News Judge rules against Psystar

with <10% market share? lol.

 

I will, in between crying in my sleep

Wether or not Microsoft has a monopoly on the marked depends on how you look at it, if you look at desktops then yes, but looking at laptops apple has a mutch greater market share than 10 %, thus making this a competitive market and not a monopoly.

 

Can't really agree with that. Even if you treat the iMac as a laptop due to the components being laptop components. Why do you think Apple have paid good money to defend their position in this case? If it had to sell just it's operating system it would go bust over night. Would you pay £2,000 for a system you could build yourself for £750?

 

No, no they're not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

 

Mircosoft got slammed by anti-monoply laws. These laws don't apply to Apple because they aren't a monopoly, simple as.

I think it's fair enough. Psystar were blatently infringing on Apple's copyright protection, there's no way they could have ever thought what they were doing was remotely legal.

It'd be like a musician taking a sample of someone else's song, placing it in their own without their permission, and then selling the mash-up on their own new album. It's not "freeing the song", it's just stealing. Even if they bought a copy of the original song for every copy of the new version they sold, and credited the original artist, it's still illegal.

 

Did Psystar sell the machines with a legal payed for license of OSX? if they did then then its not the same as stealing another artists song as each copy sold would have been payed for, in the same way as royalties would be payed to the original artist.

Im not saying apple are wrong, i would have done the same in their situation, and they may not be the market leader like microsoft, But forcing people to use specific hardware that has to be bought from them to use OSX is wrong imo.

Just because your the bigger or smaller company shouldnt make the rules any different, What if microsoft wanted to scrap their current business plan and sell their own branded computers running windows, Banning all other computer manufacturers from using windows?

Its not going to happen but what if?

 

They'd be smacked round the head quicker than you can say anti-competitiveness

 

Greetings!

Because there is a market share difference between MS and Apple.

 

The problem here is that they are selling it. If the hack was freely distributed I imagine that whilst Apple would still pursue it, they would have a weaker case. As soon as someone takes somebody else's operating system (Apple's) and then makes a change and tries to sell it on at a profit, it breaks the law.

Could I buy Mirror's Edge and change the lead character to a bloke and re-sell it, calling it "Mirror's Edge" special edition? I think EA would have the lawyers on me pretty fast.

That's my take

 

I suspect you wouldn't believe that all companies should be treated the same if you explored the issues a little.

There are very few monopolies in existence these days, so Microsoft are pretty much going to have to be my example. As you say, what if Microsoft started to only sell Windows with their own computers, which had a starting price of $2000? Furthermore, they aggressively pursued court action against anyone infringing upon any one of their many thousands of patents so as to make it extremely hard for anyone to give the consumer what the consumer wanted in a computer. What if they also only allowed software they had developed in house to be run on an MS computer, and all the software cost at least $100?

This would be stopped by governments, because it has a seriously negative outcome for the consumer. Microsoft have the power, up to a point, to screw over the consumer as a direct result of their monopoly. This can't happen in an environment in which there are numerous real competitors.

I'm not generally someone who favours government regulation of the free markets, but paradoxically, to ensure they remain free markets, government intervention is required.

 

I do understand why apple arent technically in the same boat as MS, and im glad that massive companies are government bound for the benefit of the consumer.

I just think that it shouldnt be right for apple to force OSX to only be available on mac hardware, especially now as the hardware apple use is more or less the same as the consumer can buy in the shops.

People will still buy apple products because they look great, I cant see how a company building a PC and shipping it with OSX would cause apple to lose money, Surely the people that buy them couldnt afford or wouldnt have bought a mac anyways?

 

calm down kids. Apple spend loads of cash for R&D on their products. when you buy a mac you also get a license for mac os, check the eula, you are licensed to use it if you don't agree you are not forced to and get linux or whatever os you prefer.

psystar is bunch of thieves who stole from hackint0sh community and currently are selling rebel efi which confilcts with tha APSL (check http://netkas.org/?p=310). they cannot hack someones work, use their code, twist it and do i don't know what with it without their permission it's not fair practice, not at all.

just grow up and take it as a fact. apple developed mac os to run on mac hardware. if you don't like it get something else than mac, if you want to run mac os buy a mac. period.