Psystar Corporation, popular in the Hackintosh community for being the first OEM to sell prepackaged custom PC hardware running the hacked version of Mac OS X Leopard which has been circulating widely across the internet lately, may or may not have an uphill legal battle against Apple computer regarding precedents for either argument. After being sued by Apple Computer for obvious reasons, they announced shortly after a counter suit, mostly on the grounds that Apple is pulling a Microsoft in the sense that they are practicing anticompetitive business practices, strictly prohibited by the United States Antitrust laws, something our pals at Microsoft came under fire for several times which cost them millions of dollars.

But is this case wrong on the grounds of Psystar violating Apple’s EULA, or is the EULA null because of unfair business practices?

Given Apple’s legal history of sue-first-ask-questions-later (enforced in this case since Psystar claims Apple did not contact them before serving papers), for Psystar to violate Apple’s EULA by selling a hacked version of OS X for profit is the same concept as entering a lion’s cage with a steak on your back. So it was absolutely no surprise at all when Apple filed for a suit, despite the amount of time it took them to do so. However, when Psystar announced their plans to counter-sue, some were shocked beyond belief, and others in the hackintosh community began to hold on to a glimmer of hope that they could continue their project without breaking the law anymore (as long as the copies aren’t pirated, that is).

But does Psystar actually have a case at all, and if so how easy would it be to win and be allowed to continue selling OpenComputers (the title they are using instead of the old OpenMac name for their custom machines running Leopard). I would say that yes, they certainly do have a case, but winning it will not be the easiest thing in the world, but the precedents set by the Microsoft AntiTrust cases would be excellent to point out during the trial.

The Microsoft AntiTrust lawsuits aimed to help overthrow Microsoft’s monopoly with web browsers, media players, and of course shots were aimed at Windows. While there were obvious failures in the attempts to overthrow the OS and web browser iron fists, Microsoft was, however, forced to release a version of Windows for both XP home, professional, and Vista Basic with -N appended to the end of the name because it does not include Windows Media Player, not only unbloating Windows somewhat (with the exception of AOL trials and software cracks if you bought it from Asus) but allowing you more freedom to pick your own media player, say, VLC or the like.

In addition to that, Microsoft had to fork out about 490 million dollars in fines, and while this was a victory, the Internet Explorer and Windows OEM cases were not. Psystar could very easily cite the Media Player as a precedent for their case, since Apple is in a worse position than Microsoft: they are completely controlling the hardware-software relationship for their computers, and they have made NO deals with others regarding the sales of their operating system on other hardware besides their own (and Dell even had the balls to ask only to be shot down, sparking a little war between Dell and Jobs).

So while it would appear Psystar has an easy time getting the EULA null and void, the fact that they still sold them regardless of whether the EULA was legally valid or not is still going to hurt them, in addition to using possible hacked versions of Apple’s OS without their permission (and the “Mac” trademark in the original OpenMac). In addition, EfiX has recently made a dongle that allows the installation of Mac OS X Leopard onto a (relatively small) subset of Gigabyte motherboards, and Apple has not done anything about this so far. This Psystar case almost directly impacts EfiX’s sales, since they are doing the same thing as Psystar just slightly different.

Personally I would love to see Psystar win to make an example of the consequences of poor business ethics, and to show the positive effects of deals struck for compromises. If Apple loses this case, even after possible fines, their desktop share could skyrocket (something the shareholders ironically would not let happen) since less people would want to download and hack Leopard(in theory) for buying it at Best Buy and installing it on their NewEgg-bought custom PC. It only makes sense, especially since the beloved “Mac” brand had its non-PC line blurred during the Intel transition and OS X’s Unix certification.

While long time Macintosh/NeXTSTEP users may not like the counter-suit and its possible outcome, there is still hope left for those that have had the joy of being an official different-thinking Macintosh user for a while, as the verdict has not been announced yet and the case has not been dropped. But if Psystar wins the case, expect a lot of changes in the PC and Mac worlds, and if Apple wins, then AntiTrust laws will have forever taken a hit with a newly-set precedent, and Apple will continue to satisfy their niche in the desktop market, and ONLY that niche, which is held dearly to those that comprise it.