Stephen Withers
Tuesday, 02 September 2008 13:31
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 4
In some ways, it's rather like creationists asserting that evolution cannot be correct because no transitional fossils have been discovered, only to hear evolutionists respond "they have, actually."
But it's a near-constant refrain in Psystar's filing.
As for Psystar's general claim that it has caused no harm to Apple, I would have thought that could very easily be dealt with. Surely all Apple need to do is identify one purchaser of a Psystar system that was sold with Mac OS X preinstalled and who would have purchased a Mac in the absence of Psystar's offering. Loss of profit, however small, is clearly 'harm' as far as a corporation is concerned.
But some of Psystar's assertions make me wonder what the company - or its law firm - is really trying to achieve.
Try this one for size: "PSYSTAR denies that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Mac OS X version 10.5, and Mac OS X Server all constitute 'an original work of authorship' 'constituting copyrightable subject matter' as those terms are defined by the United States copyright laws".
So if Mac OS X isn't copyrightable, I struggle see how any other operating system is - or any other piece of software, for that matter.
If that was upheld, what would the effect be on the software industry? Without the underlying protection of copyright, how can licence agreements be enforced?
Even open source software couid be affected - see
page three.
