Psystar could have avoided this entire legal mess and settlement awards to Apple if they did what they're trying to get the courts to allow them to do now!
No, they couldn't. Please read and try to comprehend Judge Alsup's decision. If Psystar had done what you suggest, they would still be guilty of contributory infringement as well as various trademark and copyright violations.
Wasn't there a lot of undercurrent of psystar being funded my microsoft?
Just why in the world would Microsoft want to do this? Aside from the obvious outcome (more Mac OS X users means less people using Windows as their primary OS), it would completely wipe out their own software license validity. Can you imagine all those $5 educational copies of Windows hitting the marketplace at $300?
I'm wondering why Apple is settling with Psystar when so close to pocket a total court victory. Any ideas?
Yes. Psystar is lying. Apple won a slam dunk on all grounds and has very good grounds for summary judgment. There's absolutely no reason for them to give up everything they've won.
There would still be a very lengthy appeals process, during which Psystar could likely win the opportunity to continue to sell its products. Apple is just cutting off that avenue, knowing full well that attempting a additional suit to get any reimbursement of court costs would be like trying to get blood out of a stone.
Lastly there is the possibility that Psystar would declare bankruptcy and Apple would receive nothing, or that the appeals courts would lesson the victory.
None of that matters. The money doesn't even rise to the level of pocket change for Apple. And they couldn't care less whether they get the money from Psystar. Apple's goal in the whole process has been to completely smash the idea of companies selling Mac clones. There's absolutely no reason why they'd stop now that they've won.
Buying a legitimate copy of SL and installing it on a computer could NEVER possibly be copyright infringement. Might be EULA infringement, but EULAs have never been really put to the test in court, at least Apple's EULA regarding the fact that OSX can only be installed on Apple computers.
Wrong. Read the court decision and learn a little bit about copyright law. Apple, as the inventor of Mac OS X, has unlimited rights to its sale, distribution, etc. One of Apple's rights involves the right to modify the OS. No one else has that right unless Apple explicitly gives it to them. By modifying the OS (using a modified boot loader, for example), you are violating Apple's copyright. The decision could not have been much clearer on this issue.
Funny thing is that you can run windows natively on a mac (with Apple Support) but not the other way around. Microsoft is like cha-ching, they are not stupid.
Have someone explain to you the fact that Microsoft's business is based on selling software while Apple's business is largely based on selling hardware. There's no a priori reason why Apple should blindly follow Microsoft's strategy.
Sure, but that would not be aiding copyright infringement. Psystar would be free to suggest that you legally purchase a copy of OS X for installation on your new machine. If the user ultimately pirates it and infringes Apple's copyright, that's on the user.
Psystar really screwed up by pre-installing the OS. Apple would have had a much harder time if Psystar simply sold the computer without an OS.
Once again, please read the decision. Your argument is 100% wrong.
Because Psystar doesn't own the copyright.
Psystar can resell the product in its original form without any problem. If they sell a retail box of Mac OS X with no modifications, there aren't any issues. But as soon as they start to modify it or install it on a computer, (or tell customers how to circumvent Apple's EULA and encryption, for that matter), they're in trouble.
