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.


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.


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. @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)

  4. 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.

  5. “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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

Reader Feedback

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