Psystar claims Apple has invalid Mac OS X copyright

[AppleInsider]

In an aggressive response, unofficial Mac clone builder Psystar has made a controversial claim that Apple doesn't legally own the US rights to protect Mac OS X, invalidating a major component of its lawsuit.

The addition to Psystar's mounting defense was filed last week in the Northern District of California San Francisco court playing home to the legal entanglement.

In its new submission, the Florida-based PC builder argues that Apple's complaint should be tossed outright as Apple didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X. Without that copyright, the Mac maker is "prohibited from bringing action" against Psystar for DMCA violation claims and other copyright-related allegations.

The amended response also reiterates Psystar's earlier concerns that Apple is using a startup check in Mac OS X Leopard to block unauthorized systems from running the software. In the earlier retort to Apple's revised lawsuit, Psystar argues that Apple isn't using copyright protection as a failed check merely crashes the system.

Whether the new claim of invalid copyright can be sustained isn't yet clear. However, initial searches for copyrights through the US Copyright Office reveal that Apple does own at least a disc and manual copyright for Mac OS X Leopard published on October 26th, 2007 -- the day the software became available to the public.

Even so, Psystar is steadily becoming known for turning to unconventional interpretations of the law to try and thwart Apple's lawsuit, which itself has gone to the extreme of suggesting that secret contributors have helped Psystar get to the level of business it has today.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Psystar is steadily becoming known for turning to unconventional interpretations of the law to try and thwart Apple's lawsuit

That is putting it politely

[Wiggin]

This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.

To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?

[NOFEER]

where are they getting their money for this mess???? i would think in the discovery phase that the real players in this will be found out. its more for press than a real attack why even give these parasites the time of day / news somebody big is behind this...hmmmm that's what apple should be looking into
can't anyone out there, bank teller, corp lawyer that works on these cases "slip" the info to AI??

[svesan03]

I'm not sure I'd purchase a product that has no support from Apple. I've heard nothing regarding Psystar's stellar service and tech support. Maybe others can illuminate? I didn't want a clone when they were licensed clones, why would I want one of these machines... price? If price was my only consideration I would have bought a Dell! It wasn't, I didn't and I have 4 Macs at home.

[htoelle]

There has to be more to this than an upstart computer manufacture trying to make money on something it did not earn. The style of action has an uncanny resemblance to something that would be pulled by an organization located in a northern US state. What puzzles me more is. Where is the money coming from to fund all this legal wrangling? I find it hard to believe that Pystar has the resources to take on Apple for a battle that will surely go into to high millions and be very protracted.

[NasserAE]

According the copyright.gov Apple registration

"Apple Inc., employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program"

[TheMacMan]

Psystar are idiots, Mac OS X has a copyright. The copyright number is TX0006849489 submitted in 2007.

Look it up on the following site

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwe...&CNT=25&HIST=1

I wish that all the media, including this one, would do their home work prior to posting something like this. It took me 2 minutes to find out. Why are people who are reporting this crap wouldn't do the research first?

[VinitaBoy]

One of these days tort reform will come to the shores of this last great hope of mankind . . . and the loser will be compelled to pay ALL legal expenses incurred by the winner. Until that comes to pass, any litigation, no matter how frivolous or ill-intended, will cost both sides astronomical amounts of money--winners as well as losers.

I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.

[Adjei]

Are these guys joking or what? This just reeks of desperation.

[TheMadMilkman]

Originally Posted by Wiggin

This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.

To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?

You are correct, copyright does not require an explicit registration, although registration is a useful tool in lawsuits. Psystar's statements are looking more and more like the desperate act of a company that believes it's going to lose.

[JimDreamworx]

Wow, if PsyStar wins, that means I can upgrade all my 10.4 Macs at my workplace for free!

I am now convinced that if there are deep pockets behind PsyStar, it is strictly being executed as the biggest April Fools joke on Apple and Steve Jobs. I mean, what else could it be?
We'll know in four months!

[nizy]

Every time I read another story about Psystar's defense it gets more and more ridiculous. First they claim antitrust against a single company, which is impossible, now this. Trying to claim that Apple's copyright is not legal, is just plain pathetic and will just as quickly get thrown out of court!

[wizard69]

First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS. Many of the components of MacOS are open source with the copyrights held by somebody else. I would think that Apple would have to be explicit in how each piece of software is copyrighted.

In fact they (Apple) pretty much do so in some of the legal documents that come with MacOS/X. I know when I got my MBP it took awhile just to skim through the file. It would not be impossible for Apple to have overlooked something. Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.

As to throwing stuff on the wall and hoping it sticks well that may infact be the case. You don't win in life by ignoring the possibilities. All Pystars legal team needs is an issue or two to stick solidly.


Dave

[Foo2]

Originally Posted by TheMadMilkman

You are correct, copyright does not require an explicit registration, although registration is a useful tool in lawsuits.

The Berne Convention provides that all creative works are copyrighted automatically without any action on the part of the creator. Not even the inclusion of a copyright notice is necessary.

Formal copyright registration (if filed before the infringement) is useful for getting a court to assess statutory (high) damages against the infringer.

Psystar's statements are looking more and more like the desperate act of a company that believes it's going to lose.

It's no wonder Apple suggested a third party may be behind Psystar. Who could be so stupid as them?

[themoonisdown09]

Maybe Apple is behind this whole Psystar thing... yeah. They're doing it for publicity... yeah.

[cccpr]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Itry and thwart Apple's lawsuit, which itself has gone to the extreme of suggesting that secret contributors have helped Psystar get to the level of business it has today.

Come now, AI...do you REALLY think the assertion is that extreme?

[Virgil-TB2]

All of Psystar's claims *sound* good when you first hear them in the language Psystar expresses them with but they are all razor-thin technical arguments. I find it curious as this is the kind of arguments you would expect some of the best lawyers with deep knowledge of the field could make (inventive, unknown, technical etc.), yet their filings are a joke of bad grammar and poor phrasing in many respects also. It will be interesting to find out what's behind it all when it's over.

One argument though makes no sense to me and I wish someone could explain it. someone please explain to me how the "start-up check" they keep talking about is:

- unexpected
- nefarious
- bad
- "secret"
- a violation of copyright
- "underhanded"
- "stealth"
- any of the above

Psystar and their supporters have made all these claims. Psystar talks about this check as if proving that it just checks for particular intel chips as they say it does, will win them the case.

It seems to me that if Apple is tuning the OS to work on a certain set of chips that are used in their hardware (which is after all what the OS is designed for), then such a check is just the most obvious way to go about it. What's nefarious about that?

[lightstriker]

Wow, i am absolutely speechless. Psystar does not know how to use the reality distortion field correctly.

[l008com]

Originally Posted by VinitaBoy

One of these days tort reform will come to the shores of this last great hope of mankind . . . and the loser will be compelled to pay ALL legal expenses incurred by the winner. Until that comes to pass, any litigation, no matter how frivolous or ill-intended, will cost both sides astronomical amounts of money--winners as well as losers.

I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.

Apple can countersue to cover their legal expenses once this mess is over, can't they? I'm pretty sure they can.

[bdkennedy1]

Michael Dell sure is desperate.

[sflocal]

Originally Posted by lightstriker

Wow, i am absolutely speechless. Psystar does not know how to use the reality distortion field correctly.

These attempts seem similar to the Novell/Unix/IBM/SCO drama that has been going on in the courts for years. They have had several judgments against them yet even at the edge of destruction, will still try to go down kicking and screaming.

Psystar's case has just gone from mildly-interesting to circus-theater. I really hope the judge sees what Psystar is doing (abusing the court system) and really drops the hammer hard on them. Not only should Apple win the case now, but after Psystar is bankrupt, be allowed to go whomever bankrolled this company for whatever remaining judgment owed to Apple. It's gone beyond ridiculous now.

It wasn't a bad thing to post this article as it just states what Psystar is doing next. Any person investing a few minutes of time could have found the copyright info. It is just sad that Psystar is allowed to carpet-bomb the judicial process and hope they get a judge naive enough to take them seriously.

With the way the courts are structured, they do have a chance of getting that one judge.

[iPeon]

AI, get the names behind this PhonyStar sideshow. Who is financing all this? Get some clandestine reporting going on already.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by sflocal

... It is just sad that Psystar is allowed to carpet-bomb the judicial process and hope they get a judge naive enough to take them seriously.

With the way the courts are structured, they do have a chance of getting that one judge.

Yeah, that's the scary part.

Even though it's certainly obvious that Psystar has no real case, it's still *not* certain or obvious that they will lose.

On top of that, there is no way in hell that Apple will give in to them anyway, so by "winning" all Psystar gets is a moral victory. Apple will on the other hand have to:

- go after the OS86 hobbyists (nasty!)
- stop selling OS-X separate from hardware.
- add copy protection and verification (more nasty)
- raise the price of the OS (if they keep selling it)

If Psystar wins, everyone loses.
There will be no cut price hackintoshes as their supporters think.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by l008com

Apple can countersue to cover their legal expenses once this mess is over, can't they? I'm pretty sure they can.

I think that is why they added the John Doe names to their suit. If Apple wins, Psystar will
probably declare bankruptcy and claim they have no assets to pay Apple damages. I am
hoping that the names of any John Doe Psystar backers are discovered through the lawsuit
and that they have deep pockets into which Apple can reach.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by TheMadMilkman

You are correct, copyright does not require an explicit registration, although registration is a useful tool in lawsuits.

last I looked, registration is required for anything over actual damages. and since Psystar apparently bought MacOSX off the shelf for each computer they sold, it would be hard to quantify any actual damages. And Apple might not be able to get their legal costs covered either without that registration in the books properly.

