Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
658 F.3d 1150
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Apple owns copyrights to Mac OS X and licenses it to run only on Apple hardware via the SLA and related protections.
- Psystar manufactured Open Computers and installed Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, imaging a master copy and shipping it with a copy of Mac OS X unopened in the box.
- Apple sued Psystar in the Northern District of California for direct and contributory copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and related claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment against Psystar on infringement and rejected Psystar's copyright misuse defense, enjoining ongoing infringement.
- Psystar challenged the copyright misuse ruling and sought to limit the injunction scope; the district court’s sealing orders were granted but later challenged.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction and reversed sealing orders due to lack of justification, while addressing copyright misuse and license-versus-first-sale issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Apple's SLA constitute copyright misuse? | Psystar: misuse; | Psystar argues misuse to extend copyright reach. | No copyright misuse; SLA legitimate to control use on Apple hardware. |
| Does the licensee/ownership distinction affect first sale doctrine? | Apple: licensee restrictions do not trigger first sale. | Psystar relies on first sale for used copies. | First sale doctrine does not apply to licensees; Vernor three-factor test applied. |
| Is Alcatel applicable to this case’s licensing restrictions? | Alcatel shows misuse when restrictions stifle competition. | Alcatel controls; Apple SLA does not stifle competition. | Alcatel not controlling here; SLA does not prevent competition or other systems. |
| Should the injunction extend to Snow Leopard and Rebel EFI? | Injunctive relief should cover ongoing and future infringements. | Florida case may resolve Snow Leopard/Rebel EFI issues separately. | Injunction properly extended beyond litigated works; other products may be enjoined. |
| Were the sealing orders properly justified or should they be remanded? | Sealing orders protect confidential information. | Sealing lacked justification and harmed public access. | Sealing orders vacated and remanded for explanation and proper justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (three-factor test to distinguish licensee from owner of a copy)
- Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) (copyright misuse as anticompetitive restraint)
- Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (misuse defense limited to certain contexts; doit sparingly)
- Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) (misuse when license restricts competition in competing products)
- Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeast Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) (license terms may restrict use without stifling competition in maintenance)
- Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) (misuse when license conditions stifle competition; distinguish from current case)
- A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (limiting use of copyrighted works; not extending monopoly)
- Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (copyright misuse context; limits on extending monopoly)
- Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1907) (first sale doctrine authority)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (four-factor test for injunctive relief)