Apple to Psystar: And don't get any bright ideas about a Black Friday sale, either

Having diligently hewn Psytar's legal coffin over the past year and a half, Apple has now taken up its hammer and set about nailing the Mac clone maker into it. This week, the company called for a permanent injunction against Psystar's operations.

"Psystar...has built its business on infringing Apple's copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple's research and development efforts, and trading on Apple's hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers," Apple said in its motion.

"Psystar's appropriation of Apple's intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar's 'OpenMac' computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple's Mac OS X," the company added.

"Psystar even seeks to profit from Apple's efforts to protect its rights, extolling this litigation as Psystar's 'opportunity to gain market share,' in a pitch to venture capitalists....Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, it will not stop its unlawful conduct-conduct that is causing irreparable harm to Apple's business, brand and goodwill."

Catch that? Psystar was pitching VCs on its plan to use Apple's IP to "compete directly against Apple." Shameless. Little wonder Cupertino is so intent on burying the would-be rival.

And make no mistake, Apple legal is going to grind Psystar into fine silicon dust. In addition to the injunction, Apple is requesting compensation for legal costs and statutory damages owed under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And according to Apple's expert witness (PDF), statutory damages for the former should run "between $1500 and $300,000″ and for the latter "between $449,500 and $4,495,000."

Suffice it to say, that's quite a bit more than the current value of Psystar's assets which, according to its bankruptcy filing, are no more than $50,000.

Story Copyright (c) 2010 AllThingsD. All rights reserved.

[AJ Pants]

lol

[slickuser]

Screw Psystar &#38; shutdown them for good!<br /><br />They are thieves. They are selling Open source code as theirs and stole several individual <br />developer's hard work.

[DrtyDogg]

@slickuser: all of their open source code is available at: foundry.psystar.com. Compile it yourself if you don't want to pay for it.

[slickuser]

Did you check first? Their RebelEFI which sells for $50 is open source code. <br />Read here : http://netkas.org/?p=310

[Perry_Clease]

"Having diligently hewn Psytar's legal coffin over the past year and a half, Apple has now taken up its hammer and set about nailing the Mac clone maker into it. "<br /><br />Psystar built their own coffin, and dug their own grave.

[Random_Walk]

Hell, I think they even bought their own flowers for the occasion.

[rationalreview]

Apple sucks. Can't handle a better idea for their inferior products.

[Random_Walk]

Commercial copyright violation is "a better idea"? <br /><br />Wow - how do you feel about The Pirate Bay then, Mr. rationalreview?

[protagonistic]

@ rationalreview<br /><br />Open mouth, insert foot. If it was such an inferior product no one would want to use it. Have you ever actually used OS X?

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Random_Walk: <br /> <br />"Hell, I think they even bought their own flowers for the occasion." <br /> <br />That reminds me, have you sent that $599.00 that you owe Apple for violating the EULA and defrauding Apple of the value of the product? Or do you still believe that theft is not a criminal act? <br /> <br />You and Psystar have a lot in common. I'm curious why it's okay for you to steal from Apple yet you rip into Psystar. Doublestandard, perhaps?

[solitare_pax]

What sort of venture capitalists would consider dumping funds into a company dedicated to stealing another company's ideas and products? Drug lords looking to launder their money?

[reboog711]

Isn't that kind of what Patent Trolls do? And aren't there some patent troll companies funded by VCs?

[zyxxy]

That is not all patent trolls do. If you really knew about the Patent business, you would understand that.<br /><br />One of the things patent trolls do is buy completely valid and legitimate patents from independent inventors and then attempt to profit on the difference in what they paid and what they subsequently license. A lot of independent inventors get effectively squashed by the legal costs, and patent trolls allow those inventors to recover some cash from their effort and investment. Yes, they sell out for a small percentage of the actual value of the patent, but they get the money up front, and are separated from the legal battle so that they can go back to what they really want to do, which is to get back in the garage and engineering. The trolls then take the patent and run with it.<br /><br />This Psystar case has nothing to do with Patent Trolling. Nothing. Psystar has no patents. None. Apple does. Patents, and more importantly in this case, copyright.<br /><br />So yes, some Patent Trolls are funded by VCs, but in this case, you are completely off topic.

[Random_Walk]

"A lot of independent inventors get effectively squashed by the legal costs, and patent trolls allow those inventors to recover some cash from their effort and investment."<br /><br />If these patents were more than just examples of successful efforts at hoodwinking USPTO examiners, you might have had a point. Problem is, the vast majority of these patents are usually prior art, overly-broad, and/or in general shouldn't have even existed in the first place (e.g. software patents).<br /><br />Patent trolls aren't in it for some noble effort to compensate the deprived inventor, trust me. The patents are usually bought from corporations, for starters. A lot of them are sold because the corp realized that the things were too ludicrous to bother enforcing, and at least they can recoup some of the money they thought they could originally make off the things.<br /><br />Odds are excellent that there's no garage involved here, and odds are even better that whoever originally came up with the patent was contractually required to give it to his or her employer (the corp who sold it).

[Renegade Knight]

Take a deep breath and reflect. <br /> <br />Psystar stole nothing. They built their own computers, and created their own IP in the process of getting OS X to work on their computers. <br /> <br />The entire case is nothing more than Apple stretching copyright and EULA's to cover an obvious deravative product.

[shycelticwitch]

@ Renegade Knight.... you will not be happy until Apple is forced to drop their prices and open their software, so they can become just like every other mass-produced hackable piece of garbage that sits on a desktop. DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH... it looks like it's going to be a long time coming.

[Perry_Clease]

"by Renegade Knight November 25, 2009 7:32 AM PST<br />Take a deep breath and reflect. "<br /><br />The Judge has reflected on this go read the finding http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf <br /><br />You may disagree with that, but your opinion is not the one that matters.

[cloudmatt]

Apple doesn't want to compete as long as they are the only game with osx installed they can keep prices up. If they outlined it in the ula they can enforce it. Don't give me this apple is protecting their product, they are making it so they can keep gouging you in prices for "superior equipment" that is little more than the same silicon everyone else uses from the CPU GPU Main board Ram etc. If Apple computers(hardware side) had to keep up with another maker selling osx systems they would have to drop prices massively. Hence the legal trappings, OSX is good and might even stand a chance to gain real market share if apple let HP, DELL, etc. sell osx installs next to the windows installs. Till then quit your B****IN and accept that apple likes being the niche yuppie toy that it is. It's a real shame to I'd like an osx lappy but a thousand for an Air or under 300 for Wind looks to me like osx costs 700 dollars in apple tax.

[solitare_pax]

What you forget is that the $1,000 you spend on an Apple is a product that will generally keep on working for years, and has support, while the $300 PC you buy might last a year or two - or longer if you pay the PC tax on anti-virus software. <br /> <br />Seriously though - go get a Mac Mini if you want a cheap Mac. The one I have is still zipping along after four years of hard work with it.

[cbscowards]

@cloudmatt:"thousand for an Air or under 300 for Wind looks to me like osx costs 700 dollars in apple tax."<br /><br />You're comparing Apples to dung-balls there. If by "Air" you mean MacBook Air, compare it to the Dell Adamo.<br /><br />Apple IS protecting their product, which is Mac computers that run OS X. OS X is an integral part of the product, as is the hardware. If you don't like that, buy a Windows or Linux box and stop your griping. There's nothing in the constitution that guarantees you use of any OS on any hardware.

[rickkw]

by cloudmatt <br />"Apple doesn't want to compete as long as they are the only game with osx installed they can keep prices up.:"<br /><br />Yeah, shame on Apple for preventing others to compete by running OSX which Apply solely develops to run on non-Apple products -- NOT. I suppose if Psystar reverse engineers OSX from the ground up without stealing a single line of Apple source code, and run it on its clone it may have a case. As it is, it is stealing from Apple's R&#38;D. It is not "competing" is it stealing. Stop using the monopoly or open competition as a disguise to justify stealing.

[pjhenry1216]

"deliberate pirating"? Wasn't every copy of OS X purchased legally? Where was pirating involved?<br /><br />Psystar should have just built the machine and had the users do the installation. There'd be much less of a case against them at that point. Moreover, the fact that doing something such as that (changing order of operations, but sorta doing the same thing) just goes to show you how ridiculous the laws actually are. If I purchase something, I should be allowed to do with it what I want.<br /><br />Whether its technically legal or not, I personally think it should be legal. I'm offended that they can't. Copyright, patent, and trademark abuse is so rampant in this country that its stifling innovation in the name of profits. That was *never* the purpose of any of those three things.

[lkrupp]

"If I purchase something, I should be allowed to do with it what I want."<br /><br />Fortunately for society and the economy you are NOT allowed. Judge Alsup ruled that you only own the physical disc, not the software. You license the software and are therefore subject to the restrictions placed upon you by the terms of the licensing agreement. You specifically agree to these terms when you purchase the license. It's no different than renting a car. You do not own the car and are subject to the terms of the rental agreement. You cannot do what you want with the car. You cannot sell it, give it away, or even drive it anywhere you want.<br /><br />People can argue till the cows come home about how the recording industry, or Apple, or any other company overcharges for their products, places restrictions on their use, or whatever. But you cannot use that argument to rationalize theft. If a company or individual cannot protect their intellectual property rights, patents, copyrights, etc., then there is no point in even being in business.<br /><br />Some are always trying to raise the monopoly stick man argument when it comes to Apple and its products. All that shows is that those making the argument do understand the legal concept. It's all about rationalizing or justifying their personal actions and desires.

[aMUSICsite]

Apple's take on this is so over the top...<br /><br />"Psystar's 'OpenMac' computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple's Mac OS X"<br /><br />Psystar paid for each copy of the OS so Apple made money off each purchase, I can't see how this is pirating their software. It's only really a breach of sales agreement. <br /><br />"Apple's copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple's research and development efforts"<br /><br />Again they are paying for the software and not ripping off their hardware design so they are no more free-riding on Apple than Dell would be free-riding on MS's R&#38;D by uding Windows.<br /><br />"Apple's hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers"<br /><br />And Psystar has a reputation for noisy knock off Mac's, I can't see it's hurt Apple that much.<br /><br />Soon Apple will win it's case and get the $50,000 that Psystar has, wich is still probably more than the total lost revenue to Apple caused by Psystar existing. <br /><br />I wonder if that German firm is still doing the same in a country with laws that stop companies over protecting their little toys they sell.

[Perry_Clease]

"Psystar paid for each copy of the OS so Apple made money off each purchase, I can't see how this is pirating their software. It's only really a breach of sales agreement. "<br /><br />You really need to go read the Judge's ruling http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf <br /><br />"I wonder if that German firm is still doing the same in a country with laws that stop companies over protecting their little toys they sell."<br /><br />Are you telling us that Germany has no intellectual property laws!<br /><br />Macs are not "little toys"

[ewsachse]

@lkrupp <br /> <br />Wrong, wrong, wrong. <br /> <br />I can go to a junkyard, buy an old 1960's Ford Mustang frame &#38; body, and restore it. <br />Then I can get a Chevy small block V-8 engine, rebuild it, and then install that Chevy engine into the Ford Mustang. <br /> <br />In fact, I can start a business that builds custom cars like this. If you get off your high horse and step outside of Starbucks every now and then, you might see how the rest of the non-Apple world works. <br /> <br />Ford and GM cannot do diddly about it, because I purchased the car parts and engine parts, and then assembled those parts myself. All Ford and GM can do is say that they will not support my car or repair my car at one of their dealers.

[Random_Walk]

Folks, this has zilch to do with what an individual can or cannot do with software. <br /><br />Here's a clue: An individual can happily urinate on any EULA and face no legal consequences, so long as the individual does not attempt to violate copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The only thing you lose is the right to demand your end of the contract (e.g. tech support). This is why sites like insanelymac.com happily continue without any legal interference from Apple.<br /><br />Now corporations are a different matter. Psystar screwed up by violating the EULA for commercial purposes. That is a huge mistake, since their commercial re-distribution of OSX ( &lt;- note that phrase ) means they violated US trademark and copyright laws, making themselves a fat, juicy target.

[Renegade Knight]

You are right. There was no piracy. The two spots where Apple made a claim of piracy were by design (the OS copies itself into your computers memory upon boot) and allowed (ghosting an HD to aid installs of an OS for production and roll out). <br /> <br />You are also right in that if they build a computer that an OS could be installed on, whatever the OS was, there would be no case. This case was entirly because they installed OS X on the computers and even there they paid for it and gave the discs to customers. That's more than you get out of Windows these days.

[Renegade Knight]

You are right. There was no piracy. The two spots where Apple made a claim of piracy were by design (the OS copies itself into your computers memory upon boot) and allowed (ghosting an HD to aid installs of an OS for production and roll out). <br /> <br />You are also right in that if they build a computer that an OS could be installed on, whatever the OS was, there would be no case. This case was entirly because they installed OS X on the computers and even there they paid for it and gave the discs to customers. That's more than you get out of Windows these days. <br /> <br />@Perry_Clease <br /> <br />I read the judges ruling. PsyStar was slapped for having bad legal representation more than anything else. In essence PsyStar didn't jump high enough to show they included OS X with each system evne thought that's what they did. <br /> <br />@lkrupp <br /> <br />Fortunatly for society and the economy, you are NOT allowed to dictate to me fair use. I don't let EULA's and artificially restrictive intrepretations of copyright get in the way of enjoying bought and paid for products. That software is lisences doesn't change that I will treat it exactly like I own it because that's the intent of the sale. The maker is selling me something useful. I'm payin for something useful. They can't dictate what useful is within the bound of fair use. They can only claim copyright infringment if my fair use steps outside the bounds.

[Renegade Knight]

@Random_Walk <br /> <br />Unfortunatly the ruling does have ramifications to the Hacintosh community. A member of which I'd like to be as I don't like Apple computers but do like the OS.

[rationalreview]

Yes, Apple lets you use their products, but if you do something to them that you want to do that they don't want you to, then you void a warranty or terms/conditions. Look at the iPhones. Remember when they sent an update out that found phones that were jailbroken and erased all data on them. Nice of them.

