Apple has responded to the opening brief of clone maker, Psystar, in the ongoing legal battle.
Based on Apple’s responses to Psystar’s Opening Brief, it appears that the PC maker is hoping it can convince the court to change how copyright law is interpreted. “It seems that Psystar is pinning all its hopes in the 9th Circuit on getting the court to adopt a radical revision of the Copyright Misuse doctrine that would in effect destroy copyright and force all copyrighted works to be licensed,” an attorney familiar with this type of case told “The Mac Observer” (http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_responds_to_psystar_appeal_in_mac_clone_battle/).
“Because Psystar has no proof that Apple has inhibited competition or suppressed creativity, Psystar urges this Court to abandon long-standing precedent and create a new doctrine of per se copyright misuse,” Apple’s Answer Briefing stated. “Under this doctrine, any license agreement — such as Apple’s SLA — that restricts the use of copyrighted software to particular hardware is per se copyright misuse.”
In January Psystar officially filed its Notice of Appeal in the copyright suit it lost against Apple. The appeal involved a copyright infringement suit Apple brought against Psystar to stop the Florida company from selling Psystar computers with Mac OS X installed.
In December 2009 Apple won a permanent injunction against Psystar. Granted by Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, it prevents the Mac cloner from selling clones, installing Mac OS X on any hardware, and selling or copying Mac OS X.
Psystar also can’t manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, “or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure.As for Rebel EFI, the judge while expressing that Psystar was not very clear about what it does, refused to exclude it from the injunction, and says Psystar continues to sell it “at its peril” at the risk of “finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction.”