Apple asks judge to dismiss ‘Mac-cloner’ Psystar’s antitrust countersuit

“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.

27 Comments

  1. 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?

  2. 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.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous© Cancel reply

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