Here's a link to the cited case < http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-16208&s=CA&d=35164 >
Of interest is the phrase "Outcome: REVERSED and REMANDED."

Newcal sued claiming that Ikon changed the terms of their service contracts towards the end of the contract thereby extending the contract term and keeping Newcal out of the market of selling to the about to expire Ikon customer. We're talking about copiers and service contracts...seems a bit tortuous to get to the Psystar situation...

Apple is has monopoly on its own market, not only does it control its products but all the peripherals made or not made for such a market. Apple needs to lose its tight grip on the Mac for the good of its users.

...bring out so much of teh stupid?

Most major businesses are monopolies, it is the definition of the word:
"exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly"

It is whether or not they use that monopoly power to manipulate and constrain trade. In this case, since the main area being disputed is "computers", Apple does not have a monopoly, and if you read the original response by Apple, you will be better informed.

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
Apple is has monopoly on its own market, not only does it control its products but all the peripherals made or not made for such a market. Apple needs to lose its tight grip on the Mac for the good of its users.

I respectfully disagree... Apple does NOT say what peripherals work with the Mac... If this were the case, Apple would still probably sell printers, wouldn't they? (Not to mention audio interfaces, camcorders, external hard drives, USB flash drives, graphics tablets, digital cameras, and more...)

As far as their tight grip goes, I actually prefer this... I'd rather know that something is going to work 100% with a system or not at all, unlike the crapshoot you have on the Windows side of things. I don't see how them relaxing their control to support the thousands of random x86 hardware setups would benefit Mac users in the long run. If anything, it would serve to undermine the integrity of the Mac... and then it would be just like Vista. Not pretty!

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
Apple is has monopoly on its own market, not only does it control its products but all the peripherals made or not made for such a market. Apple needs to lose its tight grip on the Mac for the good of its users.

Also, being a sub-market of the main market "computers" Apple has every right to their own control. And why would insisting Apple allow others to compete in their market space using their intellectual property good for end users?

Vista isn't anywhere near as bad as people think. If the world weren't filled with morons apple wouldn't exist. I say let apple have it's monopoly so we can see who the retarded sheep are. If you can't read a box to see if something is compatible, you probably won't be able to use it anyways because you're too stupid to read a box.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Vista isn't anywhere near as bad as people think. If the world weren't filled with morons apple wouldn't exist. I say let apple have it's monopoly so we can see who the retarded sheep are. If you can't read a box to see if something is compatible, you probably won't be able to use it anyways because you're too stupid to read a box.

As this thread has nothing to do with Vista, I think we are seeing who the moron is.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Vista isn't anywhere near as bad as people think. If the world weren't filled with morons apple wouldn't exist. I say let apple have it's monopoly so we can see who the retarded sheep are. If you can't read a box to see if something is compatible, you probably won't be able to use it anyways because you're too stupid to read a box.

Thar she trolls!...
/sarcasm
Personally I've never understood why some people get their jollies by going to what they consider 'the other guys' web sites and writing blatheringly stupid statements in the hope of getting a response.

You can go and create your own OS and sell it. You can go and create your own computers and decide if they use your OS or any other OS. You can go and build your own damn cell phone, or smartphone, and decide to put your own mobile OS, or one of the existing ones. Should you decide to build hardware, you are allowed to decide which software will be supported by it. Likewise, you can decide which Hardware will your software work on. This is BS.

Quote

Guest wrote:
You can go and create your own OS and sell it. You can go and create your own computers and decide if they use your OS or any other OS. You can go and build your own damn cell phone, or smartphone, and decide to put your own mobile OS, or one of the existing ones. Should you decide to build hardware, you are allowed to decide which software will be supported by it. Likewise, you can decide which Hardware will your software work on. This is BS.

Yes you can create your own OS and sell it, or give it away.

Yes you can build you own computer and put your own OS on it. However, the installation of someone else's OS is subject to the licensing of that OS.

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
Apple is has monopoly on its own market, not only does it control its products but all the peripherals made or not made for such a market. Apple needs to lose its tight grip on the Mac for the good of its users.

