Apple, however, will be very pleased with the ruling. The court granted Apple’s request for a permanent injunction, barring future sales of any machines with OS X pre-installed. It also prohibits Psystar from trying to get around Apple’s technological countermeasures put in place to prevent illegal copying and use of OS X, and from helping others try to do so.

While it sounds like this injunction might extend to the Rebel EFI software that Psystar has been selling to help users put OS X on machines themselves, it isn’t expressly forbidden. Judge William Alsup warns, though, that doesn’t necessarily mean Psystar is in the clear. Instead, he emphasizes the risks inherent in continuing to sell Rebel EFI, as reported by All Things Digital:

Rebel EFI will not be expressly excluded from the terms of the injunction. It should be clear, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to Psystar bringing a new motion before the undersigned that includes real details about Rebel EFI, and opening itself up to formal discovery thereon. This would serve the purpose — akin to a post-injunction motion vetting a “design-around” in a patent action — of potentially vetting (or not vetting) a product like Rebel EFI under this order’s decree. Moreover, Psystar may raise in such a motion any defenses it believes should apply to the factual circumstances of its new product, such as the 17 U.S.C. 117 defense raised in its opposition and at oral argument. Whether such a defense would be successful on the merits, or face preclusion or other hurdles, this order cannot predict. 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 held in contempt if its new venture falls within the scope of the injunction.

The injunction takes effect immediately, but Psystar has been given until Dec. 31 at the latest to cease all of its sales operations. That’s an outside limit, though, and the judge told the company to stop within the hour if at all possible.

I’m glad this thing is basically over. While I’m not sure I agree with the degree to which OS X is a closed system, all Psystar really proved was that once you take quality control and attention to detail out of the hands of Apple, things rapidly start to go downhill. Despite recent problems, it’d be a shame to see what tends to be the much more reliable Mac experience go the way of the PC, with its HPs, Compaqs, and low-end Acers.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

In other words, if you desperately want that Open(7), you’d better place an order ASAP, because you might never get a chance again once the decision comes down. The complaint, is based on the premise that Psystar is now “trafficking in circumvention devices,” which is causing “unquantifiable” harm to Apple’s image.

The new motion specifically targets Psystar’s recently released software product, Rebel EFI, which bypasses the built-in prevention measures that limit the installation of OS X 10.6 to Apple-built hardware only. Using Rebel EFI, customers can supposedly install OS X on any Intel-based system, although the compatibility of individual components will vary widely.

Up till now, Apple has succeeded in dealing serious blows to Psystar, including winning a summary judgment, but it hasn’t managed to get a ruling that would shut down the company’s operation for good. The clone maker can continue doing business even if it keeps having to pay damages, since it can declare bankruptcy and reform as long as it can raise enough operating capital to stay afloat…hence the attempt by Apple to put an end to the expensive cycle.

Apple SVP of Worldwide Product Marketing Phil Schiller puts it succinctly in an affidavit for the latest claim:

So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple and its brand will continue.  I believe Apple should not be required to file a new lawsuit to stop Psystar from infringing Apple’s intellectual property each time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X. Requiring Apple to file multiple lawsuits to stop the same infringing conduct would be unfair, expensive, and a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources.

Apple also recently tried to shut down Atom support in OS X, which would seriously derail the efforts of at-home netbook hacking, so it looks like Cupertino is just generally trying to shut down any and all efforts to wrestle control of the operating system from its iron grip.

The next hearing is scheduled for December 14, and the official trial will start in January 2010. Psystar doesn’t look to be in good shape as it is, but if Apple manages to get this permanent injunction, all hope is lost for the hackintosh purveyor.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

And compete it does, when it comes to hardware specifications. The Open(3)’s base configuration includes a 2.8 GHz Core 2 Duo E7400 processor, 2GB DDR2 800 RAM, a 500GB 7200RPM SATA HD, and a GeForce 8400GS 256MB graphics card. All of which nicely one-ups the Mac mini’s specifications at the same price point of $599. Of course, you don’t get the same small form factor that you do with the mini, but you do get the ability to upgrade to a 1TB HD, add in an extra HD, and choose from a bevy of other options.

It seems like quite the package, considering the price, but if you take a closer look at what isn’t there, it starts to look a little fishy. No FireWire, no Bluetooth, and no networking (Ethernet or wireless) are included at all at the $599 price point, and all are fairly costly add-ons. Plus, integrated Bluetooth isn’t available, and instead you get a USB dongle for your extra 40 bucks.

Psystar seems to be keeping the general price tag low by nickel and diming you on basic extras that should be included to begin with. Even if you still end up getting more muscle for your money in the end, I’m not tempted in the least by this offering. How future-proof is a Psystar machine, after all, even leaving aside the issue of their legal battle with Apple? Who’s to say that Snow Leopard, when it comes out, will be completely and permanently incompatible with Psystar hardware? You get what you pay for, and I think this is especially the case with these clone machines. That said, if anyone actually takes the plunge and decides to buy one of these, I’d love to hear about your experiences.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce

With all the hoopla surrounding Psystar these days, a few other companies have jumped on board the Mac clone bandwagon. In some cases they’re using somewhat, shall we say, unique, methods. Still, the intent is clear: skirt Apple’s EULA and sell a solution that allows Mac OS X to run on generic PC hardware. In other words, swipe Apple’s IP.

Wired has a piece that discusses the cloning and how Apple may be powerless to stop it. 

What bothers me most about cloning is the sheer hutzpah of those doing it. For example: 

“We certainly don’t want to get into a legal battle that’s over a couple thousand dollars,” an EFIX USA spokesman said. “Potentially Apple could have a legal issue there. They may not have a legal issue, but with all the money they have they might try to make one.”

Apple could have a legal issue? Oh please. 

Translation: We know what we’re doing is wrong, and have no legitimate defense for it in court, but we’ll try to make Apple sound like the bad guy and grab some Apple-basher press. 

And of course they bring up money. When in doubt, always bring up money. It’s a great way to obfuscate the issue; Apple is big and rich while they’re small and poor. Forget that money is one thing they’re likely in it for. Yet just as Psystar thinks their EULA is sacrosanct while Apple’s is bogus, EFIX USA thinks their money is OK and Apple’s is somehow wrong.

What’s funny is that the company making the dongle EFIX USA is selling knows it’s wrong: 

“We get somewhat mixed signals on what [Art Studios Entertainment Media] would really like to accomplish,” an EFIX USA spokesman said. “They produce the device and want to sell it, but somehow they don’t want it to come out that the primary function of the device is that it allows people to run OS X on generic Intel hardware.”

Ya think? Here’s a free tip for you: When the product you’re selling has to be all hush hush, with a kind of whispered admonition to “ixnay on the rimarypay urposepay,” something is definitely wrong. 

The Apple EULA, for all its complexity, says you’re not allowed to run the Mac OS on a non-Apple system. No matter how clever the cloners think they’re getting, or how much railing against The Man, or hand-wringing they perform, they’re nothing but a bunch of snake-oil hucksters selling what isn’t theirs. 

And spare me comments about how Apple’s business model is “wrong”, how they should allow the Mac OS to run wherever you want, how they’re forcing you to buy a Mac, etc. It. Doesn’t. Matter. I can respect your opinion, but those arguments are emotional, not legal, and a waste of time. Wishing won’t (and shouldn’t) make it so. Apple’s business model is just fine, thank you. Any glance at their quarterly reports makes that abundantly clear. 

Further, Apple forces no one to buy a Mac, they’re simply setting the conditions upon which they’ll sell their work. You don’t like it? Get a PC and run Linux or Windows. I’ve run every version of Windows (except server) from Windows 3.0 to Vista, and if Apple closed their doors tomorrow I’d be just fine. Still, the advantages of the Mac OS to me are easily enough for me to agree to Apple’s terms, just as I agree to Microsoft’s when I run their OS. 

As for how Apple can stop cloning, I see no evidence that they try to shutdown the occasional hacker. Unlike the RIAA, Apple isn’t suing grandma because she had the wherewithal to get a Hackintosh running. 

But there’s a world of difference between the average one-off geek assembling a Mac clone and a corporation (no matter how small) doing the work for you and making it widely available. The difference between the two scenarios should be obvious to anyone not shilling for the competition, or Apple-bashing, or looking for a page-hit headline. 

Clearly, Apple is going after firms with a business model that includes Apple IP the firm isn’t licensed to sell. Despite the alleged legal arguments or loopholes from closet “attorneys” on various message boards, it’s difficult to see any legal leg for these firms to stand on. I think the Psystar case makes that clearer with each passing day. 

Sadly, there’s collateral damage caused by these hucksters. While I think most customers probably should have known better, there are undoubtedly those who bought in good faith. These people don’t follow this topic like readers of this blog, and had no idea they were buying something questionable. I certainly don’t think Apple owes them anything, but I wish the legal system could stop clone sales until the question is definitively settled. Of course, that opens up another can of worms so the bottom line is these hucksters will screw over some honest people. The hucksters will tell you they’re trying to help users by making a “Mac” more affordable, but how many of you believe that when they lose in court they’ll do anything to make it right with the users they bilked? 

Finally, the Wired article concludes with the following: 

…Apple’s clone problem is unlikely to go away in the near future. As long as OS X runs on Intel hardware, and as long as the developers behind OSX86 continue their work, it will be difficult for Apple to stop cloning altogether.

I think Apple’s pursuit of cloning is right where it should be. No sense in going after the occasional user, but they should not allow any widespread business to spring up around their IP. I’m not sure any other course would make much sense.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

Alas, you can’t do that with OS X and its thousands of tiny, usually invisible files, but the next best thing is disk cloning, which is to make a copy of an existing bootable volume on another disk or drive. This is excellent for backups, but has the added advantage of allowing you to create bootable disks without going through the hassle of running an OS X installer program.

There are several software utilities available that can clone drives, but it’s hard to go wrong with Mike Bombich’s Carbon Copy Cloner, which is offered as uncrippled shareware, with donations suggested if you like the software and decide to continue using it once you’ve checked it out.

Backups Too

Besides drive cloning, Carbon Copy Cloner allows you to do backups and drive synchronization. supporting any HFS+ formatted partition or hard drive (excluding volumes used for Time Machine) as well as FireWire and USB hard drives, including iPods. Note that not all FireWire hard drives are bootable with Mac OS X, and while it is sometimes possible for Intel-based Macs to boot from USB hard drives, it’s not a sure thing.

Note also that for bootability you must format the FireWire drive with the appropriate partition map using Apple’s Disk Utility or other formatting software. The Disk Utility formatting selection sheet (Options button) is self-explanatory.

You can read more about formatting issues and my using CCC to create a bootable clone of my main hard drive to a SimpleTech Duo Pro Hard Drive here.

CCC’s marquee function is cloning one hard drive volume to another, copying every single file to create an exact replica of your source hard drive. Aside from the obvious comprehensive backup you get, if it’s done to a bootable volume you can, say, send your computer in for repairs while continuing to boot and use your standard work configuration until you get your computer back, then just clone the FireWire drive’s updated content back to your internal drive.

Using CCC for Backup and Synchronization

CCC can also be used as a backup utility. When you select a source volume, CCC displays the contents of that volume (including normally hidden items). Uncheck items that you don’t want to back up, select a target volume, and press the clone button. CCC also is smart enough to scan the source and target volumes for files to be copied, and only copy only files that have changed. You can also schedule automated backups.

Another advantage of CCC backups is that rather than using proprietary archival methods, CCC backs up your data to an ordinary filesystem that you can browse in the Finder. To restore your backup data, just select your backup medium as the source drive and the backup destination as your new target volume, and let CCC do its stuff.

Carbon Copy Cloner 3 also supports cloning to disk images, which you can use to restore content to a physical hard drive and produce a bootable, exact clone of the original.

Carbon Copy Cloner 3 requires Mac OS X 10.4.8 or later. Version 2.3 is still available for Mac OS 10.2 and 10.3 users.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• A 2011 Infrastructure Forecast
• Big Data 2011 Preview

Apple sued Psystar on July 3rd (when everyone was too busy worrying about the iPhone launch) and asked that all the computers that Psystar has sold be recalled. It was not surprising to see Apple sue for damages from loss of sales, good name, etc., but it is surprising that they are requesting a recall of all computers sold.

Many people have pointed out that just because Apple’s EULA forbids putting OS X software on anything but an Apple, doesn’t mean that it is actually legally binding. This will be interesting to see if Apple’s EULA will stand up. They do lay out a pretty good claim in their filing. Apple claims that the success of their brand is largely due to the fact that they control everything. Yesterday Apple declined to have their case brought before a magistrate judge (a judge that helps and gets cases ready for a district judge) and requested that it be brought before a US District Judge.

Apple is intent on fighting their case. We’ll keep you updated as things progress.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce
• Content Farms: The Players, The Benefits, The Risks

The servers have Intel Xeon Harpertown processors, can have up to 16 GB of RAM, and 6 TB of storage.

The really crazy thing is that Apple still has not done anything. Psystar even released an update for the 10.5.3 update to Leopard. What is Apple saying by not saying anything about this? It seems that silence is permission.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• The Near-Term Evolution of Social Commerce