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.
Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No "pretty much" about it. They did lose. They are appealing, and they will lose again.
They do not have a good case. A good case is one in which the law, when applied to the facts, provides a good opportunity to win. Psystar cannot introduce any new facts, and can only argue that the law was incorrectly applied. It was not. Hence they have no chance of winning. Hence it is not a good case.
Further, Psystar does not even lose on a technicality. Not just the letter of the law, but the spirit as well, is against them.
The arguments have been rehearsed here alot but morally they have a case - "the law is an ass" in in this case so far IMO.
If I legitimately buy a CD I don't expect to be told in which players I can use it etc.
And yet you are. Did you ever notice that all the players have the compact disc logo on them?
Yes, I believe breaking up monopolistic power is good. In the EU we have the competition commission. MS fell foul for years.
If I sell an operating system or give it away significantly below cost because I can monetize the R&D effort by tying the operating system to particular hardware, and I refuse to sell you or give you the OS unless you promise to run it on hardware I sell, I don't expect you to violate the terms of our agreement.
I don't see anyone bitching that they can't install the PS3 OS on an XBOX, or they can't install their BMW i-drive system on a Volkswagen.
Your expectations don't matter - you are misinformed. You buy the CD, but you don't own the contents - you only own the physical media.
What if Everyone were an attorney?
people would obey the laws and live up to the contracts they enter?
The examples you quote don't invalidate my argument they just say that not in all cases do people want to do these things. In OSX's case they do because they see an abuse of power and very high margins. Its not owning the contents that's relevant. People just don't expect to have these artificial limitations. I drive my car on any road I like not just on BMW or Toyota approved roads.
1) where is this "power" you refer to? Apple has 5% market share.
2) where is the "abuse" you refer to? Apple charges less than it costs them to make the software because they can recoup the R&D on hardware sales?
3) who are these people who don't expect to have these artificial limitations? The handful who bought Psystar machines? The tiny percentage who hackintosh, or the even tinier percentage who actually use their hackintoshes for work?
4) You can't legally take the software from your BMW i-drive and install it on a Toyota. No one is talking about Apple-approved roads - the equivalent to that would be only being permitted to run Apple software on an Apple computer, and they don't make you do that. You can install any software you wish on your Mac. You just can't install your mac OS on a non-Apple machine, because if you do that Apple (which enforces no restrictions on copying the OS, often gives the OS away for free, and typically sells the OS for far less than it costs them to create it) would lose money.
Than why are we talking about Mac OS X? Apple is not a monopoly in the OS market by any definition the EU has ever come up with. Microsoft was and is a monopoly by the definition of most antitrust laws. It's not a subtle distinction.
Because he can't see past wanting to do whatever he wants with someone else's intellectual property in order to see the inevitable loss of choice that would result from Apple going bankrupt as a result.
The behaviors of the two companies are very similar, except apple is worse. I wonder what would happen to MS is they said no to programmers and made it impossible for programs to work with their OS or computers. Apple right now is far more anti consumer than Ms could ever have been. Ms made things barely difficult but not impossible, Apple makes things 100% impossible but just gets away with it.
Because we live in a free market economy. Companies can do whatever they want within the bounds of their charters as long as they meet their duties to their shareholders and obey all laws.
And the laws that prevent tying of one product to another or the exclusion of competition from a platform only apply to monopolists. And Apple has no monopoly (except, presumably, in on-line music sales, which isn't what we're talking about).
Even if "the two companies behaviors are very similar" (which is complete nonsense), it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and Apple is not a monopoly. Behaviors that are perfectly legal for a non-monopoly, are not legal for a monopoly.
They would probably get in trouble, because they are a monopoly.
That's just FUD and a re-write of history.