[Updated 8/04] Apple Sues Unauthorized Clone Maker Psystar

[giga Veteran]

What's a lier?

[chrisj1968]

Maybe I'm just incredibly stupid, but I fail to see how Apple is a monopoly in any way. You can choose to use other hardware and you can choose to use other software. What's the problem?

This "OMG MONOPOLY!!!111" stuff is getting a little old.

the monopoly is that Apple wants you to buy THEIR hardware to run THEIR software. What this company is doing is akin to what clone PC's did to IBM, make things competitive. IF this company wins, then I'd see Apple lower prices to stay competitive..then again not!

IMHO, Apple are such dumb ****s when it comes to prices. :sleep:

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

That doesn't make them a monopoly.

They aren't the sole supplier of computers, they are just a OEM that has a custom OS they only support on their branded hardware (Anybody can buy and run OS X without support)

Edit: And they aren't unfairly pushing competitors out of the market, suing somebody for copyright infringement because they're redistributing your software when they're not allowed to doesn't count.

[strekship]

Yep, it's funny.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm#t22

Intellectual property and market power

Market power is the ability profitably to maintain prices above, or output below, competitive levels for a significant period of time.(10) The Agencies will not presume that a patent, copyright, or trade secret necessarily confers market power upon its owner. Although the intellectual property right confers the power to exclude with respect to the specific product, process, or work in question, there will often be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes for such product, process, or work to prevent the exercise of market power.(11)

If a patent or other form of intellectual property does confer market power, that market power does not by itself offend the antitrust laws. As with any other tangible or intangible asset that enables its owner to obtain significant supracompetitive profits, market power (or even a monopoly) that is solely "a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident" does not violate the antitrust laws.(12) Nor does such market power impose on the intellectual property owner an obligation to license the use of that property to others. As in other antitrust contexts, however, market power could be illegally acquired or maintained, or, even if lawfully acquired and maintained, would be relevant to the ability of an intellectual property owner to harm competition through unreasonable conduct in connection with such property.

I'm sorry, but I am only in my second week of business law. Is that saying that Apple does not need to license out the use of OSX on other computers?

[shihchiun]

It says that Apple being able to tell people what hardware OS X can run on does not necessarily mean Apple has a monopoly. It also says that, yes, Apple does not have to license OS X if it doesn't want to.

the monopoly is that Apple wants you to buy THEIR hardware to run THEIR software. What this company is doing is akin to what clone PC's did to IBM, make things competitive. IF this company wins, then I'd see Apple lower prices to stay competitive..then again not!

IMHO, Apple are such dumb ****s when it comes to prices. sleeping.gif

You know what I did when I realized that Apple's hardware is overpriced crap? I stopped using OS X. Do you know what effect that had on my life? None. If there was really a monopoly, I would have had two choices: use Apple products, or stop using computers altogether.

Just because Apple decides what hardware you can and cannot use OS X on does not make them a monopoly, because as I stated in the very post you quoted, you can choose other software and you can choose other hardware. The people that buy Apple products are not being forced to; they actually want to. Is the stuff expensive? Sure. But you can't say it's a monopoly until people have no other choice but to buy from Apple, which isn't the case.

Edited August 30, 2008 by shihchiun

[chrisj1968]

It says that Apple being able to tell people what hardware OS X can run on does not necessarily mean Apple has a monopoly. It also says that, yes, Apple does not have to license OS X if it doesn't want to.

You know what I did when I realized that Apple's hardware is overpriced crap? I stopped using OS X. Do you know what effect that had on my life? None. If there was really a monopoly, I would have had two choices: use Apple products, or stop using computers altogether.

Just because Apple decides what hardware you can and cannot use OS X on does not make them a monopoly, because as I stated in the very post you quoted, you can choose other software and you can choose other hardware. The people that buy Apple products are not being forced to; they actually want to. Is the stuff expensive? Sure. But you can't say it's a monopoly until people have no other choice but to buy from Apple, which isn't the case.

I think discussions such as this are compelling reasons why Linux looks so much more appealing. But linux can't even get itself into the mainstream to challenge the likes of Apple or MS.

I've heard that APPLES OSX runs good but, the prices that Jobs and Co. sell their systems for could be equated to legalized ass rape and the people who buy apple stuff just love it!!!

I'll patiently wait to see how this unfolds...

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Ehh, the prices are similar to other computer systems.

Low end dells aren't much cheaper than low end macs here.

[(Spork)]

Ehh, the prices are similar to other computer systems.

Low end dells aren't much cheaper than low end macs here.

:wacko: :blink:

macs here cost you a ARM LEG AND FIRST BORN

[Richard Hammond]

Ehh, the prices are similar to other computer systems.

Low end dells aren't much cheaper than low end macs here.

