“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,” Paul McDougall reports for InformationWeek.
“The stunning claim, if true, could undermine Apple’s ability to restrict third parties, such as Psystar, from selling clones that run the Mac OS on generic PC hardware. InformationWeek was not immediately able to verify the claim,” McDougall reports.
“Psystar made the allegation in documents filed last week in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, as part of its response to Apple’s latest charges of copyright infringement,” McDougall reports.
“Last month, a judge rejected Psystar’s counterclaim — leading Psystar to file revised claims. Psystar is now asking the judge overseeing the case to declare Apple’s Mac OS copyrights invalid,” McDougall reports. “In court filings, Apple has said it believes Psystar is backed by a silent third party that’s presumably seeking to enter the Mac market.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: MacDailyNews Reader Alan has provided a link for “Mac OS X,” filed by Apple on March 24, 2001 (the release date of Mac OS X 10.0 “Cheetah”) with the U.S. Copyright Office. See it here.
So they are saying that Apple has no copyright on OS X yet are asking for the copyrights to be invalidated. Am I missing something here. So does this mean that every different model of car a manufacturer produces has to be copyrighted separately otherwise anyone can make one? Someone’s having a laugh.
i thought that since the u.s. was a signatory to an international copyright treaty or something, that it wasn’t necessary to explicitly copyright everything.
These Psystar people are getting desperate…
Desperation is a stinky cologne…
MW: Psystar has “reached” as far as they can go with this one…
The Apple ninjas need to somehow find out who’s paying for Psystar’s legal council.
Follow the money…
@Jerry,
But don’t you have to have a registration prior to filing an infringement action?
Pirates have always been ruthless, devious and never respect conventions
OS X was written a developed by NEXT, Apple purchsed NEXT from one S. Jobs with part of the deal being the return of Jobs to Apple. Apple owns all of the NEXT developed software.
This article must have been paid for by Psystar’s lawyers or something, it repeats verbatim all of Psystar’s questionable claims using the same questionable language Psystar uses in the complaints and then does not comment on it.
For instance it repeats Psystar’s assertion that OS-X has “stealthware” in it that checks for the right intel CPU before it allows itself to start. Even if this is true, this is just part of what any normal OS does as it starts. To characterise this as “stealthware” just as Psystar does and then leave that assertion in the article without argument, is unconscionable.
Click bait for sure.
Ownership of copyright is one thing. Being able to enforce it is another.
I believe that here in the U.S., the creator/owner has to register the copyright beforehand to be able to collect damages and attorney fees from an infringement lawsuit.
Not saying Psystar has a case. Just pointing out what their argument might be.
Wow this means Microsoft can copy Mac OS X …. oh wait, their already doing that…
Apple has a copyright by the mere act of writing something, and it is protected. However, to collect statutory damages and attorney fees ($100K per incident, I recall), they have to register the copyright.
If Apple didn’t do that and does it now, then they would be limited to collecting actual damages and lost profit, which is a pittance.
But….THIS CLAIM IS SH*T: HERE IS THE COPYRIGHT for 10.1
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=20&ti=1,20&Search;_Arg=Apple Computer&Search;_Code=TALL&CNT=100&PID=xoMrMnnf5XDJ1up986x1DWq4BGT&SEQ=20081222173232&SID=1
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search;_Arg=Mac OS X Leopard&Search;_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID;=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1
@ Mark Armstrong:
If you register your copyright, you can be entitled to additional types of damages (such as attorneys’ fees) which you would not other wise be able to collect (or which may be more difficult to collect). It also sets a specific date in time when you had the copyright.
Without filing for a copyright, Apple has to prove when it started using the code for OS X to prove it had prior ownership than Psyster. That won’t be a problem, since the thing was on sale for years before Psyster ever came into existence.
LOL! I can only think of one company capable of, both, financially backing something like this, and making an argument as blatantly idiotic as this. Hints? It starts with an M…and manufactures broken ‘windows’
@ Regular Reader
Actually, I would be *extremely* surprised if Microsoft were behind Psystar. The fact that you have these PC assembler companies popping up and attempting to sell OS X compatible computers is nothing but a stinging indictment of the sorry state of Windows Vista.
