Katie MarsalAfter 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.
Andrew Orr
Christine McKee
Sponsored Content
Wesley Hilliard
AppleInsider Staff
Amber Neely
88 Comments
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.