Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1983)
Quick Summary
This case asks a simple question: is an operating system protected by copyright? The Court of Appeals said “yes.” Apple accused Franklin of copying Apple II system code. Franklin admitted copying but said it was needed for compatibility. The court rejected that defense. Machine-readable code is still protected, and direct copying for compatibility is not allowed.
Issues
- Is a computer operating system protected by copyright?
- Can a company copy code only to make its product compatible with another?
Rules
- Software, including operating systems, is copyrightable.
- Compatibility needs do not excuse direct copying of protected code.
- Machine-readable code counts as a protectable literary work.
Facts — Timeline
Image available
Arguments
Appellant (Apple)
- System code is original authorship and protected.
- Franklin copied verbatim; compatibility is not a legal excuse.
- Machine code can still be copyrighted.
Respondent (Franklin)
- Copying was needed to make products compatible.
- Machine-readable code and missing notices weaken protection.
- Creating an original OS would be impractical and costly.
Judgment
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court. It held that operating system software is copyrightable. Franklin’s direct copying was infringement, even if done to ensure compatibility.
Machine-readable form does not remove protection, and missing notices do not make copying lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
Software is a literary work. Protection covers the code’s expression. Practical needs like interoperability do not allow verbatim copying of protected code.
Why It Matters
- Confirms copyright protection for operating systems.
- Sets a boundary between lawful reverse engineering and unlawful copying.
- Guides tech markets on licensing and compliance.
Key Takeaways
OS code is protected as a literary work.
Compatibility need ≠ license to copy.
Machine-readable code is still copyrightable.
| Claim | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| OS not protectable | Rejected |
| Copying for compatibility | Not a defense |
| Machine code unprotected | Rejected |
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “APP-LOCK” = APPle proves software LOCKed by copyright
- OS is protected: Code is expression.
- No copy shield: Compatibility is not consent.
- Machine code counts: Format doesn’t remove rights.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Whether OS software is copyrightable and whether copying for compatibility infringes.
Rule
Software is a protectable literary work; direct copying without license infringes.
Application
Franklin copied Apple’s system code verbatim. Compatibility did not excuse the copying.
Conclusion
Appeal allowed; software and OS protected; copying was infringement.
Glossary
- Operating System (OS)
- Core software that runs a computer and manages hardware and applications.
- Machine-Readable Code
- Binary/object code read by computers; still protected expression.
- Compatibility
- Ability of systems to work together; does not authorize copying protected code.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now