Psystar counters counter to counter-claim
In our recent article on Apple’s legal action against Psystar going to an out-of-court hearing, we raised the question of what this meant for legal action brought by Psystar against Apple. It turns out that situation, with Psystar accusing Apple of exploiting a monopoly, is still being hotly disputed.
To correct our previous reports and clarify this complex situation, Psystar’s accusations are not technically a separate case. Instead they form a counterclaim, which is where a defendant (in this case Psystar) raises its own legal issues. They don’t have to be on the same specific point, but usually relate to the same general situation.
The idea is that a court can deal with all the legal questions in the same process, while avoiding the risk of two separate cases getting contradictory outcomes. For example, it would be an utter mess if one judge ruled Psystar had breached Apple’s licensing restrictions, while another judge ruled those restrictions inherently illegal (particularly if either or both cases went to appeal and the court timelines overlapped).
As we reported previously, Apple asked for a summary judgment to throw out Psystar’s counterclaim. A summary judgment comes when the facts of the case are so clear cut that there’s no need for a full hearing, particularly when one legal point trumps the rest of the case. Apple’s argument was that, while nobody else produces legal Macs, it competes against other computer manufacturers and therefore it’s impossible for it to be a monopoly. It’s pointed to previous cases which have established a principle that a ‘market’ can’t consist of a single brand for competition law purposes.
Psystar has now filed a response, arguing against Apple’s points. It references previous cases involving the iPod, along with a case involving the photocopier industry. That case itself referenced a dispute about Domino’s Pizza’s rules about where franchisees could buy ingredients. According to Psystar lawyers, all these cases show a particular brand can constitute a monopoly even when other firms sell the same general product.
It’s worth remembering at this stage that Psystar doesn’t have to prove this point conclusively; instead it must merely show there’s enough doubt that the dispute should be more closely examined. If that happens, the monopoly issue will, quite literally, be on the table when the two sides go to mediation. The possibility of having to debate the issue in a full-blown court case could well increase Apple’s desire to reach an early settlement.
Related Posts:
