[Jeff Campbell]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/appl...~3/NOUbzpp5R7A/

"The Apple vs. Psystar lawsuit isn't going well for the "open computer" maker, as the judge in the California lawsuit has granted all of Apple's summary decision requests, and denied all of Psystar's."

Basically the judge denied Psystars claim under "first sale" doctrine, which gives the owner of a legally obtained copy of software the right to sell it. To simplify things, in Psystar's case they purchased the software, made copies without permission, and sold the copies so the judge sided with Apple. But it still isn't over as they are still going to court to figure out several issues including "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 § 17200; and common law unfair competition." You can read the full decision here. 

[Jeff Campbell]

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/appl...~3/NOUbzpp5R7A/

"The Apple vs. Psystar lawsuit isn't going well for the "open computer" maker, as the judge in the California lawsuit has granted all of Apple's summary decision requests, and denied all of Psystar's."

Basically the judge denied Psystars claim under "first sale" doctrine, which gives the owner of a legally obtained copy of software the right to sell it. To simplify things, in Psystar's case they purchased the software, made copies without permission, and sold the copies so the judge sided with Apple. But it still isn't over as they are still going to court to figure out several issues including "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 § 17200; and common law unfair competition." You can read the full decision here.