I did read the WHOLE judgement. Apple DOES have the market concentration - they have 100% of the market for OSX machines (less what Pystar has sold) and they are trying to protect 100% of that market. That is the crux of the issue that Pystar is making.
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 Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I did read the WHOLE judgement. Apple DOES have the market concentration - they have 100% of the market for OSX machines (less what Pystar has sold) and they are trying to protect 100% of that market. That is the crux of the issue that Pystar is making.
Yes, that is the crux of Psystar's argument, however, OSX machines is not a market. Personal Computers is a market, in which Apple carries about 8-10%.
The ADR court papers specify non-binding arbitration.
Haven't bother to read the California ADR procedures book, so don't know what the procedure they agreed to was.
May simply have been a phone conference with a neutral 3rd party to see if early settlement was possible.
So the whole of Apple's argument comes down to a 'label' that OS X doesn't represent a hardware "market". How does that change that they are actively being 100% anti-competitive within that...shall we say "market segment"? Because I don't care whether you consider it a "market" or a "market segment" or a "monopoly", it doesn't change the FACT that Apple's Eula is about nothing more than not wanting to compete with other hardware manufacturers for their 'market segment' and that segment is anything but small. You don't get to be the #3 or #4 hardware maker (at any given time) behind the big boys that provide computers for the 90% OS leader (i.e. Windows) if you're not raking in the dough and the numbers for hardware sales. The problem is that Apple has obtained that level by thwarting all competition in its 'segment'. Furthermore, it does not meet the entire needs of its own 'market segment' or Psystar wouldn't be able to sell a thing (and that doesn't even include the stigma of buying a Psystar computer right now given their status and this legal argument; a whole lot more might buy them otherwise).
So terminology aside, the problem is Apple is actively trying to prevent 100% of competition for computer hardware for its 'market segment', which amounts to 100% of all hardware supporting OS X.
Now this idea that somehow Apple could 'win' an anti-competitive lawsuit because Dell is allowed to sell computers to Windows users just seems ludicrous to me. People who want the Mac OS emphatically do NOT WANT WINDOWS! Even the fanboys on here could tell you that. It is that fact along with rather severe loyalty for the OS X operating system that proves that it's not enough that I can buy a laptop with a matte screen that will run Windows. I want a laptop with a matte screen that will run OS X. Apple is not only not providing current laptops with a matte screen option, they are actively trying to prevent anyone else from providing them either and thus trying to force consumers to either buy hardware they do not want or force them to switch software platforms entirely, thus making all current software they own invalid, unusable and therefore not really an option at all, short of losing the value of all software they currently own...all just to get a matte screen option. Apple is betting you will see it their way and buy their glossy screen and to make sure of it, they will sue anyone that tries to offer you a matte screen instead.
And through ALL OF THAT, some of you STILL see Apple as the 'good guys' in all of this when in fact they are the classic corporation out of control. An article recently painted Steve Jobs and Apple as the 'cash kings' of the computer world with over 20 BILLION in cold hard cash reserves. Yet they are often behind or delayed in any number of projects (such as the iPhone delaying Leopard) and paint themselves as a small company that can't meet those deadlines, yet they are sitting on more than enough cash reserves to hire a small army of programmers to keep things moving or to present more hardware options to meet their market needs, all the while they sit there smug on their capital because they don't have to compete with hardware for the Mac software market "segment".
Does anyone seriously believe Apple's ONLY tower option would start at $2400 or that the Mac-Mini could still get by with completely out-of-date integrated graphics if they had even one legititmate competitor for the OS X market "segment"??? Do you think it would fly that the only real consumer desktop they offer would be an all-in-one unexpandable internally "computer in a monitor" like the iMac when over 60% of ALL personal computers (including laptops) are towers or mini-tower desktop systems? No, the ONLY reason these are able to sell is that people want OS X so badly over Windows that they have been willing to put up with sub-standard hardware, bugs, limited options and high prices just to AVOID Windows like the plague. The problem is that they are not only being anti-competitive to a hilt, they are steadily making their own base more and more angry by taking away more and more options they USED TO HAVE (like the matte laptop screen and firewire ports that have ticked off SO MANY lately), all the while denying anyone else to offer them and fanboys telling the angered users to go switch back to Windows (some of whom have never used Windows to begin with) if they don't like it. It's TOTAL BS!
