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:Use != Sale

[butlerm]

Section 117(a)(1) provides for just such an exception, provided the modification is "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine". This is definitely the case here.

Re:Use != Sale

[butlerm]

There is a way to avoid that problem. See this comment

Re:No, it doesn't.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

All these machinations ignore the fundamental stupidity of the court.

The court wants us to believe that bits from one source are different from identical bits from another source.

This is the same principle that took out mp3.com and it was just as irrational then as it is now, if not more so. It is an example of the process of applying previously existing legal principles from one domain to another domain being taken too far. Digital bits are different enough from pieces of paper and other methods of fixing copyright material to physical objects that simply treating them the same way just creates excessive costs that do nothing but support an excessively convoluted and archaic legal system. The legal system should be there to support people and their businesses, not the other way around.