BINGO! What you described is called an arbitrage opportunity. It's how efficent markets came about, is why Wall Street Bankers make boat-loas of money, and is the exact reason why you don't see large price variations for commodities across various markets.
They most likely Transfer Price the cost of Office to the MacBU. i.e. the MacBU probably has to pay a per copy licensing fee to the OfficeBU. This would subsidize the costs to the OfficeBU and would make each units profit margins more in line with where they should be.
Allan Greenspan was one of the most prominent supporters of quantatative securitization models that allowed for the easy lending of subprime mortgages. He was also one of the most vocal supporters of bank deregulation. Much of the debt structure that caused these defaults were directly related to his policies...
I citied the wrong act, the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. 1 states: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.
Most tying arragements are not illegal, as you mentioned, becasue they are not contractual. Size nor market share also have no precdence in the limiting of competition in tying aragments (see Harvey Siegel v. Chicken Delight).
I agree with the rest of your comments espcially the current state of PC's being tied to Vista. My PERSONAL gripe is with the differentiation of hardware and software.
I completely understand your, and apparently the courts understanding, of licensing. I still feel a strong argument could be made that Apple's EULA is in violation of the Clayton Act, specifically with regards to CONTRACTUAL tying arragements (i.e. EULA).
What about the precedence set during the resale of AutoCAD on Ebay? In that case the ruling favored the ebay client stating that they "owned" a licensed product because they purchased it.
If you buy a Ford Mustang engine it is illegal for Ford to say you are ONLY allowed to install this in Ford Mustangs. If I want to put a lot of work into fitting that Mustang engine into my Accord, than so be, it's my engine.
If they want to sell their software for $2000, than that's fine, people have the right to chose purchase or not. Once they buy it though, THEY OWN THE PRODUCT and are free to do with it as they wish. Pystar purchased legal copies of OSX, after that purchase it is their discretion. Apple could have just as easily sold OSX for $2000 and priced them out of the market, but they didn't.
What everyone seems to be missing here is that it's not about whether Apple profits from FOSS or does good in the community, but it's using an illegal tying arragement on OSX. Does Apple have the right to tell me for what purpose I can and cannot use software that I purchase?
What I got to the store and buy Clorox bleach, that bleach is mine and what I do with it is my business.
It would have been nice to see a Dell or Eee out in time for the holidays running OSX.
Slashdot Mirror
BINGO! What you described is called an arbitrage opportunity. It's how efficent markets came about, is why Wall Street Bankers make boat-loas of money, and is the exact reason why you don't see large price variations for commodities across various markets.
They most likely Transfer Price the cost of Office to the MacBU. i.e. the MacBU probably has to pay a per copy licensing fee to the OfficeBU. This would subsidize the costs to the OfficeBU and would make each units profit margins more in line with where they should be.
Are you sure you don't work in PR for a solar company...
If people hadn't wined, would they still have done it?
Allan Greenspan was one of the most prominent supporters of quantatative securitization models that allowed for the easy lending of subprime mortgages. He was also one of the most vocal supporters of bank deregulation. Much of the debt structure that caused these defaults were directly related to his policies...
I citied the wrong act, the Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. 1 states: Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Most tying arragements are not illegal, as you mentioned, becasue they are not contractual. Size nor market share also have no precdence in the limiting of competition in tying aragments (see Harvey Siegel v. Chicken Delight). I agree with the rest of your comments espcially the current state of PC's being tied to Vista. My PERSONAL gripe is with the differentiation of hardware and software.
I completely understand your, and apparently the courts understanding, of licensing. I still feel a strong argument could be made that Apple's EULA is in violation of the Clayton Act, specifically with regards to CONTRACTUAL tying arragements (i.e. EULA).
What about the precedence set during the resale of AutoCAD on Ebay? In that case the ruling favored the ebay client stating that they "owned" a licensed product because they purchased it.
If you buy a Ford Mustang engine it is illegal for Ford to say you are ONLY allowed to install this in Ford Mustangs. If I want to put a lot of work into fitting that Mustang engine into my Accord, than so be, it's my engine.
If they want to sell their software for $2000, than that's fine, people have the right to chose purchase or not. Once they buy it though, THEY OWN THE PRODUCT and are free to do with it as they wish. Pystar purchased legal copies of OSX, after that purchase it is their discretion. Apple could have just as easily sold OSX for $2000 and priced them out of the market, but they didn't.
What everyone seems to be missing here is that it's not about whether Apple profits from FOSS or does good in the community, but it's using an illegal tying arragement on OSX. Does Apple have the right to tell me for what purpose I can and cannot use software that I purchase? What I got to the store and buy Clorox bleach, that bleach is mine and what I do with it is my business. It would have been nice to see a Dell or Eee out in time for the holidays running OSX.