14 DAY TRIAL // InformationWeek is reporting that Apple's attorneys will meet with Psystar's legal representatives in October. Apple had a few extra requests to make, such as wanting the suit placed before a regular district court judge, not a magistrate judge.
"Attorneys for Apple and Mac clone maker Psystar will meet for the first time before a judge in October to discuss terms and procedures for Apple's copyright lawsuit against Psystar," the source notes, citing court records. Apple's End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) explicitly states that no one is allowed to install Mac OS X on a non-Apple-branded computer. Psystar installs Leopard's kernel on the Open Computers it sells, straight from the OS X disc, using an EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) emulator and a few drivers, which is in direct violation with said EULA.
"We take it very seriously when we believe people have stolen our intellectual property," said an Apple spokesperson just after the filing of the suit. Apple demanded that Psystar not only stopped selling its Mac clones, but also that it recalled all sold units, something even Apple may have a hard time convincing the judge to rule in favor of.
Psystar upholds that its systems cost around a quarter to half of what Apple computers go for. The company is planning to use this against Apple in court, claiming the Cupertino-based Mac maker marks up the cost of the OS X-running hardware by as much as 80 percent. Psystar also believes that, by forcing people to run OS X on its proprietary hardware, Apple is violating antitrust laws. Then again, Apple's EULA is likely to have a higher resonance than Psystar's allegations.
According to an older Macworld piece, a Psystar employee actually stated that Apple's terms violate U.S. monopoly laws, adding that the Cupertino-based company "grossly overcharges for its hardware." These claims alone might not suffice to fight off Apple's charges of Copyright infringement, Contributory and induced copyright infringement, Trade dress infringement, or Trademark dilution (and others), let alone the fact that Psystar actually went on with replicating the Server version of Apple's OS X Leopard. Nevertheless, it is believed that the market will be invaded with Mac clones soon after the case is closed, should Psystar make a good point in court.
Feel free to place your bets in the comments. What do you think will stand in court later this year: Apple's EULA or Psystar's somewhat "moral"-founded allegations?