Apple’s filing to dismiss with prejudice Psystar’s countersuit revealed the tenants of Apples’ strategy to win. The basis of Apple’s argument is that Mac OS X and Macs do not, in themselves, create a legally plausible market, antitrust does not apply, and Apple has no obligation to share its sources of advantage.

An attorney who has been following the case, and wishes to remain anonymous, explained Apple’s argument to [The Mac Observer] on Thursday:

“First, all of

Psystar’s counterclaims require the definition of a legally plausible relevant market. Second, Psystar’s attempt to define the markets as OS X and OS X-capable computers do not define legally and factually plausible relevant markets. That’s considering the U.S. Supreme Court and all of the U.S. Circuit Courts, that have considered the issue, have rejected the proposition that an company having a monopoly in its own make of a class of products is a […]

Orginal post by dhiram