Add to that the fact that stories of “Mac cloners” are garnering a significant amount of press coverage, and you have a PR nightmare for anyone trying to evangelize Windows Vista. How do you sell Vista to people, when they can see these computer makers clamoring like mad to sell OS X machines instead?
In my opinion, it’s the larger PC hardware makers who want in on the Mac OS X action, and would be best situated to profit from everything that’s happening in this arena. (Heck, it could even be Intel, wanting to sell more boxes with their hardware inside, regardless of who designs and assembles them.)
With Psystar, OpeniMac, Open Tech, and other similar companies springing up, the legal avenues are being tested and explored. Once there’s a loophole large enough for the bigger PC makers to squeeze through, you can bet they’ll be full steam ahead doing so. Not a bad return on providing a bit of legal funding to those companies.
None of this benefits Microsoft though. Sure, the damage of lost profits at Apple would be something MS would root for, but widespread adoption of OS X would start to undercut Microsoft’s ubiquity, and considering that their entire business model is built on this ubiquity, I find it very difficult to believe they’d have anything to do with what Psystar is pushing for.
I think this is what you say when you don’t have a case… it’s a Hail Mary looking for a crazy judge.
Lawyers can argue anything. It doesn’t mean there’s any there there.
I’ll wager the lawyers at Apple had a good LOL when they read that one!
This isn’t like patent where there might be some similar prior art that invalidates it. This is simply: Did Apple write original code? Did Psystar steal it?
According to a commenter on the original story, a simple search does find Apple’s registration for Leopard. (1/2008)
Accoring to the copyright office’s website, registration is required before litigating. But registration does not affect the validity or enforceability of the copyright. Apple still has a copyright, they’d simply have to go back and register it.
What this really looks like is boilerplate legal strategy–maximize Apple’s pain and expenses. Because Apple will have to answer the claim. Fortunately for Apple they have plenty of money and lawyers. For little guys these tactics run up the legal meters and have real consequences.
I couldn’t get the above links to work, and it isn’t so simple a search “mac” not “macintosh” “text” not “computer files” etc…. a LOT of stuff is registered….
So for any skeptics out there, here is the registration number:
TX0006849489 / 2008-01-24
This is just about making Apple PROVE every little element… maximizing their pain. In fact, ARE there any lawyers out there? Is this sort of claim made in EVERY copyright case?
@ yet another steve
Note the date: 2008-01-24 (the date that the copyright for Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 was registered–January 24, 2008).
Psystar started up in what, 2006?
I am not rooting for Psystar. I am just pointing out what they have apparently latched onto as the basis for their latest argument.
The lawyers are the same ones who represented Burst in its patent fight with first MS, which it won to the tune of $60M, and then Apple.
You know, I was comparing the registration date with the date of publication, 2007-10-26.
And Leopard has been released to the public since? (Feeling like a bit of an idiot at the moment.)
If anyone actually did the search they’d find Apple copyrighted
Mac OS X 10.0 in 2001
Mac OS X 10.1 in 2001
Mac OS X 10.2 in 2002
Mac OS X 10.3 in 2003
Mac OS X 10.4 in 2004
Mac OS X 10.5 in 2007
There are similar dates for the server versions too, though the earliest copyright I could find for server was 1999.
It definitely looks like Apple is properly covered. The judge should sanction the lawyers for filing this crap.
Opening up the license would end Apple’s affordable and easy to use upgrades.
Apple would need to recoup their loss of hardware sales and charge more for the OS, similar to Windows. How much more? I don’t know, but $499,00 sticks in my mind. Obviously it would be cheaper to buy an actual Mac. Then Apple might need to implement user authentication like M$, Adobe and Quark do since they only make money off of the software.
Any Mac user who buys a Pystar product is essentially helping to kill off the good deal we’ve had for decades.
“Note the date: 2008-01-24 (the date that the copyright for Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 was registered–January 24, 2008).
Psystar started up in what, 2006?”
Psystar first announced their Mac clones in April, 2008. It only seems like this has been going on for two years. In reality, it’s less than nine months.