Editing Macintosh clone (section)

== Unlicensed clones ==
Wary of repeating history and wanting to retain tight control of its product, Apple's Macintosh strategy included technical and legal measures that rendered production of Mac clones problematic. The original Macintosh system software contained a very large amount of complex code, which embodied the Mac's entire set of [[API]]s, including the use of the GUI and [[file system]]. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, much of the system software was included in the Macintosh's physical ROM chips. Therefore, any competitor attempting to create a Macintosh clone without infringing copyright would have to reverse-engineer the ROMs, which would have been an enormous and costly process without certainty of success. Only one company, Nutek, managed to produce "semi-Mac-compatible" computers in the early 1990s by partially re-implementing [[System 7 (Macintosh)|System 7]] ROMs.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.everymac.com/systems/nutek/index.html | title=MacOS-Compatible Systems: NuTek | publisher=EveryMac.com | accessdate=2006-05-25}}</ref>

[[File:Outbound Systems Inc. Model 2000 rear memory slots.jpg|thumb|Mac ROM was used in the Outbound Notebook. The Mac ROM stick is shown removed, revealing the RAM slots.]]
This strategy, making the development of competitive Mac clones prohibitively expensive, successfully shut out manufacturers looking to create computers that would directly compete with Apple's product lines. However, companies like [[Outbound laptop|Outbound Systems]], [[Dynamac]] and [[Colby Systems]], were able to sidestep the Mac cloning process by targeting high-end, high-profit market segments without suitable product offerings from Apple and offering [[Macintosh clone#Macintosh conversion|Mac conversions]] instead.<ref>{{citation|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1563/is_n2_v9/ai_9820899/|title=Taking your Mac on the road: Outbound Laptop System - Hardware Review - alternative to Apple Macintosh Portable from Outbound Systems Inc - evaluation|author=Eric Taub|work=Home Office Computing|year=1991}}</ref><ref>{{citation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hTwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA5|work=InfoWorld|date=24 November 1986|page=5|first=Rory J.|last=O'Connor|title=Apple Backs Portable Mac By Dynamac- First Mac Laptop To Gain Approval}}</ref><ref>{{citation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pDsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8|work=InfoWorld|date=31 October 1988|page=8|first=Laurie|last=Flynn|title=Colby to Sell SE Model of Walk-Mac- Plans for Authorized Apple Dealers to Install Spare Motherboards}}</ref>

In the early 1980s, Brazil's military dictatorship instituted trade restrictions that prohibited the importation of computers from overseas manufacturers, and these restrictions were not lifted until 1993. A Brazilian company called Unitron (which had previously produced Apple II clones) developed a Macintosh clone with specifications similar to the Mac 512K, and proposed to put it on sale. Although Unitron claimed to have legitimately reverse-engineered the ROMs and hardware, and Apple did not hold patents covering the computer in Brazil, Apple claimed the ROMs had simply been copied.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://lowendmac.com/2016/unitron-mac-512-a-contraband-mac-512k-from-brazil/ | title= Unitron Mac 512: A Contraband Mac 512K from Brazil | publisher=low end mac | accessdate=2011-05-22}}</ref> Ultimately, under pressure from the US government and local manufacturers of [[PC clone]]s the Brazilian Computer and Automation Council did not allow production to proceed.<ref>{{citation|title=O caso Unitron e condições de inovação tecnológica no Brasil|first=Ivan|last=da Costa Marques|publisher=Brazilian Economic History Society|work=Proceedings of the 5th Brazilian Congress of Economic History and the 6th International Conference on Business History|year=2003|url=http://www.abphe.org.br/congresso2003/Textos/Abphe_2003_39.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20041208203821/http://www.abphe.org.br/congresso2003/Textos/Abphe_2003_39.pdf|archivedate=2004-12-08|language=Portuguese }}</ref>

===Hackintosh===
{{Main|Hackintosh}}
When Apple migrated to the PC-Intel platform in the mid-2000s, Apple hardware was more or less the same as generic PC hardware from a platform perspective. This theoretically allowed for installation of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. ''Hackintosh'' is the term appropriated by hobbyist programmers, who have collaborated on the Internet to install versions of Mac OS X v10.4 onwards{{snd}} dubbed ''Mac OSx86''{{snd}}  to be used on [[Personal Computer|generic PC]] hardware rather than on Apple's own hardware. Apple contends this is illegal under the [[DMCA]], so in order to combat illegal usage of their operating system software, they continue to use methods to prevent Mac OS X (now macOS) from being installed on unofficial non-Apple hardware, with mixed success. At present, with proper knowledge and instruction, macOS installation is more or less straightforward.  Several online communities have sprung up to support end-users who wish to install macOS on non-Apple hardware.  Some representative examples of these are Dortania and InsanelyMac.

===Psystar Corporation===
{{Main|Psystar}}

In April 2008, [[Psystar|Psystar Corporation]] based in [[Miami]], [[Florida]], announced the first commercially available [[Hackintosh|OSx86]], a [[Wintel]]/[[Personal computer|PC]] computer with [[Mac OS X Leopard]] pre-installed<ref>[http://www.crn.com/hardware/207200440 Psystar Releases Mac Clone]</ref> partially with software from the [[Hackintosh|OSx86]] community project.<ref>{{cite web|author=Patel, Nilay|date=2008-04-16|title=OSx86 Project not too happy with Psystar either|url=https://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/osx86-project-not-too-happy-with-psystar-either/|publisher=Engadget|accessdate=Sep 17, 2008}}</ref> [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] immediately sued in July 2008<ref>{{cite web|author=Fried, Ina|date=2008-07-15|title=Apple sues clone maker Psystar|url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-9991572-56.html|work=[[CNET News]]|publisher=[[CBS Corporation]]|accessdate=19 November 2008}}</ref> and a protracted legal battle followed, ending in November 2009 with a summary judgement against Psystar.<ref>{{cite web|author=Elmer-DeWitt, Philip|date=2009-11-14|title=Apple wins clone suit|url=http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-clone-suit/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100330233518/http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-clone-suit/|archive-date=March 30, 2010|website=[[CNN Money]]|accessdate=November 15, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Keizer, Greg|date=2009-11-15|title=Apple Wins Court Victory Over Mac Clone Maker Psystar|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/182218/Apple_Wins_Court_Victory_Over_Mac_Clone_Maker_Psystar.html?tk=rss_news|publisher=[[Pc World]]|accessdate=November 15, 2009}}</ref> In May 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] denied Psystar's appeal, closing the case for good.<ref>{{cite web|title=CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051412zor.pdf}}</ref>