Which as I have already pointed out, is bloody unlikely. If Apple pay Psystar essentially for nothing, the infringers are going to be lined up around the block to sue Apple. I'd be very surprised if they let that happen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which as I have already pointed out, is bloody unlikely. If Apple pay Psystar essentially for nothing, the infringers are going to be lined up around the block to sue Apple. I'd be very surprised if they let that happen.
It is official, they filed yesterday.
ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand COUNTERCLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN, CLAYTON, AND CARTWRIGHT ACTS, AND STATE AND COMMON UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW against Apple Inc. byPsystar Corporation. (Springer, Colby) (Filed on 8/28/2008)
ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand COUNTERCLAIM FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SHERMAN, CLAYTON, AND CARTWRIGHT ACTS, AND STATE AND COMMON UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW against Apple Inc. byPsystar Corporation. (Springer, Colby) (Filed on 8/28/2008)
Put it in its own thread, so it doesn't get lost in the 600 posts here.
Psystar's 54 Page Answer to Apple's Lawsuit with Counterclaim for Violation of ...
Wait a sec, I thought this would be Apples response to the countersuit - not the other way around. Oh well.
Will a lawyer please speak up
Lot's of people have lots of opinions about what they think is right and fair. It makes for lovely, if not really repetitive, posts, but I'd like someone who acutally understands the legal issues to help us understand the implications.
Of course, if a lawyer did post, the post would be so long I'd get bored and wouldn't read it.
Here's my opinion, since everyone else has theirs. Apple has every right to invest money developing software to sell their hardware without fear that someone else will get a free ride of their R&D. No different than PS3, Wii, Xbox, Nokia, Motorola....
I believe if a company makes a better widget, they should be allowed to sell that widget without someone stealing the shiniest, most coveted part and repackaging it to redirect profit to themselves. And 10% market share is not a monopoly, unless every company is defined to have a monopoly on their brand and products.
Lot's of people have lots of opinions about what they think is right and fair. It makes for lovely, if not really repetitive, posts, but I'd like someone who acutally understands the legal issues to help us understand the implications.
Of course, if a lawyer did post, the post would be so long I'd get bored and wouldn't read it.
Here's my opinion, since everyone else has theirs. Apple has every right to invest money developing software to sell their hardware without fear that someone else will get a free ride of their R&D. No different than PS3, Wii, Xbox, Nokia, Motorola....
I believe if a company makes a better widget, they should be allowed to sell that widget without someone stealing the shiniest, most coveted part and repackaging it to redirect profit to themselves. And 10% market share is not a monopoly, unless every company is defined to have a monopoly on their brand and products.
Lot's of people have lots of opinions about what they think is right and fair. It makes for lovely, if not really repetitive, posts, but I'd like someone who acutally understands the legal issues to help us understand the implications.
Of course, if a lawyer did post, the post would be so long I'd get bored and wouldn't read it.
Here's my opinion, since everyone else has theirs. Apple has every right to invest money developing software to sell their hardware without fear that someone else will get a free ride of their R&D. No different than PS3, Wii, Xbox, Nokia, Motorola....
I believe if a company makes a better widget, they should be allowed to sell that widget without someone stealing the shiniest, most coveted part and repackaging it to redirect profit to themselves. And 10% market share is not a monopoly, unless every company is defined to have a monopoly on their brand and products.
matticus008 lists his profession as a lawyer and seems to know the law quite well ...
you are upgrading from the previous version of mac os that was installed on the machine. if there is none, you are upgrading from the version of mac os x that you erased since every mac ships with a copy of mac os. the FLEXIBILITY that apple allows you - the ability to erase and install, the lack of serial number - is not a right, and it WILL disappear if psystar wins.
At that point Apple will be forced to unbundle the OS from the Mac, in order to do this they will need to institute licensing and activation of the OS and the iApps.
Yay, iTunes activation for the OS and Mac apps.
Don't know if they will be required to license the OS at the current market share, since Apple isn't too far off from being able to prove the last time they did this -- it nearly killed the company.
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand the basic principles in play here, merely a working understanding of antitrust laws. As I said in another thread, in order for Psystar to have antitrust case, they must prove that "Apple Macintosh Computers" are a separate market over which Apple has a monopoly. This was before they filed their response to Apple's complaint. Lo and behold, this is exactly the argument they are making. It is a completely ludicrous argument, and no law degree is required to know it.
and if you want to run a different version you buy it and you pay the price for the license when you buy the disks.
essentially $129 of the cost of your computer can be thought of as paying for the license for the version that is in the box.
even if they can pull off the argument it doesn't mean that they will be excused for their behavior. not all judges go for that hold "we know we broke the rules but come on the rules aren't fair" argument for doing what you want. they see the game for what it is, someone doing what they want and then trying to get the rules changed so they will be excused. instead of waiting to act while the rule is reconsidered.
they will tell you that the box you buy in the store is a full version. that is the way they do their new versions. it's always the whole thing. makes it a heck of a lot less hassle should you need to start over fresh.
