Psystar hires attorneys who've faced Apple before

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A pair of attorneys representing Psystar in its legal bout with Apple are already familiar with the Mac maker, with whom they've clashed before and came out on top.



After taunting Apple for three months through sales of unauthorized Mac clones (1, 2) and comments to the press, the tiny solutions provider from Florida finally got what it had been asking for: a high profile lawsuit from the Silicon Valley heavyweight rife with charges of copyright and trademark infringement.



A court documented filed Monday extending Psystar's deadline to respond to Apple's complaint until August 18 also reveals the company to have retained the services of Carr & Ferrell LLP, a Palo Alto-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.



ComputerWorld, which discovered the stipulation, notes that three attorneys from Carr & Ferrell were listed on the filing, including Colby Springer, Christine Watson and Robert Yorio, a partner at the firm. The publication points out that both Yorio and Springer were part of Burst.com's legal team during its patent-infringement case against Apple that began in 2006.



That cases ended last November when Apple surrendered and agreed to an out-of-court lump settlement of $10 million that afforded it a licenses to use Burst's audio- and video-streaming technology with iTunes and iPods.



Yorio was also integral in a similar case between Burst and Microsoft that ended with the Redmond-based software giant shelling out over $60 million for a nonexclusive license to Burst's patents, just like Apple.



In addition to copyright and trademark infringement allegations, Apple has also charged Psystar with breach-of-contract, unfair-competition, and violating the Mac OS X end-user license by installing Mac OS X Leopard on its run-of-the-mill Mac clones.



Should Psystar lose its case against Apple, it would have to recall all the computers it sold with Apple's software, which intellectual property attorneys believe would almost assure its immediate demise.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 88
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,789member
    Oh yes! Let's see Apple "taken down" again. I'm just itching to see the impression OS X makes on people when running on shitty hardware that looks like crap. You know, with keyboards that weigh all of 1 oz. and bend in the middle when you lay your hand on them. And the dull grey box, that's pretty too. All the I-got-no-life types who have no aesthetic appreciation for anything except the boogers they pick from their geek noses are hoping Apple is taken down to their level of dullness.
  • Reply 2 of 88
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    A pair of attorneys representing Psystar in its legal bout with Apple are already familiar with the Mac maker, with whom they've clashed before and came out on top....



    This *sounds* really scary, but isn't it more likely that the Burst.com cases were won on the basis of the facts of the case?



    In other words, valid patents rather than clever lawyers?
  • Reply 3 of 88
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2 View Post


    This *sounds* really scary, but isn't it more likely that the Burst.com cases were won on the basis of the facts of the case?



    In other words, valid patents rather than clever lawyers?



    Yes. it's back asswards. Burst sued Apple and MS for using their IP, while Psystar is defending against Apple for not letting them use their IP.
  • Reply 4 of 88
    crtaylorcrtaylor Posts: 82member
    On one hand, I think Mac OS 10 is, by far, the best OS out there. The reason it works only on the Macintosh is that Apple obviously wants to create quality products that don't take an advanced logician to use. There is a reason that Steve Jobs panned Flash on the iPhone. Mac OS was made so that users would have an all-in-one solution - whether developing, creating digital art, or editing video - to intuitively take care of all one's computing needs. With Windows, you just get the base system - even in the most intricate versions of Vista - for which you still need to install loads of software on to do what most base Macs can do.



    On the other hand, I really would like this OS to be available on other types of computers as well. The reason most gamers and computer nerds can use PCs is that, well, you can customize the hardware however you want to get the power and experience you need. There are obviously more ways one can have Windows on a computer. Plus, you do not need a virtualizer to run LINUX software on a PC; you just switch out the Windows OS for the LINUX one. Therefore, PCs tend to attract a lot of do-it-yourself computer geeks.



    Apple's greatest strengths have often been their biggest weaknesses. Essentially, they provide everything one will ever need, but they do not allow for a whole lot of options for diversification. Microsoft, according to macrumors.com, are shifting their strategy to focus more on Apple's "end-to-end" model while still retaining an emphasis on choice. The reason Apple still hasn't taken over the Personal Computer market yet is that they tend to go with a policy where it's up to you to choose a complete Apple experience or a complete Windows experience. Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs - including unchaining their OS from their computers, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.
  • Reply 5 of 88
    deapeajaydeapeajay Posts: 909member
    I don't think there's the slightest chance that Psystar can win this lawsuit. Apple has the right to license or not license their software in whatever way they see fit.



    What's next, demanding that the iPhone version of OSX be licensed to Motorola and other cell phone manufacturers?



    The whole thing is stupid.
  • Reply 6 of 88
    crtaylorcrtaylor Posts: 82member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    I'm just itching to see the impression OS X makes on people when running on shitty hardware that looks like crap. You know, with keyboards that weigh all of 1 oz. and bend in the middle when you lay your hand on them. And the dull grey box, that's pretty too. All the I-got-no-life types who have no aesthetic appreciation for anything except the boogers they pick from their geek noses are hoping Apple is taken down to their level of dullness.



    Not all PCs look like crap. In fact, there are some from Alienware and Cyber Power PC that look amazing. I'm sure one could still create another chassis if one was creative enough. Also, I have seen plenty of PC users that are not complete nerds. Overall, I think Psystar's juncture has a lot more to do with options for the user, not just aesthetic style. In other words, your argument, I think, is extremely biased.
  • Reply 7 of 88
    steviet02steviet02 Posts: 594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Yes. it's back asswards. Burst sued Apple and MS for using their IP, while Psystar is suing Apple for not letting them their IP.



    Isn't Apple the one suing Psystar in this case?
  • Reply 8 of 88
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Yes. it's back asswards. Burst sued Apple and MS for using their IP, while Psystar is suing Apple for not letting them their IP.



    Don't you mean Apple sued Psystar?

    In the Burst cases, these lawyers were the plaintiffs. Now they are the defendants.
  • Reply 9 of 88
    [QUOTE=Crtaylor;1287065. The reason Apple still hasn't taken over the Personal Computer market yet is that they tend to go with a policy where it's up to you to choose a complete Apple experience or a complete Windows experience. Call me evil if you wish, but if Apple were to follow a strategy similar to how Microsoft is adjusting theirs, I personally think that Apple would have a lot larger of a customer base then it does now.[/QUOTE]



    First off, I think Boot Camp, which came from Apple, not a third party, proves that Apple does not demand a "one or the other" experience.



    Apple is not yet in the financial position to lose its hardware revenue and replace it with OS X revenue. Such may change whenever the critical market share is reached with Macs and Apple cannot meet demand. At that point allowing competitors may make sense or more likely, be forced onto Apple. The company knows what it is doing as is evidenced by the massive turn around from its too near a death experience.



    A massively larger and rapidly expanding customer base has not been Apple's primary goal but Snow Leopard suggests this may well be going to change and so one may see a loosening up of Apple's licensing. Meanwhile, Apple does not have to contend with the massive amount of calls that will result from OS X going into the wild-- supporting any OS on multiple devices is a nightmare-- even MS couldn't pull it off with Vista! So, let things remain the way they are. Apple is a star in the electronics arena and doesn't NEED to change anything, even if that strategy may change in the future-- but it will most likely be when Apple is good and ripe for such a major change in its business practice.
  • Reply 10 of 88
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post


    Isn't Apple the one suing Psystar in this case?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Don't you mean Apple sued Psystar?

    In the Burst cases, these lawyers were the plaintiffs. Now they are the defendants.



    Yes, I mistyped, but my intitial comment of it being backwards should have made my point clear.
  • Reply 11 of 88
    crtaylorcrtaylor Posts: 82member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post


    Isn't Apple the one suing Psystar in this case?



    Good point. While Apple does make good products, it does get a little overprotective about its intellectual property. The company basically has a DRM-like policy for everything the company creates. Meanwhile, Microsoft - although their OS is obviously shitty in the first place - has an attitude of transparency, where different companies can implement their own creative juices into the Windows experience. If you ask me, Apple is being much more of a Napoleon than a messiah here.
  • Reply 12 of 88
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crtaylor View Post


    Meanwhile, Microsoft ... has an attitude of transparency, where different companies can implement their own creative juices into the Windows experience. If you ask me, Apple is being much more of a Napoleon than a messiah here.



    Could you clarify that? I have many 3rd-party apps on my Mac and OS X uses considerably more open-source code in their OS than MS does.
  • Reply 13 of 88
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    I don't see any way psystar could possibly win this.



    And what does it matter that these guys got a settlement out of Apple in the past? Good lawyers only get you so far, you have to actually provide an argument based on the facts to win, and psystar doesn't seem to have anything to back up their case.
  • Reply 14 of 88
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjwill246 View Post


    First off, I think Boot Camp, which came from Apple, not a third party, proves that Apple does not demand a "one or the other" experience.



    Apple is not yet in the financial position to lose its hardware revenue and replace it with OS X revenue. Such may change whenever the critical market share is reached with Macs and Apple cannot meet demand. At that point allowing competitors may make sense or more likely, be forced onto Apple. The company knows what it is doing as is evidenced by the massive turn around from its too near a death experience.



    A massively larger and rapidly expanding customer base has not been Apple's primary goal but Snow Leopard suggests this may well be going to change and so one may see a loosening up of Apple's licensing. Meanwhile, Apple does not have to contend with the massive amount of calls that will result from OS X going into the wild-- supporting any OS on multiple devices is a nightmare-- even MS couldn't pull it off with Vista! So, let things remain the way they are. Apple is a star in the electronics arena and doesn't NEED to change anything, even if that strategy may change in the future-- but it will most likely be when Apple is good and ripe for such a major change in its business practice.



    It'll never happen on SJ's watch. So far, and I suspect for a very long time, Apple has not and will not be interested in becoming MS. There is always a battle for market share but even when Apple was doing badly they still had a very large number of users. I always felt the prediction of Apple's imminent closure was somewhat exaggerated. The game has changed but Apple will only play if they can play their own game. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. Their amazing software is a means to sell more hardware. Kinda topsy turvy, but it seems to work pretty well ;-) The thing is, SJ has no interest in selling software to run on others' hardware, so he wont. I am sure he would just think it a meaningless exercise. End of story.
  • Reply 15 of 88
    lafelafe Posts: 252member
    This article was well-written. Congrats to the author. There have been

    a few substandard offerings of late.
  • Reply 16 of 88
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crtaylor View Post


    Not all PCs look like crap. In fact, there are some from Alienware and Cyber Power PC that look amazing. I'm sure one could still create another chassis if one was creative enough. Also, I have seen plenty of PC users that are not complete nerds. Overall, I think Psystar's juncture has a lot more to do with options for the user, not just aesthetic style. In other words, your argument, I think, is extremely biased.



    At the risk or sacrilege, I kind of like the Dell Bamboo case...

    http://www.uncrate.com/men/gear/desk...dio-hybrid-pc/
  • Reply 17 of 88
    If John Grisham is reading this then please consider the following as MY copyright!! :-) (just send the 2nd million!!)



    OK . here goes



    Conspiracy theory?



    Trojan Horse leading to greenmail.



    To avoid probs all they had to do was sell their box WITHOUT OSX etc.



    Why didn't they?- that's the BIG question



    A 'small' outfit of 'mysterious' pedigree (see all the reports from journos trying to contact someone within directly) deliberately provokes the big guy on the block-



    Why?



    ANSWER:



    a )its a test case for some BIG 'shy' type corporate with lots to lose waiting in the wings ready to sacrifice the minnows in the event of a loss.



    The box - all the reviews give it F - so there's little credible attempt to enter the market for all practical purposes the box could have been empty save for osx on board somehow.



    b) The lawyers. This lot are EXPENSIVE. This 'small' outfit cannot afford them. Contingency fee? perhaps but doubtful.They're being retained by a Mr BIG!



    As reported, Apple knows the calibre of this law firm - unbeaten so far. Their case is based on tenuous grounds but its enough to stir the waters.



    Apple cannot afford to lose - should they do so ... well, every man and his dog will etc etc.



    So, it may pay Apple to fork over 10 mill or whatever just to maintain the status quo - better a result you can bank than one you may or may not be able to ...



    Uncertainty can be removed by a settlement.



    HOWEVER!!! I'm putting Jobs S, on notice that should he do a deal with this lot then I and my neighbour's dog will immediately launch the FidoMac with OSX and 9 + windoze. To save time, if Steve would care to contact me via this forum then I shall be pleased to supply details of my Cayman Island account at the Toytown Bank whereto he may forward MY 10 mill :-)



    .... and, Grisham J., .... I'll be watching you too .... ;-)
  • Reply 18 of 88
    alanskyalansky Posts: 235member
    The fact that Psystar's lawyers won a completely unrelated case against Apple that, unlike Psystar's, may have been based on a legitimate claim, is completely irrelevant. Not to mention the fact that Apple is the plaintiff in the Psystar case, not the defendant.
  • Reply 19 of 88
    There's no chance Psystar can win this case. The copyright violation convictions are just too strong. Best-case scenario for Psystar and the OSx86 community would be for the court to find Apple's EULA to be anti-competitive and therefore not legally-binding.



    This being said, I'd like to take a moment to address the cynics on this board who have so much pent up angst against the hackintosh community... You simply have no understanding of the OSx86 community. We're not pirates; we're not anti-Apple; we're not malicious... We're your fellow mac-using brethren who need hardware solutions that address a market segment that Apple has abandoned: PROSUMER.



    If Apple builds it, we will come (back). Until then, we will continue to find ways to use the hardware we need with the software we need.



    -Clive
  • Reply 20 of 88
    royboyroyboy Posts: 446member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GQB View Post


    At the risk or sacrilege, I kind of like the Dell Bamboo case...

    http://www.uncrate.com/men/gear/desk...dio-hybrid-pc/



    Me too! But, then again, I'm a lover of the live bamboo plant:



    Bambooweb.info Forum



    Bambooweb.info
Sign In or Register to comment.