Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[AppleMojo]

Nice! This was obvious and well overdue.

Now, lets see Apple carry through with their original suit and have them recall every single Psystar machine loaded with OS X.

 

[DigitalM]

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.

Those other operating systems choose their own licensing conditions. Suggesting that Apple be forced to license its software for use on any system would be as absurd as saying that all businesses be forced to run a franchise scheme whether they want to or not. If you're still not getting it, why don't we force TomTom to license their software to anyone who can't be bothered to code for GPS but can make some reasonable electronics, or perhaps it is unreasonable that Nikon's in-camera pro level DSLR OS can't be installed on your cheapo Fuji point-and-shoot. There isn't the remotest whiff of antitrust.

 

[BaldiMac]

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

But my understanding is that you do have to have "market power." Which Apple does not.

 

[paric]

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.

In theory, Apple would need to raise the price of the OS in order to compensate for lower hardware sales, the massive increase in support calls that would be experienced, and increased advertising expenses needed to offset the newly found negative user experience of running the OS on various cheap hardware configurations.

Then again, you may be correct in theory. People predicted the demise of Apple if they switched to Intel. That certainly hasn't happened. So maybe it would be a workable business model.

Ultimately, Apple has a different business model from Microsoft, and that is their RIGHT. They also have the right to protect their business model. That is what this suit is about.

 

[AppleMojo]

LOL I was thinking the same thing.
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.

You believe also that you should be able to build a home grown iPod? Go get the software and build it on your own hardware? geesh... the stupidity.

Come on!?! Enough with these lame arguments. I would LOVE to see you build up some software solution and have some punk run around selling your hard work for half the price. You'd change your tune in a second.

An argument for competition is valid, but you can't apply that to this situation. Apple created it, they have the right to determine its use. I am so tired of repeating this, but this liberal mentality is killing me.

I love how these "competition" guys choose which rules they play by, ignoring the ones that prevent them from getting what the want. Nice...


"I want a Mac at half the price!" <-- thats the real reason for the lame argument.

 

[bradl]

Those other operating systems choose their own licensing conditions. Suggesting that Apple be forced to license its software for use on any system would be as absurd as saying that all businesses be forced to run a franchise scheme whether they want to or not. If you're still not getting it, why don't we force TomTom to license their software to anyone who can't be bothered to code for GPS but can make some reasonable electronics, or perhaps it is unreasonable that Nikon's in-camera pro level DSLR OS can't be installed on your cheapo Fuji point-and-shoot. There isn't the remotest whiff of antitrust.

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware. Win-win on both sides. Psystar could then buy the OS, or better yet, get a discount by buying it in bulk from Apple, and then bundle it with their hardware (not installed).

That would work out the best giving Apple fair competition, part of Psystar's revenue, and still putting out quality hardware/software.

BL.

 

[coolfactor]

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

How? Apple creates the hardware and the software. It's all theirs. Internet Explorer built into Windows is not even close to being the same situation. Windows runs on 3rd-party hardware. IE's tight integration and proprietary nature gives Microsoft an edge over competition way beyond their direct reach. And for very different reasons. Apple has their model to ensure a seamless user experience. Microsoft does it for marketshare. Big difference.

 

[haydn!]

Is this going to become another sixty pages of reasons why Apple lost and members attempting to convince people they know the law like they do the TV guide?

 

[howie78]

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.

Oh I agree..but in absent of fanboyism one can see that they're hardware offerings are of the 2007 level. I like Apple so don't burn me and the free market thing is such a cop-out by saying if you don't like don't buy it. I can afford apple products and like them (own'd a pro in the past as well a mb) but honestly they are falling behind hardware wise and not sure how any rationale hardware savvy person ignores that fact. Their market share is only growing due to visita primarily and not growing the business market which MS is releasing windows 7 that will most likely bring those masses back (not a MS fan) just stating its not a draw due to apple's enormous appeal just saying its due to average person having poor choices in the market currently. Given a better windoze version most hardware users will choose the cheaper more advanced alternative. Apple products are quality but far over priced for the hardware one receives. I do love the MB look though.

 

[sflocal]

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 does have competition. Perhaps you're not aware that the playing field includes players like Microsoft Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.. ??

