Apple sues HTC for infringing 20 Patents...

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by bkrodgers

Actually, Psystar is a very different situation, and one that's defensible. And believe me, I do NOT like Apple's business practices one bit. Psystar was taking something Apple actually created -- the actual bits in OS X -- and selling them in direct violation of the licensing terms. Apple has every right to set the terms of sale and use of their actual product the way they want. Psystar decided they didn't like those terms and tried to build a business around violating them. The appropriate response if you don't like Apple's refusal to allow their OS to run on an open hardware platform is to NOT BUY IT! That's one of many reasons I don't own a Mac. You have that choice, and there are great alternatives.

I have to disagree with that.

If Apple doesn't like what you are doing with OSX, they have every right to stop selling it to you. But they have no right to tell you how you can and can't use it after you buy it. Once you buy it, it's yours. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.

Apple has every right to void the warranty, cut off support, and stop selling it to you. But they have no right to force you to use it a certain way.

I hope the courts put a stop to all of this "Apple rules the world" madness. They are seriously getting out of hand.

[BeefJerky]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

I have to disagree with that.

If Apple doesn't like what you are doing with OSX, they have every right to stop selling it to you. But they have no right to tell you how you can and can't use it after you buy it. Once you buy it, it's yours. They have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own property.

Apple has every right to void the warranty, cut off support, and stop selling it to you. But they have no right to force you to use it a certain way.

I hope the courts put a stop to all of this "Apple rules the world" madness. They are seriously getting out of hand.

This is wrong on so many levels. Simply put, you do not own the software, you only buy a license for it. As such, you are subject to the terms of the license agreement (or EULA). If the license says that you cannot install it on 3rd party hardware, than you cannot. As an analogy, a software license is akin to having a drivers license. You can get one, but you are subject to very specific terms and conditions regarding what you can do with it. You are limited in what rights you have, and can also also get the license revoked. The reality is that this is a very cut-and-dry case, and no court of law will take Psystar's side in this.

On the other hand, using overly broad patents to try to eliminate competition is more of a gray area. While there are laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, I'm not aware of any that specifically refer to patents. At the same time, I'm quite sure there are precedents set from previous court cases of this nature. These are quite often decided unfavorably for the business that chooses to employ these kinds of tactics. The likelihood of Apple actually being the victor in one of these lawsuits is very small. Apple doesn't necessarily care about winning, and may simply hope to force the other business to concede to licensing agreements for fear of bankruptcy.

[sprintgirl]

i just think its funny that apple just got sued by nokia for pretty much the same thing...and palm uses multi touch pinch zoom...but nobody sues them. everybody sues everybody and i doubt if the htc lovers have a reason to be worried. the legal system is full of loopholes just need their lawyers to be smart enough to find the right one to slip through.

[Mr. X]

Threads merged, no reason to have them in a device section and multiple threads on this subject.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by BeefJerky

This is wrong on so many levels. Simply put, you do not own the software, you only buy a license for it. As such, you are subject to the terms of the license agreement (or EULA). If the license says that you cannot install it on 3rd party hardware, than you cannot. As an analogy, a software license is akin to having a drivers license. You can get one, but you are subject to very specific terms and conditions regarding what you can do with it. You are limited in what rights you have, and can also also get the license revoked. The reality is that this is a very cut-and-dry case, and no court of law will take Psystar's side in this.

We'll see how this all plays out. While it's true that you are bound to a EULA, it's also true that a EULA has to meet certain criteria in order to be valid.

Remember- Microsoft got smacked down by just about every government in the free world for doing something similar to this with Windows back in the day. Their's was slightly different (they said they didn't want Windows running on hardware that also ran Linux) but it's the same basic principle: once you buy the software you are free to do whatever you want (within reason) with it.

In short- just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean the consumer is bound to that EULA. That EULA still has to follow the laws. Microsoft found this out the hard way, and I'm positive Apple will too if Psystar has enough money to fight them.

[Recursion]

Originally Posted by BeefJerky

This is wrong on so many levels. Simply put, you do not own the software, you only buy a license for it. As such, you are subject to the terms of the license agreement (or EULA). If the license says that you cannot install it on 3rd party hardware, than you cannot. As an analogy, a software license is akin to having a drivers license. You can get one, but you are subject to very specific terms and conditions regarding what you can do with it. You are limited in what rights you have, and can also also get the license revoked. The reality is that this is a very cut-and-dry case, and no court of law will take Psystar's side in this.

