“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.
@ Antitrust
So by your logic, I could build a piece of hardware to run the Wii software, and Nintendo should be forced to allow me to purchase and resell that software for my systems?
Or another example – Coca Cola corporation should be forced to give me their formula so I can make my own soft drink to compete with them?
In reality Pystar and Apple are direct competitors – they both build and sell computers. Apple has created software to enhance the user experience on their computers. Pystar could do the same thing.
One more thing – Pystar is NOT using an unmodified version of OS X. It has to be hacked to run on Pystar hardware.
Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies…
I KNEW PSYSTAR WAS UP TO SOMETHING!!
And I was the one who mentioned here that Apple looked like it was headed for a trap.
NOW WHO THE FSCK IS BEHIND PSYSTAR?
Steve Balmer?
Of course a Mac / OS X hardware tie-in seems to be on the horizon.
Remember, Apple kept using PowerPC processors so Mac OS X could be tied to hardware. Because OS X is the draw to buy Apple branded hardware.
But when Apple switched to Intel processors it opened a can of worms.
I’m sure Apple has seen this problem in advance and has a solution for it.
The only reason Psystar is in existance is because Apple’s hardware selection is very few and very pricy. Just high end.
Yes feature for feature, Apple hardware is competitive on the high end, but on the low end, with less features Apple doesn’t play ball.
It’s really sickening to see my hardware equal to $3000 MacBook Pro being sold in Best Buy as a Windows machine (without OS X) for a mere $600.
What I’m trying to say is Apple wouldn’t be bothered by Psystar or any “Mac clones” if they played the high end AND the low end.
They did it for the iPod and Apple DOES HAVE 30 Billion in the bank.
So what’s the problem Apple?
Give us our $600 Mac tower!!
@Antitrust: You obviously are not the least bit educated on copyright. There are several copyright issues here that you don’t seem to grasp. Just because you buy the book that does not give you the legal right to copy it and resell the copies. Nor does it allow you to make copies of chapters or other portions to give out to anyone without ADDITIONAL payment to the author. NOr does it allow you to copy and resell updated materials that have been made available since the original publication. None of that does not fall into the realm of “Fair Use”. And they are reselling it. That’s a fact. So get yours straight.
Neither do you seem to grasp what is behind the antitrust arguments; precious little. Just like a car maker they do not prevent you from making after market parts for their product, i.e. tires, stereos, seats, etc. What they do (and legally I might add) is prevent you from trading on their name. You cannot take a Ford engine, running gear, seats etc. put it on a homemade frame and then turn around and resell it as a Ford. And since Ford does not sell their engines without being installed in a Ford vehicle to the general consumer (to the best of my knowledge), if you were to do something like that they certainly would not be on the hook for warranty repairs.
What’s next? Are you are going to say that all the carmakers are in violation of antitrust laws and restraint of trade issues?
You are obviously an MS fanboy just wishing and hoping that someone will take down Apple so that MS will no longer look like a bully that makes crappy software. Now that people’s eyes are being opened to a legitimate alternative to Windows MS no longer needs someone else to make them look bad. Microsoft can and does do that themselves. If Apple were to go away tomorrow it would not make MS products suddenly look good. And the excitement would not suddenly be there for Vista. But here’s to wishing and dreaming…
@Raving MacHead
“It’s really sickening to see my hardware equal to $3000 MacBook Pro being sold in Best Buy as a Windows machine (without OS X) for a mere $600.”
I agree. This is what I was trying to point out. If anything, Psystar is offering a choice with more affordable hardware that is roughly the same as what Apple offers at a premium. Let’s face it, wouldn’t we all want cheaper Macs from Apple? These days with OS X running on the x86 platform, it really begs the question, “what really makes a Mac… a Mac?” The hardware is the same in almost every aspect. Jobs himself admits the magic is in the software. If the answer then is Mac OS X and its suite of applications, then the Mac experience can be easily replicated.
