Trying to win longest post of the day?
Given how long your reply was, I might still win it yet if I try to reply to it all.
Follow the context. You claimed there were no acceptable reasons for not selling this app. I claimed that the fact that Apple doesn't want to sell the app is an acceptable reason. You claimed that what Apple wants is irrelevant.
No, I said there was no acceptable reason for Apple to not offer wireless syncing in 2010. I've been able wirelessly sync my AppleTV for the past three years. Why can't I do so for my iPod Touch or an iPhone. There is no technological barrier here. It should be a standard feature. Here someone follows Apple's "rules" and they get rejected because Apple is embarrassed that they do not have such a basic feature. They were probably hoping to offer it as a new feature around 2015 or so like with cut&paste.
Apple does not sell core services, so that was all tangent to the conversation.
It was your question as to what sociological constructs I subscribe to so I explained my position. If you don't want the answer, don't ask.
It is not anti-competition. OS X is a feature of Apple hardware that provides Apple with a competitive advantage.
OSX is *NOT* a "feature of Apple hardware" and only someone greatly intoxicated would buy into such a mis-direction, IMO. I mean that smacks of 3rd rate court drama trying to call
dirt a "feature of a shovel". OSX is an operating system that Apple makes and sells at retail at places like Best Buy. They have tied that operating system to their hardware by contract only and thus your ONLY valid point would be to try and convince people that Apple's blatant and obvious anti-competition by tying is simply not "significant" in terms of competition. The problem arises by your METHOD of pointing out market share for their operating system as opposed to their HARDWARE sales. Apple has more than significant hardware and monetary sales that DIRECTLY attributable to their "stranglehold" (I dare not call it a monopoly on here) on 100% of OSX hardware due to their contract forbidding its use on anyone else's hardware.
So basically, ANY argument against Apple breaking the Clayton Antitrust Act hinges on Apple being an insignificant player in the computer hardware industry. Given the fact they are normally in the top 5 of all hardware makers and they are now more profitable than Microsoft itself this past quarter, I would say your argument would fall FLAT on its feet in court when you try to convince people that Apple is not a significant player in the market and that their position as #1 in all U.S. desktop sales in terms of monetary profit does not signify the impact that tying has had in their ability to sell hardware *DESPITE* their less than 10% market share in the OS market.
In other words, they have achieved their hardware success not because their overall market is huge, but because they have forced 100% of all sales within their <10% share of the OS market. Put simply, this would not be the case if Dell or HP were allowed to sell their hardware to people that want OSX because then Apple would be forced to actually COMPETE for those sales instead of having a shoe-in on ALL sales. Dell and HP cannot stop Apple from selling Windows or Linux only machines, but Apple seems to think it can stop HP and Dell from selling OSX installed machines. Maybe you'd like to point out that Microsoft controls that not Dell or HP. But then you would be admitting that hardware and software are in fact TWO SEPARATE MARKETS and thus the tying rule applies in full force so long as the impact is significant. The fact that it's easily shown that Apple's hardware sales are MORE than "significant" then yes indeed, Clayton applies to Apple and they are breaking the law.
You like to point out that Apple should not have to sell anything, but then you ignore the fact that no one else is allowed to fill in the gaps that Apple leaves within that market. In essence, you are arguing that Apple should be allowed to have a hardware monopoly for OSX no matter how much money they make or how much impact that has on the overall hardware market. I mean just exactly what is YOUR definition of "significant"? I've seen "monopoly" come up all the time in past threads on this topic, but the law quite plainly says "OR" monopoly not "AND" monopoly. If Apple hinders even 10% of potential sales of other 3rd party manufacturers, that's not significant? Tell that to the shareholders. Companies have outsourced jobs overseas for less.
As has been explained to you many, many times antitrust claims require significant and durable market power. You, yourself, have posted evidence of this requirement.
It is not illegal to tie two product together in the absence of such power. How can you argue that tying OS X to Apple hardware lessens competition when Apple has less than 10% of the market! It's competitors have 90+% of the market. How can you show that competition has been lessened?
"Durable" is nowhere to be found in the law I quoted. "Significant" is admittedly a bit subjective, but it comes down to what a jury member would consider "significant market impact" and I dare say being the #3 overall and #1 desktop profit maker on the planet is pretty darn significant to an average person. Given Apple ONLY makes hardware directly for OSX and no one else is allowed to install it, I would say that gives them 100% of that market segment. 10% may be "insignificant" for the OS market, but 10% of all world-wide hardware is more than a little significant. It's HUGE and Apple's RECORD BREAKING profits during the biggest recession since the Great Depression PROVES just how "significant" it is to have a market chunk where you have ZERO competition (i.e. the whole 10%).
The greater mystery is how someone like yourself could sit there with a straight face and actually try to convince someone that Apple's hardware share is NOT significant given the numbers they pull. As for your latter statement, you CANNOT prove a negative so that's just blatant mis-direction again.
What entitles you to break the law?
What law have I broken? I paid for Snow Leopard. I paid for my Dell computer. Apple's tying clause is illegal and therefore NULL AND VOID under law. Thus, I have not broken any law. Apple has. At most I violated their EULA. Let them come and get me. I even put an Apple sticker over the "dell" on the front! I'm sure that violates something (good taste?)
It was recently reaffirmed by the court in the Psystar case that they do have that right.
Prove it. The case Psystar lost (for the millionth time since you keep ignoring it) was about COPYRIGHTS *NOT* antitrust law. Psystar modified OSX to install it early on and that's what dug their grave. If they had not modified it they'd be selling the machines today and that's a fact because Apple could not have even had that day in court without the copyright violation.
Psystar's countersuit was denied by the same judge to even be heard. One judge does not a country make. This is why we have higher level courts. Decisions are OFTEN overturned again and again. To pretend that the case is settled because one judge refused to hear it is absurd. One need only to read the law to see the obvious. Given the corruption of judges in recent years that like to create laws from the bench and put into place by corrupt government officials that take bribes from large corporations, it doesn't surprise me that these things happen.
Do you not notice that Apple is growing at a phenomenal rate? Maybe your suggestion is not really necessary.
And yet you keep telling me that growth is not "significant". How trite.
Apple is not stopping other hardware manufactures from offering any products other than those products that belong to Apple.
If a company buys OSX at retail and installs it on their own hardware, it is not Apple's product to dictate what it can and cannot be installed on due to the tying clause of the Clayton Antitrust Act (again you cannot seem to comprehend what a tying clause is and why it exists; its sole purpose is prevent EXACTLY this kind of thing). Apple's purpose in preventing OSX from being installed is not to protect their product (OSX) or even a control measure for OSX. Its SOLE PURPOSE is to monopolize 100% of hardware sales for that operating system. Sorry, but that's simply ILLEGAL.
You didn't call me a fan, you called me an Apple drone. You own more Apple products than me. I have never posted on the boards to simply praise Apple. I like discussing issues such as antitrust law and copyright law. Most of my posts in this forum are about these topics. I don't come on here to praise or defend Apple.
And the difference between a "fan" (which is short for fanatic) and a "drone" is?
I have no emotional allegiance to Apple.
So you say, yet I've seen little from you in recent threads to suggest to me that you disagree with Apple on anything significant. Or do I have to define significant? Does that require monopoly power to be significant first? I guess you're not a drone then.
Consumer-based needs or desires are only half the equation in a capitalistic economy.
Capitalism like any form of economics is meant to benefit the whole of the country overall. Most of the laws (e.g. DMCA) being passed in the U.S. over the past couple of decades have been designed to protect the top 5% tier of income earners in this country (the only people all Republicans support and even a good chunk of the Democrats since it takes money to get into office in the first place and corporations tend to have most of it). Thus the imbalance of laws designed to screw the average person versus those designed to protect him are becoming completely off-kilter. If you'll notice that Antitrust Laws were written a LONG time ago when the country was a bit more sensible at recognizing that is a BAD BAD thing to have giant corporations control the overall commerce of the country. Why aren't those laws being enforced today by judges that would throw out the Psystar counter suit and refuse to even hear it? It's obvious. Those judges were put into place by Republicans and even corrupt Democrats who owe their allegiance to such large corporations and would not raise a finger against them as it would be like cutting off their own heads.
There are laws in place that should have prevented the oils spill disaster in the Gulf. If you look into it, you'll see those laws were circumvented and just plain IGNORED by the people that were supposed to be representing the people of this country but were really slaves to personal greed and corruption. This is a simple FACT. In my opinion, the government of the United States is becoming so corrupt in general that it no longer can be considered a democracy in any sense of the word. You have two choices. Bad and worse. "We The People" is now "We The Corporations" and frankly, that SUCKS. People should be royally cheesed off at what is happening to this country and some are. Most are too busy eating McDonald's cheeseburgers or smoking dope in California to even notice, though.
Apple has initiated two significant lawsuits in the last decade. Psystar and HTC. Only one related to patents. How are they a poster child for your rant?
If you think Apple has only filed two patent lawsuits in the past decade, you must be on something. They filed more than that in the past two months.
I'll give you this, though. I don't see any court cases coming against Apple any time soon to cripple their hardware sales. That would require finding a judge willing to hear a case of a small company against a large one and it would require a LOT of money to push the case. That alone pretty much ensures small companies can't beat larger ones. The federal government would have to push the antitrust case and that would probably require some serious media attention before one could even HOPE they'd get off their butts to do anything. But then even when they do prosecute someone like Microsoft, a corrupt judge will just reverse the decision on appeal, so WTF is the point. Apparently, justice only works in Europe these days since that's the only place lawsuits against large companies actually seem to stick.
