• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Apple wins lawsuit against Psystar

Char_Azn

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
4,968
Points
48
To summarize the entire thing to 1 simple statement. Try selling Mac OS on hardware that wasn't sold by Apple, prepare to get sued.

It's not the first time Apple have gone around suing another company for something similar. Not long ago, they sued another company that wasn't even installing the Mac OS on their hardware, they just sold the software with their hardware and expect the users to install themselves.

pple wins its permanent injunction against Psystar. It's total, including Snow Leopard. As for Rebel EFI, the judge while expressing that Psystar was not very clear about what it does, refused to exclude it from the injunction, and says Psystar continues to sell it "at its peril" at the risk of "finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction."

Only a clear explanation of the product, and discovery about it, can determine the matter, and Psystar is is free to bring a motion and submit to discovery about Rebel EFI, if it wishes to reopen the question. Since the injunction includes forbidding Psystar from "intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software," I'd think a reasonable person would find the injunction covers Rebel EFI as well.

Psystar also can't manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, "or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure", so I'd call this The End of Psystar's adventures. Were this a normal litigation. Since it's not, it's certainly possible there will be more twists and turns. But in the California court, Psystar is toast.

Oh, and no "fire sale" before it shuts down, the judge said. He doesn't want to see Psystar "engage in defiant or unreasonable conduct" and if it happens, there will be no insulation from contempt liability. It has until December 31st to comply, but if it can comply in one hour, then that is what the judge expects to see. Also Psystar must destroy everything it has used to circumvent Apple's products. Then it is to report to Apple on exactly how it has fully complied by the deadline.

Here's the order granting the motion and the final judgement:

12/15/2009 - 242 - ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION re 231 filed by Apple Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 15, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/15/2009 - 243 - FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 15, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2009) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

This was outrageous litigation, and that is how the court viewed it. But that doesn't mean Psystar won't quit now. Here's its filing in Florida prior to the California ruling, in which Psystar opposed Apple's motion to dismiss:

12/10/2009 - 10 - RESPONSE in Opposition re 4 Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 3 Amended Complaint Motion to Change Venue MOTION for Order of Sale Defendant's MOTION to Dismiss 3 Amended Complaint filed by Psystar Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Weisberg, Alexander) (Entered: 12/10/2009)

I don't fully understand the clerk's wording, but if you read the Psystar response, you'll see that it argues that Rebel EFI can't be illegal, because it's legal for people to use Rebel EFI, since they are noncommercial. Or something like that. If the court in Florida takes it seriously, then I will force myself to read it and analyze it for you. Otherwise, it's too annoying. The judge in California noted that Psystar mischaracterized his rulings. I got to a part in the FLorida filing where it seemed like Psystar was doing exactly that again, and I stopped reading. The bottom line is Psystar wants to go forward in Florida, and specifically it wants a do over on its antitrust claim, and it wants the Florida court to rule that Rebel EFI is legal. Here's how it describes Rebel EFI:

Rebel EFI is a software product that users can install on their own computers. WIth Rebel EFI, generic personal computers can run OS X. Psystar does not come in contact with OS X at all in manufacturing or selling Rebel EFI. In particular, in manufacturing and selling Rebel EFI, Psystar does not install a copy of OS X on any computer; does not use any kind of imaging station; does not add to, delete from, or modiffy any copy of OS X in any way; does not create any DVD's or other media containing OS X; and does not even resell copies of OS X to end users.

So, can users buy Rebel EFI from Psystar and install their own copy of OSX from Apple without it being copyright infringement?

Psystar thinks they can:

Such end users are protected by 17 U.S.C. Section 117, which provides that "it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make ... another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided ... that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine."

See what I mean? That's when I stopped reading. What Psystar hasn't figured out, but may discern from the permanent injunction from California, is that it is not an end user so it can't ask the court for a declaratory judgment that what end users do is OK. One of them would have to do that. Declaratory judgments are not for theoreticals. And in any case, making a product that will help end users bypass the EULA that they must agree to to install Apple's software ... well, I fail to comprehend why Psystar doesn't get it, even with lawyers to explain it to them. Now a judge has explained it to them, with orders to cut it out.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091215225827172
 
Back
Top