Apple rejects "monopoly" claims
Apple has rejected claims by ‘clone’ manufacturer Psystar that it’s a monopoly. And it’s cited Psystar’s own advertising as proof.
The two sides are engaged in legal combat which stems from Psystar launching the OpenMac in April, a Mac-style computer made from PC parts but running the Leopard operating system. The firm quickly rebranded its range as ‘Open Computers’, but that didn’t stop Apple filing the seemingly inevitable copyright and trademark infringement suit in July.
However, a month later Psystar responded with its own legal case accusing Apple of being a monopoly and claiming that its refusal to let users install Mac OS on non-Apple machines violated anti-trust laws.
This week Apple has filed a response to that case, saying Psystar is simply trying to shift the heat from its own misbehaviour. It claims the antitrust charges don’t stand up, arguing that “Psystar’s very business model is premised on the fact that Apple’s computers compete directly with personal computers using different operating systems.” That’s because Psystar also sells Windows and Linux PCs and even offers both those operating systems as alternatives on the offending model.
Apple also points to its own marketing campaigns, specifically ‘I’m a Mac, I’m a PC’, as evidence that it’s in a competitive market. In other words, Apple may be the only supplier of Macs, but what really counts is that it isn’t the only supplier of computers.
From a more general legal point, Apple lawyers say the entire principle of antitrust laws is that a single company such as Apple making its own decisions can’t be considered a trust, pointing to previous cases which establish that sales of a single brand aren’t considered a standalone market for competition purposes.
Funny things happen in courtrooms, but on the face of it Apple looks a strong favourite to prevail in both these cases. There’s certainly an ethical debate about whether Apple’s distribution policy is in the best interests of consumers. But basic common sense tells you no firm would be stupid enough to think it could get away with sell Windows-based systems without permission, so doing the same with Macs really isn’t going to fly either.
Related Posts:
