Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[Clive At Five]

You keep saying that the hardware is completely unrelated to Mac OS X when, in fact, they are most definitely wholly related. Can you use Mac OS X without any hardware? No. Therefore there's a relation there. The fact that Apple's hardware is, according to you, 95% equivalent to generic hardware, does not make it unrelated, it just makes it coincidental. If Apple were to sell Mac OS X and require you to buy that ice-cream maker with it, but you could still use Mac OS X on its own then, sure, those are unrelated products and probably constitutes illegal tying. But Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on will always be related no matter how much you claim otherwise.

While OS X obviously needs *some* hardware to run on, Apple requires you run it on only the hardware THEY sell. Meanwhile, there is nothing that distinguishes Apple's hardware from anyone else's except that Apple makes money off of it. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BUNDLING. TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY A $2000 COMPUTER TO RUN A $150 PIECE OF SOFTWARE.

If there was something unique about their HARDWARE that subsequently made the it essential to the bundle, then it would be a relevant connection. Alas, it is not.

In the mean time, if Apple thinks their OS is worth $2000, they should sell it for $2000.

I keep hearing about what your "heart" tells you, but I have yet to hear where your head comes into this. I have also not heard any "ethical" defense of your behavior, only one that involves you doing what you believe benefits you. Suffice to say, ethics have nothing to do with acting out of self-interest, unless you subscribe to objectivist claptrap about self-interest being the only legitimate form of ethics. Short of some credible line of reasoning backing up your claims of an ethical basis for violating someone else's rights, the characterization of people who choose to respect the rights of others as "followers" is nothing less than a crass insult.

Not every single action one takes is ethically right or ethically wrong. Eating a salad, for example, is neither "right" or "wrong," but rather ethically neutral. I choose not to partake in activities I see as ethically wrong. Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.

Meanwhile, am I building a hackintosh out of self-interest? You bet. 100% of everything we do is out of self-interest. Even charitable works we do are to make ourselves feel good or to satisfy our beliefs that we have an inherent duty to help others. I volunteer and give money to charitable causes because I feel like a selfish turd if I don't, and I don't want to feel like that.

You can continue to argue that every law-given right is automatically an ethical right, but I return again to the time in our history when we allowed AND ENFORCED slavery. Slaves were property. For someone to help a slave escape would be a violation of the slave-owner's property rights - and this right would have been enforced BY LAW. Does that make it ethically wrong to help a slave escape? You may disagree, but I'm going to assume not.

I know that it is an extreme example, but it illustrates a clear case of how law is not always ethically right. That said, under our current legal system, Apple has the law-given right to control how one uses a piece of software after it has been purchased. This does not make it an ethical right!

As I said before, just because it's a right doesn't make it right.

Nice try. The reality is that it's an upgrade for a buyer's existing mac system. The fact that it's sold in a complete form to make it easier for a consumer to install, and you to steal, is irrelevant. Wrapping yourself in a flag of "rugged individualism" is laughable. Again, you're not Jean Valjean but a common shoplifter. You're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Nowhere does Apple mention "upgrade" on the box, on the website, in the Apple store... in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.

This is neither here nor there.

Let's confront the accusation that I am a "shoplifter."

Many of you have argued that the $129 is the subsidized price for OS X having bought a Mac. I'm not certain I agree outright, but let's go with it. That means that the market value of OS X would be greater than $129.

Apple prices OS X at $129 because they believe people will upgrade at a pace that negates the risk of the subsidy. Yes, I said "risk." When a company subsidizes a product, it is taking a risk.

I do not think they are losing money by selling it for $129, but let's imagine that $129 per copy did not cover development and support costs. Now let's consider the slowing economy. It's not implausible that more people will perform a software upgrade rather than purchasing a new computer. Since Apple would be selling OS X at a loss, their Mac segment could actually begin LOSING money. Not just lower revenues, but negative revenues. Whose fault is this? Certainly not the people who bought Macs, because they abided by the rules. It was Apple who took the risk and decided to sell their product at a loss and their sales suffered accordingly.

