On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

December 23rd, 2008

Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)

Posted by Richard Koman @ December 23, 2008 @ 1:25 PM

Categories: Government technology

Tags: Apple Inc., Psystar, Apple Mac OS X, Corporate Law, Operating Systems, Software, Apple Mac OS, Business Operations, Richard Koman

So, what is this nonsense about Apple failing to copyright OS X? That’s what Psystar – the fly-by-night illegal Mac clone maker that Apple has sued for copyright infringement for rebundling OS X software with its computers – is claiming in the latest gambit to avoid getting shot out of the water in U.S. District Court.
InfoWeek reports that Psystar’s response includes this howler:

Apple “is prohibited from bringing action against Psystar for the alleged infringement of one or more of the plaintiff’s copyrights for failure to register said copyrights with the copyright office as required” by law, Psytar claims.

Of course there is TX0005401457, filed with the U.S. Copyright Office on 6/22/01:

Title: Mac OS X.
Description: Computer program.

Notes: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.

Copyright Claimant: Apple Computer, Inc.

Date of Creation: 2001

Date of Publication: 2001-03-24

Basis of Claim: New Matter: new and revised computer software.

Psystar also made additional antitrust allegations, claiming that Apple inserts secret code to disable non-Apple hardware running OS X. Previous antitrust allegations were thrown out by a federal judge. So these “no copyright filed” claims are new and seemingly outlandish.

While it’s true, as TUAW says, that copyright adheres at creation, the idea that “registration is not a condition of copyright protection (although it can help in fighting infringement)” is misguided. To quote from a Continuing Education of the Bar publication on this point:

Although not required for basic copyright protection, registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is a prerequisite to bringing an action for copyright infringement (and recovering statutory damages or other remedies). See 17 USC §§411-412.

In any case, it would be nice to see Psystar’s evidence that Apple’s filings on OS X are faulty enough to bar it from enforcing its copyright. Intriguingly, GrokLaw points out this paragraph from Apple’s latest complaint, leveling claims that Psystar’s legal bills are being underwritten:

On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar’s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. … On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Apple’s intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Apple’s license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 99 Talkback(s)
M$ behind everything.
How can anyone be sure who is behind it. Their Lawyer didn't say who it was, he said basically, there may be someone with deep pockets behind it. They we get the Apple fanboys that think M$ is behin... (Read the rest)
Posted by: mjolnar@... Posted on: 12/31/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Hmmmmmmm  Userama | 12/23/08
No deep pockets but promises of them  JABBER_WOLF | 12/23/08
Not exactly...  davidmeridian | 12/23/08
It's amazing how many people  frgough | 12/23/08
It's partisan thinking that obscures logic  Len Rooney | 12/23/08
Kinda like the microsoft bundle debate  Erich61@... | 12/29/08
MS was a monopoly.... Apple with less than 10%  James Quinn | 12/31/08
Yes EXACTLY  JABBER_WOLF | 12/25/08
First of all to be a monopoly is NOT illegal.  James Quinn | 12/24/08
YOU MISS YOUR OWN POINT!  JABBER_WOLF | 12/25/08
I will dispute that.  msalzberg | 12/25/08
???  Dr. John | 12/29/08
Seems to be out of fashion. (nt)  hkommedal | 12/30/08
Actually I think you might be wrong....  James Quinn | 12/26/08
I like that word: Ukkegak  tikigawd | 12/29/08
It seems fingers were too short to reach the next letter on the keyboard.  hkommedal | 12/30/08
Another point missed.  debohun | 12/29/08
You forget history  Fred Fredrickson | 12/31/08
Here is a link that discusses that  mark.holman@... | 12/29/08
I'm sure M$ has a hand in this  Linux Geek | 12/24/08
Or Apple...:P  James Quinn | 12/24/08
Clever indeed. (nt)  hkommedal | 12/30/08
Linux Geek  smcbrid1@... | 12/29/08
re: Linux Geek  bob.isenberger@... | 12/29/08
No, no ! Behave now children ! (nt)  hkommedal | 12/30/08
I was wondering how long it would take...  Marty R. Milette | 12/29/08
M$ behind everything.  mjolnar@... | 12/31/08
WHO SHOT J.R. ?  crypt2121 | 12/23/08
Richard you look like Billy Bob Thornton  Randalllind | 12/23/08
That's a very good thing I think...:P  James Quinn | 12/24/08
Apple violates "copyright misuse doctrine"  JABBER_WOLF | 12/23/08
Dream on  frgough | 12/23/08
Actaully...  ShadowGIATL | 12/23/08
First of all we probably disagree on the whole  James Quinn | 12/24/08
Boy I wish people would read...  gnesterenko | 12/24/08
Was that (though not necessarily illegal) thing in  James Quinn | 12/24/08
But  ShadowGIATL | 12/26/08
I was and am just trying to determine who the  James Quinn | 12/26/08
I am not convinced that OS X is crippled  macadam | 12/29/08
Depends on how far they are willing to take  GuidingLight | 12/24/08
Depends again on what is considered unethical....  James Quinn | 12/24/08
their own OS  medezark@... | 12/26/08
And as far as I know... No one is trying to stop  James Quinn | 12/26/08
Maybe you should...  ShadowGIATL | 12/26/08
Man you assume much.....  James Quinn | 12/26/08
You're assumptions are wrong  JABBER_WOLF | 12/29/08
And since there is plenty of competition in forms of  James Quinn | 12/30/08
And the rest...  pico_D | 12/27/08
What about Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo  KaplanMike | 12/29/08
common argument but not applicable  JABBER_WOLF | 12/29/08
Can't play OR won't play... two different things.  GetReal-mac.com | 12/31/08
Because you miss the point.....  James Quinn | 12/31/08
Not quite rolling-over as you predicted.  Mac Hosehead | 12/23/08
I dont' see why  rkoman@... | 12/24/08
Obviously, Richard, there is at least one...  bjbrock | 12/24/08
Well what about SCO's lawyers?  James Quinn | 12/24/08
You sure do remember things well ,,,  Intellihence | 12/26/08
I think a lawyer didn't do his homework  John L. Ries | 12/24/08
Lawyers follow the MONEY happy  mark.holman@... | 12/29/08
Apple's greed makes them blind...  cdiazh | 12/24/08
You make the assumption  Len Rooney | 12/24/08
Cdiazh's cheapness makes him blind  fox.kenji | 12/25/08
Vision  AdeOghert | 12/26/08
Your statement lacks said.....  James Quinn | 12/26/08
Personally I'd beg to differ.  HexHammer67 | 12/30/08
You have every right NOT to do business with Apple  James Quinn | 12/30/08
Heh - I dont recall  HexHammer67 | 12/30/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  medezark@... | 12/26/08
If Apple were any other company perhaps but they  James Quinn | 12/26/08
Really?  medezark@... | 12/26/08
Well since I am a happy Apple user I of course  James Quinn | 12/28/08
Yes, really  macadam | 12/29/08
Look at the big picture. Most of you miss it  Evan13 | 12/26/08
Even more whacky...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 12/27/08
Half true  HypnoToad | 12/27/08
Lot of "IF" there... and I'm sure Apple's lawyers  James Quinn | 12/28/08
BIOS not OS  pico_D | 12/29/08
OS X never copyrighted (!???)  kyron.gustafson@... | 12/29/08
Interesting point...  nfhiggs@... | 12/29/08
Kill all lawyers...  mikifinaz1@... | 12/29/08
Throw things against the wall, hope they stick  zdnet@... | 12/29/08
build your own specs  Mr_Dave | 12/30/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  pebear | 12/29/08
Are you kidding???  nfhiggs@... | 12/29/08
Apple is not a software company  macadam | 12/29/08
Someone who knows what they're talking about  Mediamigos | 12/29/08
Anti-competitive perhaps?  BillDem | 12/29/08
Wrong  macadam | 12/29/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  ProfTom | 12/29/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  trm1945 | 12/29/08
I have not seen the correct definition of a monoploy posted by anyone, SO..  dinosaur_z | 12/29/08
Judge will throw the case out  rmstock | 12/29/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  ManoaHI | 12/30/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  deowll | 12/30/08
I think its valid  kokuryu | 12/30/08
Key term here Judge(s)  James Quinn | 12/30/08
Are later OS X versions registered with copyright office?  mikefulton1963 | 12/30/08
If Psystar==  barbara230@... | 12/30/08
RE: Latest Psystar wacky claim: OS X never copyrighted (!???)  gsaravin@... | 12/30/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here