Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware.

On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well.

Judge William Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court.

Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9.

[Via Macworld.]

Matthias Kremp, of German periodical Der Spiegel, has an interesting story about PearC, "Der PC mit Mac OS X." You don't need Google Translate to figure out what that means, though a mechanical translation of the story is available here.

PearC is offering three flavors of Mac clones in Germany, starting at €499. All of the options are built to order: The Starter edition can be equipped with anything from an Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 to a Core 2 Duo E7300. The Professional version, though, starts at €1,499, and can be powered by a 3.2GHz Intel Core i7 Extreme processor for an extra €720 -- a processor that Apple does not offer. PearC also offers Blu-Ray optical drives as an option.

All come with the option to install Mac OS X. Kremp notes that PearC's parent company, Hypermeganet, says that since the End User License Agreement (EULA) is sealed inside retail copies of Mac OS X, there's no legal way to review the EULA. If you'll pardon the bad translation, "the restrictions that Apple [has] for its Mac OS X in the EULA [...] in Germany [has] no legal explanation," said Hypermeganet spokesman Dirk Blößl.

"Hypermeganet assumes, therefore, that the product (meaning the Mac clone) in Germany is legal," he says.

Similarly, Psystar, possibly bankrolled by a larger PC clone maker, is defending itself now against charges that it violated Apple's EULA by selling clones with Mac OS X. That dispute is ongoing.

Apple did not return Spiegel Online's request for comment. However, Kremp concluded by suggesting "one may probably assume" that Apple will pursue legal action against the clone maker.

Thanks, Hauke, Holger and Martin!

In what might be the most outlandish claim yet to surface in the case, Psystar now claims that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office, rendering its copyright invalid, according to InformationWeek. Note that registration isn't a condition of protection, but it is a condition of certain types of infringement actions and damages.

Psystar argues, thus, that since Apple doesn't own the copyright, there's no way for Apple to enforce its claims that Psystar violated its copyright. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court last week.

Although copyright registration number TX0005401457 describes a "computer program" named Mac OS X, it's unclear how Psystar argues this isn't the copyright Apple owns on its operating system. Moreover, contrary to what Psystar appears to argue, copyright is secured automatically in the United States when the work is created, and registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement). Our Engadget colleague Nilay Patel sums up this latest Psystar legal stratagem as "desperate." Plus, you can file suit while registration is pending, so even if there was some technical defect in the Mac OS X registration, Apple could fix it while pursuing its lawsuit.

If this long shot claim were true, it could undermine Apple's ability to restrict third parties from selling generic clones that run Mac OS X. The back-and-forth arguments are part of a lawsuit Apple originally brought against Psystar for selling Mac OS X with its clones, allegedly in violation of Apple's license agreement. According to InformationWeek, Apple now suspects that a larger company interested in selling Mac OS X-compatible computers is bankrolling Psystar's legal battle.

[Via Engadget.]

• An overclocked 3.8GHz Core 2 Quad
• 4GB of RAM
• A GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card in an Antec P180 case
• The dongle that fools your machine into installing OS X

You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims.

It boggles the mind.

Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA.

Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable.

Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute.

The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court.

[Via Ars Technica.]

The thing about clones is, they keep regenerating. The latest manufacturer we've noticed, Argentina-based OpeniMac, has begun selling Mac clones.

As if using the word "iMac" wasn't adequate bait for Apple's lawyers, who are probably en route at this very moment, OpeniMac has begun selling two computers that run Mac OS X Leopard. The OpeniMac features a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo processor, support for 2GB of RAM, a 320GB SATA drive, SuperDrive and an ATI Radeon HD PRO video card for $990US.

The OpeniMac PRO sports a 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo processor, support for 4GB of memory, a 500GB SATAII drive, a SuperDrive, and a Nvidia GeForce GS video card for $1,710US. But wait, there's more! They both come with a built in 6-in-1 memory card reader.

As for their looks ... no one said clones had to be pretty.

While the Psystar case waits in legal limbo, it would seem that opportunists are jumping on the bandwagon. Begun, this clone war has.

[Via Engadget]

In yet another new facet to this already-draining legal battle surrounding Psystar's sales of non-Apple hardware that runs Mac OS X, Apple has amended its original suit after it discovered "additional information," according to Computerworld.

Apple now claims Psystar circumvented Apple's copyright protection code, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple said in its original filing that Psystar was in violation of the Mac OS X End-User License Agreement, but tacked on this additional charge last week.

The amendment also names 10 "John Does" -- persons who were not part of the Psystar company, but broke the copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn't know who they are yet, but plans to name names when its lawyers find out who they are.

In other Apple legal news, Apple won a trademark infringement case in China against New Apple Concept Digital Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shenzen. Judges decided that the Chinese company had a logo too similar to Apple's. New Ap -- aw, eff it -- NACDTCL was ordered to pay 400,000 yuan (≈ US$58,000) to Apple, Inc.

[Via Cult of Mac.]