OSNews > Thread > "RE[3]: Uhhh" by jessta

Judge Dismisses Computer Maker's Claims Apple Is a Monopoly

Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Nov 2008 21:40 UTC

~~Strike one for Apple.~~ Curling is a better sport anyway - the first end goes to Apple. The Cupertino company sued clone maker PsyStar for licensing and trademark violations and copyright infringement, only to be greeted by a counter lawsuit from PsyStar, who claimed Apple was a monopolist. U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with Apple on the counter lawsuit Tuesday. In his 16-page decision Tuesday, Alsup ruled Apple's products don't constitute a market to dominate. As a consequence, Apple then can't be considered a monopolist, Alsup wrote. An Apple spokesman had no comment. A representative for Psystar couldn't be reached for comment. The original lawsuit is still running, so PsyStar can, for now, continue selling its clones.

2 28 Comment(s)

http://osne.ws/fux

Thread beginning with comment 337789
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.

RE[3]: Uhhh

by jessta on Wed 19th Nov 2008 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2005-08-17

Apple is fair worse than Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't tie you to only buying their hardware.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[4]: Uhhh

by UZ64 on Wed 19th Nov 2008 23:52 in reply to "RE[3]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2006-12-05

Apple is fair worse than Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't tie you to only buying their hardware.

Yeah, but they do quite a good job at anchoring the world to the Intel architecture.

I'd like to see SPARC and ARM take off. At the current rate I doubt SPARC will go anywhere fast, but with Ubuntu's new commitment toward ARM-powered netbooks/laptops, at least ARM has a chance of rising. Either one, though, I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited 2008-11-20 00:08 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[5]: Uhhh

by unclefester on Thu 20th Nov 2008 00:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2007-01-13

MS supports AMD64, IA64 and x86 architectures. They also supported PowerPC back in the NT3.x days. They have never locked anyone into any hardware.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Read more of this thread...

RE[5]: Uhhh

by proforma on Thu 20th Nov 2008 10:18 in reply to "RE[4]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2005-08-27

Microsoft did support other processors earlier on with Windows NT. However, they were never supported properly and programmers did not write for them so they dropped off the map and Windows was later moved to Intel ONLY.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[4]: Uhhh

by mxcl on Thu 20th Nov 2008 17:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2008-05-22

Apple don't either. They just won't let you sell their software on other hardware. You're free to install it on whatever you want, if you can.

Anyway, Apple use open stuff all over their stack. Not everywhere, much to our annoyance, but far more so than Microsoft. I can't understand your opinion at all.

Edited 2008-11-20 17:43 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[5]: Uhhh

by mightshade on Fri 21st Nov 2008 01:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Uhhh"

Member since:
2008-11-20

You're free to install it on whatever you want, if you can.

Are you sure? What about that clause in the OSX EULA, allowing you to install OSX on Apple computers only? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your post?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1