<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.thestandard.com" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title></title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com/node/112358/comments</link>
 <description>comments feed.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Psystar calls Apple a &#039;monopoly&#039; in antitrust charges</title>
 <link>http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/29/psystar-calls-apple-monopoly-antitrust-charges</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--paging_filter--&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Mac clone maker that has countered an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/inform.do?command=search&amp;amp;searchTerms=Apple+Inc.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple Inc.&lt;/a&gt; lawsuit with one of its own said that forcing the California computer maker to undo an illegal tie between the Mac &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/inform.do?command=search&amp;amp;searchTerms=Apple+Mac+OS+X&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OS X operating system&lt;/a&gt; and its hardware would force it to drop prices, according to court documents filed Thursday.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Psystar Corp., a Doral, Fla.-based seller of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/inform.do?command=search&amp;amp;searchTerms=Intel+Corporation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Intel&lt;/a&gt;-based computers, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com%20http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;amp;taxonomyName=macintoshes&amp;amp;articleId=9113522&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;also charged&lt;/a&gt; that Apple enjoys &amp;quot;monopoly power&amp;quot; from the licensing link it&#039;s forged between its hardware and the Mac OS.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In its response to an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;amp;taxonomyName=intellectual_property_and_drm&amp;amp;articleId=9110179&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Apple lawsuit filed July 3&lt;/a&gt; that accused &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/inform.do?command=search&amp;amp;searchTerms=Psystar+Corporation&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Psystar&lt;/a&gt; of copyright and trademark infringement for pre-installing Leopard on systems, Psystar alleged that Apple violated several antitrust laws by trying to block users and others from installing Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the long complaint, Psystar claimed that Apple &amp;quot;possesses monopoly power in the Mac OS market&amp;quot; that it has abused. &amp;quot;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,&amp;quot; said Psystar&#039;s counter-suit.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to Psystar, Apple had embedded code in the Mac operating system that, when it recognizes non-Apple hardware, sends the system into a &amp;quot;kernel panic,&amp;quot; a state usually associated with an internal fatal error. &amp;quot;The kernel panic is self-induced by Apple&#039;s embedding of code to prevent operability on computer hardware systems that are not Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems,&amp;quot; charged Psystar.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Much of the Psystar complaint was devoted to spelling out its antitrust legal strategy, which it distilled by accusing Apple of being &amp;quot;a monopolist in the Mac OS market.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Unlike companies that have much larger shares of their market, Apple has a very small slice of the overall personal computer market. According to Web metrics vendor Net Applications Inc., for example, Apple&#039;s operating system accounted for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com%20http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;amp;articleId=9111534&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;just 7.8%&lt;/a&gt; of those it detected online in July.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most recent data from Framingham, Mass.-based research firm IDC put Apple&#039;s U.S. sales share at the same 7.8% during the second quarter of 2008. By comparison, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.computerworld.com/action/inform.do?command=search&amp;amp;searchTerms=Dell+Inc.&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dell Inc.&lt;/a&gt; accounted for 32% and Hewlett-Packard Co. owned 25.1% of the U.S. market share during the quarter.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Psystar&#039;s lawyers, however, made the case in their counter-claim that Apple has a 100% monopoly in the Mac OS space, which is so different from other operating systems, including Microsoft Corp.&#039;s Windows, that other OSes can&#039;t be considered substitutes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The Mac OS market is distinct and unique as compared to other operating systems...including but not limited to the Windows operating system,&amp;quot; said Psystar. &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Psystar traced Apple&#039;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. The Florida clone maker, for instance, referred to the &amp;quot;Think Different&amp;quot; campaign that Apple ran in the 1990s, as well as the current &amp;quot;Get a Mac&amp;quot; campaign that features actors playing the parts of Mac and PC.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;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. &amp;quot;Apple is free to control and charge customers supra-competitive prices,&amp;quot; said Psystar.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Using configurations of Apple&#039;s MacBook and MacBook Pro laptops, and similarly-equipped Intel-based laptops from Dell running other operating systems, Psystar put the revenue difference to Apple at nearly US$500.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Apple has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities,&amp;quot; the suit said. &amp;quot;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.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Apple has not responded to requests for comment on the Psystar countersuit.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/08/29/psystar-calls-apple-monopoly-antitrust-charges#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/977">co:Apple</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/4483">co:psystar</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/1610">Intellectual Property</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/6779">product:iMac</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/6689">product:OS X</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/5668">Standards &amp;amp; Legal</category>
 <category domain="http://www.thestandard.com/taxonomy/term/98">Breaking News</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:49:03 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>IDG News Service</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">112358 at http://www.thestandard.com</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
