Psystar had been making official Hackintosh, going seriously against the Apple’s policies. Apple finally got hold of the the company, and the lawsuit settled with loss of millions to the Psystar.
In the begining, Psystar played a trick and before Apple could file a case against them, they throwed the ball in Apple’s court by suing them with a Lawsuit which claimed: “Apple’s terms violate U.S. monopoly laws”.
Psystar believes Apple’s terms violate U.S. monopoly laws. “What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?” said a Psystar employee. Apple grossly overcharges for the hardware on which its operating systems, including Leopard, come preinstalled. “They’re charging an 80% markup on hardware. What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?”
In reply to it, Apple fired the first shot in the long-running case by suing Psystar in July 2008, accusing it of violating its copyright and software license. Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Apple a huge win when he ruled that Psystar had violated Apple’s copyright as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it installed Apple’s operating system on its Intel-based computers.
“This case is a transparent attempt by Psystar Corp. to relitigate the same issues that Psystar and Apple have been contesting before the Honorable William Alsup on the Northern District of California for almost a year and a half,” Apple argued in its motion for dismissal, which was filed with Hoeveler on Nov. 24.
Last week, Apple also asked Alsup to shut down Psystar’s Mac clone business and make the Florida firm pay $2.1 million in damages. Alsup has not yet ruled on that motion.
Apple also said that the technology it uses to lock Snow Leopard to its own hardware was the same as that used to tie Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to Macs. Alsup said that Psystar illegally circumvented that technology in Leopard in order to install the operating system, which was replaced by Snow Leopard three months ago.
“There is no reason why these legal determinations [by Alsup] should be revisited in another court, and Psystar should not be permitted to seize upon Apple’s release of a new version of Mac OS X as an opportunity to forum shop,” Apple said in its motion.
Apple asked Hoeveler to dismiss Psystar’s Florida complaint, which Psystar could then refile with Alsup’s California court, or to transfer the case to Alsup.
In September, Alsup denied Apple’s motion to stop the Florida case, and took the opportunity to chide Apple over the timing of Snow Leopard’s release.
“The true purpose behind Psystar’s attempt to move the parties’ dispute to Florida is to forum shop and to buy Psystar more time to continue its ongoing acts of infringement. Given the seriousness of Psystar’s continuing unlawful conduct, it is essential for Apple to stop that from happening and obtain a final, fast and comprehensive resolution of all of the parties’ claims. The Northern District of California is best positioned to provide that determination.”
The next one, California case, is scheduled for trial in Jan 2010. On Dec. 14, however, Alsup will hear oral arguments on Apple’s request for an injunction that would halt Psystar’s Mac clone sales.
Apple has huge investments in it’s Mac division, no matter they seem to have a monoply at this, they are bound to win, as they always have.