Apple seeks permanent injunction to prevent Psystar sales
Apple this week requested a permanent injunction against clone Mac maker Psystar that would prevent it from selling machines with Mac OS X and assisting others to install the operating system on unauthorized machines.
In a filing with Judge William Alsup made Monday, Apple asserted that it is entitled to a permanent judgment against Psystar under the U.S. Copyright Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple has argued that Psystar's continued business will irreparably harm Apple, and that Psystar has also spawned other infringers by "trafficking in circumvention devices."
In October, the company began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors with a product named Rebel EFI. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow manufacturers of Intel machines other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
Apple also said that the amount of damages that the Florida corporation is capable of paying are inadequate. The filing alleges that Psystar's costs exceeded its revenues in both 2008 and 2009, and the value of its assets, according to its bankruptcy filings, are less than $50,000.
"Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.
The filing includes an affidavit declaration from Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. Schiller found himself at the center of the Psystar controversy when the Florida company accused him of being "unprepared" for testimony. Schiller met with Psystar's lawyers for a deposition that Apple alleged was "nothing more than an effort to harass" him.
Schiller's affidavit filed this week attempts to convince the court to side with Apple, based on the logic that it would be a waste for Apple to have to file another suit.
"So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple and its brand will continue," he said in the affidavit. "I believe Apple should not be required to file a new lawsuit to stop Psystar from infringing Apple's intellectual property each time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X. Requiring Apple to file multiple lawsuits to stop the same infringing conduct would be unfair, expensive, and a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources."
A motion hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14 in a San Francisco court.
The tide of the lawsuit officially turned in Apple's favor last week, when the Mac maker won a number of decisions in a preliminary judgment from Alsup. The court ruled that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the company. In addition, they were 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. The decision came after both parties requested summary judgments.
In a filing with Judge William Alsup made Monday, Apple asserted that it is entitled to a permanent judgment against Psystar under the U.S. Copyright Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple has argued that Psystar's continued business will irreparably harm Apple, and that Psystar has also spawned other infringers by "trafficking in circumvention devices."
In October, the company began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors with a product named Rebel EFI. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow manufacturers of Intel machines other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.
Apple also said that the amount of damages that the Florida corporation is capable of paying are inadequate. The filing alleges that Psystar's costs exceeded its revenues in both 2008 and 2009, and the value of its assets, according to its bankruptcy filings, are less than $50,000.
"Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.
The filing includes an affidavit declaration from Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. Schiller found himself at the center of the Psystar controversy when the Florida company accused him of being "unprepared" for testimony. Schiller met with Psystar's lawyers for a deposition that Apple alleged was "nothing more than an effort to harass" him.
Schiller's affidavit filed this week attempts to convince the court to side with Apple, based on the logic that it would be a waste for Apple to have to file another suit.
"So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple and its brand will continue," he said in the affidavit. "I believe Apple should not be required to file a new lawsuit to stop Psystar from infringing Apple's intellectual property each time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X. Requiring Apple to file multiple lawsuits to stop the same infringing conduct would be unfair, expensive, and a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources."
A motion hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14 in a San Francisco court.
The tide of the lawsuit officially turned in Apple's favor last week, when the Mac maker won a number of decisions in a preliminary judgment from Alsup. The court ruled that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the company. In addition, they were 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. The decision came after both parties requested summary judgments.
Comments
I like the line of damage done to Apple's brand, and goodwill. The increase in Apple's sales and profits sicne Pystar has been around clearly show the hurt Apple has been under by this company. I think the words are false, but the fact remains that Pystar should be responsible for their actions.
Good stuff!
Psystar better announce their Black Friday sales now... before it's too late
In October, the company began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors with a product named Rebel EFI. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow manufacturers of Intel machines other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6
I wonder if Apple was a customer?
Just to buy it, place it on a cheap PC like a Dell, and install Mac OS X 10.6 so they can then dissect and put out a 10.6.x release to kill that ability, just like they do with ITMS releases that kill Palm PRE sync capabilities.
Psystar better announce their Black Friday sales now... before it's too late
I want the thread on just announced Apple Black Friday sales- now that's always good for a few laughs. I just received 2 emails from Apple reminding me to shop and save 5 dollars on Friday .
There are several OS X on PC cloners operating openly in various countries with various laws.
Apple is playing whack a mole and that still doesn't stop the home gamers and covert sales.
