Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Apple says booting OS X makes an unauthorized copy 9

recoiledsnake writes: Groklaw has an extensive look at the latest developments in the Psystar vs. Apple story. There's a nice picture illustrating the accusation by Apple that Psystar makes three unauthorized copies of OS X. The most interesting however, is the last copy. From Apple's brief: "Finally, every time Psystar turns on any of the Psystar computers running Mac OS X, which it does before shipping each computer, Psystar necessarily makes a separate modified copy of Mac OS X in Random Access Memory, or RAM. This is the third unlawful copy." Psystar's response: "Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that Section 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was Section 117’s purpose." Is Apple seriously arguing that installing a third party program and booting OS X results in copyright infringement due to making a derivative work and an unauthorized copy?
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple says booting OS X makes an unauthorized copy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    You need two MacOS licenses to be able to store it on a hard drive and run it in RAM?
    • With this Apple has undeniably jumped the shark....

      • Oh yes, chalk up another hash mark on the Apple Death Knell for this one.

        • Congratulations, you get the prize for "most mixed metaphors in 15 words"! :) I count four, maybe someone can shoot for five?

          • It would be like if you bought one car and then used a Stargate replicator to make an exact copy of it. Plus you copied yourself and thus, liking driving, were able to drive while you drive, yo.

    • by chrome ( 3506 )
      I think their point is that, on their hardware, it's licensed. On other hardware, it is not, therefore it is an unlawful copy. But, it's hardly a complete copy, is it?
      • by s73v3r ( 963317 )
        Their argument is that the copy made into memory is unlawful because the copy on the drive is not legally licensed. The precedent is the Blizzard case against Glider, where they successfully argued that using that program with WoW violated the license, and therefore the copy in memory was an illegitimate one.
  • Oh, I get it. And, should I memorize a poem that's still under copyright, have I just made an unlawful copy?

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger