Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

Judge William Alsup this week granted Apple's motion for a permanent injunction against Psystar, meaning the company can no longer sell Leopard, Snow Leopard or computers running the software. Specifically, Florida-based Psystar is banned from the following:

Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple.

Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.

Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.

Doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.

It's a tearful, tired farewell to the near-18 months of litigation we've been watching since this whole thing kicked off in April 2008. However, the ruling has left something up in the air. AppleInsider reports that Psystar avoided mentioning its Rebel EFI software which allows certain Intel-powered machines to run Snow Leopard. Apple had hoped to ban the sale of the Rebel EFI software, claiming Psystar had been "trafficking in circumvention devices" but Alsup's ruling doesn't mention Rebel by name.

Aslup claims that because Psystar didn't mention it in statements made to the court, he didn't feel it appropriate for him to decide whether the software falls within the scope of the injunction or not. That said, MacRumors quotes Aslup as saying:

"The inclusion of future works within the scope of an injunction ensures that litigation need not be needlessly replicated when the defendant's infringing acts are the same, but the copyrighted work has changed. Put differently, whether or not Apple allowed Snow Leopard to be litigated in discovery, an injunctive decree can reach beyond the four corners of the litigated copyrighted works to cover non-litigated items of similar character."

Apple Insider cites court documents that stipulate Psystar must comply with the ruling by December 31, 2009.

Read more here.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
67 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Apple sucks. Apple is expensive. Apple is not worth it.
    Apple is a good healthy fruit.
    28
  • Freaking FAIL! Apple's EULA was illegal with that non Apple hardware clause in the first place. One a piece of software is purchased the maker CAN'T tell the purchaser what they can or can not install it on. They paid for software and a license to use it. Deal is done at that point in terms of legalities of buying and installing is concerned. I hope Psystar appeals this on the grounds of an illegal EULA in OS X Leopard
    24
  • If Apple really believed its own marketing, they would have gladly sold their OS to be used on other 'PCs'. They should be sued for false advertising their product. You cannot compare an Open Market PC to a Closed Market PC. They should be forced to market their products as a bigger, more glorified iPod. By securing the rights to be a closed system, as of this ruling, they are essentially telling people their PCs are iPods with word processing and a smaller appstore.
    22
  • Other Comments
  • Apple sucks. Apple is expensive. Apple is not worth it.
    Apple is a good healthy fruit.
    28
  • Freaking FAIL! Apple's EULA was illegal with that non Apple hardware clause in the first place. One a piece of software is purchased the maker CAN'T tell the purchaser what they can or can not install it on. They paid for software and a license to use it. Deal is done at that point in terms of legalities of buying and installing is concerned. I hope Psystar appeals this on the grounds of an illegal EULA in OS X Leopard
    24
  • If Apple really believed its own marketing, they would have gladly sold their OS to be used on other 'PCs'. They should be sued for false advertising their product. You cannot compare an Open Market PC to a Closed Market PC. They should be forced to market their products as a bigger, more glorified iPod. By securing the rights to be a closed system, as of this ruling, they are essentially telling people their PCs are iPods with word processing and a smaller appstore.
    22