Originally Posted by nizy

Every time I read another story about Psystar's defense it gets more and more ridiculous. First they claim antitrust against a single company, which is impossible,

wrong. one company very much can be guilty of such offenses. Microsoft, for example, was dinged on using abuse of power when they told computer makers that wanted a license to preload Windows that it had to include Internet Explorer and no other web browsers.

Originally Posted by wizard69

First things first; Apple doesn't own the copyright to all the code included with MacOS.

yes there are open source components and Apple is the first to admit this. But this isn't about whether this or that line of code can be copyrighted. it is about the full package of all of the code with the GUI etc. and that complete package was made by Apple to use on their machines within their current legal rights. Psystar didn't take open source code and make a system that sort of looks like MacOSX (as in what Microsoft did with Vista). they took the full package and hacked it to violate the EULA etc. When they added that hack they created a new software package that was basis almost entirely on MacOSX (they changed perhaps 1% of the code) including code created by Apple and most certainly the entire GUI code and design.

Originally Posted by l008com

Apple can countersue to cover their legal expenses once this mess is over, can't they? I'm pretty sure they can.

it is possible that should they win, paying the legal fees will be put on Psystar automatically.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by TheMacMan

Psystar are idiots, Mac OS X has a copyright. The copyright number is TX0006849489 submitted in 2007.

Psystar is not claiming that Apple does not have a Copyright, they're claiming that "Apple didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X."!!! Whatever that means! This statement reminds me of the OJ Simpson's defense when they argued that the DNA evidence could not be used as evidence since it was not collected using the correct procedure.

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

It seems to me that if Apple is tuning the OS to work on a certain set of chips that are used in their hardware (which is after all what the OS is designed for), then such a check is just the most obvious way to go about it. What's nefarious about that?

Psystar's argument here is that Mac OS X's boot process discriminates based on the hardware's manufacturer rather than the actual hardware configuration. If true this is probably their strongest argument, if they have any. Because this is like Microsoft blocking Windows to run on BootCamp although BootCamp is capable.

To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive since other hardware with similar configuration is fully capable of running OS X, Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring that Copyright.

To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?

[wheelhot]

Just gave up Psycrap, your business idea is already bad to begin with. Selling other people work without permission, you guys are already on the wrong side of the law to begin with.

[Paladinkn00be]

Originally Posted by quinney

I think that is why they added the John Doe names to their suit. If Apple wins, Psystar will
probably declare bankruptcy and claim they have no assets to pay Apple damages. I am
hoping that the names of any John Doe Psystar backers are discovered through the lawsuit
and that they have deep pockets into which Apple can reach.

A company cant get away that easily. I was going to say if the company was a partnership or proprietorship, the owners will be at risk of losing ANY and ALL assets. But i guess the only intelligent thing this company has done is incorporate, but the company itsself is at risk of losing all assets and the investors wont receive anything back.

[Paladinkn00be]

Originally Posted by wizard69

Just because you legally publish something does not mean you own the copyright to all materials in the publication. The photographic industry would fall apart if that was true.

Dave

What are you trying to say here? That makes absolutely no sense.
A magazine pays the photographer for the rights to use an image in the magazine, no they do not own the photo, duh, but they did pay a royalty to use the photo. The photographer only owns the photo and nothing else that isnt theirs in the magazine. Only in specific circumstances, defined by contract, does the publication own the photographer's work, but all parties involved are aware of this agreement, yet the photographer is still required to receive credit for the photos.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

... Psystar's argument here is that Mac OS X's boot process discriminates based on the hardware's manufacturer rather than the actual hardware configuration. If true this is probably their strongest argument, if they have any. Because this is like Microsoft blocking Windows to run on BootCamp although BootCamp is capable.

To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive since other hardware with similar configuration is fully capable of running OS X, Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring that Copyright. ...

I appreciate your explanation and indeed, it gets me much closer to understanding what they are trying to argue, but it still makes little sense IMO.

Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.

On further thought, I think this totally explains the silly argument they are making.

It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?

One word: Woz!

[dasein]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

To summarize, Psystar is claiming: Although Apple explicitly points out that OS X must run on Apple hardware, which is anti-competitive since other hardware with similar configuration is fully capable of running OS X, Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring that Copyright.

To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?

A licensor has the right to dictate the terms of how its software product is used (the stuff no one reads but clicks the 'I Agree' button to proceed, thereby accepting those terms). I agree it's pretty lame and sounds like either someone's desperate or is on a fishing expedition for a hole in the fence (sorry for the mixed metaphors). If it's the former, it'll be thrown out fairly quickly by a judge as frivolous. If someone wanted to test the foundations of Apple's product, I would think they'd do it in some respect with the OS kernel itself. BSD UNIX has, itself, certain conditions attached to its use, which I'm sure the Apple legal department has vetted.

