Psystar claims Apple has invalid Mac OS X copyright
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.
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.
Comments
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
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)?
can't anyone out there, bank teller, corp lawyer that works on these cases "slip" the info to AI??
"Apple Inc., employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program"
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?
I hope PisStar loses its ass in this action.
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.
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!
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
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?
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?
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?
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.