Psystar files for bankruptcy, slowing Apple's legal case

The company Psystar, infamous for selling Mac clones without Apple's permission, has recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Florida. The news comes from the Mac Observer, who believes that this recent event means that those backing Psystar financially have now changed their mind, indicating that they believe Apple is the winner here.

Psystar has been in court with Apple for a bit short of a year now, after the company accused the Cupertino based computer maker of breaking anti-trust laws, though it seems possible that the case may be coming to an end relatively soon.

Apple had also hit Psystar back with a lawsuit claiming that it was in violation of the Mac OS X licensing agreement, and also that it was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act via the methods it used to install OS X. The Florida court is holding a hearing on June 5, where the financial supporters behind Psystar will be revealed.

Since Psystar has filed for bankruptcy, it's possible that they may not be able to pay legal fees any longer, meaning that they may not have anyone to represent them in court and to defend against Apple. However, Chapter 11 bankruptcy still allows Psystar to operate under reorganization, so it remains to be seen what affect this news will have on their operations or their court case. Under Chapter 7, the company would be forced to close up shop.

Either way, it's not good news for them, but we're sure that Apple will be pleased with the results.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

PRS announce new music streaming rates

Next Story

Ex-Microsoft employee: Free software will kill the company

16 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well let's see here.

OS X is a niche market that Apple likes to maintain complete control over.

"Hackintosh" customers represent a very small portion of that niche market. This was a long shot even without the legal battles from Apple.

Hopefully lessons were learned but I doubt it.

Shame on Apple competition is what it's all about maybe they just don't like the fact that someone else is doing it better than them for alot less cash I really hope apple loose and the judge hands them their arses in a sling

Of course they don't like that others do it better. That's why their "I'm a Mac / I'm a PC" ads have absolutely no factual backing.

Atlonite said,
Shame on Apple competition is what it's all about maybe they just don't like the fact that someone else is doing it better than them for alot less cash I really hope apple loose and the judge hands them their arses in a sling

Others did it better back in the day and sales for Apple were declining. 'Tis why Mac clones were no longer allowed to be made.

It's fairly normal. Huge corporates with buckets of cash will litigate against companies with not so much cash until they simply run out. It's happened before, and will happen again.

If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em repeatedly until they fold!

Yet another case of "he with the most money wins" in the US justice system. It'd be nice to see this case end based on the technical merits of the law, rather than becase the defendant ran out of money.

Ledgem said,
It'd be nice to see this case end based on the technical merits of the law, rather than becase the defendant ran out of money.

I'm with you on that.

It always seemed a bit risky to base your entire profile and brand name on that you're selling Mac compatible products, even along with OS X itself! I could better understand this move from a company that already did business in more areas of IT and that just happened to have the guts, and brains to simply call them Mac compatible. I mean, if you're willing to violate the OS X EULA by installing it on a "Mac compatible" computer, you're also the kind of guy that will pirate OS X on The Pirate Bay and install it yourself. It's not exactly the customer that cares, so a lower profile could work just as well, and I doubt Apple would have anything to say about building it with compatible hardware. Of course, it may still not be considered ethical, but I'm not talking about ethics here, just running a business with more safety. :-p