swa66 - 12:23 am on Nov 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Psystar, who has modified Mac OS X to run on its computers and sold them to the public has lost on the whole line in a summary judgment.

[groklaw.net...]

Apple Wins Like a Champ - Psystar is Toast -- What? You're Surprised? Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. Here's the order [PDF]. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. There are still issues remaining for trial, despite Psystar's attempt to present everything now as being moot. Here's what's left to be decided at trial: Apple's allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code; and common law unfair competition. See anything on that list that will be helpful to Psystar?

Psystar could be done with after Apple wins the trial itself.

But how about the customers of psystar?

From [groklaw.net...]

2. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT. Apple next asserts that Psystar is liable for contributory infringement. Psystar offers no opposition on this issue. "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement." See MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 (2005). Psystar is a contributory infringer through its sale of unauthorized copies of Mac OS X to the public. This is contributory infringement. Accordingly, summary judgment must be granted for Apple on contributory infringement.

Are the Psystar customers also open to being sued by apple for copyright violation ?