Apple must win its case against ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar – or else

“In a move that everyone was waiting for, Apple has finally sued Psystar for violating its copyright and has asked for the company’s profits and a recall of all orders,” Don Reisinger writes for CNET.

“Everyone knew Apple would eventually make a move against Psystar, but I’m not too sure anyone thought the suit would feature the kind of saber rattling it does. That said, it’s the smart move and one that Apple must make if it wants to get away from anything of the sort happening again,” Reisinger writes.

“But if it doesn’t use its head and try to force Psystar to its demise, Apple will open a can of worms that it may not be able to handle so easily,” Reisinger writes.

“If Apple gets everything it asks for and totally ruins Psystar, it will never need to worry about an unknown firm trying to sell Mac OS X again… But if it doesn’t get everything it asks for and it’s forced to concede some points and the court orders Psystar to pay Apple some sort of licensing fee, Apple will have stepped on a bee’s nest,” Reisinger writes.

Full review here.

It all hinges on whether or not Apple’s Software License Agreement for Mac OS X is deemed legally binding by whatever court ends up having the final say. Apple’s Software License Agreement for Mac OS X explicitly states: This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.


  1. Geez… what part of “copyright” does Psystar not understand. Apple OWNS the OS, that means that they get to do whatever the hell they want with it, including not licensing it. Hopefully the judge has a better understanding of copyright law.

  2. @Jings (et al)

    This is not really a ‘copyright’ issue. It is a contract issue. The Software Licensing Agreement is a contract. It is probably also a trademark issue because Psystar is using Apples trade name and logo to sell their (Psystar’s) product without permission from Apple.

    There may even be patent issues involved if the Psystar computer has been engineered to use Apple’s patented software technology without permission.

    Copyright may be a small factor here but it’s relatively trivial in light of these other issues.

  3. There’s no way Apple loses this case. If they do, the courts are setting a precenent that a companies products are free to be copied regardless of copyright and trademarks, etc… What’s the purpose of the copyright system if anyone can just do what they want with someone elses product and sell it as there own, and the originator can do nothing about it?

  4. It seems like a much simpler approach would fix this. For example, “you are reselling Mac OS X, but you are not an Apple-authorized reseller. So you are in violation of the OS X license agreement you got when you purchased it!”

  5. I HATE articles like these. It’s written by a frigtard journalist (from C|Net no less – certainly no friend of the Apple community), who, unless he has closely consulted with legal counsel or has the benefit of a law degree himself, is arriving at his judgment of the details of the case law involved by anal extraction.

    This provides no benefit to the readers whatsoever.

    In matters of legal disputes, the devil is in the details. Doing a quick drive-by article like this could be WAY off the mark. Why can’t publications turn to legal experts to provide real insight? And the headline above? Give me a break! “Win or else?” Or else what? Apple is doomed? That of course is one of the favorite FUD tools used by C|Net.

    Now if you will excuse me, I think I’ll bang my head against the wall. I was having a pleasant day, then I read this garbage. It’s all the more reason I miss Fake Steve, as he usually teed off on frigtards like Reisinger. And not without good reason.

  6. “Anyone want to bet if Microsoft backs some high-priced defense attorneys for Psystar?”

    I would bet $$$$ that MS wants Apple to win this. MS has a rather restrictive license agreement as well, and they wouldn’t want that weakened by precedent of a judgement against Apple (or anyone else in the software biz for that matter)

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.