Internet Explorer was free, and that was the core of the whole bundling monopoly case with Windows. Maybe someone should sue over forced use of iTunes with the iPod.
Even in the very unlikely event they successfully make this argument, they still have to deal with the issue of trading on Apple's trademarks. It's all quite hopeless.
It was, but the crux of this argument was that Microsoft's 95% share of the personal computer market gave them the ability to choose winners (them) and losers (Netscape) in the web browser market. Bundling is not de facto illegal restraint of trade. It has to be shown to be damaging competition.
Correct, and I'm not a lawyer, I have just always been strangely interested in business law, which covers both copyright and antitrust.
You remember well. Microsoft back then used their Windows monopoly to push internet explorer which back then was not a required component. MS decided to make it necessary by integrating it with Windows to a point where removing it would damage windows to the point of inoperability. You cannot make a similar argument with iTunes since it is not a monopoly product (Windows media player is number one) and its requirement for the iPod is due to the iPods synchronization function - which is related. Even so the iPod's monopoly is not illegal (even if there was one) becasue of two important factors.
1) There are multiple competitors that Apple has no involvement with - you can run iTunes along side multiple media players.
2) The iPods success is due to its popularity since it was able to beat out several rivals at a premium cost. Monopolies due to popularity only become illegal if the monopoly shuts down other players from competing. Building a better mouse trap so to speak is not one of those things.
I read the legal complaints from the Microsoft anti trust case. The government had a better case than Psystar will ever have. Plus, as it is brought up, it doesn't mean that a success will leave Psystar unaffected. You cannot just break a law to prove its wrong. The laws illegality would be a separate matter.
Well if by some miracle happened and Psystar did win, Apple could still sue them out of existence via trademark abuse. The worse would be that OSX would be unbundled and next time Apple would implement some type of proprietary technology to make sure clones don't exist. It doesn't mean that Psystar will be able to stay in business.
If Apple wins, than Psystar could go out of business and be forced to recall all of their computers that they sold. Apple though is not in this for the money.
Microsoft used their overwhelming share of the PC market to leverage themselves into the web browser market. They claimed in their defense that IE was "part of the OS," but the courts did not buy it. They also claimed it could not be removed without making Windows inoperable (and at one point they even threatened to release a non-functional version of Windows without MSIE to comply with the court's demand), but the courts didn't buy that gambit either. Internal e-mails showed that Microsoft bundled IE with Windows for the express purpose of eliminating Netscape as a competitive threat. Even with a smoking gun, it still took years for the government to prove its case, and even then, the sanctions placed on Microsoft were very weak.
The key to all of this is that the "PC market" and the "web browser market" were clearly separate and distinct, and Microsoft was using their market power in the former to restrain competition in the latter. No similar case can be made against Apple. Psystar is attempting to fabricate a market in which they aren't being allowed to complete. They in essence are complaining that they aren't being allowed to sell Apple's product.
You actually remember it better that I do. I actually thought they made internet explorer deliberately part of windows before had specifically so OEM's could not uninstall it. Thats not the case anymore with Vista of course, but MS could care less about that.
That's not the case, because one need not be a monopoly to engage in antitrust violations. The tying alleged by Psystar, for example, does not require monopoly status.
It does, however, require a number of things that are not satisfied, so despite the intuitively attractive "Apple is keeping others from getting OS X by refusing to license", the fact remains that they're not required to license, and the restriction is not tying, but a platform prerequisite. Its depressed retail price, further, brings it only as far as the scope of promotional tying, which is not unlawful.
Starting over fresh has no bearing on what the terms of the license are--nor is it a particularly helpful standard, as most "upgrade" versions allow you to start over fresh as well. A full version at law requires it to be a self-contained package--something that moves as a whole. OEM and upgrade editions require some previous license to be complete. The means of this requirement are varied: it can be ownership of a particular brand of hardware, ownership of a prior negotiated license, or a number of more creative and exotic means, depending on the situation. Some people prefer to use the term 'independent' and 'dependent' rather than 'full' and 'upgrade' in order to avoid confusion with Microsoft-style box labels.
Like recitals in a contract, what you choose to call the product has no bearing on what it is.
You can make the argument, because Apple is using their iPod stance to push iTunes. Most other mp3 players just have a standard removeable drive interface where you can add music however you want. You can't do that with iPods though, and you can't do anything to get music on them unless you use a special third party program.
And you can run your own web browser alongside IE. No problem. Apple DOES shut down (or attempt to) third party media players from syncing to the iPod by making a proprietary interface and not releasing the info. What about people on Windows who use winamp or windows media player? They are forced to install the pile of crap that is iTunes just to get their media over, whereas most other media players will Just Work with WMP or Winamp. Now, there is a reverse engineered ipod plugin for Winamp, but it's not sanctioned by Apple or anything.
I fail to see the difference in bundling a web browser that's uninstallable (but not preventing third party browsers from being installed) and bundling a crappy media management suite that's required to use the product. Both are required, and as you point out, can coexist with others just nicely.