Jump to content

Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

apowerr

By apowerr

 Share

Source (CNET)

PALO ALTO, Calif.--Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade," according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages.

 

Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies.

 

The answer and countersuit will be filed Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court for Northern California.

 

Pedraza attended a press conference his lawyers called to present how Psystar will defend its its OpenComputer Mac clone, which has been for sale online since April.

 

Psystar's attorneys are calling Apple's allegations of Psystar's copyright infringement "misinformed and mischaracterized." 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 says he wants to make Apple's Mac OS "more accessible" by offering it on less expensive hardware than Apple.

 

"My goal is to provide an alternative, not to free the Mac OS," said Pedraza. "What we want to do is to provide an alternative, an option...It's not that people don't want to use Mac OS, many people are open to the idea, but they're not used to spending an exorbitant amount of money on something that is essentially generic hardware."

 

Apple will have 30 days to respond to Pystar's counter claim, and so far has declined to comment on the case.

 

Other 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 road 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, which was then changed to its current name. And 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.

 

For now, Pedraza says it will be "business as usual" at company headquarters. Though he said there was a "slight" downward dip in sales once Apple filed its suit, he plans to go ahead with making servers, and soon, a mobile product, which he said will be "like a notebook." But he refused to offer more detail.

 

More to come...

 

CNET News' Dawn Kawamoto contributed to this story.

Pretty big news for OSx86 perhaps as an outcome of this we will be fully 'legal' and not in violation of Apple's restrictive EULA. Rudy Pedraza is right on the money when he claims that people are open towards using OS 10, but don't want to pay Apple's ridiculous price premiums on normal (and often out of date) hardware. Personally I'm going to have to side with Psystar on this one as I feel that Apple's current EULA for Mac OS 10 is absurd: You pay $125 for software, and then can only install it on certain machines?

 

How do you guys think?

 Share
Go to articles

User Feedback

Recommended Comments



John the Geek
wonderful news...psystar moves ahead of Apple and adds Blu-Ray to its MAC clones. Will Apple ever add Blu-Ray? Will they feel the pressure now that competition has come to OSX? Maybe Apple will speed up its product roll out, and finally release timely hardware upgrades Windows users have been enjoying for years.

 

The basic Psystar desktop PC with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed is offered for $555. The Blu-ray burner is a $310 option, bringing the bottom line to $865...

 

So, as usual, Psystar spend all of 60 seconds adding hardware that I could easily add to my Mac any time, and then claims it's somehow relevant to the market? Why are these f*cktards getting any exposure?

 

You'll notice, for it to actually mean anything, they are waiting on Apple's hard work and development for it to mean anything to Mac users.

 

They are just crooked leeches and they deserve to be sued into the poorhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slacker25

@John the Geeks ......but how do you put a company that is poor and runs outta some makshift shop into the poorhouse......ha will be funny when pystar is never heard of again

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmcnally
Isn't finished yet...Psystar plans Mac notebook

 

 

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10...ay_desktop.html

 

Yep, I bet that they are busily scurrying through this forum to see which laptops work best with OSX86, and that will then approach the manufacturer to OEM it for them, in a slightly different case.

Putting in real design work here and adding real value! <_<

 

For what they are adding you may as well build an EFI-X system. If building your own system is too risky then why risk going with a 3rd Party Mac anyway. And yes I am aware that can't get an EFI-X device for a notebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigPimpin
@Zaap was not to point out any more then what you previous post requested ... the EULA is LAW Binding ...

No, it's not. I can't believe there are this many stupid people in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
No, it's not. I can't believe there are this many stupid people in the world.

 

Calling us stupid won't change that we're right. By US law a EULA is a contract. Legal and all the like. You agree to it, you must abide by it.

 

If you sign a contract that says you will repay a loan and then break the contract, you are legally responsible for the consequences of breaking that contract and the court will hand you your ass on a plate. I realize the method by which you agree to the EULA contract is contested in some areas of Europe, but since Psystar and Apple are both US companies and the US doesn't have any overall problems with EULA agreements of this type, this is fully enforceable by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
Calling us stupid won't change that we're right. By US law a EULA is a contract. Legal and all the like. You agree to it, you must abide by it.

 

If you sign a contract that says you will repay a loan and then break the contract, you are legally responsible for the consequences of breaking that contract and the court will hand you your ass on a plate. I realize the method by which you agree to the EULA contract is contested in some areas of Europe, but since Psystar and Apple are both US companies and the US doesn't have any overall problems with EULA agreements of this type, this is fully enforceable by law.

 

Clicking a button which doesn't even care who you are is NOTHING like signing a contract.

The day the family pet can accidentally enter into a contract on your behalf is the day their equal and equally worthless.

 

 

I say I never saw this "EULA" you speak of, let alone agree to it.

 

You say that can't be it comes up right before installation and you must agree to it to continue, I say well it didn't.

 

What then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Clicking a button which doesn't even care who you are is NOTHING like signing a contract.

That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard regarding this. That's like saying signing a contract means nothing because the pen that you used doesn't care :)

 

I say I never saw this "EULA" you speak of, let alone agree to it.

Then according to the contract, you may send OS X back to Apple and they will give you a refund. Legally, you have no valid excuse, just unreasonable justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard regarding this.

Then you should read what you just posted. ;)

That's like saying signing a contract means nothing because the pen that you used doesn't care :rolleyes:

No, no it's not.

Then according to the contract, you may send OS X back to Apple and they will give you a refund. Legally, you have no valid excuse, just unreasonable justification.

Exactly. So even you are saying that the worse case scenario is that you give it back and they give you your money back.

 

That's one hell of a "contract" there, even if you default you're no worse off than when you started?

 

Have to say I haven't seen very many actual contracts that end like that, I like it.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
No, no it's not.

It's exactly the same. The only thing which is different is the method of delivery :wacko:

 

Exactly. So even you are saying that the worse case scenario is that you give it back and they give you your money back.

Yes, but it's one OR the other. Not doing one or the other is violating the contract. You have 3 choices which are ample; agree to the contract, not agree to the contract and walk away, or ask for a refund.

 

I haven't seen very many actual contracts that end like that

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
knyte2
It's exactly the same. The only thing which is different is the method of delivery ;)

 

 

Yes, but it's one OR the other. Not doing one or the other is violating the contract. You have 3 choices which are ample; agree to the contract, not agree to the contract and walk away, or ask for a refund.

 

 

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :)

 

 

Contract law is iffy at best, if you're questioning that a contract is binding, I'd generally say no. For every contract, there is a way out of it. Take a look at sports contracts, they mean nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dies
It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you haven't seen many contracts period :(

 

Wow. Yes, how witty of you. :blink:

 

Unfortunately, I've seen and read a couple more than I really cared to. But fortunately in every single case there was absolutely no possible way for me to "accidentally" agree to it. Also, in every case the other party was, for some strange reason, very interested in making sure that I was who I said I was, go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badeavasile

A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law. The parties must have the necessary capacity to contract and the contract must not be either trifling, indeterminate, impossible or illegal. Contract law is based on the principle expressed in the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept). Breach of contract is recognised by the law and remedies can be provided. Sometimes written contracts are required, such as when buying a house. However, most contracts can be and are made orally, such as purchasing a book or a sandwich. Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).

 

Vikipedia

 

Remember those cowboy-movies? "They gotta' contract on your head"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek

"Here come da judge!"

 

Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims

 

But in a 19-page order passed down on Tuesday, Judge William Alsup largely reject Psystar's claims and granted Apple's motion to have the countersuit thrown out of court should the clone maker not better its argument through an amended complaint that can be filed no later than Monday December 8th. Should the company fail to do so, all of its claims will be dismissed without leave to amend.

 

"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."

 

So, were we right, or were we right? They have a chance to counter, but since the judge chewed up all of their bull and spit it back out at them, I doubt there's any more "smoking guns" in Psystar's pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
"Here come da judge!"

Wow, Flip Willson, that goes back a ways :(

 

So, were we right, or were we right?

It was inevitable that the Judge would see reason and throw out all of psystars trumped up claims. The only sad part is that there are still boneheads out there who still think that psystar was right... *sigh* :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mmcnally

I can't say I am suprised. When I read Apples response to the Psystar counter sue, it made good sense, showing how Psystar tried to show that MacOS was it's own market but sells the same machines running Linux and Windows, so surely Windows and Linux must compete with MacOS. Bit of a schoolboy error there really.

 

I can't see Apple going after individuals still as wouldn't be worth the hassle to them.

Of course the big difference is that no-one on the forum is trying to sell Mac OSX computers.

 

Wonder if this means that Apple are going to move onto EFI-X now and sue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaez
It was inevitable that the Judge would see reason and throw out all of psystars trumped up claims. The only sad part is that there are still boneheads out there who still think that psystar was right... *sigh* :(

 

Unfortunately for Psystar, Apple hired one of the Judge's previous legal clerks to work the case for them. Knowing this Judge's methods and patterns of thought was an advantage for Apple. So, it was a clever tactic by Apple's legal team. However, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. Psystar needs to get another Judge. This one will not favor Psystar no matter what. Maybe they could argue conflict of interest and get the judge dismissed from the case. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
Unfortunately for Psystar, Apple hired one of the Judge's previous legal clerks to work the case for them. Knowing this Judge's methods and patterns of thought was an advantage for Apple. So, it was a clever tactic by Apple's legal team. However, it ain't over til the fat lady sings. Psystar needs to get another Judge. This one will not favor Psystar no matter what. Maybe they could argue conflict of interest and get the judge dismissed from the case. :)

 

:(

 

... and maybe, just maybe - if they all sing Christmas carols down in Whoville the Judge's heart will grow three sizes that day!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maxintosh
Case dismissed!

This is my favorite part:

 

Not only that, but the judge also found that Psystar actually contradicted itself in pointing out that Apple has to advertise heavily to promote OS X against competing operating systems that perform the same tasks, and that Apple is "certainly entitled" to ask its customers to only use OS X on Apple machines. Yeah, that's a smackdown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaez
This is my favorite part:

 

judgething.jpg

 

And this is my favorite part:

 

The only reason it is not (yet) anti-competitive is because of Apple's pathetic marketshare.

 

Let's flip this around: Imagine MS starts making computers and stops OEMs from selling Windows on t... (Read the rest)

 

 

November 18th, 2008

 

:) Apple dodges antitrust bullet

 

 

give them a couple years to get marketshare...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
"Here come da judge!"

 

Judge grants Apple's motion to dismiss Psystar's counterclaims

So, were we right, or were we right? They have a chance to counter, but since the judge chewed up all of their bull and spit it back out at them, I doubt there's any more "smoking guns" in Psystar's pockets.

 

:)

 

This anti-trust counter suit was a joke from the get-go.

 

One would have to be a real legal zero to come up with an idea so stupid in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...