I guess someone in Cupertino thought it was cheaper to fight the cloners than install a $20 chip in each Mac that OS X needed in order to function.
Perhaps they thought: "Well if they won't buy a Mac anyway, then they are going to buy a cheap PC with Windows" " So we could gain OS X market share and steal a customer away from Windows, that better than nothing and they might buy a Mac later on"
Any logic in that?
Since I'm so close to Pystar, perhaps I'll talk to them about starting a new company using their existing technology and start selling clones too. Sure I will plan to be bankrupt in a few months or years, in Florida they can't take your house or car in a lawsuit.
I'll be famous, make TV appearances, tell people we sell GLORIOUS MATTE SCREEN COMPUTERS WITH OS X!!
Could have good case too, as Apple is ignoring a large market need.
I guess someone in Cupertino thought it was cheaper to fight the cloners than install a $20 chip in each Mac that OS X needed in order to function.
I wonder about that, too. They don?t have locks on their HW. It?s just the OS seeing if the machine is an appropriate Mac.
Apple wants one-billyan dollars
OMG- AT LAST! You have redeemed youself!
No words- just a pic.
Good, now crawl back under the rock whence you came.
Cain't- still waiting for my precious, my matte iMac.
all the drama with the ATOM processor being broken in 10.6.2 feels like the same thing... if people had just shut up about it apple may not have taken it out permanently...
if people would keep their mouths shut i think we'd have a much more flexible apple (just not officially).
This is only a small victory.
There are several OS X on PC cloners operating openly in various countries with various laws.
they will get around to the countries that they can.
I guess someone in Cupertino thought it was cheaper to fight the cloners than install a $20 chip in each Mac that OS X needed in order to function.
same game, different hack. that's all
as for the home brew kids, eliminating things like this Rebel software make it a little harder for them. some will give up.
and now that they have these suits behind them, it will be a heck of a lot easier to go to ISPs and have the various sites with instructions shut down because the rule is Knowledge and Technology.
Since I'm so close to Pystar, perhaps I'll talk to them about starting a new company using their existing technology and start selling clones too.
and if it involves Mac OSX you better believe you'll be sued and fast. And your case won't take as long since Apple has legal precedent. You'll be famous for being the guy that didn't pay attention to Psystar
Could have good case too, as Apple is ignoring a large market need.
No you would not. The law is no. Not no, unless the owners aren't making what a handful of folks want and then anyone can step up and do it.
Apple has the legal right to choose the configurations. Period
the way that *i* see this is that apple doesn't really give a crap until the infringers get brazen about it or brag about their "conquests".
more like the louder they take the easier it is to find them.
all the drama with the ATOM processor being broken in 10.6.2 feels like the same thing... if people had just shut up about it apple may not have taken it out permanently...
or not. all signs point to Apple having no need for ATOM support. so if they can clean up the code by taking out a few bits or not adding them in an update, they do it.
that it is the processor du jour for HackMacs is just icing on the cake
Cain't- still waiting for my precious, my matte iMac.
Do you really think Apple will do this?
(this is a serious question)
PS - Solip, solid gold.
Do you really think Apple will do this?
(this is a serious question)
PS - Solip, solid gold.
I don't see why not. Who would have thought the 15" MacBookPro was gonna get it? Nobody on here did when it was unexpectely and quietly announced last June and to a lesser extent the 17" inch. Remember- there was a period when there was NO matte available from Apple- at all. I am actually hoping for a 13" MacBookPro matte as well. There is a whole petition out there of people who want these. We don't care about the glossy being taken away - we just want an option. You see some of us folks in addition to asthetic and work preferences have a real sensitivity to light just like some have to smell and sound.
I don't see why not. Who would have thought the 15" MacBookPro was gonna get it? Nobody on here did when it was unexpectely and quietly announced last June and to a lesser extent the 17" inch. Remember- there was a period when there was NO matte available from Apple- at all. I am actually hoping for a 13" MacBookPro matte as well. There is a whole petition out there of people who want these. We don't care about the glossy being taken away - we just want an option. You see some of us folks in addition to asthetic and work preferences have a real sensitivity to light just like some have to smell and sound.
Why do all threads have to be threads about the $%@#$@ matte screen?
Or that, surprise surprise, one of the guys uncles in Croatia manages to set up an identical business using all the same equipment that somehow magically disappeared from the Psystar workshop before the Apple lawyers come to gather it up?