Psyonara…
by John Paczkowski
Posted on November 19, 2008 at 6:20 AM PT
Psystar’s ideological crusade against Apple is fast turning into a boondoggle for the Mac clone maker. On Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed Psystar’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple and with it, one of the company’s last remaining chances to stay in business peddling PCs with Apple’s Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, an apparent violation of Apple’s software license agreement.
Sued by Apple in August for violating the terms of its shrink-wrap license, trademark and copyright on OS X, Psystar replied in kind with a countersuit charging Cupertino with restraint of trade, unfair competition, and other violations of antitrust law. Apple, Psystar argued, engages in all manner of anticompetitive conduct to “protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market.”
But according to the California judge presiding over the case, Apple’s products don’t constitute a market to dominate. And that being the case, Apple (AAPL) can’t be considered a monopolist.
“The counterclaim explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems,” Judge William Alsup wrote in his order dismissing the suit. “The counterclaim admits that market studies indicate that, although Apple computers with Mac OS enjoy strong brand recognition and loyalty, they are not wholly lacking in competition. Psystar also points to Apple’s extensive advertising campaigns. Those advertising campaigns more plausibly support an inference contrary to that asserted in the counterclaim–vigorous advertising is a sign of competition, not a lack thereof. If Mac OS simply had no reasonable substitute, Apple’s vigorous advertising would be wasted money. The advertising campaigns suggest a need to enhance brand recognition and lure consumers from a competitor…. Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so.”
Comments
You have to love the judge on this one. He is right on the money. Apple is one of a kind and they simply are the best computers out thre by far.
Posted by Quincy Davis at November 19th, 2008 at 8:49 amDo you think this decision could indirectly provide defense for Microsoft in future monopoly charges? If Apple has clear competition in the marketplace, shouldnt the same be true for Microsoft? Moreover, while it is a different issue, if Macs can come preloaded with Apple products – why should Microsoft be labeled a monopolist?
Posted by Dominic Pannone at November 19th, 2008 at 10:34 amThe pun on the japanese ‘Sayonara’ might work better if you got the vowels in the right order…
Posted by Vaughn Cordero at November 19th, 2008 at 10:34 amDominic: Apple makes its hardware and bundles its software.
Microsoft does NOT make hardware but sought to prevent PC makers from preinstalling competing software by threatening to withhold Windows licensing or offering unfavorable economic terms. Therein lies the difference, exerting undue influence over second parties to exterminate a third.
Posted by Vaughn Cordero at November 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm