next »

[perkiset]

I may completely agree with you here.  The only question is this: exactly how much of a monopoly does Apple in fact have?

An excellent question, and perhaps the most penetrating so far. Given a much more dynamic and contemporary analysis of the the intention of the word, is Apple actually in a monopoly position that is not legally well defined or articulated? Are they taking advantage of a situation that M$ is currently in and would be bagged for, but based on their non %-based monopoly are in fact behaving badly because they're "under the radar"? Totally open to those discussions. And IMO that's where it really needs to go, as I've said a few times: the problem is that there aren't really any well thought out and deployed laws that apply here - software is different. That doesn't mean that it should be protected stupidly, but perhaps needs to be reassessed in how it (software) affects the world and how companies use legacy laws and modes to their advantage. Totally open to that discussion.

If you are talking percentages then I'm totally with you.  And you know how I feel about M$ - way monopoly concern that calls for definite monopoly watch from regulators.  But how could Apple be utterly free from this same monopoly watch when M$ is boxed into a total monopoly view??

Again, I think the problem is definition of monopoly: perhaps that's really the wrong way to define things (the word brings with it baggage that, from a strict nomenclature perspective, is inappropriate).

VS' notion of software rapidly becoming part of the commons may well be the tact to take. IMO (very, very IMO) the path to peace is through self-chosen democracy and access to knowledge. Therefore, so long as we can restrict knowledge then we are behaving contrary to, what I would consider to be, a pretty fundamental goal. But here's where people a whole lot smarter than me will have to weigh in: if transportation (ie, like cars) are a requirement for society to go forward, and you provide SmartCars but not Bentleys, are you hindering knowledge or hindering cool? Are you artificially flattening the capitalist landscape (which, IMO, needs to exist in a highly-regulated yet vibrant state as well) in such a way that really doesn't increase transportation capability, but eliminates the differences between the poorest and wealthiest of our society? I'm not ready to flatten the wealth index. And I don't think the world is ready for that either.

I mean, really - does everyone need a Mac? Of course not. As you have pointed out, whether I find value in them or not, they are more expensive than the most essential computer required to have access to virtually the entirety of human knowledge. In fact, I'm told repeatedly that owning one is a stupid decision   so if people have all the access they need for managing computers via free sources (and quite excellent free sources, let's be fair) then why do they need a Mac? And if that's the case, do they have a monopoly, or simply a lock on cool?

[perkiset]

@ Nop: "The only people that profit from this shit are the lawyers"
Fucking BULLSEYE.

The only thing I would add is that lawyers are actually expert at keeping companies off balance and involved in these battles. Despicable.

So in the psystar / apple case. Judge could decide they both are being stupid. Order psystar to pay apple a fair royalty for the OSX OS. For apple well make pystar clearly state that the "pirated" machine is not going to work as well as the "real thing". And so if u buy a psystar machine, and they like the OSX, well have psystar recommend to the user that they could buy the "real thing" and have psystar get a comission. That way both sides are unhappy but both sides will win.

Spot on. But unfortunately, that's just a little too "common sensy."

And now that the two are the Hatfields and McCoys, it'll never happen. Their lawyers will each go to the mattresses to prove their point.

<edit: minor typo>

[isthisthingon]

That doesn't mean that it should be protected stupidly, but perhaps needs to be reassessed in how it (software) affects the world and how companies use legacy laws and modes to their advantage.

 

I'm told repeatedly that owning one is a stupid decision

Where do you find these people??    Owning a Mac is a luxury afforded to those fortunate enough to enjoy their myriad benefits IMO.

And if that's the case, do they have a monopoly, or simply a lock on cool?

Does solar power eliminate the possibility of a PG&E "monopoly?"  It's not about whether something can be replaced by something else.  It's about the economics required to do so, along with the competitive imbalance created

[nop_90]

Just for the record I am not one of those westerners who idolize all eastern values.
Like they come to the east they think that everything here is perfect etc.
Western values are very good when it comes to constructing roads,railways etc.
Basically the city,state etc saids we will build a road from A to B, and they just draw a line on the map, tell everyone to get out of the way and u get a nice pretty road in a very short time.

Here a highway will look like a noodle that you threw against the wall  
As the surveyers attempt to lay the path of the road, no one will want thier house moved out of the way. So the highway has to go around it  
And then because everyone is arguing where this road will go it can take years to build  

And likewise wouldn't it be fair if you were legally permitted to run anyone else's software on a PC, say um... OS X for example?

Americans are very wrapped up with this issue about "fair". And they are very wrapped up about this issue of truth .
Bottom line is life is not fair get over it  
Also changing a law will not change people's attitudes and values.
I had an ex who was black and she would get angry at me because of my "politically incorrect" statements.

I told her that a lot of the problems that blacks had where their own fault. And that with these "civil rights" movements etc they where making the problem worse.
The example i would give is chinese vs blacks.
In 1900 in USA and Canada the racism against chinese was just as bad as against blacks.
In USA and Canada there where actually laws against chinese owning property, the types of buisness they could open etc.
Until 1980 in Canada there was a limit of the ammount of chinese that could immigrate. And USA had similar racial laws.

