Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Thread beginning with comment 341570
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Funny anecdote. There's a tire chain (Les Schwab) on the West coast that offered free steaks when you bought a full set of tires for your car.
My parents have a cabin on Grand Lake here in Oklahoma. I spent a lot of time there when I was growing up. Afton was one of the close-by townships. And one of the businesses near there was "Afton Radiator Repair and Flower Shop". I think you could do business with one division without purchasing from the other, though. So it wasn't exactly "tying". ;-)
Edited 2008-12-26 20:32 UTC




Member since:
2006-01-06
Product tying is, in fact, fully legal, as long as you don't hold monopoly power. The idea is that, if you hold monopoly power, you can essentially force a customer to buy another product/service with the monopoly product by tying them together. Apple doesn't hold a monopoly on Intel computers or OSes; hence, they are permitted under law to tie the products together. Similarly, the courts recognize that certain products are designed to work in conjunction with one another. For example, a computer is useless without an operating system; hence, for all practical purposes, it is "natural" to tie the two products together.
Funny anecdote. There's a tire chain (Les Schwab) on the West coast that offered free steaks when you bought a full set of tires for your car. I'm not sure what possessed them to think that selling tires with steak was a good idea. This, in my opinion, was a good example of "unnatural" tying. ;-p
I doubt seriously that Apple has the power to force you, the customer, to run a separately purchased copy of OS X on their hardware, if you choose not to. There are legitimate reasons why copyright can be legally violated (e.g. Fair Use, etc). BUT, we're not talking about you, the customer, here. We're talking about a company (Psystar) that is RESELLING Apple's operating system and running it on alternate hardware, in violation of copyright. That's very different. The courts tend to treat copyright violation with respect to commercial enterprises more stringently because the potential for harm is greater.
There's an easy way that Psystar could have gotten around this issue. They could have had the customer buy the OS from Apple and the computer hardware from Psystar. They could have provided automated software to do the install on the Psystar hardware. Game over. Apple wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But, no, unfortunately, Psystar opted to take on Apple directly (a bad idea, for a small company) by attempting to resell Apple's operating system. Big mistake.