Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[corinhorn]

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.

It does and the arguments are getting tiresome. It seems that everyone and every organization that is successful (like Apple) gets vilified and accused of being greedy, evil, monopolistic, unethical, etc. Companies and organizations like Psystar just want to get a piece of the pie anyway imaginable and also have a few seconds in the "Look at me, I'm relevant" spotlight while they steal the pie.

 

[BaldiMac]

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 judge granted Apple's motion to dismiss the case. Psystar does have the opportunity to amend their complaint by Dec 8.

 

[milo]

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

Well, you should be glad to know that there IS competition. As evidenced by the 90% market share of Windows. And the judge said as much.

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

Then give one example. One company with a market share under ten percent that was found guilty of anticompetitive practices.

Not to mention that the judge said specifically that apple is entitled to sell its OS only to be used on its hardware. That sure sounds like he doesn't consider it an anticompetitive practice.

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.

While that's true, is there ANY argument they could make that would convince the judge that Apple is a monopoly? The December 8 date just seems like a formality, this part of the case is dead.

 

[paric]

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.

Okay, so Apple does not have the latest greatest hardware. That's their right. You don't have to buy. By not buying, you are telling them that they are overpriced. When you buy, you equate the money you paid with the value of the product received. As long as people keep buying at the higher prices, there's no reason for them to lower.

We all want to pay less, but there would be ramifications if Apple were to lower their prices.

Lower prices = less margin/revenue = less motivation to risk and innovate = decreased quality = complaints about price.

 

[milo]

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?

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

 

[corinhorn]

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

I for one don't want it to happen for a host of reasons.

 

[paric]

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

Excellent reference. Now I've got to watch that movie tonight.

 

[Winni]

"It is certainly entitled to do so."

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

 

[Consultant]

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?

No.

Apple doesn't do the anit-competitive things that Micros0ft did and STILL DOES.

Apple does NOT tie the browser in with the OS. Apple web site works on all browsers.

Try visiting MS site (not like you want to or should), most of it STILL ONLY works with I.E.
Certain functions of wind0ws still are tied to I.E. which is ridiculous.

 

[Sun Baked]

Probably not. They'd probably need to approach the 90% market share Windows has, which will likely never happen.

Whatever the anticompetitive handcuffs that we placed on MS would be released if Apple became a viable competitor to MS, at 30-40% marketshare, can't remember the marketshare amount.

Which would make it a bit harder to gain 90% for Apple if MS can start fighting with all guns at 30-40%.

Doesn't mean MS can nuke Apple to zero, but just fight to slow them down and fight to maintain.

 

[digiguy23]

All is well and good. But why people have to take away from other companies and sell it. Geesh, Unix is open source. Instead of spending the money on lawyers and court, hire some good programmers and develop your own OS to compete with Apple and Microsoft. It's like MacOS is like a magic wand or something

 

[milo]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

Wrong.

In other words, THERE IS A LAW and APPLE HASN'T BROKEN THE LAW.

What kind of country do we live in where there are so many idiots who think that every time a big company does something they don't like, it should be illegal. It's even more ridiculous to think that things would be any different in Europe.

There IS an open market: you can buy a mac, you can buy windows, you can buy linux.

Seriously, when are people going to quit being whiny babies and get a clue about these things?

 

[AppleMojo]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

Yeah, we think they should leave the US to. We'll pay for their air fare! ;-)

 

[paric]

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?

Well, it's more like Apple CAN'T be anti-competitive because of their small market share. They just don't have the influence.

But remember, even if a company has 99.999% market share, it is not a violation of antitrust laws until they misuse their market share (generally in an attempt to thwart even the possibility of competition emerging).

 

[DigitalM]

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.

BL.

Point taken, I know what you mean. It is of course, as I'm sure you appreciate, one of the strengths of OSX that it isn't forced into supporting every hardware config under the sun. That marketing position is a major contributor to many of the more frustrating experiences in Windows. For that reason, for myself and I suspect many others, I don't ever want to see MacOS licensed freely to other hardware manufacturers.

 

[50548]

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

It means that those criminal hackers are on the way of the Dodo...their free-riding adventure ends right here...along with the customers that wanted it easy and cheap, at the expense of Apple's gigantic investments in R&D and IPR...just send them to the mudhole, Apple; they deserve it. BANZAI!

 

[yayaba]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

 

[corinhorn]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

No, in other words, the judge has common sense, an attribute that seems to be dying lately.

 

[milo]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

They CAN decide that. That's precisely what the judge said.

Meaning the rest of Psystar's case is likely in the toilet as well.

 

[zacman]

While that's true, is there ANY argument they could make that would convince the judge that Apple is a monopoly?

From what I can read in the Apple Insider article the judge says that there actually can be a case in which the relevant market consist of just one brand of a product. Psystar just didn't prove yet that this is also the case here with Apple. But Psystar still got the chance to make better arguments until December 8th. Time for a rabbit probably

 

[paric]

In other words, the judge gave the typical American legal ********, protecting the interests of a big corporation instead of the interests of consumers and an OPEN market.

Those Psystar people should relocate to Europe if they want a fair trial.

So corporations shouldn't have rights? Without those rights, they wouldn't survive. (And you wouldn't have products like Mac OS X to complain about.)

Big corporations employ lots of people. We need them! How many jobs have you created in your lifetime?

 

[kamchadal]

We are all adult...

Behind closed doors, We should be able to do whatever we want. If we want to run Apple Soft on non-Apple Hardware, we should be able to do so, if that is what we want. We should not force anyone to do it, though. I vote for freedom! We are a great country. The only one, it seems, which can put together an operating system. That must mean something...doesn't it? Or is Apple and Microsoft operating systems written by the Chinese? Now that I think of it, it could be the Chinese writing the software...

 

[bradl]

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.

Yet my question still stands. Name me one machine/architecture outside of Macs, that OS X runs on. I can run Linux on an XBox. I can run Linux on a PS2, and PS3. I can run Linux on a Symbian type device. As you said, I can run Linux on a Mac. I can bloody well run Linux on my Apple II. I can run another OS on another machine if I choose to - and legally. Can you run OS X on something else outside of a Mac?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Until then, you're just a supporter of IP theft.

Nice way to take it to a personal level.

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

Did I say this would be the end all/end all? No, but then again, nice way of overexaggerating what I was saying. It would be nice if Apple could sell OS X separately for those that would like to run it on non-Mac Hardware. That's it, that's all. Psystar could have brought attention to that in their counterclaim, but they didn't. Shame on them. BTW, you should read what I said again (as I said again above) instead of just going off.

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%.

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.

Yes, someone finally has the b***s to actually read a post instead of going fanboi. This is EXACTLY what I was thinking Psystar was trying to do. It failed, but this was their premise. And no, I didn't miss that the judge ruled against them. Frankly, I don't care about the judge's summary, but I did want to see how both sides argued the case.

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

If you'd actually read what I've been saying, you actually would get what I said, instead, you post useless drivel with no content towards the thread.

Maybe next time I'll follow Dilbert's advice[1].

BL.

[1] "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drop you down to their level, then beat you with experience." - Dogbert

 

[AppleMojo]

I don't understand... Apple's the one who makes OSX. Why can't they choose which computers they want to run it on? Why don't they have the right to decide that?

You are correct and understand it well.

It's these whacko's that somehow think that they all deserve a free ride at the expense of Apple.

An interesting note, is that I have several colleagues that were on the "open" and "free software" kick, until they grew up, and started feeding a family as a software developer.

So until these guys experience what it is like to actually work hard and create something, they will continue to want everything for free.

 

[macbookairapple]

Wrong.

In other words, THERE IS A LAW and APPLE HASN'T BROKEN THE LAW.

What kind of country do we live in where there are so many idiots who think that every time a big company does something they don't like, it should be illegal. It's even more ridiculous to think that things would be any different in Europe.

There IS an open market: you can buy a mac, you can buy windows, you can buy linux.

Seriously, when are people going to quit being whiny babies and get a clue about these things?

That's the problem, most of these dudes who were supporting Psystar, they don't want to pay Apple's prices so therefore what Apple is doing is illegal and they deserve to go down.