Now let's take a different example. Let's maintain the assumption that Apple is selling OS X at a loss. What if a person didn't own a Mac, he bought a copy of OS X and never used it. Is the customer in the wrong? He never even broke any EULAs or anything else. He is completely legally untouchable. Is he a "shoplifter" as you call it? I'm going to assume your answer is "no" (please state if otherwise). So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money. Whose fault is this? It's not the customer's since he abided by the law and paid the list price on the software. Once again, it is Apple's fault because they took the risk to subsidize the price of OS X.

Let me say this one more time: APPLE CHOOSES THE PRICE OF OS X. IF THEY SUBSIDIZE THE PRICE, THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.

I have paid the price Apple has asked for OS X, therefore I cannot be at fault for Apple's loss. If Apple is losing money on OS X, they should charge more... I would gladly pay it for a fine piece of software. I will not, however, be demonized for not paying what I haven't been asked to. I will not take responsibility for Apple's pricing mechanisms. And I will not be called a "shoplifter" for being an outlier in Apple's risk formula.

-Clive

 

[IJ Reilly]

No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.

...

This is an excellent explanation. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Not every single action one takes is ethically right or ethically wrong. Eating a salad, for example, is neither "right" or "wrong," but rather ethically neutral. I choose not to partake in activities I see as ethically wrong. Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.

...

I'm sorry, but this is utter blather. I challenged you to come up with a rationale which goes beyond the "it's good for me so it must be right" reasoning, and quite clearly you can't.

 

[BaldiMac]

While OS X obviously needs *some* hardware to run on, Apple requires you run it on only the hardware THEY sell. Meanwhile, there is nothing that distinguishes Apple's hardware from anyone else's except that Apple makes money off of it. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BUNDLING. TO FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY A $2000 COMPUTER TO RUN A $150 PIECE OF SOFTWARE.

If there was something unique about their HARDWARE that subsequently made the it essential to the bundle, then it would be a relevant connection. Alas, it is not.

You are misappropriating the definition of "related". "Related" is not the same as "required". Obviously, computer hardware and the operating system are related. You keep calling them unrelated.

In the mean time, if Apple thinks their OS is worth $2000, they should sell it for $2000.

Apple does not sell OS X. They sell a license to use OS X.

That said, under our current legal system, Apple has the law-given right to control how one uses a piece of software after it has been purchased. This does not make it an ethical right!

As I said before, just because it's a right doesn't make it right.

How would Apple or any other software company be able to make money if they could not license their software? If Apple was not given the legal right to license their software, they would be selling the software itself. Every purchaser would have the same rights to copy, distribute, and modify the software as Apple. It would be as if copyright did not exist. What would be the incentive to create new software?

Nowhere does Apple mention "upgrade" on the box, on the website, in the Apple store... in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.

Though the word "upgrade" may not be used, the concept is the same. As the judge ruled, purchasers are aware that OS X can only be installed on Apple hardware. The system requirements are listed. The SLA is available on Apple's website.

This is neither here nor there.

Let's confront the accusation that I am a "shoplifter."

Many of you have argued that the $129 is the subsidized price for OS X having bought a Mac. I'm not certain I agree outright, but let's go with it. That means that the market value of OS X would be greater than $129.

Apple prices OS X at $129 because they believe people will upgrade at a pace that negates the risk of the subsidy. Yes, I said "risk." When a company subsidizes a product, it is taking a risk.

I do not think they are losing money by selling it for $129, but let's imagine that $129 per copy did not cover development and support costs. Now let's consider the slowing economy. It's not implausible that more people will perform a software upgrade rather than purchasing a new computer. Since Apple would be selling OS X at a loss, their Mac segment could actually begin LOSING money. Not just lower revenues, but negative revenues. Whose fault is this? Certainly not the people who bought Macs, because they abided by the rules. It was Apple who took the risk and decided to sell their product at a loss and their sales suffered accordingly.

Now let's take a different example. Let's maintain the assumption that Apple is selling OS X at a loss. What if a person didn't own a Mac, he bought a copy of OS X and never used it. Is the customer in the wrong? He never even broke any EULAs or anything else. He is completely legally untouchable. Is he a "shoplifter" as you call it? I'm going to assume your answer is "no" (please state if otherwise). So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money. Whose fault is this? It's not the customer's since he abided by the law and paid the list price on the software. Once again, it is Apple's fault because they took the risk to subsidize the price of OS X.

