2 weeks ago, we visited the website of Mac clone computer retailer Psystar Corporation, which Apple, Inc. sued for copyright infringement several months ago. Psystar had an empty web page titled Psystar Corporation – Latest – Litigation under Company on the side bar. Since then, this page has been updated, providing visitors with a downloadable PDF file of their counterclaim lawsuit document against Apple. (See Screenshot 01-2.)
 Screenshot 01- Source: Psystar |
 Screenshot 02- Source: Psystar |
 Screenshot 03- Source: Psystar |
In this 54-page document, Psystar and its legal team repeatedly argue that Apple ties software contracts to selling hardware contracts. For example, we read at Page 26
… APPLE’s illegal tying of the Mac OS to Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems…
Interestingly, this document says that Psystar is aware that Apple only licenses the use of Mac OS for ‘Apple-labeled hardware.’ But it says
… PSYSTAR is without information or knowledge as to what this otherwise value and ambiguous terminology (i.e., Apple-labeled hardware) refers. (Refer to Page 7.)
, which also sounds like a vague argument.
As I am just a retired economist who taught elementary statistics at college without preparation for legal studies, let me tell you that I’m certainly not in a position of deciding who is right. Personally, I’m not even interested in knowing who will win in the lawsuit because the case itself creates deadweight loss for the whole society’s point view. I don’t even hope which party to win.
In the meantime, what interested me about Psystar’s counter lawsuit two weeks ago is its introduction of Clayton Antitrust Act to the case. I only predicated or imagined that Psystar’s legal team might argue that Apple has tied software contracts to selling hardware contracts. And that’s exactly one of their main arguments.
So what’s Psystar’s injury? I wasn’t sure two weeks ago. And I’m still not sure what it is after reading the counterclaim document. Psystar may argue, again, that Apple ties software contracts to selling hardware contracts. As a result, Psystar is prevented from selling computers capable of running Mac OS software? As we see their website, they still do sell Mac clone computers. (See Screenshot 03.) In fact, the counter lawsuit document says
PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that APPLE likewise misuses its copyrights with respect to prohibiting Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System manufacturers from manufacturing and selling computer hardware systems that would allow for installation, use, and running of the Mac OS. (Refer to Page 48.)
Okay. But, again, Psystar sells/sold computers with OS X 10.5 pre-installed before and after Apple filed a lawsuit, right?
If this were an anti-dumpting case petitioned to U.S. Department of Justice, Psystar’s legal team would only have to show that there is material injury. For example, let’s say the sale of Psystar computers is harmed by low prices of foreign competitor which subsidies its U.S. sale by keeping its domestic prices high. If that were the case, Psystar’s legal team would only have to show that the price is higher in the U.S.
But this is a civil case. According to the counterclaim document, the counterclaimant is Psystar, not the United States of America Department of Justice. (Refer to Page 1.) So it appears to me that Psystar’s legal team may have to go beyond proving material injury. The plaintiff is not the United State or its people. So arguing that Mac prices are higher than PC equivalents is off the mark. (Refer to Page 34-5.) Or if Mac prices are higher than they should be, then what harm will that bring to Psystar?
References:
Buying Cheap Mac Clones – Does Apple Tie Software Contracts to Selling Hardware Contracts?