Apple Reportedly Pressures Pegatron into Ceasing ASUS Zenbook Production

[vrDrew]

oh but you know what you're talking about! hahaha

Good luck to you.

You are continuing to argue an incorrect position. In order for a single company or entity to be in violation of the Sherman Act by means of "Refusal to Deal" it needs to be a substantial monopoly. If you read the paragraph from the FTC site carefully you will come across this sentence:

For example, in a case from the 1950's, the only newspaper in a town refused to carry advertisements from companies that were also running ads on a local radio station.

Emphasis Added

(The case they are referring to is Lorain Journal Co. v. United States - 342 U.S. 143 (1951))

For Apple to be guilty of Refusal to Deal under those terms, it would need to have a monopoly, or near monopoly, position as a purchaser of assembly services of electronic devices. It obviously isn't, since similar services are bought by Hewlett-Packard; Dell; Lenovo; and a host of other companies.

Might I suggest that before you go lecturing other people on various topics, you take the time to thoroughly read and understand them yourself first.

 

[onetime50]

Good luck to you.

You are continuing to argue an incorrect position. In order for a single company or entity to be in violation of the Sherman Act by means of "Refusal to Deal" it needs to be a substantial monopoly. If you read the paragraph from the FTC site carefully you will come across this sentence:



Emphasis Added

(The case they are referring to is Lorain Journal Co. v. United States - 342 U.S. 143 (1951))

For Apple to be guilty of Refusal to Deal under those terms, it would need to have a monopoly, or near monopoly, position as a purchaser of assembly services of electronic devices. It obviously isn't, since similar services are bought by Hewlett-Packard; Dell; Lenovo; and a host of other companies.

Might I suggest that before you go lecturing other people on various topics, you take the time to thoroughly read and understand them yourself first.

haha you are a laugh and a half, where does the legislation state you have to have a monopoly for refusal to deal to be valid? that is ridiculous upon itself as the legislation was created to PREVENT unfair monopolies

you even contradict YOURSELF. previous statement by you "Refuse to Deal" would require the collaboration of more than one purchaser. For example, if Apple conspired with HP and Dell, and they agreed not to use Pegatron or FoxxConn unless they made price or other concessions."

its a bit hard to be a monopoly when you have competitors like dell and HP which you can collaborate with! HAHAHA

so first you say a refusal to deal requires collaboration and now say it requires a monopoly! wow~ just wow

anyway that type of refusal to deal is called a primary boycott. there are so many different types

and here is the head page of that FTC article. http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm

you should read the whole thing, but here is a nice little quote "The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize."

the fact you contradict yourself and can't even remember what you wrote is priceless

for your information I manage a department for a major international entertainment company based in tokyo. I studied law and management for 6 years and have work experience in the field for 13 years.

this is getting emailed to my company boys. they are gonna have great fun with this!

 

[vrDrew]

haha you are a laugh and a half, where does the legislation state you have to have a monopoly for refusal to deal to be valid? P

I've lost interest. But in the interest of (fruitlessly, no doubt) putting an end to your nonsense I'll make this very clear to you:

Anti-Trust violations require two conditions be met:

One, a monopoly (or near monopoly) position in a market on the part of a company (or group of companies.) When a group of companies work together to restrict trade, that is an example of collusion - and may take the form of price-fixing, market allocation, or (yes) "Refusal to Deal."

AND

Two, an act or series of acts that seek to quash or otherwise restrict competition.

You need BOTH conditions to be met. One without the other is just business.

Apple's decision to pressure Pegatron could arguably be called an attempt to stifle competition. However, since Apple is not a monopoly in either the laptop business; nor in the purchasing (technically known as a "Monopsony") of electronic device assembly services it fails in the "Monopoly" portion of the Anti-Trust equation. And since there is no suggestion that Apple has colluded with other companies in its pressuring of Pegatron, it clearly isn't "Refusal to Deal."

 

[D-Love]

When laptops get so thin, there is only so much room for differential in form factor.

These 2 laptops look nothing alike. The monitor face is black, keyboard is a different color, and the lid has a completely different look than a Mac laptop.

They have ONE thing in common, they're thin.

So, based on this - I guess anyone who makes a thin laptop is "copying" Apple. Just like anyone who dares make a touchscreen phone, or a tablet of any kind.

I'd rather Apple spend their resources fixing flaws in iCloud, iTunes Match, etc. rather than this crap. Sick of technology becoming a legal battlefield.