I respectfully disagree... Apple does NOT say what peripherals work with the Mac... If this were the case, Apple would still probably sell printers, wouldn't they? (Not to mention audio interfaces, camcorders, external hard drives, USB flash drives, graphics tablets, digital cameras, and more...)

As far as their tight grip goes, I actually prefer this... I'd rather know that something is going to work 100% with a system or not at all, unlike the crapshoot you have on the Windows side of things. I don't see how them relaxing their control to support the thousands of random x86 hardware setups would benefit Mac users in the long run. If anything, it would serve to undermine the integrity of the Mac... and then it would be just like Vista. Not pretty!

Also: "Also, being a sub-market of the main market "computers" Apple has every right to their own control. And why would insisting Apple allow others to compete in their market space using their intellectual property good for end users?"

By your reasoning MS never had a monopoly and it would be difficult to define one.

Apple does control what we do or do not have access to, hence the desolate after market landscape for Mac peripherals. Sadly, it does so in a very myopic way. MS will fix Vista (or whatever its name will be), the hoopla over the iPhone and iPod will fade, already investors are unhappy with the lack of new and less expensive hardware (especially a sub $2k tower that would tackle no less than 70% of the market). We have been getting refreshes every 12-18 months (4+ years for displays), we still lack any viable HDMI or eSATA connectivity. Now the Mac Book has lost Firewire. The formula goes: less for more, add when absolutely necessary.

In terms of quality, you better look again. Since Apple migrated to Intel all its hardware has become as unreliable as any PC manufacturer despite Apple's best efforts to keep things quiet. The software has become just as spotty, Leopard was not actually reliable until release 10.5.4.

In all the Apple quality and reliability delusion, we are asked to pay for an "extended warranty" (and you better buy it) when other, lesser manufacturers by your definition, have been extending a standard 3 year warranty.

Gone are the days of quality hard/software and free iLife, upgradable processors and decent Video Card options. The Mac market is stagnant and Apple likes it that way because people and publications are not critical enough to keep them honest.

What Mac peripheral market are you talking about? I do not have a single peripheral that is Mac only, and I can't think of any offhand.

Also, MS certainly DID have a monopoly in the main market of "computers", as their OS ran better than 90% of all computers manufactured and shipped. They used that market dominance to affect other markets (browsers and others). That was determined to be abuse of their monopoly position (a monopoly not being illegal in and of itself).

The rest of your post has nothing to back it up. Apple has consistently been ranked at the top for both quality and support. Please provided validated support to your assertions otherwise. eSATA is very easily added to Macbook Pros and Mac Pros through the addition of an inexpensive card (much like the majority of PCs). Leopard has been quite reliable since well before 10.5.4 (I've been using it in a business environment since initial release with no issues). iLife IS free with the purchase of a new computer. I know of folks who have upgraded their processors since the switch to Intel.

In other words, where are you coming up with your BS?

So, what are the other guys and gals missing? The way I see it: It's only and mostly software such as iLife & iWork etc. You can get similar but hardly better apps on the PC. Most if not all peripherals work on Macs and vise versa and even surprise Apple hardware! iPods, iPhone etc. So other than building your own custom box or possibly saving a few bucks what are they missing?

will any sane judge consider a company with 3.5 % market share a monopoly. If Psystar were to be allowed to proceed, people could go after Hewlett Packard, IBM, and any other company that makes computers that run proprietary operating systems (I know they are sold mainly with Windows, but these companies do offer hard ware with custom OSes). Ridiculous! The maker of a unique product has every right to dictate the terms of the license for said product. In private, do whatever the hell you want with it, but if you're going to publicly violate a license, don't whine if said company forces you to stop. One never knows perhaps, but I highly doubt this'll go trial.

You guys are missing the point entirely. The size of a market share is not relevant in this case because Apple's market is closed, therefore it is de facto a monopoly. Am I wrong? So what other choices do you have on the hardware (remember, this is about the hardware).

You can stick your head in the ground all you want, it remains true Apple's quality, if you ever bother going to their (or any other mac related) forum, has become quite spotty. None of you addressed my point on having to pay extra for a warranty beyond 1 year, now standard in the industry, I am sure however all of you buy it despite your claims of hight quality.

