Apple Wins copyright infringement claim against Psystar

[THEHAWKs]

Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. Here's the order [PDF]. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal.

Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse.

 

There are still issues remaining for trial, despite Psystar's attempt to present everything now as being moot. Here's what's left to be decided at trial: Apple's allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and common law unfair competition. See anything on that list that will be helpful to Psystar?

 

So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar's only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn't bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.

 

You're surprised? I told you, I told you, I told you. So, to those who feel crushed at the moment, there could be an appeal, I suppose. And if you want freedom for your code, you certainly can find it on Planet Earth. Look in the right direction. You'll be happy you did, because you can hack away to your heart's content, and it's perfectly legal. The court's message is clear: EULAs mean what they say; if you don't want to abide by its license, leave Apple's stuff alone.

 

SOURCE : Groklaw.net

Some More Info : Engadget.com

 

We All should make it a Holiday the Day EVIL Psystar got the smack down...

[A Nonny Moose]

Still though, Apple isn't likely to go after someone with one computer they did OS X on. They will go after the ones like Psystar, who mass produced them and sold them.

[Monkey D. Luffy]

Could Apple attack the osx86 community with this ruling? This is why I hate Psystar in the first place .. they just jeopardized all osx86 community/sites.

 

Could they attack Empire EFI as well?

 

 

I'm happy that they lost, but I hope everything goes well in the future for the community.

[richtig]

My question: would there be any illegalities involved when selling a PC with a blank hard drive, along with a retail DVD copy of OSX + a "Boot132" style bootable CD, that would then enable (using the retail OSX DVD) installation of OSX to the hard drive.

Could Psystar simply leave the installation up to the end user?

It seems like this judge's order doesn't address what the end user might "legally" do.

[Master Chief]

My question: would there be any illegalities involved when selling a PC with a blank hard drive, along with a retail DVD copy of OSX + a "Boot132" style bootable CD, that would then enable (using the retail OSX DVD) installation of OSX to the hard drive.

Could Psystar simply leave the installation up to the end user?

It seems like this judge's order doesn't address what the end user might "legally" do.

The problem is that you obtain a personal non transferable license only. Selling computers able to run OS X is fine, but you may not advertise it as such, nor sell the retail disc without the official Apple agreement.

[richtig]

The problem is that you obtain a personal non transferable license only. Selling computers able to run OS X is fine, but you may not advertise it as such, nor sell the retail disc without the official Apple agreement.

 

Maybe Psystar could include a prepaid Amazon.com "store credit" for the price of the retail OSX disc.

That way, the individual end user would be dealing with an authorized Apple re-seller, instead of with Psystar.

What's illegal about Psystar providing information (similar to what insanelymac.com freely provides) on the exact steps needed for the potential end user to obtain a working OSX installation?

And with Psystar selling a perfectly legal PC machine with a blank hard drive + maybe a free copy of Ubuntu.

Psystar would then be essentially the same kind of hardware company as are Dell, Gateway, Acer, HP, etc. Except that they (Psystar) could also offer to sell their special $49 "Boot 132" type CD.

[teme]

i thought psy* talk wasn't allowed in here

[nvflash]

Psystar modified and distributed a hacked OS X -->Update<--

 

This was never going to end well for them.

 

This ruling really has nothing to do with End Users.

[cdjptak]

Psystar modified and distributed a hacked OS X -->Update<--

 

This was never going to end well for them.

 

This ruling really has nothing to do with End Users.

 

Indeed true.

 

Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are "lawfully made." The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an "imaging station" and then used a "master copy" to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.

 

Psystar asserts on its motion that it includes a Mac OS X DVD with every Psystar computer it sells. There is no sworn evidentiary support for this assertion in Psystar’s motion. This alone is dispositive. It is true, as Psystar points out, that Apple’s opening brief on its own separate motion stated “Psystar includes both a Mac OS X DVD . . . and a hard drive copy of Mac OS X on the Psystar computer” (Pl. Br. 7). At oral argument, Psystar asserted that Apple cited to paragraph 20 in the declaration of John Kelly, Apple’s expert, to support this proposition. Paragraph 20 merely stated that Kelly observed Psystar’s technician who did not use a Mac OS X installation DVD for the hard drive imaging or assembly of Psystar’s Open Computer (Kelly Decl. ¶ 20). At oral argument, Apple’s counsel referred to paragraph 15 of the Kelly declaration and a table therein. There, Kelly stated that he had examined nine Psystar computers that had Mac OS X installed on the hard drive (id. at ¶ 15). He further stated that the Mac OS X software for five of those computers was not the same as the software found on the Mac OS X DVDs shipped with the computers. Instead, those computers had a different version of Mac OS X actually installed on hard drive than was found on the accompanying Mac OS X DVD. According to Table 2 in Kelly’s declaration, three of the other nine computers did not include a Mac OS X DVD at all (ibid.).

 

Also, after reading the entire PDF it appeared as if they hadn't prepared themselves for the downfall, expecting the courts to do all the work. When going after as powerful of a legal team as Apple's, you would expect the need to prepare to the fullest, very well knowing what you're getting yourselves into.