OMEN
12-10-2008, 12:54 PM
Filing notes that Apple is evidently violating antitrust laws, claiming proof isn't even necessary
Florida's now-famous Mac cloner, Psystar, has dropped some of its anti-competitive claims against Apple, but only to make several new assertions, sources are reporting.
Psystar's most recent filing, which must first be granted hearing by a Northern District of California court judge, specifically omits the Clayton Act and Sherman Act antitrust claims of monopolistic abuse of copyright, which haven’t been able to shake Apple in any way so far. The company specializing in modifying PC hardware for compatibility with Apple's OS also notes that it "respectfully disagrees" with the court's interpretation of a monopolistic market, AppleInsider reveals. Nevertheless, should it get more definitive proof that Apple has violated either of the two acts now left out, Psystar will ask the court to reintroduce the initial Clayton and Sherman antitrust accusations.
Psystar's now “simplified” suit still upholds that copyright is the issue, alleging that Apple's policies regarding Mac OS X are considered an abuse under the legally recognized concept of a "misuse doctrine," therefore proof of a specific antitrust violation isn't necessary, Psystar argues. The PC maker again picks on Apple's EULA, stressing that Apple has absolute control over hardware.
Softpedia take: Of course, should Mac OS X have never existed, Psystar wouldn't have been in businesses (not with PCs running Leopard anyway), so it's hardly a question of control with Apple simply refusing to have its priceless OS running on any piece of junk computer hardware.
Psystar thus believes that control over hardware is not covered under the largely software-focused Copyright Act. This way, the Mac cloner alleges, Apple is free to abuse copyright law, even if it doesn't violate specific antitrust laws. But it doesn't stop here. According to Psystar, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) also stem from this abuse. Moreover, the Florida based copycat points out to what Apple calls “breaking anti-circumvention laws.” Apple believes this violation is in effect with Psystar running Mac OS X on unauthorized hardware. However, Psystar strongly believes that simply rendering hardware compatible to run OS X isn't a violation. As a result of the argument, Apple would be held responsible for violating California's Unfair Competition Statute.
Lastly, Psystar advocates the notion that OS X doesn't sport too strong of a copy protection system. “Just triggering an infinite loop or a kernel panic when particular firmware isn't in place doesn't represent a real defense mechanism,” Psystar reportedly claims, according to the report by AppleInsider.
Softpedia
Florida's now-famous Mac cloner, Psystar, has dropped some of its anti-competitive claims against Apple, but only to make several new assertions, sources are reporting.
Psystar's most recent filing, which must first be granted hearing by a Northern District of California court judge, specifically omits the Clayton Act and Sherman Act antitrust claims of monopolistic abuse of copyright, which haven’t been able to shake Apple in any way so far. The company specializing in modifying PC hardware for compatibility with Apple's OS also notes that it "respectfully disagrees" with the court's interpretation of a monopolistic market, AppleInsider reveals. Nevertheless, should it get more definitive proof that Apple has violated either of the two acts now left out, Psystar will ask the court to reintroduce the initial Clayton and Sherman antitrust accusations.
Psystar's now “simplified” suit still upholds that copyright is the issue, alleging that Apple's policies regarding Mac OS X are considered an abuse under the legally recognized concept of a "misuse doctrine," therefore proof of a specific antitrust violation isn't necessary, Psystar argues. The PC maker again picks on Apple's EULA, stressing that Apple has absolute control over hardware.
Softpedia take: Of course, should Mac OS X have never existed, Psystar wouldn't have been in businesses (not with PCs running Leopard anyway), so it's hardly a question of control with Apple simply refusing to have its priceless OS running on any piece of junk computer hardware.
Psystar thus believes that control over hardware is not covered under the largely software-focused Copyright Act. This way, the Mac cloner alleges, Apple is free to abuse copyright law, even if it doesn't violate specific antitrust laws. But it doesn't stop here. According to Psystar, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) also stem from this abuse. Moreover, the Florida based copycat points out to what Apple calls “breaking anti-circumvention laws.” Apple believes this violation is in effect with Psystar running Mac OS X on unauthorized hardware. However, Psystar strongly believes that simply rendering hardware compatible to run OS X isn't a violation. As a result of the argument, Apple would be held responsible for violating California's Unfair Competition Statute.
Lastly, Psystar advocates the notion that OS X doesn't sport too strong of a copy protection system. “Just triggering an infinite loop or a kernel panic when particular firmware isn't in place doesn't represent a real defense mechanism,” Psystar reportedly claims, according to the report by AppleInsider.
Softpedia