[Random_Walk]

"Unfortunatly the ruling does have ramifications to the Hacintosh community. A member of which I'd like to be as I don't like Apple computers but do like the OS."<br /><br />Possibly, but not likely. Apple is more concerned about other companies redistributing their products in violation of copyright, than they would ever worry about hobbyists (disclosure: myself included) shoehorning OSX into a bog-standard pile of PC parts for personal use and enjoyment. <br /><br />Long story short - as long as you're only doing it for yourself, Apple probably doesn't give a crap (mostly because it takes a somewhat elevated level of skill to do it, which means that the vast majority of their potential customer base won't). If you're doing it commercially (which obviously does eat into the customer base), Apple will come down on you like a truckload of bricks.<br /><br />==<br /><br />"Remember when they sent an update out that found phones that were jailbroken and erased all data on them"<br /><br />three bits: <br /><br /> - Apple also releases updates that occasionally 'brick' (read - make unbootable) a Hackintosh (though unlike the iPhone, you can roll back the poisoned patches if you know what you're doing).<br /><br />- It's their right to do it, and nobody who does the Hackintosh route complains - they simply communicate the news and we all find/build workarounds.<br /><br />- iPhones are a bit different, due to contractual obligations with AT&#38;T, and the radically different nature of smartphone environment vs. the home PeeCee.

[sharmajunior]

Although I agree with Apple's statement against Psystar, Apple's remark on "High quality" doesnt hold true. No company makes perfect hardware. Everything is bound to break.

[EarthToApple]

Apple's products are "High Quality" as they stated, Apple did not say perfect; so please check your interpretation of the phrase "High Quality" as you may need to submit yourself to a refresher of grade three English.

[Seaspray0]

The "High Quality" claim doesn't fly. <br /> <br />http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10400447-1.html <br />Who makes the most reliable laptops.

[sharmajunior]

Hahaha, typical AppleFan (so scared that he doesn't even wanna post a name). Ok Mr./Mrs./Ms. unknown, define high quality for me. Is it something that will never break; something that is bound to break in the future (like most products do) or is it something you can't handle listening about your precious Apple??? <br /> <br />I have used (recently) 3 different types of Macs and they all had the same/similar fate within a year of usage. BTW, my first computer was a Lisa which was way better than the crap they produce today (atleast it still powers on). the fate is the same with any windows based pc hardware (whether they sell it to you cheap or charge a hefty premium for it), the quality isn't the same as it used to be. That's why I laugh when a company says "our products are of high quality". I can't tell you how many companies I have heard saying that and then you see their quality. LOL

[shycelticwitch]

@ Seaspray... and there are a thousand more sites that say they are... including their customer service site. NICE TRY.

[shycelticwitch]

@ sharmajunior... forget your little pink pill today? Not afraid to post my name... and say that I have not enjoyed high quality with my Mac products over the last 16 years... I have enjoyed SUPERIOR quality and MAXIMUM productivity. But to respond to your comment on the level that it appears... NANNYNANNY BOOBOO!

[rationalreview]

They are not high quality. I agree. Everyone has their own experiences with computers that form their preferences for a brand. It just so happens windows owns like 90+ percent of those experiences. In my working career with both items, even in digital publishing, windows based intel PC's make way more reliable platforms that are significantly faster and more powerful and stay up longer. Apple is like those Levitra commercials for their OS. It is Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Quark, Acrobat all work way better in win7 on a consistent basis. This is based on my experience. Those of you who point to benchmark scores have to realize that Apple only allows benchmark scores from benchmark programs written specifically for Apple devices so the numbers they generate are irrevelant to real world applications.

[lennykutch]

@shycelticwitch your reply back didnt help you one bit.

[shycelticwitch]

@ lennykutch... it wasn't intended to help me, it was intended to help the immature individual I was responding to.... in case he didn't understand the big words.

[shycelticwitch]

@ irrationalreview... Adobe codes first for Mac, then for Windows. WHY? Because OS X allows for more integrated tools, and is more widely used by the design industry than Windows. After 16 years of Adobe on Mac, and the same number of years TRYING to make it work as well on a PC... I say you're wrong. Do a little reading (instead of posting without facts) and you'll see I am telling the truth.<br /><br />As for Quark Xpress? LOLOLOL It has now been demoted to the same status as Paint Shop, Publisher and CorelDRAW.... for amateurs. InDesign makes Quark look like a toy.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@shycelticwitch: <br /> <br />For a person who has previously stated that they had no bias for or against Apple, and that you didn't own any Apple products, you sure seem to have a different story now. Which is it? I'm confused which version of your own history you are referring to?

[reboog711]

I think licensing software is slightly different than renting a car. With a car, you see, agree, and potentially negotiate, the agreement before getting the keys. With software you don't see the agreement until after you purchased, when it comes time to install. <br /><br />You said: "If a company or individual cannot protect their intellectual property rights, patents, copyrights, etc., then there is no point in even being in business."<br /><br />There are plenty of companies / individuals in the music / film / software industry out there being successful by opening up their "IP". In software, MySQL is a good example of a company "letting go" of its' IP property (the source code) and still being successful.

[Markus2008]

What were MySQL's revenue and profits this quarter?

