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.
The way US copyright law works is that copyright exists automatically, no registration is necessary. However, registration *is* required before filing a lawsuit. If Apple really failed to register before suing Psystar, they might be able to get the suit dismissed. If the judge is particularly nice, they might even get it dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be brought again (though I can't see why a judge would do that).
However, that will in no way prevent Apple from registering their copyright and then filing suit against others. Nor will it prevent Apple from suing Psystar over alleged infringements of other copyrights (say, newer versions of OS X).
This is an ordinary bit of legal maneuvering by some attorneys who noticed an apparent procedural oversight by their opponents and who are attempting to capitalize on it to get at least a little delay, and perhaps even more. It's really not a big deal.
(IANAL, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express, so the above is likely complete crap.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I wonder what that will mean since Psystar buys actual OS X disks? Would Apple sue for the "damage" of not selling the hardware?
Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware
Since the definition of "Macintosh" is a computer built/branded/sold by Apple, and no-one else, this statement is nonsensical. It could say "Psystar is accusing Apple of bricking generic PCs that are attempting to illegally run OS X", but, like it or not, I would have thought they are entitled to do so.
Yes. But would OSX be OSX if it ran on someone else's hardware.
As soon as you allow Joe Schmoe to install OSX he's going to want to start making demands. "Why doesn't my 15 year old network card work?" "Why doesn't my printer work?" "Why does my computer keep crashing."
The reason Microsoft got into trouble with Vista was largely in part due to pressure from system builders pressuring them to include hardware that wasn't actually capable of running Vista smoothly, or had inadequate driver support.
Opening OSX would be like kicking a house cat out into the gutter and expecting it to fend for itself. It's just not ready for the rediculous diversity of hardware that Windows is obligated to support by running on commodity hardware. That smooth "just works" will be descend into the same brand tarnishing sludge that is compatibility.
This is just an editor rant. I'm sorry, kdawson is just a horrible editor. First he posts "google is horrible they're not giving bonuses and feeding the masses dogfood; P.S. use linux" Then he posts this article which dozens of people have immediately spotted as B.S. I want my 7 minutes of reading Slashdot back.
The unit cost of OS X is irrelevant.
Apple doesn't sell OS X for non-Apple-branded hardware, and Psystar doesn't sell copies of OS X per se. Psystar isn't taking any money out of Apple's pocket in a software market for 'copies of OS X', because no such market exists.
The place where Psystar is taking money out of Apple's pocket is in hardware. The difference between "an Apple-branded computer running OS X" and "a Psystar-branded computer running OS X" is the machine itself, not the OS. Therefore, the damage to Apple is the cost of equivalent hardware less the cost of one retail copy of OS X. Apple's retail computer prices are public knowledge, so adding up the damages would be trivial.
That's only where Psystar's barbed-wire enema begins, though. The big money will be in 'brand dilution'.
Apple's brand is immensely valuable, and Psystar has been trying to redefine it. Apple has always presented itself as a company that sells "the whole widget." They've spent a lot of money in every aspect of their business, from R&D to manufacturing, to sales and support, pushing the idea that a box from Apple is a single unit that Just Works (TM). Then along comes Psystar, telling everyone that Apple is really just a component vendor, whose OS division is just like Microsoft and whose hardware division is just like Dell. If you want an "Apple compatible computer," you can pick and choose pieces from any vendors you want.
A large part of this case revolves around whether Psystar has a legitimate right to tell the whole world what business Apple is in. At present, it looks like the answer to that is a big, fat "No."
If a court rules that Psystar has indeed been blowing smoke out its ass, then the equivalent advertising cost of every square inch of newsprint or second of airtime devoted to covering this case in the public view can be treated as damage to Apple. Every "they can't tell me what to do with the OS after I've bought the box" comment in these threads counts as noise that Apple will have to spend time, effort, and money arguing against. That time, effort, and money are resources Apple could otherwise have spent writing more software, designing new hardware, or otherwise expanding or improving its business. Psystar would have imposed an operating expense on Apple without having any legal right to do so. And following the theory that "if you light the fire, you can be held liable for whatever gets burnt," the court can rule that Psystar owes Apple the cost of cleaning up the mess it created.
Feeding the troll, I know, but what the hell..
Yes. Apple does have a right to a monopoly on Apple-branded computers. The Coca-Cola corporation has a right to a monopoly on Coke. Nike has a right to a monopoly on Nike running shoes.
The whole purpose of patent, copyright, and trademark is to grant a monopoly on ideas, expressions of ideas, and icons associated with a specific company.
If you want a computer whose OS is just as good as OS X, you have every right in the world to go out and write one. Apple can't do shit to stop you. You can sell it for profit, or just give it away if you want. You might even create a license that requires people who use and modify your code to release their own modifications so that other people can continue to share the wealth.
That's what we call "a competitive market."
Taking work that someone else spent the time and money to create, then using it to compete against them, is called "being a huge flaming asshole" ... a concept you've obviously mastered. If you do it in contradiction to the terms of the license -- the one whose validity is defined in terms of the monopoly granted by patent, copyright, or trademark -- that's called "illegal."
There's both a legal and ethical difference between "I'm willing to share everything I have with you," and "I'm willing to share everything you have."
You are required to buy a Honda car if you want to run it with a Honda engine. Honda can take any steps they want to prevent you from running their engines in a Toyota. That is not illegal.
This is what is really annoying about talking about anti-trust stuff with geeks. No, Honda can not.
All this stuff has already been done - in dozens of markets - in the 1800s. It has been made perfectly clear that any action taken by a manufacturer to deliberately break interoperability with competing products is illegal.
In fact, even your exact example has been addressed in US courts. Honda is not required to maintain compatibility with any competitors that are using their engines, but if they make modifications specifically to break competitor's ability to use their engines, then they are engaging in anti-trust action.
It's not hard.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It doesn't matter, under the Berne Convention and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 you do not need to register your work to hold copyright and have protections under copyright law. The only remedy not open to Apple is attorneys fees and statutory damages if they didn't register, since their main goal is a permanent injunction I don't think they care.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.