AppleInsider StaffJudge William Alsup ruled this week in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the Florida corporation. In addition, Psystar was found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware.
"Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X," the ruling reads. "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."
Alsup also denied Psystar's own motion for summary judgment, in which the company attempted to prove that Apple engaged in copyright misuse. The judge ruled that Apple's End User License Agreement only attempts to control use of Apple's own software, which is within its rights.
The summary judgment does not mean that the trial is concluded, however. A number of issues remain to be resolved. Apple has alleged that Psystar has engaged in breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition, among other activities.
The ruling was issued Nov. 13 in a San Francisco court. Another hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14, and trial between the two companies is due to start in January 2010.
The decision came after both companies requested summary judgments, which turned into a positive for Apple and a significant defeat for Psystar.
It's just the latest of many setbacks for Psystar as it has attempted to defend itself from Apple's suit. In September, a member of the Psystar defense team withdrew himself from the case. And in July, the Florida-based corporation brought on a new legal team after it emerged from bankruptcy.
The company — which sells machines with Snow Leopard, Apple's latest operating system, preinstalled — in October began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow Intel machines made by companies other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
182 Comments
clear and simple.
Adios, losers.
Further details:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/23047/"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge William Alsup struck what may be a death blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.
"Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says. It is just the latest in a long string of ruling upholding EULAs, sometimes called shrinkwrap or click-wrap licenses," Wildstrom reports. "The judge rejected out of hand Psystar's claims that it made legal use of Apple's trademarks and that Apple has misued it copyrights."
Wildstrom reports, "A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14. The order does not cover several other claims by Apple, including breach of contract and trademark infringement, but the ruling suggest that Apple would be heavily favored to win should the remaining case ever come to trial. There is also similar litigation pending in Florida, where Psystar is based."
---------------------That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
Adios, losers.
Further details:
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/23047/"Apple won a sweeping legal victory against Macintosh clone maker Psystar Corp. Nov. 13 when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Judge William Alsup struck what may be a death blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims," Stephen Wildstrom reports for BusinessWeek.
"Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says. It is just the latest in a long string of ruling upholding EULAs, sometimes called shrinkwrap or click-wrap licenses," Wildstrom reports. "The judge rejected out of hand Psystar's claims that it made legal use of Apple's trademarks and that Apple has misued it copyrights."
Wildstrom reports, "A hearing on remedies is scheduled for Dec. 14. The order does not cover several other claims by Apple, including breach of contract and trademark infringement, but the ruling suggest that Apple would be heavily favored to win should the remaining case ever come to trial. There is also similar litigation pending in Florida, where Psystar is based."
---------------------That's right, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."
A win for Apple, a win for consumers, and a win for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
All I can say is:
F*** YOU, stupid Psystar pirates. And of course, a big F*** YOU to all you morons who bought Psystar products against Apple's continued investments in R&D and innovation...it's an exemplary judgement to block all such hackers from freeriding on someone else's efforts...now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!
All I can say is:
now where are the pundits who said that the EULA was unenforceable? Go study some Law before you babble such incongruities, MS-fanboy geniuses!
Important point:
It is just the latest in a long string of rulings upholding EULAs
EULAs are there for a reason. They aren't there for fun and games. The manufacturer kinda takes them seriously, and when it comes down to legality (nothwithstanding indiivduals who get away with violating them) the courts do as well.
"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."
Selling a product containing tampered copyrighted code has always been illegal, which makes me ask: Why did Psystar invest all those resources in the first place?
What makes this case a head-scratcher is Psystar's behavior of not attempting to become a successful business. They do not seem interested in selling their computers, they do not answer their phones, attend to potential customer, and they are continuously on the move claiming to lose important records.
I can't wait until Psystar is forced to reveal their financial backers, as part of monetary relief for Apple. Should be very interesting.
I can't wait either!