Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[MacRumors]

Computerworld reports on comments made by Psystar's attorneys who suggest that anti-trust issues may arise in their defense of the Mac-clone company. Apple sued Psystar in July after Psystar had begun selling a Mac-compatible computer almost two months prior. Apple's lawsuit not only asked for the cessation of sales but also for a recall of all computers sold. Such a move would, of course, bankrupt the small clone company.

Some other intellectual property lawyers agree that Psystar "would be smart to play the antitrust card".

"What Psystar might say is, 'What we would like to do is use the Mac operating system's unique features more broadly on a variety of hardware,'" said Handler then. "I think it's a very, very hard argument to make, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried.

Carr & Ferrell LLP, the law firm that is representing Psystar, has gone up against Apple before in another intellectual property case involving Burst.com. Colby Springer, one of Psystar's lawyers, promises "This will be an interesting case."


Article Link

[born4sky]

good luck!

[AliensAreFuzzy]

I think this defense depends greatly on how broadly defined the markets are that they are claiming the anti-trust allegations.

[Schizoid]

classic David vs Goliath
although in the old story, Goliath didn't have 25 high-priced lawyers on stand-by!

[Spanky Deluxe]

Eugh, Psystar should just bugger off and go to hell. They were trying to make a quick buck by selling someone else's product that they've hacked. I've got nothing against the x86 Hackintosh movement but its people that try to make a profit like this that are simply pathetic.

[KindredMAC]

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

[wymer100]

I suppose it never hurts to try, but I don't see that defense working very well. MS/Sony/Nintendo/SGI make an OS that you must run on proprietary hardware. Just because MS has liberal licensing terms doesn't mean that Apple has to do the same.

[khollister]

You've got to be kidding - any claim that Apple is a monopoly on computer hardware or OS is not going to be defensible. Apple is under no legal mandate to sell their OS for installation on non-Apple HW. This is particularly so since it doesn't even run on non-Apple HW without hacking it. Anti-trust legislation exists to protect markets, not to force competition on individual products. The FTC is concerned about a fair and open marketplace for personal computers, not about whether Apple has competition for selling macintoshes or OS X.

This will do nothing but suck money from Psystar's account into their lawyers.

[Frisco]

I'm rooting for Psystar on this one.

[plumbingandtech]

Originally Posted by KindredMAC

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

Travel back 10 years to the powerpc clones.

Look up profits, high margin, mac clones.

Then see if you still like that.

And do you think it is fair for apple to do all the work and these slime buckets to profit off the OS?

Let these slimer buckets make linux clones. Oh wait. The Open source world interfaces still look like a mess so there's no money there and Paystar knows they would fail.

[socamx]

I read this as such:
"We'd like to see OS X running on our hardware, which is of low quality. This will help OS X look inferior to Windows in many ways as people have problems with it while thinking they got a good deal on a 'Mac.'"

[MacsAttack]

Originally Posted by wymer100

I don't see that defense working very well.

The phrase you are looking for is "at all"...

With a number of flavors of Windows, Linux, and other OSs available to install on their hardware (many for free) Schister don't have a leg to stand on.

[JoeG4]

The same thing happened to IBM, and this was how we ended up with PC clones.

As far as I'm concerned, and I know I'm going to get in big trouble for saying this - being a big Mac fan and user for almost a decade now..

I don't think Apple deserves to win this kind of case. Their OS is nice, but you act as if it's the second coming of Christ, and it's not really that good. Shoot, it's barely better than Windows Vista.

[Keness]

Originally Posted by Schizoid

classic David vs Goliath
although in the old story, Goliath didn't have 25 high-priced lawyers on stand-by!

I get the small guy/big guy analogy, but I'm not so convinced that the roles aren't reversed in this case. Not the 'size' part, but the good v. evil part.

Apple is defending its IP, as can only be expected. Psystar is profiteering off the work of Apple and others (the Hackintosh project) using current buzz-terms like 'open' and 'anti-trust' to try and look like the good guy.

They just need to find a legal, less evil way to make money.

[macsmurf]

Why don't Apple just sell their OS at a profit (if they aren't already)? Problem solved.

[gnasher729]

Originally Posted by KindredMAC

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

This is not competition. This is trying to rip off Apple's reputation.

Let's for example assume that Greenpeace decided to check how much dangerous stuff is in various computers that you can buy. Do you think Psystar has given that any thought? Do you think they have any plans what to do when your machine breaks down, how to get rid of it in an environmentally friendly way? Do you think they even have a plan to be around at that time? How much money have they set aside for warranty repairs? With Apple I know they will try their best to fix any problems. With Psystar, I expect them to do their best to prove that they don't have to fix them.

[thulsmans]

What would happen if Psystar wins? would there be 1000 new companies that sprout up doing the same thing? i dont think this would be good for apple

[corinhorn]

Originally Posted by KindredMAC

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

I agree that competition is a good thing, but I don't think that competition is what Psystar has in mind. I really think Psystar has done this just to rattle cages.

[Digitalclips]

Originally Posted by KindredMAC

Competition is a good thing.
If Psystar makes a Mac Clone better than an Apple Branded Mac, then it would just push Apple to do what they do best.... innovate and excel.

No, Let them make a better OS then that would be competition.

Stealing something that cost you nothing to develop and repackaging is hardly 'Making' something! Microsoft already did that to Apple, I doubt they will ever let that happen again.

How about copying Rod Stewart's CDs and reprinting the labels and selling them under a new name such as Rod Clone Inc. see how far you'd get!

Bankrupt them, lock them up and throw away they key!!!

[iJesus]

Pystar is just being dumb with this move.
I could understand the anti-trust case if OS X had the market share Windows has. Also, OS X has been like this forever, nothing has changed so it wouldn't be an anti-trust issue. Apple isn't using their dominance in one market to tie people into getting OS X. It's not like if you buy an iPod you HAVE to get a Mac with a Mac only version of iTunes.

They should just save themselves the lawyer fees and go back to hacking stuff for their own use.

[kkat69]

I have made this statement before and I'll make it again.

Do people honestly believe that Apple hasn't thought through any anti-trust issues and made proper adjustments so that they are NOT in violation of anti-trust especially after it hit MS so hard.

I'm pretty sure they have. They would be fools not to have thought this through. There's a good chance they've made enough changes, preparations over the years so that they don't fall under the anti-trust laws by limiting OS X to Apple machines. Heck other companies have done it, HP, Sun, just to name the 2 big ones. They've had OS's wired to specific machine types/makes/etc.

Sorry, I gotta root on Apple on this one as I should since I own stock. The basement children at Psystar should get slapped for this one, better yet, taken in public and flogged.

If what Apple is doing is that bad, why is MS entertaining the idea of a similar model? ( I know it's not 90% the same but it's close enough ).

[MacsAttack]

Originally Posted by macsmurf

Why don't Apple just sell their OS at a profit (if they aren't already)? Problem solved.

Because they would go out of business I expect... They make their profit on the hardware but use their OS as the bait.

It Just Works

[hob]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Colby Springer, one if Psystar's lawyers, promises "This will be an interesting case."

typo

[LethalWolfe]

Anti-trust against a company that is in single digits in terms of platform market share? Really? Can Sony be sued for anti-trust violations because they don't allow any companies to make PlayStation clones?


Lethal

[The Tall One]

Why doesn't Apple remember its small company roots? Why has it become the faceless corporate prostitute it is today? They used to be about creativity, art, change, liberal politics, education, sophistication... but now they're about money money money.

Apple's first advertisement had a local phone number for Palo Alto California on it that would reach a person directly. In fact, if you really wanted, you could have probably talked to Jobs on the phone if you asked nicely.