It's official -- Psystar's
"hotshot law firm" of Carr and Ferrell is desperate. Their latest brief on behalf of the wannabe Mac clonemaker says that Apple's
copyright infringement and DMCA claims against Psystar are invalid because Steve and Co. improperly registered the copyright to OS X. Yes, that's right: Psystar's arguing that the most protective and litigious computer maker on the planet didn't take the time to properly register the copyright to its flagship product. If that sounds insane, it's because it is: we found registrations for every major version of OS X, dating from 2001, in about five seconds of searching. Seriously, if an argument this simple was a winner you'd think we'd have heard about it from the get-go, instead of Psystar's dubious,
immediately-dismissed antitrust claims. We have no idea who's approving or paying for these
flailing tactics, but firms like Carr and Ferrell don't risk their reputations on ridiculous arguments like this for free -- maybe there's something to that crazy
"secret backer" conspiracy theory after all.
[Via
AppleInsider]
Read - Psystar claims Apple didn't register the copyright in OS X
Read - Apple's OS X 10.5 copyright registration
Read - Apple's original OS X copyright registration
posted December 23rd 2008 12:07AM
They must have something, otherwise why waste time and money to pursue it? I wish they wouldn't of stole from the osx86 project, but i can't imagine what the world would be like if osx ran on all hardware, can you imagine how great that would be?
Is it just me, or is this the legal equivalent of saying "Hey, look over there!" and then trying to run away while the other guy's back is turned? I mean, it just makes no sense whatsoever to go after Apple's copyright registration on Mac OS X.
Another possible angle they can pursue is that Steve Jobs is feeling so guilty about all of this that he's unable to attend MacWorld.
Not again Apple! First MS then Psystar! When are you guys gonna learn to protect your patents. That would be funny if this company gets bigger than Apple like MS just being a copycat.
Did you read that before you posted it?
I read it after he posted it, if that helps.
http://xkcd.com/481/
Even Lionel Hutz knows that filling a copyright is only a formality in today's laws, not a requirement. Copyright is automatically confered by the act of CREATING something.
Some how desperate doesn't seem to cover this tactic, maybe the judge can order some observational fuzzy slipper time for the defense lawyers....
Yes and No. When you are creating logo, you own the copyright for your logo. But then it has to be filied with the librarry of congress I belive. The issue is not copyright but eula. The Psystar is trying to avoid Eula by saying that the Eula is unuplicable since the registration for OSX has not been filed properly.
Regarding the fact of who is behind Psystar. I think it is no one other then Apple. If my memmory serves me correctly Apple and Microsoft have had an agreement when Apple went Intel that they will not licence their operating system for the other companies that manifacture PCs, By setting up a case and loosing it they are escaping the Microsoft agreement. Thus they are making OSX 10.5 avalible for other machines. The 10.6 is only going to be avalible for mac. Or something like that. Apple gets more people hooked. More PC = More Money
@Igor:
Naaaaah they wouldn't do that ...
or would they ?
ohhh nasty !
@Igor:
So, you're saying that Apple creates the "Psystar being backed" rumour, yet they're the one's backing them? Oh yeah, that's very subtle. Much easier to leave no clues.
hey, you can't really blame psystar.. if you're in the deepest shit hole you MUST pull every string you got. yeah?
What Psystar failed to account for is that to invoke the Chewbacca defense you have to dig up Johnnie Cochran's corpse.
As much as I like OS X86 and have it on my PC right now, this is getting stupid...
Just because Apple choose an overprotective-soon-to-be-dead business model, doesn't mean they registered OS X correctly.
If Psytar lawyers say Apple didn't copyright OS X correctly, it's probably because they actually have something...(or Maybe not but what do you know are you a lawyer ? did you see anything ? do you work for engadget and googled it ?)
There can be any kind of vice of procedure.
Don't worry though Engadget googled it and it's OK, like 120% certain !
/sarcasm
(yes this post is redundant and most likely anyone could understand my sarcasm but you never know...)
Yeh Felix .. Apple is going to be dead RSN !! .. just like everyone has been saying for years. Of course this ignores the fact that Apple closed last quarter with MORE money in the bank than Microsoft (24.5 billion versus 20.7). Also rather than trusting this site go and read Groklaw.net which actually is run by lawyers and articulates clear reasons why Psystar is completely full of shite. Did you know that to use a Psystar computer you have to agree to an EULA that is MORE restrictive than Apples ?
And of course I said very soon apple will die.
oh no wait I didn't...
I said the closed business model would die : big difference.
This is my opinion and I'm pretty confident it will, just look at the mobile OS market : symbian turning open-source like Android, LiMo, WinMo always has been supporting full featured C/C++ based 3rd party applications for ever...
And I would like to know your arguments to say Psystar's EULA is more restrictive than Apple's one.
By the way the point of my comment was to underline the crap engadget was giving us.
Seriously engadget you legal analysis of this story is worth some gold...
Really you go into details, you go deep, begin a discussion about the Apple EULA and why people have to start their own company to get OS X without MAC hardware...
It's nice to see some people are still asking themselves some questions once in a while, between a $4,99 itunes store VOD and some drop call on your iPhone.
