THAT is what a court needs to decide. And that decision will determine whether there is a monopoly to create with the Apple Computer Market.
It seems fairly obvious to me that a company that is ranking around #3 in total computer sales that does NOT even sell the Windows OS itself has a pretty sizable HARDWARE market "in general" compared to other hardware makers. The problem, you see, is that Apple is able to maintain that market status because no one else is allowed to run OS X on their otherwise nearly identical hardware. That means if you want to run OS X, you
HAVE to buy your otherwise identical hardware from Apple. You cannot buy otherwise identical hardware from Dell. Thereby, it's is plainly obvious that Apple has
NO HARDWARE COMPETITION WHAT-SO-EVER unless you are willing to consider that a customer would be willing to forgo using OS X simply to get better hardware selection or say a matte screen for the laptop.
The problem is that hardware preferences and operating preferences are two entirely different things! The idea that I would be willing to to run Windows instead of OS X just so I can have a matte screen or a Firewire port on my laptop sounds a bit absurd and that is because it IS a bit absurd. But just the same, I should not have to make that kind of a choice. Apple is trying to FORCE that choice just so that they can make 100% of the hardware sales for their Macintosh Operating System.
It's hard to say with a straight face that Apple is competing with Dell or Lenovo or others when they are selling hardware for entirely different operating systems, yet the absurdity comes in when you realize the only thing stopping Dell from running OS X is Apple's Eula, which essentially
forbids competition.
So I'm not sure why you think it takes a judge to figure out that Apple is blatantly engaging in anti-competition measures when their own Eula makes it quite clear that is EXACTLY what they are doing. If their hardware were unique of they owned a patent on such unique parts, the incompatibilities would be understandable. But no such parts exist. A USB EFI device will make ANY clone hardware capable of installing OS X directly with no caveats what-so-ever. No parts of the operating system have to be modified. In effect, the OS X install disc cannot tell such a computer from a Mac Pro even.
Because right now the market is defined broadly enough that the Apple Computer System is just one of many Personal Computer Systems in the market and there is no monopoly by Apple.
There is no operating system monopoly by Apple. That is obvious. Windows controls 90% or more of the market. However, you don't have to be a monopoly in order to be actively anti-competitive. You only have prove a company is actively trying to stop competition and Apple's Eula blatantly prevents 100% of hardware competition for their operating system platform. So while they do not have a "monopoly" on the operating system market, they DO have a monopoly on ALL HARDWARE for their operating system. The fact you do not recognize that as a "market" does change the FACT they are engaging actively in anti-competitive hardware. The fact they can be the #3 personal computer maker and NOT sell a machine with the Windows operating system only shows how much money they are making by not having to compete with other hardware vendors as those vendors are simply "forbidden" from competing with Apple directly.
There are lawyers that would take up the case with no upfront money if they actually believed there was grounds for a case. so your 'little company with no money' doesn't fly.
I believe a law firm DID take up the case, but Apple sought to make a deal. Some say this means Psystar has lost, yet they continue to sell their clones and are now going to offer a laptop (probably with firewire!) soon. So I would not draw that conclusion until more details are known. It could simply mean a neutral arbitrator will decide the case instead. It is obvious why Apple would prefer that path. An arbitrator could allow Psystar to continue to make clones or force Apple to sell them a license to install the OS, but that would not be the same as a legal ruling in general, which is something Apple would definitely prefer to avoid assuming the ruling did NOT going in their favor as that would open the door to all Mac clones and given the past where clones typically were better and more reliable and even faster than Apple's own hardware for lower prices (read: Apple wouldn't get to soak its customers anymore), I'm sure they'd rather avoid that. Better to make a deal with one or two clone makers than have a half dozen or more. I'm sure they would prefer the arbitrator side with them regardless, though.
The courts ruled that operating system software and internet access software such as web browsers are two totally different things and one can't legally use one to force the other on anyone. it is NOT the same as the question of ties between hardware and OS software. To argue a similar case, Apple would have to forbid anyone to use Opera, Firefox etc.
Apple HAS forbid anyone to use Opera on OS X...on the iPhone. So I'm not sure that's the best place for your argument to go. It's becoming clear that Apple doesn't want ANY competition for anything it deems it can make a profit off of somehow itself. As for the other part, I would say if a court makes a distinction between an operating system and a browser (when the two are VERY VERY similar in many ways in today's operating systems), it's not going to have any trouble telling the difference between SOFTWARE and HARDWARE for goodness sake! They are INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT things and different markets to boot! That is simply not a stretch. I would call it a no-brainer even.
yes it is. but the courts have not deemed that there is a unique market for the Apple Computer so the company has, at this point, done nothing wrong.
We will see what the courts say. In the meantime, Apple has every right and Psystar doesn't.
I'm not sure there is a difference. Apple can file a lawsuit, but UNTIL the courts have their say, Apple cannot physically stop Psystar from selling clones or anything else. The whole point is this HAS to be decided in court. Given the apparent legal arrangements being made, it doesn't look like it actually will. Psystar probably thinks they have a better chance with an arbitrator since they do not have the deep pockets of Apple and Apple probably is worried about a legal mandate so an arbitrator means losing doesn't equate to a legal free-for-all like a court case would.
Also, what's is amusing that that Psystar isn't just selling the hardware. There are reports that they are making folks buy the OS through them. So I
can't just buy their hardware and load the copy of OSX that I have from my
I'm not sure what Psystar's current method of installing OS X is. I do know there are now devices available for a USB port that will essentially turn a motherboard's BIOS into EFI and thus OS X will install normally with no complaints and no software modifications what-so-ever. I also know there are software EFI emulators that can be installed that do not require modifying OS X what-so-ever to get it to install. My point is only that not knowing the specifics of Psystar, I can surmise that is plausible to install OS X without modifying it. As to whether Psystar will sell you a Windows system or hardware without OS X, they're in a better position to tell you that than I.