[Mikeatle]

I'm an Apple fan. I own three Apple computers. However, I think this whole Psystar issue has been way overblown by Apple. In fact, it's leaving a bit of a bad taste in my mouth concerning the company I've depended upon for more than ten years now. Handled correctly, a relationship with Psystar could have benefited Apple by introducing the brand to a whole group of users who might not otherwise have ever considered purchasing an Apple computer. As it is, Apple comes off as an arrogant bully. <br /><br />Okay, so Apple wins the suit. Fine. Award Apple a couple thousand dollars and call it a day. There's no need for Apple to "grind Psystar into fine silicon dust." That's just rude, and Apple is better than that. Or is it?

[Perry_Clease]

If Apple allowed Psystar to get away with it then other claim jumpers would be whittling away at Apple's mother lode. <br /><br />"Handled correctly, a relationship with Psystar could have benefited Apple by introducing the brand to a whole group of users who might not otherwise have ever considered purchasing an Apple computer."<br /><br />It isn't like people have never heard of Apple.

[zyxxy]

If you go back in history to when the PReP spec was developed and licensed, and the ensuing battle that happened when Apple decided to close down the CHRP effort (Common Hardware Reference Platform), you will see just how rabid Steve Jobs is about this issue. All the CHRP work was done while Steve was gone. As soon as he returned, he aggressively shut it down. Motorola and IBM both fought it for a while, but eventually caved given that it wasn't worth the fight to them. There are probably few of you that ever had access to a Motorola StarMax.<br /><br />http://lowendmac.com/musings/mm07/0830.html<br /><br />http://www.firmworks.com/www/chrpdoc.htm<br /><br />from<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Hardware_Reference_Platform<br /><br />Disclaimer: I did a little PReP/CHRP support back in the day, not for Mac OS, but for UNIX System V.4. (Ooof, I am old....)

[sharmajunior]

that's how apple or as a matter of fact any company is. if you mess with their property with out their permission, they have full right to trample you. whether you like it or not, they are gonna do it. also macs are the bread and butter of apple, they won't let that slip away from them. coz some people not all people buy a mac because they have to/want to use OSX and unfortunately its bundled with a certain piece of hardware. if psystar kept selling pcs at a lower price, all those people who want just OSX have a better and cheaper option (plus more hardware choice).

[Renegade Knight]

Apple used to allow clones. Then they renamed their OS in a way that prevented the Clone Makers from keeping up with Apple which pushed them out of the market. It would be akin to MS saying "All you PC makers have to use Vista, but this here 7 is current and only we will be selling it on our own computers, but hey, thanks for helping us capture 90% market share, good luck out there". <br /> <br />PsyStar could probably sell Classic Macs...

[shycelticwitch]

@ sharmajunior... That "certain piece of hardware" happens to be one of the most technologically advanced computing systems in the world. Ask NASA. Ask Pixar. Ask ILM... etc., etc.

[ckh1272]

"by Renegade Knight November 25, 2009 7:45 AM PST<br />Apple used to allow clones. Then they renamed their OS in a way that prevented the Clone Makers from keeping up with Apple which pushed them out of the market. It would be akin to MS saying "All you PC makers have to use Vista, but this here 7 is current and only we will be selling it on our own computers, but hey, thanks for helping us capture 90% market share, good luck out there". <br /><br />PsyStar could probably sell Classic Macs..."<br /><br />@Renegade Knight --Problem is that there is a big difference between screwing 90% of the market and less than 7% of the market (which is what Apple had when they stared allowing clones). At least they paid out to Power Computing to the tune of $100 million. I am not saying that it is totally right on their part, but your comparison is flawed based on the numbers and has some holes in it.

[Seaspray0]

If apple allowed psystar to compete against them, what do you think will happen to the high profit margin apple gets on their products?

[sharmajunior]

@ shycelticwitch <br /> <br />And so you know why the so called " technologically advanced computing systems" are being used there??? Its because of the software. But as I said, it is unfortunately bundled with Apple hardware. Let the software and hardware go loose and then see the results. Who know what OSX can accomplish with even better hardware (that is if apple decides to allow people to install it on other pieces of hardware". Apple is not the only one with hardware you know. There are other companies with even better hardware which are even more reliable, thus being used to run linux on other big servers and at other big companies.

[Perry_Clease]

"If apple allowed psystar to compete against them"<br /><br />Apple isn't stopping Psystar from competing.

[shycelticwitch]

@ sharmajunior... didn't we already cover this??? The computers Apple makes last a long time. They tried giving license to let others make computers for OS X and it was a disaster, because no one cares about both ends of the computing experience like Apple does. Why should they believe that another "Cheap" computer company can give the same quality when others have shown they can't "hack" it?

[ade333]

Another pointless article from CNET. It's as if they want to be the tech news eqiv. of E!'s <br />ticker. The most interesting aspect to this Pystar story is Apple's discomfort. They're clearly telling us that they are worthless without their hands around the consumers neck. Where is that story? We all know Apple wants to protect their brand. DUH. Who doesn't. Please give us content that includes thought that goes beyond the obvious.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Apple could have simply bought the company or made it disappear without a trace quietly. The fact that they have gone to great lengths to do this legally makes one suspicous about what Apple is afraid of. Make no mistake that this was not a random company startup, but a direct targeted recon mission in my opinion. Should be interesting to see what happens a year or so from now.

