Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones

[englishman]

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.

1) But 100% share of the hw that runs OSX.

2) I'll take your word for it. They would need to rejig their prices then.

3) The potential market for OSX if it were licensed for Mac clones. Most people don't articulate their expectations - but they are there/implicit.

4) Ok sell it for more for other machines.

All these arguments come down to Apple wanting total control. Look at it another way - say MS only allowed there OS to run on MS computers...

Or Penicillin only available in certain hospitals.

The greater good would be served by Apple being more flexible.

Nice argument by the way cmaier

 

[KnightWRX]

1) But 100% share of the hw that runs OSX.

Good thing that's not a market by any stretch of the term. That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. You can't have a monopoly over your own product. You can only have a monopoly on a market.

3) The potential market for OSX if it were licensed for Mac clones. Most people don't articulate their expectations - but they are there/implicit.

753 Psystar computers were sold. The last time we had Mac clones around, Apple almost died. There is no potential market for OS X on clones.

All these arguments come down to Apple wanting total control. Look at it another way - say MS only allowed there OS to run on MS computers...

There are no MS computers.

Or Penicillin only available in certain hospitals.

Consumer electronics don't save lives nor are they a matter of life and death.

The greater good would be served by Apple being more flexible.

Now you're just being silly. We're talking about computers, not some kind of divine intervention.

Psystar has no case, and there's no argument here. You're just feeling somehow entitled to something and justify breaking Apple's EULA because of it. At least assume you are an outlaw, and live with it.

 

[cmaier]

1) But 100% share of the hw that runs OSX.

2) I'll take your word for it. They would need to rejig their prices then.

3) The potential market for OSX if it were licensed for Mac clones. Most people don't articulate their expectations - but they are there/implicit.

4) Ok sell it for more for other machines.

All these arguments come down to Apple wanting total control. Look at it another way - say MS only allowed there OS to run on MS computers...

Or Penicillin only available in certain hospitals.

The greater good would be served by Apple being more flexible.

Nice argument by the way cmaier

1) that's irrelevant
2) so the 99.9% of people perfectly happy to run OS X on macs have to suffer so that a few loons can benefit?
3) please explain your basis for such a potential market. So far all of the evidence is that there is no such meaningful market (evidence including the tiny number of sales psystar made, the fact that almost no one actually hackintoshes other than for the technical challenge of it, etc.)

I wouldn't care if MS only allowed their OS to run on MS computers. But since you seem to care, you'll be happy to know that they cannot do that because that would be tying, and monopolists cannot tie. Non-monopolists can.

As for penicillin only available in certain hospitals, aside from the fact that no one dies from not being to run Mac OS on a crappy grey box, there ARE medical procedures and treatments only available at certain hospitals, due to patents. So what?

The greater good would NOT be served by APple being more flexible - in the 1990's they were as flexible as you would like, and came a hair's breadth away from being bankrupt. If they had been forced to continue along the path you so desire, today we would have no Mac OS X, no iPhones, no iPods, etc. We'd all be running Palm OS devices or Windows Mobile with crappy little resistive stylus-based interfaces and little keyboards. Microsoft Windows would still look something like WIndows 95 and would still run on DOS underpinnings.

Is this the pro-consumer world you're so excited about?

 

[KnightWRX]

Microsoft Windows would still look something like WIndows 95 and would still run on DOS underpinnings.

I think you're exagerating this part a bit. Windows NT saw the light of day before Windows 95 ever came out, before Mac OS X was even a glimmer in Apple's eyes. Windows 2000 shipped before OS X and was the first release to support consumer level hardware/software properly (while NT 4.0 had done some great leaps by allowing direct hardware access to graphics hardware, it still had a few hiccups on the driver availability side, and most importantly, Direct X availability).

Microsoft moved to the Windows NT platform for consumer release because it just made sense, not because of any kind of competition from Apple, which was on life support at the time.