I find it ABSURD to say the least that any court, knowing those FACTS could POSSIBLY side with Apple REGARDLESS if they consider their anti-competitive behavior to be across a "market" or just a "market segment" because a 'label' does not change the facts of their behavior or methods to corner that "market" or "market segment" for 100% of all the sales in it.
So do you think I should make a iPhone competitor, and demand that the courts let it run OS X? Since, Apple is obviously using anti-competitive tactics in the iPhone market segment.
Your whole argument has been based on your misunderstanding of what a free market is. The free market does allow competition of similar products, but not two companies competing to sell the same product, in this case a Macintosh computer.
On the free market, Psystar is allowed to make and sell their own hardware and software, they could even spend a few dollars to rebrand a Linux distro and call it PsyOS. Unfortunately, they are looking to capitalize on someone else's research, development and success, and sell it for their own profit without permission - most likely after modifications.
Apple does not have to provide anyone with anything, that is the nature of the free market. If they decide to stop making Macs tomorrow, and only make iPods and iPhones, what would you do? Force them to continue?
Apple has more than likely done their market research into these missing products, and probably determined that it is no longer worth it to produce them - the market is not there for them, and if they continue at a loss, then Apple will not be much longer.
How are they a corporation out of control? Their only responsibility is to their shareholders, for whom they must try to make a profit.
BTW, I would venture to guess that they are sitting on cash reserves because they may have seen tough times coming, and they wanted to be prepared. Nothing like making fun of the guy preparing his house for the storm.
The iPhone is an embedded device and not used for general computing.
The mythical PsyOS couldn't run any of my programs.
Your version of the free trade market ignores the sherman and clayton acts. Its called tying. Requiring the purchase of one product to get another in a way to discourage competition. Microsoft got slammed for much less.
Condition 1: Two or more separate products must be involved. Mac OS X and a computer
Condition 2: Buying one product requires the buying of another. I can't legally buy Mac OS X without an Apple computer
Condition 3: The seller has sufficient market power to tie the products. Apple is the Maker of both products.
Condition 4: Tied products must be high volume. 21% of retail sales.
You did get the memo that Apple doesn't do market research right?
Same idea, arguing that the iphone market is separate from the smartphone market.
And if Apple stopped making OS X, you would have to migrate eventually anyway.
Those products must be unrelated and one of them undesirable for it to be illegal tying. Tying is not inherently illegal, there are thousands of products that are tyed - all products that have a firmware you can download could be argued to be separate using your logic, and therefore tyed.
which is only a potential problem if the market is APPLE COMPUTERS rather than personal computers in general. that seems to be something you either can't understand or refuse to acknowledge because it might ruin your "down with the Evil Apple Company" arguments.
again an issue connected to the question of the actual market. because tying is only deemed illegal if done by a company to establish or maintain market dominance. if the market is personal computers Apple (with only something like 15% of the PC market) does not have dominance.
we are not talking about mobile devices. that's a case for another day.
yeah. that's the basic philosophy of every company in the world.
the trouble when you are talking about operating systems and hardware is that without an operating system, the hardware is just a pile of junk. so in fact, they aren't all that different. they are tied by their nature.
Psystar has admitted that they modified the software. There are numerous reports of parties saying they don't need a copy of Leopard because they have it already and being told that an off the shelf copy will not install. leaving them no choice but to have psystar pre-install it. Psystar has also admitted that they modified to the software to 'software update' from their computers and not Apple's
the answer to the question is whether there is a OSX market.
given that Apple cut off previous clones after allowing them for a time, one would think if there was a OSX market, those companies would have screamed foul, evil monopoly etc already. and it would have been an easy lose for Apple.
same thing for that little EULA issue. Apple has had essentially had the same agreement for years. so if it was so evil, why wasn't it sliced down already.
which has NOTHING to do with the legal issues. that apple doesn't provide something is not a legal excuse for another company to break the law to provide it.
lets repeat it one more time for the one who can't understand it.
this is only a problem if OSX computers is deemed a market. if the market is personal computers then Apple has no dominance etc, thus no issue.
again, not an reason to excuse someone from violating trademark, copyright etc.
and again, that Apple doesn't provide what someone wants is NOT a legal excuse for another company to step in and break the rules to provide it.
and your evidence of that is where. did you do a study or are you basing this on the limited percent of users that hang out in places like this.
you have to have an OS for your hardware to be more than a hunk of metal and plastic. and without hardware, the OS is nothing.
not at all what was going on with Microsoft. they were forcing a particular not operating system application on buyers and prohibiting the inclusion of any other preinstall choices for the same application.
the combination of the hardware and the OS is what defines an Apple computer, which is one of several options in the personal computer market.
the market is personal computers, Apple does not have a high level of power in that market.
]
Because up until recently there was no reason to challenge it. After the clone fiasco, the new Apple had learned its lessons and created new useful products like the PowerMac G3/4, the wallstreet and G4 Powerbooks, the iMac, the eMac. Apple served its users and there was no real profitable market for Mac OS X outside of Apple computer. The last two or three have been very different. They've gone to their own version of Spindler/Ameilio doctrine of Apple deciding for their customers.
Apple has become obsessed with aesthetic design to a point where all other factors are secondary. The popular eMac is long gone, the iMac has gotten larger more expensive, the affordable PowerMac has been replaced by the unaffordable MacPro, the Macbook as moved up in price, but moved down in features.
Very well stated. And this is why after nearly 25 years as an Apple user I'm prepared to move entirely in another direction. I'm not a child. I don't want or need a corporate CEO telling me what products are best for me. I want choices so I can make the decisions that serve me best, both as a consumer and professionally. If the economy continues it's downward spiral, we'll see how well Apple weathers tough times without a change in strategy. When disposable income is gone people tend to look more dollar value than they do aesthetics.
If Apple were selling OS X for handheld devices at places like Best Buy then I would probably say yes. The problem here is that it has been proven that you CAN install OS X on non-Apple hardware with a minimal of effort and that it works perfectly fine and without issues. Psystar has every right to sell the hardware they're selling. The only contention is whether Apple's Eula is actually 'legal' to tell someone they cannot install it on hardware they didn't buy from Apple. It this a matter of Apple having the right to specify WHERE their operating system is used OR is this an active attempt by Apple to prevent hardware competition by forbidding competitors for the hardware that supports their software? I think it's quite obviously the latter and that's why I think they can't win.
The hardware is different, so they can't be the 'same' product. Psystar paid for OS X, so it cannot be 'stolen' or 'copied'. This is about Apple forbidding competition for HARDWARE. They made the money on the software and as has been said before, if OS X is undervalued, then they should raise its price. I don't see where they have the right to forbid hardware competition just to maintain a pseudo-monopoly for that market segment. Hardware and Software are two different markets and while a company can compete in both, it should not be allowed to tie one to force sales in the other and avoid all competition in that segment.
They are selling HARDWARE. They cannot make money on Apple's software since they are buying it at retail and selling it at cost. If Apple is undercharging for their software, then they should adjust its price.
Microsoft was ordered to provide information about its OS to competitors by the Justice Department. So just because the market is 'free' that does not mean companies get to avoid all competition or retain all advantages.
Most of the other argument in this thread are again just playing word games with "market" versus "market segment" and their ENTIRE ARGUMENTS depend solely on that definition, which has NOTHING to do with whether Apple is actively trying to prevent competition for its products, which it clearly is.
I'll also say this, I'm willing to pay more money to get a superior computer and have many times. What I will not do is pay that same money for a pretty case and a logo on an inferior one nor will I pay twice as much a completely different class of computer to get that same level of quality. That's being taken advantage of and where loyalty stops.
Well it's been proven that Apple is not providing a "superior computer", but rather off the shelf computer parts wrapped in a slick package.
Slap a TPM module in so it can load an artificially proprietary OS, jack the price up and call it a premium product.
Apple marketing at it's finest.
Just before I wrote this...
I saw a Pystar advert on this forum page!
As far as tying goes:
It would be illegal for Apple to require buying a Mac in order to purchase an iPod.
Tying does not apply to Mac hardware and OS X, because the Mac hardware is useless without the operating system.
If one were to consider routers; Cisco, Nortel, Juniper, etc, all make routers. You can purchase different versions of the operating systems for the routers, some support VPN features, some support firewall features, some support additional routing features. Cisco software runs on Cisco hardware, Juniper software runs on Juniper hardware, etc. You never hear of anyone saying they want to run Cisco software on Juniper hardware, etc. The hardware requires the software to work. They are considered a "system" and not separate entities "tied" together. Note that you are also charged for software updates (conditions apply), so it's not dissimilar to Mac/OS X.
