Filed under: Apple Corporate
Psystar bizarrely claims Apple doesn't own copyright for Mac OS X
In what might be the most outlandish claim yet to surface in the case, Psystar now claims that Apple never registered Mac OS X with the U.S. Copyright Office, rendering its copyright invalid, according to InformationWeek. Note that registration isn't a condition of protection, but it is a condition of certain types of infringement actions and damages.
Psystar argues, thus, that since Apple doesn't own the copyright, there's no way for Apple to enforce its claims that Psystar violated its copyright. The claim was filed in U.S. District Court last week.
Although copyright registration number TX0005401457 describes a "computer program" named Mac OS X, it's unclear how Psystar argues this isn't the copyright Apple owns on its operating system. Moreover, contrary to what Psystar appears to argue, copyright is secured automatically in the United States when the work is created, and registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement). Our Engadget colleague Nilay Patel sums up this latest Psystar legal stratagem as "desperate." Plus, you can file suit while registration is pending, so even if there was some technical defect in the Mac OS X registration, Apple could fix it while pursuing its lawsuit.
If this long shot claim were true, it could undermine Apple's ability to restrict third parties from selling generic clones that run Mac OS X. The back-and-forth arguments are part of a lawsuit Apple originally brought against Psystar for selling Mac OS X with its clones, allegedly in violation of Apple's license agreement. According to InformationWeek, Apple now suspects that a larger company interested in selling Mac OS X-compatible computers is bankrolling Psystar's legal battle.
[Via Engadget.]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kyle VE said 9:39AM on 12-23-2008
Psystar's like the kid that's angry because he can't play in the sandbox... time to grab your toys and move on.
Reply
Ryan Trevisol said 12:45PM on 12-23-2008
But, but, but, the guys already moved out of their parents house. It would TOTALLY blow if they had to go back to high school.
david said 8:51PM on 1-27-2009
To be honest pystar shouldn't be making a profit off of pirated software, but also apple doesn't legally have the right to sue anyone who puts there software on non apple computers. In the end apple is a monopoly and shouldn't be allowed to run there business the way they are. OsX 10 is an operating system and should be treated as such. Apple needs to be broken up into two companies a software company and a hardware company. We wouldn't be siding with Microsoft if it bought out intel and didn't let people install Windows on amd machines.
RickB said 9:46AM on 12-23-2008
While that analogy is pretty much true, in the overall scheme of things I am rooting for Psystar a bit.
So long as they are installing a purchased copy of OSX - and distribute a paid for license with the systems they sell - I fail to see the legitimacy of 'you can't install it on any other system.' Isn't this pretty much the 'bundling' argument that was used against Microsoft by the DOJ?
Reply
internets said 10:01AM on 12-23-2008
No. Apple cannot enforce you, a singular person, from installing OSX on incompatible hardware. While this is technically against the terms of use you agree to on purchase, due to the Microsoft/IE court battle, this is nigh impossible to enforce.
What is entirely possible, and is what Psystar is doing, is making money of it. This moves the ball into an entirely different court. Psystar is monetizing a break in the legal terms of use, which has held up in court more than once.
As for the copyright infringement, via the U.S. Copyright office, Apple has assumed copyright of OSX and all of it's elements merely by claiming that copyright, and filing to the copyright office reinforces the claim with binding legal documents.
A good example would be is if I wrote original content in a blog post on my website and at the bottom listed (c) 2008-[my name], all rights reserved. I could sue anyone who used that post without my permission as I hold legal copyright for it.
Hobbes said 11:47AM on 12-23-2008
And by doing so you're also rooting against any legit company out there. What psystar is doing is take something they don't own or have the rights to use, make it worse and sell for a profit. If companies are allowed to steal somebody else's work to make a profit then the market is doomed. There is no incentive or protection for legit companies to keep innovating and improving their products.
I think it's time this ridiculous issue is put to rest and psystar is forced to close its doors, or follow a business model that doesn't involve stealing or appropriating somebody else's work.
