Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDawg
Well I guess it depends on how you define market share. If we're talking about companies that build computers running the Mac OS, I would say Apple has pretty much a 100% market share and is clearly playing dirty in order to keep their monopoly intact.
I don't like the rich having a different set of laws than the poor anyway. True justice should be one law for everyone. But even under the premise that you have to have a lot of market share in order to be considered in violation of antitrust laws, Apple still has a near 100% market share when it comes to building Macs. And when they start suing people for building macs, even though they legitimately purchased all of the components- both hardware and software, then I think Apple may be looked at in a bad light when this finally makes it to a court room.
We'll see though. Hopefully Psystar has enough money to see this thing through.
|
Market share is determined by looking at both the product and geographic markets. Product market? I dunno here. A judge would determine that. Maybe computers? Computers that run just the Mac OS? I doubt that though. It's too narrow.
Btw, no ... you don't have to have a lot of market power in order to violate antitrust laws. You could have almost none, and if your conduct is uber bad, you still violate antitrust. For example, a contract in restraint of trade (two NYC hotdog vendors, whose combined market share of hotdog sales in NYC might be .000001%, agree to fix prices at $1) can be a per se antitrust violation. I think that's the Clayton Act for contracts.