|
Psystar has to pay Apple $5000 for bringing discovery motion |
|
Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:26 AM EDT
|
Well, Psystar is continuing to hit its head against the wall. There is a minute entry, letting us know that there was a discovery hearing on the 20th, about Psystar's motion to compel, and the judge has ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs, and "Defendant shall pay plaintiff $5,000 in attorneys fees for bringing the motion". Defendant is Psystar:
08/24/2009 - 96 - Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 8/20/2009 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 8/24/2009). Supplemental briefs due by 8/27/09. Deft shall pay pltf $5,000 in attys fees. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2009) (Entered: 08/24/2009)
I feel safe in saying that the new strategy is working about as well as the prior strategy, namely not.
This was the motion [PDF] where Psystar claimed Apple executive Phil Schiller arrived "totally unprepared" for the deposition, and Apple said that he sat for two depositions, and Psystar walked out of the second one midstream ("Mr. Schiller was fully prepared to discuss the non-quantifiable, irreparable injury to Apple but Psystar's counsel chose to not ask those questions and terminated the deposition instead.") The judge asking for supplemental briefs is interesting. I'm thinking the judge was disturbed by something he heard at the hearing, but we'll have to wait to find out the details once the briefs are filed on the 27th.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:45 AM EDT |
Wow I guess I'm the only one up late!
That's off topic not overtime...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Judge Kimball - Just my opinion. I just wonder is there is a "Handle With Care" note... - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:12 AM EDT
- More SCO madness - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:17 AM EDT
- "Why do journalists never check the facts, and simply cut and paste rubbish? " - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Ahem. Darl *is* still in control until... - Authored by: OmniGeek on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- Judge overturns decision - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 09:44 AM EDT
- SCO madness - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- SCO madness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- More SCO madness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- More SCO madness - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- About that conference call - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- [sarcasm]Confirmed! Unix code is in Linux, AP says so![/sarcasm] - Authored by: nitrogen on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Judge Ted Stewart - Authored by: MacUser on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:01 AM EDT
- Hmmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Hmmmm... - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 06:18 PM EDT
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Trustee appointed in SCO case - Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 12:18 PM EDT
- Investor CON CALL Results - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Triumph of the Commons: Helping the World to Share - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- Aug. 25, 1991: Kid From Helsinki Foments Linux Revolution - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Ex-Pirate Bay ISP Sabotaged, Calls In Police - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
Please place your correction in the title of your comment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
Please discuss News Picks here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News Picks thread ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:54 AM EDT
- RIAA - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 06:25 AM EDT
- After defeating Microsoft in patent case, Uniloc looks to future - Authored by: N_au on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- RIAA loses its case against Yahoo's Launch Media internet radio station provider - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Well, maybe - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Online Retailer Isn't Liable for User Comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:20 AM EDT
- Investor Alert: SCO Group to Hold Investor Call; to Discuss Ruling by Tenth Cir.Ct. of Appeals - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- Too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- Linux is a knock-off of our Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 02:27 PM EDT
|
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 03:42 AM EDT |
For the non-anony-mice.
JdG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:37 AM EDT |
Having to pay the other side's fees before the final judgement strikes me as a
rather unusual event. I'd go so far as to say that it's predujicial, in the
strict sense.
Is this a judicial equivalent of snapping "Oh no, you did-UHNT."?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
Just read Psystar's motion (not that you could read much). What surprises me is
that according to Psystar, what's at the heart of this case is the damage, "if
any",
done to Apple. I thought at the heart of this case was copyright
infringement
and DMCA violation. According to Apple's "Snow Leopard"
advertisements,
Leopard consisted of about 1000 separate projects, each good
for $750 to
$150,000 in statutory damages. And what Psystar has done
seems to be more
significant than what Jammie Thomas did, and she was ordered
to pay $80,000
per item. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No, you misquote - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:03 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
It seems odd to impose a penalty on a party for bringing a motion. That was
never done to SCO, although some of its motions looked a lot more unreasonable
than this one. What are the criteria?
By the way, would you please adopt
a more neutral tone when discussing this case? We gather you think Psystar
should lose - and in the absence of any other basis to decide on, I'm inclined
to believe you - but that doesn't justify abuse and cheap shots. Like "Psystar's
tone has changed from whiny to aggressive", at the weekend, and then today's
sneers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
<blockquote>By the way, would you please adopt a more neutral tone when
discussing this case? We gather you think Psystar should lose - and in the
absence of any other basis to decide on, I'm inclined to believe you - but that
doesn't justify abuse and cheap shots. Like "Psystar's tone has changed
from
whiny to aggressive", at the weekend, and then today's
sneers.</blockquote>
PJ can say whatever she wants.
Obviously, Psystar is a slimeball company that abuses open-software authors'
rights, that endangers the GPL with its abuse of copyright law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MacUser on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
Maybe Psystar are losing in the courts, but they've hit Apple in other areas.
According to credible rumours, Snow Leopard's installer will check for an
existing 10.5 installation.
This is the first time an OS X installer has had any such restrictions. It may
finish the practice of a clean install -- erasing (after backup!) a hard disk
before installing (or re-installing) the OS.
Over the years, I've found this effective at removing accumulated crud from
computers. Pystar are degrading the Mac user experience -- is that the
whole point of the exercise?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: davidf on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:52 AM EDT
- degrading the Mac user experience? - Authored by: GuyllFyre on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- degrading the Mac user experience? - Authored by: Minsk on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- degrading the Mac user experience? - Authored by: davidf on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- Hackintosh - Authored by: GuyllFyre on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Hackintosh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- Hackintosh - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: stuart_b on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- step to it - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 01:50 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: GuyllFyre on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- Exactly - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 26 2009 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 11:48 AM EDT
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Apple HAS shipped upgrade-only discs before - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Psystar could still hurt Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 05:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 25 2009 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
I guess we know which side the judge is on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 27 2009 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
It has been pointed out on news.worldofapple.com that the sanction was
imposed as the result of Apple's claim that Robert Pedraza provided false
information during a 30(b)(6) deposition. Psytar's lawyer chose (it has
been suggested wisely) not to contest this claim.
The additional briefs were to address Apple's claim that their margins are no
longer relevant to the case and should be excluded from the discovery
process.
This information was deduced from fragments of the transcript that are
available on the news.worldofapple.com site.
just my view -- ss[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|