[Macworld]

Post your comments for Psystar calls Apple a 'monopoly' in antitrust charges here

[mac_user21]

can't stop laughing. THis case will crump. Monopoly in market? but not all computer is OS X unlike Microsoft. when it has 90% of market it mean almost all Computer. true Apple has 100% in OS X market, but it is market people can choose to enter. it is my understand that hackonish are successful like frankiesmac (I know I misspell name bit idc) work fine with no problem which disprove psystar's claim. again, Apple can decide to increase OS X price to $800 to 1000 instead low price for hardware to destroy clone maker though they won't do it. chance that PSYstar successful win with Monopoly is low.and one more thing, I would like see what PSYstar build for price. $500 is too gap, I would believe if it is 40 to 80 buck different
Message was edited by: mac_user21 just learn that I can't do multi-task

[maryba03]

They just don't get "it", and the lawyers never will
IMHO

[garyi]

I hate to sound like a fan bois, but it would be like suing renault for their anti brake system because it only works with a renault.

[jpellino]

A monopoly is not illegal. Abusive use of a monopoly position is. Apple has a monopoly in a market that Psystar just invented for their own amusement. Psystar is not harmed by Apple selling their own hw/sw. Psystar can make lots of money in the Apple market in many ways like many others have. Configure a comparable PC and the diff is hardly $500. Apple's competition is the 90% market share of wintel, not some imaginary clones.

[JScott]

I'd be interested to see what systems from Dell they configured to come up with the $500 price difference. Did they include all the applications you would have to add in order to equal iLife?

[hobbes1257]

I really can't believe this is happening. It' like claiming that Ford Motor Company has a monopoly in the 'Ford market'. The best (worst) part is when they completely invent the Mac OS Capable Computer marketplace.
It's sad that Psystar get to challenge a legitimate company with such utterly delusional nonsense.

[Grapho]

What makes it even more ridiculous is this. What can they expect if they win?
Apple opens their OS to 3rd party PC assemblers that are compatible with OS X. Is forced by a court to issue license agreements like Microsoft has for Windows. Your really don't think Dell want in on this market. Michael Dell has expressed interest and Apple has already partnered in the past with HP, at the very least with a failed attempted distribution of re-branded iPods. They also work closely with drivers and such with HP.

So if forced, Apple is not going to allow distribution with out a license agreement of sorts.

How can Psystar win?

[dbutenhof]

This is a completely amazing precedent; a veritable gold mine for lawyers everywhere, if they win. EVERYBODY can now be their own monopoly, and anyone can sue them for it. I am, in fact, the only ME; and now you, too, can sue me for not letting YOU be ME.

[Xaqtly]

I can't believe the stupidity of some of those statements.
“possesses monopoly power in the Mac OS market” that it has abused."
... what? Apple created the Mac OS and Mac hardware. The only Mac OS market that exists is wholly owned by Apple. That complaint is the same thing as saying Adobe has a monopoly on Photoshop.
“a monopolist in the Mac OS market.”
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Statements like that are just so entirely dumb that I draw a blank when trying to figure out how to react to it. It's like somebody trying to convince you that the sun is actually blue, and cold. And made of delicious pastry. All you can do is sort of stare at them and try not to laugh.
"As such, Psystar alleges that the Windows operating system is not and cannot be considered an effective substitute for the Mac OS"
This is an allegation that is not supported by 90% of computer users on the planet. Again, with the staring and trying not to laugh.
“Apple has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities”
Because they don't feel like licensing out the OS? How is that anticompetitive when it doesn't affect which OS you use, i.e. Windows, Linux, whatever? Their entire argument is based on the idea that there is a Mac OS market, and Apple is monopolizing it. I can't believe they're even trying to bring that argument into a courtroom. I really can't. I just stare at it and laugh.

[wardoggie]

Grapho said:

What makes it even more ridiculous is this. What can they expect if they win?

Excellent point! IANAL, but I think they would've better spent their time trying to defend themselves against Apple's lawsuit rather than dreaming up this cunning, "we didn't think it all the way through" counter-suit. Apple's engineers may be stretched too thin working on iPhones, iPods, Apple TVs, and, oh yeah, macs. But their legal department probably has enough bandwidth to win these cases.

[aestival]

You know what else Apple has a monopoly on? -- products with their logo. I think I'll start producing apple-logo merchandise right away, to break their evil monopoly on their trademark :-)
Where do they dig up these moronic half-wits, anyway?

[Philbert]

This is too funny ....

[mdawson]

Oh my frelling god! Someone please give these people an HBO comedy special because this is hil-a-ri-ous. What the old saying about wise men remaining quiet while fools ramble on?

The more Psystar makes its ?case? the more they, and their lawyers, demonstrate that the legal system in the United States needs an overhaul, particularly where corporations are concerned. We are looking at a classic case of perverting law to serve one?s own selfish needs.

Quote

Psystar claimed that Apple ?possesses monopoly power in the Mac OS market? that it has abused.

What Mac OS market? The Mac OS is a single product in the operating system market developed specifically for Apple?s personal computing platform.

