The Mac Observer

Skip navigational links

DealsOnTheWeb Daily Deal: Buy.com's After-Christmas Super Store - Check out the Revolving Savings

Psystar Might Try Antitrust Defense

by , 1:55 PM EDT, August 4th, 2008

Psystar's legal defense team plans to roll out antitrust issues if the Apple case against them goes to trial, according to Computerworld on Monday. At issue is whether Apple has exclusive rights to Mac OS X.

One of the attorneys with Carr & Ferrell LLP, representing Psystar, Colby Springer said, "This case has been mischaracterized. There are a lot more complicated issues than just copyright or trademark. There are more complex issues ... in respect to the end-user licensing agreement. And antitrust issues come into play, too."

Apple's End User License Agreement, EULA, says: "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

Some attorneys who specialize in antitrust cases, including Carr & Ferrel itself believe that Apple would face antitrust issues if the case goes to trial. "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'," according to Carole Handler with Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon.

TMO notes that Apple and other attorneys disagree. Apple hasn't been declared a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination, so what remains is Apple's patent and copyright protection of its intellectual property. That could be a much more tenable argument that simply insisting that Psystar would like to break up a non-declared monopoly in order to seize a share of Apple's revenue. If a judge sees it that way, Psystar might be compelled to reimburse all its customers for their purchases, effectively putting them put out of business.

Observer Comments

Show: Subjects Only | Full Comments
Close Name:geoduck Posts: 1922 Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Subject: IANAL but...

I find it hard to believe that any court could find the manufacturer of an OS that holds 10% or less of the market to be in violation of antitrust rules. Yes, OS-X has some features that Windows doesn't have. And Windows has features that OS-X doesn't. And Ubuntu does things that neither of them will do. This sounds like a desperate strategy because they don?t have anything else.

On the other hand we ARE talking about the US justice system so anything could happen.

Close Name:Sir Harry Flashman Posts: 792 Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Subject: Claim Jumpers

" At issue is whether Apple has exclusive rights to Mac OS X"

I don't understand how it could be any other way, isn't OSX Apple's creation?

Close Name:geoduck Posts: 1922 Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Subject:

It's kind of like complaining that Dell doesn't make parts for ThinkPads

Close Name:Tiger Posts: 1018 Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Subject: gonna force this are they?

Well, Apple could just as easily (turn of phrase, not necessarily evaluated for practicality) move the entire OS back onto the ROM chip and wipe out the whole "software" issue. I the the OS is part of the hardware, and only Apple has access to the hardware, it would pretty much make moot Psystar's dying grasp at a straw here.

Would Apple do such a thing? I doubt it. OS on ROM is passe. It's so 2 decades ago. Apple has been allowed to control the widget now for 20 years, give or take the brief flirtation with clones in the 90s that turned into an unmitigated flop.

I think a judge or panel of them will see that this is nothing more than a revenue stealing ploy, trying to cash in at another's expense, without their permission, or any sort of licensing agreement. It will end up costing Psystar their business for their lack of vision and unwillingness to do something of their own accord instead of "borrowing" (I didn't say stealing) somebody else's ideas.

Close Name:Guest
Subject: I agree that Psystar will lose...

I can't see Psystar winning although it was bound to happen eventually since Apple is using PC components. Hopefully after this is over and Apple wins, I'd almost bet that the challenges and claims Psystar makes will only make Apple improve their defense and make their EULA, copyrights, trademarks and patents that much more impenetrable. Once the new chip designs with P.A. Semi and the improved ARM designs it should be more difficult for Psystar to offer these "counterfeit" Macs as I see 'em!

Close Name:Guest
Subject:

Apple could also chose not to sell OSX as an upgrade at all or only to people who can prove they have bought a previous Mac before. Apple could also implement tiered pricing.


Quote
Tiger wrote:
Well, Apple could just as easily (turn of phrase, not necessarily evaluated for practicality) move the entire OS back onto the ROM chip and wipe out the whole "software" issue. I the the OS is part of the hardware, and only Apple has access to the hardware, it would pretty much make moot Psystar's dying grasp at a straw here.

Would Apple do such a thing? I doubt it. OS on ROM is passe. It's so 2 decades ago. Apple has been allowed to control the widget now for 20 years, give or take the brief flirtation with clones in the 90s that turned into an unmitigated flop.

I think a judge or panel of them will see that this is nothing more than a revenue stealing ploy, trying to cash in at another's expense, without their permission, or any sort of licensing agreement. It will end up costing Psystar their business for their lack of vision and unwillingness to do something of their own accord instead of "borrowing" (I didn't say stealing) somebody else's ideas.

Close Name:kevinolive Posts: 8 Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Subject: end result??

I would speculate that this won't go to trial, that psystar will stop selling their clones, and that there will be a non-disclosure agreement in the settlement thereby leaving us all in the dark as to what "really" happened.

End result, Apple retains rights to its intellectual property, and psystar closes its doors.

I think psystar is like a tick landing itself on a large dog. Yes, the tick gets fed, grows larger, gets noticed, gets removed and squashed.

Close Name:Guest
Subject:

It's not a revenue stealing scheme.

It's a blackmail scheme.

They're hoping Apple is scared by the "And antitrust issues come into play, too." issue and will pay them off.

Comment on this Article


You cannot edit your comments.   You cannot delete your comments.
Log in | Register | Having Problems? Reset TMO Cookies & Try Again
Username:   Password:   Log me on automatically each visit   

You are not logged in, and this post will appear as "Guest." Log in with your username and password from the TMO forums. If you do not have a username, you can register here.
Please note that guests are limited to including a maximum of two URLs per post.


Post A Comment
  Subject


  Your Comments



Please enter the word exactly as you see it in the image above. Registered users aren't prompted for this. Having trouble reading the image get a new one.


The Mac Observer Reader Specials

Apple iTunes