Apple has been entrenched in a mountain of legal battles over the last few months. Perhaps most interesting is their tussle with mac clone makes Psystar. As it currently stands, Apple has been awarded the motion to dismiss Psystar’s counterclaims.
The drama between Apple and Psystar began earlier this year when the mac cloner started selling machines with a hacked version of Apple’s proprietary OS X installed on them. Apple sued the cloners stating that they were violating its copyright and trademark laws.
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.
Central to Psystar’s complaint was that Apple’s Mac OS X operating system is not reasonably interchangeable with other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows and therefore comprises its own distinct market. The clone maker alleged that Apple has engaged in various forms of anti-competitive conduct in order to “protect its valuable monopoly in the Mac OS market” and that it has also run advertising campaigns to help define the Mac OS as a product separate and distinct from other operating systems, AppleInsider explains.
In response to Psystar’s argument, Apple’s argument made clear of the fact that a “market comprised of a single brand of a product is neither legally nor factually plausible.” Judge William Alsup agreed, “Whether products are part of the same or different markets under antitrust law depends on whether consumers view those products as reasonable substitutes for each other and would switch among them in response to changes in relative prices,” he wrote. “The counterclaim itself explains that Mac OS performs the same functions as other operating systems,” he wrote. “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,” he continued.
“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,” he wrote. “It is certainly entitled to do so.”
“For the above-stated reasons, Psystar’s claim that Mac OS-compatible computer hardware systems constitute a distinct submarket or aftermarket contravenes the pertinent legal standards, and Apple’s motion to dismiss Psystar’s federal counterclaims is therefore granted,” he wrote.
The primary case between Apple and Psystar over the products they are selling is still pending.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
