Psystar switches lawyers in renewed defense
Now close to once again fighting Apple in court, Mac clone maker Psystar has brought on a new legal team and has even begun steps to publish much of its knowledge about Mac OS X clones.
The small PC builder on Monday was granted permission in a Northern District of California civil court to replace its existing legal team with the law firm of Camara & Sibley, a normally Houston-based team that required a pro hac vice order to operate outside of its normal jurisdiction.
Why it's choosing new lawyers at this stage isn't fully evident. When it first mounted its defense, Psystar had gone out of its way to seek a legal team that had previously defeated Apple and which was an expert in intellectual property. Since then, however, the attorneys have had their counterclaims against Apple dismissed and were left in limbo when Psystar went into bankruptcy, putting a hold on the case until Apple had a stay on the case dismissed. Whether or not Psystar's previously non-payable debt contributed to the switch in lawyers is equally uncertain.
Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
The small PC builder on Monday was granted permission in a Northern District of California civil court to replace its existing legal team with the law firm of Camara & Sibley, a normally Houston-based team that required a pro hac vice order to operate outside of its normal jurisdiction.
Why it's choosing new lawyers at this stage isn't fully evident. When it first mounted its defense, Psystar had gone out of its way to seek a legal team that had previously defeated Apple and which was an expert in intellectual property. Since then, however, the attorneys have had their counterclaims against Apple dismissed and were left in limbo when Psystar went into bankruptcy, putting a hold on the case until Apple had a stay on the case dismissed. Whether or not Psystar's previously non-payable debt contributed to the switch in lawyers is equally uncertain.
Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.
Not surprisingly, the same messages also reiterated Psystar's case for its potential customers and argued that, if anything, its business was doing Apple a favor.
"We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself," Psystar said. "We're probably one of Apple's biggest customers."
Comments
Now that the company is re-emerging, though, it's not only prepared to rely on new legal representation but on public support. The company sent an e-mail newsletter on Tuesday which promised an upcoming community page and a wiki page. The two would not only provide Psystar's own code contributions for running Mac OS X on non-Apple computers but planned to "explain and perhaps even standardize" ways of installing the software on any modern Intel-based PC.
That already exists and it’s where Psystar got their information for starting their sham of a business in the first place.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Psystar has issued a statement on their website. Here it is verbatim:
Psystar has always been more a Cowboy than a Hippie. Now we’ve changed lawyers to better reflect who we are. Camara & Sibley LLP of Houston, Texas, has officially become our primary legal counsel in our ongoing litigation with Apple.
Everyone here values openness. And that’s how we’re going to fight Apple: in public. We have nothing to hide. We buy hundreds of copies of OS X legally, from retailers like Amazon and Apple itself. We’re probably one of Apple’s biggest customers. Then we install these copies of OS X, along with kernel extensions that we wrote in-house, on computers that we buy and build. Then we resell the package to people like you. That’s it.
Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy. Apple can’t tell an applications developer that it can’t make a piece of Mac-compatible software. They can’t forbid Mac users from writing blogs critical of Apple. And they can’t tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware.
A new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010, in federal court in San Francisco. As we move toward trial, we’ll be keeping you informed about the arguments, the evidence, and what’s going on in the case. And, come January, Camara & Sibley will be ready to fight for Psystar, guns blazin’. We hope to see you there!
A couple of things:
1) What happened to your other lawyers? Did you PAY them or not? Isn't THAT why you had to find new lawyers??
2) "Apple’s copyright on OS X doesn’t give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy."
Just don't tell that to ANY software maker trying to earn a living.
Trashing the entire principle of the EULA is not a good idea. For anyone.
Good lord, are these people ever fucking stupid. Yes, morons, it DOES give Apple the right, and everyone else the right under the same laws Apple is subject to.
What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.
Relying on a new set of lawyers is one thing, but to beat Apple on their protection of IP using public support won't work. The whole world is against the RIAA and their fight to protect copyright and they have yet to lose in court.
Exactly.
And relying on public support?
LOL, right. Because Psystar is making crazy sales and their fake Macs are just flying off the shelves, right?
