Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.

Last updated

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
ArguedMarch 17 1983
DecidedAugust 30 1983
Citations714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983); 70 A.L.R.Fed. 153, 219 U.S.P.Q. 113, 1983 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,565
Case history
Prior historyInjunction denied, E.D. Pa. July 30, 1982; motion for reconsideration denied
Subsequent historyRehearing denied; rehearing en banc denied, Sept. 23, 1983; petition for certiorari dismissed Jan. 4, 1984, 464 U.S. 1033
Holding
Computer software could be protected by copyright. District Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Judges sittingCircuit Judges James Hunter III, A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Dolores Sloviter
Case opinions
MajoritySloviter, joined by Hunter, Higginbotham
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983), was the first time an appellate level court in the United States held that a computer's BIOS could be protected by copyright. As second impact, this ruling clarified that binary code, the machine readable form of software and firmware, was copyrightable too and not only the human-readable source code form of software. [1] [2]

Contents

Franklin Computer Corporation introduced the Franklin Ace 1000, a clone of Apple Computer's Apple II, in 1982. Apple quickly determined that substantial portions of the Franklin ROM and operating system had been copied directly from Apple's versions, and on May 12, 1982, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It cited the presence of some of the same embedded strings, such as the name "James Huston" (an Apple programmer), and "Applesoft," on both the Apple and Franklin system disks.

Franklin admitted that it had copied Apple's software but argued that it would have been impractical to independently write its own versions of the software and maintain compatibility, although it said it had written its own version of Apple's copy utility and was working on its own versions of other software. Franklin argued that because Apple's software existed only in machine-readable form, and not in printed form, and because some of the software did not contain copyright notices, it could be freely copied. The Apple II firmware was likened to a machine part whose form was dictated entirely by the requirements of compatibility (that is, an exact copy of Apple's ROM was the only part that would "fit" in an Apple-compatible computer and enable its intended function), and was therefore not copyrightable.

The district court found in favor of Franklin. However, Apple appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit which, in a separate case decided three days after Franklin won at the lower level, had determined that both a program existing only in a written form unreadable to humans (e.g. object code) and one embedded on a ROM were protected by copyright. (See Williams Elec., Inc., v. Artic Int'l, Inc. , 685 F.2d 870 (1982)). The Court of Appeals overturned the district court's ruling in Franklin by applying its holdings in Williams and going further to hold that operating systems were also copyrightable. The Court remanded the case to the District Court for a determination regarding whether Apple's operating system was one of a very limited number of ways to achieve its function. If it was, then Franklin would not be liable for copyright infringement. The parties settled.

Apple was able to force Franklin to withdraw its clones by 1988. The company later brought non-infringing clones to market, but as these models were only partially compatible with the Apple II, and as the Apple II architecture was by this time outdated in any case, they enjoyed little success in the marketplace.

IBM believed that IBM PC clone makers such as Eagle Computer and Corona Data Systems similarly infringed on its copyright, and after Apple v. Franklin successfully forced them to stop using the BIOS. The Phoenix BIOS in 1984, however, and similar products such as AMI BIOS, which were clean-room engineered and did not contain any of IBM's code, permitted computer makers to legally build essentially 100% PC-compatible clones without having to reverse engineer the PC BIOS themselves. [3] [4] [5]

Another impact of the decision was the rise of the shrink-wrap proprietary software commercial business model, where before a source code driven software distribution schema dominated. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BIOS</span> Firmware for hardware initialization and OS runtime services

In computing, BIOS is firmware used to provide runtime services for operating systems and programs and to perform hardware initialization during the booting process. The firmware comes pre-installed on the computer's motherboard.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IBM Personal Computer</span> Personal computer model released in 1981

The IBM Personal Computer is the first microcomputer released in the IBM PC model line and the basis for the IBM PC compatible de facto standard. Released on August 12, 1981, it was created by a team of engineers and designers at International Business Machines (IBM), directed by William C. Lowe and Philip Don Estridge in Boca Raton, Florida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IBM PC compatible</span> Computers similar to the IBM PC and its derivatives

An IBM PC compatible is any personal computer that is hardware- and software-compatible with the IBM Personal Computer and its subsequent models. Like the original IBM PC, an IBM PC–compatible computer uses an x86-based central processing unit, sourced either from Intel or a second source, and is capable of using interchangeable commodity hardware such as expansion cards. Initially such computers were referred to as PC clones, IBM clones or IBM PC clones, but the term "IBM PC compatible" is now a historical description only, as the vast majority of microcomputers produced since the 1990s are IBM compatible. IBM itself no longer sells personal computers, having sold its division to Lenovo in 2005. "Wintel" is a similar description that is more commonly used for modern computers.

Clean-room design is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights associated with the original design. Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

Commercial software, or seldom payware, is a computer software that is produced for sale or that serves commercial purposes. Commercial software can be proprietary software or free and open-source software.

