Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:49 UTC
We already had the news about Psystar's Rebel EFI possibly including open source code, but now we have another story which doesn't really seem to bode well for the small Florida clone maker. Gizmodo has a story on an interesting customer experience.
Thread beginning with comment 393283
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.
Member since:2006-06-21
Can I take a rear-view mirror or a wheel from a Volvo and put it on a Ford? In all likeliness, I cannot. I can buy the wheel or the mirror separately, yet I can't use them with others cars than the Ford model they were meant for.
Does this mean Ford is a monopoly? Because that's what your line of reasoning sounds like to me.
Member since:2005-07-24
Can I take a rear-view mirror or a wheel from a Volvo and put it on a Ford? In all likeliness, I cannot. I can buy the wheel or the mirror separately, yet I can't use them with others cars than the Ford model they were meant for.
Does this mean Ford is a monopoly? Because that's what your line of reasoning sounds like to me.
Does this mean Ford is a monopoly? Because that's what your line of reasoning sounds like to me.
Sure you can, legally speaking. Granted the Ford may need some modifications for correct fitment, but Volvo will not sue anyone for making a car compatible with their rims. That just means more rims sold!
The rear view mirror is a different matter, the Volvo uses a special mounting mechanism so that the mirror is not attached to the windshield. Volvo will not sue you for making a car capable of using their mirrors, either.
Indeed, if I started a company making a car that used any given number of Volvo parts and called the car something else, Volvo wouldn't sue me then either. It just means more parts that Volvo sales.
Indeed, such companies even exist!
However, if I bought a bunch of Volvo parts, mixed them with some cheap knock-offs, then called the car a Volvo - Volvo would sue the living bejesus out of me!
That is what Apple is trying to claim Psystar is doing, which is not the case. Psystar is very up front about what they are doing, and have learned to be even more so.
I just hope they didn't take Apple's bait ( Snow Leopard ). I will research that more when I get home.
--The loon
Member since:
2005-07-24
Monopolies can exist in many different forms.
At least in law.
At least as it pertains to anti-trust legislation.
Price dumping is NOT permitted in the national market place. Local companies don't matter and are generally unregulated.
We are talking about U.S. law, where the bulk of my knowledge resides, in absolute exclusivity.
Apple has a (horizontal) monopoly on MacOS X. This is because the product was and is available for purchase on the open market, yet they have taken extraordinary efforts to restrict those who may use the product with competing products.
It is like Ford selling their V8 engines in bulk, without any contracts, to a competing car maker, then preventing that company from using those engines in production cars because Ford designed the engine to say "For use in Ford cars only," once it was started.
It is EXACTLY the same.
And it is anti-trust, which, in legal vernacular, is referred to as being monopolistic behavior.
Monopolies are not illegal, it all depends on what a company does to become one and what they do once they are one.
If Apple never sold MacOS X at retail, there would be no problem. A Macintosh would be considered a whole, including its software. MacOS X, sold separately, without contract, at retail, is governed by the laws of the jurisdictions in which it is sold. The U.S. banned restrictive terms of use long ago, so the EULA restrictions are useless.
The only way the restrictions can hold merit is if MacOS X can be proven to not be a normal product on the market. This cannot be shown. You can go and buy a copy of MacOS X without precondition. There is nothing on the packaging to indicate that a part of the price is included with the product.
Snow Leopard uses a revised strategy from Apple to help address this exact problem. Hence the $29 upgrade price from Leopard.
This does mean, however, that Psystar should be buying Leopard, then buying Snow Leopard, in order to ship computers with Snow Leopard. If they are not, they are breaking the law, now.
You see, things have changed. Apple is well within their rights to limit Snow Leopard to being merely an upgrade from Leopard. That is fine - and is not what I am talking about.
The problem is historical, and likely will exist in the future unless Apple follows my advice.
They can keep the upgrade at $29, make a bigger version more expensive, and a full version even more expensive.
All except for the most expensive package should be limited to Apple hardware by current means. The cheapest limited to upgrade one version to the next, only ( such Leopard to Snow Leopard ). The most expensive version ( which should be hella expensive, BTW ) would have no requirements, but no support ( unless you own a Mac, of course, which includes the service fee, so long as you keep your system software relatively up to date ;-) ).
Trust me, I know more than you would ever imagine.
--The loon