I've been using Macs for 15 years, I am quite sick of being manipulated into spending more, and more, and more...

Someone here mentioned one can buy sATA and add it to the Mac. Which Mac? The Mac Pro? it is the only one available that can be expanded in the pathetic choices Mac users have, and of course paying EXTRA. None of you addressed the fact Apple is refreshing its products every 12 to 18 months if not longer. Far from the Apple that used to refresh-update-upgrade every 6-9 months maximum in the PPC days.

It remains true that what we all called the static-stagnant days of the PPC were more alive and dynamic than what we are getting today, and please don't mention the iPhone, it's not a Mac. With this I am not saying Apple's products are horrible, I am saying there is a lack of options and in terms of technology they take too long to refresh.

I am not the only one thinking like this, all you have to do is look at Wall Street's reaction to Apple's recent media events. The glitz for gadgets is starting to wear thin when it is apparent Apple's market will hit a wall soon if a new product strategy in the "Mac" market is not implemented.

It would benefit us all if Apple felt the pressure of competition, it would benefit Apple the most.

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
You guys are missing the point entirely. The size of a market share is not relevant in this case because Apple's market is closed, therefore it is de facto a monopoly. Am I wrong? So what other choices do you have on the hardware (remember, this is about the hardware).

Once again, I respectfully disagree. Apple's market is NOT closed as a HARDWARE manufacturer since the Intel switch! You CAN buy a Mac and use the hardware to run Windows... Or Linux, or Solaris, or whatever... Apple competes in the bigger hardware market... and just happen to offer OS-X for THEIR machines as well! Why should they have to support the entire PC industry?

For illustrative purposes, take a Sony Vaio... Let's say Sony loads some proprietary video capture software and another PC manufacturer starts installing it on THEIR PC's without asking permission. And then sue Sony to force them to license it... Would the same lawsuit scenario even be taken seriously? Come ON!!!

You have a CHOICE to buy an Apple machine or NOT to buy an Apple machine. No one twists your arm to make you buy a Mac. No one twists your arm to upgrade to a newer Mac. (I personally use them until they literally DIE... Seems like 14 years is the going rate...) I LIKE the "tried and true" approach to options... as opposed to the "jump on the bandwgon of the latest technology" one. Sure, there are a LOT of PC's that embrace the latest fad of the week... How long will they be viable? Not as long as the Mac, generally speaking.

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
You guys are missing the point entirely. The size of a market share is not relevant in this case because Apple's market is closed, therefore it is de facto a monopoly. Am I wrong? So what other choices do you have on the hardware (remember, this is about the hardware).

Once again, I respectfully disagree. Apple's market is NOT closed as a HARDWARE manufacturer since the Intel switch! You CAN buy a Mac and use the hardware to run Windows... Or Linux, or Solaris, or whatever... Apple competes in the bigger hardware market... and just happen to offer OS-X for THEIR machines as well! Why should they have to support the entire PC industry?

For illustrative purposes, take a Sony Vaio... Let's say Sony loads some proprietary video capture software and another PC manufacturer starts installing it on THEIR PC's without asking permission. And then sue Sony to force them to license it... Would the same lawsuit scenario even be taken seriously? Come ON!!!

You have a CHOICE to buy an Apple machine or NOT to buy an Apple machine. No one twists your arm to make you buy a Mac. No one twists your arm to upgrade to a newer Mac. (I personally use them until they literally DIE... Seems like 14 years is the going rate...) I LIKE the &quot;tried and true&quot; approach to options... as opposed to the &quot;jump on the bandwgon of the latest technology&quot; one. Sure, there are a LOT of PC's that embrace the latest fad of the week... How long will they be viable? Not as long as the Mac, generally speaking.

"You CAN buy a Mac and use the hardware to run Windows... Or Linux, or Solaris, or whatever... " but not the other way around. You can not run Mac OS on any other hardware according to Apple. See the problem?