 

[pondosinatra]

"Apple, Bully Different"

 

[daxomni]

Anti-competitive? No, this is the exact opposite of anti-competitive, aka just plain competitive. Pegatron knows that Apple is the superior company to work with, because Pegatron will make more money making Apple stuff than Asus stuff, so Pegatron has decided to work with Apple. Apple and Asus are competing for Pegatron's services, and Apple won out fair and square after Pegatron weighed the benefits to them.

The fact that there are winners and losers proves that there's competition going on. Anti-competitive would be if the government came in and required that Pegatron make products for both Apple and Asus, so that neither company could have an advantage in manufacturing, despite the fact that Apple is willing to give Pegatron much more business than Asus can offer, thus harming Apple for Asus' benefit, at the expensive of Pegatron's choice in the matter.

Apple telling Pegatron to work for them or they'll take their business elsewhere, and Pegatron decides they'll make more money with Apple = competitive

Asus suing Pegatron so a court forces Pegatron to give Asus an unearned advantage = anti-competitive

So if a business does something to prevent competition it's good. If a government does anything to promote equal opportunity it's bad. And if Apple does anything at all it's brilliant. I think your post makes a great case for those who say you can't count on an Apple fan to objectively criticize Apple any more than you could count on a Microsoft fan to objectively criticize Windows or an American to objectively criticize capitalism.

 

[2IS]

I guess you are denying the evident fact that the two laptops are identical.

Take Vizio as an example of creative folks: they are in a niche market, they offer similar machines as the Apple ones, but they have their own style at least.

I'd suggest you look up the meaning of the word identical before using it next time. While you're at it, look up the word similar.

 

[derickdub]

I saw one of these the other day. At first when I saw it I thought Asus was doing it right because compared to all the other "ultra books" there, this was the only one that looked decent. That was until I picked it up. The thing is made from plastic. A very cheap, thin plastic at that. I could feel it flexing in my hand. Hardly a MBA copy IMO, but then again, to most the world looks are everything.

 

[gnasher729]

http://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/articles/697822.html

Image

As always, you have to view the products from all sides. I saw a photo of a closed Zenbook, and it looked less similar. Not enough information for me to say whether they look the same or not. But consider the photos of a Samsung photo frame from 2006 that supposedly looks like the iPad; it only does when you look at it from the front; in a side view there isn't the slightest similarity.

 

[3282868]

When laptops get so thin, there is only so much room for differential in form factor.

These 2 laptops look nothing alike. The monitor face is black, keyboard is a different color, and the lid has a completely different look than a Mac laptop.

They have ONE thing in common, they're thin.

So, based on this - I guess anyone who makes a thin laptop is "copying" Apple. Just like anyone who dares make a touchscreen phone, or a tablet of any kind.

I'd rather Apple spend their resources fixing flaws in iCloud, iTunes Match, etc. rather than this crap. Sick of technology becoming a legal battlefield.

Agree 100%.

Apple removed the DVD drive of a laptop and made it thinner. Ok. That isn't an "original" concept. If the product in question had the exact same guts and industrial design as Apple MacBook Air, then I would question the matter. How far is too far when it comes to patent and copyright infringement? Apple hasn't made any direct legal claims or taken Asus on regarding their laptop, it has placed a supplier in a position of deciding between manufacturing parts for Apple or Asus, which is simply a matter of Asus making a decision (based on Apple's strong arming).

With the increasing amount of lawsuits between so many tech companies, it makes one wonder how far these companies are going to squabble over every detail between their products. Henry Ford borrowed the concept of a petrol-driven internal combustion engine from German inventor Nicolas Otto in the late 19th century, which lead to the industrial revolution and the advancement of the assembly line. Would Ford have had the legal right in doing so today or would he face patent/legal issues? At some point, all this is doing is squelching innovation, competition and increasing the unnecessary amount of legal aid. In the end, this may trickle down and hurt the consumer, as it "may" hold other companies back from innovating competitive products, creating a market dominance for one company, and increasing prices for the consumer with less choice.

Apple is better than this, instead of all these frivolous suits and shady business tactics in order to keep third party suppliers from working with competitors, Apple should focus on their own products and worry less about what company A, B or C is doing.

 

[MonkeySee....]

Agree 100%.

Apple removed the DVD drive of a laptop and made it thinner. Ok. That isn't an "original" concept. If the product in question had the exact same guts and industrial design as Apple MacBook Air, then I would question the matter. How far is too far when it comes to patent and copyright infringement? Apple hasn't made any direct legal claims or taken Asus on regarding their laptop, it has placed a supplier in a position of deciding between manufacturing parts for Apple or Asus, which is simply a matter of Asus making a decision (based on Apple's strong arming).

