Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 Patents...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by Recursion

Okay, I'm now remembering those details, and reading the summary helps too. What I recall now is that there were plural issues, not just one. The hardware tying was only one thing. With Apple, if the only thing they're doing is limiting use of their software to "Apple-Approved" hardware, then I'm not seeing any anti-trust issue without some type of significant market share by Apple.

The thing to realize here is that M$ had problems because of their market share in combination with several "predatory" types of conduct.

Okay, here's a good way to look at this. An antitrust violation depends on two factors: one, market share; and two, how bad the conduct is. So, if one has a large amount of market share, then slightly bad conduct can be an antitrust violation. Medium market share would require conduct that is more egregious. And little market share would require really bad conduct. Okay, this is only a practical way to look at this, not an exact rule of law.

When M$ was having trouble, their market share was pretty significant. Not monopoly power, but clearly the market share leader in an oligopolistic market. Coupling that with lots & lots of predatory conduct ("predation"), there was no doubt it would get popped.

Here, Apple's market share isn't too strong, is it? So, it's conduct would have to be VERY bad. I'm not so sure limiting their software license to hardware they "approve" would run afoul of antitrust laws.

Did this make sense?

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.

[Weapondrift]

Originally Posted by p-slim

Why only HTC? Samsung moment and Motorola Droid have multi touch? Maybe theirs is coming. I'll be honest, the music player on the hd2 does resemble the itouch.

probably because they see HTC as their biggest "threat" in the smartphone industry. If you cant beat em, sue em.

[Recursion]

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.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by Recursion

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.

Well I am not a lawyer so you probably know a lot more about this than me (I think you said you were a lawyer), but I still have to disagree on the Apple thing.
It just has to be against some law, somewhere, when Apple puts a legitimate company out of business just so they can maintain their 100% market share and total monopoly on the industry.

If Psystar buys parts legitimately, buys software legitimately, and builds legitimate computers, Apple should not be allowed to stop them. The only thing Apple should be able to do is refuse to sell them the OS (which, again, Microsoft got smacked down for even threatening to stop selling their OS to companies it didn't like).

I haven't looked in a while, but I'm pretty sure Apple has pretty close to as much money as Microsoft these days. So their actions should be treated the same. We can be pretty certain that if Microsoft put some company out of business for not buying their hardware directly from Microsoft, they would have the feds crawling all over them.

Apple's actions are just unbelievable to me. Google should go on a major ad campaign that only exposes Apple's actions. Do it politician style, lol. They are operating under a business model that basically says, "Rather than put out the best product, we'll just put out average stuff and market the heck out of it. When the public figures out that it's just average stuff and other companies have better stuff, we'll just try to put them out of business instead of trying to make a better product." That's the only explanation for Apple shutting down Psystar. And that just screams monopoly, and aggressive actions being taken to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, Apple's next move would be to pull their OS off the open market, so the courts would have to force Apple to sell their OS seperate of any hardware (just like they forced MS to start selling a cheaper version of theirs without IE and Windows Media Player).

Fair is fair. Apple is no longer the little guy. They just effectively put a little guy out of business. And once they start doing that, they can no longer be considered a little guy.

If we're talking about computers running Mac OS, Apple has a clear monopoly. If we're talking about all computers- do we include smartphones and MP3 players? Technically, they are computers too...

[Recursion]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Well I am not a lawyer so you probably know a lot more about this than me (I think you said you were a lawyer), but I still have to disagree on the Apple thing.
It just has to be against some law, somewhere, when Apple puts a legitimate company out of business just so they can maintain their 100% market share and total monopoly on the industry.

If Psystar buys parts legitimately, buys software legitimately, and builds legitimate computers, Apple should not be allowed to stop them. The only thing Apple should be able to do is refuse to sell them the OS (which, again, Microsoft got smacked down for even threatening to stop selling their OS to companies it didn't like).

I haven't looked in a while, but I'm pretty sure Apple has pretty close to as much money as Microsoft these days. So their actions should be treated the same. We can be pretty certain that if Microsoft put some company out of business for not buying their hardware directly from Microsoft, they would have the feds crawling all over them.

Apple's actions are just unbelievable to me. Google should go on a major ad campaign that only exposes Apple's actions. Do it politician style, lol. They are operating under a business model that basically says, "Rather than put out the best product, we'll just put out average stuff and market the heck out of it. When the public figures out that it's just average stuff and other companies have better stuff, we'll just try to put them out of business instead of trying to make a better product." That's the only explanation for Apple shutting down Psystar. And that just screams monopoly, and aggressive actions being taken to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, Apple's next move would be to pull their OS off the open market, so the courts would have to force Apple to sell their OS seperate of any hardware (just like they forced MS to start selling a cheaper version of theirs without IE and Windows Media Player).

