Oh goody, he's back, and still insisting he knows more than the judges who wrote the decisions that disagree with him.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Records Nearly Half of U.S. PC Desktop Retail Industry Revenue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OS X still cannot be installed on a PC without modifying Apple's code.
Yes. It is. Because a copy is created.
Because they have permission to do so.
You did.
MagnusVonMagnum said:
I have read the title of the thread. Would you please join me? The figure cited is nearly half of US PC Desktop Retail revenue. This is a small part of the overall PC market.
That is simply not true. The EFI simulators (there's even versions that plug into USB ports inside the computer) allow the full retail version to be installed unaltered.
A copy of part of the program is created in the system ram any time a program is run too. Maybe the program itself is breaking its own copyright, eh? The law was not designed for the computer age. Programs no longer run off the discs/disks they come on. Thus, the installed and installation are hardly the same thing. I don't expect you to understand that since you clearly don't understand anything else being discussed.
It still comes down to whether a company is allowed to restrict the use of their product to ONLY their brand of hardware, even if it's the same as everyone else's hardware. Your entire argument boilds down to essentially telling me that Microsoft could put a license in Microsoft Office that says it can ONLY be installed on Dell computers if that's what they wanted to do. If you don't like Microsoft in that example because of their size, then choose Adobe Photoshop, instead. It makes no difference. It would be a TIE (and when between separate companies a TRUST as well) for the economic benefit of those two companies to the exclusion of all the other competition out there. People that need Photoshop or whatever would have to buy a Dell computer or not be able to run Photoshop period. This gives Dell a competitive benefit due to another product unrelated to the hardware it runs on. And THAT is the purpose of all anti-trust legislation, to prevent companies from avoiding competition by reason of EXCLUSION.
Apple sells hardware and Apple sells software. They two are independent markets. If their software will run on Dell's computers without modification of the code then Apple has no right to tell Dell or a Dell customer they cannot buy a copy of OSX and install it on their computer solely because they want the customer to buy Apple hardware in addition to the operating system. Those are two different products. Whether they ship together is irrelevant. Apple's hardware will run other operating systems and other hardware will run Apple's operating system and that's because they are essentially the same exact hardware underneath. Apple is only able to charge the prices they charge and get the sales they get despite decreasing choices like no matte screens, etc. because the consumer that has a software library for the Mac operating system has NO OTHER CHOICE but to buy the hardware they offer or forfeit their entire software library (which could cost tens of thousands of dollars or more). You INSIST there is no restriction or substantial lessening of competition or commerce as the law states as the ONLY requirement for the statute to be broken, but that is simply not the case.
Furthermore, it is not YOUR decision that matters. This case must be decided by a judge at trial and that trial is still pending in Florida. Anything you say is IRRELEVANT until it is decided. That California judge did not even hear the case so his decision is irrelevant also given the fact another judge IS willing to hear the case. Even the Supreme Court will not agree on the interpretation of a law and often breaks along 5/4 or 4/5 lines. So this idea that you are somehow god and know everything is so utterly laughable it's just ridiculous. Pride is your master.
Yes, Apple's stock value is so small and its products spread so thin that they are almost invisible in today's society. They have no substantial economic impact what-so-ever so they are allowed to do anything they want!
The HPs and Dells of the world are losing out on half the market revenue because they have chosen to ruin their own brands in a mad rush for the bottom - selling crap $400 computer systems to people gullible enough to buy them, hoping to compensate for razor thin profit margins via sheer volume.
The HPs and Dells of the world have also severed their own feet by tying their products inextricably to Microsoft Windows, where Microsoft probably makes more money on most Dell systems sold than Dell does.
Seems to me perhaps the HPs and Dells of the world should solve their own problems by creating their own OSes?
Good thing this is just an opinion. People >actually like Windows 7, whether you like that fact or not.
And HP/Dell also sell more expensive machines that are good as well.
Again, there is a reason why there are cheap $500 computers out there: not everyone has the means to spend $2k on a computer. It's sad that you would call people in such a situation "gullible".
HP/Dell/Lenovo/MS/etc are not going anywhere anytime soon, and frankly, I cannot understand why you guys seem to care so much about this
oh well....
Products such as Rebel EFI replace Apple's bootloader and SMC kernel extension. The judge in the Psystar case ruled in his summary judgment that this resulted in a derivative work.
All copies, including RAM copies, are subject to copyright law. They must either fall under the limitations to Apple's exclusive rights codified in copyright law or made with Apple's expressed permission.
OS X will NOT run on non-Macs without the modification of Apple's code.
The California judge didn't dismiss Psystar's antitrust claims because he wasn't willing to hear the case. He did read Psystar's arguments. He dismissed them because they have no legal merit.
http://groklaw.net/pdf/ApplevsPsystar-33.pdf
I don't claim to know everything, which is why I have cited sources for my arguments such as Copyright Law, the FTC, and documents from the California Psystar trial.
Yes, Apple's stock value is so small and its products spread so thin that they are almost invisible in today's society. They have no substantial economic impact what-so-ever so they are allowed to do anything they want!
I did not claim any of those things. I was just pointing out that you are using an incorrect figure for Apple's share of the revenue in the PC market.
Apple's stock value has no impact on an antitrust claim. How visible their products are has no impact on an antitrust claim.
No point responding to him. No matter how many case cites, treatise cites, statutory cites, etc. we make, he just repeats himself.