Having said all this, I would much rather buy an Apple branded PC than any other, again thats not the issue here. The issue is Apple's monopolistic ways controlling everything we have access to. Steve Jobs recently said Apple would leave Blu-Ray to 3rd party vendors all day long, the truth is they don't want us to buy Blu-Ray since they want us to buy movies from the iTunes store, and so on, and so forth. Apple is restricting our choices not giving us choices, that is monopolistic behavior at 3% or 100% of the market. Why a monopoly? Because all of us that buy a Mac are stuck with one option and only one option. The option comes with choices and compromises, not our choices, Apple's.

I'm still waiting for a good reason why we must BUY an extended warranty IF Macs are SO much better than the average PC. If Apple were a "good" charity I would pay it gladly. I earn my money the hard way and I deal with COMPETITION, so should Apple.

Quote

Voltaic wrote:
"You CAN buy a Mac and use the hardware to run Windows... Or Linux, or Solaris, or whatever... " but not the other way around. You can not run Mac OS on any other hardware according to Apple. See the problem?

Wait a second... I thought you said this was about the HARDWARE... You're talking about running OS-X on PC's again, aren't you? How does that have anything to do with Apple's hardware?

Plainly put, Apple includes OS-X on modern Macs as a bonus feature. (They're in business to sell hardware, after all...) If you use it or not, it's your choice. Just because they include it with their machines DOES NOT mean that other PC manufacturers can, or should... (Damn! And I thought that Vaio scenerio would make sense...) You don't expect to get a Dodge Viper V-10 engine to fit in a Volkswagen, and you shouldn't expect to have OS-X on a Dell. Plain and simple.

You can install eSATA on the Macbook Pro (using the expresscard slot) and the Mac Pro (using PCI-X cards). See a trend here?

I buy the Applecare warranty on laptops only. For any laptop you'd be crazy not to get an extended warranty, just because of the environments they operate in. Does that mean that I think their quality is poor? Not at all. I've done that since the first laptop I bought back in the early '90s.

Again, though, you are breaking the market down so far that any product could be put in that category.

In the end, if you disagree with what Apple is doing, vote with your wallet. Enjoy WIndows. But I suspect you will be very disappointed in how this will turn out, as the smart money is against Psystar. They are trying to make a case where none exists.

I think Psystar just officially turned this into a Marx Brothers skit.

Quote

Voltaic wrote:

It would benefit us all if Apple felt the pressure of competition, it would benefit Apple the most.

I know where you're coming from, but I am hopings things will get better when Jobs retires.

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:
Plainly put, Apple includes OS-X on modern Macs as a bonus feature.

Prove that innovative notion as fact and it's an easy win for Psystar then. Wow.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:
Plainly put, Apple includes OS-X on modern Macs as a bonus feature.

Prove that innovative notion as fact and it's an easy win for Psystar then. Wow.

Think about it... it's Apple's software for Apple's computer. Sony includes software that compliments their hardware... as does just about every other PC manufacturer, ESPECIALLY if the machine has unique hardware! Just try and restore an HP computer with an e-machines restore disk and see if it works. I mean, if PC's are "generic", and everyone has the right to chose their OS regardless of the hardware platform they buy, then this disk should restore ANY PC... but it won't. What makes Apple's BUNDLED SOFTWARE any different?!?!?!? If anything, this makes the case more tangible for the copyright infringement aspect and the OPPOSITE of the monopoly accusations!!! Use your intellect... think about it...

You wouldn't sue Ferrari because their parts aren't interchangeable with a Chevy cobalt. You wouldn't sue Fender guitars because their Stratocaster parts aren't interchangeable with a Gibson Les Paul. You wouldn't sue Philips because their DVD drive optics aren't interchangeable with Samsung DVD units. What makes Apple's Macintosh products any different? You buy a system for a reason... If you want a Mac, buy a Mac! If not, that's the choice you make. I hate to stoop to cheesy cliche's, but it's a long-time precedent that you can't have your cake and eat it too!

You've missed the point entirely.

Your idea that the Apple's OS, Apples only reason to exist in the computer market, and the only reason they survived the dark ages, is added as a 'bonus feature' is a mammoth contradiction.

Want OS X? buy a Mac. You have the logic backwards. Without this critical component ("bonus feature?"), the hardware is just another PC.

Good thing for them that you're not representing Apple, they would end up paying Psystar after you opened your mouth in court pimping that angle.