On the other hand, using overly broad patents to try to eliminate competition is more of a gray area. While there are laws regarding anti-competitive behavior, I'm not aware of any that specifically refer to patents. At the same time, I'm quite sure there are precedents set from previous court cases of this nature. These are quite often decided unfavorably for the business that chooses to employ these kinds of tactics. The likelihood of Apple actually being the victor in one of these lawsuits is very small. Apple doesn't necessarily care about winning, and may simply hope to force the other business to concede to licensing agreements for fear of bankruptcy.

Agreed, re: Psystar's situation. The whole "licensing" arrangement that has arisen, as compared to the "sale of a copy," has given copyright/patent holders much broader control over their property.

Re: misuse of overly-broad patents, yeah, I don't think the Clayton and Sherman Acts (the main US Antitrust Statutes) specifically reference patents, but I'm pretty sure there is case law that does so in light of these statutes. It seems pretty clear to me that misusing a patent would qualify as "attempted monopolizing." And I'd wager that HTC's answer will include counterclaims for Apple's anticompetitive conduct.

[Recursion]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

We'll see how this all plays out. While it's true that you are bound to a EULA, it's also true that a EULA has to meet certain criteria in order to be valid.

Remember- Microsoft got smacked down by just about every government in the free world for doing something similar to this with Windows back in the day. Their's was slightly different (they said they didn't want Windows running on hardware that also ran Linux) but it's the same basic principle: once you buy the software you are free to do whatever you want (within reason) with it.

In short- just because it's in a EULA doesn't mean the consumer is bound to that EULA. That EULA still has to follow the laws. Microsoft found this out the hard way, and I'm positive Apple will too if Psystar has enough money to fight them.

I don't recall exactly why M$'s EULA terms were deemed voidable/unenforceable. But based on how the software industry has developed over the past decade, I just can't see any court striking terms that limit use to particular hardware. I do see how it can look a bit dark, especially when compared to the "sale of a copy." You know, this whole licensing angle popped up because of the "first sale doctrine," which says a buyer can do anything they want with what they bought. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

[BlackDynamite]

Originally Posted by Recursion

I don't recall exactly why M$'s EULA terms were deemed voidable/unenforceable. But based on how the software industry has developed over the past decade, I just can't see any court striking terms that limit use to particular hardware. I do see how it can look a bit dark, especially when compared to the "sale of a copy." You know, this whole licensing angle popped up because of the "first sale doctrine," which says a buyer can do anything they want with what they bought. Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Well there were a number of things that MS got in hot water over, but one of the main things was they forced OEM's to agree that they would not install Windows on any hardware that they also installed Linux on (even if they were not installed at the same time, MS did not want Windows being installed on identical hardware to Linux machines- knowing the Linux machines would be cheaper and pose a competitive threat).

That is almost exactly what Apple is doing here. If it wasn't okay for MS to do it, I can't imagine it will be okay for Apple to do it either.

You can read about it here:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/6980

So if Microsoft is not allowed to lock OEMs into only Microsoft software, then I can't imagine Apple will be allowed to lock OEMs into only Mac hardware. I am positive Apple will lose that case if Psystar has enough money to actually fight it. If Apple somehow wins, you can bet Microsoft will be using it as grounds to appeal their antitrust cases all over the world.

[Recursion]

Originally Posted by SaltyDawg

Well there were a number of things that MS got in hot water over***
That is almost exactly what Apple is doing here. If it wasn't okay for MS to do it, I can't imagine it will be okay for Apple to do it either.
***
So if Microsoft is not allowed to lock OEMs into only Microsoft software, then I can't imagine Apple will be allowed to lock OEMs into only Mac hardware. I am positive Apple will lose that case if Psystar has enough money to actually fight it. If Apple somehow wins, you can bet Microsoft will be using it as grounds to appeal their antitrust cases all over the world.

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?

[dicast]

Htc got the Iphone killer and Apple agreed. Apple, instead of suing htc....why dont you come up with a better phone and open to all carriers.