Got a tip for us? Share it...

New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review

More than four years after Psystar challenged Apple by first selling $399 unauthorized Mac clones and later shifting tactics to offer software supporting installation of Mac OS X Snow Leopard on PCs, the dispute between the two companies has finally reached its conclusion. As noted by CNET, Psystar's persistent legal appeals have now been exhausted as the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an appellate court ruling from last September upholding a ban on Psystar's sales of Mac clones.
Following a rejection of Psystar's appeal to that decision in September, the company's lawyers vowed to take it up to the Supreme Court. "This is far from over," K.A.D. Camara of Houston law firm Camara & Sibley LLP told Computerworld in an interview. The company kept to its word, and filed for a review from the Supreme Court on December 27, 2011.

"We are sad," Camara told CNET by e-mail this evening. "I'm sure that the Supreme Court will take a case on this important issue eventually."
Psystar's persistence that saw the company press the issue with Apple as far as the courts would allow led Apple to suggest a potential conspiracy, questioning why a small company would be so bold in the face of Apple's legal action and how it could have financed the expensive court battles. No such conspiracy was ever revealed, however, with Psystar's financial backing remaining something of a mystery.


Psystar's original "OpenMac" Mac clone, quickly rebranded "Open Computer" to skirt Apple's trademarks

While Apple was quick to file suit against Psystar in July 2008 and an initial injunction against Psystar effectively shut down the company in December 2009, the court cases continued to play out over an additional period of nearly two and half years. Psystar attempted to fund its legal defense during some of that time by soliciting donations and selling T-shirts, and did somehow manage to secure enough funding to support filing several more appeals taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

25 months ago
In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?

Edit:
Why is my question downvoted so much? Is it wrong to ask questions?
Rating: 25 Positives
25 months ago
I bet Psystar wouldn't have gotten rid of Ethernet ports...
Rating: 21 Positives
25 months ago
it's the new Mac pro! wait a minute...
Rating: 18 Positives
25 months ago
It would be interesting to know how they ran. Personally I find Apple's current desktop lineup a bit limited. I want something between the mini and the Pro, and the iMac just doesn't cut it as I don't want an all in one. If Apple made such a machine I would buy it.
Rating: 17 Positives
25 months ago
There's no doubt in my mind as to Psystar's "mysterious" financing. Somebody big was out to undermine Apple. It could have been any of the PC manufacturers like Dell, HP hoping to be able to build OS X compatible beige boxes that would evenutally bring Apple down. And of course I would put nothing past Microsoft. All that talk of an Apple monopoly within its own market was nonsense from start to finish.
Rating: 17 Positives
25 months ago

it's the new Mac pro! wait a minute...


For half of a second, my brain saw a tower image as the page loaded. I was temporarily excited that we had some new Mac Pro news... and then, disappointment.

I can't help it. Their tower is still the apple product I use the most. By a sizable margin.
Rating: 16 Positives
25 months ago
Since you do not seem to understand this basic point, I will mention it right here:

There are functional clones and there are design clones.

The Psystar machine was a Mac clone in function, although it did not closely resemble the Mac in design. Psystar managed to cobble together commodity PC components and find workarounds in the Mac OS X installation process to get their boxes to run. The End User License Agreement for OS X prohibits the use of OS X on anything by a computer manufactured by Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer Inc.).

By creating an environment which allowed OS X to run on a third-party system, they basically created a Mac clone in function.

That's why Apple won the initial lawsuit. It's also why the appellate court upheld the initial ruling. SCOTUS probably found that the appellate court had adequately addressed the issue and is therefore not interested in re-examining the case.
Rating: 16 Positives
25 months ago

Yeah, the 700-800 (IIRC) computers that Psystar sold really proves a lot. :rolleyes:


It proves people want a Mac desktop but don't want the overly expensive un-upradable Mini, the giant glass iMac or the $2,500 entry level Pro.

Not necessarily lower end, really. Nothing would make me happier than a mini tower with the same specs as the mid-higher end iMacs.

Why does Apple hate PCI slots? :(


A mini tower or at least a Pro that didn't break the bank for prosumers or someone that just wants expandability. What we all want is the old Power Mac G4 pricing and set up. Cheap lower specced single CPUs and more expensive dual CPUs.

Rating: 13 Positives
25 months ago

In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?


Nobody said it was a good clone. When you try to clone on the cheap, sometimes the clone comes out horribly disfigured. :D
Rating: 12 Positives
25 months ago

In what way was it a Mac "clone"? It looks nothing like a Mac, and having it configured with OSX would have just made it a computer running OS X, not a mac clone, right?


Used in the spirit of what used to be an "IBM clone" the terminology is correct.
Rating: 12 Positives

[ Read All Comments ]