I didn't say "must," I just think that's what they'd do most likely. I also don't agree that Apple is harassing Palm. I hope that clarifies my point!
I might have believed they weren't harassing Palm after the first update broken the Palm sync..but every update after has disabled it again and again. Don't get me wrong as I think Apple is totally within their rights to do so, and I enjoy watching the Palm folks squeal in outrage, but I absolutely think it is something Apple will do if it gains them good results.
I might have believed they weren't harassing Palm after the first update broken the Palm sync..but every update after has disabled it again and again. Don't get me wrong as I think Apple is totally within their rights to do so, and I enjoy watching the Palm folks squeal in outrage, but I absolutely think it is something Apple will do if it gains them good results.
I see your point, but Palm is shooting at a moving target, and has to know it -- so they get no sympathy from me. They're also deliberately getting in Apple's face. So whether Apple is breaking their hack with updates on purpose or not, it seems to me it can't be called harassment. More like a direct response.
I see your point, but Palm is shooting at a moving target, and has to know it -- so they get no sympathy from me. They're also deliberately getting in Apple's face. So whether Apple is breaking their hack with updates on purpose or not, it seems to me it can't be called harassment. More like a direct response.
I think it's the person being harassed who defines it as such It's all about perspective. You would be hard pressed to argue that Apple is not harassing Palm in this case if you're looking at it from Palm's perspective.
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd, but I suspect they just don't see them as a threat. They aren't marketing or selling anything to do with the project. Their a bunch of tinkerers. From what I recall, Apple initially did send out cease and desist letters to the owners of the OSX86 web site back in 2005 and I think they also filed a lawsuit but later dropped it.
I think it's the person being harassed who defines it as such It's all about perspective. You would be hard pressed to argue that Apple is not harassing Palm in this case if you're looking at it from Palm's perspective.
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd, but I suspect they just don't see them as a threat. They aren't marketing or selling anything to do with the project. Their a bunch of tinkerers. From what I recall, Apple initially did send out cease and desist letters to the owners of the OSX86 web site back in 2005 and I think they also filed a lawsuit but later dropped it.
Sure, I guess.
Out of curiosity I had a look at the OSX86 web site. No wonder Apple doesn't see them as much of a threat -- it's all so hopelessly geeky, and much of the information is out of date.
"It has called Apple's tying of Mac OS X to proprietary machines an "anticompetitive" practice."
If indeed there is no anticompetitive backer for Psystar whose intent is to damage Apple, then I have to point out that the owners of this joke company (less than 800 Hackintoshes sold!) are anti-sanity. They remain totally nuts if they think their 'anticompetition' BS is going to hold up in court. We're talking about patented Apple technology here. End of story.
As for the EFI hack, a previous hack already exists on the market. It is Intel's decision whether to press charges as EFI is their technology, not Apple's. Considering that Psystar were already bankrupt before losing this case, I see no reason to expect them or their EFI hack to exist at the end of 2010.
"It has called Apple's tying of Mac OS X to proprietary machines an "anticompetitive" practice."
If indeed there is no anticompetitive backer for Psystar whose intent is to damage Apple, then I have to point out that the owners of this joke company (less than 800 Hackintoshes sold!) are anti-sanity. They remain totally nuts if they think their 'anticompetition' BS is going to hold up in court. We're talking about patented Apple technology here. End of story.
As for the EFI hack, a previous hack already exists on the market. It is Intel's decision whether to press charges as EFI is their technology, not Apple's. Considering that Psystar were already bankrupt before losing this case, I see no reason to expect them or their EFI hack to exist at the end of 2010.
It would never hold up in court because the basic premise of being anti-competitive is flawed. In order to be anti-competitive, a company must hold a market majority, and then use that majority to unfair advantage. Since it fails in the most basic premise (market majority), it cannot be anti-competitive.
It would never hold up in court because the basic premise of being anti-competitive is flawed. In order to be anti-competitive, a company must hold a market majority, and then use that majority to unfair advantage. Since it fails in the most basic premise (market majority), it cannot be anti-competitive.
Actually a majority market share isn't required -- there's no hard definition of how large a market share must be for a company to be found to have created barriers to entry and competition. In a highly fragmented market, a large plurality market share holder may be powerful enough to disadvantage their competitors. It's the engagement in the anticompetitive acts which is the evidence of law breaking, not the size.
Actually a majority market share isn't required -- there's no hard definition of how large a market share must be for a company to be found to have created barriers to entry and competition. In a highly fragmented market, a large plurality market share holder may be powerful enough to disadvantage their competitors. It's the engagement in the anticompetitive acts which is the evidence of law breaking, not the size.
