Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS

Posted by kdawson on from the that-would-be-an-oopsie dept.

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.

7 of 648 comments (clear)

  1. Berne convention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Berne convention? by gruntled · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Berne Convention? by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
  2. Case closed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

  3. Re:WTF by wild_berry · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:WTF by GauteL · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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."

  5. Re:From the comments to TFA by platypussrex · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.