Apple accuses Psystar of destroying evidence in latest court filing

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In the ongoing saga between Apple and clone Mac creator Psystar, the Cupertino, Calif., company has filed a new document alleging Psystar erased crucial evidence.



In last week's court filing, Apple alleges that Psystar violated federal rules and a court order after it allegedly destroyed evidence Apple considers pivotal in its upcoming case against Pystar. The trial is scheduled to start on Jan. 11, 2010.



"Defendant, Psystar Corporation, has destroyed relevant evidence that was legally required to preserve," the court document reads. "Specifically, Psystar has overwritten -- i.e. erased -- infringing versions of the software code used on computers sold to its customers."



In its lawsuit, Apple has attempted to portray Psystar as a company in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar modifies the software Apple creates for its OS X operating system so that it can be installed on non-Apple hardware. The clone Mac maker was served with discovery in November 2008, as Apple sought to obtain the software used by Psystar to create their machines.



"This discovery revealed that Psystar has erased prior versions of its software that Apple's experts independently found on defendant's computers," the document states.



The heavily redacted document conceals descriptions of the bootloader code used by Psystar, but asks the court to force the company to produce the software. One footnote in the document, referring to a redacted portion, reads: "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."



The latest addition, dated Aug. 10, was filed in a California court by the Townsend law firm. In the back-and-forth battle, last week Psystar announced it would depose numerous Apple executives in its own defense. Prior to that, the company's request for its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to be dismissed was granted in a Florida court. However, that same ruling prevents the company from filing for bankruptcy again to delay Apple's case against them in California.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 107
    They are something else.
  • Reply 2 of 107
    Psystar really seem to be clutching at straws here. Hopefully, this case will provide a really solid precedent. It will certainly cause Apple to clear up any further ambiguities in its EULA (for instance 'Apple-branded - I put a sticker on it so there' seems to be a favoured target for the loopholers.
  • Reply 3 of 107
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,530member
    I think Psystar knows it's going down in flames and has decided to become a Kamikaze, trying to hit Apple somewhere before the end comes. This whole episode just confirms speculation that Psystar is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by someone else and I hope the truth comes out some day.
  • Reply 4 of 107
    sipadansipadan Posts: 107member
    Betcha this is only the tip of the iceberg....
  • Reply 5 of 107
    "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."



    Brilliant!
  • Reply 6 of 107
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Why is it so hard to put someone who is clearly making knock off Macs out of business? And why do Psystar even bother to fight, surely they know they must lose. Do they seriously think they can pull the wool over the eyes of a judge.



    On the other hand, some idiot judge banned sales of Word a few days ago, so there's some weird ones out there.
  • Reply 7 of 107
    Psystar has valid points and we should be supporting their efforts rather than fighting them!
  • Reply 8 of 107
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shookster View Post


    "Psystar's counsel stated that Psystar's e-mail and customer support software (SupportSuite) randomly 'deletes or loses' e-mails."



    Brilliant!



    http://www.kayako.com/solutions/supportsuite/



    Wouldn't they have online logs?
  • Reply 9 of 107
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    Why is it so hard to put someone who is clearly making knock off Macs out of business? And why do Psystar even bother to fight, surely they know they must lose. Do they seriously think they can pull the wool over the eyes of a judge.



    On the other hand, some idiot judge banned sales of Word a few days ago, so there's some weird ones out there.



    It has to go through the courts. It's a slow process.
  • Reply 10 of 107
    The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.
  • Reply 11 of 107
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    I can't wait until November, when these jokers will finally be done away with.
  • Reply 12 of 107
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    SupportSuite sues Psystar for (hmm what would it be, defamation, libel, ???) for claiming that its software "deletes or loses" email.
  • Reply 13 of 107
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    The results of this case should set precedent for all future EULA cases hopefully. A part of me wants Apple to win so they can put a company out of business that is knowingly reverse engineering and modifying OS X to install on their hardware, but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all. However Psystar isn't helping their cause by some silly things they have been doing.



    Agreed on the first part.



    But theft of IP, illegal use of IP , etc., etc, is most certainly not "competition."



