WorldofApple is reporting that a court today has ruled in favor of Apple in it’s motion to dismiss Psystar’s claims that Apple is in violation of anti-trust laws for having a monopoly in the OS X market.
This legal saga began last July when Apple first sued Psystar for illegally selling copies of Leopard installed on their own hardware. In response, Psystar initiated a counterclaim where it accused Apple of having a monopoly in the OS X market and running afoul of anti-trust laws. Essentially, Psystar’s defense was hinged entirely on its anti-trust allegations, and now that that has been thrown out of court, don’t expect Psystar to be in business too much longer.
The Court’s ruling isn’t surprising. Psystar couldn’t argue that Apple had a monopoly in the PC market as Apple has less than a 10% market share. So instead, Psystar came up with the somewhat specious argument that Apple has a monopoly in the OS X market since it won’t allow its operating system to run on any non-Apple hardware. It’s curious, though, how Apple can have a monopoly in a market that Psystar essentially made up out of thin air. Think about it – there is no OS X market. Apple puts OSX on computers that it sells in the computer market. I mean, you can’t sue Coke for refusing to put its formula into a different can on the notion Coke has a monopoly over the coke formula. Admittedly, its an original idea, but legally it had no merit and the Court ruled correctly in dismissing it.
Psystar has until December 8th to file an amended complaint.
Part of the Judge’s ruling noted:
“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.”
In Apple’s original filing to dismiss Psystar’s counterclaims, it noted:
“Psystar’s single-brand relevant market definitions are irremediably flawed. Psystar’s own allegations establish that there is no such relevant market as the ‘Mac OS market.’..
Psystar’s effort to define a single-brand relevant market contravenes well-known principles of antitrust law. Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturer’s prodcuts.”
We will have more on this as new information becomes available.
Apple’s original motion to dismiss Psystar’s claims can be found here.
Related: The Psystar Myth – Not as cheap as advertised