Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.
They did. That was this case. Their argument as to monopoly status and as to market power (a prerequisite for tying) was dismissed this morning. As a result, the tying claim was dismissed.
The entire counterclaim was based on the Sherman Act's tying provisions and has been discussed ad nauseum for months, each time with people not understanding the law grossly misapplying snippets and phrases to reach untenable positions.
As the experts have said from the beginning, there wasn't much hope for Psystar.
Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?
Yes, but the question is irrelevant.
Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?
PC clones didn't use stolen IBM parts. The question is irrelevant.
If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer.
Of course there is. That's the whole point. The processor architecture does not make a platform alone. More to the point, though, the creator of a work gets to decide how and when they will sell it, and to whom. This is painfully basic, and hundreds of posters on this forum and others simply can't get it through their heads.
Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on.
None. The question is, like the others, irrelevant. It may be capable of running on every electronic device created since the beginning of time, but it does not matter.
It would be nice if Apple could sell OS X separately for those that would like to run it on non-Mac Hardware.
They can. They choose not to, as is their right.
The big difference is that the Blackberry OS is not sold without hardware, but OS X can be bought freely and a Macintosh is not an embedded device like the iPhone or the iPod Touch (whose operating system also is not sold separately). Legally and technically, embedded devices are a completely different subject than Personal Computers
No. You're mixing different concepts together. Being an embedded device has no legal relevance on distribution of copyrighted works.
Today's Macs use only standard PC hardware and only the EULA of OS X restricts the choice of hardware the customer can run this system on.
And only the sales terms of a painting restricts the choice of which walls it can be hung from. Your point?
There certainly are enough countries where this specific paragraph of the Apple EULA ("only on an Apple-labeled computer") actually violates laws and where Apple wouldn't stand a chance with their claims and would not be "entitled to do so".
Not really. Countries with more expansive competition law are also usually offset by more expansive and creator-oriented copyright law. Certainly in all Western legal systems, the right to create a software product and make it available only for your own customers is well established.
There is a contradiction in Apple's position on this, in that they encourage the installation of non-Apple OS's on their computers, they even created Boot Camp to make it easy.
There is no contradiction. Microsoft sells Windows to everyone and is eager to sell copies to Mac users as well. Linux is available to everyone. Apple hardware is compatible and vendors of those other products want to sell/distribute for it.
How would people feel if Microsoft changed their licensing so that you couldn't install their OS on Apple computers, then enforced it through the courts?
They could not, because that would be selective non-inclusion and because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.
Apple aren't going to lose much and if anything will end up gaining some new customers
Lose much? The ability to control the reproduction and distribution of their work is the most valuable element of OS X.
Psystar could of been a bit more clever about how they sold their computers - not pre-loading Mac OS, not modifying it and instead selling it as Mac OS compatible then pointing everyone at a 3rd party website which has the hacks to get it running. Or something like that.
They'd still be on the hook for inducement, contributory infringement, and trademark misappropriation.
Imagine Apple would sell their Macs with an EULA that says "you are not allowed to run Microsoft Windows on this computer (or GNU/Linux or FreeBSD)", and that same judge would have said today "Apple is certainly entitled to do so".
Alsup would not have done so, and Apple would not be able to do so. Apple controls the distribution of OS X, not Windows.
Wouldn't that be the very same thing? It's a rhetorical question: Yes, it IS the same thing, because in both cases it is Apple restricted your rights to use the products they sold to you.
Not at all. Apple is free to sell whatever it chooses, so long as it belongs to Apple. Placing a "EULA" on the hardware would only occur if Apple retained some interest in the hardware, which it does not. On the other hand, Apple retains most of the rights and all of the ownership of OS X. If Apple did license certain rights to you as to the hardware, they could dictate terms, but unlike with software, the retail consumer has no need for access to hardware IP.
I'm not taking sides in the case until there's a verdict.
There won't be one.
It just seems a bit of a double standard to nail big guys for tying and not small guys.
Why? Tying is not illegal, just like being a monopoly is not illegal. Only when you use it to control prices of unrelated products or specifically to damage competitors trying to sell
their own products has the market been harmed. A small player doesn't have the ability to do that. Apple does not control the pricing of either Windows or HP computers.
when does it become wrong?
When Apple directly dictates the pricing of competitors' own products, and not simply through price leadership.
Again, not sticking up for either side, just saying that if there was any chance for Psystar to make a case was to use a tying argument.
And again, they
did. It was dismissed this morning for failure to establish market power through failure to define the market. They tried to artificially create market power for Apple by ill-defining a market that only included Apple.
falls under the definition of anticompetitive Tying.
It falls under the definition of tying. It does not fall under the definition of anticompetitive tying.
Not making that case myself, just laying out the only possibly way Psystar could win.
Yes. And they lost, with a chance to amend their complaint with a proper definition of a market. Unfortunately, by doing so, they essentially preclude a finding of market power, and will simply be dismissed again.
I have a pile of hardware, I bought this piece of software in the Apple store, legally.
And Apple allowed it to be sold, legally, in full contemplation of what Apple chose to sell you, and nothing more.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to install it on the pile of hardware I have?
Because you didn't pay for that right. Like all products, there is a spectrum of rights. A purchase of some does not imply a purchase of all, and it never has. Since you don't have any rights to the product at all to begin with, you only get what they're willing to sell, subject to a few caveats for the seller.
Sales and licenses of IP have been going on for centuries, and it's really only recently that the laity has been exposed to it. You tend not to think of the restrictions on most of the things you buy, even though they're there. Even walking into the store involves license. The less tangible the action, the more express the terms surrounding it.
It will. The copious caselaw on what constitutes a market is quite conclusive. This was a fast and loose ploy to try to confuse a judge with technology and not the law, and he saw through it.
Didn't see Microsoft trotting Apple out to show they didn't have a monopoly.
As a matter of fact, they did. They had whole sections of their briefs devoted to their competition with Apple.
The idea that this case has anything to do with Microsoft's practices is simply absurd. Simply put, Microsoft acted to expand their level of power and control; Apple, on the other hand, is quite clearly harming their opportunity to expand to its full potential, as so many of you have argued. They have no desire to control anything but their own products.
Apple must have found the only judge in America who wasn't against Microsoft.
Clearly you don't know anything about the judge. He's blocked mergers (of defense contractors, no less) and has done huge amounts of work in securities, before being appointed by Clinton. He's no lackey, and he knows the law.
