Yup, Psystar will sue Apple for anti-trust violations

Oh, Psystar. You're like Tyler Durden in Fight Club, giggling up blood and spitting teeth all over Apple's Lou. We love you so much. As predicted, they are fighting Apple's lawsuit by going anti-trust.
Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade," according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages. Springer said his firm has not filed any suits with the Federal Trade Commission or any other government agencies. The answer and countersuit will be filed Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court for Northern California.
This is going to be fun to watch. Psystar responds to Apple suit, will countersue [CNet News] Related: • Psystar hires Apple-killing attorneysPsystar eggs Apple on, releases Leopard Restore Disc to customers ...How the Psystar lawsuit might go very, very wrong... for Apple ...Psystar will allege Apple antitrustApple finally – FINALLY – sues PsystarPsystar announces Mac server clones, still not suedPsystar OpenMac monstrosities run OS X
This entry was posted in apple, psystar. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Yup, Psystar will sue Apple for anti-trust violations

  1. Rob Beschizza says:

    Brownlee is ON IT.

  2. John Brownlee says:

    Yeah, I’m interested in this one. I’ll keep you informed.

  3. bardfinn says:

    I hope that PsyStar gets it right first shot /and/ creates a precedent: The notion that by jailbreaking my iPod, I am somehow voiding a warranty – needs to be scrubbed from corporate consciousness.

  4. Piedmont says:

    GARR- The difference is that you can’t go buy a copy of Gameboy Bios off the shelf. On the other hand I can go buy OSX, and I ought to be able to load it up on whatever the hell I can get it running with.

  5. OM says:

    …As one who had several friends get screwed over when Cokehead Jobs returned to (cr)Apple and cancelled the Power Computing license, I hope Psystar wins this one *and* gets punitive damages. It would serve (cr)Apple right.

  6. Troglodyte says:

    Hm. There’s no question that Psystar broke the rules on this one, but at the same time, anything that starts to lay the smackdown on abusive EULAs is great.

  7. jitrobug says:

    The question is whether the rules are even legal, isn’t it?

  8. Tagishsimon says:

    Interesting to read PJ at Groklaw’s take on this: “that it’s so odd that all Microsoft’s competitors end up dealing with unexpected allegations, sometimes from small companies, against them in court or before regulatory bodies that just happen to threaten their viability in the marketplace.”

    Who knows?

  9. Enochrewt says:

    Fun to watch? I guess trainwrecks are fun to watch. But only if they don’t happen extremely slowly over the next 3 years.

  10. Alan says:

    Okay, I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here. Mac OSX was developed by Apple; shouldn’t they liscence it and protect as they see fit, considering it’s their intellectual property? And do they have a monopoly, being as that they have just a small share of the market? This is just a countersuit by Psystar to get Apple to back off a little. It won’t fly, and I doubt Apple will back off any as well.

    And I’m sorry, Bardfinn; if you tamper with any item, then the warranty is void; standard operating proceedure. Apple is not being unusual about that. If you make a Doohickey and offer a warranty on it, do you, at your own cost, need to replace the Doohickey because I didn’t like how it was designed, opened it up and modified it and then possibly messed it up?

  11. Piedmont says:

    Is there a way to keep tabs on a case like this, or can I trust BBG to keep me informed?

  12. Garr says:

    I totally agree with Alan (and I never thought I’d find myself defending Apple, ever):
    If a firm develops an OS (which really is the only part of an Apple computer they actually developed, save the design; they don’t produce the internal hardware themselves) then it should be theirs to distribute as they see fit.
    It’s like saying it’s not fair of Nintendo to develop a proprietary BIOS that’s limited to the GameBoy.

  13. Anonymous says:

    There are one hell of a lot of precedencts in Psystar’s favour. Primarily set by IBM failing to stop pretty much the exact same thing happening to them in the 60s and 70s. If Psystar can draw parallels with this then apple will have a hell of a job on their hands trying to get it overturned (it went all the way to the supreme court back in the day). In the end IBM were required to sell copies of their software to companies making clones of their PCs.

    IMO apple’s best chance is if they somehow demonstrate that the *legally purchased* shrinkwrapped copies of OSX that Psystar are reselling are only valid as *upgrades* to existing ‘full’ copies of OSX (and that full copies are only available when buying apple hardware) – in the same way that you can buy an upgrade version of Vista that requires a full valid copy of XP (requires it in the license even though you dont actually need the copy of XP pre-installed in order to put vista on the machine).

    Here’s the thing: monpolies dont favour the consumer. If IBM had won their cases in the 60s and 70s we would all still be tied in to their proprietry systems and the PC as we know it with its myriad of options and competition and cheapness and rapid evolution would never have existed. If IBMs stranglehold on the computer market hadn’t been broken then chances are most of use would still be logging onto mainframes, except for the few lucky businessmen who can afford the latest IBM PC (which probably would be all the way up to 486 technology by now).

    Apple are selling an IBM PC clone with their own operating system on it. This would never have been allowed unless IBM had lost all of those cases in the 60s. Why should apple be allowed to enforce a monopoly on the back of IBM’s broken one?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


More BB

Boing Boing Video

Flickr Pool




Displays ads via FM Tech

RSS and Email

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the United States and other countries.

FM Tech