Psystar's 54 Page Answer to Apple's Lawsuit with Counterclaim for Violation of ...

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Sun Baked, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #1
  2. CWallace macrumors 601

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #2
    Well they deny modifying the code, so I guess it will be up to Apple's legal software forensics team to determine the truth of those claims.
     
  3. Sun Baked thread starter macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #3
    The also deny that the Mac OS flavors constitute "an original work of authorship" "constituting copyrightable material" -- ouch.
     
  4. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #4
    Page 26 is where it gets interesting (seriously)

    *


    *When you break down industries to such levels (Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket) surely they all have a monopoly in some sense.

    If somehow this goes through surely it will be the end of apple as we know it.
     
  5. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #5
    What a load...

    PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that APPLE likewise misuses its copyrights with respect to prohibiting Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware System manufacturers from manufacturing and selling computer hardware systems that would allow for installation, use, and running of the Mac OS.

    PSYSTAR, on information and belief, alleges that unless restrained by the Court, APPLE will continue to attempt to maintain its monopoly power in the Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket to the exclusion of other manufactures including manufacturers of Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems by and through anticompetitive and unreasonably exclusionary conduct including but not limited to those allegations set forth in the First Claim for Relief above as well as the misuse of its copyrights.

    PSYSTAR, as a result of APPLE’s illicit behavior, has been damaged and requests compensatory and punitive relief as otherwise governed by the California Civil Code in addition to a declaration as to APPLE’s illicit behavior.
     
  6. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #6
    I seriously want to see how Apple proves they modified the code.

    As for this somehow proving or introducing the idea that Apple is a monopoly, I'm not sure that's going to happen any time soon.
     
  7. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #8
    :eek:

    what?! apple has a monopoly on apple branded computers!?!?

    :rolleyes:
     
  9. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #9
    "Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems submarket"
    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I'll have some of those mushrooms.
     
  10. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #10
    So do I. :p
    I doubt they will pull this one off.

    It will be interesting to see the end results though.
    Anyone have a realistic estimate how long the proceedings will run?
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #11
    realistically, this will probably drag on for a year or two until pystar is either bankrupt (good riddance) or by some outrageous decision, they win
     
  12. Shadow macrumors 68000

    Shadow

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Location:
    Keele, United Kingdom
    #12
    Yeah, dur, cos, like, Sony doesn't have a monopoly on PS3s...
    ;) :rolleyes:
     
  13. bbotte macrumors 65816

    bbotte

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #13
    Long enough that Prystar will be backrupt from the legal fees.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    It's the Sgt. Shutlz defense. I know nussing!

    They make a number of arguments which are ludicrous on their face (and will probably be struck down immediately by a judge), but I think the key bit of silliness is this thing they call the "Mac OS Capable Computer Hardware Systems market." Of course this market is complete whole cloth. In antitrust law, the definition of the market is critical -- and you can't just invent one out of convenience to your argument.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #15
    no no no, thats completely different. U forgot people love to bash apple, sony on the other hand can do no wrong!


    what is wrong with people where they really try to pull that crap in court, and for some reason our judicial system allows all these rediculous lawsuits
     
  16. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #16
    It is called "disovery". They start by taking depositions from all employees. In a deposition, you have the choice: Either you tell the truth, or you go to jail if it is proven that you are lying. They ask for all documentation about the installation. If any documentation has disappeared that is taken as proof that anything damaging for Psystar that Apple thinks could have been there actually was there. Then Apple asks them for one of the machines with an "unmodifed" copy of MacOS X. They have to supply it. If there is anything modified, Apple will easily find it.
     
  17. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #17
    Seems a reasonable time frame. Thanks. :)
    Wouldn't it be in Apple's best interest to have acquired one of Psystar's machines for a forensic examination?
     
  18. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #18
    Thats exactly what will happen. They subpoena all the employees and all the details about the installation. The notion of discovery is a great thing. They just need to get one employee to confess that modification occurred or they just have to show that modification occurred - something that Apple could easily prove - heck, Psystars own restore CD would prove it since a regular Leopard disc could not install on a blank open computer. Compare the two - Psyssar will have to reveal the source code because they deal with Apple's IP and cannot claim a proprietary product - unless they want to claim its a derivative work which is illegal as well.

    I have no doubt that Apple already has one. They probably will get another via a subpoena during discovery to hand over to a third party to perform the forensics to testify. Third party experts will be more damning for Psystar and will support Apple's claims.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    you know i think this is the first time ive ever been thanked for anything on this forum

    *tear*

    i think i need a minute alone....




    but in all honestly my statement on how long this takes was just a generalization of how long rediculous court cases ive heard of have gone on. I have to say i dont really have ne evidence to support it.
     
  20. Sun Baked thread starter macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #20
    They are also entitled to some of the Restore DVDs, since you know Apple purchased quite a few of the machines to test and dissect.

    So they likely can easily get the ... Psystar OpenComputing Leopard Restore Disk listed on their site 8/12/2008

    If they refuse to provide them Apple has a claim as a harmed consumer.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Reading further on in this in the counterclaim, I've decided that its real purpose is comedy. Beginning on page 32 they purport so prove the claim that the Mac is a separate and distinct market over which Apple has illegal monopoly powers. The gist of this argument is that Apple has marketed the Mac successfully as a product and people like it. That's pretty much it!
     
  22. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #22
    Proof enough that writing a legal document and presenting it to a Judge doesn't give it any credence. It sounds like legal diarrhea. None of the claims that I have seen Psystar make has any bearing in fact or in Law.
     
  23. ZiggyPastorius macrumors 68040

    ZiggyPastorius

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    Berklee College of Music
    #23
    I'd be interested in seeing a video or a transcript of the lawyers going at it.

    "Judge, my client, PSYSTAR, has a question, for all of YOU!

    ...Have you ever...loved? Has anyone ever told you...no? Have you ever felt alienated because something you want...so much...just can't be obtained? Well, that, my friends, is what we are experiencing today. Apple, Inc. is a monster! With their viciously-maintained monopoly of the Apple-branded Macintosh computers capable of running the Mac OS monopoly, and their monopoly on the Mac OS itself...PSYSTAR is left to do nothing...but cry. Apple is like the bully on the playground, viciously telling you he won't scoop you some of his superman ice cream...only because your bowl is made of porcelain, which he is allergic to. Thank you."

    *tear*
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    By the same reasoning no doubt, antitrust claims could be filed against Toyota for successfully making and marketing Toyota cars. By not allowing anyone else to make Toyota cars they are clearly thwarting competition in the Toyota car market.
     
  25. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #25
    yet this is more or less the norm in our legal system, nothing but frivilous lawsuits
     

Share This Page