Psystar Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones

[cmaier]

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 Linus 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.

Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly. They eventually had to settle. Microsoft did things like purposely degrading the operation of third party software that competed with them, and tied products (which you cannot do if you have monopoly market power). They are a legal monopoly (you seem to think to be a monopoly there has to be no competition. That is not the legal definition - we aren't talking oligopoly vs. monopoly like in economics).

 

[englishman]

sounds like you don't know what a monopoly is

OK I won't get hung up on the word "monopoly".

In the UK the CC Competition Commission regulates such things.

Look at para 3:

"3. one of the following must be true:

• the business being taken over has a turnover in the UK of at least £70 million; or

• the combined businesses supply (or acquire) at least 25 per cent of a particular product or service in the UK (or in a substantial part of the UK), and the merger results in an increase in the share of supply or consumption.

In exceptional cases where public interest issues are raised, the Secretary of State may also refer mergers to the CC."

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/about_us/index.htm

Maybe not 25% of the computer market. But the principle is that a case doesn't need to constitute a true monopoly to be unfair. I would argue that Apple using its power here is unfair in the spirit of the law.

 

[leroypants]

Microsoft was found guilty of being a monopoly. They eventually had to settle. Microsoft did things like purposely degrading the operation of third party software that competed with them, and tied products (which you cannot do if you have monopoly market power). They are a legal monopoly (you seem to think to be a monopoly there has to be no competition. That is not the legal definition - we aren't talking oligopoly vs. monopoly like in economics).

How many years ago was that?

Sounds kind of exactly like what Apple is doing to Flash on macs......

 

[KnightWRX]

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).

And we're to accept your comment as the truth based on what exactly ? Meanwhile, both the EU and the US courts have clearly identified Microsoft as a monopoly. We're to believe they are also both wrong ?

 

[englishman]

Oh and everybody chill man

I'm off to bed.

 

[Liquorpuki]

OK I won't get hung up on the word "monopoly".

In the UK the CC Competition Commission regulates such things.

Look at para 3:

"3. one of the following must be true:

• the business being taken over has a turnover in the UK of at least £70 million; or

• the combined businesses supply (or acquire) at least 25 per cent of a particular product or service in the UK (or in a substantial part of the UK), and the merger results in an increase in the share of supply or consumption.

In exceptional cases where public interest issues are raised, the Secretary of State may also refer mergers to the CC."

http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/about_us/index.htm

You're talking about mergers now, which is totally different

 

[cmaier]

How many years ago was that?

Sounds kind of exactly like what Apple is doing to Flash on macs......

Microsoft still has well north of 80% marketshare. They still have monopoly power, though they may or may not be abusing that power - either way they are a monopoly. It is not illegal nor wrong to be a monopoly, so long as one doesn't abuse monopoly power. Microsoft remains a monopoly at least in the PC OS and office suite markets, and probably still in the browser market.

What Apple is doing to flash on macs? Flash runs on macs. Apple isn't actively degrading performance of flash. Even if you believe apple refuses access to critical APIs (maybe true, maybe not), that's not what microsoft did - they actively detected competitive office suites and caused them to run poorly. And Apple does not have monopoly power, so your point is moot - there is no law against behaving that way unless you are a monopoly. MS is a monopoly and Apple is not.

 

[MorphingDragon]

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.

Yes, but NeXTStep has been under the control of steve jobs, even as its known now as Mac OSX.

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?

You can patent medicinal treatments in America? I can understand drugs but medical treatments?

Scary.

 

[KnightWRX]

Yes, but NeXTStep has been under the control of steve jobs, even as its known now as Mac OSX.

And again I point out that I said : "A glimmer in Apple's eye". Look, you got it wrong, just move on.

 

[cmaier]

Yes, but NeXTStep has been under the control of steve jobs, even as its known now as Mac OSX.



You can patent medicinal treatments in America? I can understand drugs but medical treatments?

Scary.

Yes. In most countries you can patent any useful process, including medical treatments, including, for example, surgical methods.

 

[MorphingDragon]

And again I point out that I said : "A glimmer in Apple's eye". Look, you got it wrong, just move on.

Nah, its more annoying to drag it out.

 

[charlituna]

Competition is surely good.

Competition is very good. Which is why consumers have a choice in OSs.

I'd think Psystar has a good case.

Not at all. Because Psystar violated copyright and the DMCA and tried to play it off as anti-trust saying that Apple legally could not protect their IP. Trouble is that there is NOT a Macintosh computer market as Psystar tried to claim. The market is personal computers. Macs are just one part of it and not even the dominate one. So Psystar's claim of anti-trust was a huge fail.

Ok so Apple should be forced to licence their stuff for a fair market price.

So you believe the government should control technology. Dictate what and how they can create software etc.
What next, governments telling networks what must and must not be in their tv shows, Studios what will be in movies, record labels what songs they can write.

Not really any different.

Mind you, Apple does have a choice. THey can shut down and simply stop making their software. Or are they going to be forced to stay in business and do what the government wants.

 

[meatballs]

Flash runs on macs.

Barely. Why does Apple want our processors to take all the load when MS lets our GPUs take care of it?

Apple isn't actively degrading performance of flash.

Correct, Apple is inactively downgrading the performance of Flash in OS X.

 

[cmaier]

Barely. Why does Apple want our processors to take all the load when MS lets our GPUs take care of it?

I guess you haven't heard of 10.1?

Correct, Apple is inactively downgrading the performance of Flash in OS X.

How so?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Barely. Why does Apple want our processors to take all the load when MS lets our GPUs take care of it?

Correct, Apple is inactively downgrading the performance of Flash in OS X.

Regardless of Apple's reluctance to open APIs to anyone, can you explain why silverlight performs better than Flash on Mac OSX and Windows without hardware acceleration?

Flash shouldn't need hardware acceleration to run smoothly.

 

[meatballs]

I guess you haven't heard of 10.1?

Sure I have but in OS X only three GPUs are supported.

How so?

By not giving Adobe sufficient information to provide us with a version of Flash that is as good as the one for Windows. A 1080p youtube video eats only 10% of my CPU in W7 but in OS X the figure is closer to 60%.

 

[meatballs]

Flash shouldn't need hardware acceleration to run smoothly.

Why not take advantage of the processing power of the GPU?

 

[cmaier]

Sure I have but in OS X only three GPUs are supported.



By not giving Adobe sufficient information to provide us with a version of Flash that is as good as the one for Windows. A 1080p youtube video eats only 10% of my CPU in W7 but in OS X the figure is closer to 60%.

Big difference between not providing active assistance to Adobe, and intentionally detecting a competing office suite and making it run like crap.

As for only 3 GPUs, give it time.

 

[MorphingDragon]

By not giving Adobe sufficient information to provide us with a version of Flash that is as good as the one for Windows. A 1080p youtube video eats only 10% of my CPU in W7 but in OS X the figure is closer to 60%.

How is providing the nVidia acceleration libraries not enough information? They're nVidia's libraries, Apple doesn't need to give them any information.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

They never paid for any of the copies installed on their computers. They paid for unopened boxes that they shipped alongside their computers, which the customer could completely legally install on any Apple branded computer. So the customer got two copies of MacOS X: One legal, in a box, paid for, ready to install on a Macintosh, one illegal copy, made contrary to copyright law, for which Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000 (and got away with it cheaply). The real bummer was the fine for CDMA violation at $2500 per shipped computer.

Do you think by locking my front door and not letting any burglars in I am abusing my power to stifle the market in second hand DVD players? Any computer company could legally sell computers with MacOS X installed, all they had to do was outbid Apple when NeXT was for sale and offer more than Apple's $400 million, and then put another billion or so into the development of the software. Well, they didn't. Their choice.

 

[gnasher729]

By not giving Adobe sufficient information to provide us with a version of Flash that is as good as the one for Windows. A 1080p youtube video eats only 10% of my CPU in W7 but in OS X the figure is closer to 60%.

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with hardware acceleration. h.264 is hard, but not that hard. The amount of CPU power that Flash needs even for a tiny Youtube video is ridiculous, even for a decoder purely done in the CPU.

 

[englishman]

Do you think by locking my front door and not letting any burglars in I am abusing my power to stifle the market in second hand DVD players?

Good morning everyone.

Gnasher. If you were a business, and you prevented people from using something in a certain way yes you would be out of order. The analogy is buying an item and being told you can only use on Tuesdays in Texas. If I buy something I want to use it my way. ie put OSX on any machine I like.

 

[OllyW]

Good morning everyone.

Gnasher. If you were a business, and you prevented people from using something in a certain way yes you would be out of order. The analogy is buying an item and being told you can only use on Tuesdays in Texas. If I buy something I want to use it my way. ie put OSX on any machine I like.

If you buy a copy of OS X and load it on your PC for personal use then nobody is going to stop you.

If you build a couple of hundred PCs, load them with OS X and launch a company and advertise and sell them on then you are going to be stopped.

 

[KnightWRX]

Good morning everyone.

Gnasher. If you were a business, and you prevented people from using something in a certain way yes you would be out of order. The analogy is buying an item and being told you can only use on Tuesdays in Texas. If I buy something I want to use it my way. ie put OSX on any machine I like.

You bought a license. You agreed to it. The physical CD itself you can do whatever you please with.

 

[englishman]

You bought a license. You agreed to it.

The terms are unfair. This is established in law that if you are made to agree to something unreasonable you can't be held to it.

For example there are laws governing goods being fit for purpose and having a certain lifespan. This establishes the principle that just because I am the vendor I can't set unreasonable terms.