Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Dec 2008 20:49 UTC, submitted by judgen
Legal The legal back-and-forth between PsyStar and Apple is slowly but surely moving into the twilight zone. Not too long ago we had Apple going all black helicopter on PsyStar claiming people and/or companies other than PsyStar are involved in the clone maker's unlawful practices, even though Apple could so far not name any of them because, well, they don't know who they are yet. If that wasn't enough, PsyStar now claims that Apple's copyright on Mac OS X is invalid.
Thread beginning with comment 341414
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

Either my sarcasm detector is completely broken or you are not reading the same story I am. "Quite serious"? Really? By pulling the most ridiculous allegations out of thin air? This is nothing but desperation and it actually supports exactly the argument that Psystar are "just another company looking for a quick buck by stepping on Apple's feet and causing a bit of a stir, then just giving up".

Reply Parent Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

They're a small company. Just about any small company (or even medium or probably large one) would have *given up* by now. Hell, they wouldn't have even done something like this in the first place. It's too much of a gamble (and likely a losing one at that). The fact that they're still willing to fight (even if that means digging their own grave even deeper) shows that they're at least trying... despite how laughable their claims may be. They could have just took the publicity and ran.

Reply Parent Score: 3

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, what is REALLY happening is rather typical of any lawsuit. You ALWAYS try to attack the very merits by whatever means available of the other party's case - ALWAYS.

If you find that a copyright application form was filed improperly - for whatever reason - you try and use that if your opponent's case depends on it. Cases get thrown out on technicalities all the time. Sometimes ones that don't even make sense.

Sadly, what I don't see here, is what Psystar's evidence is in regards to this matter. It could be something really minor ( like a typo )... or it could be something rather serious ( like the wrong proof of product - instead of OS X, they supplied Darwin (happens) ).

I wish I knew.

Besides, in the U.S., copyrights are automatic - so it ain't gonna work... but whatever...

Still, my desire is to see Psystar pull out a surprise win. Not just because I almost always root for the underdog, but because I believe Psystar is in the right. NOTHING in the law prevents Psystar, or anyone else, from installing MacOS X on a non-Apple computer.

Technical hurdles for copy-protect only apply to piracy. They buy MacOS X at retail and sell computers with a service to install MacOS X for the customer - while warranting that the computer will be able to run MacOS X. All legal.

--The loon

PS: I think I get it now:

From copyright.gov:

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.


Edited 2008-12-25 05:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4