Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS
Preedit writes "Mac cloner Psystar is claiming in new court papers that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed, because Apple has never filed for copyright protection on Mac OS X 10.5 with the US Copyright Office. Infoweek is reporting that the claim, if it holds up, could open the door for third-parties to enter the Mac market without fear of legal action from Apple. In its latest set of allegations, Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware." We've been following the Psystar-Apple imbroglio since the beginning.
I thought since the US joined the Berne convention in the 80s or 90s, registration with the copyright office is not required...
The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.
Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006849489 / 2008-01-24
Application Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Description: Print material + CD-ROMs.
Copyright Claimant: Apple Inc.. Address: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014
Date of Creation: 2007
Date of Publication: 2007-10-26
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Apple Inc., employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Previous Registration: 2006, TX-6-325-148.
Pre-existing Material: Previous versions of "Mac OS" and "Mac OS X" operating system software code.
Basis of Claim: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.
If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
If the work is an unpublished or published computer program, the deposit requirement is one visually perceptible copy in source code of the first 25 and last 25 pages of the program. For a program of fewer than 50 pages, the deposit is a copy of the entire program.
If the work is in a CD-ROM format, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the material, that is, the CD-ROM, the operating software, and any manual(s) accompanying it. If registration is sought for the computer program on the CD-ROM, the deposit should also include a printout of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code for the program." Copyright Office Basics
You're not quite right. But that's okay, this is Slashdot. Carry on!
1. You only lose statutory damages, and only for pre-registration infringement.
2. You can register anytime, although within a short time after publication is a good idea. So you register today, sue tomorrow, and get actual damages for pre-registration infringement and statutory damages for post-registration infringement.
Any failure to register the copyright isn't going to stop Apple from enforcing its copyright going forward.
... copyright is not a verb.
The dictionary disagrees. Like many words in English, depending on context, it can be a noun, a verb, or an adjective.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
As long as they want to keep their hip turtle neck wearing image
This "Apple==hip" thing is getting ridiculous.
iPods might be hip, but iMacs, Apple TV, OS X, iLife, iWork, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule, etc?
Have you ever used them? One's a fscking operating system, and the others don't leave your house. In fact, many sit next to your fancy TV, stereo system, entertainment center, whatever, and generally just blend in. None of those, other than maybe the iMac is at all stylish. A better way to describe Apple's designs is "not fugly". You have to admit, "not be an eyesore" isn't a design requirement for traditional PC's, network equipment, set-top-boxes, etc.
Believe it or not, Apple actually makes some very good products that people buy for completely non-aesthetic reasons.
No I am not bashing Apple or its users.
I figured you mean well, but where do you get this "turtle neck wearing image" BS from? If you can explain that to me, then carry on. Spotting macs in a coffee shop doesn't make us all hipsters.
You can't "forget to copyright" something because copyright is not a verb. ...
copyright
noun
the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.
verb [ trans. ]
secure copyright for (such material).
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
It has been said before in this thread, but I think not clearly enough. Just because Psystar makes some outlandish claim (and how likely is it that Apple forgot to register copyrights on MacOS X ?), doesn't mean it is true. In this case, the fact is that Apple has registered the copyright on MacOS X Version 10.5 Leopard on 24/Jan/2008 under the registration number TX0006849489. You caln follow the link below, which will time out again; when it is timed out do a search for "Mac OS X Leopard" which finds Apple's copyright and three copyrights for books. 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=wRSriYVKQl7vglCfQyV3qoEcDM4&SEQ=20081223043158&SID=3 What a waste of time this Psystar company is. Psystar also claims that Apple has code in MacOS X that prevents it from running on non-Apple computers and therefore is evil, but somehow this code isn't copy protection because Psystar would never, never circumvent copy protection and violate the DMCA act.
Gizmodo insight!
Read a comment to TFA. It links to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr, which has the following line: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."
AIUI, if PsyStar have rightly identified that Apple failed to register the version of Mac OS X sold by PsyStar within 3 months of publication, then Apple can't bring the suit.
"AIUI, if PsyStar have rightly identified that Apple failed to register the version of Mac OS X sold by PsyStar within 3 months of publication, then Apple can't bring the suit."
Not correct. Please read your own sources better. As your link clearly states: "Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright."
However as the grand parent state (and your link confirms) Apple can't file for statutory damages or attorney fees unless they filed the registration within 3 months.
Another quote from your link:
"Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration."
Have you tried ifixit.com? The parts may be used, and you may void the warranty by replacing it yourself, but it's an option. (I'm not defending Apple in this--I got pissed when my local Apple store wouldn't swap my iMac's hard drive with a new one that I would supply--just offering an alternative.)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
It wouldn't be. The OS X kernel isn't even 64-bit yet; it's 32-bit with the ability to run 64-bit processes. Snow Leopard will have the first 64-bit kernel.
Registration is not required to secure a copyright on a work. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. So the very fact that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard exists is a copyright.
However, Apple must have registered their copyright on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard before they can file suit for infringement on this copyright.
Read about all that at copyright.gov:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html
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.
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
I have no doubt that there is something we're missing here, as it seems unlikely that Psystar's Lawyers couldn't do a simple search at copyright.gov for "Mac OS X Leopard". But this article offers little more than an announcement that Psystar has responded to Apple's copyright suit.
I assure you they are not trying to claim the bootloader does any checks since they are using my bootloader and not Apple's boot.efi.
I think what they are trying to claim is that Apple's kernel startup routine blocks certain machines. And this is true. It blocks any CPU that is not family 6 and I think also checks for certain models (like 14 and 15 which are Core and Core 2). Beyond that it also checks for LAPIC version which if they actually were to enforce it would really fuck with running OS X under VMware.
Of course the problem with Psystar's argument is that Apple is checking for these things because you need this information to properly initialize things for the processor. Apple can easily argue that they only bother checking for CPUs that they use in their machines because they have no reason to explicitly support anything else. And it would require at least some small amount of explicit support.
The flip side of this is that for the last few OS X point releases, Apple has finally got someone dedicated to doing the code releases and the equivalent Darwin xnu kernel source is coming out like the next day after Apple pushes out the update. It takes like 5 minutes to apply your patch to the new version since the startup code doesn't change very much. Then it takes like 10-20 minutes to build the new kernel.
Of course none of this has anything to do with what you were talking about which is the actual check for Mac hardware. That is separated into its own kernel extension called "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" And it isn't actually a check. It asks the SMC kext to ask the SMC (Systems Management Controller present only on Apple hardware) for two values. It then installs a hook function with the kernel (and you can find dsmos_hook in the open source) which the kernel will call anytime it needs a page decrypted. The Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext then implements the function to use the decryption keys it retrieved from the SMC to AES-256 decrypt the pages that the kernel asks to be decrypted. I've done a write-up of this on my site which should hopefully demystify the process a bit.
Might it be that Psystar can win on that part due to the Lexmark decision? Maybe. Or maybe they get their ass handed to them because the replacement for Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext is a clone of Apple's kext that contains the keys as constant data instead of pulling the keys from the SMC. Those keys are copyrighted and presumably specifically registered with the copyright office as a separate work from OS X.
The bottom line is that this is basically a legal minefield and it looks as though it was specifically architected as such by Apple. Should Apple lose on one thing they can bring suit for something else.
Registration may be made at any time, but it MUST come before the lawsuit.
One reason proprietary OS vendors might refrain from registering their copyright; is the need to reveal source code to the copyright office.
And in 70+ years, when that code is no longer subject to copyright, it may be available to the public (in printed form)...
You mean like this? http://www.apple.com/opensource/