I'm not bashing you but you should stick to what you know because your post is misinformation.
@Félix -- I'm a lawyer. What about this post suggests that I Googled anything? If you want my deep analysis of this case, including the EULA claims, try this: http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/16/apples-lawsuit-against-psystar-examined/
Go read this link (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746) and come back when YOU know something. The EULA for Psystar is clearly more restrictive than Apple's.
"@Félix -- I'm a lawyer."
Aha! I bet you are working for Psystar!
@Nilay patel.
I'm not attacking you but your post, which I think lacks arguments.
You may laugh your ass out at Psystar right now, but until the registration of OS X copyright is proven valid, their argument is very good, and I still don't see how you can make a link between the overprotective business model of Apple and the fact that they couldn't have made a vice of procedure during the registration...
Anyway as you're a lawyer (and I am not) I would be very glad to hear from you about this story again when you have more concrete information.
(for instance I'd like to know why the registration isn't valid in psystar's mind)
Nilay, what ever happened to your quippy legal disclaimers at the end of your copyright and courtroom antics posts? I used to look forward to those oh so much.
Believe it or not, I left the active practice of law to become a fulltime Engadget editor! Best decision I've ever made. :)
Technically I still need the disclaimers, but now that I'm not an attorney all the time I feel like it's totally overboard to stick it on the end of every single post. It'll pop up every now and again so I can cover my ass (or when I think of a good joke), don't worry.
Ahh, well congrats then! I'll be keeping an eye out for those badass disclaimers.
Cool, Apple is going DOWN. DOWN TOWN TO BUY A CLOWN.
Until now, this has been a fun little volley, but this is stupid and desperate. Copyright law does not require formal copyright registration for protection: copyright protections can be implied by the simple act of creation and/or publication. (Check out the Berne copyright convention adoption of 1989 and the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty.) This is absurd.
May be Psytar really have a ace card under their sleeve.
If I were to venture a guess.... I would say a Dell, HP, IBM, or other large integrator is backing psystar's antics. Any integrator large enough has a stake in resolving the questions this case raises, whomever wins. If psystar wins that means there are no reason OEMs could not start selling OSX systems themselves right away. If Apple wins it sets a precedent that vertical lock-in is legal and OEMs could get exclusive license for one or more versions of MS Windows or whatever is hot.
Really we should be rooting for psystar since the doctrine of first sale should allow them to install a legal copy on a toaster as well as compatible hardware. If they loose the consumers will loose as well, computers will get more expensive as vendors choose vertical lock-in to replace the razor thin margins they have been strangled with.
So MS gets sued millions of dollars for including Windows Media Player in Windows XP, yet Apple can lock down their computers and curse everyone that doesn't buy their own stuff?
Gotta love the "laws".
They need to come up with something a little more specific. Simply saying that they did not file the copyright registrations properly with no evidence is crazy! Makes no sense...
This is SO stupid. Apple wants to sell hardware. Imagine the issues that would be popping up if ANY PC could run OSX! There are SO MANY configurations that it would be a mess just like... WINDOWS! This is ONE reason OSX is better than Windows, IT JUST WORKS!
I guess we know what Apple will do with a good % of that cash it has sitting around. It is ashamed that this is what they have to spend it on and not the development of something cool.
Next they'll say that OS X doesn't even exist. That Steve Jobs has no right to distort reality so much as to make people believe they are actually using a computer. In reality, the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on right now has no operating system - I'm really staring at a black screen and only imagining that I'm accessing the internet.
this company makes no sense! the only reason people buy macs is because they look pretty, not because osx isn't a piece of shit! have you seen those psystars? they look like ass!
And people think Apple fanboys are bad? Wow.
What a joke; anyone familiar with copyright law in the slightest knows that copyright is automatically attributed tot he creator regardless of registering the copyright with the patent office.
I followed the link to Nilay's earlier post (from July) and I don't think anyone's really commented specifically on the "dizzying array of monetary damages" that Apple could be seeking. Ordinarily it would be from $750 to $30,000 per violation, but if Apple can show willful infringement -- which is a slam dunk if they can show infringement at all -- the damages could be up to $150,000 per violation(1). And Apple is asserting that it's "entitled to the maximum statutory damages allowed under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) based on Defendant's willful acts of copyright infringement."(2)
Based on Psystar's claim that it's sold "thousands" of computers, even if it's only 2,000 computers exactly, the "maximum statutory damages" could be $300 million. Obviously, Psystar could never pay even a small fraction of that.
Would Apple go for it anyway? I don't know but I think they should, because this would send a message to other manufacturers with deep pockets (e.g., Dell, HP etc.) who might otherwise be willing to take a chance that the consequences could be severe even to companies of their size and financial muscle.
My personal take on things is that Psystar is merely trying anything it can to delay and prolong judgement as long as possible so the principals can squirrel away profits and then have the corporation declare bankruptcy when they are shut down by the court. And while the DMCA contains criminal provisions, I haven't seen anything indicating that Apple or government prosecutors are going after the Psystar principals personally.
Just my thoughts,
-- Bob
I'm neither a lawyer nor a rock star. And I'm not yours, either.
(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html
(2) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/38/0.pdf