Apple Scores Big in Case Against Psystar

By Jane McEntegart
published

Apple has scored big in its long-standing legal battle against the Mac clone manufacturer, Psystar.

Business Week reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled (via Groklaw) that Psystar violated Apple’s copyright as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims.

"In sum, Psystar has violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works," said Judge William Alsup.

The ruling comes after more than a year of legal volleyball between Apple and Psystar and, while it represents a significant victory for Apple, the case is far from over. Apple has several other claims against Psystar, each outlined in an 18-page legal document filed in July 2008. These included copyright infringement and dilution of the Apple brand. The company also alleges breach of contract and trademark infringement.

A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14.

Read the full story here. Check out our complete coverage of the Psystar case via the links below (chronological order, of course).

Jane McEntegart
38 Comments Comment from the forums
  • STravis
    I think the only surprise here is that it took so long.

    BTW, Psystar has also pissed off a lot of the Open Source community for taking their work and 'repackaging' it in their systems (and charging for it).

    All in all, Psystar is a class act.
    Reply
  • Spanky Deluxe
    Great news. Whether you like Apple or not, they took the work of both Apple and the Open Source x86 hackintosh community and used it to their own financial gain without obtaining any kind of licensing from Apple and without giving anything back to the Open Source community.
    Reply
  • socrates047
    its just stupid, cause i think pystar had no chance of going against apple. This is because just the legal fees will rob psystar of all of its money. Apple has a lot of money that they can use to fight in the court. That is just how it is, Individuals and or small companies have no chance of winning against big companies
    Reply
  • SAL-e
    stravisPsystar has also pissed off a lot of the Open Source community for taking their work and 'repackaging' it in their systems (and charging for it)Is that true? What license the hackintosh software is made available? If it is GNU GPL is not only ok, but it is encouraged to charge for providing service that compiles the software for users who don't know or don't want to compile the software them self. Only requirement is to provide access to source if the user requires. From GPL FAQs:
    Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

    Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
    Reply
  • Regulas
    Apple is based in San Francisco and Paystar is in Florida but the ruling was from a hack judge from San Francisco, imagine that! Enough said.
    Reply
  • sunflier
    Basically Alsup ruled that the Mac OS End User License Agreement (EULA) is both legal and valid and ruled that installation of the OS on non-Apple hardware is not allowable.
    (Quoted from another website)

    Does this mean if I buy any copy of Apple O/S X and install it on my on x86 hardware (non-MAC) will Apple sue me too? The Eula above didn't only state if I were to sell it too, it says, "installation".
    Reply
  • robwright
    socrates047its just stupid, cause i think pystar had no chance of going against apple. This is because just the legal fees will rob psystar of all of its money. Apple has a lot of money that they can use to fight in the court. That is just how it is, Individuals and or small companies have no chance of winning against big companies
    This case isn't about that or the fact that the judge is based in San Francisco. It's about copyright protection and how far it does -- and should -- extend for software, as well as the "fair use doctrine" for digitally copied products. Read the legal decision from judge. You may learn something.
    Reply
  • VidGameKing
    Ha!!!!! Bitches!!!!! Take that you code stealing scum bags!!! Vindication!!!!! Vindication!!!!!
    Reply
  • Parrdacc
    Really no surprise here. Did anyone really think Apple would not win this one?
    Reply
  • tester24
    sunflier(Quoted from another website)Does this mean if I buy any copy of Apple O/S X and install it on my on x86 hardware (non-MAC) will Apple sue me too? The Eula above didn't only state if I were to sell it too, it says, "installation".
    Only if you make fun of Steve Jobs wardrobe, black turtlenecks is so 1999... but in a more serious note this wasn't unexpected.

    I think Psystar should just open source their code and then "leak" it to a torrent site. Then give everyone the chance to see what it is all about. Not to meantion screw Apple even more, that being said Psystar is probably toast after this.
    Reply