Psystar's 54 Page Answer to Apple's Lawsuit with Counterclaim for Violation of ...

[CWallace]

Page 26 is where it gets interesting...When you break down industries to such levels (Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket) surely they all have a monopoly in some sense.

If somehow this goes through surely it will be the end of apple as we know it.

It will be more then the end of Apple as we know it.

Such a ruling would open up legal clones of things like video game platforms, since Sony would have a "monopoly" on the Playstation sub-market. Same with Microsoft and the XBOX and Nintendo and the Wii. Or Dolby Laboratories and their "monopoly" on their multi-channel audio sub-market. And we can't forget Comcast and Time Warner on their "monopolies" of their cable content delivery sub-markets. I am sure there are many, many more.

I would not be surprised that, should Psystar's claims not be thrown out immediately, you will see scores - if not hundreds - of "friends of the court" motions by companies in support of Apple.

 

[Sun Baked]

I know they are thinking quite a bit of the OS is open source and Apple doesn't own it ... but they tend to forget that Apple purchased the core OS from NeXT, then made Darwin open source while retaining ownership -- with the right to Terminate you at any time.

Just looking at the Springer/Colby response and during the past week in interviews about how Psystar is only modifying open source code, they are running under this delusion.

Many might take this original lawsuit as a termination of your ability to distribute modifications to Apple's open source code.

 

[r.j.s]

Wow, 54 pages of straight crap!

So, does this mean that every product in existence is in its own market? That's what Psystar seems to think.

 

[pdjudd]

I know they are thinking quite a bit of the OS is open source and Apple doesn't own it ... but they tend to forget that Apple purchased the core OS from NeXT, then made Darwin open source while retaining ownership -- with the right to Terminate you at any time.

Just looking at the Springer/Colby response and during the past week in interviews about how Psystar is only modifying open source code, they are running under this delusion.

Many might take this original lawsuit as a termination of your ability to distribute modifications to Apple's open source code.

It actually gets better - Psystar assumes that they can redistribute the open source components under Apple's trademarks. That isn't legal unless its an authorized derivative. Apple still owns the trademarks to pretty much all of OSX - even the closed portions that are not open source and are not open to redistribution. Simply because Darwin is open source, does not release the trademark infringements nor does it make OSX open source as a whole.

They are just making things worse.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I think it should make some difference that Mac OS X is sold as a stand alone product. It's not as Microsoft sells a boxed version of the XBOX OS, etc.

Apple is essentially asking for the right to sell a product but maintain control of what the owner of the product does with it.

I think a more manly Apple would just find a way to make sure it didn't work on computers they don't want it to than to resort to legal code, just like I thought the music industry should have innovated their way out of P2P file sharing rather than using the legal code.

 

[zombitronic]

Anyone have a realistic estimate how long the proceedings will run?

 

[Definity]

lol...

39. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE’s customer loyalty is well-established notwithstanding the higher prices of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System versus those of a similarly situated non-APPLE product. APPLE customers have, in fact, been referred to by Seeking Alpha as “zealots” and “fanboys” in addition to “Mac loyalists.” These customers, accordingly to Seeking Alpha, will “defend the company and its products in any debate going on around them.”

 

[NT1440]

lol...

what legal value does that even hold??

 

[r.j.s]

what legal value does that even hold??

None, Psystar is just whining, like they are on every other page.

 

[NT1440]

None, Psystar is just whining, like they are on every other page.

what i really dont understand is why they are just bankrupting themselves. they should just bail out while they can

 

[zombitronic]

39. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that APPLE’s customer loyalty is well-established notwithstanding the higher prices of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System versus those of a similarly situated non-APPLE product. APPLE customers have, in fact, been referred to by Seeking Alpha as “zealots” and “fanboys” in addition to “Mac loyalists.” These customers, accordingly to Seeking Alpha, will “defend the company and its products in any debate going on around them.”

Who do these customers of Apple think they are? ...Enjoying and finding value with their products. Makes me sick.

 

[r.j.s]

what i really dont understand is why they are just bankrupting themselves. they should just bail out while they can

I'm guessing they have some pretty big backers that would like to see Psystar win but wouldn't dare attempt anything remotely similar themselves.

 

[NT1440]

Who do these customers of Apple think they are? ...Enjoying and finding value with their products. Makes me sick.

scum is all they are

 

[nanofrog]

I'm guessing they have some pretty big backers that would like to see Psystar win but wouldn't dare attempt anything remotely similar themselves.

This is sort of what I was thinking. Perhaps even a law firm in it to elevate their reputation, or absolute believers?

 

[Definity]

I actually hope they win. thy're like a pitbull and won't let go. they remind me of piratebay. I never steal music or download it, but I have some sort of affinity, an acquired love. I'm enjoying what they're doing but I'm sick of debating. Let the pros do it and just sit back, grab some tacos and enjoy the view.


It'll mean better spec'd, better quality and less costly products. Everyone wins.

 

[alphaod]

So what part of Apple makes OS X and Mac doesn't Psystar get?

