decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Apple Asks for Permanent Injunction Against Psystar - Updated 2Xs
Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:12 AM EST

Apple has filed a motion asking for a permanent injunction against Psystar, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, Apple says, it won't stop. And by stop, Apple means Snow Leopard too. It plans to file a motion of transfer in Florida to bring that matter to California. It wants the injunction to cover Snow Leopard too.

For Psystar, this isn't the fun part. Apple's expert calculates [PDF] statutory damages from copyright infringement at "between $1500 and $300,000 and the statutory damages to Apple as a result of Psystar’s violations of the DMCA are between $449,500 and $4,495,000".

As you can see, Apple isn't interested in bifurcating the infringement of Leopard and Snow Leopard. It wants Psystar's infringement shut down, asking for the following relief, page 1 of the Memorandum:

Unless Psystar is permanently enjoined, it will not stop its unlawful conduct – conduct that is causing irreparable harm to Apple’s business, brand and goodwill. Apple is entitled to a permanent injunction enjoining Psystar from: (1) directly or contributorily infringing Apple’s copyrights in Mac OS X; (2) circumventing any of Apple’s technological protection measure in Mac OS X, including by using circumvention devices that include or are capable of generating Apple’s decryption key; (3) possessing circumvention devices that have been used against Apple’s technological protection measures; and (4) trafficking in circumvention devices containing or capable of generating Apple’s key, or any technology, product, service, device, component or part for use in circumventing the technological protection measures in Mac OS X.

Apple also seeks statutory damages under the Copyright Act and the DMCA and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party. The evidence of infringement is both undisputed and overwhelming, and Apple is entitled to the maximum statutory damages available. Nevertheless, Apple seeks only a portion of such damages in an effort to reach a swift resolution of these issues.

Money damages alone could never compensate for the irreparable injury that Apple has suffered. A failure to enjoin Psystar from continuing its unlawful activities would constitute an involuntary license of Apple’s immensely valuable intellectual property and encourage others to follow Psystar’s pattern of deliberate disregard of well-established law. Accordingly, this Court should grant a permanent injunction of a scope that will unequivocally end Psystar’s unlawful conduct.

Here are all the documents:


11/23/2009 - 232 - AFFIDAVIT re 231 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) DECLARATION OF JOHN P.J. KELLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Apple Inc.. (Gilliland, James) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/23/2009 - 233 - AFFIDAVIT re 231 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) DECLARATION OF MATTHEW R. LYNDE IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO DECLARATION OF MATTHEW R. LYNDE IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION)(Gilliland, James) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/23/2009 - 234 - AFFIDAVIT re 231 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) DECLARATION OF CAROL A. SCOTT IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.'S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Apple Inc.. (Boroumand Smith, Mehrnaz) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

11/23/2009 - 235 - MOTION for Permanent Injunction Statutory Damages and Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Philip Schiller, # 2 Proposed Order)(Gilliland, James) (Filed on 11/23/2009) (Entered: 11/23/2009)

Here's the opening paragraph of Apple's Memorandum in Support [PDF] of its motion:
Psystar Corporation (“Psystar”) has built its business on infringing Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple’s research and development efforts, and trading on Apple’s hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers. Psystar’s appropriation of Apple’s intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar’s “OpenMac” computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple’s Mac OS X. Psystar even seeks to profit from Apple’s efforts to protect its rights, extolling this litigation as Psystar’s “opportunity to gain market share,” in a pitch to venture capitalists.
Would you like to see how Psystar pitched to VC's? A footnote directs us to the Declaration of Megan Chung [PDF], and attached to it are some exhibits [PDF]. Take a look at the first exhibit, which Chung tells the court is a presentation Psytar gave to a number of venture capital firms, and note on page 7 this paragraph:
The on-going litigation will insulate Psystar from competing with other PC manufacturers in the OS X arena
  • The anti-competitive nature of Apple's EULA make it an illegal contract.
  • Once the litigation is over that contract will become invalid, opening Mac OS to other OEMs
  • This presents us with a unique window of opportunity to gain market share and achieve brand recognition before competitors can even enter the market.
Of course, the court upheld the EULA. It was not declared invalid. But look at the pitch. I understand it to mean that they wanted to get sued, so others would be afraid to do what Psystar was doing until after the trial, and meanwhile the publicity would give Psystar brand recognition and a head start. Indeed the Summary page at the end states it baldly: "Thanks to ongoing litigation and current market conditions Psystar has a unique opportunity." Unique is too small a word for this, I think. Litigation as business plan. So now we know why it seemed to want to get sued. They thought it was a market opportunity and a way to get VC money.

Those of you who imagined this was about freedom for the code, hardy har, take a look at page 18, called "Plan of Action". The plan was simple, to use Apple's code to "compete directly against Apple." And what was the actual goal? Not freedom for Apple's code. I believe I'd call it unjust gains at Apple's expense. The brochure projected that Psystar's profit by 2011 would be in the millions, $47,465,719 alone from a mobile line they wanted funding to be able to produce. They figured they'd hold a projected 7% share of all PC sales by 2011. That is how one can measure the projected loss to Apple. If Psystar wanted Apple to fund its business, it should have asked.

Page 19 says Psystar also planned to target students and educators, no less. Great lessons to be learned from Psystar. No doubt about that. The Psystar lesson would have been: Don't bother making money the old-fashioned way. There are big bucks to be made by taking other people's code even if they don't want you to. Hey, wasn't that the SCO fantasy too, now that we think of it? Darl and the gang thought there was big money, billions, to be made from lassoing Linux and making victims pay for a license that violated the terms of the license they already had received with the code, the GPL. And now we see Psystar dreamed of money from infringing Apple's code. Has the uglier part of the VC world decided that software is a sure thing, easy money?

The next exhibit in that collection, Exhibit 3, is part of the transcript of the deposition of the noble Rodolfo Pedraza, videotaped on August 26, 2009, where he tells the court what he thought of Apple's EULA when he learned there was one, after, or so he claims, he began selling. We have a comments policy here, but I'll violate it this one time, because there is no other way to tell you what he said. He thought the EULA was "bullshit". I suspect he may still feel that way, but at least now he knows that the court doesn't share his viewpoint. Reality bites. And it will bite him hard now.

And after that you find out from another transcript which is the next exhibit that Apple does indeed plan to file a motion for transfer, to bring the Florida case to California. "That would be due shortly before Thanksgiving," James Gilliland, Apple's lead attorney, tells the court on page 37 of the PDF. I notice that some of the Psystar ads in the next exhibit, the ones on page 42, 44, and 45, don't designate Leopard. It just says OS X, which presumably means any version.

You find out precisely what Psytar was doing to Mac OS X by reading the affidavit of John Kelly [PDF], where he explains the five different copies we read about earlier. I know you showed interest in that detail, so here it is in greater detail. There are some tables in the document itself you can refer to. The Kelly explanation goes like this:

5. As can be seen from Table 2 above, Psystar has copied and installed at least five (5) different versions or builds of Mac OS X onto its computers’ hard drives between May, 2008 and August, 2009: (i) version 10.5.2 (Computer A); (ii) version 10.5.4 (Computer B); (iii) version 10.5.5 (Computer C); (iv) version 10.5.6, build 9G55 (Computers D-H); and (v) version 10.5.6, build 9G66 (Computer I). I have been informed that Apple first released version 10.5.2 on February 11, 2008, version 10.5.4 on June 30, 2008, version 10.5.5 on September 15, 2008, and version 10.5.6 on December 15, 2008. As can be discerned from this data, Psystar repeatedly created modified versions of Mac OS X and shipped them to customers shortly after Apple released each new version of Mac OS X.

6. Following the release of Apple’s Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard (“Snow Leopard”), I examined a Psystar computer installed with Snow Leopard. I also examined Psystar’s newest product, called Rebel EFI, which is software that Psystar distributes to enable third parties to run Snow Leopard on non-Apple computers even if the computers were not purchased from Psystar. In both instances, I found that to force Snow Leopard to run on nonApple computers, Psystar does not use the bootloader in Mac OS X. Instead, Psystar substitutes its own bootloader. (A bootloader is the initial set of code used to start the operation of Mac OS X. Further details regarding bootloaders are set forth at paragraphs 16-17 of my October 8 Declaration.) And, as with the circumvention software used by Psystar to run Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard on Psystar computers, the circumvention software used by Psystar to run Snow Leopard (or enable others to do so) generates Apple’s decryption key and uses it to access the encrypted files in Snow Leopard.

7. In sum, Psystar takes the following steps to enable Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware: (a) Psystar uses Apple’s decryption key to circumvent Apple’s technological protection measures and gain access to the encrypted files in Mac OS X; and (b) Psystar modifies Mac OS X by, at a minimum, using a different bootloader. Psystar took both of these steps with respect to every Psystar computer that I inspected, whether that computer was running Leopard or Snow Leopard. In my opinion, Psystar must take both of those steps to enable any retail DVD version of Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard to run on non-Apple hardware.

