Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[MacRumors]

In April, we reported that a company called Psystar was offering the first Mac clone. Using off the shelf PC parts and a modified version of Mac OS X Leopard, Psystar promised a cheaper alternative to an Apple Mac.

Despite some initial concerns about their legitimacy, Psystar has delivered what they have advertised and later even offered software updates and server models.

Throughout, Apple has remained quiet about the company and many have expected that they would pursue legal action. AppleInsider reports that on July 3rd, Apple filed a formal complaint against the clone manufacturer. Apple's lawsuit is said to on the ground of copyright infringement.

The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.

Article Link

[macaco74]

Perhaps they should just sell the clone with no operating system and leave the infringement on the consumer?

[thecritix]

Good. We don't want this sort of rubbish damaging the apple brand...!

Though we quite clearly do want a mid ranged tower... produce that apple!

[Dorfdad]

Apple has the right to sue them but Im sad that they are. People need some cheaper options if Apple cares to grow to the masses. Maybe if they would update the damn MINI I would not care about Hackintosh systems as much..

[gkarris]

It has begun...

[gutefahrt]

We'll see if Pystar's gamble paid off or if they'll end up losing money. Either way, who would actually buy one of these boxes now? Support was just risky before; now it's doubtful.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Finally! Time to keep the riff raff out, Apple.

[ert3]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 8gb: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)

as far as I can tell they have not broken any actual laws yet.

[bc008]

we all knew it was coming but im shocked it took this long..

lets hope apple updates the mini or something so they can really gain a lot more market share

[ucfgrad93]

I'm surprised it has taken Apple this long to sue.

[mugen76]

bet they moved to mexico on july 4th.

[Mal]

Eh, about time. I bet they either needed to time to decide exactly what to put into the suit that they thought was most enforceable, and they wanted to let the hype die down so they didn't help out Psystar at all by making them out to be the poor trodden-on underdog. I hope Psystar is shut down good.

That said, I have never been a proponent of the mid-range tower, but I don't see any problem with Apple producing one if they can find a good range and good balance of power and expandability that won't hurt their product lines. I wouldn't get one, simply because I have no need or desire for one, but I think it may once again enter the product line at some point.

Originally Posted by ert3

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 8gb: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)

as far as I can tell they have not broken any actual laws yet.

What about copyright laws?

jW

[gkarris]

Originally Posted by bc008

we all knew it was coming but im shocked it took this long..

lets hope apple updates the mini or something so they can really gain a lot more market share

That's the nice thing about the whole Psystar thing - it showed Apple that if they don't have a low cost computer running OS X - someone else will...

[JNB]

Originally Posted by ert3

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 8gb: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)

as far as I can tell they have not broken any actual laws yet.

That's why it's a civil suit by a private entity, not a criminal complaint by the state.

[AlphaAnt]

Originally Posted by ert3

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 8gb: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A345 Safari/525.20)

as far as I can tell they have not broken any actual laws yet.

Modifying the OS and selling it as part of the system is a pretty big violation of contract.

[sterlingindigo]

Wow, didn't see that coming. Isn't "Apple Legal" a redundancy by now?

[dotcomlarry]

Originally Posted by ert3

as far as I can tell they have not broken any actual laws yet.

AFAIK, they were selling computers with a modified version of OS X that circumvented hardware controls in order to install on non-Apple hardware, as well as breaching the EULA terms and conditions. I think that's called copyright infringement.

Edit: Seems AlphaAnt got to it first... Sorry bout the dupe post.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Apple's lawsuit is said to on the ground of copyright infringement.

So I was only half right. I wrote here several times that I thought Apple would not sue these guys because they did not want to have the validity of the EULA tested in court. Many people think Apple's EULA would be declared invalid. Apple can't take that risk.
So they sue but only for copyright violation.

But this is weak because all Pystar needs to do now is sell the machines with no software and tell users to order a copy of Mac OS X from Amazon.com Even if Apple wins this they will not have resolved the clone isue

[jlblodgett]

Here's hoping Psystar gets a victory in this matter.

[AlphaAnt]

Originally Posted by dotcomlarry

AFAIK, they were selling computers with a modified version of OS X that circumvented hardware controls in order to install on non-Apple hardware. I think that's called copyright infringement.

Well, as AI reports, the filing was one day after Psystar released a modified version of the 10.5.4 update. That's pretty telling.

[wheelhot]

Finally, lets hope they can bury Psystar 6 feet down. I guess Apple take quite a time to respond is cause they are doing research to see if they can win the case or not.

[fat phil]

They aren't helping themselves by criticising Apples products with comments like: "An alternative to Apple's pricey Macs".

I'm not sure how trading standards laws operate in the US, but I'm pretty sure that while direct price comparisons are ok, attaching adjectives is at a minimum an invitation to legal criticism.

[Tallest Skil]

Originally Posted by jlblodgett

Here's hoping Psystar gets a victory in this matter.

Not if Steve's there, they won't.

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by dotcomlarry

AFAIK, they were selling computers with a modified version of OS X that circumvented hardware controls in order to install on non-Apple hardware, as well as breaching the EULA terms and conditions. I think that's called copyright infringement.

Edit: Seems AlphaAnt got to it first... Sorry bout the dupe post.

You have to be very carfull about what a "modified Mac OS X" is Much os what Apple calls "Mac OS X" is open source softwae that anyone is free to use. In fact I'd say half of the cose inside Mac OS is BSD UNIX. Apple did add on a nice pretty user interface. The question is which part of Mac OS did Pystar modify? If it is BSD Unix then Apple is in trouble.

That said, my gues is that what Pystar is giving out is a combination of Apple and BSD code and it is the Apple bits that are the problem

[bornonbord]

These dudes are about to get their arses handed to them.