Apple earns key legal victory against Psystar

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In a crushing defeat for the clone Mac maker, Psystar was on the losing end of a crucial court decision in the company's ongoing legal battle with Apple.



Judge 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.
«13456710

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 182
    oomuoomu Posts: 127member
    clear and simple.
  • Reply 2 of 182
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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!
  • Reply 4 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post


    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.
  • Reply 5 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    "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.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610


    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!
  • Reply 6 of 182
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Can somebody explain me this:

    Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.
  • Reply 7 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    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.



    They're essentially shysters outside of the matters at issue as well, which couldn't have helped their cause.
  • Reply 8 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    Can somebody explain me this:

    Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.



    Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.



    In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)



    It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it.



    More here:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment
  • Reply 9 of 182
    they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!
  • Reply 10 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macmondo View Post


    they should send these sh*thead psystar-creators to Guantanamo!



    these psystar losers should take a cue or two from microsoft which have stolen and keep stealing from apple, but at least in a different way



    as others wonder, i too wonder who's backing psystar on the down low?
  • Reply 11 of 182
    takeotakeo Posts: 415member
    That's a shame. LOL.
  • Reply 12 of 182
    Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!
  • Reply 13 of 182
    noirdesirnoirdesir Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Apple and Psystar both applied for summary judgments, hoping to score a deathblow.



    In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)



    It's an imperfect explanation but maybe it simplifies it.



    More here:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment



    Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?
  • Reply 14 of 182
    I can't wait to hear what spin Psystar put on this one.......
  • Reply 15 of 182
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    For there to be a trial, there has to be a material issue of fact in dispute. Trials are not about making determinations based on already known fact. They are about deciding the facts. If the facts are reasonably determined before a trail, it is a Judge's job to determine how the law applies to the facts without there being a trial upon a Party's request. In this case, Apple and Psystar had to turn over to each other all kinds of information under rules of Discovery in preparation for trial.



    So, when a party is filing a Motion for Summary Judgement it is saying to the Court that the relevant facts are known (e.g. because of Discovery) and accordingly there is no need for a trial on these issues. If the Court agrees with the moving party that the relevant facts are known, the Court can make a decision as to liability on those issues without there being a trial. The purpose of filing a Motion for Summary Judgement is for a party to avoid an unnecessary and expensive trial.



    Successful Summary Judgement motions are rare. This ruling is huge for Apple. The judge has essentially ruled that Psystar is liable for copyright infringement. There still may be a trial, but it will be for more minor complaints from Apple, not Apple's copyright complaints. Further, if Psystar is in business, there still may be a trial on Psystar's complaint against Apple as well. The Court did not rule in favor of Psystar's Motion for Summary Judgement, so it has to have a trail to prove it's case there.



    Interestingly enough Psystar will likely be liable relatively soon to Apple for millions of dollars. This ruling only applies to Leopard though, and not Snow Leopard because the Court wouldn't combine the two issues (silly really). So, technically if Apple can't get an injunction against Psystar for Snow Leopard, Psystar can keep selling it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    Can somebody explain me this:

    Why does a judge rule on a key issue before the trial has even started? I understand that a judge has to rule on issues of what exactly the trial is about (ie, what charges are dismissed and which go to trial) and what evidence should be allowed.



  • Reply 16 of 182
    dualiedualie Posts: 331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post


    Anybody want to argue the Psystar side of the case? Come on! We're dying to hear from you!





    Over at MacObserver "Bosco" is attempting to defend Psystar but is being creamed by seemingly far more knowledgeable opponents.



    I'm no lawyer, but I have never understood Psystar's case. It just seems so specious.
  • Reply 17 of 182
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Exactly right. There still may be a trial, but it will not be over Apple's chief complaints of copyright infringement and violations of the DMCA. Apple filed some other minor complaints as well. For instance, violation of contract. If Apple wants to pursue those complaints, it will have to take the matter to trial. Further, since Psystar lost it's Motion for Summary Judgement, it will have to take it's complaints to trial as well.



    I suspect both Apple and Psystar will drop it's remaining Complaints unless there really are deep pockets funding this operation.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post


    Thanks, but if a summary judgement has been issued there won't be any trial necessary on these points, if I understand it correctly. Is the trial thus only about the issues not part of the summary judgement?



  • Reply 18 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    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 don't claim to have any insider information, but I suspect that we will see some very familiar names on that list.
  • Reply 19 of 182
    where's teckstud?
  • Reply 20 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dualie View Post


    Over at MacObserver "Bosco" is attempting to defend Psystar but is being creamed by seemingly far more knowledgeable opponents.



    I'm no lawyer, but I have never understood Psystar's case. It just seems so specious.



    If I was to take the Psystar side of the argument, I'd have to defend the position that copyright itself is invalid, given that it's not real physical property, and has been abused, extended, etc. Other than that, I'd have no clue how to go about it.



    That's not my personal position, just how I'd approach defending them if I were in a debating class or something.
Sign In or Register to comment.