 

[cmaier]

I think you're exagerating this part a bit. Windows NT saw the light of day before Windows 95 ever came out, before Mac OS X was even a glimmer in Apple's eyes. Windows 2000 shipped before OS X and was the first release to support consumer level hardware/software properly (while NT 4.0 had done some great leaps by allowing direct hardware access to graphics hardware, it still had a few hiccups on the driver availability side, and most importantly, Direct X availability).

Microsoft moved to the Windows NT platform for consumer release because it just made sense, not because of any kind of competition from Apple, which was on life support at the time.

yeah, well... exaggerating a little bit ain't no crime. You can't argue that Windows, as we know it today, was not heavily influenced by Mac OS.

 

[englishman]

yeah, well... exaggerating a little bit ain't no crime. You can't argue that Windows, as we know it today, was not heavily influenced by Mac OS.

And OS by Xerox Parc and we could all go on...

 

[BaldiMac]

And OS by Xerox Parc and we could all go on...

But we were discussing what might have happened if Apple went out of business in the 90s. Not what might have happened if Xerox went out of business in the 70s.

 

[gnasher729]

If I legitimately buy a CD I don't expect to be told in which players I can use it etc.

Nobody can tell you what to do with a physical object, but the copyright holder can tell you whether you are allowed to and under what circumstances you are allowed to copy their software.

As an example, just today I saw an advertisement where Microsoft sells Microsoft Office for I think about £80 with a family license that allows installation of up to three copies in the same household. So you are saying that every company is allowed to buy one of these family license packages for every three of their employers, and Microsoft would allow that and do nothing about it?

 

[englishman]

1) that's irrelevant
2) so the 99.9% of people perfectly happy to run OS X on macs have to suffer so that a few loons can benefit?
3) please explain your basis for such a potential market. So far all of the evidence is that there is no such meaningful market (evidence including the tiny number of sales psystar made, the fact that almost no one actually hackintoshes other than for the technical challenge of it, etc.)

I wouldn't care if MS only allowed their OS to run on MS computers. But since you seem to care, you'll be happy to know that they cannot do that because that would be tying, and monopolists cannot tie. Non-monopolists can.

As for penicillin only available in certain hospitals, aside from the fact that no one dies from not being to run Mac OS on a crappy grey box, there ARE medical procedures and treatments only available at certain hospitals, due to patents. So what?

The greater good would NOT be served by APple being more flexible - in the 1990's they were as flexible as you would like, and came a hair's breadth away from being bankrupt. If they had been forced to continue along the path you so desire, today we would have no Mac OS X, no iPhones, no iPods, etc. We'd all be running Palm OS devices or Windows Mobile with crappy little resistive stylus-based interfaces and little keyboards. Microsoft Windows would still look something like WIndows 95 and would still run on DOS underpinnings.

Is this the pro-consumer world you're so excited about?

1) I think its relevant because OSX is a very significant player, and is getting more significant by the day.

2) Who knows what benefits would ensue if SJ monopoly was broken.

3) We don't know but can guess on the potential market if cheaper clone macs were produced.

The analogy with medicine is relevant. Computers look after everything these days from medical equipment etc. No monopoly in it would be tolerated nor should it.

The "excitement" is more about the principle. I feel strongly here a big guy is drowning out the small guys and potential competitors.

It sounds as if it all boils down to whether companies can do what they want with their own stuff. You've agreed that they can't in certain situations. It then boils down to whether this case is an example of this situation. Is Apple big enough to be considered a monopoly in OSX hardware - unarguably. 5% is alot. Even MS is not an absolute monopoly - so where should the line be drawn - > 50% or ...

 

[englishman]

But we were discussing what might have happened if Apple went out of business in the 90s. Not what might have happened if Xerox went out of business in the 70s.

I should have made it clearer I was referring to the remark that Windows is a copy of OSX. OSX can be considered a copy of Xerox ideas.

 

[cmaier]

1) I think its relevant because OSX is a very significant player, and is getting more significant by the day.

2) Who knows what benefits would ensue if SJ monopoly was broken.

3) We don't know but can guess on the potential market if cheaper clone macs were produced.

The analogy with medicine is relevant. Computers look after everything these days from medical equipment etc. No monopoly in it would be tolerated nor should it.