I think it is. In order to have any effect at all, the company in question must have leverage of some sort. That requires market share to have any chance of being effective. I can't think of any situation where a non market leader could effect any leverage unless they were a major or solo stakeholder.
I think it is. In order to have any effect at all, the company in question must have leverage of some sort. That requires market share to have any chance of being effective. I can't think of any situation where a non market leader could effect any leverage unless they were a major or solo stakeholder.
Market share is an important factor, but there's really no arbitrary or abstract formula. It's all about actions and results. If a company has a sufficient market share to disadvantage their competitors or create and maintain artificial barriers to entry to a market, then whatever that market share is, it is enough. As I was suggesting above, if one company in a given market holds (say) a 40% market share, and none of its competitors hold more than 5% each, then it's certainly conceivable that the plurality holder could create barriers to competition. If a case was brought, the courts would look at what they were accused of doing, and what the effects on competitive markets were.
Market share is an important factor, but there's really no arbitrary or abstract formula. It's all about actions and results. If a company has a sufficient market share to disadvantage their competitors or create and maintain artificial barriers to entry to a market, then whatever that market share is, it is enough. As I was suggesting above, if one company in a given market holds (say) a 40% market share, and none of its competitors hold more than 5% each, then it's certainly conceivable that the plurality holder could create barriers to competition. If a case was brought, the courts would look at what they were accused of doing, and what the effects on competitive markets were.
Out of curiosity I had a look at the OSX86 web site. No wonder Apple doesn't see them as much of a threat -- it's all so hopelessly geeky, and much of the information is out of date.
Yeah, it's important to remember that "made a website" isn't synonymous with "has resources and a plan."
I'm sure there will be any number of basement operations offering Hackintoshes via a website which strenuously attempts to come across as professional, but I don't think Apple has much to be concerned about there as they barely rise above the level of putting leaflets up at the laundromat.
I would imagine, however, that someone at Apple is charged with keeping an eye on any and all such endeavors to make sure they don't show signs of going mainstream.
I don?t think it?s been mentioned, but these lawyer fees are to pay Apple?s lawyers, not Psystar?s lawyers. That is another bill on top of all this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Supposedly, Psystar's legal team was working on a contingency fee basis.
I would imagine, however, that someone at Apple is charged with keeping an eye on any and all such endeavors to make sure they don't show signs of going mainstream.
Comments
I didn't say "must," I just think that's what they'd do most likely. I also don't agree that Apple is harassing Palm. I hope that clarifies my point!
I might have believed they weren't harassing Palm after the first update broken the Palm sync..but every update after has disabled it again and again. Don't get me wrong as I think Apple is totally within their rights to do so, and I enjoy watching the Palm folks squeal in outrage, but I absolutely think it is something Apple will do if it gains them good results.
I might have believed they weren't harassing Palm after the first update broken the Palm sync..but every update after has disabled it again and again. Don't get me wrong as I think Apple is totally within their rights to do so, and I enjoy watching the Palm folks squeal in outrage, but I absolutely think it is something Apple will do if it gains them good results.
I see your point, but Palm is shooting at a moving target, and has to know it -- so they get no sympathy from me. They're also deliberately getting in Apple's face. So whether Apple is breaking their hack with updates on purpose or not, it seems to me it can't be called harassment. More like a direct response.
I see your point, but Palm is shooting at a moving target, and has to know it -- so they get no sympathy from me. They're also deliberately getting in Apple's face. So whether Apple is breaking their hack with updates on purpose or not, it seems to me it can't be called harassment. More like a direct response.
I think it's the person being harassed who defines it as such
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd, but I suspect they just don't see them as a threat. They aren't marketing or selling anything to do with the project. Their a bunch of tinkerers. From what I recall, Apple initially did send out cease and desist letters to the owners of the OSX86 web site back in 2005 and I think they also filed a lawsuit but later dropped it.
I think it's the person being harassed who defines it as such
They could easily do the same to the OSX86 crowd, but I suspect they just don't see them as a threat. They aren't marketing or selling anything to do with the project. Their a bunch of tinkerers. From what I recall, Apple initially did send out cease and desist letters to the owners of the OSX86 web site back in 2005 and I think they also filed a lawsuit but later dropped it.
Sure, I guess.
Out of curiosity I had a look at the OSX86 web site. No wonder Apple doesn't see them as much of a threat -- it's all so hopelessly geeky, and much of the information is out of date.
