Jul 17, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Apple sues Mac-clone maker Psystar
Source
it was never a question of if but when
Apple has taken Mac-clone manufacturer Psystar to court in the US, alleging copyright infringement.
Psystar has been selling the Open Computer, a Mac clone, for approximately three months.
Apple's lawsuit, filed in the US District Court in Northern California, alleges copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement and trademark infringement, and makes a number of other legal claims. Apple is seeking any profits earned by Psystar from its Open Computer, triple damages for "wilful acts" and a permanent injunction against the sale of the product, as well as the recall of those units already sold.
"Apple licenses the use of its Macintosh operating system software for use only on Apple-labelled hardware," the Mac maker said in the suit, adding that the only way to get a full version of the Mac operating system (OS) is on a new machine. The boxed software product, it said, is only an upgrade version, valid only for upgrading an existing, Apple-branded Mac.
Apple argued that, by selling the Open Computer in conjunction with a copy of the Mac OS, Psystar both infringed Apple's copyright and induced purchasers to violate Apple's copyright.
The infringement, Apple said "is and continues to be intentional, wilful and in conscious disregard of Apple's rights". The company also alleged that use of Apple trademarks "is likely, if not certain, to deceive or cause confusion or mistake" over whether there is a connection between Apple and Psystar.
A Psystar employee told ZDNet.co.uk sister site CNET News.com on Tuesday that no-one was available to comment on Apple's lawsuit.
However, Apple charged that Psystar's owners and managers have admitted in public statements to their knowledge of the existence of Apple's software licence agreement and its terms.
Because the infringements were wilful, Apple said it is entitled to triple damages.
A status conference in the case is set for October.
Mark A Goldstein, a lawyer with the SoCal IP Law Group, said Apple's case appears to be a "slam dunk".
"In view of the Grokster ruling, it's hard to see any viable argument [for Psystar]," he said. "If Psystar only sold hardware without an OS or only with Ubuntu or [Microsoft Windows] XP, then the case would be wholly different," he said. "They could assert that there are substantial non-infringing uses — that is, a hardware maker/reseller should be able to sell a computer that can run multiple operating systems."
"That they are selling Apple OS leaves them open for direct and contributory copyright infringement," Goldstein added.
John Ferrell, chairman of the intellectual-property practice at Carr & Ferrell, also wondered what legal theory Psystar will used to defend their cloning of the Mac.
"Using copies of Apple's operating system to build Apple look-alikes was thought to have been clearly settled in the 1983 landmark copyright decision that put the last of the significant Apple clone makers, Franklin Computer, out of the Apple business," he said in an email interview. "Apple's Macintosh products are protected by a wide range of intellectual-property assets, including copyrights, patents and trademarks. It's no [coincidence] that there have been no successful Macintosh 'me-too' manufacturers in the past quarter of a century."
Ferrell added that Infinite Loop, the road that stretches through Apple's headquarters, "is littered with the wrecked business plans of companies that have tried to copy and sell Apple look-alikes".
Source
it was never a question of if but when
