‘Mac-cloner’ Psystar drops antitrust issue, adds ‘misuse doctrine’ in counterclaim against Apple

“Florida’s now well-known unofficial Mac clone maker [Psystar] has modified its counterclaim against Apple to drop some of the riskier assertions of anti-competitive behavior, but has similarly added new sections that refute allegations of violating the DMCA,” Aidan Malley reports for AppleInsider.

“The altered response, which would be filed on January 15th if given permission by a Northern District of California court judge, specifically omits the Clayton Act and Sherman Act antitrust claims of monopolistic abuse of copyright that had triggered Apple’s successful motion to dismiss in the fall. Psystar ‘respectfully disagrees’ with the court’s interpretation of a monopolistic market but will abide by the earlier ruling for now,” Malley reports.

“However, the PC builder maintains that copyright is still at the heart of the issue. Psystar insists that Apple’s policies regarding Mac OS X are considered abuse under the legally recognized concept of a ‘misuse doctrine,’ which prevents copyright from being wielded to block competition outside of any officially sanctioned terms,” Malley reports.

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

25 Comments

  1. Yea, I want to start my own company called Psystar and make computers. A name that good should not be used by one company and it is misuse to lock it down to just the orginal Psystar.

    ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”hmmm” style=”border:0;” />

  2. What I think would be a more interesting story, would be to research the background and funding of Psystar. To me, this really mirrors the SCO-IBM unix suit that Microsoft had bankrolled. What other reason would a little, unknown company start swinging at Apple and staying in the game. If they were a small company, you’d think they’d folded up by now.

  3. Based on what I know of Federal court cases like this. The Judge is unlikely to accept Psystar amended counter claim as it does not directly address the judges points and reasons for the dismissal of the claim in the first place.
    By basically just making the claims more broad and vague (dumbing them up) they’re really are only looking to annoy the judge further. The Judge was clear in the dismissal that the complaint’s circler logic and arguments didn’t cut mustard and he was not impressed. (This is Judge speak for you annoyed me and wasted my time with this crappy legal document)?

  4. There is no way PisStar has made enough money from sales of their OpenMac line to cover legal expenses thus far. Absolutely no way.

    Therefore, someone with deep pockets is clearly behind this Potemkin Village of a company, and the sooner Apple finds out who that is, the sooner this will be settled.

  5. “Psystar insists that Apple’s policies regarding Mac OS X are considered abuse under the legally recognized concept of a ‘misuse doctrine,’ which prevents copyright from being wielded to block competition outside of any officially sanctioned terms.”

    And exactly what the hell does this mean? I was never very good at interpreting legalese.

Leave a Reply to Randian Cancel reply

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