Mac clone maker claims it bought OS X from Apple

From ComputerWorld:

"The Mac clone maker being sued by Apple Inc. because it installs Mac OS X on generic Intel-based systems said it bought copies of the operating system from Apple itself, court documents show."

A little web surfing and we can find Psystar's formal motion submitted to the Northern District Court of California last week:

"Psystar’s present motion is rooted in Apple’s misuse of copyrights. Psystar therefore seeks declaratory relief finding Apple’s asserted copyrights to be unenforceable. A declaratory judgment as to Apple’s misuse of copyrights would inure to any party presently relegated to the sidelines by Apple’s inequitable and overly litigious conduct. Apple’s attempts to mischaracterize Psystar’s present claims for copyright misuse are, in that regard, understandable. Nevertheless, Psystar’s assertions as to Apple’s copyright misuse are viable. Psystar’s first amended counterclaims evidence a clear case and controversy appropriate for adjudication...

Apple likewise fails to explain how allowing Psystar’s claims would needlessly complicate the present litigation. These unsupported arguments are nothing more
than window dressing for Apple’s true concern—the nuclear fallout from a declaratory judgment as to unenforceability of Apple’s copyrights. Such a judgment would “have the force and effect of a final judgment” not only with respect to Psystar but to other parties attempting to compete alongside Apple...

A copyright holder is not entitled to “leverag[e] their limited monopoly to allow them to control areas outside the [copyright] monopoly.” A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added). Copyright misuse likewise “forbids the use of the copyright to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the Copyright Office.” Practice Mgmt., 121 F.3d at 520...

Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon; many of those copies directly obtained from Apple. And for every computer that Psystar distributes with the Mac OS installed, Psystar also includes a legitimately purchased copy of the Mac OS. While Psystar complies with Section
117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple—and Apple alone—will say “whether, how or by whom its software is . . .distributed or used.”...

Such declarations likewise run afoul of 17 U.S.C. § 109 and the first sale doctrine. Once a copyright owner consents to the sale of particular copies of a work, the owner may not thereafter exercise distribution rights with respect to those copies. See, e.g., Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51 (1908) (recognizing more than 100 years ago the concept of first sale and the limitations imposed upon a copyright owner in light thereof). Psystar acquired lawful copies of the Mac OS from Apple; those copies were lawfully acquired from authorized distributors including some directly from Apple; Psystar paid good and valuable consideration for those copies; Psystar disposed of those lawfully acquired copies to third-parties...

Apple attempts to disguise interoperability—which is favored by the copyright laws—as circumvention. Apple then proceeds to bring suit under the DMCA to prohibit such interoperability. Customers are thereby required to utilize Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems—hardware system that are wholly outside the scope of any copyright held by Apple...

Psystar does not allege that Apple is controlling the specific use of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System. Psystar does not allege that Apple requires an Apple-
Labeled Computer Hardware system to only be used at particular times, in a particular fashion, orfor a particular ends or purpose.

What Psystar does allege is that Apple is inappropriately extending its copyrights in the Mac OS to the purchase of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System for the purpose of using the Mac OS...

Through Apple’s End User License Agreement (EULA), to load or execute a copy of the Mac OS requires (according to Apple) the purchase and exclusive use of an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System with the Mac OS... A copyright is exclusive to creative works; Apple’s copyrights in the Mac OS do not cover hardware...

Not only is such an extension of copyrights in the Mac OS to an independent hardware component anticompetitive (i.e., to the detriment of other hardware
manufacturers), Apple’s EULA violates the public policy of the copyright laws by overextending the limited copyright monopoly... This type of monopoly
extension through tying is the exact behavior prohibited by the copyright misuse doctrine."

It's a clever argument - we bought it from Apple and they're saying we can't play with it unless we buy their hardware to use with it too - but the outcome may just hang on the judge's perspective of the enforceability of Apple's EULA in this context.