When in fact in a RECESSION, Apple can barely keep up with MBP demand.
Psystar is living in some alternate reality where people actually want the garbage they peddle.
They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?
So, one might presume, they have only sold "hundreds" of Open computers...despite having been in business for how long? One is tempted to determine the likely profit margin based on the components, etc, and the retail cost of OS X 10.5...
Having said all of this, I must still wonder why Apple has not simply found a way to prevent Psystar from actually buying Leopard in the first place...and therefore being able to add software piracy to the list of complaints...
So, one might presume, they have only sold "hundreds" of Open computers...despite having been in business for how long? One is tempted to determine the likely profit margin based on the components, etc, and the retail cost of OS X 10.5...
Having said all of this, I must still wonder why Apple has not simply found a way to prevent Psystar from actually buying Leopard in the first place...and therefore being able to add software piracy to the list of complaints...
Well, Psystar couldn't produce any receipts . . .
I'm not sure they even had accounting of any kind, LOL.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...against_apple/
Psystar is wrong for violating Apple's EULA. Apple is wrong for having a potentially anti-competitive EULA.
This has nothing to do with the EULA.
What Psystar wants to do here eventually is widen this entire battle into a trial over IP law itself, including the DMCA. Psystar wants to trash Intellectual Property law in the US. Yeah, that'll work out GREAT.
It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.
They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.
This has nothing to do with the EULA.
What is Psystar in court for, then?
It probably won't work out great for them but it is interesting to note that intellectual endeavour never did require laws to protect it. Innovation flourished before any IP laws ever existed. Some might say it flourishes now in spite of it.
A dubious proposition. It's in the Constitution, fer crissakes.
They are asking the wider question. Perhaps the real question is, is purchasing a piece of software a sale or a license? If it's a sale, then a lot of restrictions on what you might do with the thing would disappear. It's a question of characterisation. Simply because an agreement is termed a license does not make it so. It helps, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the law isn't going to say its a cat even if you assert it is.
The license is not relevant.
What is Psystar in court for, then?
For violating Apple's IP rights and trading on their copyrights. Only Apple has the right to sell Macintosh computers. Neither the software nor the hardware alone is a Macintosh, only the two in combination are.
What is Psystar in court for, then?
Do you not realize that EULA stands for End User License Agreement and that Psystar is not the end user, they are an unauthorized vendor of Apple?s IP? Do you not realize that Dell, HP and all the big name PC vendors would love to get ahold of a license from Apple to make Mac clones, but don?t because Apple will not allow it? Do you not see that altering IP and copying the code without permission (which is required to get it from the disc to the harddrive after you agree that you the end user, thus not a vendor) is a violation of patents and copyrights?
The EULA should not ever be mentioned in this case as it?s the least meaningful aspect of this whole debacle.
They buy hundreds of copies of OS X and that makes them one of Apple's biggest customers? What planet are they on?
so they claim. but they can't prove it. so the veil that perhaps they lifted the copies they were using is going to be on the case. and no judge's instructions is going to get rid of it
Relying on a new set of lawyers is one thing,
why am i thinking they changed lawyers cause the last bunch told them that they were going to lose. and they didn't like that.
Psystar is wrong for violating Apple's EULA. Apple is wrong for having a potentially anti-competitive EULA.
What is Psystar in court for, then?
the EULA has not been tossed out by a court so it is still a valid device. as for the anti-compet charge which Psystar tried to use originally. it has been tossed. The courts deemed that Psystar mis labeled the market as Macintosh Computers when in fact the market is Personal Computers. And Apple's lack of a significant market share makes the tying of hardware and software not abusive and therefore Apple could continue to restrict the 'copying' of the software (via installation on a computer) to only the systems of their choosing.
Since that restriction has been validated, Psystar's little 'driver' (or whatever you wish to call it) is now a technology for the circumvention of a copyright and therefore a violation of the DCMA. as would their little wiki be. in other words, they are just making it easier for Apple to hang them. if they were smart they would stop until they have the stamp of approval and Apple can't stop them.
Boring.
oh I don't know, some folks enjoy watching a pinned mouse squirm.