Comments on: Apple vs. Psystar is Not Over

By: Apple’s Lawsuit Against HTC: Bad for Consumers?

Apple’s Lawsuit Against HTC: Bad for Consumers? — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:28:50 +0000

[...] competition. Then again, Apple is an irrationally litigious company. For every reasonable lawsuit (Psystar), it brings an ill-advised one (Apple v. Does),” he [...]

By: Psystar Shuts Down | reabilita.me

Psystar Shuts Down | reabilita.me — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 05:50:19 +0000

[...] much for this being “far from over”. [...]

By: Psystar Shuts Down «

Psystar Shuts Down « — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:25:00 +0000

[...] Shuts Down By icultur So much for this being “far from over”. [...]

By: Psystar echa el cierre | Daring Fireball en español

Psystar echa el cierre | Daring Fireball en español — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:17:39 +0000

[...] decían que “no estaban acabados en absoluto”. Buscar [...]

By: ecco6t9

ecco6t9 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:13:35 +0000

So much for “Thinking Differently”.

By: Paul Judd

Paul Judd — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:36:26 +0000

Tim:

You are right – We are in agreement. I was slightly confused and I apologize. There is no way this is a win for Psystar. Not yet and that is a big stretch. They get no money in their settlement, they have to overturn a summary judgment (not an easy task), and Apple has to loose their injunction hearing.

I doubt that’s going to happen.

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:57:14 +0000

Paul, we’re in complete agreement. By stating what I said, I was not trying to imply that you were saying the contrary; I was actually saying I agree with you 100% — I was just expanding on both our points. I maybe mixed my statement up too closely with the reply to the Lemley quote — if that confused you, I apologize.

You have Kiwi Camara bragging how it’s such a win for Psystar and he doesn’t understand why Apple agreed when it does nothing but positive for Apple — they don’t have to create a number figure for losses before the court and it puts into affect immediately what has already been determined. Anything undetermined is still undetermined.

By: Paul Judd

Paul Judd — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:27:23 +0000

Tim,
That was when I was trying to argue. Legally speaking though, it is a selltelemt – the settlement itself is predicated on Psystar’s appeals process failing (which they are doing apparently), but it is still an settlement.

To clarify, I was saying that this settlement covers the elements in California not ruled on by Allsup in the summary judgment. That’s it. The settlement also covers the monetary damages that Psystar would owe from their other infringements, however Psystar is appealing the copyright claims.

I was not claiming that this had any affect on Snow Leopard clones or Rebel EFI – I specifically stated that the Florida case and the injunction hearing is still applicable (I even linked to the PDF showing that). The injunction hearing and Florida hearing are separate issues. If I was not clear on that before, I want to make it clear now. This settlement is just about the issues undressed already by Allsup and their intentions to appeal the Summary judgment (which is what the money is predicated on – should the appeal succeed, the settlement is likely dropped and the case continues on as before – I doubt that will happen though)

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:44:38 +0000

Yes, Paul, I’m not a lawyer like Lemley, but I would say this is neither a settlement nor a narrowing of the disputed issues. The settlement mostly reasserts the summary judgment, doesn’t affect the injunction hearing, doesn’t affect Snow Leopard or Rebel EFI, doesn’t affect the pending Florida case or moving jurisdiction, etc…

What this does do actually is eliminates the sticky, difficult, and potentially ugly problem before Apple of arguing the extent of monetary and non-monetary damage to Apple. Instead of getting into R&D costs, margins, estimated loss sales, incalcuable harm to reputation, etc… Apple basically said: these are our legal fees so far, pay us twice that.

By: Tim F.

Tim F. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:40:13 +0000

Vulpine, Apple has exactly zero interest in trying to validate the GPL against Psystar and even much, much less interest in publicizing the fact that there is identical, similar, or slightly modified code out in the wild, freely available to everyone and far more difficult to surpress legally.

This is just open source advocate wishful thinking.

Apple has a much better, stronger, and simpler case of inducement to copyright infringement and inducement to DMCA circumvention via the existing case plus a step or two plus the Grokster case.