Print 83 comment(s) - last by sebmel.. on Nov 17 at 9:35 AM

RIP Psystar?? A judge ruled in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights and violated the DCMA, in building Mac clones. One of these clones is pictured here, a $599 clone here that comes packed with a 3.33 GHz Intel processor, a GeForce 9600GSO, iWork, and iLife (all at approximately half the price of a comparable setup from Apple).  (Source: Psystar)
A summary judgment goes very badly for Psystar

Apple has been trying to crush Psystar for over a year now.  After all, the persistent company has been selling OS X clones at cheaper prices than Apple's own designs.  In doing so, it is undermining Apple's closed box model of using software to justify hardware price markups.  More recently, the company threw more dirt in Apple's face, releasing a tool to help customers freely install OS X on any machine, something Apple has long fought against.

However, Apple has at last gained the upper hand over Psystar, delivering it a potentially fatal blow in court.  In a summary judgment delivered on November 13 in a San Francisco court, Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights to put OS X on the unauthorized computers it built and sold.  He also ruled that Psystar violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's software protections that block its software from being installed on third-party hardware.

Reads the ruling, "Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X.  Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Psystar, which is claiming Apple is misusing its copyrights, was also denied its own request for summary judgment.  The company was told that it was perfectly legal for Apple to use its EULA to control what platforms its own software is allowed on.

A second hearing is scheduled for December 14 and an official trial will start January 2010.  The summary judgement does deal a major blow to Psystar as it sets the mood for the trial, and may lead to Apple gaining a restraining order against Psystar's sales.  As Psystar already went bankrupt once, this could spell doom for the young company.

The ruling also is a pleasing victory for Apple as it validates its argument that it installing OS X on forbidden hardware is a violation of the DMCA.  And as California, unlike most states, requires evidence to be presented before summary judgment is determined, the ruling could be viewed as more considered or binding.  This could open the door to Apple being able to crack down harder on individual Hackintosh makers. 

Apple recently looked to stomp out the Hackintosh community by killing support for the Intel Atom processor, effectively making its Snow Leopard and Leopard unable to be installed on netbooks.  However, despite Apple's determined efforts it can't seem to stop fans of its operating system from freely installing OS X on a variety of systems.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
Don't make erroneous comparisons. Microsoft is allowed to do the exact same thing as Apple in this case:
Home versions of Windows disallow installation on VM (HW restrictions on OS.. gee)
OEM versions of Windows disallow installation on non OEM HW (Another HW restriction!)

The difference is that Microsoft broke the law when they bundled IE by withholding Windows licenses from Compaq and IBM. Apple hasn't done that, yet.

RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
you can build a pc out of any hardware you wish (as long as its capable of running stably) and then load load on a clean oem copy of windows (manufacturer oem copys are nothing to do with microsoft, theyre altered by the specific oems and on volume licence so they have to be hardware specific or theyd be fully legal (as far as ms could see) pirate copies)
an oem licence is not hardware specific, its supposed to be loaded on by whoever(supposed to be a company but not always the case) built the pc.

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's the point. The copy you buy from Apple isn't a clean OEM copy, it's a pre-restricted OEM copy.

So take your clean/stable PC and grab a $10 Dell OEM Windows disc and you'll find the OS won't install. You can hack it, of course, but then you're in the exact same situation as hacking OS X.

An OEM is exactly HW specific, it just happens that the OEM is the one who specifies the HW.

In Psystar's case, Apple is the OEM and not Psystar.
In your case, you are the OEM.

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki