Psystar has lost the case against Apple for cloning the Mac OS. A federal judge favored Apple in an order issued on Friday by ruling that the Florida Company Psystar violated Apple’s copyright as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it installed Apple’s operating system on Intel-based computers.
Apple took Psystar to court 18 months back on charges of copyright infringement and DMCA violation. According to the case filed by Apple, Psystar has violated its distribution right by offering and selling Mac OS X on Psystar computers to the public. They included that its Mac OS X end user license agreement allows people to install the OS on Apple computers only.
Psystar admits that it has distributed Mac OS X but advocated their side under the Section 109 first-sale doctrine., which states that “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.”
Judge William Alsup of U.S. District Court issued the order in which they stated that Psystar made unauthorized copies of Apple operating system during the computer manufacturing process by imaging a copy of Mac OS X, then installing that on other computers. The clone maker did not install Apple’s OS from the copies it bought at retail.
“The judge said first sale only applies to legal copies and that the way in which Psystar had modified the software to let it run on clones meant that the copies did not meet this standard.”
The order also claimed Psystar is violating the DMCA by breaking the antipiracy technology that locks Mac OS X to Mac hardware.
The ruling even supported Apple by clearing them off from the Psystar claims. Psystar claims that Apple had misused its copyright and that Apple’s licensing agreement was unduly restrictive.
A scheduled hearing on Dec. 14 is set to determine remedies on the issue. Many other claims are yet uncovered including breach of contract and trademark infringement.
The court’s ruling was published on Groklaw.net.