Psystar Afraid of Losing Intellectual Property

| News

Unauthorized Mac clone maker Psystar filed its response to Apple's Motion for Relief in bankruptcy court on Monday with a claim that if Apple is allowed to proceed with its case in California it will be forced to liquidate and lose its own intellectual property. Prior to Pystsar's bankruptcy filing in Florida, to two companies had been locked in a legal battle in California over Apple's claims that the company is violating licensing agreements and copyright -- in other words, Apple's intellectual property -- by selling PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed.

Apple filed a Motion for Relief with the court in Florida after Psystar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which automatically stops other legal proceedings. If granted, Apple's motion would let the copyright case against Psystar resume in California earlier, potentially saving months of delays.

Psystar's response alleged that Apple shouldn't be granted relief from the automatic stay because it never filed for a restraining order or injunction to stop Psystar from selling PCs with Mac OS X installed. The response also states that "having to incur the cost of litigation without having had a chance to reorganize and operate more profitably will force the Debtor to liquidate its business and lose the opportunity to benefit from its intellectual property."

An attorney familiar with these types of cases told TMO anonymously "That Apple did not immediately ask for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in no way impairs Apple's right to have the issue of infringement decided in the federal district court. Apple's procedurally correct litigation tactics are not grounds for denying it its right."

He added "However, if Psystar admits that it is infringing, I am sure Apple would immediately move for an injunction."

The U.S. District Court in Northern California set a November 9 trial date for Apple and Psystar. If the U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in Florida chooses to grant Apple's motion for relief quickly, Apple might be able to avoid seeing the trial delayed into 2010.

Popular TMO Stories


Lee Dronick

I don’t know if they are even possession of valuable intellect, but they certainly have chutzpa.


They have no intellectual property, that’s why Apple is suing them! There trying to use Apple’s property for there sales.

Get rid of them!


Isn’t this like the burglar complaining that if he goes to jail he won’t be able to feed his family?

Sorry Psystar, IMO you are a thief and you SHOULD be closed, all assets liquidated, and if there is any Intellectual Property on hand that you haven’t stolen from others, you should lose all rights to it.

That’s what thieves get.

Lee Dronick

Well if Psystar created some code, some intellectual property, then they indeed own it. However, that doesn’t make it okay to use it for selling MacClones.


I seem to remember reading that PsyStar was using some OSS package that let OS-X run on generic hardware. They wouldn’t own that either


First, Psystar claimed they legally purchased all their copies of Mac OSX from Apple, which we know cannot be true…because they haven’t paid for them if the recent story is to be believed (and why would Apple suddenly SELL that many copies to a computer maker since the hardware restrictions are restrictive to Apple’s own hardware).

And if they opened and used them, then they knowingly violate the EULA AND are modifying the hardware and/or firmware to trick the software into even loading onto their machines.

This case is all FAIL for Psystar? Intellectual property? More like smoke and mirrors to hide identities and CYA.

Lee Dronick

irst, Psystar claimed they legally purchased all their copies of Mac OSX from Apple, which we know cannot be true?because they haven?t paid for them if the recent story is to be believed

I think that the story only said that they owe Apple money. Suppose that in addition to OSX licenses they a bought lot hardware, maybe copies of iWork and other software as well.


Isn?t this like the burglar complaining that if he goes to jail he won?t be able to feed his family?

Nah, at least that could be considered somewhat noble.  It’s more like a burglar complaining that, if he goes to jail, he won’t get to keep the stuff he stole.

Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account