Can a company copy code only to make its device compatible?

No. Compatibility needs do not justify direct copying of another’s code. Such copying can be copyright infringement.

Does machine-readable code get protection?

Yes. Code written for computers is still a literary work for copyright purposes and is protected.

What happened to the trial court’s decision?

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of Apple.

What does this case mean for students and developers?

You may study and create your own code, but direct copying of protected code is risky and likely unlawful.

Law Easy

03 November, 2025

401

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. — Operating System Copyright Explained

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (1983)

Q: Is an operating system protected by copyright?

Yes. The court confirmed that computer software, including operating systems, qualifies for copyright protection under U.S. law.

U.S. Court of Appeals (3rd Cir.) 714 F.2d 1240 Bench: Panel Area: Software Copyright Reading time: 6–7 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

Location: India

Published: Nov 1, 2025

CASE_TITLE

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.

SLUG

apple-computer-inc-v-franklin-computer-corp

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Apple v Franklin, operating system copyright, software copyright SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: compatibility copying, machine-readable code, infringement AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01

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

Franklin releases Ace 100

Franklin markets a computer similar to Apple’s Apple II.

Apple detects copying

Apple alleges Franklin copied large parts of Apple II system software.

Franklin’s stance

Franklin admits copying, claiming it was necessary for compatibility and because code was machine-readable without notices.

Trial court

District court sides with Franklin.

Appeal outcome

Court of Appeals reverses; holds software (including OS) is protected and copying for compatibility is infringement.

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

Yes. The court treated OS code as a literary work and protected expression.

No. Compatibility goals do not allow verbatim copying of protected code.

Yes. Protection does not depend on human readability.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and ruled for Apple.

```

Judgment highlights for Apple v. Franklin

Comment

Nothing for now