May 17, 2012

Apple’s Software License Restrictions Not Misuse

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California district court’s holding that Apple Inc.’s software license agreement limiting use of the Mac OS X operating system to Apple computers did not constitute copyright misuse.  Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation, Case No. 10-15113 (9th Cir., Sept. 28, 2011) (Schroeder, J.).

Apple’s Mac OS X operating system software is available to Mac users subject to a Software License Agreement that requires Mac OS X to be used exclusively on Apple-brand computers.  Defendant Psystar Corporation began manufacturing personal computers in 2008 under the name “OpenMac” (which it later rebranded) and sold its computers with the Mac OS X system installed.  Psystar also included an unopened copy of Mac OS X with each computer sold.  Apple sued Psystar, asserting breach of the Mac OS X SLA and various infringement claims.  Psystar argued that its use was permissible because it validly purchased copies of the software.  Psystar also counterclaimed that Apple was engaging in copyright misuse by requiring that Mac OS X be used solely with Apple computers.  The district court ruled in favor Psystar’s copyright infringement and permanently enjoined Psystar from manufacturing or selling computers that contain Apple’s Mac OS X software.  The district court also held that the restrictions in Apple’s Mac OS X license agreement did not constitute copyright misuse.  Psystar appealed.

The 9th Circuit affirmed.   Acknowledging the “well-established” distinction between software licenses versus sales, the 9th Circuit rejected Psystar’s argument that its lawful purchase of Mac OS X justified its distribution of Mac OS X under the first sale doctrine.  The court underscored that Psystar was a mere licensee of the software, not an owner, and that licensing agreements such as the Mac OS X license agreement may facilitate a copyright owner’s ability to control the use of its copyrighted material so long as competition is not stifled in the process.  While Apple’s license agreement restricted the use of the MAC OS X to Apple hardware, it did not prevent Psystar or anyone else from developing competing computer hardware or software.  Accordingly, the 9th Circuit rejected Psystar’s copyright misuse claim, concluding software license did not impermissibly extend the reach of its copyright in Mac OS X, and upheld the district court’s permanent injunction. 

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Elisabeth (Bess) Malis is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Los Angeles office.  Bess focuses her practice on trademark, copyright, right of publicity, promotion and advertising, as well as entertainment law matters.

310-788-1557

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.