“Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works,” Alsup wrote in his ruling (see full text below). Not only did the company infringe on Apple’s (AAPL) copyrights by installing Mac OS X on its hackintoshes, he explained, it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to do so.

An ugly defeat for Psystar, which just a few weeks ago asked a judge to bless its business and rule that it is legally allowed to sell machines with Apple’s Mac OS X pre-installed. Still, it doesn’t mean that the acrimonious legal battle between the two companies is finished. Psystar could appeal, though Alsup’s ruling would seem to leave the company pretty far up that certain creek it’s been traveling lately–without a paddle.

There remain a number of accusations to be decided at trial, among them, Apple’s claims of breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. Beyond these, there are the damages that will almost certainly be brought against Psystar on the copyright issues in the case.

“The court asked for briefs on that subject,” Pamela Jones notes over at Groklaw. “In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar’s only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn’t bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.”

Psystar –

“There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever.”

– Google Vice President of Search Product and User Experience Marissa Mayer

“People wouldn’t like [ads on the homepage]. We prioritize the end user over the advertiser.”

– Google CEO Eric Schmidt, August 2009

Well, this is a first, I think: Google is promoting a consumer electronics device on its front page. Surf over to Google.com right now and you’ll find this pitch plugging Droid, Motorola’s (MOT) new Android smart phone: “The Droid is on sale now. Learn more.”

The text is simple and at just 42 characters, it jibes well with Google’s (GOOG) minimalist design ethic. Click on that “learn more” link and you’re taken to a mobile partners page that touts Droid’s Google-enabled search prowess. Only then are you presented with a big “Get the Verizon Droid Now” button that takes you to Verizon Wireless (VZ), where you can purchase the device.

So is it an ad? Google will almost certainly argue that it is not. But clearly, it commercializes the page. Droid is a consumer product sold by another company and Google is branding it on its most prominent page. Wonder how much that spot is worth.

Furthermore, it’s interesting to see Google leveraging search–a product in which it enjoys a de facto monopoly–to promote a second product that isn’t yet dominant (Android). More so, given this remark from CEO Eric Schmidt, made just yesterday:

“Hopefully, we won’t repeat the mistakes that Microsoft made 10 years ago that ultimately led to all these things that happened to them.”

I’ve asked Google for comment and will update this post if and when I receive a reply.

UPDATE Here’s Google’s comment on the Droid promotion via company spokesperson Gabriel Stricker:

We are currently running a homepage promotion for Droid. From time to time we include a link on the Google home page that points users to exciting and important information, whether it be relief opportunities in the wake of a tsunami or hurricane, awareness about an important cause, or information about a new product. The Droid is a hardware collaboration that we’ve been very active and involved with, so it makes sense that Google has an interest in getting the word out.

UPDATE Turns out this is not the first Google has promoted a handset on its homepage. Last October it plugged another Android device there, the T-Mobile G1.

How could a company whose Chief Internet Evangelist, Vint Cerf, once told the Senate Commerce Committee that allowing “broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success,” approach those carriers with a proposal that would seemingly do just that?

There’s a very simple answer to that question: Google is not doing that, and reports suggesting that is are misguided. Yes, Google (GOOG) “has approached major cable and phone companies” with a plan to “place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers.” Yes, this plan would improve content delivery speeds.

And, no, doing so does not violate the concept of network neutrality. If it did, companies like Akamai and Limelight, which also have servers hosted at broadband provider facilities, would long ago have been tarred as anti-Net neutrality villains. Colocating caching servers is a common practice that improves bandwidth usage by bringing data closer to the end user. And while it will certainly make Google’s services faster and more responsive, it won’t do so at the expense of non-Google services. That would be a violation of Net neutrality.

“Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching–temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users–violates the concept of network neutrality,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel explains. “As I said last summer, this myth–which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday’s Wall Street Journal–is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works…. All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs–which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache–are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic.”

So Google is not negotiating exclusive deals for privileged access. It is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.” It is not seeking to prioritize its traffic in violation of the Net neutrality principles it espouses. Frankly, this story has little to do with Net neutrality at all. “Network neutrality is about the routing of packets,” Tech Liberation Front’s Tim Lee explained earlier this year when Akamai was accused of violating Net neutrality. “A network is neutral if it faithfully transmits information from one end of the network to the other and doesn’t discriminate among packets based on their contents. Neutrality is, in other words, about the behavior of the routers that move packets around the network. It has nothing to do with the behavior of servers at the edges of the network because they don’t route anyone’s packets.”

“When Dell announced Q2 financial results on Aug. 28, 2008, it reported continued conservatism in IT spending in the U.S., which had extended into Western Europe and several countries in Asia,” the company said in a statement. “The company is seeing further softening in global end-user demand in the current quarter.”

Translation: If you thought Q2 was lousy, wait until you see our Q3.

Coming as it does after a second quarter in which Dell (DELL) reported a 17 percent drop in earnings and announced plans to sell off its factories, the warning doesn’t bode at all well for the company’s next round of financials. Said Bill Kreher, a securities analyst with Edward Jones, “The company’s inconsistent performance and lack of confidence means there’s a lot of uncertainty in the turnaround.”

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks unspecified, triple damages and, more importantly, an order voiding Apple’s end-user license agreements (EULA). If successful, it will allow OS X to be installed on hardware it was never intended to run on, opening the door for the first legitimate Mac clones in more than a decade. Hard to see Apple (AAPL) allowing that to happen, though. My guess is the company would sooner kill retail sales of OS X and manage upgrades through iTunes, than allow it to be run on inferior machines over whose quality it has no control.