But how did the chinese solve thier problem. Well they sent their kid's to school to make sure they got educated.
They worked hard. Funny how racism seems to disappear when the chinese store offers better service and cheaper items
And when employers found out that chinese are harder workers etc, they where more inclined to hire them.
Probably the problem now is "reverse racism" people assume all chinese are harder workers etc.  
Nope u can't be a drug addict or alcoholic you are chinese  

I am 1/2 chinese. My father who is white told me when i was growing up. You are not white, you will have to work 2x as hard to show people u can do the job.
(This is not true anymore, but at the time it was true).
I guess I could have sat around crying how life was unfair etc. But I followed my father's advice.

Anyway as usual I have deviated .

Goju is the willow tree blown by the strong wind," said Miyagi Sensei. The strong wind blows the willow. The willow never resists the wind, just remains passive, but will never be broken or destroyed. In this way we take advantage of the opponent's strength flow. It is a secret of the arts that we have to master through the practice.
While when the strong wind blows the oak tree which can not bend with the wind comes crashing down  

[isthisthingon]

Americans are very wrapped up with this issue about "fair". And they are very wrapped up about this issue of truth.
Bottom line is life is not fair get over it

In fairness , this is not about western versus eastern values, or the search for truth, or discrimination, or Adolph Hitler, or the breeding patterns of the East Bangkok Ferret.  This is about business law.  In business law the term fair and fairness are used constantly, for what would be the purpose of even having such a legal body if not for the stated intention of making business "fair."

Fair is actually a term used far too often but as it relates to business law, its intention is to "level the playing field" or however you choose to describe it, it seeks to maximize business velocity in multiple dimensions.  Fair is not an eye for an eye in this case.  It's about cultivating the best possible business garden, if you will.  When a weed begins choking other flowers, vegetables and other desirable productive plants, the "gardener" steps in and pulls the weed.  It's not about fairness in the moral sense at all.  It's about recognizing when some weed - or even a once desirable plant - grows out of control because it's leaching the nutrients away from others who would have produced good things for us.  All we get is Apples instead of the salad we all worked hard to grow and all paid to have.

In America when you vote for a salad and wind up with someone's chosen fruit instead, it's our responsibility - in fact our duty - to bring this imbalance to light.  Otherwise the concept of a democracy is a complete and total sham.  I may be off on this issue, and Apple may be in the right.  Yet voicing my objection is part of my responsibility because that's how I see it - even if perks thinks it's just because I want a clone 

[vsloathe]

VS' notion of software rapidly becoming part of the commons may well be the tact to take. IMO (very, very IMO) the path to peace is through self-chosen democracy and access to knowledge. Therefore, so long as we can restrict knowledge then we are behaving contrary to, what I would consider to be, a pretty fundamental goal. But here's where people a whole lot smarter than me will have to weigh in: if transportation (ie, like cars) are a requirement for society to go forward, and you provide SmartCars but not Bentleys, are you hindering knowledge or hindering cool? Are you artificially flattening the capitalist landscape (which, IMO, needs to exist in a highly-regulated yet vibrant state as well) in such a way that really doesn't increase transportation capability, but eliminates the differences between the poorest and wealthiest of our society? I'm not ready to flatten the wealth index. And I don't think the world is ready for that either.

Ah yes, but I think your analogy is a little off. I use the analogy of public transportation. In fact, I use it even in arguments about other things like health care. Look, you may think riding the subway or the bus sucks. Good for you, don't use it if you can afford not to. But don't begrudge us the opportunity to provide it for people who *need* to use it.

[vsloathe]

Also, keep in mind that people do in fact still pay a small amount of money to use public transportation. It's small because it is taxpayer-subsidized, but it still does cost something to run.

[perkiset]

Hmmm ... I'd have thunk that we were spot on on this one ... my point was exactly that, if we use transportation as the "requisite social component" and we provide SmartCars for free, have we done our duty? That would allow people that WANT to purchase Bentleys the ability to do so, but still makes sure that the essential component for social growth is free. Am I missing you here?

[vsloathe]

No you're not missing me. I'm not particularly concerned with this case, my analogy was intended for the broader Free Software thrust of the issue.

[isthisthingon]

if transportation (ie, like cars) are a requirement for society to go forward, and you provide SmartCars but not Bentleys, are you hindering knowledge or hindering cool?

This is a great analogy, since in my mind it clarifies one of the basic missed points of Freedom Software.  By using cars as the analogy you're reducing the knowledge portion of the equation to restricting entry into the field of auto mechanics.  The real emphasis is on providing free transportation as opposed to truly empowering people.

Knowledge is freedom and ignorance is slavery.  Therefore I prefer to view this issue in terms of books, since it highlights the crucial and often overlooked element of education.  Providing subsidized books for the less fortunate is a great thing.  Imprisoning someone for sharing a book that would otherwise educate said less fortunate is closer to the mark I believe.  Computers form the foundation of the world economy.  Their restrictions have global consequences; most of which we don't see, don't recognize and in the case of conservatives don't even care about.  But the essence of sharecropping is rejected by those who fear the leveling of the wealth index.  This is further obscured by assertions that those in favor simply want free handouts. 

In a way it's not too different from arguments put forth by conservatives for a variety of social issues.  What's really at the heart of the "ownership society?"