Software Licenses (and Appleā€™s Dominance) Are Reinforced by Ninth Circuit
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10:14AM
Admin in Business Law, California Laws, General Business, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Nicholas Kanter, business litigation, court decisions, software licensing, tech law

Business LitigationIP Business Litigation Lawyer

Nicholas Kanter


The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed a company’s ability to use a license agreement to significantly restrict customers’ use of its software. 

In Apple, Inc. v. Pystar Corporation (filed September 28, 2011), Apple sued Pystar Corp., a small computer company selling its own brand of “Open Computers” running Apple’s proprietary operating system. 

Apple claimed Pystar would purchase Apple’s software, copy it onto its Open Computer, and sell the computer to purchasers who wanted to run Apple’s software, but not pay Apple computer prices. Pystar would also include an unopened copy of Apple’s software with the computer to show that it purchased the software that was copied onto its computers. 

Apple claimed Pystar infringed its copyright by copying Apple’s software onto unauthorized, non-Apple, computers in violation of the Apple license agreement, which provided: 

“The License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single-Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.” 

Pystar argued Apple was misusing its copyright by requiring purchasers to run Apple’s software only on Apple-brand computers. 

The Ninth Circuit rejected Pystar’s copyright misuse argument finding a restrictive software license “represents a legitimate exercise of a copyright holder’s right to conditionally transfer works of authorship, and does not constitute copyright misuse.”  In doing so, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in Apple’s favor, as well as the permanent injunction that prohibited Pystar from selling Open Computers running Apple’s software. 

This ruling is significant in that it reinforces a copyright owner’s right to significantly limit a customer’s use of its software licenses. However, to show that the customer is a software licensee rather than an owner, the copyright owner should be able to demonstrate that its purported license: 

1. Specifies that the user is granted a license;

2. Significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the 
software; and

3. Imposes notable use restrictions. 

If the copyright owner is not able to satisfy this 3-part test, it may be determined that the user of the software owns the software, and therefore has the right to sell and resell the software without restriction. 

Therefore, copyright owners should not only consider licensing, rather than selling, their software, but also make sure that software licenses meet the above three-part test to avoid relinquishing the ability to control the use of its software. 

Nicholas Kanter is a Business Litigation Lawyer. His practice focuses on business, intellectual property and real estate matters. You can reach him by calling 818.990.2120.


This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.



Article originally appeared on Los Angeles Attorneys (
See website for complete article licensing information.