Quote

?There is no technical reason that a third-party could not accumulate and assemble the hardware components in an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System such that said system would be capable of running the Mac OS,? said Psystar?s counter-suit.

There is no technical or even financial reason why Microsoft could not have developed a PowerPC version of Windows to run on Macs, but they did not do it. There is no technical reason that AutoDesk could not make AutoCAD for the Mac, as they did in the past, but they no longer do so. There is no technical reason for ACD to have dropped Mac support for Canvas given that Canvas was originally a Mac-only application for well over a decade before Deneba decided to go cross platform then sell off their interests. All of these are examples of companies exercising their legal rights over their wholly owned products. The consumer may not like the restrictions?as a longtime Canvas user the third instance angers me to no end as I now have hundreds of graphics files that are quickly becoming obsolete?but there is not a thing that consumers or the courts can do about it.

Apple can no more be forced to allow competing OEMs to pre-install an operating system developed by Apple to enhance Apple?s hardware than they can force any software developer to make their applications cross-platform. As there is no conflict of interest in the latter case, it is unfathomable that the courts would honor the former where there is a huge conflict of interest in that Apple would be forced to support their competition at their expense.

Quote

Psystar?s lawyers, however, made the case in their counter-claim that Apple has a 100-percent monopoly in the Mac OS space, which is so different from other operating systems, including Microsoft?s Windows, that other OSes can?t be considered substitutes.

This does not even makes sense. Aside from the contorted language, these people are basically attempting to redefine what constitutes a market, and thus a monopoly, in order to claim abuse.

Quote

?The Mac OS market is distinct and unique as compared to other operating systems?including but not limited to the Windows operating system,? said Psystar. ?As such, Psystar alleges that the Windows operating system is not and cannot be considered an effective substitute for the Mac OS; the same holds true for any other operating system.?

And what does this have to do with anything. There are any number of proprietary software control systems that are either designed by OEMs or contracted out to be designed specifically for their hardware. If Sony develops or has developed for them a new feature navigation system for their televisions that blows away anything that Mitsubishi, Philips, Samsung, et al., Sony is under no obligation to make that software available to its competitors. If on the other hand a company freely develops such software not under exclusive license for any OEM that wishes to use it they cannot play favorites or exempt certain companies.

The former is Apple?s business model, as they are an OEM that manufactures and sells hardware as their primary source of income but also go through the trouble of developing the operating system for that hardware to set themselves s apart from all the other PC OEMs that nothing more than ?me too? companies that do not actually create anything?they buy motherboards and cases instead of building their own computers as the original PC clone makers did and, they license the OS from Microsoft.

Making something unique and maintaining complete control over it is not illegal; it is smart business. OS X is not a natural resource and Apple is not in the business of developing products for its competition. And for those that wish to use the weak argument that products such as iTunes and Quicktime are cross-platform, it is just that: a weak argument. Apple?s other software is just software, their software profits pale in comparison to Mac profits and most of their software is not cross-platform. Just like any other (application) software developer Apple is no more obliged to offer their applications on other platforms, let alone the operating system that makes their hardware.

What Apple does offer for Windows users is either in the interest of creating a viable standard (e.g., Quicktime) or to facilitate the expansion of market share for their non-Mac products (e.g., iTunes). Apple cannot hope to have Quicktime accepted as a media standard if they lock out 90+ percent of personal computer users. By the same token, Apple would never be able to sell iPods, or at least the same iPod experience, to a non-Mac user base that now constitutes the vast majority of iPod users if iTunes was not available for Windows. And that latter has played a big part in attracting new people to the Mac.

Quote

Psystar traced Apple?s own marketing to bolster its contention that Mac OS X is distinct from other operating systems, and thus so unique that there is no alternative to Apple and its hardware.

And now they try to redefine unique. Something cannot be ?so unique?, either it is unique or it is not.

The bottom line, Psystar said, is that consumers have had to pay more for a computer running Mac OS X than they would have if Apple had not tied the operating system to its own hardware. ?Apple is free to control and charge customers supra-competitive prices,? said Psystar.

Oh my god. Apple decided not to profit off of piecing together other people?s products like the other PC OEMs, but instead has spent the better part of 30 years and billions of dollars in the research and development required to create their own platform. Apple business model for the Mac is the same business model that many desktop OEMs adopted in the early years of the microcomputer revolution because they really had little choice. The difference is, that the Mac, as the only other desktop platform to survive that era, continued to follow that business model while others opted to follow IBM?s business model of licensing an operating system and then in short order even ceased building their own hardware.

If what Apple is doing is so illegal, then the 1980s should have been rife with these kinds of lawsuits.

?Apple has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities,? the suit said. ?Apple has, at the least, substantially lessened competition in the Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems marketplace if not eliminated it in its entirety [and] as a result, maintains its monopoly position with respect to the Mac OS and the artificially created Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System.?

Really? Then Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have artificially created the Xbox, PlayStation and Wii platforms, respectively. By the same token, Garmin, Magellan and TomTom illegal hold the reigns on their respective GPS platforms.