Apple Sues Psystar

News
By published

It seems as though Apple is taking legal action and suing Mac clone company Psystar. The rumour mills have been kicked into overdrive with a report from ZDNet that Apple has finally filed suit against the company that began touting Mac clones back in April.

A few months back the media was buzzing with the news of these new fangled Mac clones. There were all sorts of issues from the Psystar website, which crashed for long periods of time from the amount of traffic it was experience, to “discrepancies” with the brick and mortar address for the company.

The address was changed a couple of times, including listing the location of a packing company as the Psystar address. These mistakes were rectified once we cut to the chase and called the president of the computer company ourselves. Rudy Pedraza updated the address on the website while on the phone to Tom’s.

Dodgy address listings and site crashes aside, there was also the issue of Open Computers coming pre-installed with Leopard. The end user licensing agreement for Leopard states that the licence allows you to install, use and run one copy of the OS on a single Apple-labeled computer, operative words being Apple-labeled. According to ComputerWorld (which cites a Miami-based lawyer’s blog) Apple’s legal team are pursuing Psystar’s violation of the Leopard EULA.

When we spoke to Psystar President, Rudy Pedraza back in April, we asked about Apple’s EULA for Leopard and reiterated the fact that no one was allowed to use Leopard on a computer that wasn’t Apple-labeled. Pedraza’s response was,

"We’re going to do it whether Steve Jobs likes it or not."

Then again the president also claimed the company was just trying to help Apple and Steve make some more money.

"We’re here to help Steve Jobs. He’s not making enough money. We’re here to help him increase sales."

Somehow we’re not quite sure how that’s going to fly in a court of law. Stay tuned for more.

23 Comments Comment from the forums
  • San Pedro
    Filing suit is going to cost them much more money than they'll get out of it. I'm sure the Psystar people have been wisely spending all the money they make or laundering it so Apple won't have much to take. I'm pretty sure this suit is more to dissuade others from doing the same thing.
    Reply
  • Il-Mari
    Anyone know if there's any precedent for a case like this - i.e. a company saying, "You can only use software 'X' on official harware 'Y' (made by us)"?

    In any case, I'm pretty sure they'll have to ditch that policy somewhere along the way anyway, if they actually want to become a significant competitor to Windows, since I doubt competition authorities are going to let such arbitrary rules pass which clearly hurt customers.
    Reply
  • Reynod
    APPLE SUCKZ DOGZ BALLZ !!

    Plain and simple.

    /leaves
    Reply
  • wymer100
    Doesn't SGI require their hardware to run their OS?

    Apple doesn't have to license their OS if they don't want to. Could Apple increase their marketshare if they licensed the OS to other manufacturers? Sure, but they have made their choice. We can complain about it all we want, but we really don't have much legal say in the matter. Psystar chose to skirt licensing agreements on several fronts, and they should not be surprised when a lawsuit.
    Reply
  • mdillenbeck
    I wonder what Apple's approach to the end user will be - after all, both the manufacturer and the consumer knowingly violated the EULA.
    Reply
  • sublifer
    I think Apple should have let it be and let their userbase grow... They're going to get a rotten user-unfriendly image out of this. Yes, we know Apple disclaims it having to be on an Apple label computer, but customers always think they should be able to do anything they want with something _they_ purchased.

    If they really wanted to stay different and keep a platform and OS unto themselves, they should have stayed away from x86 hardware.
    Reply
  • knickle
    Here's an interesting thought. Since Psystar isn't the "end user" (they are the manufacturer), can they even be held liable? Hmmm.
    Reply
  • nekatreven
    knickleHere's an interesting thought. Since Psystar isn't the "end user" (they are the manufacturer), can they even be held liable? Hmmm.
    I've wondered that too. I seem to remember something about OSX not shipping on the Psystar systems but having to be user installed. In the end I think the question would be how much 'enabling' Psystar is doing. Judging from past statements though I think Psystar's claim is that Apple's EULA is not enforceable and possibly not legal.
    Reply
  • kelfen
    Who uses a apple for gaming machine... no one.. :)
    Reply
  • LoboBrancoTimido
    Hum...I'm not surprised at all.
    Apple doesn't need more OS userbase, they only need to sell those expensive machines (IMO) and that's about it.
    I really don't care much about Macs these days, got tired of the spoiled brats and stupid Apple fanboys.
    Only a few pro users actually know what a Mac can or can't do, everybody else only wants to show their machine style and play WoW.
    Psystar does it for the money like every company that goes in the Apple Bandwagon.
    Reply