<s>
1983	O
)	O
,	O
was	O
the	O
first	O
time	O
an	O
appellate	O
level	O
court	O
in	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
held	O
that	O
a	O
computer	O
's	O
BIOS	B-Operating_System
could	O
be	O
protected	O
by	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
As	O
second	O
impact	O
,	O
this	O
ruling	O
clarified	O
that	O
binary	O
code	O
,	O
the	O
machine	B-General_Concept
readable	I-General_Concept
form	O
of	O
software	O
and	O
firmware	B-Application
,	O
was	O
copyrightable	O
too	O
and	O
not	O
only	O
the	O
human-readable	B-General_Concept
source	O
code	O
form	O
of	O
software	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Franklin	O
Computer	O
Corporation	O
introduced	O
the	O
Franklin	O
Ace	O
1000	O
,	O
a	O
clone	B-Device
of	O
Apple	O
Computer	O
's	O
Apple	B-Device
II	I-Device
,	O
in	O
1982	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Apple	O
quickly	O
determined	O
that	O
substantial	O
portions	O
of	O
the	O
Franklin	O
ROM	B-Device
and	O
operating	B-General_Concept
system	I-General_Concept
had	O
been	O
copied	O
directly	O
from	O
Apple	O
's	O
versions	O
,	O
and	O
on	O
May	O
12	O
,	O
1982	O
,	O
filed	O
suit	O
in	O
the	O
United	O
States	O
District	O
Court	O
for	O
the	O
Eastern	O
District	O
of	O
Pennsylvania	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Franklin	O
argued	O
that	O
because	O
Apple	O
's	O
software	O
existed	O
only	O
in	O
machine-readable	B-General_Concept
form	I-General_Concept
,	O
and	O
not	O
in	O
printed	O
form	O
,	O
and	O
because	O
some	O
of	O
the	O
software	O
did	O
not	O
contain	O
copyright	O
notices	O
,	O
it	O
could	O
be	O
freely	O
copied	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Apple	B-Device
II	I-Device
firmware	B-Application
was	O
likened	O
to	O
a	O
machine	O
part	O
whose	O
form	O
was	O
dictated	O
entirely	O
by	O
the	O
requirements	O
of	O
compatibility	O
(	O
that	O
is	O
,	O
an	O
exact	O
copy	O
of	O
Apple	O
's	O
ROM	B-Device
was	O
the	O
only	O
part	O
that	O
would	O
"	O
fit	O
"	O
in	O
an	O
Apple-compatible	O
computer	O
and	O
enable	O
its	O
intended	O
function	O
)	O
,	O
and	O
was	O
therefore	O
not	O
copyrightable	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
object	B-Language
code	I-Language
)	O
and	O
one	O
embedded	O
on	O
a	O
ROM	B-Device
were	O
protected	O
by	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Court	O
of	O
Appeals	O
overturned	O
the	O
district	O
court	O
's	O
ruling	O
in	O
Franklin	O
by	O
applying	O
its	O
holdings	O
in	O
Williams	O
and	O
going	O
further	O
to	O
hold	O
that	O
operating	B-General_Concept
systems	I-General_Concept
were	O
also	O
copyrightable	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Court	O
remanded	O
the	O
case	O
to	O
the	O
District	O
Court	O
for	O
a	O
determination	O
regarding	O
whether	O
Apple	O
's	O
operating	B-General_Concept
system	I-General_Concept
was	O
one	O
of	O
a	O
very	O
limited	O
number	O
of	O
ways	O
to	O
achieve	O
its	O
function	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
company	O
later	O
brought	O
non-infringing	O
clones	O
to	O
market	O
,	O
but	O
as	O
these	O
models	O
were	O
only	O
partially	O
compatible	O
with	O
the	O
Apple	B-Device
II	I-Device
,	O
and	O
as	O
the	O
Apple	B-Device
II	I-Device
architecture	O
was	O
by	O
this	O
time	O
outdated	O
in	O
any	O
case	O
,	O
they	O
enjoyed	O
little	O
success	O
in	O
the	O
marketplace	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
IBM	O
believed	O
that	O
some	O
IBM	O
PC	O
clone	B-Device
makers	O
such	O
as	O
Eagle	O
Computer	O
and	O
Corona	O
Data	O
Systems	O
similarly	O
infringed	O
on	O
its	O
copyright	O
,	O
and	O
after	O
Apple	B-Device
v	I-Device
.	I-Device
Franklin	I-Device
successfully	O
forced	O
them	O
to	O
stop	O
using	O
the	O
BIOS	B-Operating_System
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
Phoenix	O
BIOS	B-Operating_System
in	O
1984	O
,	O
however	O
,	O
and	O
similar	O
products	O
such	O
as	O
AMI	O
BIOS	B-Operating_System
,	O
permitted	O
computer	O
makers	O
to	O
legally	O
build	O
essentially	O
100%	O
PC-compatible	O
clones	O
without	O
having	O
to	O
reverse	O
engineer	O
the	O
PC	B-Operating_System
BIOS	I-Operating_System
themselves	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Another	O
impact	O
of	O
the	O
decision	O
was	O
the	O
rise	O
of	O
the	O
shrink-wrap	O
proprietary	B-Application
software	I-Application
commercial	O
business	O
model	O
,	O
where	O
before	O
a	O
source	O
code	O
driven	O
software	O
distribution	O
schema	O
dominated	O
.	O
</s>
