“In a move that could profoundly alter the face of the personal computer market, upstart Mac cloner Psystar on Thursday filed a countersuit against Silicon Valley heavyweight Apple, claiming that Steve Jobs’ company employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,” Paul McDougall reports for InformationWeek.
“In doing so, Psystar claims, Apple has violated Sherman antitrust rules and other U.S. laws. A Psystar victory in court could pave the way for other PC makers, including big vendors like Dell, HP and Lenovo, to enter the Mac market and offer alternatives to Microsoft Windows PCs,” McDougall reports.
MacDailyNews Take: Gee, if that happened worldwide productivity would surge to historic levels. Most of the IT guys would be out of work, though.
McDougall continues, “Psystar claims in court documents filed in U.S. District Court for San Francisco that Apple ‘has engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior and/or other actions that are in violation of the public policy underlying the federal copyright laws.'”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’ll have some of whatever Psystar and their lawyers are smokin’. It is the last Friday afternoon in August, after all.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Sure, let Apple charge $1000 per computer to license the MAC OS.
Gee. this is like Yves St. Laurent being sued because they illegally restrict the Yves St.Laurent market by actively prosecuting counterfeiters. OL!
this is ludicrous.
what this ultimately means is that all software should run on any hardware etc.
what competition is that?
what innovation does that bring?
lets all become the lowest common denominator…
cos that’s always best.
hope pisstar gets obliterated beyond any recognition.
Just another bold attempt to steal the fruits of Apple’s labors.
“But mommy, big bad Billy Goat did it, why can’t I? They have good toys and I want them and I want to make money off them, they’re mine mine mine!”
“lets all become the lowest common denominator…”
That is the definition of the “competitive” windows market.
Why is PeeStar arguing such a weak argument? Have they paid off the court, or are they really that stupid?
The whole thing sounds ludicrous. I wonder if Apple is going to throw the knockout punch up front by going for a Summary Judgment.
Anti-Trust suits are expensive. Psystar doesn’t have the funds to pay rent, let alone the costs of a legal action like this. Someone else is paying the legal costs.
this whole thing is so sus.
from the very beginning it was shady.
ballmy puppets i say…
“illegally destroy competition in the Mac market,”
… Mac isn’t a market… the market is “computers” in which the mac is only 8% of.
thats like saying the “Celica market” that toyota has…
maybe it is why apple took so long to step up…
What I’ve been wondering are how did Psystar get its hands on enough legal copies of of OS X to install one per computer it builds? Shouldn’t that only be available to officially licensed OEMs like in China or Taiwan where they manufacture the official Macs? If a guy walks into an Apple store and buys 100 DVDs wouldn’t that draw a red flag? So how is Psystar going to sustain its business over the course of the court case for a year if it continues to ship 1 legit copy of OS X DVD with each computer?
windows has the least to gain (in fact, i think it would murder them), if OSX was licensed out. i think this is more mikey dell, that is pushing the buttons.
that is one of the options. the other one is this
from apple itself, yes it would cause suspicions. but there are apple resellers. still, its all very shady.
Let’s see, they wrote, what?!? “claiming that Steve Jobs’ company employs technology, dubious licensing schemes and high-pitched marketing campaigns to illegally destroy competition in the Mac market”
Yes, Steve Jobs’ company “employs technology”, is that illegal? “dubious licensing schemes”? What is “dubious” about no licensing allowed for non-Apple hardware? And, how does marketing, high-pitched or not, “illegally destroy competition”?
These lawyers must not have graduated from law school yet.