8. The key used by Apple to decrypt the encrypted files in Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard is the same key used by Apple to protect the encrypted files within Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard and is stored in the hardware of a genuine Apple computer. Because of the importance of compatibility between new versions of Mac OS X and existing Apple hardware, it is not surprising that Apple uses the same key. If Apple had required use of a different hardwarestored key to decrypt and access the encrypted files in Snow Leopard, owners of existing Apple computers with Intel processors would have had to purchase new computers or modify their existing hardware in order to upgrade to Snow Leopard. Apple has never released a version of Snow Leopard that runs on anything other than an Intel processor.

Who, you might ask, would invest in something like this? There seems to be a level of interest in litigation investing. A relative of mine was talked into investing in tobacco litigation, until I found out about it. Anyone who tells you litigation is *ever* a sure thing, is either deluded or hustling you. Lawyers who are honest never, ever tell you such a thing. Speaking of which, did you notice this story, $100M Suit Claims Ex-Firm Leader Peddled Phony Investments in Sex Scandal Case?
Fort Lauderdale, Fla., law firm leader Scott Rothstein would piggyback on actual lawsuits, including one tawdry case his firm was handling, to solicit investors in an alleged Ponzi scheme, according to a lawsuit by investors claiming more than $100 million in losses.
It seems there is more than one way to make a buck, these days, from litigation investors.

And finally, to those who are inclined to think Apple is just a big, whining control freak, another expert for Apple, Carol Scott, tells the court [PDF] about some surveys she did, and the results may surprise you and help you to understand what the problem is with Psystar's business plan:

3. In preparation for my testimony in this case, between July and August 2009, I conducted three surveys of approximately 300 respondents each in order to determine, among other things, the likelihood of confusion as to the relationship between Psystar and Apple. Based on a survey of consumers who viewed Psystar’s website, I concluded that consumers are highly likely to be confused and wrongly believe that there must be some relationship between Psystar and Apple. The survey indicated, among other things, that (1) consumers are likely to believe that Psystar received permission from Apple to offer Mac OS X® on Psystar computers; (2) consumers who experience problems when using Psystar computers are likely to believe they are entitled to technical service and support from Apple; and (3) to the extent that consumers experience problems with Psystar computers, they are likely to blame those problems on Apple regardless of the true source of the problems.

4. In one survey, I tested whether consumers would blame problems with Psystar computers running Mac OS X on Psystar or Apple. This survey asked respondents to imagine that they had purchased a Psystar computer and experienced the following four types of computer problems: (1) some of the software programs designed for Mac OS X would not work; (2) the computer froze or crashed often; (3) the computer ran very slowly; and (4) the computer would not turn on. For each of these problems, respondents were asked whether they thought the problem was due to Psystar’s hardware, Mac OS X or both. For the first three problems, a majority of the respondents blamed either Mac OS X, or both Mac OS X and the Psystar hardware. For the fourth problem, where the computer simply would not turn on, 53.1% of consumers blamed Psystar and not Mac OS X. Nonetheless, 28.4% of the respondents thought that the problem resulted from both Psystar hardware and Mac OS X.

5. Apple has established one of the world’s most famous brands through substantial and consistent brand-building activities that have been studied in university classrooms, including mine, as a textbook example of how to create a strong reputation that resonates with customers. Apple has built a reputation for the highest level of customer satisfaction, innovative and high quality products, and excellent customer service and support. As shown by my study, problems with Psystar computers likely will be associated with Mac OS X and Apple. Technical problems with Psystar computers therefore will undermine the reputations of both Apple and its products and, as a result, have an adverse effect on Apple’s brand and goodwill. For example, Apple produced records of telephone calls and written requests consumers made to Apple’s customer support group, AppleCare®, regarding problems with Psystar computers and/or Mac OS X on those computers. Those inquiries to AppleCare and the results from my study confirm the harm that problems with Psystar computers have caused and will likely cause Apple's brand.

6. From my review of the deposition testimony of Rodolfo Pedraza, documents produced by Psystar, and the Psystar Website, I understand that Psystar relies heavily on the use of Apple's trademarks and trade names in its advertising. To the extent that consumers viewing these ads, like the consumers in my surveys, recognize and associate these trademarks and trade names with Apple, then these consumers may also believe that Apple has sponsored or gives Psystar permission to sell Apple products. It is therefore my opinion that Apple's brand image and corporate reputation for reliable, high quality products will be harmed should consumers be unhappy with Psystar's computers and other products.

Do you see now why Apple cared?

