Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

MacRumors · Nov 18, 2008, 04:51 PM

A California judge has dismissed a counterclaim from Psystar which asserted that Apple was violating federal and state anti-trust laws in limiting the sale and use of Mac OS X on Apple branded computers..

Quote:

But in a 19-page order passed down on Tuesday, Judge William Alsup largely reject Psystar's claims and granted Apple's motion to have the countersuit thrown out of court should the clone maker not better its argument through an amended complaint that can be filed no later than Monday December 8th.

AppleInsider notes that Psytar attempted to define a "Mac OS market" in which Apple held a monopoly. Apple, of course, successfully disputed this definition of a "market" with which the judge agreed.

Quote:

"Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers," he wrote. "It is certainly entitled to do so."

Psystar is a small company which sells a Mac clone using off-the-shelf PC parts and a modified version of Mac OS X Leopard. Apple sued Psystar over these products and that case is still pending.

Article Link: Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

Consultant · 05:02 PM

Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic!

GeekLawyer · Nov 18, 2008, 04:56 PM

That was very predictable. And welcome.

PlaceofDis · Nov 18, 2008, 04:58 PM

i can't actually believe that they thought their shaky ground would last. be interesting to see what they come up with by next month.

kjs862 · Nov 18, 2008, 05:00 PM

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

~Shard~ · Nov 18, 2008, 05:03 PM

Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now...

Blue Velvet · Nov 18, 2008, 05:03 PM

Oh good. A new Psystar thread.

I'm not surprised by this decision; I wonder if they can or will appeal against this part of the case.

The Tall One · Nov 18, 2008, 05:05 PM

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

czachorski · Nov 18, 2008, 05:07 PM

Makes perfectly good sense. The statement "it is certainly entitled to do so" will irritate many naysayers around here, but is absolutely correct.

Twilight Elk · 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjs862

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

PsyStar counter-sued Apple for restricting OS X to their own computers. Now that this particular case has been dismissed, Apple can, in fact, allow to keep their Macintosh operating system to their own products.

This does not, however, count for Apple's claim against Psystar for infringing on their rights and using the Macintosh OS on Psystar products, which is still going on.

(If there are inaccuracies in my summary, please point them out)

czachorski · Nov 18, 2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tall One

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

There's two sides to every transaction, and every single "ridiculous" price that Apple charges is countered by a customer on the other side of the transaction who saw value in conducting the transaction at that price.

schneb · Nov 18, 2008, 05:09 PM

Apple charges what the market will bear. That said, pricing too high brings alternatives that people will turn to for a second look. It would behoove Apple, this coming MacWorld, to introduce a Psystar-killer box that will silence these upstarts once and for all. This would be a far more lucrative response then going in to court every other month.

Psystar's complaint had nothing to stand on. The fact is that OSX being only able to run on Apple hardware is as legitimate as the Blackberry OS only able to run on its hardware.

JML42691 · Nov 18, 2008, 05:10 PM

If they can appeal it, then I suspect that they will, but won't get far with that either. I kind of hope that this company gets completely shut down after all of this.

plumbingandtech · Nov 18, 2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tall One

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Apple has competition.

It's called _the rest of the computer industry_....

And that's just what the judge said today.

paric · Nov 18, 2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Backfires? Oh, yeah. I'm sure Apple dreads the day that they have a greater than 50% market share, and Microsoft is the underdog.

Kwill · Nov 18, 2008, 05:11 PM

Paystar's business model and legal defense appears to be contrived from the imagination of a hacker kid.

Kilamite · Nov 18, 2008, 05:11 PM

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

paric · Nov 18, 2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tall One

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it.

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

rjfiske · Nov 18, 2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tall One

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

So who gets to define "ridiculous"? You? Me? A government agency? The open market? I don't think that Apple knows their prices are ridiculous. I think the extremely poor build of inexpensive PC's coupled with a frustratingly poor Windows operating system (which we're in agreement on) is what's ridiculous.

And I am not sure if we'll see Microsoft become the underdog in my lifetime, at least as it pertains to operating systems. If it does, I'm guessing the threat will come from Google, not Apple. I could be wrong. Just my opinion.

Having said all of that, I also think Apple needs the competition. I still believe that the competition currently exists and we don't need a government agency to define it.

Consultant · Nov 18, 2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kjs862

So what does this mean... can someone exlpain?

Judge said: the information shyster submitted included evidence that there IS competition (example is Apple running Ads to bring people in from the competition, if there is no competition, ads are a waste of money), and shyster suit is full of fail.

Thus it will be dropped unless they can provide any evidence to back up their countersuit.

kamchadal · Nov 18, 2008, 05:16 PM

It is better to stand up and lose, than never to stand up. I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

Clive At Five · Nov 18, 2008, 05:17 PM

Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments.

paric · Nov 18, 2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamchadal

I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

They do.

You give them money, they give you a computer.

I like it too.

Beric · Nov 18, 2008, 05:21 PM

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

bradl · Nov 18, 2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paric

Windows systems are cheaper, and are terrible.

Apple systems are better and more expensive.

Do you really not see the correlation? You get what you pay for!

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Nov 18, 2008, 04:54 PM	#2
Consultant macrumors 601 Join Date: Jun 2007	Oh wow, a judge who understands intellectual property laws and technology!!! Fantastic! __________________ Search MacRumors: Mroogle \| Famous Mac Users \| Apple's Comprehensive Guides \| Get a Mac ads =) Last edited by Blue Velvet : Nov 18, 2008 at 05:02 PM. Reason: Removed reply to deleted post

Nov 18, 2008, 04:58 PM	#4
PlaceofDis macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Chicago.	i can't actually believe that they thought their shaky ground would last. be interesting to see what they come up with by next month. __________________ dim my eyes on the waves of confessions... SpringWarmCold

Nov 18, 2008, 05:00 PM	#5
kjs862 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Long Island	So what does this mean... can someone exlpain? __________________ Power Mac G5 Dual 2.0Ghz (1 Gen), 6.5GB Ram, X800XT, Mac OS X (10.5.8)

Nov 18, 2008, 05:03 PM	#6
~Shard~ macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 1123.6536.5321	Definitely good news. Psystar, nice try, but it's only a matter of time for you now... __________________ My riches consist not in the extent of my possessions, but in the fewness of my wants. - J. Brotherton

Nov 18, 2008, 05:03 PM	#7
Blue Velvet Demi-Goddess (Moderator) Join Date: Jul 2004	Oh good. A new Psystar thread. I'm not surprised by this decision; I wonder if they can or will appeal against this part of the case. __________________ It's a strange world.

Nov 18, 2008, 04:56 PM	#3
GeekLawyer macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: North Florida	That was very predictable. And welcome.

Nov 18, 2008, 05:05 PM	#8
The Tall One macrumors regular Join Date: Aug 2008	Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog. __________________ user since 1989

Nov 18, 2008, 05:07 PM	#9
czachorski macrumors 6502a Join Date: Sep 2007	Makes perfectly good sense. The statement "it is certainly entitled to do so" will irritate many naysayers around here, but is absolutely correct. __________________ 24" Aluminum iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 750 GB HD

Nov 18, 2008, 05:09 PM	#12
schneb macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2008	Apple charges what the market will bear. That said, pricing too high brings alternatives that people will turn to for a second look. It would behoove Apple, this coming MacWorld, to introduce a Psystar-killer box that will silence these upstarts once and for all. This would be a far more lucrative response then going in to court every other month. Psystar's complaint had nothing to stand on. The fact is that OSX being only able to run on Apple hardware is as legitimate as the Blackberry OS only able to run on its hardware.

Nov 18, 2008, 05:10 PM	#13
JML42691 macrumors 68000 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Durham, NH	If they can appeal it, then I suspect that they will, but won't get far with that either. I kind of hope that this company gets completely shut down after all of this. __________________ Current: White MacBook 2.2 GHz (late-2007) ; 8GB iPod touch (1st-gen) : Setup Pics Soon: Mighty Mouse

Nov 18, 2008, 05:11 PM	#16
Kwill macrumors 6502a Join Date: Mar 2003	Paystar's business model and legal defense appears to be contrived from the imagination of a hacker kid. __________________ Reactive Imaging Environment-Friendly Printing & Graphics

Nov 18, 2008, 05:11 PM	#17
Kilamite macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Scotland	Good. I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs. __________________ - MacBook Pro Unibody 15" 2.8GHz 'anti-glare' - Apple TV 1TB (work in progress) - iPhone 3G 8GB - MobileMe // OS X 10.6.2

Nov 18, 2008, 05:16 PM	#21
kamchadal macrumors newbie Join Date: Nov 2008	Better for the world.... It is better to stand up and lose, than never to stand up. I think that Apple should give to those who would give to Apple. It is the best policy. I like it.

Nov 18, 2008, 05:17 PM	#22
Clive At Five macrumors 65816 Join Date: May 2004 Location: St. Paul, MN	Well, the counterclaim was completely misdirected. If they are to have any chance at having a case at all, they need to pursue anticompetitive "tying" arguments. __________________ My Mod: G4 Cube + Atom 330 CPU + Wiimote = Ultimate HTPC!

Nov 18, 2008, 05:21 PM	#24
Beric macrumors 68000 Join Date: Jan 2008	My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS. __________________ "If I wanted an Apple phone, would I be looking at an iPod touch? If I didn't want to pay a $2000 contract, would I be looking at an iPhone?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode