Aidan MalleyIn an aggressive response, unofficial Mac clone builder Psystar has made a controversial claim that Apple doesn't legally own the US rights to protect Mac OS X, invalidating a major component of its lawsuit.
In its new submission, the Florida-based PC builder argues that Apple's complaint should be tossed outright as Apple didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X. Without that copyright, the Mac maker is "prohibited from bringing action" against Psystar for DMCA violation claims and other copyright-related allegations.
The amended response also reiterates Psystar's earlier concerns that Apple is using a startup check in Mac OS X Leopard to block unauthorized systems from running the software. In the earlier retort to Apple's revised lawsuit, Psystar argues that Apple isn't using copyright protection as a failed check merely crashes the system.
Whether the new claim of invalid copyright can be sustained isn't yet clear. However, initial searches for copyrights through the US Copyright Office reveal that Apple does own at least a disc and manual copyright for Mac OS X Leopard published on October 26th, 2007 — the day the software became available to the public.
Even so, Psystar is steadily becoming known for turning to unconventional interpretations of the law to try and thwart Apple's lawsuit, which itself has gone to the extreme of suggesting that secret contributors have helped Psystar get to the level of business it has today.
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
140 Comments
Psystar is steadily becoming known for turning to unconventional interpretations of the law to try and thwart Apple's lawsuit
That is putting it politely
This seems more and more like a "let's throw a pile of crap against the wall and see what sticks" kind of defense.
To all you copyright experts out there... I thought copyright didn't require an explicit registration (like trademarks and patents require). Don't you own the copyright to your work as soon as you produce it? Or does that not apply to companies (vs individuals)?
where are they getting their money for this mess???? i would think in the discovery phase that the real players in this will be found out. its more for press than a real attack why even give these parasites the time of day / news somebody big is behind this...hmmmm that's what apple should be looking into
can't anyone out there, bank teller, corp lawyer that works on these cases "slip" the info to AI??
I'm not sure I'd purchase a product that has no support from Apple. I've heard nothing regarding Psystar's stellar service and tech support. Maybe others can illuminate? I didn't want a clone when they were licensed clones, why would I want one of these machines... price? If price was my only consideration I would have bought a Dell! It wasn't, I didn't and I have 4 Macs at home.
There has to be more to this than an upstart computer manufacture trying to make money on something it did not earn. The style of action has an uncanny resemblance to something that would be pulled by an organization located in a northern US state. What puzzles me more is. Where is the money coming from to fund all this legal wrangling? I find it hard to believe that Pystar has the resources to take on Apple for a battle that will surely go into to high millions and be very protracted.