Nnnnnno. Microsoft was sued because IE was tied into the OS, meaning you couldn't remove IE and install something else without breaking the OS. Apple has done nothing even remotely close to that. The cluephone is ringing, and it's for you.
You sure that was the reason? I'm not totally sure about how it all went down, but I don't think you can uninstall IE6 on XP or IE7 on Vista completely. Either way, though, can you uninstall Safari on a Mac...?
tsk tsk, haters. you can't have it both way. you want to advocate fairness in the marketplace, yet howl anytime a government sues MSFT for antitrust violations.
on one post you'll bemoan how litigious our society is, and patent trolls, and on and on, but then you come in and literally do cheerleader chants just because you hate apple and not based on whether they're justified in setting their own terms of their EULA? talk about hypocritical.
United States v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM computer manufacturers, and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."
Microsoft insisted IE was a FEATURE and part of the OS. They got slammed anyway. Apple not letting others use their OS is just as bad if not worse.
All I'm saying is that we should have fair treatment of all companies.Look I don't care if MSFT got hit with Various lawsuits. I don't have stock in it and I don't know enough about the Economy to see how it affects it. All I'm saying is that if Apple does antitrust violations they should be responsible for it just as much as MSFT.
are you really saying that software makers cannot set the terms of their own EULAs? it doesn't matter if what they're doing is "worse", it only matters if it's legal.
the argument against bundling IE is that it limited consumer choice of competing browser products. i.e. deliberately predatory behavior which is textbook antitrust behavior (in that argument).
apple isn't "hurting" anyone but themselves by _disallowing_ installation of their OS on other hardware. OS X is NOT open source, regardless of what you or I would like!
So, if someone writes a piece of software tomorrow that keeps time, has a countdown facility etc and it's damn simple to use... can they legally write in their EULA that their software should only be used for creating timers on bombs?!?!?!?!
Would that absolve the creator of the software from dictating the terms of it's use and thus any further litigation?
I think the central matter here is that if someone's bought some hardware from you, they should be able to use that hardware with whatever software they wish to use it with.
In Psystar's case however, it seems reversed in logic that they want the OS to be installed on any and every combination of hardware as the user chooses.
But here's the deal again... if I've paid for the software, I should be able to use it however I want, right? If Apple has a clause in there that says "This OS should only be used with Apple hardware" in the EULA, then I think it *could* be used as grounds for unfair practice!
If a user's bought a product, he should be able to use it as he wishes... Now, that does not imply that he can use a screw where he should use a nail, but within reasonable limits and provable boundaries it should be permitted. Otherwise it all just comes down to restriction of freedom of use for a product that I've bought with my hard-earned money!
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Whoo, GO PYSTAR! If you can sue Microsoft for having IE on their systems, you can sue Apple for not letting others license their OS.
Nnnnnno. Microsoft was sued because IE was tied into the OS, meaning you couldn't remove IE and install something else without breaking the OS. Apple has done nothing even remotely close to that. The cluephone is ringing, and it's for you.
@Zak
You sure that was the reason? I'm not totally sure about how it all went down, but I don't think you can uninstall IE6 on XP or IE7 on Vista completely. Either way, though, can you uninstall Safari on a Mac...?
tsk tsk, haters. you can't have it both way. you want to advocate fairness in the marketplace, yet howl anytime a government sues MSFT for antitrust violations.
on one post you'll bemoan how litigious our society is, and patent trolls, and on and on, but then you come in and literally do cheerleader chants just because you hate apple and not based on whether they're justified in setting their own terms of their EULA? talk about hypocritical.
"
Jump to: navigation, search
United States v. Microsoft, 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEM computer manufacturers, and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct."
Microsoft insisted IE was a FEATURE and part of the OS. They got slammed anyway. Apple not letting others use their OS is just as bad if not worse.
All I'm saying is that we should have fair treatment of all companies.Look I don't care if MSFT got hit with Various lawsuits. I don't have stock in it and I don't know enough about the Economy to see how it affects it. All I'm saying is that if Apple does antitrust violations they should be responsible for it just as much as MSFT.
@keaton and abuzar
are you really saying that software makers cannot set the terms of their own EULAs? it doesn't matter if what they're doing is "worse", it only matters if it's legal.
the argument against bundling IE is that it limited consumer choice of competing browser products. i.e. deliberately predatory behavior which is textbook antitrust behavior (in that argument).
apple isn't "hurting" anyone but themselves by _disallowing_ installation of their OS on other hardware. OS X is NOT open source, regardless of what you or I would like!
@phanbuoy:
So, if someone writes a piece of software tomorrow that keeps time, has a countdown facility etc and it's damn simple to use... can they legally write in their EULA that their software should only be used for creating timers on bombs?!?!?!?!
Would that absolve the creator of the software from dictating the terms of it's use and thus any further litigation?
I think the central matter here is that if someone's bought some hardware from you, they should be able to use that hardware with whatever software they wish to use it with.
In Psystar's case however, it seems reversed in logic that they want the OS to be installed on any and every combination of hardware as the user chooses.
But here's the deal again... if I've paid for the software, I should be able to use it however I want, right? If Apple has a clause in there that says "This OS should only be used with Apple hardware" in the EULA, then I think it *could* be used as grounds for unfair practice!
If a user's bought a product, he should be able to use it as he wishes... Now, that does not imply that he can use a screw where he should use a nail, but within reasonable limits and provable boundaries it should be permitted. Otherwise it all just comes down to restriction of freedom of use for a product that I've bought with my hard-earned money!