Let me say this one more time: APPLE CHOOSES THE PRICE OF OS X. IF THEY SUBSIDIZE THE PRICE, THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.

I have paid the price Apple has asked for OS X, therefore I cannot be at fault for Apple's loss. If Apple is losing money on OS X, they should charge more... I would gladly pay it for a fine piece of software. I will not, however, be demonized for not paying what I haven't been asked to. I will not take responsibility for Apple's pricing mechanisms. And I will not be called a "shoplifter" for being an outlier in Apple's risk formula.

-Clive

This is a weird tangent. Obviously, Apple is not losing money on each sale of boxed copy of OS X. Apple does not lose any money when someone purchases a box and sticks it on a shelf.

Apple has set the price of $129 for the box, the dvd, and a license to install OS X on an Apple labeled computer. I believe that most people would agree that Apple would charge a different (higher) price for a license to install it on other hardware. But they choose not to sell such a license.

Just because someone does not choose to sell something, does not give anyone the legal, moral, or ethical right to take it.

Of course, there may be other circumstances that impact the morality of the situation (stealing food to feed family), but I can't think of any that would come into play for a computer operating system.

 

[TechHistorian]

Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

I'll be the first to agree that the law and morality exist on separate planes and are not necessarily equivalent. But, no matter how much lofty rhetoric you use to wrap up your argument, you are not standing up for what you believe in and fighting for it. Civil disobedience rests upon a willingness to be prosecuted so as to show the fundamental immorality of unjust laws. Thoreau, Gandhi, and King were all willing to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. Until and unless you submit your name and address to Apple and inform them that you are willingly violating their EULA as you find it immoral and unethical, you're not standing up for anything. You're not a "leader." You're just violating the law ... and getting away with it. Spare us the histrionics and get off the high horse.

 

[Clive At Five]

No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.

Are you kidding me? That's exactly what I had just said:

Tying is legal between two related products. Conversely, Tying is illegal between two unrelated products. Some say that only Monopolies can be found guilty of anti-competitive practices and they may be right, even though this is a double-standard in my opinion.

Thanks for reading my comments before blindly commenting negatively on them like I'M wrong. You are unbelievable.

I don't think Logitech has market power in the market of computer mice. If Logitech did what you say, nobody would buy their computer mouse, no matter how amazing it is, except for a few dozen people who want an ice cream maker. Now if Logitech had a patent on computer mice, and you could only buy Logitech mice and nothing else, that would be entirely different. If you had no choice but to buy the unwanted ice cream maker because you need a computer mouse, then the tying would be illegal because it is combined with market power.

If it's not right for a monopoly, what makes it right for Logitech? I know that no one cares what non-monopolies do, but does that justify it?

NO.

This is an excellent explanation. Thanks for going to the trouble.

Even though it was an "excellent" explanation of what I had just stated in plain english in the quote he was trying to deny? HAH! You make me laugh.

I'm sorry, but this is utter blather. I challenged you to come up with a rationale which goes beyond the "it's good for me so it must be right" reasoning, and quite clearly you can't.

Quite clearly you weren't reading - AGAIN! - and inventing arguments - AGAIN!

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.

Not to mention that you've already decided that what I've done is ethically wrong, and there's no changing your rigid mind, so no matter what I say, you won't care and you'll just dump some predictable "blather" of your own below this post. Have fun. I will not reply to any more illogical arguments that you invent. That said, reply wisely if you want a response.

You are misappropriating the definition of "related". "Related" is not the same as "required". Obviously, computer hardware and the operating system are related. You keep calling them unrelated.

You keep calling it "computer hardware." Apple doesn't let you install OS X on any old "computer hardware." It must be on hardware that THEY SELL.

Tying is justified when there's a reason for doing so. For Apple to tie OS X to their hardware only is not justified because there is no reason OS X must be installed on Apple's hardware. The purpose of the law is to ensure companies don't force customers to buy product B when they only want product A, the company sells product A separately, and said customer buys product A. This forcing of sales of product B (Apple's hardware) is precisely what Apple is doing.

Apple does not sell OS X. They sell a license to use OS X.

yeah yeah yeah.

How would Apple or any other software company be able to make money if they could not license their software? If Apple was not given the legal right to license their software, they would be selling the software itself. Every purchaser would have the same rights to copy, distribute, and modify the software as Apple. It would be as if copyright did not exist. What would be the incentive to create new software?

Selling a copy of a copyrighted work is not equivalent to selling the copyrighted work. Not only that, but purchasers of duplicates of copyrighted works are allowed to do with the copy what they please, so long as they aren't damaging the "brand."

For example: no artist has the right to sell you a duplicate painting then say, "now you can only hang this painting in a frame that I sell." Even if you were to buy the painting and frame, you can't be penalized for replacing the frame with a frame of your own... nor can you be penalized for painting a red smiley-face over top of the original painting after you bought it. You can do anything you want but violate copyright laws which include (but are not limited to) creating duplicates, selling duplicates, creating derivative works, selling derivative works, etc.

What Apple is doing with their EULA is far more overreaching than copyright enforcement. It's post-sale meddling, which is unethical. ("In my opinion")

Though the word "upgrade" may not be used, the concept is the same. As the judge ruled, purchasers are aware that OS X can only be installed on Apple hardware. The system requirements are listed. The SLA is available on Apple's website.

And it's the legal enforcement of this which I condemn. It's a violation of consumer rights. So long as I am not damaging the Apple brand, what I do with a product I purchase is no one else's business once I leave the store.

This is a weird tangent. Obviously, Apple is not losing money on each sale of boxed copy of OS X. Apple does not lose any money when someone purchases a box and sticks it on a shelf.

Apple has set the price of $129 for the box, the dvd, and a license to install OS X on an Apple labeled computer. I believe that most people would agree that Apple would charge a different (higher) price for a license to install it on other hardware. But they choose not to sell such a license.

Just because someone does not choose to sell something, does not give anyone the legal, moral, or ethical right to take it.

It's an important tangent. People are accusing me of theft! The only theft that is going on is Apple's legal attempts to try to hijack $2000 more out of my wallet.

Apple WOULD charge more if they weren't able to legally bully people into buying their hardware. However, freedom-obsessed "deviants" like me are not in their risk formula when they decide how much they can safely subsidize the price of OS X. Once again, it's not my fault they chose to subsidize the price of OS X. If they want to guarantee they earn the full market value of OS X on every sale, they should stop building it into the cost of every Mac, and start selling OS X at "full price."

They choose how to price their products, and I cannot be blamed or called a thief for abiding by that pricing structure.

Of course, there may be other circumstances that impact the morality of the situation (stealing food to feed family), but I can't think of any that would come into play for a computer operating system.

Even I don't believe in stealing food to feed my family. Theft is theft.

I'll be the first to agree that the law and morality exist on separate planes and are not necessarily equivalent. But, no matter how much lofty rhetoric you use to wrap up your argument, you are not standing up for what you believe in and fighting for it. Civil disobedience rests upon a willingness to be prosecuted so as to show the fundamental immorality of unjust laws. Thoreau, Gandhi, and King were all willing to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts. Until and unless you submit your name and address to Apple and inform them that you are willingly violating their EULA as you find it immoral and unethical, you're not standing up for anything. You're not a "leader." You're just violating the law ... and getting away with it. Spare us the histrionics and get off the high horse.

They have all my information, name, address, telephone number, and all the specs of my xHack, which I sent in the Registration Info when I first booted Leopard. They have all the info they need to prosecute me, which I've sent to them willingly.

-Clive

 

[IJ Reilly]

Quite clearly you weren't reading - AGAIN! - and inventing arguments - AGAIN!

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.

Not to mention that you've already decided that what I've done is ethically wrong, and there's no changing your rigid mind, so no matter what I say, you won't care and you'll just dump some predictable "blather" of your own below this post. Have fun. I will not reply to any more illogical arguments that you invent. That said, reply wisely if you want a response.

I heard you, and once again you confirm that my description of your views is accurate. Your full definition of what is right is what is good for you, that your ethics are completely relative to you. Don't worry about responding. If I wanted to have a shallow conversation, I'd talk to my cats. They also know that world is completely about them.

 

[Clive At Five]

They also know that world is completely about them.

The sooner you give up trying to convince yourself you believe otherwise, the sooner you can quit living in denial about how great you are.

What's the last thing you did that wasn't truly for you? That includes things you did for others because you felt you needed to, or did to make yourself feel good.

That's right. Join us cats.

-Clive

 

[gnasher729]

If it's not right for a monopoly, what makes it right for Logitech? I know that no one cares what non-monopolies do, but does that justify it?

If driving over 30 mph in a town is illegal, how can we justify driving 70 mph on a motorway? That is more than twice the speed limit inside a town. If selling alcohol to children is illegal, how can we justify selling chocolate to children, or alcohol to adults?

Tying two unrelated products is in itself not harmful. Having a monopoly is in itself not harmful. Combining both is harmful; it harms companies making products that compete with the tied product. We don't care if Logitech does something that Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to do, because when Logitech does it, it causes no harm.

You see, monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings, because that is evil. And non-monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings either, because it is just as evil, whether it is a monopoly doing it or a non-monopoly. Product tying is different: If a monopoly does it, it is harmful. If a non-monopoly does it, it isn't harmful. So it is not the same thing. Like selling alcohol to a 14 year old is not the same as selling alcohol to a 24 year old. It is not the tying, and not the selling alcohol, that is bad. It is the _combination_ with the fact that the tying is done by a monopoly, or the alcohol is sold to a child.

 

[haydn!]

Everything we do is because "it's good for me." EVERYTHING. Things that we believe are ethically bad we don't do because it makes us feel bad. Feeling bad falls under the definition of "not good for me." Therefore there is no possible way for something someone does - who doesn't regret his or her actions - to think they've done wrong.

You're asking me to prove that 1 = 2.

I don't quite grasp your definition there, it's quite flawed. Only doing things that only benefit yourself is an act of selfishness. Something that is not always good for you may often be good for someone else.

For example: Giving to charity is not good for you financially, but it's good for someone else as they'll benefit. So what about smoking, if you smoke, you seriously wouldn't believe that it was "good for you" would you? So quite clearly everything we do, isn't always because its just good for us. It's often human nature to give something, or do something, without expecting something in return.

Also, he's not asking you to prove 1 = 2, because that is obviously quite impossible. He's asking you to justify your illegal actions, which no matter how we look at it is also quite impossible. If you we're able to justify them. It wouldn't be illegal. Ethics doesn't come into it. Apple choosing not to sell Mac OS to an open market, or limiting its use to certain hardware is not unethical, its tough luck!

So actually, your own example of trying to prove 1 = 2, quite simply defines your own actions? Both are impossible to justify.

There really is a sense of "I want it this way, so it must be right" in some of the posts in this thread. Is the fact that a court of law have instructed that Apple's actions are clearly legal not enough for people to accept it?

Apple have the right to decide how their products are sold, and who they can be sold to. If Apple chooses not to sell to a certain segment of consumers, that is their right. There is nothing wrong with it. To put it simply, and actually quote Apple's own layers: Why should Apple help a hardware competitor sell computers?

 

[Clive At Five]

If driving over 30 mph in a town is illegal, how can we justify driving 70 mph on a motorway? That is more than twice the speed limit inside a town. If selling alcohol to children is illegal, how can we justify selling chocolate to children, or alcohol to adults?

Tying two unrelated products is in itself not harmful. Having a monopoly is in itself not harmful. Combining both is harmful; it harms companies making products that compete with the tied product. We don't care if Logitech does something that Microsoft wouldn't be allowed to do, because when Logitech does it, it causes no harm.

You see, monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings, because that is evil. And non-monopolies mustn't swindle old ladies out of their savings either, because it is just as evil, whether it is a monopoly doing it or a non-monopoly. Product tying is different: If a monopoly does it, it is harmful. If a non-monopoly does it, it isn't harmful. So it is not the same thing. Like selling alcohol to a 14 year old is not the same as selling alcohol to a 24 year old. It is not the tying, and not the selling alcohol, that is bad. It is the _combination_ with the fact that the tying is done by a monopoly, or the alcohol is sold to a child.

Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.

Giving to charity is not good for you financially, but it's good for someone else as they'll benefit.

Why then do people give to charity? Two reasons.

Reason 1, because it will make them feel good. Feeling good is desirable. We exchange our monetary donations or volunteer work for the reward of feeling good.

Reason 2, because they feel as though that it is their moral obligation. If they do not fulfill that obligation, they will feel bad. Feeling bad is undesirable, so they do charitable things.

