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 11:03:51 AM , Rating: 0
We're the ones that can run Windows, Linux, and Mac software all on one box, and we're the ones missing out?

RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 11:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
haha mac user

RE: And yet...
By mburton325 on 11/16/2009 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
We're the ones that can run Windows, Linux, and Mac software all on one box, and we're the ones missing out?

I run two distros of Linux, Windows 7 and Windows Server 08 all on the same box. The only reason I do not run Mac OS X is I refuse to play Steve Jobs' Control freak game. Outside of that OS X is an excellent operating system.

Give it a rest VMs are a wonderful tool for IT development.

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
That still sounds like you're the one missing out since I can do all that, too.

RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 5:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's always been a bit ironic that many Mac people bring up the fact they can use Windows on their machine. Apart from people who just like the way OS X functions/looks over Windows there is no reason to install OS X on a PC. On the other hand, there is a reason to install Windows on a Mac machine, software compatibility. A lot of software just doesn't work with OS X.

Exactly why would someone pay more to do the exact same thing they ARE doing on a PC?

RE: And yet...
By yomamafor1 on 11/16/2009 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 3
That's because Apple doesn't allow any body else to run OS X on non-Apple taxed hardwares.

On MS based computers, I can run any program I like.

On OS X based computers, I can only run Apple approved programs.

That's what you're missing out.

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
That still sounds like you're the one missing out, not me.

I can get GPL, Linux, BSD, Windows, OS X, and all other Intel compatible applications on my Mac.

You, on the other hand, can't get OS X applications at all.

RE: And yet...
By Akrovah on 11/16/2009 7:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
And what OS X applications would I care about that I can not find a perfectly suitable replacement for Windows or Linux?

RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 9:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Does it matter? I get access to Mac only software, you don't. If you don't care then it doesn't matter, you're not missing out one bit.

RE: And yet...
By sprockkets on 11/16/2009 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
On OS X based computers, I can only run Apple approved programs.

That's the iphone, not Macs running OSX. Nothing stops people from installing Flash, VLC, Limewire, Handbrake or any other program that Apple doesn't make.

Microsoft makes Directx Windows only. Is that also too, anti-competitive? Is Google Maps GPS that is only available on Android 2.0 anti-competitive since it isn't on the iphone or WinMob (perhaps not yet)? Or is the fact that I can't get one of the best diesel engines by Cumins in a Ford anti-competative behavior of Dodge?

No. It's creating a compelling reason for people to buy your product as opposed to another. For a lot of people, they can run Windows and all of what they need without Apple, so their stuff doesn't have any value whatsoever.

To each his own. I find that I can do stuff easier in SuSE than in Vista/7. In fact, I can't get any program to play h.264 files in mkv containers with DTS or AC3 audio properly to my receiver. Either it plays 2 channel over SPDIF or nothing in Win Vista or 7, while it plays fine in SuSE.

Best part is, the same program, SMPlayer, was used in each OS. Neither VLC or MediaPlayerClassic HCE worked in Windows properly outputing the correct audio.

RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 5:06:54 AM , Rating: 1
If there is one thing to complain about for PCs it has to do with codecs. Codecs are just a bitch. Might have support for more formats on PC, though I don't think that really matters for the most part, but getting some stuff to work is just crazy. Multiple codecs to play the same format.... that just makes no sense.

RE: And yet...
By Helbore on 11/16/2009 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
Imagine if you could do that, but on hardware that cost 1/3 of the price, though.

"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