Stephen Withers
Thursday, 02 October 2008 13:05
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
Apple claims "Psystar's single-brand relevant market definitions are irremediably flawed" because that company's own allegations establish that neither the Mac OS market nor the Mac OS Capable Computer Systems market exist.
"As a result, all of Psystar's claims collapse, since 'failure to identify a[n economically-meaningful] relevant [product] market is a proper ground for dismissing a Sherman Act claim.'"
Apple's filing cites a precedent that says "Defendants are incapable of monopolizing the market for its own brand of product. A manufacturer has a natural monopoly in the sale and distribution of its own products... Such natural monopolies do not contravene antitrust laws."
And another: "the [Sherman Act] does not restrict the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. And, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell."
As for Psystar's assertion that "the Windows operating system is not and cannot be considered an effective substitute for Mac OS; the same holds true for any other operating system", the company is hoist by its own petard.
As Apple points out, Psystar itself offers by Windows and Linux as substitutes for Mac OS on the Open Computer and the OpenPro.
This all sounds reasonable to me.
Why is this case important to software developers other than Apple? Please
read on.