The "excitement" is more about the principle. I feel strongly here a big guy is drowning out the small guys and potential competitors.

It sounds as if it all boils down to whether companies can do what they want with their own stuff. You've agreed that they can't in certain situations. It then boils down to whether this case is an example of this situation. Is Apple big enough to be considered a monopoly in OSX hardware - unarguably. 5% is alot. Even MS is not an absolute monopoly - so where should the line be drawn - > 50% or ...

1) but it's NOT significant - we're talking 5%.
2) There is no monopoly
3) Yes, we do know, because we have data. We have cited the data. You answer with vague hand-waving.

You cannot say that "unarguably. 5% is a lot." It's not a lot. A monopoly means you have "market power." You can set the industry's prices. Apple is nowhere close to that. By any definition they'd need more than 50% market share, and more likely closer to 70%.

And your argument that they have "a monopoly in OSX hardware" is ridiculous. That's not how monopolies work. Every entity that holds a trademark has 100% of the market in goods bearing that trademark. That's not how markets are, or should be, defined in antitrust law. MS has 100% of the xbox market. Sony 100% of the PS3 market. Dell has 100% of the Dell market. BMW has 100% of the idrive market. None of this is even the least bit relevant.

 

[englishman]

Good thing that's not a market by any stretch of the term. That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs. You can't have a monopoly over your own product. You can only have a monopoly on a market.

753 Psystar computers were sold. The last time we had Mac clones around, Apple almost died. There is no potential market for OS X on clones.

There are no MS computers.

Consumer electronics don't save lives nor are they a matter of life and death.

Now you're just being silly. We're talking about computers, not some kind of divine intervention.

Psystar has no case, and there's no argument here. You're just feeling somehow entitled to something and justify breaking Apple's EULA because of it. At least assume you are an outlaw, and live with it.

(McD) No it would be like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on burger fast food and no-one else can serve burgers. Maybe its taking the analogy too far.

(753) So why are apple suing?

(MS computers) - a hypothetical point to make an argument.

(Penicillin) Argument by analogy.

(Good) There are many examples of companies like Apple abusing their power. So there's an important principle at stake here. Not outlaw. Unless outlaws are how you would describe campaigners for freer competition.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Windows NT saw the light of day before Windows 95 ever came out, before Mac OS X was even a glimmer in Apple's eyes.

That's not necessarily true either, considering that Mac OSX's true history lies in NeXTSTEP, which was released in 1989. While Windows NT was in 1993 (Official Release)

 

[cmaier]

(753) So why are apple suing?

If someone broke into my house and stole 10 cents, I'd take legal action. Perhaps you prefer to let people push you around until it REALLY hurts.

 

[KnightWRX]

That's not necessarily true either, considering that Mac OSX's true history lies in NeXTSTEP, which was released in 1989. While Windows NT was in 1993 (Official Release)

It is very true. Notice I said "A glimmer in Apple's eye". NeXTSTEP was a product shipped by NeXT. Not Apple. They acquired NeXT in 1996.

Context. It's that important.

 

[englishman]

If someone broke into my house and stole 10 cents, I'd take legal action. Perhaps you prefer to let people push you around until it REALLY hurts.

Either clones are a threat or not. If they are then I would argue Apple is abusing its power to stifle the market. If they are no threat then the suing is just vindictive.

Your comparison with stealing isn't a fair one. No one is stealing. Psystar pays for every copy of OSX.

 

[Mr. McMac]

If someone broke into my house and stole 10 cents, I'd take legal action. Perhaps you prefer to let people push you around until it REALLY hurts.

If someone broke into my house, I'd shoot them dead....

 

[englishman]

1) but it's NOT significant - we're talking 5%.
2) There is no monopoly
3) Yes, we do know, because we have data. We have cited the data. You answer with vague hand-waving.

And your argument that they have "a monopoly in OSX hardware" is ridiculous. ... Sony 100% of the PS3 market. Dell has 100% of the Dell market. BMW has 100% of the idrive market. None of this is even the least bit relevant.

Every monopoly has to be a monopoly of something. Apple wants a monopoly on OSX HW. Even MS doesn't have a monopoly on say, electronic gadgets. Just on general purpose computers.

Look, this is going down a very dark place. Apple et al want to eventually create boxes that are not general purpose and are closed systems - what if they said you can only run Apple programs on Apple HW, no Adobe, no FFox etc - would you then support the community of MR in uproar? The Psystar thing is a significant battle in that war IMO.

 

[KnightWRX]

Either clones are a threat or not. If they are then I would argue Apple is abusing its power to stifle the market. If they are no threat then the suing is just vindictive.

Clones were not a threat because of the sales, but because of the confusion they caused. Many clones were just copies of existing Macs and the line-up became very large and very confusing to users.

 

[cmaier]

Every monopoly has to be a monopoly of something. Apple wants a monopoly on OSX HW. Even MS doesn't have a monopoly on say, electronic gadgets. Just on general purpose computers.

Look, this is going down a very dark place. Apple et al want to eventually create boxes that are not general purpose and are closed systems - what if they said you can only run Apple programs on Apple HW, no Adobe, no FFox etc - would you then support the community of MR in uproar? The Psystar thing is a significant battle in that war IMO.

If apple did that, I would be sad and move on to another, competing, platform (probably linux). I would not, however, think I had any right to demand Apple do due otherwise, as they are not a monopoly and they are thus free to do what they want.

 

[Sun Baked]

It is very true. Notice I said "A glimmer in Apple's eye". NeXTSTEP was a product shipped by NeXT. Not Apple. They acquired NeXT in 1996.

Context. It's that important.

Well, considering a lot of companies merge consolidate etc. and make use of the history of the purchased companies in their own rewritten history.

Which is why you still see some companies incorporated in the 1980's saying they've been in business over a hundred years.

So saying Mac OS X is now over 20 years old isn't too big a stretch either.

More than patents are sold these days, buying a long business history can be rather important also.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Every monopoly has to be a monopoly of something. Apple wants a monopoly on OSX HW. Even MS doesn't have a monopoly on say, electronic gadgets. Just on general purpose computers.

Look, this is going down a very dark place. Apple et al want to eventually create boxes that are not general purpose and are closed systems - what if they said you can only run Apple programs on Apple HW, no Adobe, no FFox etc - would you then support the community of MR in uproar? The Psystar thing is a significant battle in that war IMO.

sounds like you don't know what a monopoly is

 

[englishman]

If apple did that, I would be sad and move on to another, competing, platform (probably linux). I would not, however, think I had any right to demand Apple do due otherwise, as they are not a monopoly and they are thus free to do what they want.

OK cmaier. We have to agree to disagree then. At least it was a polite debate. I would want to intervene in such circumstances if I were a senator, for example or govt official. OSX must be running some critical systems where if 3rd party sw wasn't allowed bad consequences would follow. I am an interventionist.

 

[KnightWRX]

So saying Mac OS X is now over 20 years old isn't too big a stretch either.

It is. OS X shipped its first version in 1999. And even then, since that version was based off of OPENSTEP not NeXTSTEP, it goes back to 1993 if you really want to stretch and rewrite history. And OPENSTEP is very far from OS X Server 1.0 which wasn't near what the first consumer OS X version was in 2001.

Context people. Seriously, know your stuff.

Every monopoly has to be a monopoly of something. Apple wants a monopoly on OSX HW. Even MS doesn't have a monopoly on say, electronic gadgets. Just on general purpose computers.

Every monopoly has to be a monopoly of something. Yes, duh. Except again, Apple isn't a monopoly no matter how many times you repeat that.

 

[leroypants]

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.

Wow you could not be more wrong, but it is ok, i forgive your ignorance. MS is not a monopoly, their are plenty of alternatives (Mac OSX and Linux for example). It is not the fault of MS that they have the best product and the largest share of the computer market. Maybe if owning an Apple was not so obscenely expensive their share would be higher.

They would probably get in trouble, because they are a monopoly.

Once again while wearing your apple blinders you are wrong.

That's just FUD and a re-write of history.

Take off your apple colored glasses for two seconds, nevewrmind, forget it what's the point