Apple wins summary judgement against Psystar

A judge has ruled in favor of Apple in it's copyright-infringement case against Psystar, who build and sell Mac clones running Apple's OS X. According to CNET, the ruling does not include an injunction against Miami-based Psystar as Apple have not yet asked for one.

Apple and Psystar both requested a summary judgement, which is a determination made by the judge based on the case's merits. In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup wrote, "In sum, Psystar has violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works."

Cupertino-based Apple filed its suit in July 2008, just months after Psystar began selling the Mac clones. Psystar believed it was legally allowed to run Apple's Mac OS X operating system on non-Apple machines, however Apple denied this and stated that the end user license agreement permits use on Apple computers only.

The judge rejected Psystar's contention that it was fair use, stating that the company "does not even attempt to address the four factors used to determine fair use." The Miami-based company also contended that it fell under the "first sale" doctrine, which permits someone who buys copyrighted material to then sell it on. Alsup stated that this doctrine only applies to legal copies, not to "unauthorized copies" produced by Psystar.

Alsup also ruled that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. "Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention," he said. He additionally rejected claims that Apple had misused its copyright and that Apple's license was unduly restrictive.

There are still more claims that could go to trial, including breach of contract, trademark infringement and trademark dilution. A hearing for determining remedies is set for December 14th, while the trial is scheduled for January.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Does the Android Marketplace need a desktop client?

Next Story

Microsoft Office 2010 beta available on MSDN/TechNet

51 Comments

View more comments

GreyWolfSC said,
This will be used as a precedent the next time someone gets busted for selling OEM copies of Windows.

Like Newegg?

The way I see it, if you build your own system from parts (mobo, cpu, memory etc), then you are a system builder and are entitled to the OEM pricing for Windows.

This is no surprise. Apple did it before, and will do it again to offenders. It's how they set up their model of making money. After Jobs leaves, maybe they will lighten up and focus on consumer electronics and software, which I tend to think they make more money on than they do with their computers, but I could be wrong.

I have read that Apple actually doesn't make money form OS X sales, they make their money from the PC sales. If OS X had a much higher market share then maybe, but for now they need PC sales to supplement the development cost. Yes, they make a lot of money on the consumer electronics side too, but I'm talking about computers at the moment.

The ruling basically states that Apple has a right to be proprietary; further, because of that right, they basically are their own market. Never mind that the proprietary nature of Apple's software itself is a sham - it is still their right. (No judge anywhere wants to get deeper than that; therein lies chaos, which is anathema to lawyers, judges, and law professors.) Psystar's legal team wanted the sham of Apple proprietariness investigated, which no court (anywhere) is able to do (worse, how willing would they be to do so?). With the DMCA buttressing the *propriety* claim, how can it legally be investigated? (By invoking the DMCA, Apple has basically shielded the sham.)

Unless the DMCA itself is ruled invalid, Apple is safe (because without the DMCA *clothing*, Emperor Apple is well and truly naked).

Yes; I am saying the proprietary nature of OS X is a sham. (If it weren't, modification of OS X, including Snow Leopard, to run on non-Apple hardware would not be so easy to do. Psystar knows it; even Apple itself knows it.) However, that was why Apple dragged in the DMCA. Even though very little of OS X (and none of the critical part of the operating system) uses any encryption, the mere fact that it uses encryption let them invoke the DMCA. (It's the same argument that is still in use today to bar export of certain types of hardware and software to Designated Countries.)


"Neigh!"

Your post is barely legible.

PGHammer said,
The ruling basically states that Apple has a right to be proprietary; further, because of that right, they basically are their own market.

It explicitly said the opposite.

Psystar's legal team wanted the sham of Apple proprietariness investigated, which no court (anywhere) is able to do (worse, how willing would they be to do so?).

No they didn't. They explicitly agreed that the terms of Apple's EULA are legally binding and valid - the court couldn't have moved to summary judgement if this were not the case.

With the DMCA buttressing the *propriety* claim, how can it legally be investigated? (By invoking the DMCA, Apple has basically shielded the sham.)

The DMCA circumvention was one of over a dozen claims Apple made. The majority of the case is built on trademark law, copyright law, and competition fairness rules.

Unless the DMCA itself is ruled invalid, Apple is safe (because without the DMCA *clothing*, Emperor Apple is well and truly naked).

No, the DMCA played a very small role in this case. Even if the DMCA is overturned Apple still has more than enough suppport to prevent anybody from setting up a business like Psystar.

PGHammer said,
The ruling basically states that Apple has a right to be proprietary; further, because of that right, they basically are their own market.