[dudemac]

Originally Posted by VinitaBoy

One of these days tort reform will come to the shores of this last great hope of mankind . . . and the loser will be compelled to pay ALL legal expenses incurred by the winner. Until that comes to pass, any litigation, no matter how frivolous or ill-intended, will cost both sides astronomical amounts of money--winners as well as losers.

I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.

Maybe instead of tort reform we should just get rid of the lawyers as a vehicle to litigation. As they are the ones that add most of the cost. Court fees are nothing compared to the theirs.

thedude.

[8CoreWhore]

If someone wanted to get a court judgment that Apple didn't have a right to restrict the OS to their own hardware, they would first have to be a legitimate complainant. They could start up a small computer company, do what Psystar is doing, then throw tons of money at a defense and counter-suit. Or they can simply pay the legal bills of Psystar. I can think of at least 1 huge company with deep pockets that would benefit from this. You can bet Apple has big bucks going into a private investigations company trying to find out who this is. When Steve-O finds out, all hell will break loose.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by bloggerblog

To me, all this definitely points to a corporate conspiracy. The question is who? Ballmer?

I don't see how what you wrote points to any kind of conspiracy.

Besides, Ballmer isn't the only blowhard to walk the face of the earth. Not only that, it does not take money to come up with silly blunders of logic like this, though it can help. I don't see why Ballmer would want to help legitimize commercialized Hackintoshes, because that would be tougher competition for his company.

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I appreciate your explanation and indeed, it gets me much closer to understanding what they are trying to argue, but it still makes little sense IMO.

Microsoft sells an OS separate from hardware, so "fixing" it to run only on Dell hardware but not on a competitor is definitely wrong and represents some kind of sweetheart deal. Apple on the other hand, sells an OS only for specific machines that it makes, so to have a test for "foreign" machines at start up seems rather appropriate to me.

On further thought, I think this totally explains the silly argument they are making.

It occurs to me that almost all their arguments are predicated on the idea that the OS is separate from the hardware (as in Windows land), and they just don't see it any other way. If you assume that Apple's OS-X is exactly the same as any other OS in that regard then all these comparisons make sense. All it will take is one idiot judge who doesn't realise the difference and they might even win.

Their answer to that would be they're buying the full retail version of OS X, and they could claim that it's not really an upgrade since since it is capable of performing a full-install. They could also further their defense by saying that, all Hackintosh does is force the installer to overlook the discriminatory part of the software which, according to Psystar, should not have been there to begin with.

It's pretty astounding that they are even attempting all this, it seems so circumstantial and flaky. They also need to be able to prove that Apple did not go through the correct procedures in acquiring the Copyright!! which is such a silly claim to begin with. Either way, I'll be interested in seeing their evidence, which I don't think will matter to the judge.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

One word: Woz!

[bloggerblog]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't see how what you wrote points to any kind of conspiracy.

Besides, Ballmer isn't the only blowhard to walk the face of the earth. Not only that, it does not take money to come up with silly blunders of logic like this, though it can help. I don't see why Ballmer would want to help legitimize commercialized Hackintoshes, because that would be tougher competition for his company.

Agreed! But this case will cost lots of money which I don't think Psystar has.
The Ballmer comment was a joke, sorry!

[gastroboy]

Originally Posted by Foo2

The Berne Convention provides that all creative works are copyrighted automatically without any action on the part of the creator. Not even the inclusion of a copyright notice is necessary.

Formal copyright registration (if filed before the infringement) is useful for getting a court to assess statutory (high) damages against the infringer.



It's no wonder Apple suggested a third party may be behind Psystar. Who could be so stupid as them?

But as we know Apple, being part of the United States, is not bound by any international laws.

Unless it is convenient.

[MacOutlaw]

I remember when this all started.....
It seems a while ago now.
But, it stunk then, of a small tech team, who had a couple of "Brother In Law" Attorneys.

Think about it.
They'll lose.
But,
They'll be
"The guys who took on Apple"...
Now, can we handle your slip and fall?
Your Divorce?
How about your next business filing? (Since we're SO experienced)...

I doubt highly, that ANYone is paying the lawyers.
This is a Pro Bono case.

And, it ONLY EXISTS for what it's getting here.

EXPOSURE>!


In reality, all it's doing, is showing what SOB's Lawyers can really be, and, what low life's American, or any other Loser's can be.
It's a sad day, when someone has to go after this Country's most agile, forethoughtful and profitable company's foundations. Sad, sad day.

Where is the ABA, when it comes to policing their own?
Nowhere to be found.
Bastards.

P