Apple Failed To Copyright Mac OS X, Psystar Claims

[kbmb]

From Information Week:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212501673

Mac clone manufacturer Psystar said that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed because Apple has never filed for copyright protection for its Mac OS X operating system with the U.S. Copyright Office, according to court papers.

Any copyright experts care to check it out to see if it's valid? Would it even matter?

-Kevin

[bartelby]

Well it says copyright on the About Mac screen, isn't that normally enough:
149593


Psystar are just delaying the inevitable...

[dejo]

Took me all of 30 seconds to find this:

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search%5FArg=mac%20os%20x&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=RnVdsL-AR9xie4Nsc1AmPRMunpi2Z&SEQ=20081222164418&SID=1

[kbmb]

Well it says copyright on the About Mac screen, isn't that normally enough:
149593

:D

That's enough for me!

-Kevin
Copyright 2008

[bartelby]

:D

That's enough for me!

-Kevin
Copyright 2008

You know what I mean...:rolleyes:

[kbmb]

I do think as time goes on, it will be funny to see how desperate Psystar and their lawyers become.

-Kevin

[IJ Reilly]

I do think as time goes on, it will be funny to see how desperate Psystar and their lawyers become.

They started out desperate. They've moved onto complete futility.

[Alx9876]

What is Psystar's problem? Typical PC attitude and completely in the wrong in everyway.

I hope they bomb out of business. What there doing is pretty illegal in my view. This is wrong on every level and they know it.

Apple get them.

[ProwlingTiger]

I'm still wondering,... either Pystar has some big funding for this litigation or they have lawyers arrogant enough to believe they can win the case and get to Apple's stockpile of cash.

Saying Mac OS X isn't copyrighted is...well....I sure hope Pystar's lawyers remember to breathe, as they sure don't seem to possess an ounce of intelligence.

[rdowns]

I'm sure there's more to this than our non-legal minds know or understand but how the hell do these two statements not conflict with each other.



Mac clone manufacturer Psystar said that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed because Apple has never filed for copyright protection for its Mac OS X operating system with the U.S. Copyright Office, according to court papers.

Psystar is now asking the judge overseeing the case to declare Apple's Mac OS copyrights invalid.

[fluidedge]

Where do Psystar get the money to fund these little persuits? I hear $50bn has just gone missing from the city...

[gnasher729]

The article is really funny. Seems to be written by someone without the slightest clue. Let me quote:

Psystar also claimed that Apple's Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" operating system contains undocumented code designed to render inoperable personal computers that aren't running on Apple-approved hardware.

Personal computers that aren't running on Apple-approved hardware? What is that supposed to mean?

But what is really damning in this article is that by Psystar's own admission, Apple is using effective copyright protection mechanisms that Psystar is circumventing, which makes them guilty of DMCA violations. And this is what someone posted as a reply to that article:

This would all seem to be moot though. According to copyright.gov, Apple registered their copyright on Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 on January 24, 2008, Registration Number: TX0006849489.

Copyright has to be registered three months before starting court proceedings to be able to get cost and statutory damages; and registration within five years of publication of the works is needed so that registration counts as prima facie evidence of actual copyright. Apple has clearly met both limit; the lawsuit was filed in July, and first publication was sometime in 2007.

Here is the exact link: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search%5FArg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=bKsOLFlXAgMIbT0bVH2tU74X2pP_&SEQ=20081222175316&SID=3 I think what Psystar is doing is called "making it up as they go along".

[Nermal]

If I recall correctly, Apple's copyright claim was actually on one of the point updates (10.5.4?) rather than the main OS itself. Has Apple registered those updates for copyright? Does it need to?

[surferfromuk]

Psystar is actually pronounced 'Per-Sister' (as in persistent felony)

Coincidence ?

[MacBoobsPro]

Psystar is actually pronounced 'Per-Sister' (as in persistent felony)

Coincidence ?

With the way they go about things I thought it was 'piss-taker'.

[yoppie]

Psystar needs to stop with the foolishness. They're reaching with this latest claim.

[neonblue2]

If I recall correctly, Apple's copyright claim was actually on one of the point updates (10.5.4?) rather than the main OS itself. Has Apple registered those updates for copyright? Does it need to?

There's probably something about derivatives in the form of copyright Apple has on Mac OS X.

[kbmb]

If I recall correctly, Apple's copyright claim was actually on one of the point updates (10.5.4?) rather than the main OS itself. Has Apple registered those updates for copyright? Does it need to?

Wouldn't they have copyrighted OS X way back in 1999/2000 when they made the actual switch to OS X?

-Kevin

[pdjudd]

Wouldn't they have copyrighted OS X way back in 1999/2000 when they made the actual switch to OS X?

-Kevin

Presumably yes, but there have been tons of changes since then and I would expect that Apple would apply for trademarks on each successive version as a matter of business. I presume that they would do it for the brand names if nothing else.

[maccam]

You go Psystar!!!!

*Ducks and Hides*

[OutThere]

With the way they go about things I thought it was 'piss-taker'.

I was under the impression that their CEO was named P.I. Staker?

[dvdhsu]

You go Psystar!!!!

*Ducks and Hides*

DIE. DIE. DIE!!!:cool:

I hope they get screwed by Apple Legal.

[Sun Baked]

Next they will be saying that Apple never completed the purchase of NeXT and thus doesn't own any of the derivative works based on that OS.

And that they sold their patent portfolio for the Classic OS to BeOS.

[IJ Reilly]

Next they will be saying that Apple never completed the purchase of NeXT and thus doesn't own any of the derivative works based on that OS.

And that they sold their patent portfolio for the Classic OS to BeOS.

I hear there's an opening on Psystar's legal team.

[pdjudd]

I hear there's an opening on Psystar's legal team.

You mean the one that has holes large enough to drive a fleet of semis through it? Sorry, I am not into that brand of torture.... :D

[Sun Baked]

You mean the one that has holes large enough to drive a fleet of semis through it? Sorry, I am not into that brand of torture.... :D

Lucky this isn't a criminal case, because that would be the defendant you are talking about in a couple years with this brand of legal help.

[Sun Baked]

Well, the other shoe dropped on Psystar's head.

We were all wondering why Apple added in DMCA.

Well, Apple did their homework and it should be interesting.

Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Psystar Corporation's Motion for Leave To Amend Its Counterclaims (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/44/)

It is eerie, almost like they were a step ahead of these jokers and knew what Psystar was thinking of doing next ... the DMCA looks to have bolstered their defense against spurious Psystar claims. :p

[petermcphee]

I wouldn't mind working for HP...... I mean Dell..... I mean Psystar's legal team. I bet they pay well.

[MacTraveller]

What is Psystar's problem? Typical PC attitude and completely in the wrong in everyway.

I hope they bomb out of business. What there doing is pretty illegal in my view.

An illegitimate operation. They clearly deserve prison time.

Oh wait this is a Civil Lawsuit, not a Criminal Case? OK fine. If found guilty, they will likely be fined gazillions of dollars for the business losses they infringed upon Apple. So now Psystar execs owe those gazillions of dollars to Apple. IF they have the money to pay off the fines owed to Apple, then good for them. And if they cannot pay, then technically they default on their legal obligations, and thus it eventually becomes a crime. Prison time is the next step.

[IJ Reilly]

This is a civil action, not a criminal one.

[Demosthenes X]

An illegitimate operation. They clearly deserve prison time.

Oh wait this is a Civil Lawsuit, not a Criminal Case? OK fine. If found guilty, they will likely be fined gazillions of dollars for the business losses they infringed upon Apple. So now Psystar execs owe those gazillions of dollars to Apple. IF they have the money to pay off the fines owed to Apple, then good for them. And if they cannot pay, then technically they default on their legal obligations, and thus it eventually becomes a crime. Prison time is the next step.

Fail. Tip: do not try and sound smart if you are not. Prison does not follow from not being able to repay a loan, bankruptcy follows. :rolleyes:

[pdjudd]

This is a civil action, not a criminal one.

Indeed. I don't know how many people do not understand the distinction since they are very different things.

Fail. Tip: do not try and sound smart if you are not. Prison does not follow from not being able to repay a loan, bankruptcy follows. :rolleyes:

Exactly. While debtors prisons once existed, they certainly do not exist any more. Once you declare bankruptcy most debts are nullified although that is not always the case.