The summary judgement only covered Leopard, because Apple had sought to specifically exclude Snow Leopard from the litigation. Despite this, judge Alsup agrees with Apple that the injunction should cover Snow Leopard as well (court document via MacRumors).
"The inclusion of future works within the scope of an injunction ensures that litigation need not be needlessly replicated when the defendant's infringing acts are the same, but the copyrighted work has changed," Alsup writes, "Put differently, whether or not Apple allowed Snow Leopard to be litigated in discovery, an injunctive decree can reach beyond the four corners of the litigated copyrighted works to cover non-litigated items of similar character."
Psystar actively tried to keep Rebel EFI out of the injunction, but has failed to do so. Psystar claimed that Rebel EFI does not fall within the same type of act as they have been found infringing of, but as Psystar provides no details to the courts about what Rebel EFI does and how it it does it, it will not be excluded from the injunction - however, Alsup was clear that Psystar is free to file a new motion to have Rebel EFI excluded.
"In sum, 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," Alsup writes, "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."
Here's the actual injunction:
- 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 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 protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
Psystar must comply by December 31, 2009.
This means it's pretty much over for Psystar. They no longer have anything else to sell but standard PCs, without Mac OS X installed, and without even the technology to sell to do so. They must also destroy all infringing material in their possession.
With Psystar down, there are still quite a lot of clone makers left, such as Quo in California, and PearC here in Europe. It will be interesting to see if Apple will undertake legal action against them too, or if it believes the win in the Psystar case has enough of a repelling effect.
Since Apple has a history of even going after individual bloggers, trying to shut them up, it wouldn't be surprising to see them use this case as the basis on which to send cease and desist letters to website like InsanelyMac. Interesting times surely to come.