Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Nov 2009 21:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 393413
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:
2005-07-24
I do, I'm not, it has not, I am, and I do better than you know.
The simple definition of monopoly: "A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service."
As you should know, MacOS X has spawned its very own market as soon as it was sold at retail. Just like Windows 7, inflatable diapers, or purple Pez dispensers. No court has said otherwise as a generality, as that is one of the primary arguments posed by Psystar and a denial made by Apple.
Apple is dead wrong. If the item can be purchased legally, by even one person, then that item has spawned its own market. Furthermore, if the item is sold without pre-condition at retail, it is then subject to the laws governing the retail market-place in the corresponding jurisdiction.
Once a market moves to the national stage, it is governed by the laws of the federal government and is then subject to anti-trust legislation.
One violation of anti-trust and copyright laws is post-conditions (after sale) governing usage of a copy of a copyrighted work ( such as a book ).
If Microsoft sold Windows 7 at retail, but only allowed Hewlett Packard to install it legally, suing every other company that deployed Windows 7, that would be illegal as well.
And don't be like all the other idiots who somehow think that Microsoft's OEM licensing program is designed to grant the right to distribute Windows, it is not. It is designed to provide, with restriction, low-cost Windows licenses for bulk sale.
While these contracts are legal, it has been contended that many clauses within them may be illegal due to anti-competitive measures which leverage the Microsoft monopoly on the OEM Operating System market. Microsoft, technically, doesn't have a monopoly on the Windows market.
Apple contends that only they can use their OS, or owners of Macintosh computers. Microsoft makes no such claim, because it would be illegal for a product in the retail market-place. Neither are required to sale at retail, but Microsoft chose to do so, and Apple accidentally did so. Accidents count the same.
They both sell at retail and are governed by the same laws. Microsoft and Apple both have a monopoly on a given market. Microsoft on the PC Operating System market ( but not the Windows market, mind you ), and Apple on the MacOS X market ( a market which Apple is now working to destroy as indicated by the Snow Leopard release method (upgrade from Leopard only) ).
Definitions:
Monopoly: ( see if this rings a bell )
An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market.
A monopoly is not automatically illegal.
It required Apple to sell MacOS X without pre-condition, on the open market, THEN claiming that MacOS X was exclusively a Macintosh System Software Upgrade. But you can't say that when you sell your product as a full-fledged operating system.
You can't. That is false marketing. And it is illegal. Intentions or not.
--The loon
Edited 2009-11-07 18:20 UTC