backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 92 comment(s) - last by HighWing.. on Dec 1 at 1:13 PM


Apple is looking to use Psystar, makers of $399 Mac clones, as an example to other would-be clone-makers, as it looks to crush the company in court. Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple, which some critics say was its best chance of survive was just rejected.  (Source: Psystar)
Legal analysts say Apple has killed Psystar's best hope of staying in business

Apple has always kept tight reins on its products, developing most of its software and only licensing select hardware and third-party software.  While there are some benefits to this, Apple has frequently exercised its dark side as well, from killing iPhone apps which might compete with its own offerings to crushing Mac clone makers.

When it comes to personal computers, Apple has long exercised a complete dictatorship over its kingdom, refusing to allow any clones to be produced once Steve Jobs regained the helm.  Jobs and other Apple executives perceive clone makers as a threat to Apple's business.  For this reason to date it retains only a small market share, despite strong sales.

Clone maker Psystar launched with the intention of making OS X computers for several hundred dollars cheaper than Apple's own offerings.  It seemed a win-win for both companies -- Psystar would be selling machines, and Apple would see increased software sales.  Furthermore, Psystar's $399 machines targeted different market sectors than Apple's as they were aimed at the bargain market, while Apple's Mini line of desktops were aimed at those seeking a small form factor.

However, Apple quickly showed that just because it's a new century doesn't mean it's turned over a new leaf when it comes to clones.  Apple filed suit against Psystar over a host of supposed minor violations of the OS X license, making one thing clear -- it intended to put the company out of business.

Just as Psystar began to ship units in April, the legal battle began.  After Apple filed suit against it, a desperate Psystar filed an antitrust countersuit against Apple.  Psystar alleged that Apple engaged in anticompetitive processes to prevent other companies from selling computers that ran OS X.  Legal analysts said the suit was likely Psystar's last hope of staying in business.

Now, in new documents it has been revealed that Judge William Alsup of the U.S. Federal Court for the Northern District of California has rejected Psystar's argument.  Psystar can try to amend its argument to convince the Judge that it has come to a valid argument, but it only has 20 days left before the case is dismissed.

Judge Alsup ruled that the antitrust argument was invalid because OS X had competitors on the market.  He states, "The pleadings...fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

If the suit is dismissed, as now seems likely, Psystar will be headed to court with Apple.  Legal analysts say that against the power of Apple, Psystar will likely be put out of business -- permanently -- like many clone makers before it.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No real competitor?
By MrX8503 on 11/19/2008 11:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
"The pleadings...fail to allege facts plausibly supporting the counterintuitive claim that Apple's operating system is so unique that it suffers no actual or potential competitors."

I think the judge is referring to windows as being the competitor, but I think that idea is flawed because you can buy/build any computer to run windows. If you want to run OSX you have to buy a Mac.

Apple controls both hardware and software, Microsoft just controls software, I think that's where the anti competitiveness lies.




RE: No real competitor?
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2008 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you want to run OSX you have to buy a Mac.


Yes, but whether that's anticompetitive depends on whether OS X provides anything unique that Windows doesn't other than a graphical skin (which you can add to Windows) and a perception that your machine is somehow superior... ;)

*ducks*


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 12:59:22 PM , Rating: 5
...which exists not by any virtue of the OS or it's hardware, but ironically by it's lack of virtue (in this case interpreted as it's lack of marketshare).

Say you're a script kiddie, or maybe a hardcore ha><or. Either way. You have X amount of time to dedicate to making a new virus/trojan/whatever. Are you going to spend that time crafting an attack that affects 95% of the world's PCs, or on one that attacks only 5% of the world's computers (i.e. Macs).

Hmmm...let me think.

Macs are not less virus-prone than Windows. They are a target not worth bothering with.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 4:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
...what? Your post above uses neither the word "which" nor the word "exists." So which words of yours am I repeating, and how, precisely, is this a totally different issue? Are you high?


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Motoman on 11/19/2008 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. No clue.

Your statement is that Macs provide state of being with a "lack of viruses."

My statement is that state of being exists because of...all the things I said.

Not the slightest clue what you're trying to get at.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By someguy123 on 11/19/2008 7:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
thats funny. you're presented with the true reason behind the lack of malware, which shows that OSX is not "offering" this, but this is due to lack of interest, and instead of accepting the facts you say they're uninteresting.

must be having a good time on that 4000$ web browser you bought.


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: No real competitor?
By Screwballl on 11/20/2008 10:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are no Mac viruses


WRONG

A simple google search for "Mac virus" will show millions of websites with information about viruses coded specifically for Macs, here is a few links for you:

http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Ma...

http://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/2008/10/mac...

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/computer-virus/macintosh-...

http://www.scmagazineus.com/Second-Mac-virus-in-th...

and so on and so on... there are viruses, they are in the wild and they are becoming more popular every day... too bad the Apple security plan does not include free service packs (maybe they call them upgrades, like 10.4 to 10.5? Windows gives them away free and calls them Service Packs).


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/20/2008 6:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft calls them Service Packs
No, it calls them Windows 7 :)))
quote:
millions of websites with information about viruses
I wanted to spot a mac virus in the wild, not another spooky story about something that exists only in those stories, not in the wild.


RE: No real competitor?
By rollakid on 11/19/2008 7:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ah.. Maybe you mean "less viruses"? "Lack of viruses" sounds like, well...

"Yo dude, how's your ride? Done restoring it?"
"Nah, engine still lacks valve seals and two of the pistons need replacing."

Well, that would mean I don't have the valve seals yet right?


RE: No real competitor?
By Pirks on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: No real competitor?
By kelmon on 11/20/2008 3:33:30 AM , Rating: 1
I think the problem is that your statement was ambiguous. The dictionary definition of "lack" can mean "none" or "not enough". Technically, you are both correct in your interpretations of the original phrase but it's definitely best to state your position clearly since being able to interpret it in another way is not good.

I don't suppose that settles things but you never know.


RE: No real competitor?
By Murloc on 11/19/2008 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 1
The conclusion may be "macs are for noobs who can't install an antivirus and not click pop-ups claiming free pussy"