[dowell100]

Love to see Apple lose this one in court. No one respects copyright anymore (look at Google as the most terrible example of that), so why should Apply copyrights mean anything?

[Perry_Clease]

What?

[Yelonde]

Because here in the US, we have a system of copyrights that apply to every company that has patents on their own products. This applies to everyone.

[LaTene_Man]

Finally! Bury Psystar!

[abcd9009]

I am flying to UK and then to Paris next month. Does anyone know if there's any Mac clone companies in EU from where I can buy a Mac clone?

[Perry_Clease]

Make sure that you claim it on your customs form when you return to the USA.

[shycelticwitch]

sure... just remember you're only getting superior software, that may or may not run as well on your clone, which I can GUARANTEE will not be of quality engineering and design. And of course the BIG issue... NO SUPPORT FROM APPLE.

[sasquatch3]

you're best off building your own Hackintosh<br /><br />its pretty easy and tutorials online explain every step in detail<br /><br />@shyceltic<br />Hackintoshes are just the same as Macs, but they don't have an Apple logo<br />no support from Apple shouldn't be much of an issue either

[Vegaman_Dan]

@sasquatch3: <br /> <br />Hackintoshes violate Apple's EULA and they have the legal right to come after you for the loss of the price of the lowest priced Apple product that can run the OS, which would be the Mini for $599. <br /> <br />It just means if you do this sort of thing, you have to have questionable ethics or a moral code of a thief. There are unfortunately, members here on CNET's comments that fall into this category. :/

[shycelticwitch]

Sasquatch... you have a half-valid point ... Apple does rate higher in customer services than any other computer company, however very few individuals ever need to make use of it. Unfortunately on the other side of that coin, if you're running their software on an inferior system, you're probably going to have problems with it. So the "no support" issues IS an issue.

[Dalkorian]

Oh Dan, why couldn't you quit before everyone realized how out of touch with reality you truly are? That was the single most idiotic comment I've read from any troll here all year, and I've read some doozies!

[shycelticwitch]

LOL. I predicted this the day the story broke about Psystar. Did not take as long as I expected though. Glad to see our legal system is still protecting the "little guy". (Yes.. compared to MS, Apple is the "little guy!".)

[sasquatch3]

Psystar v Apple has nothing to do with MS

[shycelticwitch]

LOL @ Sasquatch3... what rock have you been living under? It has EVERYTHING to do with MS. Apple provides the only other alternative to those looking for a less frustrating computing experience. Cut them to pieces and let the drones take over and then there won't be any more choice, we'll ALL be stuck with mass-produced computers and unstable software.<br /><br />NO APPLE'S NOT PERFECT. But they come damn closer than anyone else, and until someone else steps up to the plate to match what they are trying to do (control quality of BOTH software and hardware), then I stand behind their attempts to squash anything that does not meet their quality control standards.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@Shycelticwitch: <br /> <br />Calm down, you'll blow a blood vessle. <br /> <br />No, this has nothing to do with Microsoft. MSFT sells no computers. They do sell an OS that works on PC's and Macintoshes quite well. If the case went to court and the EULA was brought into close scrutinization, then all software companies with restricitive EULA's would come under fire and that would include Apple *and* Microsoft. <br /> <br />No, Microsoft has been keeping away from this whole mess for a reason.

[shycelticwitch]

LOL @ Dan... Given that you can't even get your facts straight when they are right in front of you (my profile), I'm not inclined to take note of any comments you make about IMPORTANT stuff!

[iConquered]