So what about smoking, if you smoke, you seriously wouldn't believe that it was "good for you" would you?

Smoking satisfies a short-term biological/neurological urge in exchange for the long-term side-effects. Again, people do it to feel good, which is desirable to them.

So quite clearly everything we do, isn't always because its just good for us. It's often human nature to give something, or do something, without expecting something in return.

Stop trying to convince yourself you're so noble! You do good things because it makes you feel good, or because you feel you must! Anything else you try to convince yourself of is a lie. Everything we do is to satisfy either our biological or spiritual needs.

Also, he's not asking you to prove 1 = 2, because that is obviously quite impossible. He's asking you to justify your illegal actions, which no matter how we look at it is also quite impossible. If you we're able to justify them. It wouldn't be illegal. Ethics doesn't come into it. Apple choosing not to sell Mac OS to an open market, or limiting its use to certain hardware is not unethical, its tough luck!

IN YOUR OPINION!

Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet. I happen think that controlling a product post-sale is ethically wrong.

 

[haydn!]

If a monopoly were tying customers in with products they'd be abusing their position by making it difficult for other companies to compete.

If company that has a smaller market share is tying customers in with products they're actually limiting their own ability to compete in an open market. Reducing your own ability to compete only has a negative impact against your own business, not the wider market. The courts have recognized this, and it is Apple's choose to be selective in how they sell their products.

Because of the massive market share Microsoft have, it would take a dozen more releases like Vista before Apple are in a position where they can be deemed anti competitive. But, it unlikely Microsoft will make the same mistakes again, and that Apple will ever hold a majority share of the market. Plus, if they did it is most likely Apple will have changed their business model in anticipation of this. Analysts have already speculated that they would expect Apple to license the OS to other hardware companies at some point in the future, if they had reached a 30% or higher market share. But if, or when this happens will also be Apple's choice.

 

[albusseverus]

Of course it would, bring in all these clones and what we will get is windows.

It would do if it caused them to triple the price of OS X Snow Leopard.

You're missing the point - Apple doesn't need to support crappy hardware. They keep on doing exactly what they're doing now and PC makers with machines good enough for Apple's specs can sell OS X for them (thanks very much).

Just because Microsoft does something stupid, doesn't mean Apple has to as well. Apple is under no obligation to support anyone but themselves.

If anything, this situation is Apple's doing. They have gone (a long way) out of their way to make PCs and sell Mac OS on them !

 

[haydn!]

IN YOUR OPINION!

Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet. I happen think that controlling a product post-sale is ethically wrong.

And your post was your opinion. However I'd have to disagree with you when you say my feeling on the matter would differ from Steve Jobs, or in fact everyone else on the planet.

It's unlikely we'd ever find out what Steve personally felt on the matter however I also find it unlikely he'd view the actions of his company to unethical.

Also, millions of people each year go out and by Mac computers and Mac OS (legally I might add). They also quite clearly don't have a problem with how Apple is doing business.

I think you confusing something being "ethically wrong" with "not getting what you want".

Apple quite clearly aren't out to serve every customer, and there is no court of law that would state Apple must offer that meets the need of every single consumer. If customers aren't happy with the services or products that Apple is offering - there are alternatives.

That of course, is my opinion.


Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.


(Okay, KFC and ethics in the same sentence probably was a bad idea!)

 

[IJ Reilly]

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.

Nor will they give me the recipe for extra crispy. B*stards!

 

[Clive At Five]

And your post was your opinion. However hen you say my feeling on the matter would differ from Steve Jobs, or in fact everyone else on the planet.

I didn't say "feelings" and I didn't say "on the matter." I said set of ethics. Your complete set of ethics matches that of no one else's.

Also, millions of people each year go out and by Mac computers and Mac OS (legally I might add). They also quite clearly don't have a problem with how Apple is doing business.

I think you confusing something being "ethically wrong" with "not getting what you want".

I'm happy for those people who love their Macs, I really truly am. I used to be one of those people until my computing needs grew and Apple's hardware offerings shrunk. Even if I was a happy Mac user like I had been for many years, I still would not think Apple would be justified. You're assuming that my actions dictate my ethics when it is the other way around.

Apple quite clearly aren't out to serve every customer, and there is no court of law that would state Apple must offer that meets the need of every single consumer.

This is not even close to what I am asking for. You, like IJ, are inventing arguments and then conquering them in a petty attempt to make me look vanquished.

Now, you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ask a court of law to challenge KFC's ethics because they won't sell me a Big Mac.

Again, completely different from believing that a company shouldn't be allowed to control a product's use post-sale, save for copyright protection.

But thanks for putting hyperbolistic words in my mouth instead of addressing the cases that I am actually making.

-Clive

 

[r.j.s]

Again, completely different from believing that a company shouldn't be allowed to control a product's use post-sale, save for copyright protection.
-Clive

That's the key here, you cannot buy OS X. Period. You buy a license and the physical media.

Apple is not telling anyone what they can and can't do with the physical product you bought, so your "painting" comparison is not valid.

They still own OS X, and when you buy a license, you are telling them that you agree to their terms of use - if you don't then you can either not buy a license or return your license.

 

[piot]

In the U.S., Apple's business practices must comply with anti-trust guidelines, which includes not participating in anti-competitive behavior. I'm not judge or jury, so I can't decide whether their closed model is or isn't anti-competitive (more specifically, "Tying"), but it is certainly going to be the focal point of PsyStar's defense.

And you were dead right! That indeed was Psystar's total defense. And the Judge (without the need for a jury) has just tossed it out of the window... so why do you still keep bringing it up?

Your emotional arguments and love/hate relationship with Apple are increasingly making you sound like a jilted lover.

 

[icoffee]

I'm happy for those people who love their Macs, I really truly am. I used to be one of those people until my computing needs grew and Apple's hardware offerings shrunk. Even if I was a happy Mac user like I had been for many years, I still would not think Apple would be justified. You're assuming that my actions dictate my ethics when it is the other way around.
-Clive

After reading countless posts with you and others going back and forth about how running OSX hardware is or is not ethical, legal, moral, etc. to run on non-Apple hardware, I HAVE to ask, which Apple hardware have you owned to be able to make the comparison that you outgrew Apple's current hardware offerings? You surely haven't outgrown a Mac Pro.

Sorry bud, just sounds to me like you're trying to deal with your own cognitive dissonance - "I'm an ethical person but I ripped off a company by hacking their OS." If you REALLY bought a copy of Leopard good for you, although I have a feeling you, like many others, just downloaded it. Why not just call a duck what it is, i.e. a duck. So you've hacked the OS, you're a HACKintosh user. Enjoy your hacked OS and tell yourself, "I'm a hacker, and I'm proud of it." Isn't that really the crux of what you're saying anyway?

BTW, I own many Macs from a G4MDD to an Intel Imac, a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Core Duo. I also have a hackintosh that I play around with. Ive had fun learning with the hackgreat but still pay the piper Jobs too And yes, I do feel a little naughty when booting up the hack. Oh hackintosh OSX, you're like that woman in the Matrix with the red dress...so tempting and a bit naughty

Back to the point of this thread, I think THE DIFFERENCE here is that none of us have a little shop in Florida with the intent of hacking Apple's software to make a profit.

 

[sinser]

http://www.applepc.tk/

Click on "Think more different". Ok, it's italian but I think it's clear what they are selling. Looks like they will be in big troubles...

 

[matticus008]

So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.

No. Respecting the rule of law is ethically right. The individual statute itself is a separate matter. You're just going to continue with your ludicrous claims and rationalization, but if nothing else, at least learn that much.

I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong"

Oh, but you do. You're "not doing anything wrong", remember?

Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store!

They're allowed to control what they continue to own: the right to do and to authorize reproduction, distribution, derivation and so on. It applies just as well to them as to everything you own. It's not rocket science.

That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.

Yes, breaking the law is always ethically wrong in a society operating under the rule of law. This is the entire ontological basis of illegality. Your continued insistence on ignoring basic reality is completely outrageous. Whether your actions are justified does not erase the ethical wrongs committed in the process.

I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.

Bull. You choose to sneak about and take what you want because you can get away with it. You're not fighting anything, except the persistent weight of reality.

Building a hackintosh, in my opinion, is neither ethically right nor ethically wrong, but, instead, ethically neutral.

Man, you sure are the king of the shifting argument. It's ethically wrong for someone to sell their own work as they see fit, but it's ethically neutral to take it without their permission. Glorious.

You can continue to argue that every law-given right is automatically an ethical right,

Nobody has ever said that. Not the person you're replying to, and certainly not me.

This does not make it an ethical right!

Nor does it make ignoring it for your own personal benefit any closer to being right!

in fact, Steve Jobs has bragged that every copy of Leopard is the full version.

In fact, he bragged that every copy is the premium version, as in Vista Premium. They're not at all the same.

So in the process of this transaction, this person purchased OS X legally, did not break the terms of use, but Apple still lost money.

No, they didn't. Without using the software, the person never received the benefit of the software and thus never incurred the cost of having to make software for that customer. Apple's costs for the disc and box are covered, and it hasn't gained the burden of an extra user.

THEY TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY RESULTING LOST REVENUE.

And YOU are responsible for the resulting unjust enrichment.

Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.

It's not a monopoly. It's a market power, which is not usually a monopoly. A market power, as has been explained more than once to you, has the power to assert control over competitors trying to sell their own products and from competing freely. Without market power, competitors are not harmed because they have not been manipulated by outside forces and continue to be able to set their own prices and market their own products.

Your set of ethics are different from IJ's, mine, Steve Jobs' and everyone else on the planet.

Ethics are a system of moral decisions judged socially or alternatively the study of moral behavior. Morals are based on the individual sense of right and wrong.

 

[gnasher729]

Explain how being a monopoly makes tying harmful and how the non-monopoly does not.

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition), then many people will buy product B only because they have to since it is tied to A, and all the companies that compete with B lose out. This harms competition, because people buy product B, not on its merits, but because of the monopoly in product A.

When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens. It may be that product A is really good value and lots of people buy B because of that, but that is just a fair way of competing. The company will only sell if A + B together merit the purchase. There is no harm to competition.

 

[TiggsPanther]

You're missing the point - Apple doesn't need to support crappy hardware. They keep on doing exactly what they're doing now and PC makers with machines good enough for Apple's specs can sell OS X for them (thanks very much).

OK. Then this raises a vital question:
When something goes wrong, who will(*) the users go to for support?

As somebody who works in IT support, I can guarantee that a significant number will see that it's running Mac OS X and go to Apple support. Users don't always think far enough into who is actually responsible for fixing something, they just contact whoever they assume is the correct person.
And as somebody whose job it is to trawl through misdirected support emails on a near-daily basis, I know that it's possible to get support requests that are simply outside of your responsibility that the user is adamant is your job to fix.

Granted, a significant number will also just take it back to the shop or contact the manufacturer. But in all three cases, it's because people just see 'Oh, it's broken. I'd best take it to someone who actually knows about it.'

Apple will inevitably get some of that. They don't need it. Not for other people's product lines.

Also, testing for other hardware permutations will affect development time.
I also get the distinct impression (although I don't have actual law knowledge so I couild easily be off-base) that if they sell it as an OS for generic systems then they have to ensure that it is fit for purpose. And if it is untested and does something catastrophic to somebody's no-standard system, it's still Apple's legal responsibility. So they can't skip the testing phase, and would end up severely slowing down their development process.


(*) Not 'should', but 'will'.

 

[matticus008]

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition)

This is indeed a good classical example, but of a narrow subtype and not of tying generally, and it's important that B is tied to A, and not A merely "with" B.

Tying, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with monopoly. Monopolies usually (but not always) have market power, so the actual parties overlap, but not the legal status or the terms.

When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens.

It's not just a monopoly. It is more common in actual practice for tying claims to come from firms attempting to create a monopoly and not from those having achieved one. The relevant question is not one of monopoly, but of market power.

 

[IJ Reilly]

http://www.applepc.tk/

Click on "Think more different". Ok, it's italian but I think it's clear what they are selling. Looks like they will be in big troubles...

No kidding. They are even using Apple's logo.

 

[gnasher729]

Hi Matticus, would you have an opinion to the following question: One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar. If the court were to grant that request, what would happen if

1. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run MacOS X on it and refuses to return it.
2. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run Windows or Linux on it and refuses to return it.
3. A customer bought a Psystar computer and is willing to return it as long as he or she gets their money back, but Psystar has no cash to refund the money?