Forget debating about copyright, licensing, etc. You are not a corp. (and neither is anyone here)

We are consumers, and what is important to consumers is how and where we get our product, and for how much. That is the only aspect that should be relevant to anyone here.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You've missed the point entirely.

Your idea that the Apple's OS, Apples only reason to exist in the computer market, and the only reason they survived the dark ages, is added as a 'bonus feature' is a mammoth contradiction.

Want OS X? buy a Mac. You have the logic backwards. Without this critical component ("bonus feature?"), the hardware is just another PC.

Good thing for them that you're not representing Apple, they would end up paying Psystar after you opened your mouth in court pimping that angle.

Forget debating about copyright, licensing, etc. You are not a corp. (and neither is anyone here)

We are consumers, and what is important to consumers is how and where we get our product, and for how much. That is the only aspect that should be relevant to anyone here.

Ok.. so maybe I chose the wrong words... but the quoted quote of mine was taken out of context to begin with, so here we are again, saying the same old things...

Instead of "bonus", maybe I should have used "exclusive"? "added value"? I thought the whole argument was about legally being able to run OS-X on relatively generic hardware... And since all the Psystar fans think of Apple hardware as "just another PC" anyway and that Psystar is in the right, why not try and relate to it on that level? Seemed to be worth a try...

What I was TRYING to get at was this... (and I don't belive NOBODY has got it yet...) The experience that Mac users enjoy is brought about by a marriage of hardware and software. A Mac (to me) is not really a Mac when it's running Windows. A cheap PC running OS-X is definitely not a Mac either.

This is similar situation to if, say, you bought a brand new Corvette ZR1. It's got style, refinement, tons of power, and is somewhat of a premium automobile when compared to most. (Like our Macs, just to make this perfectly clear....) And then you have the average 4-cylinder econo-box cars. (our PCs) It will still do the basic tasks that a car is required to do, has 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and burns gasoline... (like the similarities between Mac and PC hardware) Granted, econo-boxes probably sell a lot more than Chevy does Corvette ZR1s... (similar to the dominance of PC's in the marketplace VS Macs...) And Chevy hand-builds the ZR1 engine EXCLUSIVELY for that car... it's not avaliable in any other model... but you could buy it in crate form in the after-market. (The engine is OS-X, and the crate engine is a boxed copy of OS-X .) Now, let's say Honda, Toyota, Mazda, and Subaru get a wild hair and decide they all want to buy these crate engines and use them for production in various cars.

First off, would you expect Chevy to let this happen? After all, they purpose-built this engine for a specific product, and spent a lot of money in R&D and developed a lot of IP... Second, would you expect Chevy to service the engines installed in all these other brand's cars? (ala Apple having to support the entire x86 universe...) Or better yet, what would you think if some upstart car builder SUED Chevrolet because Chevy wouldn't sell the engines to them directly and force them to have to alter their product for better compatibilty? (hopefully you can guess who this is supposed to be...)

In any other industry, this suit would never happen.

Ok. I'm done with this.

I claim responsibility for the above "guest" post. I don't know why it came up "guest"... this site gets wacky sometimes...

Yeah, it probably wouldn't happen in any other in any other industry, because this one's unlike any other, (that's why I think the car analogies have never worked!)

I'm more agnostic about my hardware, possibly because I used to use Umax clones back in the 90's, worked exactly like a Mac, better in few ways (expansion & upgrades in my case) until Apple pulled the rug and stopped the software updates, at least.

Using a 2008 Mac Pro, great machine, mostly. But I would have considered a cheaper alternative if it was available. It's an encoding beast, that handles AE and FCP renders with ease, but if I hold down option and it's a Vista PC for playing Bioshock, HL2, Team fortress.

To me, it is what it runs.

And yes, I was those guest posts, I keep getting logged out nowadays.

The bottom line is Apple Corp. is a HARDWARE company. They sell computers, MP3 players, smart phones, and television devices.

To make their computers stand out in the PC market, they design them to look a little (or lot) better than the majority of the PC market. They sometimes include some unusual features (that are often quickly copied.)