Fair is fair. Apple is no longer the little guy. They just effectively put a little guy out of business. And once they start doing that, they can no longer be considered a little guy.

If we're talking about computers running Mac OS, Apple has a clear monopoly. If we're talking about all computers- do we include smartphones and MP3 players? Technically, they are computers too...

You know, it all boils down to how the market is defined. Mac-compatible computers? All computers? I'd guess it would be Personal Computers. So that would include Window-compatible computers too.

Predatory conduct isn't always illegal. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. I personally believe that Apple can do what it's doing with the software licensing, because it's their software and they don't have monopoly power in the PC Market. Do I think it's lame? Yeah, I kinda do. So what if some hardware vendor wants to bundle Mac software with hardware, where they've purchased licenses to the software? Mac should be happy that their name is getting put out there by another company.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by Recursion

You know, it all boils down to how the market is defined. Mac-compatible computers? All computers? I'd guess it would be Personal Computers. So that would include Window-compatible computers too.

Predatory conduct isn't always illegal. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. I personally believe that Apple can do what it's doing with the software licensing, because it's their software and they don't have monopoly power in the PC Market. Do I think it's lame? Yeah, I kinda do. So what if some hardware vendor wants to bundle Mac software with hardware, where they've purchased licenses to the software? Mac should be happy that their name is getting put out there by another company.

Even if you include Windows computers, if you include smartphones and MP3 players (that are capable of running apps) then Apple is still either right up there with MS or maybe even ahead. And since both of those devices do a lot of the same things as computers, it would be fair to include them.

I don't know if you could say Apple has a monopoly (when you include smartphones and MP3 players that can run apps), but when it comes to putting together hardware Apple is the far and away market leader. Not only that, but they are going out of their way to put the little guys (like Psystar) out of business, and stifle innovation by the companies that have grown into legitimate threats to them (like HTC).

I think Apple is clearly out of control and it's time the feds gave them a reality check. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Microsoft was not allowed to say how companies installed their software, so Apple most definitely should not be allowed to either.

Is there any way to find out when these things will finally make it to a court room? I wonder how long that Psystar case has been going on, and when we might see a resolution, one way or the other.

[Recursion]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Even if you include Windows computers, if you include smartphones and MP3 players (that are capable of running apps) then Apple is still either right up there with MS or maybe even ahead. And since both of those devices do a lot of the same things as computers, it would be fair to include them.

I don't know if you could say Apple has a monopoly (when you include smartphones and MP3 players that can run apps), but when it comes to putting together hardware Apple is the far and away market leader. Not only that, but they are going out of their way to put the little guys (like Psystar) out of business, and stifle innovation by the companies that have grown into legitimate threats to them (like HTC).

I think Apple is clearly out of control and it's time the feds gave them a reality check. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Microsoft was not allowed to say how companies installed their software, so Apple most definitely should not be allowed to either.

Is there any way to find out when these things will finally make it to a court room? I wonder how long that Psystar case has been going on, and when we might see a resolution, one way or the other.

Actually, the broader the market, the less market power Apple has. So the most narrow market, Mac-OS compatible computers, would result in the strongest market for Apple -- and the more likely predation would trigger anti-trust liability.

Anyhow, yeah, they are being bullies. The easiest way would be to just watch the news go by. I'm sure there will be lots of news about it ... lol!

[kyrumo]

HTC has been making phones alot longer then Apple, maybe they need to look into their patents files

[rb240z]

HTC only has around 58 patents or around that number, compared to the hundreds apple holds. I think google should entice motorola to step in and use their patent for use of a mobile device as a phone. That would just shut everyone up.

[keentech]

Salty Dawg and Recursion -- I didnt mean to bring up something off the topic (sorry OP) and get you two into a debate. I see both sides of the issue, but I feel if I can buy the hardware legally and the software legally that are compatible without someones logo on the case then I should have the right to combine the two. I personally like my TP2 with WinMo that I can do almost anything too. I also like that even though its experimental I can load Droid based roms on it.

But back on topic, how many copy machines, touch screen displays, credit card machines, etc utilize device functions based upon pressing graphics on the screen? Or other mobile phone vendors that use touch screens for that matter. Apple isn't suing them (yet) for using similar technology, instead they go after a big company with lots of money to tie things up in litigation for a couple of years and destroy their profits while hoping to drive prices higher for the rest of us.

Hopefully the judge is not an iPhone user or at least sees that the patent is too vague.

I think if Apple was truly an ingenious brand with smart engineers they would one up everyone with a better device or at the minimum end their exclusive agreements to truly compete on the open market like everyone else.

Just my thoughts.