Skip to main content

Mac > News

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 Mac clone maker Psystar begs judge to rule it's legit

Asks judge to rule it is legally allowed to sell machines with Mac OS X 10.6 pre-installed

Gregg Keizer Computerworld

  • Email to a friend
  • Print this article
  • Bookmark this page
  • RSS feed

The Mac clone maker that's been battling Apple for more than a year in federal court last week asked a judge to rule that its business is legitimate, and to stop Apple from saying different.

In an amended complaint submitted last Thursday, Psystar asked US District Court Judge William Hoeveler to rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple's Mac OS X 10.6, aka Snow Leopard, pre-installed.

Question of the day!

Mark Hattersley
Editor in Chief

Do you use Adobe Photoshop with a Wacom tablet?

Question of the day!

Do you use Adobe Photoshop with a Wacom tablet?

% of Macworld readers agree with you

Yes
TBC
No
TBC

How does a Wacom tablet improve the Photoshop experience?

124 characters remaining

Follow the conversation at @TabletChat

paintings & illustrations, mostly, which i upload to flickr.RT @fragmentedm

I draw manga/anime characters. I also do graphic design and photography.RT @spialelo

Yes. I usually put them up on my #deviantart account for feedback on how to improve.RT @spialelo

"A declaration by this Court of the legal rights of Apple and Psystar with respect to Psystar computers running Mac OS X Snow Leopard would clarify, to put it bluntly, the legality of Psystar's business -- and would remove the substantial negative effect on Psystar's business of continued uncertainty and legal wrangling between Apple and Psystar," the Florida clone maker said in the revised complaint filed in Miami, Fla. federal court.

Psystar originally sued Apple in Florida two months ago, when it claimed that Apple illegally ties the then-new Snow Leopard to Mac hardware.

According to the amended complaint, Psystar has been damaged by Apple's legal maneuvers in a case being heard in a California federal court. That lawsuit was filed by Apple in July 2008 , when it accused Psystar of copyright infringement and other violations of the law. That case is slated to go to jury trial on Jan. 11, 2010.

Psystar wants Hoeveler to make Apple stop saying that it's illegal for Psystar to purchase Snow Leopard on the open market, then use those copies to install the operating system on the computers it sells.

"[Apple's] violations of the federal antitrust acts have damaged and will damage Psystar in its business and property because they deny Psystar business that otherwise would go to Psystar by creating doubt about the legality of Psystar computers running Mac OS X Snow Leopard," the company's lawyer's contended. "The items of damage to Psystar include damage to Psystar's business reputation and to the reputation of its products and sales lost that could have been made absent Apple's attempts to restrict Mac OS X Snow Leopard to Macintoshes."

Psystar asked Hoeveler to slap an injunction on Apple that would prevent the California computer maker from "representing that Psystar's making and selling such computers is other than perfectly legal."

Elsewhere in the amended complaint, Psystar mentioned the moves it has recently made to license its cloning-capable technology to other computer makers, and to sell a utility, dubbed Rebel EFI , that lets owners of generic PCs install and run Apple's Snow Leopard. Psystar launched Rebel EFI two weeks ago.

Psystar maintained that Rebel EFI and its cloning technology are legitimate uses of software, and again said that both simply use features of Snow Leopard that Apple had purposefully included in its new OS.

"Psystar's position with respect to Mac OS X Snow Leopard is analogous to that of a person developing a software application to run on top of Mac OS X Snow Leopard," the company's lawyers argued. "Just as Microsoft writes Word to run with Mac OS X and Google writes its Web browser Chrome to run with Mac OS X, Psystar writes its software to run with Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

In fact, the part of Mac OS X Snow Leopard that Psystar interacts with is within the open-source portion of Mac OS X and makes use of features of Mac OS X Snow Leopard designed to allow software developers to extend Mac OS X Snow Leopard to work with different hardware."

Apple may be planning to block at least some Intel-based computers from running Snow Leopard, if reports on the Web today are to be believed. According to several Apple enthusiast sites, including OS X Daily, at least one developer has claimed that the still-unfinished Mac OS X 10.6.2, the next scheduled update for Snow Leopard, will prevent the operating system from running on netbooks powered by Intel's low-priced Atom processor.

Apple has not yet responded to Psystar's original August lawsuit, or to the amended complaint filed last week.

Check out our new Macworld Mobile site.

Follow Macworld UK on twitter: www.twitter.com/macworlduk

Email A Friend

Email this article to a friend or colleague:



PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.

<<prev article | back to news index | next article>>

Comments received


John Doe said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

It makes you wonder what is the reason behind Psystar pushing for its business model. Why are they openly claiming that Apple is a monopoly? Apple or Macs are but one CHOICE in the market. From a consumer point of view Apple has provided solid products that run solid software. Why risk buying from Psystar with generic hardware when I am happy with original macs? I would stick with Apple.

Art Khachatrian said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

I'd missed this one:
"Psystar originally sued Apple in Florida two months ago, when it claimed that Apple illegally ties the then-new Snow Leopard to Mac hardware."! This is becoming more and more ridiculous!
It's unquestionable that the ghetto cockroaches have a solid backing on the part of a number of foul-playing OEMs, fed up with Micro$oft OS running their hardware.

jim_dd7 said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

Psystar are stealing from Apple and from the Open Source Community. I have a feeling that they will get away with it.

Tom said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

Way back when, Sony tried to block a third-party company from producing software that would allow legitimately purchased PlayStation discs to run on a Mac. They won.

drummy said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

No matter what the outcome of the Psystar case, I believe it will always be the case that Apple software will work best on Apple hardware - unless Apple take a u-turn and decide to develop their OS for 3rd party computer makers. I certainly would want my OS to be developed and supported properly, for the hardware I'm running it on. But not everyone thinks like that or appreciates (or understands) the benefits of "integrated solutions".

Its for that reason that if Psystar wins the battle it wont only be detrimental to Apple's earnings, consumers will loose out too in the end once they start noticing the Apple experience is not as slick as it used to be.

Apple have a clear vision about how things should be done when it comes to computer/os design. As a consumer you can buy into this or not - its your choice - but Psystar are trying to mess this with this choice. Its nasty business, greedy stuff no matter how you look at it. Legal or not its not "right" IMO.

Dan T said on Tue, 03 Nov 2009

They still have not made a single move against PearC in Germany, who are now shipping to most of Europe.

Apple do not understand local markets and are too busy trying to lock everything in to either iTunes or a .mac account.

Maximara said on Sun, 08 Nov 2009

Apple revealed back on Nov 27, 2008 that is uses methods it believes protected under the DMCA to prevent MacOS X from being installed on non-apple hardware. Apple likely wants a DMCA ruling under its belt so it can use EUCD to shut down PearC. I might add there is no evidence that PearC is selling outside of Germany.

Disclaimer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Macworld. Macworld accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content.
Click here to read the house rules.

Click here for the latest reader comments

Latest News


More news...