A federal judge rules in Apple's favor in the Psystar copyright infringement case
Psystar's $600 Open Duo. Photo: Psystar Corp.
Nearly a year and a half after a Miami company called Psystar announced that it was selling "Open Computers" pre-installed with Apple's (AAPL) Mac OS X Leopard — and 17 months after Apple sued Psystar for copyright infringement — the case has come to its all-but-foregone conclusion: a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Friday in Apple's favor.
"The material facts are not in dispute," Apple wrote in its request for summary judgment. "Psystar deliberately copies and modifies Mac OS X without Apple’s permission and in violation of the laws protecting copyright."
District Judge William Alsup agreed. At the end of a long preamble, he wrote:
"In sum, Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement must be granted." (PDF.)
And so it went for Apple's secondary claims of contributory infringement and copyright misuse. Psystar's motions, meanwhile, were all denied. A hearing to determine remedies is set for Dec. 14.
Apple has several other outstanding claims, including breach of contract, trademark infringement and unfair competition. They could still go to trial, if Psystar has the stomach — and the funds — to persevere.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-clone-suit/I can understand why Apple don't actively develop for third party hardware but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot by actively perusing those who do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#Legal_issues_and_Apple_objectionsI think they should give up. Remove the statement in their EULA forbidding installation on other hardware, after all if people have payed for their OS why should they give a fuck?
Surely if people are buying their software, it benefits them. I suppose they could argue that it reduces their hardware sales but does it really? My guess is that most people who would install it on a non-Mac would have otherwise installed Windows or Linux.
If I buy a piece of software I should be able to install it on whatever hardware I like. I wouldn't mind giving Mac OS a go but I wouldn't buy a new PC for the privilege.
Copyright law was never initially devised for software vendors to stop people from doing this kind of thing but prevent illegal redistribution of their work. I think things have gone too far.