Apple Failed To Copyright Mac OS X, Psystar Claims

netnothing

netnothing

macrumors 68040
Well it says copyright on the About Mac screen, isn't that normally enough:
Picture 1.png


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

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

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.
Click to expand...

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/Pw...AgMIbT0bVH2tU74X2pP_&SEQ=20081222175316&SID=3 I think what Psystar is doing is called "making it up as they go along".
 
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?
 
Nermal said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's probably something about derivatives in the form of copyright Apple has on Mac OS X.
 
Nermal said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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

-Kevin
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Sun Baked said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hear there's an opening on Psystar's legal team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top