## Facts

- Apple manufactured Apple II personal computers and owned copyrights in multiple computer programs, including operating system programs stored in ROM chips.
- Franklin manufactured Apple-compatible “ACE” computers intended to run software designed for the Apple II.
- Franklin conceded it copied Apple’s operating system programs embedded in ROM to achieve compatibility.
- Apple sued for copyright infringement and sought a preliminary injunction to stop copying and distribution of the programs.
- The district court denied preliminary relief, expressing doubt that the programs were copyrightable.
- Apple appealed the denial of the preliminary injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether computer programs distributed only in object code are copyrightable “literary works” under the Copyright Act.
2. Whether programs embedded in ROM satisfy the fixation requirement and are eligible for copyright protection.
3. Whether operating system programs are categorically excluded from copyright protection as functional “machine parts” or as uncopyrightable ideas, procedures, or systems.
4. Whether compatibility or commercial necessity can render literal copying of operating system code noninfringing or the code uncopyrightable.

## Decision

- The court reversed the order denying a preliminary injunction and remanded.
- It held that computer programs in object code are copyrightable subject matter and need not be human-readable.
- It held that programs fixed in ROM are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and are not disqualified because they are embedded in hardware.
- It held that operating system programs are not per se uncopyrightable; they are analyzed under ordinary idea/expression limits rather than treated as “machine parts.”
- It rejected Franklin’s compatibility-based justification for literal copying as a basis to deny protection at the threshold.
- It concluded the district court used an incorrect legal standard in doubting copyrightability and that Apple made a strong showing supporting preliminary relief.

## Legal Principles

- Computer programs are protected as “literary works,” and protection is not limited to source code or printed listings; object code may be protected if otherwise eligible.
- Fixation is satisfied when a work is embodied in a tangible medium from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated with the aid of a machine; ROM storage can satisfy fixation.
- Copyright does not protect ideas, procedures, processes, or systems, but it may protect the author’s particular expression; functional software is protectable unless the expression is dictated by necessity such that only one (or a very limited number of) expression(s) can perform the function.
- A desire for compatibility or commercial practicality does not, by itself, convert expressive code into an uncopyrightable idea or excuse literal copying.
- In evaluating preliminary injunctions in copyright cases, a registered copyright carries a presumption of validity, and irreparable harm is generally presumed once a plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits.

## Conclusion

The court held that Apple’s operating system software—though distributed in object code and fixed in ROM—fell within copyrightable subject matter and was not barred as a mere functional “machine part,” making the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief legally erroneous and requiring reversal and remand.


Apple Comput., Inc. v. Franklin Comput. Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983)