Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Defiant
Now, we know you are an apple phanboy and will spout the Apple company line about licensing.

You suggested that they by "a" copy of OS X and install it on both his G5 and her PC laptop. Using it for more than one installation is not allowed. That is standard throughout the industry and has been upheld multiple times in court. Buying one copy and installing it on multiple computers is illegal. That's piracy. In addition, on all copies of OS X that are sold, the license that is attached to that copy is an UPGRADE license only.

So what if cloning is going on in Germany. Their laws are somewhat different and that will be addressed in the German courts as it is currently in the US courts.

I am not "spouting" the Apple company line. I am stating the law as I, and a lot of other people, understand it.

However, it is a fact that companies can violate antitrust and other laws designed to further competition without having to be as big as Microsoft or without being a monopoly.

That has been ruled on... and Apple cannot be held to be a monopoly on their own products. Judge Alsup tossed those anti-trust allegations out of court. Res Judicata... the thing has been judged.

121 posted on 11/05/2009 10:35:42 AM PST by Swordmaker (Remember, the proper pronunciation of IE is "AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker
installing it on multiple computers is illegal.

that's' why I told him to junk the old Mac.

I cite Germany because there is a grounds for ignoring Apple's license in Germany, even though German laws are similar to ours. There may other grounds under US law, and under the 50 state laws to which Apple is subject. A person used to be able to contract to keep other races out of their neighborhood; courts refused to enforce those provisions. Courts may well decide not to enforce Apple's desires on licensing as well.

As you would know were you an antitrust attorney, the state of the market is constantly shifting, and a decision that involves the market in 2003 may well be very different from one that involves the market in 2009. Not only that, but the theories underlying antitrust keep shifting. Under the Reagan DOJ, and continuing with both Bush's, the "economic" theory of antitrust held sway for the most part. Under Clinton and now Obama, any large entity that uses its power is automatically suspect. I don't agree with that theory, but it may mean that a lot more companies fall under the purview of the DOJ. Apple is clearly not a monopoly in the market for personal computers. But the relevant market may be defined as something different in future litigation.

The point is, only an Apple corporate lawyers and their sycophants would consider the issue open and shut. I do not, and I will use their legally purchased software on my PC unless and until there is more clarity on the issue.

122 posted on 11/05/2009 11:56:26 AM PST by Defiant (The absence of bias appears to be bias to those who are biased.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson