Dec

23

Psystar’s Revenge

posted in news, by Codrut Nistor


Last time, it was about EFi-X USA and its - more or less - Mac clones, but now we're turning back to Psystar, and its crusade against Apple. I won't tell you all the details of the story once again, since it's enough to say that what started like a battle against a Mac clone maker ended up with a counterattack that Apple has to face, and now Psystar has made a controversial claim that the Cupertino-based company doesn't legally own the US rights to protect Mac OS X!

With this claim, Psystar hopes to invalidate a major component of the lawsuit filed by Apple, and if they are right... things could get a bit frustrating for Apple, to put it lightly. The Forida-based PC builder says that Apple's complaint has no real legal ground to hold, since they didn't use proper procedures to register the copyright for Mac OS X!

Obviously, without holding proper copyright to a product, you can't file any complaints to protect it, right? According to all these, the one and only Mac maker should be "prohibited from bringing action" against Psystar for DMCA violation claims and other copyright-related allegations.

Now, my opinion is that Psystar is either bluffing, or they have some very smart lawyers and Apple could really get in trouble, because if the clone maker's claims prove to be valid, then virtually any tiny computer store could start building its own Mac compatibles...

5 Comments on “Psystar’s Revenge”


1

dizzle, on December 23, 2008

I am going to look further into that claim, but your last statement is completely incorrect. Copyrights are presumed on original works, so Apple does have a copyright. However IF (and preliminary research by others seems to indicate that Psystar is talking out their rear) Apple did not register it properly, it cannot bring suit on it until they do. How long do you think it will take them to properly register it?

This is a tempest in a teapot IMHO, but I could be wrong.

2

dizzle, on December 23, 2008

Also, since they filed several pleadings which only be kindly called a rough internal draft I tend to think that their reasoning is sloppy as well. I could be wrong, but sloppy writers are often sloppy thinkers.

3

Codrut Nistor, on December 24, 2008

Most chances are you're right. After all, we're talking about Apple here, and Mac OS X hasn't been around since yesterday, but it's interesting just to watch Psystar fight back...

4

dizzle, on December 24, 2008

Hi CN, we are coming from two different perspectives here. I think this case is pretty clear cut and that Psystar is ran by two thieving punks. I never find watching punks fight back interesting. I find it repulsive.

However, I would like to know where the source of this information even came from. I have read the pleadings and did not come away at all with this being their claim but something more subtle. Now, since writing about this case is not my full-time job, and I have been ill over the past few weeks, it is possible I missed something. I don't their argument is quite that - it is more that the hardware/software combo tying isn't copyrighted. It is hard to know where they are coming from because they are all over the place. I am analyzing some of their other arguments, and it seems to me like they are trying to bluff the Judge. Not a good move. Plus, I hope you did read that think. The state of presentation of their filings is abysmal. I have seen incarcerated pro se litigants who have to handwrite all of their own filings not make such mistakes.

5

Hot iPhone News, on December 28, 2008

[...] if your answer is positive! While iPhone and iPod clones are more likely to be encountered than Mac clones, they are also trying to copy the design of the original, first of all, while the computers able to [...]

Post a comment:

Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website

1 pingback(s)/trackback(s) on “Psystar’s Revenge”