One additional feature Apple uses to make their PCs stand out is a different operating system. The Mac OS was built to help sell Mac computers over other brands. It is not a primary product of Apple Corp., but rather a side product created to enhance the desirability of their primary product, which is computers and consumer electronics. They use their own OS because it enebles them to assure all the parts work a seamlessly as possible. That is a measure of control not found in any other PC maker. But it is still the PC that Apple is intent on selling, not an OS.

The claim is that the licensing restrictions of Apple's side product of OSX is somehow stifling competition. Poppycock. Macintosh hardware represents a small percentage of the total PCs sold. They are no where near a monopoly, nor is limiting the license of OSX to their hardware leveraging competition out of the market.

What Psystar is doing is trying to claim the right to use APPLE's product to enhance the saleability of Psystar hardware. It's pure BS. If Psystar wants to enhance their hardware with a different OS, then let them write their own, as Apple did.

See... I knew somebody would get it! I agree that I would dig it if I could get a machine with the same capabilities as my Mac Pro, but for cheaper... and it ran OS-X! (And it doesn't necessarily have to be Apples hardware for me to buy it...)

However, I whole-heartedly feel that this whole Psystar deal is way different than when the Mac clones like your old machine and the Power Computing and Motorola models were being built. These guys aren't going about it the right way. (Duh.. we all know that!)

I think if Apple liscensed another manufacturer to build a REAL Mac "neo-clone" it would be awesome. Of course, these machines would probably have to conform to Apple's hardware requirements instead of being a consumer hackintosh like the OpenPC. That would be the only approach I could see Apple taking if they were to open up OS-X to run on non-Apple guts. The overall user experience would be consistent, and it would open up new options for the Mac userbase at large. But of course, they went through all that before... maybe if we hold our breath. : )

Your thoughts are EXACTLY what I was trying to express when I said my "Bonus feature" blunder and got frag'd for it... (Lol!) It IS true... ESPECIALLY now that you can run any OS you want on it.

We don't have to worry about Apple being a monopoly until every computer on the planet is being built by them, and/or every computer on the planet runs their OS. Man, there sure is a long way to go!!! (not in my lifetime...)

Quote

Hengemasta wrote:
I think if Apple liscensed another manufacturer to build a REAL Mac "neo-clone" it would be awesome....But of course, they went through all that before... maybe if we hold our breath. : )

I suspect that Apple would break into a cold sweat thinking about their first and only attempt. 1990's tinted nightmares of PowerTower Pro's with faster Motorola silicon than their own, while beating them on price

Quote

zewazir wrote:
...a side product created to enhance the desirability of their primary product

I think we can all make a fair guess at how much of their primary product they would sell without that particular side product.

Apple get it right and i hope they win
watch funny videos [link removed]

Quote

Nookster wrote:

Quote

zewazir wrote:
...a side product created to enhance the desirability of their primary product

I think we can all make a fair guess at how much of their primary product they would sell without that particular side product.

So, without THAT particular side product, Apple ends up making Windows boxes. If they tried to sell them at Mac prices, they'd have a hard time. Nobody gonna pay a premium price for just another wintel box.

But the fact is they DO have side products to enhance the market value of their primary product. They also have the Apple cool factor added in. The bottom line is OS X is Apple's, and they can limit it however they please. Psystar has zero right to force Apple to open their OS license. Let Psystar come up with their OWN ideas for making their intel boxes competetively marketable with Dell, Acer, Apple, etc.

Quote

zewazir wrote:

Quote

Nookster wrote:

Quote

zewazir wrote:
...a side product created to enhance the desirability of their primary product

I think we can all make a fair guess at how much of their primary product they would sell without that particular side product.

So, without THAT particular side product, Apple ends up making Windows boxes. If they tried to sell them at Mac prices, they'd have a hard time.

Correct, I'm not sure why you refer to that particular product as if Apple have numerous others of equal importance, when in fact it's their reason for existing this long, and still their core business today.

As for the rest of your legal and corporate commentary, you're preaching to the wrong choir. I have zero interest in defending, attacking, or cheerleading, multi-billion corps, (or small outfits like for that matter), and have not commented either way on who owes who, deserves what, or why.

I'm not a venture capitalist, or an armchair analyst.