Hasta La Gadget!

Dec 02

Apple’s Battle With Psystar Far From Over

Posted in: Apple, desktops, Law, Mac, Today's Chili

In a partial settlement, Florida startup Psystar has agreed to stop selling Mac clones and pay about $2.7 million to Apple. But the fight is far from over, and Apple won’t see a dime for some time to come.

Apple won’t be able to collect until the appeals run is complete, and sometimes this process can take years. Psystar has said it will appeal to Judge William Alsup’s ruling, which found Psystar guilty of violating Apple’s copyrights.

“We think that Judge Alsup got it wrong,” said Psystar’s chief attorney K.A.D. Camera, in an interview with ComputerWorld late Tuesday. “The effect [of the settlement] is to allow the case to be heard by the Ninth Circuit,” he continued, characterizing the settlement as “extremely favorable” to Psystar.

In addition, Psystar argued to exclude Rebel EFI, a $50 piece of software that the company started selling in October, from any potential injunction. Rebel EFI is downloadable software that enables owners of some Intel PCs to install Mac OS X onto their systems. If Alsup were to allow Psystar to continue selling Rebel EFI, Psystar could simply sell generic PCs and bundle them with Rebel EFI — thus, keep selling Mac clones.

These types of workarounds, however, don’t often work.

“I seriously doubt the court will see any difference between what Psystar has just agreed it did and what it proposes to do in the future with Rebel EFI,” wrote legal blog Groklaw. “Note that this is a contract issue, not a copyright infringement issue. I don’t understand Psystar arguing that there is no DMCA violation if there is an equally untenable contract breach still on the table.”

Also, even though providing a DIY solution would be shifting responsibility onto consumers, it could still be considered contributory infringement, intellectual property lawyer Carole Handler told Wired.com.

“Making the user instead of the company the perpetrator of any violation will not avoid the issue of a new company’s contributory infringement and/or vicarious liability for what it facilitates and enables the user to undertake,” Handler said in an earlier e-mail interview. “This kind of workaround is not a bar to Apple bringing contributory infringement or vicarious liability claims.”

Though Apple and Psystar have agreed to a settlement, it’s still too early to tell what sort of legal precedent this case will set since we await the outcome of the appeals process.

See Also:

Photo: Psystar