“Apple has asked a U.S. District Court judge to dismiss Psystar’s counterclaims against the company,” Larry Dignan blogs for ZDNet.
“As background, Apple launched a suit against Psystar alleging that the Mac clone maker harmed its brand. Psystar fired back arguing that Apple was abusing monopoly power and launched its own lawsuit,” Dignan blogs. “On Sept. 30, Apple fired back at Psystar in a strongly worded 23-page court filing and gave a heads up that it will ask for the Psystar suit to be dismissed in a hearing Nov. 6 with judge William Alsup.”
Full article here.
APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PSYSTAR’S COUNTERCLAIMS:
Defendant Psystar Corporation is knowingly infringing Apple’s copyrights and trademarks, and inducing others to do the same. Psystar makes and sells personal computers that use, without permission, Apple’s proprietary operating system software. In an obvious attempt to divert attention from its unlawful actions, Psystar asserts deeply flawed antitrust counterclaims designed to have this Court force Apple to license its software to Psystar, a direct competitor. The Court should reject Psystar’s efforts to excuse its copyright infringement, and dismiss these Counterclaims with prejudice.
Ignoring fundamental principles of antitrust law, and the realities of the marketplace, Psystar contends that Apple has unlawfully monopolized an alleged market that consists of only one product, the Macintosh® computer. However, in direct contradiction to Psystar’s claimed Mac®-only market, Psystar admits that “a seemingly infinite list of manufacturers may be found in the computer hardware system marketplace,” including “Dell, Acer, Lenovo, Sony, and Hewlett-Packard to name but a few.”
…Psystar’s effort to assert antitrust claims premised on the existence of a relevant product market restricted solely to Apple’s products fails as a matter of law.
The full 23-page court filing here.
Bow your heads and prepare for the sword!
Go get-em tiger
Epic fail.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
this is a very common legal move. expect a motion for summary judgement next, probably when this gets shot shot. it’s not very often it goes through on the first try.
The big cats always win.
Apple’s legal position is far superior to Psystar’s: Apple has been around for how long? And how many laws have they broken? And then you put them against a copycat. This is a court of law. Hey, Apple’s gonna win.
See?
I meant: Apple is entirely legal.
Personally, I’d like to see a mixed result from this case. While I agree that Psystar has likely engaged in some dubious activity, I fear a court ruling coming down on the side of EULA’s such as Apple’s. If I purchase a copy of Leopard, say, I should be able use this software on any piece of hardware that I can make it work on. Granted, Apple should not be required to support it on anything but Apple-branded computers, but I purchased the product, and should essentially be able to do what I want with it (short of copying it and selling the copies, of course).
What scares me the most if the judge some how rules Apple’s EULA as perfectly okay, is that media companies would then have an open door to tie a media product to a specific piece of hardware, regardless of technical capabilities. Hell, the media companies already try to limit our use of media we purchased as much as they can, so I’m sure they’d love this.
It’s kind of ironic that Apple goes so far to tout the ability to run Windows on a Mac, but has a conniption fit if some one runs Mac OS X on a (non-Apple)PC.
Besides filing for dismissal with prejudice, Apple should go after PyStar for malicious prosecution, aka “malicious use of process”. More nails in the coffin.
@shiva
its cause windows is microsoft. and microsoft is a software company.
apple is a hardware company. any sale of their os on another machine, means no sale of their own hardware.
ref “If I purchase a copy of Leopard, say, I should be able use this software on any piece of hardware that I can make it work on.”
There is a strong difference between making YOUR copy of leopard run on YOUR machine and making and selling cloned equipment in mass. What you do in your house is one thing, what you do in public for pay is another. Especially if you are violating the law while doing it.
Also, if Apple does not sue (win or lose) and someone else buys one of these computers and then sues Apple when they think that it does not work well enough, Apple could be said to agree to the selling of the clone cause they did not object.
Like styrofoam cups are only made by one company. The rest make expanded polystyrene cups. If you do not defend your trademark, you can lose it. 🙁
Just a thought.
en
No Brainer. Apple will win hands down.
I wouldn’t lend Peestar any money for at least 7+ years (the amount of time it will take them to rebuild their credit after their bankruptcy after Apple gets a Summary Judgement on the merits.
Bye-bye, Peestar.
“No Brainer. Apple will win hands down.”
Perhaps on everything but the EULA clause limiting Mac OS X to Apple Labelled Hardware.
And that’s the only loss that’s going to matter.
@shiva105
Apple only sells “Up Grades” to existing computers that came installed with Mac OS X.
It would not surprise me if “Snow Leopard” is when Apple opens their OS, but you sure won’t be buying for $129.00, upgrades to Mac’s for $129.00, $599.00 to others, (still a deal)
You are not buying a copy of the software. The software is constantly changing with updates.
What you are buying is a license to use the software.
Big difference. With a license, you must follow the specific rules contained in that license. It could specify the brand of hardware it is valid on. It could even have a specific expiry date.
If you don’t follow the rules, you void the license.
“Apple only sells “Up Grades” to existing computers that came installed with Mac OS X.”
That’s actually not what the license says. Nor do the words upgrade appear anywhere on the box or marketing materials. While you may feel that it’s an upgrade, it’s actually a full version.
“If you don’t follow the rules, you void the license.”
Unless a court decides some license terms are unreasonable and strikes those terms. That’s what Psystar has asked for.
Why the hell are you guys so giddy at the thought of Apple demolishing Psystar? How would you feel if Microsoft made a stipulation that you can’t install Windows on a Mac? Wouldn’t you be on Apple’s side if they tried to sue to use it? and please don’t give me that windows is garbage crap, stick to the real issue! is it fair or unfair?
$599 for OS X? give me an effin break. If its really worth that much, then they should just give away OS-less mac minis cause thats how much they cost.
shiva105 said; “It’s kind of ironic that Apple goes so far to tout the ability to run Windows on a Mac, but has a conniption fit if some one runs Mac OS X on a (non-Apple)PC.”
Not ironic at all. Mac OS and Windows are not two sides of a symmetrical equation.
Microsoft is a real monopoly. Apple is a much smaller percentage of the market. Apple has every right to compete with Microsoft’s monopoly by offering unique features which Microsoft users are shut out of. Microsoft, on the other hand, being a true monopoly, is required to play nice with Apple by law (since they have demonstrated that they would wipe out their few remaining competitors if allowed to.
@ Steven,
Microsoft = 90+% global market share
Apple = approx 5% global market share
Are you saying that Apple should not take advantage of it’s unique technology and intellectual property to compete with Microsoft to the best of their ability? They have every right to adhere to a business plan that has worked well for them in spite of fierce competition from the entire Windows monopoly.
Yes – Microsoft and Apple get to play by different rules. That’s the legal truth.
@ Steven,
“How would you feel if Microsoft made a stipulation that you can’t install Windows on a Mac?”
Personally I’d feel great it would give me one more reason among thousands to boycott all things Microsoft. I didn’t buy my Mac to run Windows I bought it to work reliably. Windows and Reliability had a major dispute and became enemies long ago. Their divorce truly was tragic and if Apple keeps treating her right Reliability won’t be looking back.
@ Richie–
Make that “Leopard.”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
“Open it; and they will come.”
@nanisani
That’s a valid point, but at what point can a business be allowed to defend its business plan? Is it worth trampling a user’s rights to fair use? I’m not saying Apple should be forced to optimize their software for unapproved hardware. They should stick to methods they’ve been using so far to make OS X Mac only compatible. However, this is a very slippery legal slope, and I can’t in good conscious see how you can support Apple in this draconian enforcement of its will.