Case dismissed?  Apple’s lawyers offer compelling legal response to Psystar claims

“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.]

22 Comments

  1. > 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

  2. @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?

  3. 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…..

  4. @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.

  5. @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

  6. 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.

  7. 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).

Reader Feedback

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