Psystar Crushed In Court

We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now. Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast." Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."

Comments

Re:Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft

[Yvan256]

Forgetting about the Mac mini, are we?

Re:Use != Sale

[10101001 10101001]

Pystar not only modified OSX, (as is allowed for personal use), but it sold this modified derivative product, which is not protected by the First Sale law. You can use a modified product, but you can't sell.

Good to know. I guess that means reselling all those college textbooks back to the bookstore at the end of a term is not protected by First Sale Doctrine either, if you make even the smallest mark on any page.

Re:This comment surprises me

[jeremyp]

My nephew WROTE Ubuntu during the nine months between conception and birth. "There was nothing else to do" he said later.

Of course, the fact that it was written by a foetus does show in the product.

Re:Use != Sale

[10101001 10101001]

No, but selling copies of those textbooks is. That's the issue here.

The issue I was responding to was whether you can buy one single copy of a work, modify it, and resell that single copy. It sounds like such amounts to creating a derivative work, as far as the court is concerned, and isn't legally redistributable without the copyright holder's permission. But, by that very logic, modifying a textbook by adding or removing words or even simply underlining/highlighting words for emphasis would count as well. Ie, no copies have to be made for a derivative work to be created. So Psystar would be just as guilty even if they thought of a clever way to restamp each OS X disc to include their modifications.