In this case it doesn't matter that routers aren't a general purpose computer. The license agreements are fundamentally similar.
I saw a Pystar advert on this forum page!
As far as tying goes:
It would be illegal for Apple to require buying a Mac in order to purchase an iPod.
Tying does not apply to Mac hardware and OS X, because the Mac hardware is useless without the operating system.
If one were to consider routers; Cisco, Nortel, Juniper, etc, all make routers. You can purchase different versions of the operating systems for the routers, some support VPN features, some support firewall features, some support additional routing features. Cisco software runs on Cisco hardware, Juniper software runs on Juniper hardware, etc. You never hear of anyone saying they want to run Cisco software on Juniper hardware, etc. The hardware requires the software to work. They are considered a "system" and not separate entities "tied" together. Note that you are also charged for software updates (conditions apply), so it's not dissimilar to Mac/OS X.
In this case it doesn't matter that routers aren't a general purpose computer. The license agreements are fundamentally similar.
Not so anymore. That hardware is capable of functioning with other operating systems. As sickening as it is to think about, some people buy Apple hardware to run windows on it. Apple at least had a valid excuse when they ran PowerPC hardware.
Actually Apple hasn't used TPM in Intel Macs as any sort of "protection".
See: "TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die
"Apple began shipping x86-based Macintosh computers in early 2006. Even before that, people had noted the presence of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) in the prerelease Developer Transition Kit machines. There had been much talk and much furor about the system-wide "DRM" the TPM would enforce. However, the x86-based Macintoshes were released with the TPM being not usedfor anything."
Yes, you can. But another company cannot modify a product to make it work - then sell it for profit.
No one said they didn't. That's not the issue.
Again, not the issue - modification by Psystar to make it install and run on their hardware is the issue.
Apple has always maintained that a Macintosh is a single product, not two separate ones.
MS was ordered to provide certain APIs used by programs to competitors, so that MS didn't have an advantage in making their web browser - look up the judgment. MS was using APIs that they did not make public to give IE an advantage over Netscape. MS did not have to open all their APIs to competitors - which is why WINE is not perfect, it's reverse engineered, not based on the actual APIs.
Psystar's entire case depends on what they can get the definition of the market to mean. You keep arguing about market and market segment like they are the exact same thing - when in fact they are quite different.
Earlier versions of the Apple Mac hardware ran on the PowerPC chip that had Apple ROMs in them. No one wanted to invest in developing a PPC MOBO and clean room development of new ROMS. Thus the EULA was a moot point. When Apple dropped the PPC chip and went to Intel chips, it then became possibe to run OSX on 'PC' Intel based MOBOs.
OSX is based on BSD. How dare Apple modify it and use it for their own computers and make a profit on it?
Legally, ANYONE can make changes to the BSD kerrnel in OSX. In fact, if you READ the EULA, Apple says that you CAN make changes to the open source portions of OSX. This is exactly what Pystar has done. That is why Apple has not sued the OSX86 community.
Pystar has not violated anyone's copyrights (although Apple claims that they have). Remember, Apple gets their $129 for every copy of OSX that Pystar sells.
Netkas claims that he changed the license to the PC EFI V8 emulator and that Pystar is in violation of his 'copyright'. The problem is that PC EFI V8 was put in the public domain two years ago and once put in the public domian ANYONE can use it. Once put into the public domain it can not be withdrawn under US law.
Also, when Microsoft lost their case with IE being a part of the OS, the 'market' that the court looked at was all PCs running Windows. Did not include computers running DOS, Mac OS, Linux, mainframes, mid-ranges ect. Dito for the Data General case. The argument that Apple has only 8% of the market will not fly based on past court decisions. Apple can of course argue that point but case law is against them.
If we go by only what a company maintains, it would impossible to have an anti-trust violation. Do you think any company is going to go out and say "yep we're illegally tying our operating system to our hardware"? Anything a company says is carefully scripted by lawyers and PR people. All companies want to restrict the ability of competitors to operate.
The point is that they didn't just start claiming that OS X and the hardware are one product when they decided to sue - it has always been their business model. Just so you know, anti-trust violations are very hard to prove, and very rare.
Except for two and a half years where it wasn't Apple's business model. They've shown themselves, that while Apple greatly prefers a closed system for monetary reasons (and what business doesn't), the two products don't need each other to function.