With the increasing amount of lawsuits between so many tech companies, it makes one wonder how far these companies are going to squabble over every detail between their products. Henry Ford borrowed the concept of a petrol-driven internal combustion engine from German inventor Nicolas Otto in the late 19th century, which lead to the industrial revolution and the advancement of the assembly line. Would Ford have had the legal right in doing so today or would he face patent/legal issues? At some point, all this is doing is squelching innovation, competition and increasing the unnecessary amount of legal aid. In the end, this may trickle down and hurt the consumer, as it "may" hold other companies back from innovating competitive products, creating a market dominance for one company, and increasing prices for the consumer with less choice.

Apple is better than this, instead of all these frivolous suits and shady business tactics in order to keep third party suppliers from working with competitors, Apple should focus on their own products and worry less about what company A, B or C is doing.

Whilst they're at it they may as well just manufacture the laptops for them aswell.

 

[Renzatic]

I saw one of these the other day. At first when I saw it I thought Asus was doing it right because compared to all the other "ultra books" there, this was the only one that looked decent. That was until I picked it up. The thing is made from plastic. A very cheap, thin plastic at that. I could feel it flexing in my hand. Hardly a MBA copy IMO, but then again, to most the world looks are everything.

No you didn't. If you actually held it, you'd realize it's made out of metal, about like the MBA.

 

[jterp7]

No you didn't. If you actually held it, you'd realize it's made out of metal, about like the MBA.

I still don't get it. They are at best similar in design--in that they are aluminum and tapered design. As I've mentioned previously, a true copy is the airbook. An owner of either the asus or apple would be able to tell instantly.

 

[Renzatic]

I still don't get it. They are at best similar in design--in that they are aluminum and tapered design. As I've mentioned previously, a true copy is the airbook. An owner of either the asus or apple would be able to tell instantly.

They're more similar than dissimilar, but...really...I don't care all that much. I think they're both decent little machines.

The quote above was me calling out the guy who claimed he played with a Zenbook, and was disappointed to find out it was made out of cheap, flimsy plastic. It's not. It's spun aluminium, and feels about as solid and well built as the MBA.

 

[Bootes]

Really Apple? You're already the largest company in the world. Now you are going to stop your suppliers from doing business with the competition? I think this might be taking it too far.

One thing that this article doesn't mention, but I consider fairly important is that Pegatron was spun out from Asus. Asus and Pegatron were the same company not long ago and they probably still have many connections.

Asus spun them off because companies that hired them, such as Apple, were getting pissed that Asus had access to all the details on Apple's products and would come out with their own very similar looking products.

I'm assuming Apple went to Pegatron and said hey why is this still happening if you're supposedly different companies now. Apple is very important to Pegatron, so they probably said they would prove they were no longer sharing design specs with Asus by no longer working with them.

 

[brdeveloper]

Interestingly, Macbook Air PC clones are more expensive (at least in Brazil) than real Macbook Airs. This is like HP all-in-one computers, which usually comes with worse specs than iMacs but cost more.

Premium computers comes with premium prices, and Apple surprisingly offers attractive prices compared to PC alternatives.

 

[zoetmb]

Of course. Why should Apple tolerate their supplier churning out fake Macbook Airs for someone else?

Apple is now in a position to do this, and more power to them.

Because it's not the supplier's issue, it's ASUS' issue. This would be like refusing to do business with a printer because the printer is also printing a book you don't happen to like or that you consider to be competitive.

When Apple was smaller, they could be arrogant. But now that they dominate, they have to be careful because this type of action may constitute anti-competitive/monopolistic behavior.

 

[onetime50]

I've lost interest. But in the interest of (fruitlessly, no doubt) putting an end to your nonsense I'll make this very clear to you:

Anti-Trust violations require two conditions be met:

One, a monopoly (or near monopoly) position in a market on the part of a company (or group of companies.) When a group of companies work together to restrict trade, that is an example of collusion - and may take the form of price-fixing, market allocation, or (yes) "Refusal to Deal."

AND

Two, an act or series of acts that seek to quash or otherwise restrict competition.

You need BOTH conditions to be met. One without the other is just business.