No they don't. Is Ford in their "own market" because it has a right to make the Ferrari and (*gasp*) it is proprietary?

so then if I am reading this correctly, if I acquire a copy of snow leopard and run it on a virtual machine on my pc I am in violation of TOS and copyright laws with apple?

Deviant said,
so then if I am reading this correctly, if I acquire a copy of snow leopard and run it on a virtual machine on my pc I am in violation of TOS and copyright laws with apple?

Yes you are, because that box copy is an upgrade of Mac OS X. You need a valid license of OSX which you can only acquire by buying a Mac.

Is it technically illegal to run OS X in a Virtual Machine EVEN IF YOU BOUGHT IT? Yes, it is. Same rules apply if you buy an upgrade to Windows 7 and install that onto a machine (virtual or otherwise) with which you did not have a license for.

Shadrack said,
Is it technically illegal to run OS X in a Virtual Machine EVEN IF YOU BOUGHT IT? Yes, it is.

That depends on your license.
Mac OS X server is licensed to run in a virtualized environment provided that the hardware you're running the virtualization on is a Mac.

Buy a Mac pro, install VMWare, buy 4 copies of Mac OS X server. Install those copies of Mac OS X into VMWare. You're legal.

GreyWolfSC said,
No, but it you modify the OSX installer and resell it you're up the creek...

Not true. This ruling shows that Apple's EULA is enforceable and that license forbids installation and virtualization of Mac OS X (client, not server) and requires that the virtualization environment is running on a Mac.

evn. said,
That depends on your license.
Mac OS X server is licensed to run in a virtualized environment provided that the hardware you're running the virtualization on is a Mac.

Buy a Mac pro, install VMWare, buy 4 copies of Mac OS X server. Install those copies of Mac OS X into VMWare. You're legal.

Why do you need 4 copies of Mac OS X Server?

Shadrack said,
Why do you need 4 copies of Mac OS X Server?

For the sake of example I assumed you wanted to run 4 copies of OS X. You need to buy one license for each instance Mac OS X server running in the VM.

If you only wanted to run a single VM instance of Mac OS X server then you'd only buy one license.

evn. said,
For the sake of example I assumed you wanted to run 4 copies of OS X. You need to buy one license for each instance Mac OS X server running in the VM.

If you only wanted to run a single VM instance of Mac OS X server then you'd only buy one license.

Oh lol. Heh, for a minute there I thought you meant Apple required 4 copies before you could run in a virtual environment.

Honestly, since when did nit-picky legality get in the way of what a Computer user wanted to do?

I am hoping at the end of this saga of lawsuits, that non MAC hardware will be allowed to run Mac OS X. Either that, or Macs become cheaper. I do not believe that there is no reason for Mac hardware to be that expensive.

Alley Cat said,
I am hoping at the end of this saga of lawsuits, that non MAC hardware will be allowed to run Mac OS X. Either that, or Macs become cheaper. I do not believe that there is no reason for Mac hardware to be that expensive.



Not unless the DMCA gets ruled invalid. Never mind that none of the critical OS X bits are (or have ever been) encrypted (Apple has said that publicly); it is that there are encrypted portions of the OS *at all* that let Apple sneak the DMCA camel into Psystar's legal-defense tent. The mere fact that there is a portion of the OS that is encrypted (it's not critical, and in fact, most "Hackintosh" patches don't touch it) let Apple invoke the DMCA.

With that battle nearly impossible for Apple to lose, Apple will also likely go after hardwre-based patch kits (such as EFI-X) using the saame argument.

He's right though. All they have to do is turn off the caps lock after the capital letter, the same with other names. I would go so far as to say they didn't learn English properly, or they do it purposefully for the satisfaction of being annoying.

Brendando said,
He's right though. All they have to do is turn off the caps lock after the capital letter, the same with other names. I would go so far as to say they didn't learn English properly, or they do it purposefully for the satisfaction of being annoying.

I doubt that it is intentional. But most people on this board should be tech savvy enough to know that Mac and MAC are two different things. One is a brand name for a computer systems, the other is (suppose to be) a unique identification string for a NIC.

Cheruman said,
Nic, surely :)

NIC is an acronym and is in all-caps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_card). Just like MAC is an acronym and in all caps. Mac, however, is an abbreviation of Macintosh just like Nic is an abbreviation of Nicholas.

ir0nw0lf said,
And shame on all the people spelling Macintosh wrong in this thread. Off with their heads! /sarcasm off

Too bad sarcasm doesn't really suit you...

Commenting is disabled on this article.