Psystar countersues Apple on antitrust grounds
Mac clone maker Psystar officially responded to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit on Thursday by filing a countersuit that alleges anticompetitive business practices.
As expected, the 54-page complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, charges Apple with restraint of trade, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust law. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, requests that the court find Apple's end-user license agreements (EULA) void and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
"The present litigation is more complex than the misinformed and mischaracterized allegations of copyright infringement," attorney Colby Springer, of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell, said in a statement. "The litigation involves the anticompetitive nature of the Apple EULA and similar anticompetitive tactics related to the misuse of Apple's copyrights."
Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.
Pedraza said says his company is "allowing more people to take advantage of a great operating system that Apple has created at a more accessible cost than the pricey Mac."
Apple will have 30 days to respond to Psystar's countersuit and so far has declined to comment on the case.
Legal experts say Psystar faces a tough legal challenge in proving Apple has engaged in antitrust behavior by loading its software on its own hardware and thereby allegedly harming consumers and competitors. Psystar's ability to prevail on the issue of having the latitude to load Apple's OS on its own hardware, given it has a licensing agreement with the company, may prove an easier row to hoe, legal experts note.
A newcomer to the PC scene, Psystar caused a stir when it first went online selling white-box Macs earlier this year. The site went down hours after it opened for business because the company was overwhelmed with orders for the OpenComputer, originally called the OpenMac. The site went down several more times as its payment-processing company pulled its services from the Psystar site. Psystar managed to stay shrouded in a bit of mystery for a while, until intrepid gadget-blog readers joined the press in fleshing out some details about the company.
Psystar eventually got back online with a new payment-processing service, and it continues to take orders for the OpenComputer and OpenPro Computer. When Apple finally did file suit against Psystar in July, it surprised nearly no one--except perhaps Pedraza. He said he had no contact with Apple before legal papers were filed against his company. Customarily, there is some sort of communication between companies before lawsuits are filed.
CNET News' Erica Ogg contributed to this report.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.
Psystar business model is completely build on breaking Apple licence, it added no value to the OS market.
Apple never lie about the fact that it only allow its OS to be run on Apple hardware. If someone don't like that fact, then don't use it.
Unlike Microsoft Windows, Apple never attain the market share to be consider a necessity or a market monopoly. I really don't see how Psystar can win by a anti-trust argument.
I think everyone is hoping Pystar wins so they will have a choice of more than one commercial OS for the PC that actually has off the shelf consumer software at a reasonable price. Steve Jobs could make a killing here if he would license this thing to people like Psytar via an OEM agreement that releases Apple from having to do any customer support. It really is surprising he would rather go through the court fees to keep his market share reduced.
Oh and good luck Psystar. You're gonna need it.
The UK tried that saying the $1 to £1 exchange rate for US based goods sold in the UK was anti-trust and Lost so there is no hope based on these precedents.
Come on people buy a Mac because the hardware and OS are integrated. OLD 1980's style PC hardware is vastly inferior in its operating design to that of the Mac and that explains why the $500 BOIS based rubbish (Fiesta) should not run the $1500 Mac Software (BMW).
A reliable and smooth OS needs reliable and smooth hardware to run on otherwise it undermines the whole point of going to the Mac OS.
What is the difference of a OS that crashes every 10 hours on good hardware as opposed to a good OS that runs on bad hardware that stalls every 10 hours.
Funny how apple really pushes boot-camp as an awesome feature. lolz
This as about as Logical as saying that the Drive Software that BMW use should run on a Ford Fiesta as not to is anti-trust. "
Now you are not talking about the same thing. In this scenario, your hypothetical 'BMW software' *IS WORKING* on the 'Ford Fiesta', but BMW are regretting that it does. Apple's O/S is working on Psystar's machine so it's a completely different kettle of fish.
If I buy a hammer which is licensed to hit nails, and then use it to break firewood or smash up computers. The most I can expect is to void the Hammer's warranty, I don't expect to have to goto court!
Apple has a free-market, capitalist right to control their hardware and software. All others go run Linux or Windows on your noble x86 white boxen.
It's funny how you've included such a contradictory statement into your Pro-Apple stance. By the very tenets of a working free-market, little bozo's have as much right to enter the market as giant fiscal thumping multinationals. By making MAC's more affordable they are bringing value to the less affluent majority.
Remember, it's only because bandwidth is so cheap, and computers are so much cheaper than even 15yrs ago, that we have the technological revolution that we have today. CHEAP is value added!
Well guess what people, this is business. If I create a product and be the only seller of that product to be sold only in that configuration is totally my right....as its Apple's right to control what hardware their OS runs on.
> parts after you purchased the car. I'm thinking psystar can win this.
What part of the concept of "copyright" do you not understand? OSX is copyrighted and owned by Apple, which is similar to other non-tangible products such as film and music. Sony owns the rights to the movies it produces. So by your logic, Psystar should be able to distribute Sony films without a distribution agreement with Sony? On what grounds?
Also, your analogy isn't even close.Apple doesn't make you use Apple parts after you purchase a Mac. You want to run Windows on your Mac? You can. Linux? You can. Want to install third party drives? You can.
Oh, and charge Microsoft-like prices for that version of the OS, too.
Not the same thing at all. I am thinking that Psystar will lose both cases
Now, before you Mac fanboys get all huffy and upset because I claimed that Windows might actually have a legitimate claim in the computer world, remember that hardware always has limitations and bugs that even the best generic software can't cover up. The Windows operating system does a fantastic job of hiding all the ugly work that has to be done to make some of those P.O.S. machines out there work (and by some, I mean at least half of the machines out there...seriously...Dell STILL sells computers with bottleneck hardware in them - think Celeron = No Cache).
Mac OS X has a viable business model that works BECAUSE their hardware is proprietary. I honestly don't think that Mac has the resources to handle the amount of work it would take to get the OS to work for nearly all the hardware out there, much less provide the support (as support is starting to become one of the biggest costs of major corporations). Such a thing would require some serious upscaling.
PSYSTAR is filling that niche in. They are bringing that support and compatibility to a broader market. That's good business!
I honestly am of the opinion that Mac feels seriously threatened...if PSYSTAR prevails, Mac will have to change their business model (meaning becoming more competitive) because they will actually have competition in their own niche.
I like Mac...I don't want to see them fall (how am I going to get support for my products later on down the road if I need it?), but I'm excited that I may one day be able to afford to buy a Mac computer!
>
> If PSYSTAR prevails, Mac will have to change their business model (meaning becoming more competitive)
> because they will actually have competition in their own niche.
First of all, the company is called "Apple" and one of their products is called "Macintosh." Second, since you mention Windows, tell me, do *you* have the right to take Windows, create a hardware company, and begin selling Windows prebundled on the PC's you're marketing, WITHOUT having a distribution agreement in place with Microsoft?
I am interested in your answer.
You can probably afford a real Mac now, it depends on your budget priorities. I am not trying to be snarky, not with you.
Don't you have to be legally declared a monopoly before you can be sued for antitrust?
And doesn't the government normally pursue such things?
If nothing else, I guess Psystar will get lots of free PR from this as they complete this Kamikaze mission against Apple.
You can sue for anything. Winning is a different matter. If Psystar loses, they pay for court costs BTW.
> And doesn't the government normally pursue such things?
Yes. And in the PC market, Apple is nowhere close to a monopoly.
The law is quite clear: you and I do not have a right to sell someone elses software as new unless we have an agreement with them to do so. Psystar might try to claim they are selling "used" software, but that is dangerous ground to tread.
-
by mike1001000
August 29, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
- If Apple looses, they will probably start selling their OS for about $500 or more which would in fact be justified if you think about quality and market share. I just hope that all this won't make my next apple purchase more expensive. Free markets is about freedom and have nothing to do with free as in free beer.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 37 Comments >>