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.

Comments

Berne convention?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought since the US joined the Berne convention in the 80s or 90s, registration with the copyright office is not required...

Re:Berne convention?

[gruntled]

Sigh. From the US Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

Re:Berne Convention?

[corsec67]

Not trying to flame, but by this argument, the Berne Convention should render the GPL null and void.

No, the GPL has most of its power because copyrights are automatic. The GPL is an optional license that you can use to copy the program. If you don't obey the license, it is a copyright violation, since copyrights are automatic.

Re:Berne convention?

[im_thatoneguy]

This is correct. But I'm not certain you can claim "a copy of OSX" is the damage per infringement.

Psystar in this case is using legally purchased copies of OSX.

Apple would be forced to disclose the ACTUAL *loss* that they sustain on each OS sale as the split between Retail and Development. So if every copy of OSX is sold at a $100 loss in order to push hardware sales they'd be forced to disclose that amount.

Re:Berne convention?

[sonamchauhan]

> A large part of this case revolves around whether
> Psystar has a legitimate right to tell the whole world
> what business Apple is in.

Nonsense!
Whatever this case is actually about, it is not the stuff you are stating.

Hello world - I affirm that Apple is in the browser business.

Now sue me Apple!

Re:Berne convention?

[__aajfby9338]

I'll be really surprised if Apple doesn't agree to simply make a deal with Psystar to manufacture clones for a licensing fee. It isn't that radical - Apple licensed Mac clones back in the late 80s - early 90s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#The_first_Macintosh_clones ).

From the Wikipedia article that you linked to:

Jobs claimed [...] that the Mac clone program was doomed to failure from the start, and since Apple made money primarily by selling computer hardware, it ought not engage in a licensing program that would reduce its hardware sales.

Prepare to be really surprised. ;-)

Re:Berne convention?

[JebusIsLord]

Back then a computer was $4000, which included significant margin. Nowadays, computers (yes, even Macs) are much cheaper, and the margins are lower. Apple sells a new copy of OSX every year to most of its customers, with or without a new computer. This could make them money, if tightly controlled.

Re:Berne convention?

[Nethead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Computer

In early 1982, Franklin released the Franklin Ace 100, and in March of the same year, the Franklin Ace 1000; they were very close copies of the Apple II and II+ computers, respectively. The motherboard design is nearly identical and Franklin also copied Apple's ROMs. Two months later, Apple Computer sued Franklin for copyright violation. Franklin initially won. (See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp..)

Re:Berne convention?

[AtomicJake]

Sight, if you quote the link, do it completely and correctly. Then you see that: (1) you can register anytime your copyright, and (2) your claims are limited if you register after an infringement.

Quote from: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

        * 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.

        * Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on âoeIntellectual Property Rights.â

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Re:Berne convention?

[TheRaven64]

Except they aren't. I used to have an upgrade disk for 10.3 (which cost £10, as opposed to the full price of around £60). It required me to have 10.2 installed before it would run (which was very irritating when I needed to do a reinstall after the machine was repaired, since I had to install 10.2, and then 10.3, even though the 10.3 installer was deleting everything already on the disk). In contrast, the boxed copies of 10.4 and 10.5 that I own install without checking for a previous version.

Re:Berne convention?

[xstonedogx]

Normally people just say "I am not a lawyer" rather than proving it dramatically.

Except Jack Thompson.

Re:Berne convention?

[thesandtiger]

You are missing a lot of factors that go past the margin on the hardware.

One of the reasons Windows gets a bad rap for crashing a lot is because it has to be able to handle any kind of hardware you throw at it. One of the reasons Linux gets such a bad rap for being difficult to install and use is because virtually everyone who's ever installed it has probably run into a problem where some piece of hardware that should be easy to make work just won't. Apple, on the other hand, gets a reputation for "just working" because they control what hardware is used with it - yes, there are problems, but in general they are much less on a user-per-user basis than alternatives.

Another big factor would be reputation as a premium brand. iPods are the bit of Apple that anyone can afford, but they maintain their image as premium by generally doing a good job trying to control the retail experience, charging a premium for the hardware, and all that. Being just another OS would remove that and would take a lot of tarnish off the corporate identity.

Another would be a huge spike in support costs. Right now, many of Apple's customers buy AppleCare and that subsidizes the costs of support to some extent. If they're just selling the OS and people start having problems because Cheap Chinese Piece of Shit Video Card doesn't work with OSX, they have to be able to handle that OR risk ruining their reputation for "just working" and their premium brand image, both of which eventually lead to their margins.

It isn't just the margin on the hardware that Apple's worried about - it's everything else. They'd have to completely change the way they do business and completely overhaul the company. I suspect that the margin on the hardware + all that other stuff is what makes it so much more profitable to sell complete systems instead of just an OS.

Re:Berne convention?

[tgibbs]

I have boxed copies of 10.{1,2,3,4,5} at home. Never once have I signed any agreement or acknowledgement or waiver of rights.

It is stated in the documentation and presented on screen when the software is installed. To install, you must click a button to agree to the license restrictions. If you choose not to do so, you are entitled to return the software to Apple for a refund.

Case closed!

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

US Copyright Office search

[evilgrug]

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.

Back to Basics

[westlake]

The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

"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

Re:WTF

[wild_berry]

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.

Re:WTF

[GauteL]

"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."

Re:From the comments to TFA

[platypussrex]

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.

Re:WTF

[mweather]

Registration may be made at any time, but it MUST come before the lawsuit.

Re:WTF

[mweather]

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/