If a company has no rights to create and protect their own products then there is no reason for them to create them in the first place. Protect your companies by not supporting crooks like psystar.
Liquidmark said 11:10AM on 12-24-2008
They aren't installing a purchased copy of OSX. They are installing a pirated copy.
What's funny is that if these guys did this with a video-game console, they would have just been locked up without needing to be sued.
punkassjim said 10:21AM on 12-23-2008
I'd be surprised if their complaint doesn't hinge upon the fact that Mac OS X is nothing but an amalgamated collection of technologies that are written/owned by other entities. If you've got a half hour, you should read the info under your About screen in Settings.app on iPhone.
That said, all those collected technologies are properly licensed. I can't imagine Apple will have any problem with this.
Reply
Doug McIntosh said 10:43AM on 12-23-2008
Since they DID file for copyright within 3 months of "publication"...
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1
Apple can sue for statutory damages:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr
Psystar's lawyers must be hard-up for "billable hours"...
Reply
Robb said 11:23AM on 12-23-2008
My next defense will be surprise witness! Each more shocking than the last!
Reply
Simon Arch said 11:48AM on 12-23-2008
First up, the ghost of Jean-Louis Gassée! And he's not even dead! SHOCKING!
Seriously, Psystar...time to throw in the towel. Know you're licked and retire gracefully.
nebkiwi said 11:52AM on 12-23-2008
Psystar need to lose this, for the sake of the osx86 community.
Reply
ZeroCorpse said 11:59AM on 12-23-2008
Be careful! Out of sheer desperation, Psystar might throw acid on Apple's attorney, leading him to become a sort of two-faced villain who puts OS X and Windows on a computer made from half of an iMac, and half of an HP Touch Smart clone.
Reply
Tommie said 12:24PM on 12-23-2008
Does this not remind anyone of that guy in Happy Gilmore running around yelling "jackass!" just to distract Happy?
What a ridiculous way for Apple to have to spend money on legal fees.
I blame Psystar for no copy / paste on the iphone. If it weren't for these legal battles, they could have put more money into R & D! Maybe that's not entirely true, but i need someone to blame.
Reply
alansky said 12:38PM on 12-23-2008
And I'm the King of Siam!
Reply
homagetogorto said 12:44PM on 12-23-2008
Dear Psystar,
How did this strategy work out for SCO?
For those interested, groklaw.com has stories on the Pystar case.
Reply
grifmx said 1:58PM on 12-23-2008
lawyers SUCK! unless you need one...
I think they should start slapping felonies and jail time for lawyers as well as clients for losers or erroneous lawsuits. The courts would clear up in no time!
As it is, if you have enough money, you can get a lawyer to almost do anything!
Reply
Connely said 10:49PM on 12-23-2008
Right on! We should start prosecuting people for erraneous lawsuits - that'll clear up the court fast!
Okay. Who do we sue first?
Connely said 10:49PM on 12-23-2008
Ha! Next thing you know russians will start charging license fees for using smileys..
Reply
somewhere said 11:06PM on 12-23-2008
What people always forget in their comparison to MS is that Apple is a hardware company. MS was nailed for their bundling of their software on other OEM hardware. Since MS is the dominant OS, they were abusing their monopoly position. OS X is the required software to make Apple hardware work. Sort of akin to Sony's PS3 OS. Should you be able to run that on non-Sony hardware?
Also, the OS X retail version is technically considered an upgrade since their hardware is preinstalled with a prior version of OS X. Hence the incremental naming, OS X 10.4 (Tiger) to OS X 10.5 (Leopard). So when you buy that retail box, you are purchasing an upgrade under the auspices of having a previous version. Anyway, that's just my two cents.
As far as the copyright thing goes, it's never cool to steal someone else's work and not get compensated for it. Maybe Psystar is trying to imply that Apple didn't copyright Leopard. Again, see my point about the upgrade above. If OS X 10.0.0 was registered, then the subsequent incremental upgrades should be covered under that registration.
Reply