Hackintosh maker gets legal greeting from Apple
Psystar sued for ruining perfection
As was inevitable, hackintosh vendor Psystar has found itself on Apple's legal to-do list.
Apple has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the open hardware manufacturer, which began raising eyebrows by offering a $400 computer capable of running copies of Mac OS X.
Psystar Open Computer
The legal grievances were filed July 3 in US District Court in Northern California. Details at the moment are scant with both companies tight-lipped about the lawsuit and the electronic complaint currently unavailable. But ZDnet folk with their mitts on a hard copy, say it's the standard don't touch our merchandise legal rhetoric. The suit alleges violations of Apple's shrink wrap license, copyright and trademark.
Psystar calls itself "an alternative to pricey Apple hardware." It's cheapest box capable of running OS X combines a 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB of DDR 2 memory, and integrated Intel GMA950 graphics and goes for $555 with the addition of Leopard pre-installed.
This is allegedly a violation of Apple's OS X end-user license, which states the operating system is only licensed for use on Apple-branded hardware.
Psystar argues that Apple's licensing terms are unlawful because they're anti-competitive. Looks like they'll have a chance to put this view to the test soonish. ®
The word you are looking for is PROVE FFS!
Mines the one with 'spelltard' on the back
re: strawberry flavoured
The UNIX trademark doesn't really mean anything from a technology point of view. You could obtain the mark for just about any operating system, Unix-like or not.
Compliance with the POSIX standard is generally accepted as a proper test whether an operating system is a Unix system (in the technology sense, not the trademark sense). Today, most systems are POSIX compliant or near POSIX compliant (leaving out some optional POSIX specs which are not mandatory), including GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, MacOS X and OpenSolaris.
AT&T vs BSD
"The BSD project, based at the University of California, also produced a kernel and userland utilities which were intended to be freely redistributable. Some parts were already in the public domain; others had to be rewritten from scratch to remove code on which AT&T had asserted copyright."
Perhaps one should also note that when AT&T brought its lawsuit against the University of Berkeley over copyright violations in the BSD code, the outcome was rather embarrassing for AT&T because only very little code was found to be copied from AT&T whilst a much larger amount of code in AT&T's Unix code was found to have been copied from BSD without giving the necessary credit that the BSD license demands.