6 ms·

IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled a

IIRC the existence of such an EULA includes a clause which was the reason behind Apple's successful court case against a company who was selling pre assembled and configured Hackintosh boxes. (Does anyone remember what the name of the company was? It was like 2007-9 or something) IMHO that EULA's main purpose atm is to tell you that you can only install MacOS on, and I quote, an 'Apple-branded computer'. This led to a hilarious habit of Hackintosh users including myself just sticking the Apple stickers from their iPods or other Apple devices on their custom built machines. Wouldn't hold up in court, of course, we were just having fun with the wordplay.

nodamage 6y ago
You are correct, the case was Apple v. Psystar: https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS. I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market. (It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.) If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      As the case turned on the plaintiff's failure to establish a single brand market, I stand by my original comment.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        It doesn't sound like you actually understand the relevant aspects of the case. Psystar made multiple counterclaims, including a claim of tying between "Mac OS" and "Mac OS-capable computers". A tying claim requires establishing the existence of two separate product markets, which is why the court analyzed both the "Mac OS" market and the "Mac OS-capable computers" market separately. Ultimately both markets were found to be invalid. The "Mac OS-capable computers" market is a wholly derivative aftermarket of the "Mac OS" market and the reasoning for why it was ruled invalid is also relevant.
        gamblor956 6y ago
        No it's clear that you have not read the case at all. The Pystar case is not an antitrust case, it's a copyright infringement case. Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Are you serious? At this point I can't tell if you are trolling. This is a direct quote from the case I linked: Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims. These are all antitrust claims!!! Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well. > Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties. This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!
traceroute66 6y ago
I suspect the reason Apple went after the more recent "hackintosh" brigade is because they were seeing a repetition of a bad experience they had before when Apple officially permitted OEM manufacturing of compatible "clone" computers back in the 90s. The official 90s clones ended badly because the OEMs were cutting corners as part of a race to the bottom on pricing. This led to shit hardware which led to a shit customer experience. Which meant Apple took back control and killed off the official clone industry. There are videos on YouTube of Steve Jobs talking (during informal interviews, not corporate statements) about the importance to both him personally and Apple of the entire customer experience (hardware and software). Its not from a perspective of monopoly. Its from a perspective of quality of the overall experience. That's what all the dumb Apple bashers fail to understand.

nodamage 6y ago

You are correct, the case was Apple v. Psystar: https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 Of particular note in that case is the court ruled that Apple's alleged "monopoly" over the market of "Mac OS-capable computers" was not a valid antitrust market because users knowingly agreed to the EULA restriction limiting installation of Mac OS to Apple computers when they initially purchased Mac OS. I expect this very same issue will come up in Epic's case as well with regard to Apple's alleged "monopoly" over iOS app distribution.

gamblor956 6y ago
You need to actually read that case. It was relevant that at the time the plaintiffs failed to show that Apple had a single brand market... Epic did not make the same mistake.
- nodamage 6y ago
  I have read the case in its entirety, see the entire section under B. Market definition: Alleged "Mac OS-capable computers" market. (It's true that Psystar's attempt to establish "Mac OS" as a single-brand market in section A also failed, but that is not what I am referring to here.) If you have a more substantive criticism feel free to elaborate in more detail, otherwise making a drive by comment to accuse someone else of not reading just seems hostile and unnecessary.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    As the case turned on the plaintiff's failure to establish a single brand market, I stand by my original comment.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      It doesn't sound like you actually understand the relevant aspects of the case. Psystar made multiple counterclaims, including a claim of tying between "Mac OS" and "Mac OS-capable computers". A tying claim requires establishing the existence of two separate product markets, which is why the court analyzed both the "Mac OS" market and the "Mac OS-capable computers" market separately. Ultimately both markets were found to be invalid. The "Mac OS-capable computers" market is a wholly derivative aftermarket of the "Mac OS" market and the reasoning for why it was ruled invalid is also relevant.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        No it's clear that you have not read the case at all. The Pystar case is not an antitrust case, it's a copyright infringement case. Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Are you serious? At this point I can't tell if you are trolling. This is a direct quote from the case I linked: Psystar alleges that this conduct has caused harmful and anti-competitive effects in the marketplace (Compl. ¶¶ 68-77). Psystar asserts six claims for relief: (1) unlawful tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (2) monopoly maintenance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (3) exclusive dealing in violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 14; (4) violations of California's Cartwright Act, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 16700; (5) violations of California's unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, and (6) violations of the common law of unfair competition. Apple moved to dismiss all claims. These are all antitrust claims!!! Oh, I see why you might be confused. Apple originally filed a lawsuit against Psystar alleging copyright infringement. Psystar then filed a countersuit over antitrust violations. I am referring specifically to the countersuit that was dismissed by the court which I deliberately linked in my original post (https://casetext.com/case/apple-2 https://casetext.com/case/apple-2). Apple pursued their copyright case after they got Psystar's countersuit dismissed and eventually won their copyright case as well. > Antitrust cases are filed by the government, not other private parties. This is totally wrong. How can you go around pretending to be an expert in antitrust when you don't even understand basic facts like this? Epic's lawsuit against Apple is an antitrust case. Epic is a private party!

traceroute66 6y ago

I suspect the reason Apple went after the more recent "hackintosh" brigade is because they were seeing a repetition of a bad experience they had before when Apple officially permitted OEM manufacturing of compatible "clone" computers back in the 90s. The official 90s clones ended badly because the OEMs were cutting corners as part of a race to the bottom on pricing. This led to shit hardware which led to a shit customer experience. Which meant Apple took back control and killed off the official clone industry. There are videos on YouTube of Steve Jobs talking (during informal interviews, not corporate statements) about the importance to both him personally and Apple of the entire customer experience (hardware and software). Its not from a perspective of monopoly. Its from a perspective of quality of the overall experience. That's what all the dumb Apple bashers fail to understand.