I've quoted the authorities below.
You've provided no authorities. You've provided secondary references, and what's more, they agree with me! This is a full-on carnival of absurdity.
Now you state yours because so far you just keep pulling them out of thin air.
Had you even so much as read your first link, you'd see that that is not the case:
"(a) Market power Despite the fact that tying has generally been considered under section 1, rather than section 2, of the Sherman Act,15 a certain degree of market power by the seller in the market of the tying product has consistently been one of the prerequisites of illegal tying."
"(b) Tying arrangements Firms with significant market power were prohibited from entering into tying arrangements, i.e. to force customers to purchase a tied product along with the "separate" tying product. The firms were subject to this prohibition independently of any anticompetitive effects or efficiency gains. In what follows, we first address what it means to have "two separate products" and then what it means to "force" a purchase."
"(c) A substantial amount of commerce in the tied product For a tying arrangement to be illegal under the per se approach, "a.'not insubstantial' amount of interstate commerce"29 in the tied product had to be affected. "
"In Jefferson Parish, a 30% market share led the Court to conclude that the defendant did not have the requisite market power."
"2. THE RULE OF REASON 1N CONTEXT U.S. antitrust policy towards tying had a long journey from the hostile approach of the early per se rule to a modified per se rule willing to consider the possibility of tying efficiencies (with four Justices in favor of a rule of reason) under Jefferson Parish, to a neutral position under the Microsoft III rule of reason."
All of that should look substantially familiar, seeing as though I've already said it all.
Apple has 100% of the OS X hardware market. 100% apparently is not enough for you.
THERE IS NO "OS X HARDWARE" MARKET. All companies have 100% of the "market" (a "monopoly") of their own products. That does not make it a
market.
You have said the hardware and software are separate. "OS X Hardware" is therefore an impossibility, unless OS X and Mac hardware are naturally related, in which case--surprise! Defense to unlawful tying.
Here's a legal definition of tying
It's exactly the one I've already given. You have not demonstrated how it fits.
There can be zero legal doubt that Apple has engaged in 'tying'.
Tying is not illegal. I don't know why you can't get even that much through your head.
There can be little doubt that by suing Psystar that Apple is attempting to prevent the trade and commerce of Psystar selling generic Intel computer hardware.
Psystar is not being prevented from selling generic Intel hardware any more than HP is being prevented from doing so.
Apple is clearly trying to block trade and commerce of computer hardware in a significant part of an economic market with their Eula that prevents installation on anyone else's computers.
How does that interfere with trade?
Not relevant. No one is suing Apple about being forced to get OS X with their Mac. You're flopping about with backwards examples.
So while Matticus states that Apple does not have significant market share or economic clout to warrant anti-trust behavior, it is perfectly clear that is has no been the case in U.S. precdent of anti-trust law.
"In
Jefferson Parish, a 30% market share led the Court to conclude that the defendant did not have the requisite market power." Quite plainly in a source you linked but have neither read nor understood. Apple market share: 7%. You do the math.
it is quite EASILY PROVEN that Apple is both guilty of 'tying' and violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
We're waiting. Tying is not illegal. It's time for you to demonstrate the next five steps.
Here are some more articles on tying and the Psystar Case that present a more balanced view than Matticus' ramblings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
Yes, let's look at that. "
It is often illegal when the products are not naturally related". That's correct--and a presumption Psystar has to overcome by separating the markets. But when they do so, the relationship of the software no longer applies to the hardware. See above, with the ongoing ignorance that is the "OS X hardware market" debacle.
"Tying is related to Freebie marketing [...] a common (and legal) method of giving away (or selling at a substantial discount) one item to ensure a continual flow of sales of another related item."
"More recently, the Court has eliminated any presumption of market power based solely on the fact that the tying product is patented or copyrighted"
"Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements:" It's actually five, as I outlined above, in the case of vertical non-price allegations.
Wikipedia is not exactly correct, but it's basically on track, and it finds no disagreement whatsoever with anything I've said.
Balanced News on the Psystar legal Case:
None of those news articles presents a complete analysis, and each one fully admits that Psystar's only hope is, as I've already said, in convincing an asleep-at-the-wheel judge either that Apple has market power in the desktop space (basically impossible) or that Mac hardware is somehow "different"--without collapsing back into a single market.
Indeed, all of them talk about how unlikely a Psystar victory is. One of them even ends with: "My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control." Another says: "systar is unlikely to survive no matter the outcome".
These are
your links, for crying out loud.
What are you arguing from, Matticus? You ignore the law. You ignore the facts of the case. You refuse to look at any of the evidence and you declare the trial over before it has even begun.
No. Quite clearly, the facts have been in discussion for pages now. You've presented nothing which contradicts my explanation of the law, and your "favorable" sources even agree with me.
While Psystar is guilty of violating Apple's Eula, that Eula is clearly null and void due to its anti-trust nature
Declaring the trial over before it's begun much? Here's the thing you don't understand: innocent until proven guilty applies in unfair competition as well. The burden of proof lies with the affirmative--and you've made no case whatsoever except wishes and ponies and conclusory statements. The law does not provide much for Psystar, and Apple enjoys the benefit of the status quo.
When you've read and understood the Wikipedia article, let alone the DOJ article, maybe you'll start making some informed comments. Until then, you continue to waste time and space.
