Psystar and Apple dispute whether Mac OS X security measures should be kept confidential

“The ongoing legal dispute between Psystar and Apple continues to soldier on, with the latest dispute centering on a Psystar motion which seeks to make Apple’s technological circumvention measures in OS X publicly available information,” Edible Apple reports.

“When this case first started, Judge Alsup issued a ruling which allowed both parties to keep confidential information private. So last week, when Psystar and Apple filed their respective motions for Summary Judgment, both motions were heavily redacted whenever the security measures that tie OS X to Apple hardware were referenced,” Edible Apple reports.

“Psystar now argues that much of the redacted information contained in both their and Apple’s briefs should be made visible to the public, and that the standard for ‘confidential information’ has been applied too broadly,” Edible Apple reports. “Psystar is basically arguing that Apple can’t designate its security measures in OS X as confidential information when it’s freely available all over the web.”

Edible Apple reports, “Apple filed a response to Psystar’s motion and asserted that while it’s important for the public to be aware of the outcome of the lawsuit, that in no way implies that Apple should be forced to disclose details of their security mechanisms in OS X.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Is Psystar’s real mission to publicize that running Apple’s Mac OS X on generic PCs is possible? SteveJack writes today over in Opinion section, “I’ve begun to wonder if Psystar’s raison d’être isn’t really to sell ‘Mac clones,’ but simply to publicize that it’s possible and, even better, how to do it.” Read SteveJack’s new article here.

59 Comments

  1. “Psystar is basically arguing that Apple can’t designate its security measures in OS X as confidential information when it’s freely available all over the web.”

    If it’s freely available on the web, then what it Psystar complaining about?
    There is more to this than what I read above. What do the people who are behind Phystar really want?

  2. “If it’s freely available on the web, then what it Psystar complaining about?”

    Hard to believe that Apple can’t find out who is behind this.

    Using a rhetorical term here, not literal (we have to do that these days, it seems): then nuke them!

  3. Why aren’t these schmucks being indicted for piracy?!?!

    Seriously…

    “OK, since you won’t let me rent out rooms in your house, which I have no moral or legal claim too except in bizarro land, I’m going to tell everyone how to break in and steal all your stuff…”

    WTF? Enough of these clowns already. And HOW is the judge in this case able to stand the sight of his own reflection?

  4. The inevitable is inescapable. Pystar will lose the case and be forced to close their operation, with crippling fines and bankruptcy to follow.

    Apple will probably need to continually follow up Pystar’s attempts to hide assets and defeat the inevitable redress the court will rule on.

    It’s now necessary that Psytar not only be defeated, but humiliated and made an example of, all due to their recklessness.

    Fsuck em.

  5. For eXtortion: “the act of extorting, or getting money, etc. by threats, misuse of authority”

    Pisstar may be on the legal side of the line in their request, but they better present compelling evidence of their claim. Otherwise, it smells like extortion, which just ain’t legal….

  6. It must be Dell, who in the past expressed interest in marketing and selling Mac clones. Think about it. What chance would Psystar have if they win and HP and Dell jump on the bandwagon?

    I don’t think it is HP, because they are to diversified and making money, but Dell is a deferent story.

  7. With every Psystar legal move, it is more and more evident that Psystar selling Mac clones is the least of Psystar’s motives.

    Whatever happened to Apple’s investigation into who was backing Psystar?

Reader Feedback

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