In computing, a clone is hardware or software that is designed to function in exactly the same way as another system. A specific subset of clones are remakes, which are revivals of old, obsolete, or discontinued products.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Franklin Electronic Publishers</span> American manufacturer based in New Jersey

Franklin Electronic Publishers, Incorporated is an American consumer electronics manufacturer based in Burlington, New Jersey, founded in 1981. Since the mid-1980s, it has primarily created and sold hand-held electronic references, such as spelling correctors, dictionaries, translation devices, medical references, and Bibles. It was publicly traded on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol FEP until September 30, 2009, when it merged with Saunders Acquisition Corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Macintosh clone</span> Computer running Mac OS not produced by Apple

A Macintosh clone is a computer running the Mac OS operating system that was not produced by Apple Inc. The earliest Mac clones were based on emulators and reverse-engineered Macintosh ROMs. During Apple's short lived Mac OS 7 licensing program, authorized Mac clone makers were able to either purchase 100% compatible motherboards or build their own hardware using licensed Mac reference designs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Power-on self-test</span> Process performed by firmware or software routines

A power-on self-test (POST) is a process performed by firmware or software routines immediately after a computer or other digital electronic device is powered on.

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd.</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Apple Computer, Inc. v Mackintosh Computers Ltd. [1990] 2 S.C.R. 209, is a Supreme Court of Canada case on copyright law regarding the copyrightability of software. The Court found that programs within ROM silicon chips are protected under the Copyright Act, and that the conversion from the source code into object code was a reproduction that did not alter the copyright protection of the original work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phoenix Technologies</span> American company

Phoenix Technologies Ltd. is an American company that designs, develops and supports core system software for personal computers and other computing devices. The company's products – commonly referred to as BIOS or firmware – support and enable the compatibility, connectivity, security and management of the various components and technologies used in such devices. Phoenix Technologies and IBM developed the El Torito standard.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video game console emulator</span> Program that reproduces video game consoles behavior

A video game console emulator is a type of emulator that allows a computing device to emulate a video game console's hardware and play its games on the emulating platform. More often than not, emulators carry additional features that surpass limitations of the original hardware, such as broader controller compatibility, timescale control, easier access to memory modifications, and unlocking of gameplay features. Emulators are also a useful tool in the development process of homebrew demos and the creation of new games for older, discontinued, or rare consoles.

Proprietary software is software that grants its creator, publisher, or other rightsholder or rightsholder partner a legal monopoly by modern copyright and intellectual property law to exclude the recipient from freely sharing the software or modifying it, and—in some cases, as is the case with some patent-encumbered and EULA-bound software—from making use of the software on their own, thereby restricting their freedoms.

<i>Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.</i> Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation, 203 F.3d 596 (2000), commonly referred to as simply Sony v. Connectix, is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the copying of a copyrighted BIOS software during the development of an emulator software does not constitute copyright infringement, but is covered by fair use. The court also ruled that Sony's PlayStation trademark had not been tarnished by Connectix Corp.'s sale of its emulator software, the Virtual Game Station.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Structure, sequence and organization</span>

Structure, sequence and organization (SSO) is a term used in the United States to define a basis for comparing one software work to another in order to determine if copying has occurred that infringes on copyright, even when the second work is not a literal copy of the first. The term was introduced in the case of Whelan v. Jaslow in 1986. The method of comparing the SSO of two software products has since evolved in attempts to avoid the extremes of over-protection and under-protection, both of which are considered to discourage innovation. More recently, the concept has been used in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

<i>Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc.</i>

Broderbund Software Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1127, 1133, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California software case, initially important in determining how U.S. copyright law applied to the look and feel presented by a software product. It took an expansive position which later courts increasingly rejected.

CompuSource Compatible Systems Inc. was a short-lived privately held American computer company active in the 1980s and based in Minneapolis. It sold a variety of clones of the Apple II, including one portable that was also an IBM PC compatible and a CP/M machine.

References

  1. ↑ Impact of Apple vs. Franklin Decision
  2. 1 2 Landley, Rob (May 23, 2009). "23-05-2009". landley.net. Retrieved December 2, 2015. So if open source used to be the norm back in the 1960s and 70s, how did this _change_? Where did proprietary software come from, and when, and how? How did Richard Stallman's little utopia at the MIT AI lab crumble and force him out into the wilderness to try to rebuild it? Two things changed in the early 80s: the exponentially growing installed base of microcomputer hardware reached critical mass around 1980, and a legal decision altered copyright law to cover binaries in 1983.
  3. ↑ Caruso, Denise (February 27, 1984). "IBM wins disputes over PC copyrights". InfoWorld. p. 15. Retrieved January 18, 2015.
  4. ↑ Langdell, James (July 10, 1984). "Phoenix Says Its BIOS May Foil IBM's Lawsuits". PC Magazine. p. 56. Retrieved October 25, 2013.
  5. ↑ Schmidt, Robert (July 1994). "What Is The BIOS?". Computing Basics. Archived from the original on March 10, 2012. Retrieved September 19, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.