Section: Apple News, Operating Systems, OS-X
The Apple vs. Psystar lawsuit isn’t going well for the “open computer” maker, as the judge in the California lawsuit has granted all of Apple’s summary decision requests, and denied all of Pystar’s. Think of it as the Lightning Round of the judicial system; it means that the judge felt there was enough evidence right now to support Apple’s claim of copyright infringement and a DMCA violation. He also supported their motion to seal.
In Pystar’s case, the judge (William Alsup), denied the company’s claim that their distribution of OS X was supported under the “first sale” doctrine, which allows people to sell copies of copyrighted material they have legally obtained. Groklaw quotes from the decision:
The parties spill much ink on whether Psystar was the owner or a licensee of the copy (i.e., the tangible copy) of Mac OS X that it purchased. Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy, the first-sale defense fails here. Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are “lawfully made.” The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an “imaging station” and then used a “master copy” to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.
So, no, Virginia, it’s not legal to dupe OS X and sell them.
Despite these two judgments, there is still a trial to be had, as the court must determine “Apple’s allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200; and common law unfair competition.”
Read [Groklaw] and [the full decision]
Full Story » | Written by Bill Stiteler for Appletell. | Comment on this Article »
