Psystar claims Apple has invalid Mac OS X copyright

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 140
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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
  • Reply 2 of 140
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    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)?
  • Reply 3 of 140
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    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??
  • Reply 4 of 140
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 140
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 140
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,152member
    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"
  • Reply 7 of 140
    Psystar are idiots, Mac OS X has a copyright. The copyright number is \tTX0006849489 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?
  • Reply 8 of 140
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 140
    adjeiadjei Posts: 738member
    Are these guys joking or what? This just reeks of desperation.
  • Reply 10 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    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.
  • Reply 11 of 140
    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!
  • Reply 12 of 140
    nizynizy Posts: 24member
    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!
  • Reply 13 of 140
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,666member
    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
  • Reply 14 of 140
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheMadMilkman View Post


    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.



    Quote:

    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?
  • Reply 15 of 140
    Maybe Apple is behind this whole Psystar thing... yeah. They're doing it for publicity... yeah.
  • Reply 16 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    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?
  • Reply 17 of 140
    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?
  • Reply 18 of 140
    Wow, i am absolutely speechless. Psystar does not know how to use the reality distortion field correctly.
  • Reply 19 of 140
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VinitaBoy View Post


    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.
  • Reply 20 of 140
    Michael Dell sure is desperate.
Sign In or Register to comment.