Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed

Posted by kdawson on from the oh-give-me-a-clone dept.

CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar and the dueling lawsuits since the beginning.

5 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Re:As much as I dislike Apple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    yes but free as in freedom not free as in beer.

    btw i take it you new here.

  2. Re:As much as I dislike Apple... by the_womble · · Score: 3, Informative
    There was a time when the KHTML devs were not happy with how code from Webkit was being released (i.e. although they stuck to the letter of the LGPL, they were being unhelpful so not really sticking to to its spirit), but I think that has now been resolved.

    Other than that I do not think they have ever done anything other than what the licences were meant to allow them to do.

  3. Apple and GPL by krischik · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is quite a bit of GPL licensed software in Mac OS X. Your can download the sources for that part of OS X here:

    http://www.macosforge.org/

    The sources to the BSD part of Mac OS X is there as well. And some of Apples own developments on top (launchd - Apples answer to init, cron and inetd - for example). launchd is pretty cool btw.

  4. Re:As much as I dislike Apple... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Though I disagree with Apple profitting off OSS which they did not initially create.

    They started with BSD code. Which is released under a BSD license which expressly allows this. What's the problem? You are free to make money off that stuff too if you like.

    You can do that with Apache stuff too. Some OSS licenses expressly allow you to use their stuff as a basis for your own stuff. This is a good thing.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:I wish they could win by GaryPatterson · · Score: 3, Informative

    You quoted only part of the text, and missed the critical bit.

    Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act. A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier." Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements:
    (1) two separate products or services are involved;
    (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product;
    (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product;
    (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.

    Look at point 3 - "sufficient market power."

    Apple do *not* have sufficient market power (which is usually triggered by monopoly status) and therefore are not subject to laws against tying.

    Monopoly status (or 'sufficient market power') triggers a whole raft of conditions which are not an issue before that point.