“Apple’s legal team, lead by James G. Gilliland, Jr. has provided the Northern District of California Court with a persuasive response brief in support of its motion to dismiss Psystar’s counterclaims. Psystar’s counterclaim, based on antitrust arguments against Apple is also its defense, so if the counterclaim is dismissed, Apple’s case against Psystar gains considerable momentum,” John Martellaro reports for The Mac Observer.
“An attorney who is following the Apple v. Psystar case, and wishes to remain anonymous, has provided TMO with analysis of Apple’s ‘Reply Brief in Support of Apple Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Psystar’s Counterclaims,'” Martellaro reports.
“At issue is Psystar’s counter claims is that Apple has a monopoly in Mac OS X and they should be allowed to compete in that market. The claim is similar to a claim that General Motors has a monopoly in its Buick ‘brand’ and that other companies should be able to copy and sell Buicks,” Martellaro reports.
“In the opinion of the attorney who contacted TMO, Psystar’s antitrust claims are fatally flawed and fail to meet the standard set forth by the Supreme Court ruling in Twombly,” Martellaro reports. “Single brands within a competitive market are not recognized by the courts as a monopoly unless the brand has ”market power.’ Other federal courts have held that the Mac OS X is one OS in a market that consist of other competing operating systems and that Apple does not have market power, because its market share is less than 30%,’ he said.”
More in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
isn’t that what everyone has been saying? i know i have…
are there really that many idiots out there that think apple has a monopoly???
Apple As a Monopoly in Nothing!!!
(well other then innovation in the Computer hardware and software markets)
So, once OS X has a market share greater than 30%, does that mean that the courts would side with companies that clone Macs?
Once Apple gets to more than 30% market share, the courts still won’t force Apple to license Mac OS X to other PC builders. Why? Because being a monopoly and abusing a monopolistic position are two different things.
You first have to qualify as a monopoly. Then, you have to abuse that position by using your market share/position to force out other competitors. Apple doesn’t do this because Apple gains market share by creating compelling software, not by being a bully.
For example, if Microsoft decided to build PCs, it could sell Windows to its PC arm for $1 per license, while charging Dell, HP, etc. $300 per license. That would be abusing MIcrosoft’s monopoly position.
If Microsoft simply built a better PC (I’ll wait until you’re done laughing) and didn’t charge differently per Windows license, it wouldn’t be abusing its monopoly position, it would just be better at competing.
Sooo … anyone can do what they want with Windows because it has (well) over 30% market share? I can see THAT flying … NOT! Or, is it just that anyone can build a hardware base that will run Windows without interference from MS? I can see that.
As long as Apple limits the Mac to the Rich Niche of the market – to computers costing ~$1,000 and up – there is little fear that the Mac will exceed 30% of the total market. Should they start to approach that limit, they could always brand a form of Linux that would be a “work-alike” to OSX (OSXL? OSLX? OSL? OSXI?) and use that as the standard OS for the Mac mini and the entry level iMac. Would have to find a way to offer iLife and iWork for the Linux models, but there are a couple ways to go on that.
What if Microsoft simply stopped licensing Windows to PC builders? What if, instead they decided to go the Apple route and build their own hardware integrated with the software for better control? There is nothing stopping MS from changing its business model. Assume, also that MS decided to compete only in the Apple niche of higher margin, upper tier PCs and left the low margin stuff to linux etc?
Now two things might happen here, one is there would be an XP freeze on development and windows developers would stop supporting vista 7-8-9 foregoing many of the “improvements” sure to follow. Hardware manufacturers would be forced to preinstall LInux on their new machines (no new licensees to be had). The OSX market would increase–the Windows market would decrease. Of those stalwarts left to support the suicidal Microsoft or the arrogant Apple—competition would slow to a crawl.
The second thing that might happen is FreeBSD and LInux development would explode. New companies would form, building the operating systems of the next century. GUI’s and File Managers would become hot ticket bolt on apps and people would realize that being locked in to anybodies file format or user interface is as stupid as locking yourself in to Firefox or Quark, refusing to, or being unable to switch to a better product should it appear.
Microsoft would not, could not ever do this, but why should some developer not build a better, backward compatible OSX for open hardware. Is it not possible to create a free BSD OS that would run Final Cut Pro as well as a Mac for cheaps?
I work on a Hackintosh which I built for around $1200.00. I did this because the Apple product line did not have a Machine to fit my professional needs. Apple makes only Laptops (Macbook’s, Mini’s and iMac’s), and Xeon Workstations/Servers (MacPro, xServe). They do not have a desktop or a “PC” in their entire product line. Psystar is exploiting this market that Apple has refused to serve. Apple is operating as dumb as my fictional Microsoft here. They are missing an opportunity to make some serious dough. Developers are also missing the boat as well. They should be hard at work on a universal OS platform and team up against the monolithic corporate computer platform dictators and help to mainstream the core technologies of the Open Source Revolution.
Viva Tux!
If Apple is ever forced to license its OS, that would be delicious Irony!
“This court finds you guilty of abusing your market position. To break up this Monopoly we are now forcing you to sell your product through more distributors.”
I can’t even say that with a straight face.
What if you STFU?
“Serious dough”?
I think Apple is making serious dough just fine.
Hackintosh niche geeks can just hang out in their basements thank you very much. Next thing they’ll want is some liquid cooling gizmos hanging out of Macs and the ability to stick Linux into iPhones to turn them into Android phones.
Geeky and fugly and missing the point of great design.
First post suckers!
Better to get a definitive ruling on the books to prevent other companies from doing the same thing Psystar is trying to do.
> Apple makes only Laptops (Macbook’s, Mini’s and iMac’s), and
> Xeon Workstations/Servers (MacPro, xServe). They do not have a > desktop or a “PC” in their entire product line
I do find the 24″ iMac a bit hard going on my knees these days. Must be getting old
@ccap1
Please forgive my ignorance; but I’m guessing that you are alluding to the Core-2 Duo iMac not meeting your professional needs. Just how is your Hackintosh different from an iMac or Mac Pro; or more importantly, how is it that those machines don’t satisfy your professional needs?
What if, what if, what if you don’t know what you are talking about?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
NCMacMan
Perhaps we should start cloning Windows… or maybe not!
Well… I think a case could be made that Apple has a monopoly on Music players and distribution. But then again, the record co’s themselves are propping up the monopoly with their requirement of DRM’ed music. So…..
@ccap1:
“Apple makes only Laptops (Macbook’s, Mini’s and iMac’s), and Xeon Workstations/Servers (MacPro, xServe)”
The Mac Mini and iMac lines ARE desktop computers.
No amount of rationalization or sugarcoating is going to cover the fact that you, as Psystar, are stealing and pirating Apple’s work.
@Saldin
I think ccap1 means that apple does not offer a desktop that is upgradable like the mac pro for the cost of the imac or mac mini. the mini and imac are both limited to a certain amount of ram.. though if you need alot.. you stop being a cheap bastard like ccap1 is and just get the mac pro.
Sure would be cool if they offered a lower end mac pro… like Mac semi-pro
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> But the arguement there is… the pro is a business machine hence it has dual xeons and is completely awesome. I’m using a 24″ iMac at work and im the IT guy here and I use a new Mac Pro at home.. which I may now thank apple for giving it to me free as replacement of my busted G5. Another reason why you should just stop being cheap and get with Apple. Who else would replace a computer you bought 4 years ago for $3400 with a new Mac Pro? Sure aint Dell, IBM or HP.
2 cents
Actually what I mean is that Apples “desktop” consumer machines are actually based on Intel mobile platforms chipsets.
The Mac Pro is based on the Xenon architecture which is a big Iron server/workstation class machine.
What I use is a QuadCore desktop processor and DDR2 ram (not server ECC ram) expanadable and upgradeable.
What I want Apple to make is a mid-tower expandable upgradeable desktop which does not use the Intel mobile platform on its motherboard.
I own a Leopard retail OS that I use on the Hacki and a 17″ powerBook that I use as a laptop, and I do believe that I am pirating OSX just the same.
Apple has the right to their business model but it excludes me at the moment in some sectors. It is not like Apple never made these kinds of machines–they got out of the PC business when they went to Intel because of the ease of using commodity parts to upgrade their base machines. They do not want you to upgrade, they want you to replace.
What I am saying is that there is a market that Apple does not wish to service–so you’ve got Psystar and friends trying to meet it.
Apple’s behavior, while not monopolistic, is anti-consumer–since they choose to leave some OSX lovin’ people out of their business plan. They are forcing these people to go their way, or find another.
I found another.
And most people, if given the option by Apple, would buy the MidTower Mac and not the MacPro. Apple knows this and so does everybody posting on this forum.
Hmmm… I always thought (and stated on MDN posts) that Apple would have to consider and plan for licensing (and changing its hardware-based business model), once the market share of Mac OS X reached 25%. So that 30% criterion for having “market power” is interesting.
With Windows 7 being Vista 2.0, and Linux continuing to be a non-factor on the desktop, 25-30% for Mac OS X will be here sooner rather than later (or never).
“Better to get a definitive ruling on the books to prevent other companies from doing the same thing Psystar is trying to do.”
Yes, we can’t have more companies selling expensive but standard PCs with EFI bios that just happen to be similar to the expensive but standard PCs Apple sells, then installing a retail version of Max OS X on it.
“you, as Psystar, are stealing and pirating Apple’s work.”
Not so, Apple gets fully paid for every Mac OS X copy, and with respect to the hardware designs they neither own the EFI BIOS spec nor have any exclusivity on the design of standard WinTel PCs.