Psystar (Incorrectly) Claims Apple Failed to Copyright Mac OS X

| News

Apple vs. PsystarPsystar is asking the courts to dismiss Apple Inc.'s copyright infringement suit against Psystar on the basis that Apple failed to actually get a copyright for Mac OS X. The request came in court documents filed as the company's Answer to Apple's First Amended Complaint, but a search of the Library of Congress's Copyright Office found copyrights for "Mac OS X Server Version 10.5 Leopard" and "Mac OS X Leopard 10.5" belonging to Apple.

Both copyrights are dated October 26th, 2007.

Psystar is a vendor of unauthorized Mac clones that run Mac OS X "Leopard" 10.5 through a third party firmware hack. Apple has sued the company for copyright infringement and for violating the End User Agreement License for Mac OS X. More recently, Apple added a claim that Psystar was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by bypassing Apple's firmware controls that keep Mac OS X from running on non-Apple-branded hardware.

While Psystar countersued with a claim that Apple had a monopoly on Macs, that countersuit was dismissed by the judge in its entirety. The latest filing is in answer to Apple's Amended Complaint, in which Apple added the DMCA-violation complaint to the suit.

Psystar's newest gambit is to get the copyright violation aspect of the suit thrown out on the grounds that Apple doesn't own a copyright to Mac OS X in the first place.

According to an InformationWeek report, Psystar claimed in court documents that Apple, "is prohibited from bringing action against Psystar for the alleged infringement of one or more of the plaintiff's copyrights for failure to register said copyrights with the copyright office as required" by law.

This claim from Psystar may merely be a standard court maneuver, as suggested to The Mac Observer by an attorney who wishes to remain anonymous, but be it that or a serious effort to derail Apple's legal attacks, the U.S. Library of Congress seems to think Apple does indeed have its copyright on Mac OS X Leopard.

Comments

Lee Dronick

It sounds like Psystar is getting desperate.

mathue

Yeesh, talk about ‘B’ squad legalese!

Bennyboy

That’s a pretty bad Hail Mary pass.  I wonder who is paying Psystar’s attorneys?  They are supposed to be good and this is the best response they can come up with?  They might as well file “Your momma’s so fat” jokes.

Lee Dronick

“I wonder who is paying Psystar?s attorneys?”

Well that is the question when Apple filed the amended lawsuit naming a number of John Does.

purduejim

It is called the Spaghetti Defense- toss everything against the wall and hope something sticks!

Intruder

From findlaw.com:

“Procedure for Getting Protection
Copyright protection arises automatically when an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Registration with the Copyright Office is optional (but you have to register before you file an infringement suit). (emphasis mine)
The use of copyright notice is optional for works distributed after March 1, 1989. Copyright notice can take any of these three forms:

? followed by a date and name.
“Copyright” followed by a date and name.
“Copr.” followed by a date and name.

Dan

My questions is if Apple has filed for the copyrights then why in the world would Psystar make themselves look dumb and say Apple doesn’t have the copyright? 

Is Dell or Microsoft one of the ones behind it and trying to keep a negative look on Apple in the news or what the heck is going on?

This situation just makes no sense!!  They are starting just to make outrageous claims and nothing makes sense like they are trying to keep them in the news or just simply desperately trying to win the case in any way they can.

-Dan

Bennyboy

Dan,

I do believe that you are on to something about Dell being behind this.  If not them, than HP, or another PC OEM.  There just isn’t any long term roadmap for windows after vista that the general public will trust or possibly even use.  If for some reason Psystar wins, than it’s like the time IBM only copyrighted the bios and was powerless to stop the clone vendors to copy everything else.  This way, they can legally sell Mac OS without having to pay Apple anything except the OS license.

Log-in to comment