 

[pdjudd]

It'll mean better spec'd, better quality and less costly products. Everyone wins.

I assure that will not happen. Psystar will not succeed if these claims in the response are any indication of their legal prowess.

 

[benzslrpee]

this is like suing Chevy for being the only company that makes Chevy cars...

 

[IJ Reilly]

It will be more then the end of Apple as we know it.

Such a ruling would open up legal clones of things like video game platforms, since Sony would have a "monopoly" on the Playstation sub-market. Same with Microsoft and the XBOX and Nintendo and the Wii. Or Dolby Laboratories and their "monopoly" on their multi-channel audio sub-market. And we can't forget Comcast and Time Warner on their "monopolies" of their cable content delivery sub-markets. I am sure there are many, many more.

I would not be surprised that, should Psystar's claims not be thrown out immediately, you will see scores - if not hundreds - of "friends of the court" motions by companies in support of Apple.

Right, and even more to the point, if Psystar can successfully argue that "Apple Macintosh Computers" are a separate market over which Apple has a monopoly, then any other product can also be called a monopoly.

The good news is that they aren't going to make this case successfully. Which only leaves the question: What the hell are they doing, and why?

 

[macsmurf]

The unlawful tying claim seems like the most interesting one. The monopoly claim seems a bit far-fetched.

 

[ccuk]

I think people are underestimating Psystar here. Many people have been on the rather unpleasant end of Apple legal, and bowed out gracefully, Psystar have not, and therefore must feel they have a case.

I see this as competition personally. I love the Mac Pro, and iMac, I use daily for work, but I do feel Apple have become a little stagnant and in their desktop and laptop markets. I have seen very little innovation and a lot of focus on their new markets such as Apple tv, iPhone, iPods, iTunes etc... maybe this Psystar case is the sort of competition we need to bring back the old Apple.

If Psystar winning resulted in cheaper hardware, Apple updating their desktop lines more frequently, or in the more ideal world offering machines with greater expandability... I am sorry to say I am all for it. I offer no allegiance to any brand, I need equipment which will get the job done in the quickest time, on or under budget.


I eagerly await the outcome of this case.

 

[Much Ado]

^ But they cannot win. They have no case, and no argument.

 

[Sun Baked]

The unlawful tying claim seems like the most interesting one. The monopoly claim seems a bit far-fetched.

And likely the one with legs, but Apple does have strong tying arguments. And tying is allowed if it is a business necessity.

Apple does have ample evidence with the last clone fiasco to show that it eroded their marketshare and dropped their profits to dangerous levels -- aka, they likely pulled the trigger to go with clones too early, and didn't have a sustainable marketshare, which was at a level somewhere around double current levels (or was it even more than 2x) in 1994.

Since their US and worldwide marketshare was higher in 1994 than it is now, they might still be able to use the viability argument at the current US and Worldwide marketshare.

While it is an archaic business model for desktop PCs (there are two big names left trying it -- and Amiga is stuck in legal quicksand going nowhere), it is one that has allowed Apple to flourish and still be an option to Windows. Most of the other small OS companies that have tried to evolve away from this model recently have ceased operations.

So they just need to justify the tying arrangement as being justifiable if the court doesn't want to risk eliminating the one major player seen as an option to Windows.

 

[gazfocus]

I think it's just a case of Pystar have gotten all confused over the Anti Competition laws.

Microsoft was sued under the same law some time ago for including Windows Media Player as an integral part of Windows that could not be uninstalled...the justification to this was that it pushed WMP onto customers who might otherwise use different software (such as iTunes, Winamp, etc)...The fight wasn't to let other people distribute Windows Media Player.

Therefore, surely the only thing that should (if anything) be argued under this law is that Apple should allow other companies to make software that will run on their computers (including Operating Systems), which they do.

It shouldn't be a case of being able to run OSX on a generic PC at all. At the end of the day, nearly every computer manufacturer creates restore discs that will only run on their particular brand computer, and if you try to use them on other computers, you will get an error. In that respect, Appe is doing nothing different!

 

[icoffee]

All of these comments miss the point.

All of these comments miss the point. You bet Apple has a monopoly. Here's the pudding: Apple uses a small range of hardware manufacturers so it has a small range of hardware to support. If you look at that hardware, e.g. video chipsets, processors, ram, it's 100% identical to PC components. Apple designs the case and layout of the motherboard to fit in the case, but that's it. To use your car analogy, Apple is basically taking the internals of a chevy or ford, putting it on a new chassis, and calling it an Apple. As much as I love Apple, Psystar has a good chance to win some parts of the suit.

Why do you think Apple bought a chip company, and why do you think they've been pushing for H264 chips to be in Macs? That's the only way they'll be able to define an Apple computer, i.e. one that has Apple guts. With the move to Intel, they've gotta start adding their own in-house produced chips, or they'll never be able to stop the clones. By adding their own in-house chips and tying it to software in the OS such as Quicktime, Apple would be on much more solid ground.