In the UK you can get a similar style laptop to the macbook for less with better specs:

Dell M1330												Macbook
2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo									2.1Ghz Core 2 Duo
13" LED Backlit Screen 1280x800			  13" LED Backlit Screen 1280x800
250Gb HDD												120Gb HDD
3Gb Ram													1Gb Ram
128Mb Nvidia 8400GS								Integrated GMA X3100
8x Dual Layer DVD-RW							   CD-RW/DVD-ROM Combo Drive
?679														   ?700

You cant underspec the Dell to have compareable specs to the Macbook but im sure it would be at least ?100 cheaper for the same spec. Apple prices are ridiculous.

[Bazenga]

You cant underspec the Dell to have compareable specs to the Macbook but im sure it would be at least ?200> cheaper for the same spec. Apple prices are ridiculous.

Fixed =). The Dell has more memory (x3 more), twice the hdd, a much, much superior graphic card, a better drive and yet it costsLESS> then a mac.

I never understand how does these mac people say that the mac is in the same price range.....

[BoJo]

Fixed =). The Dell has more memory (x3 more), twice the hdd, a much, much superior graphic card, a better drive and yet it costs LESS then a mac.

I never understand how does these mac people say that the mac is in the same price range.....

No bias here then :p

I love the bit about the "much much superior gfx card" You do realize the dell and the mac both have the GMA x3100? Even if you were talking about the 8400, you can't seriously believe that it's much can you? It's an OEM only piece of crap that OEMs use to say that the gfx are 0.1 of a step up from integrated. To quote wikipedia it's an alternative to integrated gfx - designed for watching video not gaming. They also have next to identical combo drives. It also cracked me up that although the same graphics card on the dell was "much much better", the faster CPU on the MB was overlooked.

To me, the ?21 + the cost of a few cheap sticks of RAM more than the dell is worth it 5x over for the OS on the mac.

Edit: Also, if you look carefully he has tried to pull the wool over our eyes by including the name of the 8400 but the price of the x3100.:shiftyninja::

Just my 2 cents;))

Edited August 30, 2008 by Aesclepius

[BoJo]

Wow. Sorry about the no. of "also"s in there :p

[shihchiun]

I think discussions such as this are compelling reasons why Linux looks so much more appealing. But linux can't even get itself into the mainstream to challenge the likes of Apple or MS.

I've heard that APPLES OSX runs good but, the prices that Jobs and Co. sell their systems for could be equated to legalized ass rape and the people who buy apple stuff just love it!!!

I'll patiently wait to see how this unfolds...

Do you feel that the prices for all luxury products amount to "legalized ass rape," or just Apple stuff? I'm just asking, not trying to attack you or anything.

[giga Veteran]

Dells will always be cheaper than Apples--hell they're cheaper than most other PC manufacturers. But the price differential isn't as crazy as some make it out to be. (at least in the US)

[Richard Hammond]

Yes it is, just look up there ^^ its ?30 cheaper but has MUCH better spec.

[giga Veteran]

Yes it is, just look up there ^^ its ?30 cheaper but has MUCH better spec.

Yeah, in the UK. You guys get jipped on anything though.

[chrisj1968]

No bias here then :p

I love the bit about the "much much superior gfx card" You do realize the dell and the mac both have the GMA x3100? Even if you were talking about the 8400, you can't seriously believe that it's much can you? It's an OEM only piece of crap that OEMs use to say that the gfx are 0.1 of a step up from integrated. To quote wikipedia it's an alternative to integrated gfx - designed for watching video not gaming. They also have next to identical combo drives. It also cracked me up that although the same graphics card on the dell was "much much better", the faster CPU on the MB was overlooked.

To me, the ?21 + the cost of a few cheap sticks of RAM more than the dell is worth it 5x over for the OS on the mac.

Edit: Also, if you look carefully he has tried to pull the wool over our eyes by including the name of the 8400 but the price of the x3100.:shiftyninja::

Just my 2 cents;))

Are you crazy? if macs were so great, then why did Apple/jobs go and make a version of OSX for intel? probably because the hardware was better? probably the hardware was ? if i were to build a mac system, one with PC hardware and the other with apple hardware, the mac price would be off the charts.

common sense would dictate that, if apple wanted to make real $$, they would release a version for PC's. But apple would be ****ed because they would actually have to develop the OS for a wide range of hardware and that would = WORK!

my impression of apple mac users are of people who think of themselves as elitist jerks. this is a perfect example;

[BoJo]

I never said I liked power pc architecture ;)

Also, one of the reasons that windows is horrible to use - IMO !! - is because of it's lack of adaption to a wide range of hardware. Really, before you condemn apple for not adapting to a wide range of hardware, maybe microsoft should do a half decent job first. One of the reasons I use macs is because of the seamless hardware / software integration.

Nothing in my post was elitist, all I did was point out the innaccuracies and spin in another post. If you don't want to answer my post then by all means continue to insult me - but don't try and deflect attention from the lies in the post I replies to.

[Cormier6083]

Well, if that's the case, I guess we could sue Microsoft. Look at the 360. It has a custom OS, but you have to buy a 360 to run it.

Kinda sucks huh? :/

[Richard Hammond]

I never said I liked power pc architecture ;)

Also, one of the reasons that windows is horrible to use - IMO !! - is because of it's lack of adaption to a wide range of hardware. Really, before you condemn apple for not adapting to a wide range of hardware, maybe microsoft should do a half decent job first. One of the reasons I use macs is because of the seamless hardware / software integration.

