[Swordmaker]

It's OVER!

PSYSTAR LOSES CASE.

APPLE WINS BIG!

it's Official: Mac Clones ARE illegal Ping!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[Swordmaker]

Judge Alsup's full decision via GrokLaw:

Apple vs. Psystar ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PDF viewer such as Adobe Acrobat Reader required if you are using a PC... Mac users don't need one. ;^)>

[Defiant]

I figured you’d be here to spike the ball. You didn’t expect a different result out of a San Francisco court, did you? Miami and DC are where this issue will be decided, ultimately, if the upstart can hang on long enough.

[dennisw]

Apple would have lost this case if it was heard in Florida. The California courts will always tilt to Apple. Even more these days with how miserable the California economy is. The state finances are also awful so they want every penny taxes due on what Apple sells. When Psystar sells a Mac (clone) Florida gets the taxes

Here is great article on the *entrepreneurs of the year* brothers who own Psystar >>>>
http://www.miaminewtimes.com//2009-11-12/news/miami-boyz-versus-apple-computer/

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I thought it was over when you ruled on this case earlier!

:-)

[antiRepublicrat]

I am saddened, not because I have any love for Psystar, but because the balance of copyright was just affirmed to have shifted more towards the producers. Too bad such a crappy company was defending our rights rather poorly.

Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are "lawfully made." The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner.

This judge just blew away the doctrine of first sale. All any copyright holder has to do is say "It's a license" and all your first-sale rights go bye-bye. As you'll see below, master disks are fair use, but ignored by the judge.

In addition, when Psystar turns on its computers running Mac OS X, another copy of the software is made to the random access memory. Psystar has thus infringed Apple's reproduction right.

This is another lock-down bit of logic. If it's thought you make a copy when running the program, rather than it being an understood basic functional necessity, then they have more power over you. Not only did you buy the program, but you need their permission to run it, otherwise you're making an unauthorized copy. This is just dumb.

When I read a book I make a copy in my eyes, did you know that? It's transitive, but then so is a RAM copy of a program.

While the process [hard drive imaging] used for "efficiency" was not the problem, the Sheriff Department's unauthorized copying of the software beyond the number of licensed copies was problematic. Similarly, Psystar's use of Mac OS X has been in excess and has violated Apple's copyrights.

I thought every Psystar system came with an original OS X disk. The judge says it's in excess, but I see no evidence for excess to equal the cited case. Psystar's interpretation should stand, but the judge just completely ignored precedent.

Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X. It did this by replacing original files in Mac OS X with unauthorized software files.

Now there I have to agree. What Psystar sold was a modification of OS X, a derivative, and therefore not purely first sale.

But even Judge Patel acknowledged that "no court has thus far articulated the boundaries of 'unduly restrictive licensing' or when licensing or other conduct would violate the amorphous concept of public policy."

Well, judge, here's your chance. Send a signal to the copyright cartel that they can no longer abuse their customers through restrictive licensing, and instead make them rely on plain-old copyright. Guess not though.

Then on to DMCA. Yeah, well, that's true. But then it's kind of circular: the copyright cartel paid for the law, and then of course those who try to exercise their rights will run afoul of it. And why is it that everybody forgets Section (f) of the DMCA, the part about reverse-engineering for interoperability being legal? There are a few good tidbits in the DMCA that you'd think would make it not so bad, but I have NEVER heard of a court basing a decision on these sections.

I hope Psystar appeals, and with a better lawyer next time.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Just...wow. Not unexpected but a stunning beeyotch slap nonetheless.

[redhead]

And, here, I thought this was a recipe post or a nifty new kitchen appliance...