Replies

Sooo many levels

First of all, these are private civil lawsuits... not governmental actions against Apple.

In re: Somers v. Apple Inc., those articles just prove that anyone can file a lawsuit. According to Justia.com, the last activity on this lawsuit was on June 4, 2008, with NOTHING being done since then despite have been set for a hearing on March 23, 2009. There is no posting that a hearing was held... and no rulings. There has been no news about this, at all, and it may be that Somers dropped her lawsuit in light of the ruling by Judge William Alsop in the Psystar Inc. v. Apple Inc., case that held that "single brand products market definitions are irremediably flawed." Apple also demonstrated to Judge Ware that 30% of the MP3 player market is held by other than Apple products.

The psystar case is ongoing,, too.

Sorry, the anti-trust "monopoly" portion of Psystar's offensive defense was thrown out of court... wholesale.

“Psystar’s single-brand relevant market definitions are irremediably flawed. Psystar’s own allegations establish that there is no such relevant market as the ‘Mac OS market.’..
"Psystar’s effort to define a single-brand relevant market contravenes well-known principles of antitrust law. Relevant markets generally cannot be limited to a single manufacturer’s prodcuts.”—Federal Judge William Alsop

The judge just barely allowed them to re-plan their defense and now they are claiming "copyright and patent abuse."

Your linked article's headline is totally misleading since that portion of Psystar's claim has already been lost. The article you linked is actually about Apple's legal response to Psystar's new theory of their case. The judge's ruling specifically denied Psystar's allegations that Apple held a Monopoly position in reference to the "OS X compatible Computer market" and ruled that such a market was a fiction created by Psystar and DID NOT EXIST. The judge has not yet ruled on Psystar's new theory or whether he will allow them to continue with it.

On the other hand...Network World has just reported a breakthrough in the Psystar v. Apple case!

Breaking: Apple settles with Psystar, agrees to license OS X

By Yoni Heisler on Tue, 03/31/09 - 10:52pm.
Apple's lawsuit against clone maker Psystar was settled earlier today as the potential downside of losing a protracted legal battle with Psystar became too risky for Apple to bear. The agreed upon settlement has many stipulations, but the most shocking part of the agreement is that Apple has agreed to license OS X to Psystar, marking a return to the Mac clone business that Steve Jobs quickly and enthusiastically axed upon his return to Apple in 1997.
There is no doubt that the terms of the deal are bound to send shockwaves throughout the Mac community, but parties close to the case say that Apple was forced into a corner where it couldn't even take a chance on receiving an adverse ruling in court. If Apple lost its case against Psystar, the results would have been disastrous as it would have enabled any hardware manufacturer to install OS X on their own hardware, and essentially sell Mac computers for a fraction of the price.
But why did Apple settle now? Well, up until now, Psystar has only been shipping desktop towers running OS X, but what really raised some redflags up at Apple were Psystar's recently announced plans to unveil a line of laptops running Leopard. Notebooks account for the vast majority of Mac sales, and that also happens to be where Apple's margins are highest. According to a source close to the case, Apple begrudingly realized that if their notebook business took a hit, it's financial position might take a nose dive. Apple, therefore, decided that if third parties would be selling computers running OS X, it had better position itself to get something out of it.
As part of the deal, Psystar agreed to pay Apple a one-time lump sum fee which will largely be based on the number of hackintosh boxes it has sold to date. How that fee will be calculated remains undisclosed. Under the licensing portion of the agreement, Psystar agrees to pay Apple a licensing fee for each piece of OS X hardware it sells going forward. Importantly, the licensing agreement with Psystar is non-exclusive, meaning the doors are now open for other hardware companies to strike similar deals with Apple. Actual details of the licensing terms were not disclosed.
It remains unclear if the decision to settle was reached by Apple executives, or if Apple's legal team advised that the odds of winning the case were too risky to move forward with litigation. Whatever the reason, the implications of the settlement are huge, and though Apple stands to profit from licensing fees, it's clear that Apple probably isn't too happy about the deal it felt it was forced to make. Though Apple has licensed clones before, Steve Jobs has never been a fan of that business model, and has often mocked Microsoft's user experience in that regard.

And one more thing, April Fools!