On GameFAQs: The Top 10 Literature-Based Games
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

November 18th, 2008

Apple dodges antitrust bullet

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 3:49 pm

Categories: Apple, Legal

Tags: Antitrust, Apple Inc., Corporate Law, Security, Business Operations, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, Apple Macintosh, Advertisement, Brand, Counterclaim

A California judge has granted Apple’s motion to dismiss Psystar’s counterclaims that the company violated antitrust laws by blocking third-parties from selling Mac OS-based systems.

After Apple sued Psystar for selling Mac-clone systems, Psystar later filed a counterclaim which charged Apple with violating federal and state antitrust laws. However, today Judge William Alsup dismissed Psystar’s claims and granted Apple’s motion to have the counterclaim dismissed unless Psystar can come up with an amended complaint by December 8th.

Some key points from the order:

  • 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.
  • 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 
    [n]otwithstanding the consistent upward differentiation in price across a broad spectrum . . . by and between a Computer Hardware System without a Mac OS and a Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System with the Mac OS, studies by
    Satmetrix Systems found that Apple is known for its “market performance and brand leadership” and that APPLE “far outranks
    its closest competitor.”

    Psystar fails to explain why these “competitor[s]” should be excluded from the definition of the relevant market.
  • 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. The “brand leadership” and brand loyalty Psystar alleges, if true, suggest that Apple’s efforts have borne fruit.

Full order here (PDF).

Adrian Kingsley-HughesAdrian is a technology journalist and author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology. He also runs a popular blog called The PC Doctor. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations

Want to get in touch? Got a tip? Feel free to drop me a note! I ALWAYS respect anonymity. I'm also on Twitter (@the_pc_doc)

Right to Reply: Should any industry representatives wish to comment on any posts on Hardware 2.0, I will be happy to publish their reply verbatim on this blog.

Subscribe to Hardware 2.0 via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 78 Talkback(s)
Psystar goofed, but so has Apple - ultimately!
If Psystar had applied proper logic, they might have won their case. Then again, knowing the way that lawyers work, logic rarely has much to do with anything lawyers and judges do.

However, my... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Sinbad713 Posted on: 04/23/09 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Apple = $$$ = Better lawyers. Pystar is right.  Arapey | 11/18/08
Not really  Win3.1 | 11/18/08
Psystar goofed, but so has Apple - ultimately!  Sinbad713 | 04/23/09
The only reason  Qbt | 11/18/08
Not quite...  zkiwi | 11/18/08
You can only be a "predatory monopoly"  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
What a worthless load of blather, now go away {nt}  zkiwi | 11/19/08
speaking of....  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Compelling rebuttal  tikigawd | 11/19/08
FYI  zkiwi | 11/19/08
Stalking? Really, how does one stalk on line? YOu mean like when.....  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Hello, Mr. Agnew...  John L. Ries | 11/19/08
Hello, Mr. Jackson?  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
All you say may be true...  John L. Ries | 11/19/08
Exactly! Spot on.  xuniL_z | 11/20/08
Re: Jackson  jbroche18 | 11/20/08
hah no.  isulzer | 11/18/08
Your X-Box analogy doesn't work....  EdNetman | 11/19/08
Your argument is irrelevant.  frgough | 11/19/08
hmm...  Badgered | 11/19/08
Huh?  James Quinn | 11/19/08
re: Huh?  Badgered | 11/19/08
little off there...  Archkittens | 11/19/08
Not quite  medezark@... | 12/12/08
Oh My  brianscook | 11/19/08
read my post again  isulzer | 11/19/08
You fail  daengbo | 11/19/08
Will people please understand this one point....  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Okay, here's what I don't get.  General C# | 11/19/08
They don't want to pay premium price for  deaf_e_kate | 11/19/08
Opinion is valid for the individual I suppose....  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Opinions  tikigawd | 11/19/08
Nope my response was to him...  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Just curious...  Badgered | 11/19/08
I would be  don3605 | 11/19/08
I once knew a woman who thought food was just  James Quinn | 11/19/08
hmmm.  medezark@... | 12/12/08
BLAH ! BLAH ! BLAH ! BLAH !  Intellihence | 11/19/08
the tendancy is  s_souche | 11/19/08
I think they already sell OSX in the States....  James Quinn | 11/19/08
What we are seeing here  frgough | 11/19/08
I Still Think...  wolf_z | 11/19/08
except....  Archkittens | 11/19/08
re: I think they  Badgered | 11/19/08
Third parties are the one who provide drivers...  tikigawd | 11/19/08
First of all it's Apples ball......  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Very clear  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Been a while since I've read anything negative  James Quinn | 11/19/08
And that is the irony,  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Man you can go on......  James Quinn | 11/19/08
I didn't write the concern with the Mach microkernel...  xuniL_z | 11/20/08
you babble.  isulzer | 11/19/08
scratch that, the real irony.  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Are you sure about that?  James Quinn | 11/19/08
I recall specifically you posing the question:  xuniL_z | 11/21/08
You don't seem to understand...  msalzberg | 11/19/08
You don't seem to understand....  Badgered | 11/19/08
You didn't read what I wrote:  msalzberg | 11/19/08
Funny  rtk | 11/19/08
Boom!!  medezark@... | 12/12/08
Based on an EC commissioned thinktank...Apple is safe.  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
the think tank did not exclude mac from the move  s_souche | 11/19/08
Here's the Naked PC blog, explaining Apple's exemption....  xuniL_z | 11/19/08
Oh I don't know about that...  James Quinn | 11/19/08
"could the ABM bias be any stronger"  bmerc | 11/20/08
RE: Apple dodges antitrust bullet  brianscook | 11/19/08
Depends on....  James Quinn | 11/19/08
This lawsuit is in the USA  tikigawd | 11/19/08
Sure and 85 is far from any kind of Monopoly as I  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Oops meant 8% not 85... I think 85 might be a  James Quinn | 11/19/08
Psystar haters and sloppy bloggers rejoice  markbn | 11/19/08
Not over yet  John L. Ries | 11/19/08
What about arbitration?  djchandler | 11/19/08
Corporations have teams of lawyers on staff.  msalzberg | 11/19/08
They agreed to mediation  John L. Ries | 11/19/08
Psystar's argument was dumb anyway  longbongsilver | 11/19/08
"The real problem . . .  brian ansorge | 11/20/08
And that would explain  longbongsilver | 11/25/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

Premier Vendor Content Whitepapers, webcasts & resources from our Power Center Sponsors
advertisement

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads