What Is the Issue in the Psystar Case?
Linked by Nescio on Mon 9th Mar 2009 08:05 UTC
Apple Numerous irrelevant issues and feelings about them are ventilated in comments on the case. However, there are only two important issues. One is what the law is, the other is what we think the law should be.
E-mail Print r 12   · Read More · 113 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/ga8
Permalink for comment 352349
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by rhavyn on Mon 9th Mar 2009 22:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"FYI, there is nothing wrong with tying your product to the products of another company. The console gaming industry proves this point quite nicely.

Except it's illegal. From wikipedia:
Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[1], and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[2] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."


Basically, the idea isn't that it doesn't work on other operating systems, just that they cannot stop me if I want to use it on another operating system (and find a way to do so). "

You need to read your own quote. Certain tying arrangements are illegal, however it was also ruled that it is impossible for a company to have a monopoly on their own products. So the Sherman Act simply doesn't apply.

Additionally, if you read that strictly (which you apparently want to do), then you have just outlawed accessories since accessories always require the "tied" product in order to function.

"The simple fact is, companies do have the right to restrict how you use their products. It has been litigated repeatedly. Go take a look and see how far the bnetd guys got.

That was a different issue, they were going on about piracy, the ability to play on a local server without having bought a license. " [/q]

Please don't move the goal posts. You want to claim that tying is illegal and that companies can't artificially restrict how their products can be used. Both of those claims are, on their face, invalid. There are certain situations where they could be true, but you're going to need to prove that the circumstances in Apple's case meets any of them. And so far you haven't.

Reply Parent Score: 3