Apple's decision to pressure Pegatron could arguably be called an attempt to stifle competition. However, since Apple is not a monopoly in either the laptop business; nor in the purchasing (technically known as a "Monopsony") of electronic device assembly services it fails in the "Monopoly" portion of the Anti-Trust equation. And since there is no suggestion that Apple has colluded with other companies in its pressuring of Pegatron, it clearly isn't "Refusal to Deal."

i'll stick your reply to the email im sending out to my department this morning, thanks its icing to the cake!

Your reply isn't really worth bothering about, its just a laugh after everything you said before.

You are pretentious, that is the perfect word to describe you....and the type of person that "cant be wrong", even to the point that you change your argument with no facts almost every post which contradict each other. its ridiculous

In seriousness I believe you might actually suffer from narcissism with those traits.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Totally makes sense. I'm in marketing and we'd be dropped in a second if we worked with competing brands.

Pegatron is a contract manufacturer of electronics. It's basically impossible for these companies to exist and not having competing customers. This has always been the case, whether its Foxconn making iphones or any other of these companies.

This has nothing to do with the fact that Pegatron makes ASUS computers, it has to do with the specific design of ASUS's ultrabooks.

Apple buys memory chips from Samsung for pete's sake.

 

[madmaxmedia]

Pegatron is one operating in an immoral and unethical behavior, Apple is simply requiring its supplier Pegatron to not sell its designs to other companies. I see nothing wrong with Apple requiring its suppliers its to operate with a small amount of ethics.

Where does it state that Pegatron is 'selling' Apple's designs to other companies?

No proprietary knowledge is required to make an ultrabook with similar dimensions and shape of the MBA.

I don't think any of these details are known, the story is very vague and probably false anyway.

----------

I still don't get it. They are at best similar in design--in that they are aluminum and tapered design. As I've mentioned previously, a true copy is the airbook. An owner of either the asus or apple would be able to tell instantly.

I saw one in person, and had the same impressions- they are thin notebooks with tapered designs, but that's about it. The HP one looks a lot closer (haven't seen it in person though.)

It's about time other companies had more refined designs anyway, which will end up making many models look similar. For years we had all sorts of chrome accents and other ugly trimmings, at least these computers look better.

 

[ombrenelcielo]

I'd suggest you look up the meaning of the word identical before using it next time. While you're at it, look up the word similar.

You instead can calm down and look up the word "Sarcasm" (/ˈsɑːkæzəm/) and chill out.

I guess you can use the word identical in this case, as well as the expression "rip-off", in my first post.

rip-off (plural rip-offs)

A copy, especially one that is illegal or inferior.

 

[Renzatic]

Save for the fact that the Zenbook isn't a rip-off by those definitions. It looks similar, but specwise, it matches the Air fairly close, and even exceeds it on some fronts.

 

[2IS]

You instead can calm down and look up the word "Sarcasm" (/ˈsɑːkæzəm/) and chill out.

I guess you can use the word identical in this case, as well as the expression "rip-off", in my first post.

Why should I look up sarcasm when you weren't be sarcastic, proven by the fact you just misused the word identical yet again. No really, look it up.

Here, I'll do it for you.

·den·ti·cal/īˈdentikəl/

Adjective:

Similar in every detail; exactly alike: "girls in identical outfits".


So if I put a Zenbook and an Air side by side in front of you, you would not be able to tell the difference?

Other than their profile, these two machines look vastly different. Had you actually seen one in person you'd have known that.

 

[FrizzleFryBen]

Then how is that Apple uses Samsung products? Is Samsung not a competitor?

Apple is suing the hell out of Samsung!..but they need them. Plus Samsung doesn't assemble Apple products...they just provide components. Samsung simply mimics on the design and assembly level, two levels of service they do not provide to Apple.

 

[mrxak]

So if a business does something to prevent competition it's good. If a government does anything to promote equal opportunity it's bad. And if Apple does anything at all it's brilliant. I think your post makes a great case for those who say you can't count on an Apple fan to objectively criticize Apple any more than you could count on a Microsoft fan to objectively criticize Windows or an American to objectively criticize capitalism.

No, you need to get better reading comprehension. The comparison was between:

Two companies competing for another company's services, and one of them winning the competition.

and

A government forcing a company A to ignore competitive forces, and work with two companies B and C, one of which (B) can't compete on fair grounds because they just don't offer very much as a business partner, thereby penalizing C which can compete fairly, and A being forced to lose money on B.

If Microsoft was the one providing Pegatron with greater profits and Apple was losing out in the supply chain accordingly, I would say good for Microsoft, and good for Pegatron. If Microsoft is ever able to invent a product that people want to buy in sufficient numbers that they require a larger supply chain, you can come back and I'll repeat it.