Why should Microsoft have to support 3rd party Hardware, its up to the hardware manufacturers to create drivers for the hardware. If you think Mac supports more hardware than a Windows PC then you are sorely mistaken, OSX is a closed system, you cant pick up any PCI-Express graphics card and drop it in you have to use what Apple says you can use.

Well, if that's the case, I guess we could sue Microsoft. Look at the 360. It has a custom OS, but you have to buy a 360 to run it.

Kinda sucks huh? :/

Wow what a crap analogy, ill bet you own a mac. You cant buy the Xbox 360 OS to run seperately so Microsoft arent forcing you to install it on their own Xbox 360 hardware like Apple is tying you to their hardware. If you could buy the 360 hardware and run any OS you wanted on it but Microsoft says you can only use their own Xbox 360 OS on their console but not anyone elses then maybe that analogy would be accurate.

[chrisj1968]

I never said I liked power pc architecture ;)

Also, one of the reasons that windows is horrible to use - IMO !! - is because of it's lack of adaption to a wide range of hardware. Really, before you condemn apple for not adapting to a wide range of hardware, maybe microsoft should do a half decent job first. One of the reasons I use macs is because of the seamless hardware / software integration.

Nothing in my post was elitist, all I did was point out the innaccuracies and spin in another post. If you don't want to answer my post then by all means continue to insult me - but don't try and deflect attention from the lies in the post I replies to.

MS has in fact enlisted PC hardware vendors for drivers, ALBEIT the fact MS screwed the pooch with vista. But I must disagree with you on the premise of the hardware issue. MS basically brought computers to the masses. sure there are numerous hardware vendors and that in itself helps to some degree to keep the price of hardware down.

Apple seems to like the idea of closed hardware. maybe a bad term.

in retrospect, maybe it's just a choice issue? you like mac, I like PC. I know mac OSX is good for photographers but I can't see myself shelling out minimum $1,099 for the lowest end with just a 13" display, 1GB Ram and a 120GB HDD. that being said, the macbook pro start @ $1,999 for a 15" display, a Core2 duo 2.4Ghz, 200GB HDD and a Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT 256mb ram...for 2k!

I guess a more realistic statement about apple is when you buy their systems, it's a captured audience. the most expensive macbook pro is on the lower end or outside the lower end specs of an alienware system.

Apple official website

[giga Veteran]

Why should Microsoft have to support 3rd party Hardware, its up to the hardware manufacturers to create drivers for the hardware. If you think Mac supports more hardware than a Windows PC then you are sorely mistaken, OSX is a closed system, you cant pick up any PCI-Express graphics card and drop it in you have to use what Apple says you can use.

It's up to the hardware manufacturers to use the correct firmware on their graphics cards. It's just that the majority of video cards are made for PCs.

MS has in fact enlisted PC hardware vendors for drivers, ALBEIT the fact MS screwed the pooch with vista. But I must disagree with you on the premise of the hardware issue. MS basically brought computers to the masses. sure there are numerous hardware vendors and that in itself helps to some degree to keep the price of hardware down.

Apple seems to like the idea of closed hardware. maybe a bad term.

in retrospect, maybe it's just a choice issue? you like mac, I like PC. I know mac OSX is good for photographers but I can't see myself shelling out minimum $1,099 for the lowest end with just a 13" display, 1GB Ram and a 120GB HDD. that being said, the macbook pro start @ $1,999 for a 15" display, a Core2 duo 2.4Ghz, 200GB HDD and a Nvidia Geforce 8600M GT 256mb ram...for 2k!

I guess a more realistic statement about apple is when you buy their systems, it's a captured audience. the most expensive macbook pro is on the lower end or outside the lower end specs of an alienware system.

Apple official website

Gee whiz, have you seen how much Asus charges for their EEE and the hardware you get?

[BoJo]

Why should Microsoft have to support 3rd party Hardware, its up to the hardware manufacturers to create drivers for the hardware. If you think Mac supports more hardware than a Windows PC then you are sorely mistaken, OSX is a closed system, you cant pick up any PCI-Express graphics card and drop it in you have to use what Apple says you can.

Sorry, I missed the part of my post where I said that.

Just to clarify:

MBP - workstation NOT gaming laptop

[Cormier6083]

Wow what a crap analogy, ill bet you own a mac. You cant buy the Xbox 360 OS to run seperately so Microsoft arent forcing you to install it on their own Xbox 360 hardware like Apple is tying you to their hardware. If you could buy the 360 hardware and run any OS you wanted on it but Microsoft says you can only use their own Xbox 360 OS on their console but not anyone elses then maybe that analogy would be accurate.

Sort of backed yourself into a corner there, as you can run Windows and Linux on your Mac. They aren't forcing you to use OS X.

[Richard Hammond]

Dont you have to install Bootcamp before you can install any Operating system, dont you have to have osx/bootcamp installed to boot to the os?