Because Windows isn’t good enough: ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar to countersue Apple alleging antitrust

“US-based Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple’s copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday in the US as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anti-competitive business practices,” Erica Ogg reports for CNET News.

“Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple’s tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is ‘an anti-competitive restrain of trade,’ according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell,” Ogg reports.

“Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple’s end user licence void, and is asking for unspecified damages,” Ogg reports.

“Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies,” Ogg reports. “The answer and countersuit will be filed Tuesday afternoon in the US in the US District Court for Northern California.”

“Apple will have 30 days to respond to Pystar’s counter-claim. In the meantime, Pedraza says it will be ‘business as usual’ at company headquarters,” Ogg reports.

More in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: All these years, all we’ve ever heard from these commodity box assemblers, large and small, is that “Windows is good enough; close enough to Mac that it doesn’t matter.” Come to think of it, though, we haven’t heard it much, if at all, in recent years. Anyway, one thing’s for sure, Psystar doesn’t believe the lie. They want the real deal: Mac OS X. So does Michael Dell. Therefore, if it isn’t already, it should soon become crystal clear to everyone that Bill Gates was wrong: it obviously does matter that Apple’s stuff is better.

Bottom line: Psystar is paying Apple a huge compliment.

So, good luck in prolonging the case to all involved, as every headline and article about it will broadcast the message that Mac is worth fighting for because Windows isn’t good enough. (It never was.)

Apple’s advertising agency couldn’t have dreamed up a better marketing campaign.

67 Comments

  1. Because I know absolutely nothing of such things . . .

    Can a game configured specifically for, say, the XBox be run on any other device? If not, what would Microsoft do if an XBox clone COULD play/run such titles as originally configured?

    Are there XBox titles that can be run ONLY on that device? Same question for Nintendo and Wii, please.

    If so, could THEY be sued for similar monopolistic, anti-competitive practices?

  2. Because I know absolutely nothing of such things . . .

    “Can a game configured specifically for, say, the XBox be run on any other device? If not, what would Microsoft do if an XBox clone COULD play/run such titles as originally configured?”

    “Are there XBox titles that can be run ONLY on that device?” “Same question for Nintendo and Wii, please.”

    “If so, could THEY be sued for similar monopolistic, anti-competitive practices?”

    Answer: NO. So Peestar is going out of business sooner or later.
    Pay Apple now, or pay more later Peestar!

  3. If Apple wants to make a product, it’s THEIR product. They are not twisting anyone’s are to buy it. But if this product becomes very successful and desirable, it means they should LOSE control over their product?

  4. How can Apple be “anti-competitive” because it chooses to package the OS and hardware together as one product? Apple is not preventing any other company from investing the same capital and effort to do the same thing. Apple cannot be sue because its competitors are too lazy to do anything but rely on Microsoft for their OS (or violate the license on Mac OS X). If anything, Apple is making Windows box makers more “competitive,” to force them to match the standard set by Apple.

    If Apple is ever “forced” to license Mac OS X, here’s the solution. Upgrade price for installing a new version of Mac OS X on an existing Mac, $129. Full price to install on non-Apple hardware, $1000. I’m sure Apple can invent some Microsoftian anti-piracy scheme to ensure the non-Apple hardware license for Mac OS X is valid.

  5. regardless of Psystar’s intentions, they are morons.

    Apple is allowed to make their own hardware and supply it with their own software, and not allow anything else on it at all, and not allow their software to run on anything but their hardware.

    If psystar has its way, then i guess ps3 will play xbox games AND run the XBOX OS, and the Power PC version of OSX should run on INTEL processors, and Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control, and blackberry OS should work on my ti86 calculator….

    I think we should all band together and have a class action lawsuit against psystar, for humiliation of the human race.

  6. So I see the Ford Camry example up there somewhere…

    A better example would be suing Chrysler for not letting GM put Hemi’s under the hood…

    Microsoft ran afoul of the system because they took action to prevent other software working with theirs, not because they wouldn’t sell it to someone.

  7. “How can Apple be “anti-competitive” because it chooses to package the OS and hardware together as one product?”

    How can Microsoft be Anti-Competitive packaging the browser and OS together as one product? yet they are if they do that.

    Simply: Apple sells (in boxed form) and OS which can be run on any appropriately configured industry standard PC (of which the Mac is now just one example). Yet they are trying to tie it to the sale to Apple hardware. That’s just wrong and the courts will quickly see that and rule against Apple.

    “Nokia Symbian OS should run on my logitech harmony remote control,”

    If your harmony runs unmodified Symbian as the Psystar runs unmodified Mac OS X, sure.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.