The sleek, slender smartphone pictured above is absolutely not Apple’s next-generation iPhone. It is entirely possible, however, that the iPhone 5 could feature the same design. Images of a fake iPhone 5 were published this past weekend by gizchina.com, and they show a strikingly thin 7mm-thick handset that has all the makings of an Apple design. The device itself is certainly not built of the same high-quality materials or components Apple would use, but as has been noted by several sites that picked up the story, it is possible — perhaps even likely — that the above clone is based on Apple’s actual iPhone 5 design. Manufacturing has probably begun at this point, and employees of Apple’s manufacturing partners leak parts and information left and right. So, a Chinese iPhone clone maker obtaining Apple’s designs (or even a working device) and building a clone is hardly far fetched. The design also looks like it would fit perfectly into some of the iPhone 5 cases that have surfaced, though that doesn’t necessarily say much. Nothing is certain until Apple makes it official, but this could very well be the design we see Apple executives showing off when the iPhone 5 is finally unveiled in the coming months. More →
It is the end of the line for Psystar as U.S. District Judge William Alsup has issued a permanent injunction against the Apple clone maker. The injunction prevents Psystar from pursuing its core hardware business by banning the following:
- Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder
- Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software;
- Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers
- Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computer
- Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Psystar has until December 31th, 2009 to fully comply with the ruling and must begin the process immediately using a method that provides the fastest route to compliance. Psystar may have to shutter the hardware portion of its business but the legal status of Psystar’s $50 Rebel EFI software remains unclear. In his ruling, Alsup does not cite the Rebel EFI software specifically, claiming that Psystar failed to disclose exactly what the application did. In case Psystar has high hopes of continuing to sell its Rebel EFI software, Alsup issued a stern warning, ‘What is certain, however, is that until such a motion is brought, Psystar will be selling Rebel EFI at its peril, and risks finding itself in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction.” Will this admonishment permanently close the doors on Psystar or will the rebel company stage one last battle? More →
The 17 month-long court battle between Macintosh clone maker Psystar and Apple has come to a partial end. Psystar has agreed to pay Apple an unspecified amount in damages and in return Apple will voluntarily dismiss all its trademark, trade-dress, and state-law claims against Psystar. As part of the agreement, Psystar would not be required to make payment until all appeals have been settled. That’s not the best of it. In the motion filed on Monday, Psystar is apparently arguing for clemency for its Rebel EFI utility, a product that allows Mac OS X to run on Intel PCs without much hassle, on the grounds that it “is composed exclusively of Psystar software, that is not sold in conjunction with any hardware, and that is sold entirely apart from any copy of Mac OS X or any computer running Mac OS X.” If granted, this opens the door for Psystar to sell the hardware without Mac OS X but with the Rebel EFI utility. With the Rebel EFI in hand, the burden of obtaining a copy and installing the Mac OS X on the non-Apple hardware now falls on the customer and not Psystar. Genius. More →
Back in 2008 after its legal woes with Apple began, Psystar, seller of Mac clones, was seeking out the support of investors in an effort to secure $24 million to continue development, expansion and “compete directly against Apple.” The reason that Psystar was seeking such a large amount of funding had to do with its sales projections which were clearly not grounded in reality. According to ComputerWorld:
Under its conservative projections, Psystar told investors it would sell 70,000 computers in 2009, 470,000 systems in 2010 and 1.45 million machines in 2011. The firm’s aggressive growth model, however, put those numbers at 130,000, 1.87 million and 12 million during 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
The projections were ludicrous considering that we now know Psystar only sold 768 desktops from April 2008 to August of 2009, so just what was it that Psystar hoped was to be such a big seller? It’s vaporware “OpenBox” notebook which the company has been promising since August of 2008 that never materialized. Specs were to include a 13.3″ display, 2GHz Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB RAM and a 250GB hard drive and retail for $699. Of course Psystar is probably never going to get the chance to sell its OpenBook (if it ever pops its head up) considering that a judge has already agreed its in violation of the DMCA as well as Apple’s copyrights. Both sides are due in court on December 14th to make their opening arguments in a new lawsuit in which Apple is seeking an injunction against all future sales. More →