[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:08:02 +0100 |
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/52/0.pdf
Here's more:
-----
February 9, 2009 8:01 AM PST
Judge: Psystar can claim Apple 'copyright misuse'
by Dawn Kawamoto
A federal judge is letting Mac clone maker Psystar amend its legal
defense against Apple.
Psystar was delivered a blow in November, when Judge William Alsup of
the U.S. District Court in Northern California dismissed Psystar's
antitrust claims against the Cupertino, Calif.-based Mac maker. The
antitrust suit was a response to a copyright and trademark infringement
suit Apple filed in July against Psystar, whose OpenComputers are
designed to run the Mac OS X operating system.
In its amended complaint, Psystar accuses Apple of copyright misuse, as
well as unfair competition violations based on its alleged copyright
misuse.
Judge Alsup, in citing a previous case--Practice Management Information
Corp v. American Medical Association--notes in his order:
"Copyright misuse does not invalidate a copyright,
but precludes its enforcement during the period of
misuse." Practice Management, 121 F.3d at 520 n.9.
Moreover, "a defendant in a copyright infringement
suit need not prove an antitrust violation to
prevail on a copyright misuse defense." Id. at 521.
While Judge Alsup found in Psystar's favor by allowing the company to
continue its counterclaim with a misuse-of-copyright argument, he denied
its motion to amend its claim that Apple's copyright-oriented conduct
threatens or harms competition.
Psystar argues that the alleged misuse is, "at the
least, unfair in that Apple has attempted (and
continues to attempt) to extend the reach of its
copyrights by tying them to computer hardware not
otherwise protected by the Copyright Act." (Reply at
12). It fails to explain, however, how this conduct
constitutes harm to competition or a violation of
the spirit of the antitrust laws. In the context of
single-firm conduct, tying requires monopolization.
Psystar has identified none--other than the limited
monopolies inherent in the copyrights themselves.
According to a report in Computerworld, a trial for the case is set to
begin on November 9.
Dawn Kawamoto covers enterprise security and financial news relating to
technology for CNET News. E-mail Dawn.
Topics: Apple Corporate, Mac OS XTags: Apple,Psystar,Mac OS,Mac clone
makers,antitrust,copyright,trademarks
Share: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! Buzz
-----
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
- Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Rjack, 2009/02/10
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, David Kastrup, 2009/02/10
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Doug Mentohl, 2009/02/11
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Hyman Rosen, 2009/02/11
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, Alan Mackenzie, 2009/02/11
- Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar, diogratia, 2009/02/13