ITWire

The final issue turned on whether Psystar created a "derivative work" of OS X, as Apple contended. Apple has the exclusive right to create such works.

To get OS X to run on its computers, Psystar replaced the OS X bootloader, disabled and removed Apple kernel extensions, and added its own kernel extensions. Psystar acknowledged that it made those modifications.

But Psystar claimed that didn't make its copies of OS X "derivative works," because it didn't actually modify Apple's source code. It merely replaced some of it with its own.

The judge called the argument "unavailing" and pointed out that Psystar didn't cite any court decisions supporting its interpretation of what makes a derivative work.

So as to the question of copyright infringement, the judge concludes, "Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement must be granted."

The order also grants summary judgment for Apple's claim of contributory infringement -- encouraging others to infringe copyright, in this case by selling them unauthorized copies of OS X.

Finally, the judge took up Psystar's counterclaim that Apple was misusing copyright law to tie OS X to its own hardware.

For the judge's opinion of that argument, see Page 3.