If indeed there is no anticompetitive backer for Psystar whose intent is to damage Apple, then I have to point out that the owners of this joke company (less than 800 Hackintoshes sold!) are anti-sanity. They remain totally nuts if they think their 'anticompetition' BS is going to hold up in court. We're talking about patented Apple technology here. End of story.
As for the EFI hack, a previous hack already exists on the market. It is Intel's decision whether to press charges as EFI is their technology, not Apple's. Considering that Psystar were already bankrupt before losing this case, I see no reason to expect them or their EFI hack to exist at the end of 2010.
"It has called Apple's tying of Mac OS X to proprietary machines an "anticompetitive" practice."
If indeed there is no anticompetitive backer for Psystar whose intent is to damage Apple, then I have to point out that the owners of this joke company (less than 800 Hackintoshes sold!) are anti-sanity. They remain totally nuts if they think their 'anticompetition' BS is going to hold up in court. We're talking about patented Apple technology here. End of story.
As for the EFI hack, a previous hack already exists on the market. It is Intel's decision whether to press charges as EFI is their technology, not Apple's. Considering that Psystar were already bankrupt before losing this case, I see no reason to expect them or their EFI hack to exist at the end of 2010.
It would never hold up in court because the basic premise of being anti-competitive is flawed. In order to be anti-competitive, a company must hold a market majority, and then use that majority to unfair advantage. Since it fails in the most basic premise (market majority), it cannot be anti-competitive.
It would never hold up in court because the basic premise of being anti-competitive is flawed. In order to be anti-competitive, a company must hold a market majority, and then use that majority to unfair advantage. Since it fails in the most basic premise (market majority), it cannot be anti-competitive.
Actually a majority market share isn't required -- there's no hard definition of how large a market share must be for a company to be found to have created barriers to entry and competition. In a highly fragmented market, a large plurality market share holder may be powerful enough to disadvantage their competitors. It's the engagement in the anticompetitive acts which is the evidence of law breaking, not the size.
Actually a majority market share isn't required -- there's no hard definition of how large a market share must be for a company to be found to have created barriers to entry and competition. In a highly fragmented market, a large plurality market share holder may be powerful enough to disadvantage their competitors. It's the engagement in the anticompetitive acts which is the evidence of law breaking, not the size.
I think it is. In order to have any effect at all, the company in question must have leverage of some sort. That requires market share to have any chance of being effective. I can't think of any situation where a non market leader could effect any leverage unless they were a major or solo stakeholder.
I think it is. In order to have any effect at all, the company in question must have leverage of some sort. That requires market share to have any chance of being effective. I can't think of any situation where a non market leader could effect any leverage unless they were a major or solo stakeholder.
Market share is an important factor, but there's really no arbitrary or abstract formula. It's all about actions and results. If a company has a sufficient market share to disadvantage their competitors or create and maintain artificial barriers to entry to a market, then whatever that market share is, it is enough. As I was suggesting above, if one company in a given market holds (say) a 40% market share, and none of its competitors hold more than 5% each, then it's certainly conceivable that the plurality holder could create barriers to competition. If a case was brought, the courts would look at what they were accused of doing, and what the effects on competitive markets were.
Market share is an important factor, but there's really no arbitrary or abstract formula. It's all about actions and results. If a company has a sufficient market share to disadvantage their competitors or create and maintain artificial barriers to entry to a market, then whatever that market share is, it is enough. As I was suggesting above, if one company in a given market holds (say) a 40% market share, and none of its competitors hold more than 5% each, then it's certainly conceivable that the plurality holder could create barriers to competition. If a case was brought, the courts would look at what they were accused of doing, and what the effects on competitive markets were.
Perfectly summarized
Sure, I guess.
Out of curiosity I had a look at the OSX86 web site. No wonder Apple doesn't see them as much of a threat -- it's all so hopelessly geeky, and much of the information is out of date.
Yeah, it's important to remember that "made a website" isn't synonymous with "has resources and a plan."
I'm sure there will be any number of basement operations offering Hackintoshes via a website which strenuously attempts to come across as professional, but I don't think Apple has much to be concerned about there as they barely rise above the level of putting leaflets up at the laundromat.
I would imagine, however, that someone at Apple is charged with keeping an eye on any and all such endeavors to make sure they don't show signs of going mainstream.
I don?t think it?s been mentioned, but these lawyer fees are to pay Apple?s lawyers, not Psystar?s lawyers. That is another bill on top of all this.
Supposedly, Psystar's legal team was working on a contingency fee basis.
I would imagine, however, that someone at Apple is charged with keeping an eye on any and all such endeavors to make sure they don't show signs of going mainstream.