Gutsy/foolhardy Mac clone maker Psystar responded in August to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit with an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. Earlier this week, Apple's lawyers filed a motion to have the suit dismissed, calling it "deeply flawed." In its statement, Apple contends: "One of the bedrock principles of antitrust law is that a manufacturer's unilateral decision concerning how to distribute its product and with whom it will deal cannot violate the Sherman Act."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-04
NAIAL (Nor am I a lawyer), but here is what I have seen:
Whether it's the initial complaint or a counterclaim lawyers will normally try to probe for any weakness in the basis of the suit by requesting a dismissal based on case law and/or the logic, completeness or sometimes timeliness of the claim or counterclaim. This is a first gasp tactic, not a last one. Once the request for dismissal is denied or an amended complaint is submitted then the case proceeds. Sometimes even to a trial. But, as mentioned above, there's no point contesting a case whose alleged merits can be debunked.
As to a judge dismissing the case on his/her own, my understanding is that the judge rules on what is presented. If the plaintiff or counterclaim plaintiff fails to state a [valid] claim the judge will usually note this and dismiss without prejudice so that an amended complaint can be filed. This was seen in the Wallace vs. IBM and Wallace vs. GNU cases where even after 5 tries no supportable legal claim had been submitted and eventually the judges threw them out *with* prejudice.
Edited 2008-10-03 19:01 UTC
Member since:
2008-07-15
Why is Apple so eager to try and have the counterclaim dismissed? I'm not a lawyer and not as familiar with antitrust law as I probably should be, but it seems to me that if such a principal really is stated in the law then the court will dismiss the counterclaim on their own without help from Apple. Perhaps they're not as sure of themselves as they want us to think?