<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.theindustrystandard.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>The Industry Standard - Apple: Psystar&amp;#039;s antitrust claims &amp;#039;deeply flawed&amp;#039; - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.theindustrystandard.com/news/2008/10/02/apple-psystars-antitrust-claims-deeply-flawed</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Apple: Psystar&#039;s antitrust claims &#039;deeply flawed&#039;&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Apple: Psystar&#039;s antitrust claims &#039;deeply flawed&#039;</title>
 <link>http://www.theindustrystandard.com/news/2008/10/02/apple-psystars-antitrust-claims-deeply-flawed</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple said that Psystar&#039;s argument that the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker had illegally tied Mac OS X with its own hardware was &quot;deeply flawed&quot; in a motion filed earlier this week. And the company wants a judge to dismiss Psystar&#039;s antitrust counterclaims.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; &quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple filed its motion in response to an August countersuit from Psystar, a Doral, Fla.-based clone maker that began selling computers running Apple&#039;s OS X operating system earlier this year. In that &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.com/article/135298/2008/08/psystar.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;countersuit filed in August&lt;/a&gt;, Psystar argued that Apple enjoys &quot;monopoly power&quot; by linking its hardware and the Mac OS and claimed that Apple violated antitrust laws when it blocked users from installing OS X on computers not built by Apple. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in its response filed with the U.S. District Court&#039;s Northern District of California, lawyers for Apple called Psystar&#039;s claims an &quot;attempt to direct attention from its infringing conduct.&quot; Further, Apple&#039;s lawyers contend that Psystar&#039;s own filings undermine the argument that Apple enjoys an unlawful monopoly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Psystar&#039;s very business model is premised on the fact that Apple&#039;s computers compete directly with personal computers using different operating systems,&quot; reads Apple&#039;s motion, noting that Psystar also sells computers with Windows and Linux operating systems. &quot;Since customers are choosing between these computer systems, the systems necessarily compete with one another.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple&#039;s 23-page filing attacks Psystar&#039;s antitrust arguments on several fronts. First, Apple&#039;s attorneys argue that Psystar cannot claim that there is a Mac OS markets since courts have often rejected the idea of single-brand markets. To back this claim, Apple&#039;s lawyers cite several cases where courts have ruled that &quot;reasonably interchangeable products that serve the same use are in the same market.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple also attacks the claim that the Mac doesn&#039;t face competition, noting that Psystar gives its customers the option of opting for Windows or Linux as the OS for its Open Computer offering. Apple&#039;s filing also notes the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Get a Mac&quot; ads&lt;/a&gt;--cited by Psystar in its countersuit--&quot;specifically compare the features and functions of a Mac with a competing PC running the Windows operating system.&quot; (Apple included scripts for some of its Mac-vs.-PC ads as exhibits with its filing.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Finally, Apple contends that antitrust laws can&#039;t be used to force it to license its OS to competitors. &quot;One of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturer&#039;s unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act,&quot; the filing reads.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple&#039;s motion to dismiss Psystar&#039;s suit is the latest development in a tussle that began this spring when Psystar announced it would &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.com/article/132984/2008/04/psystar.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;sell a computer running OS X 10.5&lt;/a&gt;. But Psystar sold its Open Computer in an apparent violation of the end-user license agreement for OS X, which does not allow users to &quot;install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple took action in July, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.com/article/134524/2008/07/psystar_lawsuit.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;filing a suit against Psystar&lt;/a&gt; that alleged that the company had violated Apple copyrights and software licensing agreements. The stakes are high for Psystar: In its original suit, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.macworld.com/article/134544/2008/07/psystar.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple demanded that Psystar recall every Mac clone sold&lt;/a&gt;--a move that could effectively put Psystar out of business.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple&#039;s motion to dismiss Psystar&#039;s antitrust allegations go before a judge next month.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.theindustrystandard.com/news/2008/10/02/apple-psystars-antitrust-claims-deeply-flawed#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1557">Antitrust</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1651">Desktop PCs</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/2418">Hardware Systems</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1402">IDGNS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/2436">laptops</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1427">Legal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1718">Mac</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/3809">Mac laptops</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1559">Mac OS</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1556">Operating systems</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/1520">Software</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/5668">Standards &amp;amp; Legal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.theindustrystandard.com/taxonomy/term/98">Breaking News</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:37:16 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>IDG News Service</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">119320 at http://www.theindustrystandard.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