Apple offers the Mac Mini as its low-end, yet that still seems rather expensive compared to something upgradable you could buy from Psystar and still gain the “Mac experience” using OS X. Shouldn’t MacBooks be starting at sub-$1000? C’mon Apple….
I’m just fed-up with the attitude that the zealot Mac fanatics must adorn to in order to justify their purchase of an Apple-branded computer which has hardware almost identical to something which is sold for significantly less and which could probably run OS X just as well, if not better.
If there is anything the consumer looks for the most, it’s a choice. Cat’s out of the bag, Apple. Even if Psystar goes down, others will pop up. Apple hasn’t had to deal with pressure of competition in its own space of selling the OS X experience it markets since it killed off the clones in the 90s.
Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? Reap what you sew….
@Antitrust: “Yes, there are protections in Antitrust law which, once you have purchased a product stop you forcing the purchase of another product to use it. Where does this primarily come up? For example your car manufacturer cannot require that you purchase their OEM oil filters or other parts to maintain warranty. Agree, disagree if you like, but it’s the law.”
Apple sells hardware and they are not bundling the software like you think. If you want to buy a Mac and then install a different operating system on it you can. You MS knuckleheads just don’t seem to understand the difference between hardware and software.
And let’s get away from the crappy car analogy and stick to computers and peripherals. First off, since when does Kensington’s driver SOFTWARE work with any hardware other than Kensington’s hardware? Or Microtek’s? Or Invidia’s? Etc. If it does it is a fluke. And they don’t sell the software alone and unbundled for other hardware.
Next issue. Apple does not have a monopoly in computers. Not in hardware nor in operating system software. So the whole monopoly issue is moot. iPods yes. Computers no. But then again you’re thinking like a fanboy stuck in his MS certified packaging box with its’ fancy holograms. By your logic every manufacturer has a monopoly because no one else makes exactly the same product. Nobody else makes a Camry so Toyota must have a monopoly on it. Well, yes they do. It always amazes me how people with OS envy shout form the rooftops that Apple needs to let everyone in on the deal and that it’s anticompetitive because not everyone can supposedly afford it. Well, you just keep driving your Ford Escort and complaining the whole time that Mercedes doesn’t make their vehicles for people of lesser means all the while not understanding that all people and all products are not in fact created equal. When you understand that then you will finally be in the game. Until then just keep wishing in one hand while krumping in the other. Report back when you figure out which one filled up first.
I can buy a copy of OS X, and use it as a frisbee, if I like. I believe if I were to market it as an Apple Frisbee, or market it as running or flying the Apple OS, I would be breaking the law. One cannot put a Ferrari engine in a Pinto, and claim that it is a Ferrari. One cannot publicly use someone elses’ property for profit, or even non-profit, without getting proper permissions. Can I sell my sneakers, used as they are, as Air Jordans, just because I write those words on a paper, and shove the paper inside of them?
It’s laughable that a company with roughly ~10% of the market is getting sued for monopoly abuse.
Really?
………. Really?
Able Archer, et al. have nailed it. Antitrust has absolutely no concept of what “antitrust” is. If you cannot legally create and sell a hardware/software bundle without sharing it with everybody and eventually having to compete LITERALLY with your own product, then I have officially lost all faith in the US court systems.
@Jim R
Who cares if you are fed up that the lowest end mac is still too pricy and not upgradable? If you don’t like it, then buy a windows box and accept the alternative. The problem is that people want their cake and want to eat it too. If you want to run OSX, you buy Apple hardware and follow the terms they set forward when you buy the machine. If you don’t like the prices Apple sets, or the options they make available, then you choose an alternative. There is no shade of gray here… Even if the software can run on other hardware, Apple owns the software and has specifically forbidden its use on anything other than its own hardware. Who exactly does Pystar think it is, that it can blatantly take software written by another company and trash the experience Apple is trying to deliver. A mac is more than just OSX, it is a specific blend of hardware and software that has been tested to ensure usability. Hacking up the software and running it on untested platforms destroys the experience Apple is known for, and Apple is well within its rights to sue anyone who violates the agreement.
Wether you like it or not you can’t just take the software, hack it up, and do whatever the hell you want. That isn’t the way it works. For the sake of all things good in this world, I can’t wait to see Apple sue the living crap out of Pystar. Such a blatant ripoff of all of Apple’s hard work. And for all the people who think Apple deserves this simply because they won’t conform to your wishes, it isn’t Pystar’s decision. It isn’t your decision. Apple is well within its own rights to determine what prices and what models to sell. God forbid that you not like it, that you use an alternative.
I think the MS boys are getting the issues mixed up. MS used Explorer to bury Netscape. Apple is protecting their investment. I once spend 3 days trying to get my sound board to work in windows 95. Why do people think cheap upgradeable boxes are a good thing. This is the reason I switched to Apple.
Psystar’s comments and claim of antitrust are simply smoke. They are deliberately ignoring the primary claim against them: They appropriated, modified and distributed as if it were their own Apple’s Intellectual Property (i.e., the Mac OS X 10.5.4 update). In the process they used Apple’s trademark and name without permission. Had they not done these actions, it is not unlikely that Apple would not have taken any action even though they were likely to be very unhappy with Psystar’s selling systems with MacOS X installed.
Obviously, Psystar does not have any confidence that they can refute these charges so they keep trying to change the agenda. Even if they win an antitrust settlement, they are likely to lose big on the charges that they misappropriated Apple’s Intellectual Property.
Anyone who’s ever used multiple computers from different manufacturers or do system testing knows different finished product feels different. The entire Psystar product line hinges on the reputation Apple built with Macs as a whole system, without which all Psystar has nothing but illegally reselling OS X CDs without a license agreement.
Psystar is basically claiming that Mac software is excellent while Mac hardware is generic when Apple sell them as one product. Psystar is simultaneously committing libel while using the “Mac” trademark in their product name. Yeah. No legal problems there.
@John Horvatic
Apple is being non-competitive in their allegiance to AT&T;. They have tied a piece of hardware to a company that was busted once before for being anti-trustworthy. In this country you may only use the one phone service. That being said, even when you have the service of that company (AT&T;) you now have to repurchase a new service contract for the iPhone even when you purchased legally the phone from a private party other than Apple. Do I hear monopoly playing in the background?
To carry the logic a little further concerning monopoly. Once I make modifications to a Toyota Camry or a Ford Escort. I assume liability as long as I am not trying to make claims not intended by the original platform design. The look and feel of ones personel property is strictly that of the individual. If it were not my property you could say it is a lease which a totally different from ownership. Does anyone think that when they purchase something it is not theres? The intellectual property of Apple is not in question only its application on something other than its own hardware. That is like saying you can’t build an internal combustion engine and use it because it is too much like the one I build. Or how about if I buy a diesel engine from VW and put it in a Jeep or a Suzuki to increase the performance of the vehicle. Yes someone does have a monopoly of exclusion. What is sad is that this has to play out in the courts of men.
“Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? “
One TINY little difference you’ve missed here… Apple doesn’t own almost 100% of the personal computer market, as Intel owns nearly all of the processor market. It’s 10 times less than that.
And because you bristle at the price Apple charges for a Mac, that’s not anyone else’s problem but your own. Save your money and buy one.
Actually XBox games CAN be run without an XBox, just Google for “xbox emulator”.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue laugh” style=”border:0;” />
“Intel needs AMD to stay competitive. So why shouldn’t Apple have a little of its own competition, even if the very thing it’s competing against is the very thing it produces? Reap what you sew….”
This argument doesn’t work, it would work as M$ needs Apple, but what is going on here is a company using another companies product putting it on their product and re-distributing it. Which is not the case with Intel and AMD they offer processors yes but different brands ala Windows and OS X.