It is too bad really. There are a number of reasons why Apple deserves to lose this case. I am not against a company defending its intellectual property. I am simply against the logic/methodology used in this specific case:<br /><br />-All copies of Mac OSX used by Psystar, are legally purchased<br />-Psystar did not reverse engineer the software in order to get it to work (they used OSx86/Darwin) <br />-EULAs are seemingly unlawful as it is. No copyright case should ever be won based on a EULA<br /> 1) EULA's are one way, unstable contracts. The user is bound to a contract with the vendor, by <br /> which the vendor claims they can change any aspect of the license agreement without notice.<br /> The user however has no ability to enforce their own conditions upon the vendor, let alone <br /> consistent conditions. <br /> <br /> 2) You can not review the contract in the EULA without first purchasing and installing the <br /> software. If copies of a vendor's EULA were issued before you purchased the software,<br /> then there would be no problem. But this is usually not the case. Yes Psystar would know the <br /> EULA after the first installation, but the fact remains that initially there is not enough information<br /> provided by the vendor about contractual limitations. Yes some vendors allow you to go to their <br /> web page to view the EULA, but what about spontaneous purchase at the POS, where such<br /> access may not be readily available.?<br /> <br /> 3) Adhesion contracts: <br /> "An example of an adhesion contract is a standardized contract form that offers goods or <br /> services to consumers on essentially a "take it or leave it" basis without giving consumers <br /> realistic opportunities to negotiate terms that would benefit their interests. When this occurs, <br /> the consumer cannot obtain the desired product or service unless he or she acquiesces to <br /> the form contract.<br /> <br /> Many adhesion contracts are Unconscionable; they are so unfair to the weaker party that a <br /> court will refuse to enforce them."<br /><br /> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract<br /><br />I understand that EULA is meant to cover the vendor's liability, but sometimes the contracts are pretty ridiculous. Harpooning Psystar over the EULA is sad. I am amazed to see that any judge would even give consideration to such a legal argument. Not that this hurts me in any way. I use Ubuntu. The true losers in this situation, are not Psystar, but Mac users themselves.<br /><br /> Psystars loss is theirloss. Psytar's existence would have put the pressure on Apple to make more reasonably priced systems.Now, Mac users will have to continue suffering the premium price imposed on Mac systems, with no additional cost-to-benefit increase . I know Mac users love to argue about quality or security or other erroneous points, but there is no real way to justify Apple's pricing strategy. For now, their empire remains unchecked, once again.

[Perry_Clease]

"It is too bad really. There are a number of reasons why Apple deserves to lose this case."<br /><br />The case is over, Apple won go read the Judge's ruling http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf Well not all of the case is over, Psystar is in for more reaming.<br /><br />"You can not review the contract in the EULA without first purchasing and installing the <br />software. "<br /><br />Wrong! http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ Furthermore how may times did Psystar open a box containing an OSX install disk and fail to read the license.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The EULA is the core of the issue. Apple is going to great lengths to keep that out of court. If the EULA is looked at closely in a court of law, there is a very good chance it would be overturned completely. That's something Apple (and Microsoft and every other software company out there with EULA's) cannot afford to have happen. <br /> <br />Psystar could easily get around the whole issue by selling the hardware prepped and ready for the OS installation. They can even hack their own hardware to do whatever they want, but give the end user the sealed retail copy of the Apple OS product. Then the onus of the EULA is fully on the end user, not Psystar. Sure, it means they have to do their own OS install, but really- installing OS X or even Win 7 these days is just a 30 min process. No big deal. <br /> <br />One of the interesting things about the EULA that Apple uses (and other companies) is that since you have to open the box up and start the install to see the EULA itself, you can choose to stop the installation, however you cannot return that product to the store. It's been opened. That's another legal problem right there. :/ You end up paying the price of the software just to read the EULA itself.

[shycelticwitch]

Apple's EULA is in a nice little booklet that comes with the disks. No need to start the install to get a copy of that EULA. You can also request a copy of it when you buy the software, so you DON'T have to open the box before reading it. So that fact is debunked.

[DrtyDogg]

@shycelticwitch: You have been wrong on so much in this thread, I shouldn't even be replying to you, but I am. You posted a link earlier to the recent ruling by a judge in the case(I suggest you read it before using it to support your arguments), It clearly states, through legal blabber, that it didn't find wrong in psystar's principal, it found wrong in it's methods, most notably using a cloned image for installs instead of the actual install CD. The copyright parts he left quite open as that needs to be debated if it is to be ruled upon(most if not all of the copyright case involves the use of open source code, and opens a whole new can of worms.)

[shycelticwitch]

@ DrtyDogg... you... like Vegemite Dan... have me confused with someone else. I rarely post links, and I haven't done so on this article. So how about double checking what you read before you start throwing stones?

[sismoc]

I will NEVER buy anything from Apple. have never liked their attitude, can't stand Steve Jobs.<br /><br />Let's hope Psystar drops the dead man's switch and releases the source code for their tools. You can't sue everybody. With the source code in the wild Apple will go crazy because of the loss of control. Jobs will spend the rest of his days frothing at the mouth and threatening anyone who even says the word Psystar!<br /><br /> hahahahahahahahaha

[myles taylor]

You know that the code to do this has been readily available for quite some time, right? It's call OSX86. Apple doesn't care at all. It's when someone started using it to make money. Using Apple's work to make money where they went wrong.

[shycelticwitch]

duh.... if Psystar had the source code why would they bother to sell OS X???? hahahahaha dumb***

[chocolatewine]

Well, if you do a google search for "PSYSTAR Open Source" they've already made a selected few tools/drivers open source (or they may already have been open source). This seems to have been done recently.

[DrtyDogg]

@chocolatewine: They where existing open source projects that psystar used in their computers.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Psystar had to know they had no chance of winning this when they started. And unlike other companies that have stepped on Apple's toes, they didn't back down and kept going. Apple didn't immediately crush them or stop them from doing business. Apple has been treating them with a very light touch, dealing with the court system instead and going out of their way to shut them down through other contested issues that keep them far away from the EULA issues that are at the heart of this situation. <br /> <br />Why? <br /> <br />What is Apple afraid of? It's not about competition- there is none. Is there a monopoly concern if they suddenly finding themselves as the dominant seller of Apple OS capable systems? Is this a ploy by other OEM's to break into that market? If Apple is found to be the dominant provider of Mac OS capable systems, do we run into anti-trust or monopoly concerns in other countries? Will the EU intervene? <br /> <br />There's a whole lot more to this than just some startup company thumbing their nose at Apple by building a clone. This company clearly had money and it wasn't coming from software companies with EULA's to defend. Who is behind it all? <br /> <br />What sort of damage does this whole thing do to Apple if it becomes public / common knowledge to non-computer/IT geeks? Will this become part of an advertising ploy by some OEM showing Apple to be the Goliath crushing David and preventing end users from having a choice? Apple wants people to 'think different', but if they are shown to be a crushing superpower preventing a small time company from trying to offer an alternative, that could be very damaging to their reputation in the public's eye. <br /> <br />There's more to this than what we see on the surface, in my opinion.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

apple has the right to do whatever they want with their software. They know that they will not gain much market share by not licensing OS X to other OEM's. Apple isn't interested in that. Their business plan of making expensive computers indicates this. Apple wants to offer OS X as part of a seamless integration of hardware and software that no other OEM has. <br /><br />Psystar does not even have much hardware that could compete with apple. They don't make any notebooks (the big seller), or all-in-ones. Their Mac Pro equivalent can't hold more than 12Gb of RAM.

[DrtyDogg]

@Gold_Storm_Mac: Not all of it is "Apple's software" the parts need changing for a hackintosh are open source, used by Apple. Apple has a recent history of using open source projects for profit, but staying away from the GPL, choosing much more copyright friendly licensing agreements, and not requiring them to open up their added code.

[Dalkorian]

Wow, you sure are putting a lot of effort into reading something that isn't there. Nice mountain you made out of that molehill, Dan.

[shycelticwitch]

Dan, your hat might be too small ::::passing the roll of tinfoil::::: here you go. Let me guess... you're also preparing for the end of the world in 2012?

[Dalkorian]

Why, does LookOut crash on that year? LOL.

[sabre3901]

well I agree Phystar broke rules etc you have to wonder if Apple would be better of becoming a Microsoft company and license there machines to other company's. For example let Hp make and sell Apple machines. Maybe this way Macs will become lower in price and the 3% global market share would start to increase. A lot of people see Macs as elitest style machines and the sooner Apple looses that image the more machines they are going to sell. And lets face it Apple needs to sell machines to stay a float.

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

apple's #1 priority isn't to be the most successful. They want to be the maker of the best computers. To do that, there has to an integration of hardware and software (both are made by one company). <br /><br />Apple is doing extremely successful with their current business plan. This is more than enough for them to stay afloat.

[DrtyDogg]

@Gold_Storm_Mac: "apple's #1 priority isn't to be the most successful. They want to be the maker of the most money." Fixed that for you. And to add to that, they are quite successful at it.

[lkrupp]

"by ewsachse November 25, 2009 6:59 AM PST<br />@lkrupp <br /><br />Wrong, wrong, wrong. <br /><br />I can go to a junkyard, buy an old 1960's Ford Mustang frame &#38; body, and restore it. <br />Then I can get a Chevy small block V-8 engine, rebuild it, and then install that Chevy engine into the Ford Mustang. <br /><br />Hate is clouding your feeble mind. I said "rent a car". not buy one. As the Judge has ruled no one owns OS X but Apple. You may purchase a license to use it subject to terms of the licensing agreement. So you cannot do what you will with it. Another analogy is even better, You may purchase a $500,000 home but you almost always cannot do anything you want with it. There may be a neighborhood association agreement you entered into that restricts what you can do. There may be city ordinances that regulate what you can do, such as siding, fencing, etc. So "buying" something doesn't give you the absolute right to whatever you wish. And you are not even buying OS X, you are licensing it for use under the terms specified.<br /><br />So cut the crap with your anti-apple bias and understand how the world works, whether you like it or not.

[Dan7637]

no one needs psystar, if you have any knowledge and can google search you can build a hackintosh

[lkrupp]

I don't think this has been mentioned amongst all the tirades and blathering but a computer manufacturer cannot install Windows on their product without licensing it from Microsoft either. Microsoft chooses to license its software to just about anyone who wants to use it but they DO license it and they DO charge a fee for every machine sold with Windows installed. And lets not forget that Microsoft once threatened to revoke the Windows license of any manufacturer who shipped product with a different operating system installed. They also threatened to charge the licensing fee for every machine sold whether or not it had Windows installed.<br /><br />But Apple decides it DOESN'T want to license its operating system on other hardware and suddenly the feces hits the fan with outraged geeks waving their arms in the air. Wow. Just Wow!

[Gold_Storm_Mac]

which article was this meant to be posted on?