Would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar up to its old tricks, claims it simply bundles software with Mac OS X

“This past August, embattled clonemaker Psystar filed a complaint in the state of Florida seeking a ruling from the court which would allow them to sell copies of copies of Snow Leopard on its own hardware. In addition, Psystar is also seeking an injunction against Apple that would preclude them from tying OS X to Apple hardware on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly in the market for premium computers,” Edible Apple reports.

“Last week, Psystar amended their complaint to include their recently released Rebel EFI software. Their new complaint also includes a new argument which purports to prove that its actions aren’t in violation of copyright laws because they’re not modifying OS X, but merely bundling OS X with their own proprietary software,” Edible Apple reports. “Psystar, in essence, is arguing that it’s not tinkering with any OS X source code, but that it merely writes software designed to extend the functionality of OS X, just like a third-party web browser or a word processor.”

Edible Apple reports, “It’s some crafty legal maneuvering, to be sure, but it’s an argument that ultimately fails for a number of reasons.”

Full article here.

29 Comments

  1. “Still wondering — who is actually funding this Psystar circus, anyhoo ?”

    ___________

    Well my thought is it’s certainly not Microsoft… I was surprised a few weeks ago with the MDN poll how many people thought MS was behind Psystar.. But seriously, why would MS want to encourage OSX use on generic PC’s? That would only mean more competition for Microsoft..

  2. “Also, it’s quite obvious Psystar is patently arguing out of both sides of its mouth. It first asserts that it’s software runs innocently on top of OS X, just like any other program. But then it admits that it works around Apple’s security measures, as opposed to every other program.”

    Maybe some USA legal-types can enlighten me;

    Does Psystar’s flip-flop-flapping on the hook at the end of the line impress a judge in the USA legal system, or does it irritate said judge and show the defendant in a negative light with a porous defense?

  3. @ MikeK – But seriously, why would MS want to encourage OSX use on generic PC’s?

    1) Because Microsoft’s business model only works if you’re handed a software monopoly to start with, as happened in the PC world with IBM. Without that monopoly position, there’s no way Apple would have a profitable business model for OS-only sales.

    2) Because Microsoft knows Apple wouldn’t just sit idly by. They know Apple would be forced to employ software tactics to more tightly bind OS X to their own hardware. This would not only take Apple’s time and attention away from other things, but would also most likely cause incompatibility problems resulting in upset users (with the flames being fanned by MS astroturfers).

    I don’t believe Microsoft is the driving force behind Psystar, but I certainly wouldn’t rule them out as a participant.

  4. “Psystar is also seeking an injunction against Apple that would preclude them from tying OS X to Apple hardware on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly in the market for premium computers,” Edible Apple reports.”

    Wouldn’t that be something? A judicial ruling that Apple has a monopoly on *premium computers*! That would make Monkeyboy throw a chair or two, at the least.

    It won’t happen. While we believe that Apple sells *the* premium computer and OS on the planet, there are other high performance workstations available. It is not a monopoly. Psystar and their contingency lawyers are a complete and utter joke.

  5. I think Apple is just giving these assholes enough rope to hang them selves. I think it is entertaining at best because they will never be viable, even if they win. Who aside from us Mac geeks even know about these clowns.

  6. Groklaw.com has been making the argument, quite convincingly, that the people behind Psystar actually are targeting open-source software. Many of the EULA features that Psystar disputes as illegal are the basis for how the GPL is enforced.

    I just don’t understand why Psystar is allowed to continue their business while all this is going on, why Apple doesn’t request an injunction, and why nobody thinks this is odd.

    ——RM

Reader Feedback

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