Apple vs. Psystar - No Winners, Just Losers.

At one point in time Steve Jobs endorsed the use of Mac Clones. This was back in 1993, long before Apple's sales skyrocketed alongside public interest in the company. Now, a tiny Florida outfit known as Psystar, a manufacturer of Mac Clones (or Hackintoshes) has been completely shut down after a successful lawsuit by Jobs and friends. They also want every computer Psystar ever sold recalled.

Among copyright infringement, Apple charged that their EULA was violated by having modified versions of OSX installed on Psystar's computers. Using an End User License Agreement as a defense in court is only acceptable in some parts of the US, and unfortunately for Psystar, in their neck of the woods as well.

Psystar's biggest mistake was modifying OSX internally to better gel with their boot loader, RebelEFI. This was stupid, since of course if you hack apart someone's product and resell it, you should be held accountable. Putting this aside, here's some of what Apple also alleged in court:

- Breach of contract for violating their EULA - There's a reason you can't use the EULA as a defense in court in many US states, and that's because a company can pretty much put anything it wants and sue people for not following it.

- Trademark infringement, for Psystar simply saying their computers could run Mac OSX Leopard

- Contributory and induced copyright infringement - This one's a no-brainer and probably what put the case over the top for Apple, in that Psystar was selling a modified version of OSX to run on its computers.

Here's where it got petty:

Trade dress infringement - Apple claimed people are used to Apple hardware and software coupled together, so it created a trade dress - or brand identity - that people were familiar with, and Psystar attempting to sell OSX on computers other than Apple's violated this.

Apple also tacked on a Trademark Dilution charge, saying Psystar's sales 'damaged' its brand. Chances are you haven't heard of Psystar until this post and probably weren't aware there was so much 'damage' being done.

These last two charges were unnecessary, as it would have easily been enough for Apple to win a court decision over there mere fact that OSX was being sold in a modified form. It's clear by claiming damage to the brand however, that Apple wanted to stamp Psystar off the map completely. This comes off like a major bullying tactic, and in my opinion just makes Apple look bad.

Devout Mac users will tell you that what makes Apple products so great is the symbiotic relationship between the hardware and software, and that's fine. But isn't it about time Apple embraced the fact that plenty of folks don't want to pay another $1000 bucks or so just to be able to enjoy using Mac's operating system? You can go into an Apple store and buy OSX Leopard(or Snow Leopard) on its own and what you do with it beyond that is your business, at least according to the first-sale doctrine. You'd be violating their EULA by installing it on your netbook, but in my eyes that's tantamount to no more than voiding the warranty on your toaster by unscrewing the bottom, not something you should be hauled into court over. It's YOUR product that you bought and paid for. For those who defend Apple by merely stating a violation of the EULA is wrong is more or less like saying you agree with everything Apple does, and it's a cop-out.

The reason I have a problem with Apple going after Psystar isn't because they sold a hacked version of OSX(a moot point since Psystar can't even SUGGEST people install OSX on their computers or show them how anymore), it's because I'm a strong proponent for Open Computing. Google embraces it, and even Microsoft to an extent - just look how many brands of computer you've seen Windows installed on with their approval. Open Computing is a way to get everyone in the technology community involved with improving products and catering to popular demand. If this community didn't exist, you would still be unable to use Copy and Paste on your iPhone, something I found absurd from the outset.

Apple comes off as looking scared of how OSX would run on different platforms, hence wanting to snuff out anyone else from doing it. Maybe that's an indicator of a lack of confidence in its stability, but it's been proven time again that Leopard has thrived on various netbooks, and on custom-built desktops.

Perhaps Apple's worried people won't want to pay a premium for sleek form factor if they can simply head to their local computer store and build a machine that runs Snow Leopard without issue for a fraction of the price. But is that something worth suing over?

Whatever the reasoning, Apple looks like a bully hiding in a castle shouting orders to destroy anyone who uses their products in any way other than how they tell them. Contrarily Apple doesn't seem to have a problem allowing third parties to make software that lets you install Windows on Apple products, nor does Microsoft, because to MS that's just another sale. Apple's groundbreaking 1984 commercial made them look like the little guy attacking Big Brother, but sadly it appears the roles are now reversed. Shame on you, Steve - I want the old Apple back.