- About MacNews
- Category Reviews
- Tech Support
- Connect Tools
According to the AppleInsider web site, the altered response which would be filed on Jan. 15, 2009, if given permission by a Northern District of California court judge, specifically omits the Clayton Act and Sherman Act antitrust claims of monopolistic abuse of copyright that had triggered Apple's successful motion to dismiss in the fall. Psystar "respectfully disagrees" with the court's interpretation of a monopolistic market but will abide by the earlier ruling for now.
However, the cloner maintains that copyright is still at the heart of the issue. Psystar insists that Apple's policies regarding Mac OS X are considered abuse under the legally recognized concept of a "misuse doctrine," which prevents copyright from being wielded to block competition outside of any officially sanctioned terms, notes AppleInsider. Apple's end-user license agreement (EULA) is regarded as a threat in that it lets Apple have absolute control over hardware -- a component not covered under the largely software-focused Copyright Act -- and facilitates Apple's ability to abuse copyright law, even if it doesn't violate specific antitrust laws, Psystar claims.
Earlier this month Apple added new charges to the federal lawsuit it filed nearly five months ago against a Florida clone maker, claiming that Psystar broke antipiracy defenses that lock Mac OS X to its own hardware.
Apple also said others besides Psystar were involved, but it didn't spell out who. In a filing dated Nov. 26, Apple amended its original suit of July after it had "discovered additional information." Among the additions is a new accusation -- that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by dodging copy-protection technologies Apple uses to protect Mac OS X, notes Computerworld.
Psystar -- which makes and sells Mac clones -- has claimed in the past that Apple has violated Sherman antitrust rules and other U.S. laws. Psystar claims in court documents filed in U.S. District Court for San Francisco that Apple â€œhas engaged in certain anticompetitive behavior and/or other actions that are in violation of the public policy underlying the federal copyright laws.â€
In response, Apple said the defendant, Psystar, â€œis knowingly infringing Appleâ€™s copyrights and trademarks, and inducing others to do the same.â€ Psystar makes and sells personal computers that use, without permission, Appleâ€™s proprietary operating system software.