X
Business

Apple strikes back against Psystar, asks for counterclaim to be dismissed

Apple has hit back against claims made by Mac-clone maker Psystar that the company is operating in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act and will be asking the U.S. District Court judge to dismiss to dismiss the counterclaim.
Written by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, Senior Contributing Editor

Apple has hit back against claims made by Mac-clone maker Psystar that the company is operating in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act and will be asking the U.S. District Court judge to dismiss to dismiss the counterclaim.

Apple vs. Psystar
The 23-page filing is heavy reading but there are two sections that pretty much sum up Apple's argument (emphasis added):

Defendant Psystar Corporation is knowingly infringing Apple’s copyrights and trademarks, and inducing others to do the same.  Psystar makes and sells personal computers that use, without permission, Apple’s proprietary operating system software.  In an obvious attempt to divert attention from its unlawful actions, Psystar asserts deeply flawed antitrust counterclaims designed to have this Court force Apple to license its software to Psystar, a direct competitor. The Court should reject Psystar’s efforts to excuse its copyright infringement, and dismiss these Counterclaims with prejudice.

And:

Psystar’s attempt to direct attention from its infringing conduct should fail.  It cannot plausibly define a relevant market in which Apple has market power, so Psystar cannot prove any unfair competition by AppleNor can Psystar use the antitrust laws to force Apple to help its direct competitor.  Therefore, Psystar’s Counterclaims all should be dismissed with prejudice.

The filing is packed with similarly strong wording. Apple wants the court's attention firmly on the issue of Psystar selling Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, and not on issues of monopoly and antitrust.

I'm getting mountains of popcorn ready for when this hits court! Should be interesting!

Editorial standards