Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[howie78]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there.

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.

 

[t0mat0]

Wasn't the thinking that the counterclaim had similar arguments as the main defense for Psystar in Apple's suit, so things are not looking good for Psystar

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Of course, to pursue "anticompetitive 'tying' arguments" you would need to prove that Apple is a monopoly. And that case was just dismissed.

 

[organerito]

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.

I don't see that happening any time soon. Apple products are good and cute, but they have some deal breakers for many people. for example, an Apple computer with 1Gb Ram, Cd burner (Retrograde) and 120GB hard drive for 1000 dollars is outrageous for many people. Apple is growing a lot in North America, but it is still way far from Microsoft in the world.

 

[GoCubsGo]

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

LOL I was thinking the same thing.

That was very predictable. And welcome.

It was predictable and welcome to a point, but I believe there should be competition.

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.

Sorry but this is a total fan boy thing to say. I don't agree with certain tactics, but I do believe there should be a way for people to build home-grown Macs. We've been doing the whole IBM-Clone thing forever. I don't agree with how it all came to be, but competition would do Apple good.

 

[Consultant]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there.

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.

Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's not competitive.

Hardware IS competitive, for a QUIET COMPUTER that doesn't need hours of time for support.

You do know there is the refurb store?

You do know that the Mac market share has been rising? Example:
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/02/mac-browser-marketshare-continues-to-rise/

 

[billystlyes]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

You wouldn't happen to be living on Mars? ;-)

http://forum.insanelymac.com

I hope Psytar wins. They may be our only option to get a Matteintosh soon.

 

[plumbingandtech]

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

None.

Which has nothing to do the point of today's thread other then the judge said there is nothing illegal about it.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

But Apple can't "smell of antitrust" if it is not considered a "trust." Psystar's attempt to define Apple as a trust was just thrown out.

 

[Consultant]

None.

Which has nothing to do the point of today's thread other then the judge said there is nothing illegal about it.

Judge said there is nothing illegal to offer OSX only on Macs.

But Apple can't "smell of antitrust" if it is not considered a "trust." Psystar's attempt to define Apple as a trust was just thrown out.

Exactly! Perhaps some people just can't read.

I hope Psytar wins. They may be our only option to get a Matteintosh soon.

You do realize they can't win because their countersuit is THROWN OUT?

 

[paric]

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.

Not fanboi, just factual. There is nothing antitrust about Apple saying "You can't use our own product to compete with us."

Remember, Apple didn't sue people using OS X in their own home, for their own purposes. They sued a company who tried to "compete" with Apple using Apple's own product rather than their own.

Psystar did not sue in EU courts. The suit concerns US laws.

The MSIE case in the US does not correlate.

 

[bradl]

Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean it's not competitive.

Hardware IS competitive, for a QUIET COMPUTER that doesn't need hours of time for support.

You do know there is the refurb store?

You do know that the Mac market share has been rising? Example:
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/02/mac-browser-marketshare-continues-to-rise/

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.

 

[tbluhp]

So does this mean that if someone wants to buy from Psystar and use OS X it's legal or not?

 

[BaldiMac]

So does this mean that if someone wants to buy from Psystar and use OS X it's legal or not?

The case against Psystar has not been decided yet. Their counterclaim against Apple was just thrown out. And it was pretty much their whole defense to Apple's suit.

 

[corinhorn]

Good.

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

Agreed. Opening Mac OS X to be installed on every POS computer would not be a good thing.

 

[paric]

hmm I think of it this way:

Apple more expensive = superior OS but not competitive hardware wise

Windows cheaper = subjective at times but overall poor OS but platforms can be had for cheaper with superior hardware than Apple

Linux greater than all but poor support out there.

Apple just needs to lower the price on the new models at least by 100 bucks for the holidays because while the OS is awesome and the models are cool they are not competitive hardware wise as much as they should at that price marker.

Yes, each system has its ups and downs.

But in a free market society, if a person things a product costs too much, they don't have to buy it.

If they think the more expensive product is worth the price because of its overall superiority, then they can choose to buy that one.

Why would Apple lower prices $100 when people are willing to buy at the current price, and their market share is growing?

If people stop buying their products, and the #1 reason is price, trust me, they will lower their prices. Until then, there's no reason.

 

[Clive At Five]

Of course, to pursue "anticompetitive 'tying' arguments" you would need to prove that Apple is a monopoly. And that case was just dismissed.

Not necessarily. You don't have to be a monopoly to be guilty of anticompetitive practices.

 

[paric]

I don't agree with certain tactics, but I do believe there should be a way for people to build home-grown Macs. We've been doing the whole IBM-Clone thing forever. I don't agree with how it all came to be, but competition would do Apple good.

People can do exactly what Psystar does, and it is very, very unlikely that Apple would ever sue. Just don't try to make a business out of reselling the product.

Apple has plenty of competition.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Hardware lock-in is a normal UNIX thing.

AIX on IBM systems
HPUX on HP systems
Solaris on Sun systems
IRIX on SGI systems

What is new?

Maybe if Apple had a 90% market share of PCs, then it may be forced to distribute to other hardware manufacturers. As there is zero monopoly here, Apple can carry on as normal.

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.

 

[bradl]

People can do exactly what Psystar does, and it is very, very unlikely that Apple would ever sue. Just don't try to make a business out of reselling the product.

Apple has plenty of competition.

Reselling OS X would be a problem. Offering it to other hardware outside of Macs would not be. Apple could do that for the same price and be none the worse for wear. Yes it puts them on the level with M$ in terms of selling it, and for now, M$ would win because it's cheaper. But in terms of quality vs. quantity, Apple would gain at every moment.

Hardware lock-in is a normal UNIX thing.

AIX on IBM systems
HPUX on HP systems
Solaris on Sun systems

All three can have Linux installed on their main processors. Sun has gone AMD, and Linux has supported SPARC processors for the past 10 years. HP has adopted Linux on some of their boxes, especially having acquired DEC through Compaq. IBM has support on all of their zSeries processors for either AIX or Linux.

You'd be right about 10 - 15 years ago about a hardware lock in on Unix, but that is no longer the case..

BL.

 

[NAG]

I'm curious as to what all the people who bemoan Apple's hardware think when reviewers as places like PCMag routinely rank Apple hardware pretty high. The only thing Apple has over charged for is their RAM and they seem to not be gouging people anymore.

 

[ucfgrad93]

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

Agreed, it is outstanding! I'm glad to see Psystar lose this one.

 

[bitWrangler]

Do you know that the hardware is still overpriced?

Do you know that people have been making PCs for the past 20something years?

Do you know how the verdict and precedent was handed down in the cases vs. IBM?

Does every PC clone have an IBM logo on it?

All of that is relevant here, and the only thing that should come into question is the software. If OS X is available for Intel chips, there really isn't anything that oculd stop it from being installed on a non-Apple computer. DOS was sold to IBM; yet a version of DOS existed for Apple II/IIe/c/gs as well.

BL.

No, none of that is relevant here. IBM made the hardware and Microsoft sold the software. In the early days you could not legally run PC-DOS on pc clones, but you COULD run MS-DOS which had no such licensing restriction. Therefore the early PC market is irrelevant in this case as the situation was completely different.

PC-DOS was LICENSED by IBM, not sold to IBM. DOS for the early Apple computers was a COMPLETELY different product than PC/MS DOS for the PC. Your history is completely wrong.

Macs being "overpriced" is a completely irrelevant statement and means nothing. If you do not perceive value given their price points, do not purchase the product. Simple. If you want to play in the OSX sandbox, then you have to pony up.

 

[corinhorn]

Their counterclaim against Apple was just thrown out. And it was pretty much their whole defense to Apple's suit.

Psystar's arguments against Apple have seemed rather flaky to me. With this dismissal, my gut tells me that this stupid Psystar boner is coming to a timely end.

 

[macbookairapple]

Hehhehe, Psystar is going down, good thing that we can still rely on the American courts to deal with these kind of people.