Psystar Loses Key Battle Against Apple

Judgement has been passed down by high above and ruled in favor of Apple regarding the Psystar case.

If you are unfamiliar, Psystar was selling computers where they assisted with installing copies of Apple’s OS X on the system. Apple wasn’t pleased and the two companies ended up suing each other. Psystar tried to hide behind bankruptcy, Apple got that dismissed. Both companies filed for summary judgement in an attempt to strike a deathblow to the other and this is the result.

Psystar’s defense behind the First-Sale doctrine was denied. Because Psystar was making unauthorized copies of the Apple OS X system, they basically shot themselves in the foot. First-Sale doctrine won’t protect unauthorized copies. The judgement also lays down the enforceability of the EULA (End User License Agreement) and also determines that you own a License to use software, not a copy for you to do as you please. Also, it was determined under DMCA that Psystar was circumventing Apple technology by “developing” (read: Stealing from the OSX86project) a bootloader to fake the BIOS to appear as the EFI, changing kernel extensions and adding their own kernel extensions.

There is a whole mess about this whole thing and it is actually quite complicated and interesting. It has been fun and aggravating to read comments on this topic by people who are not experts in the field of law, or people who are not bothering  to understand these laws. I am no lawyer, but I am attempting to educate my self on these topics. Occasionally I am wrong with my views and misunderstanding the concepts, but I have changed my mind about this topic through educating my self.

I am completely surprised PC World even PUBLISHED this article:

Apple Wins Hollow Victory in Psystar Ruling

You should read it. Its almost like the author didn’t even read the judgement before complaining about it. He even says in the comments: “Bottom line- EULA’s are just shady. The application of copyright and patent law to technology is questionable at best.”

While I partially agree about patents, I completely disagree about EULA and Copyrights. How else is a company supposed to create a contract with a customer? It is an easy contract. Agree to these terms: Yes? Ok Install it – No? Don’t Install it because we’re not changing the terms of the contract. It is that easy. As far as copyrights, someone made the GUI. You’re not supposed to use a photograph, music, film, something that someone else has created in any manner you please. That is stealing. And this is what lots of people are upset about. They don’t understand copyright law, and won’t bother to educate themselves on copyright law. And most people don’t have a skillset that involves making money through owning copyrighted materials, so they won’t understand.

The thing about this case, is Apple isn’t directly attacking the home hacker. They are attacking companies who wish to profit off Apple’s property. With exception to the recent 10.6.2 update (which removed Atom support), Apple has unofficially helped out the OSX86project by developing drivers and compatibility in their operating system. They aren’t targeting the home hacker, but they are, but not. It isn’t easy to explain. Apple probably won’t have a problem with someone or a small community making a ‘hackintosh’ at home. That takes work and dedication at home. I’ve tried, and gave up, and have been satisfied with the hardware and the “Apple Tax” and will buy Apple machines for OS X use. I’ll continue to build computers for Windows use. The problem is when a group or company tries to scale up the process of installing OS X on a custom built machine.

I’m glad this thing is getting settled. Psystar really has nothing else to stand on in this case.

Summary Judgement via Groklaw