Cupertino (CA) – Apple is no longer putting with a small Florida business that has hacked Mac OS X Leopard to run on cheap Intel-based PCs: Psystar made headlines by offering "cheap Mac alternative", teasing Apple with a sub-$400 desktop Mac clone and a $1599 Xserve clone . After months of unusual silence, Apple has brought its legal cannons in position.
Law firm Townsend and Townsend and Crew has filed the lawsuit for Apple, accusing Psystar of copyright infringement, according to Jorge Espinosa's blog. Earlier this year, the Apple community was stunned when Psystar began promoting and offering cheap bare-bone PCs that can run a hacked Mac OS X Leopard. Apple was expected to react quickly with legal force, but the Mac maker was unusually quiet on the matter, even when Psystar repeatedly said that a lawsuit wouldn't hold up in court.
Conspiracy theories claimed that Psystar was Apple's own idea and that the company may be open to Mac cloning once again. However, Apple is now clearly showing that cheap Mac clones are not in the company’s business plan. It seems that Apple has put a lot of effort in preparing this case and it can’t afford to be defeated: Psystar victory could open a legal floodgate for other vendors to build cheap Mac clones.
What got Psystar in trouble is messing with the Extensible Firmware Interface and hackery the company employs to trick Leopard into thinking it is running on a genuine Mac. Besides hacking, Psystar also sells retail copies of OS X Leopard and Leopard Server to its customers. In doing so, Psystar is violating the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement (EULA), which explicitly prohibits anyone from selling and installing the Mac OS X on non Apple-hardware without Apple's consent.
Another problem for Psystar is the fact that it has developed a custom installation that mirrors official system updates from Apple. Basically, the company used the copyrighted files from the Leopard install CD and the latest update from Apple's servers in order to hack the code and distribute a custom update to users who previously purchased its Mac clone systems. This is a direct copyright violation as no-one but Apple is allowed to mess with the operating system code base.
Although enthusiasts have been running hacked OS X on bare-bone PCs with not-so-great success, the procedure is un-reliable and the lack of OS X-compatible drivers for anything but the electronics that Apple uses puts limits at such efforts. But Psystar has carefully designed its system so that it mostly matches Apple's hardware, meaning it runs OS X without hiccups.
However, Apple circumvented this trickery with the Leopard update, forcing PsyStar customers to postpone the update until PsyStar releases its own scripted installation. Basically, it's a piece of software which downloads Apple's official update, applies a patch to break Apple's fix and then upgrades a user's Leopard installation. Psystar recently followed Apple's release of the Leopard 10.5.3 update with its own scripted installation that continues to fool Leopard into thinking it is running on a genuine Mac, even after the 10.5.3 update is applied.
Does Apple violate U.S. antitrust law?
We will have to wait until we have more visibility what the outcome of this case may be. Psystar could settle with Apple, but it could also be forced to stop selling Mac OS X and advertise its machines as "Mac clones." If Apple decides to press the matter further and seek damages, Psystar could easily end up in bankruptcy.
The company previously stated it could counterclaim that Apple's EULA violates U.S. antitrust regulations. But Psystar has gone to great lengths to hide itself publicly, providing only email and phone support as the main point of contact. Because of that, many had doubts about its existence initially. AppleInsider has been able to contact Psystar earlier and get in contact with an employee who would only reveal his first name (Robert).
He offered an interesting perspective about the case. "What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?" he asked. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
Law expert Jorge Espinosa thinks Apple will easily rebuff such an argument. "Statements that Apple's license might violate U.S. monopoly law have been attributed to Psystar employees," he said.
Law firm Townsend and Townsend and Crew has filed the lawsuit for Apple, accusing Psystar of copyright infringement, according to Jorge Espinosa's blog. Earlier this year, the Apple community was stunned when Psystar began promoting and offering cheap bare-bone PCs that can run a hacked Mac OS X Leopard. Apple was expected to react quickly with legal force, but the Mac maker was unusually quiet on the matter, even when Psystar repeatedly said that a lawsuit wouldn't hold up in court.
Conspiracy theories claimed that Psystar was Apple's own idea and that the company may be open to Mac cloning once again. However, Apple is now clearly showing that cheap Mac clones are not in the company’s business plan. It seems that Apple has put a lot of effort in preparing this case and it can’t afford to be defeated: Psystar victory could open a legal floodgate for other vendors to build cheap Mac clones.
What got Psystar in trouble is messing with the Extensible Firmware Interface and hackery the company employs to trick Leopard into thinking it is running on a genuine Mac. Besides hacking, Psystar also sells retail copies of OS X Leopard and Leopard Server to its customers. In doing so, Psystar is violating the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement (EULA), which explicitly prohibits anyone from selling and installing the Mac OS X on non Apple-hardware without Apple's consent.
Another problem for Psystar is the fact that it has developed a custom installation that mirrors official system updates from Apple. Basically, the company used the copyrighted files from the Leopard install CD and the latest update from Apple's servers in order to hack the code and distribute a custom update to users who previously purchased its Mac clone systems. This is a direct copyright violation as no-one but Apple is allowed to mess with the operating system code base.
Although enthusiasts have been running hacked OS X on bare-bone PCs with not-so-great success, the procedure is un-reliable and the lack of OS X-compatible drivers for anything but the electronics that Apple uses puts limits at such efforts. But Psystar has carefully designed its system so that it mostly matches Apple's hardware, meaning it runs OS X without hiccups.
However, Apple circumvented this trickery with the Leopard update, forcing PsyStar customers to postpone the update until PsyStar releases its own scripted installation. Basically, it's a piece of software which downloads Apple's official update, applies a patch to break Apple's fix and then upgrades a user's Leopard installation. Psystar recently followed Apple's release of the Leopard 10.5.3 update with its own scripted installation that continues to fool Leopard into thinking it is running on a genuine Mac, even after the 10.5.3 update is applied.
Does Apple violate U.S. antitrust law?
We will have to wait until we have more visibility what the outcome of this case may be. Psystar could settle with Apple, but it could also be forced to stop selling Mac OS X and advertise its machines as "Mac clones." If Apple decides to press the matter further and seek damages, Psystar could easily end up in bankruptcy.
The company previously stated it could counterclaim that Apple's EULA violates U.S. antitrust regulations. But Psystar has gone to great lengths to hide itself publicly, providing only email and phone support as the main point of contact. Because of that, many had doubts about its existence initially. AppleInsider has been able to contact Psystar earlier and get in contact with an employee who would only reveal his first name (Robert).
He offered an interesting perspective about the case. "What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?" he asked. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
Law expert Jorge Espinosa thinks Apple will easily rebuff such an argument. "Statements that Apple's license might violate U.S. monopoly law have been attributed to Psystar employees," he said.