You don't like Apple's pricing? No one is forcing you to buy from Apple.

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

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.

Yes, and you can put Linux on an Apple machine, but you can't put the operating systems I listed on others.

 

[corinhorn]

Is this going to become another sixty pages of reasons why Apple lost and members attempting to convince people they know the law like they do the TV guide?

indubitably so.

 

[paric]

Regarding these Internet Explorer comparisons, remember what MS did.

It wasn't merely that they built IE into Windows, but they threatened the PC makers by telling them they would pull their license if they dared to ship their computers with Netscape installed.

That would have destroyed those companies over night.

They basically shut down Netscape, not with the merits of IE, but with ubiquity of Windows.

 

[milo]

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.

And they have no chance at all with a "tying" argument either since tying isn't inherently illegal - note the judge's comment: "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."

Not only did the judge say that Apple isn't a monopoly, he said that the so called "tying" they're doing is perfectly legal as well.

The whole "apple is a monopoly" argument (along with similar "anticompetitive" arguments) has always been idiotic, and it just looks that much more idiotic now.

 

[sflocal]

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware.

You truly, honestly really don't get it do you?

 

[BaldiMac]

But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

Antitrust? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Apple is not a trust. Psystar's claims that Apple is a trust were just dismissed. You cannot violate antitrust laws if you are not a trust.

 

[zacman]

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.

 

[Barabas]

So some Microsoft execs eventually helped out SCO getting their funding and thus creating massive spread of FUD for a couple of years. Even though SCO was finally obliterated, the Linux market still took a hit. (Though one could argue that the Linux-community gained massive PR at the same time).

And here comes Psystar. A very small company realeasing a product that will bring them straight into the courtroom before they even the chance to make any money of their product.

Now who might be interested in funding that for a while I wonder...

 

[milo]

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.

That's absolutely what they were trying to do. But it was an epic fail since MS had over 90% marketshare while Apple is under 10%.

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.

I guess you missed where the judge said "It is certainly entitled to do so."? Sure sounds like HE doesn't think it's anything remotely close to antitrust. And I'll bet a judge understands the law better than some anonymous random guy posting on the internet.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

Yeah, except Apple makes all their money through hardware sales and profits would plummet if they ever did this.

What Psystar should have done was instead of concentrating on having access to OS X, repackage it, and resell it with their machines, is put pressure on Apple (whether via the courts, the press, what have you), to market the OS as a separate product, alongside bundling it with the hardware.

Really? You think that Psystar has any influence at all on Apple? You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

[Squozen]

I didn't say 'forced'. I'm saying that Apple could potentially gain more market share if they were to sell OS X to other platforms outside of Macs. Do they have to do it, or be forced to do it? No. But them saying that it can and will only be used on Macs does turn a lot of people off and give them the perception of antitrust.

Market share is all well and good, but Apple prefers money. Their business strategy seems to be doing them just fine so far, at least, if you consider having more cash in the bank than Microsoft 'doing well'.

 

[kockgunner]

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.

That's interesting though. Apple is not considered anti-competitive because of their relatively small market share, but what if they reach over 50% market share one day (which they will)? Will they have to open up their OS for everyone?

 

[sflocal]

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.

Then why not complain about not running an XBOX game on a PS3? Why not complain about running the i5/OS on an x86 platform? There are many other examples of other companies doing the exact same thing - and legally. You explain that to me with a little bit of clarity and then maybe one may listen to you. Until then, you're just a supporter of IP theft.

 

[sushi]

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

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

Yep, good news.

Apple charges what the market will bear.

Exactly

I hope OS X stays on only Apple Macs.

Likewise.

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

One reason that the Mac OS is good is that it runs and is supported on a limited number of platforms.

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

Apple does have competition. Perhaps you're not aware that the playing field includes players like Microsoft Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc.. ??

Yep, plenty of competition out there.

The title seems to be wrong. It hasn't been dismissed yet. The judge just ask Psystar to make better arguments until December 8th. Nothing decided yet.

The case has been dismissed, if Psystar does nothing.

Psystar has the option of resubmitting by December 8th.

At least that is my understanding.

 

[aforty]

Go away Psystar, nobody likes you!