    Why do Macs need to be affordable "to all"? Who is "all"?
  • Reply 14 of 107
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aldonius View Post


    Psystar really seem to be clutching at straws here. Hopefully, this case will provide a really solid precedent. It will certainly cause Apple to clear up any further ambiguities in its EULA (for instance 'Apple-branded - I put a sticker on it so there' seems to be a favoured target for the loopholers.



    If you put an Apple sticked on a PCs and start selling them then you will be violating the trademark law and will be shutdown fast. I don't think there is a problem with how the EULA is worded (remember Psystar actually tried and failed to challenge the wording in court) and the use of "Apple Labeled" is actually smart.
  • Reply 15 of 107
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,741member
    For enjoyment and edification, here is Apple's Single user license agreement for Leopard:



    http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
  • Reply 16 of 107
    agaaga Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    I think Psystar knows it's going down in flames and has decided to become a Kamikaze, trying to hit Apple somewhere before the end comes. This whole episode just confirms speculation that Psystar is a puppet whose strings are being pulled by someone else and I hope the truth comes out some day.



    I think this whole thing is a set up to get a court to rule on terms of a cat and mouse game, with the goal being a clear path for 3rd party installation of Apple's OS on 3rd party hardware. Once the standards have been set in court, the cheap hardware will appear. Thing is, Apple is a master at reducing cost, in places others do not see, being one reason their profit margins are higher.



    Anyhow, I heard Apple was going to buy an aluminum mine and processing company along with a few fabs to reduce costs and streamline production. Their goal is to be able to pull the raw materials out of the ground on monday and have a finished product in your hand on wednesday .



    Jokes aside, if anyone wants to start a Mac Clone Company with me for fun, let me know. It's a great way to have your chance at talking to top Apple officials the back door way. Crazy what people will do when Apple will not hire them.



    Cheers.



    Be nice if there were a dedicated Channel to the whole proceedings on this. Can't wait to hear the questions Psystar asks Apple Employees... Do you use any recreational Drugs ? Do you think that might affect your ability to answer these questions in truthful and coherent...? and... Would you agree that Apple is a secretive company? Would you agree they do everything in their power to protect their trade secrets? Would you agree that is one of the reasons we are here today? Then how do I know you are going to tell the truth, the whole truth.... given you are sworn to secrecy and may lose your job if you talk? So would you say working for Apple is more like working for a free company or working for socialist like...?



    Oh, the humor, truth and comical value of the interrogation that is going to go on between these two companies in deposition and court. If I could only be a fly on the wall or have it streamed to my apple tv
  • Reply 17 of 107
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    but the other part wants Psystar to win so there can be more competition and make Macs more affordable to all.



    Right, so basically what you are saying is... that you want the legal system to step in and force companies to reduce their prices... so that you can afford them.
  • Reply 18 of 107
    agaaga Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    For enjoyment and edification, here is Apple's Single user license agreement for Leopard:



    http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf



    Didn't read that link, but just because it is in writing does not mean it is legal and/or enforceable.
  • Reply 19 of 107
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Agreed on the first part.



    But theft of IP, illegal use of IP , etc., etc, is most certainly not "competition."



    Why do Macs need to be affordable "to all"? Who is "all"?



    Well I completely disagree with how Pystar is selling their machines by hacking OS X and putting it on their machines. I think if Psystar wins, it creates better competition by selling OS X on machines with cheaper components. Do it the right way by legally winning this battle, and selling legit, unhacked OS X installs. As for as who is all, I am talking about the people who want to get a Mac computer, but are not able to pay $1,000 dollars for a model. I know the Mac Mini starts at $599, but most people I know want a laptop instead and Apple doesn't cut it at that price range. Also when they go into an Apple Store, the Mini isn't exactly displayed prominently like an iMac or portable solutions. For me, I think a $700 dollar MacBook type price point is a great starting price.
  • Reply 20 of 107
    Don't make too much of these filings. As someone observed in another thread on this subject, lawsuits are a form of warfare -- both sides throw every weapon they've got, or even think they've got, at each other. The judge must decide whether these allegations are supported and relevant.
Sign In or Register to comment.