playstation is flawed as those devices do not sell their operating systems separately as does Apple with OSX. If you could only get OSX by buying a brand new Mac then I would agree with you. But OSX is sold separately. If the Xbox and Platsyation and all the others did sell thier OS publically to any consumer then I bet there would be similar arguments about what hardware that OS could run on. Because Apple sells OSX separately from the mac computer, even as a liscence, does that preclude them from telling me what hardware I can use once I pay my money? I'm not so sure, this is a grey area the courts will have to sort out. If I buy a DVD player from JVC does JVC have the right make me enter into a liscencing agreement that states what TV I can use or what DVD I can watch?
Actually, Sebastian over at roughlydrafted really cleared this up for me. Check it out.
http://forum.roughlydrafted.com/foru...&page=1#Item_0