Update: Docket number 230, in the earliest version of this article was a clerk's error and so has been removed. PACER says this:

PACER now shows this for docket 230: "11/23/2009 - 230 - *** FILED IN ERROR BY COURT STAFF. PLEASE DISREGARD. ***(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2009) Modified on 11/24/2009 (whalc1, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/23/2009)"
Update 2: Apple has now filed in Florida a summary judgment motion, seeking dismissal, or in the alternative that the case be consolidated with the California case, The MacObserver reports:
In its filing with Judge Hoeveler in U.S. District Court in southern Florida, Apple requested that Psystar's case be dismissed, or at least transfered to Judge William Alsup's court because the cases are essentially identical.

"This case is a transparent attempt by Psystar Corporation to re-litigate the same issues that Psystar and Apple have been contesting... for almost a year and a half," Apple said in its filing. "This Case is the inseparable twin of the California Action, as the legal claims and issues, the technology, the parties, and most of the facts are virtually identical."


Apple Asks for Permanent Injunction Against Psystar - Updated 2Xs | 223 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:12 AM EST
What, PJ make misteaks? Never!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:42 AM EST
Here - clickies are nice.

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:43 AM EST

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

No problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 11:47 AM EST
Psystar can just declare chapter 11. Well, it worked for SCO, did it not ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two things I noticed
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM EST
1. "Psystar destroyed code and lied about it under oath". Has anyone found more details about that?

2. Apple asks for $30,000 each in statutory damages for making copies of MacOS X 10.5, and for making copies of MacOS X 10.6 (plus $2000 for each of 1030 cases of DMCA infringement). Is it just me or is this a slap in the face of the RIAA? The RIAA managed to get $80,000 for each of 24 songs that a woman left in a shared folder, without proof that any illegal copying actually happened, when each song was worth less than a dollar, and Apple asks for $30,000 for proven commercial infringement of two products worth in excess of $100. If Apple gets what they are asking for, anyone sued by the RIAA would have to point the judge at this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Concerning surveys
Authored by: DodgeRules on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 12:44 PM EST
First of all let me say Psystar lost and they should be stopped from selling any more computers and hardware devices that are using the encryption key. Period.

Now, concerning surveys, if I respond to a question as to why I think the economy is as bad as it is, and I say it is because of Apple's business practice (which I REALLY DON'T!), all that does is show what kind of an idiot I am, not that Apple has bad business practices. In this case they are using the responses of idiots that don't know their donkey from their elbow when they asked them about why they thought the computer wouldn't turn on.

I have fixed many computers and hear all the "I think it is the ..." suggestions. Most users can't tell the difference between a modem and a power supply. I had one person that couldn't figure out why their laptop wouldn't stay on after they moved to their winter home. They didn't know they had to plug in the charger to recharge the battery yet they were blaming Microsoft Windows! Does this put Microsoft in a bad light? HECK NO! It just shows that the person didn't understand what was happening with their computer.

I would love to see the demographics of the 300 people that took part in the surveys. Mid-west farmers? IT staff? Apple, Microsoft or Linux users? Where did they round them up? Magazine ad, local mall, list of phone numbers acquired from a 3rd part source?

Just as PJ reads bewteen the lines with court filings (and she does a darn good job of it), I NEVER take survey results at face value. There are too many ways of skewing the data to favor the view of the group publishing results. I would hope that the people here would also question the methods of the survey before taking it at face value.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So what happens of Pystar closes up shop?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 01:15 PM EST
So, what happens if they close up shop and, when enough time passes that they
can file bankruptcy happens, they file chapter 7? The lawyers get money,
Pystar's investors lose all, and Apple loses a bit on legal bills.

[ Reply to This | # ]

VC Strategy.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 03:26 PM EST
"Has the uglier part of the VC world decided that software is a sure
thing, easy money?"

The is no side of the VC world that isn't ugly, and they have always thought
that (at least for the last 10 years that I've been talking to them). No COGS
creating scalability problems, just license a fees bonanza which they are
happy to "enable" by paying for IP protection games and funding the
Cost of Sales, only.

Building things is so... 1960's or somehow Foreign (Asian).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Asks for Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 03:44 PM EST
"If Psystar wanted Apple to fund its business, it should have asked."

How, exactly, does *buying* and reselling a product from a company constitute
wanting that company to fund your business?

If I buy copies of a bunch of books published by Tor (for example), and open a
bookstore selling those copies, am I forcing Tor to fund my business?

I'm still confused about part of the prior ruling in this case. Psystar pointed
out an earlier ruling which said, in essence, that using a master image to
easily install copies of software *isn't* copyright infringement *except* when
you install more copies than you have purchased. The judge in this case,
however, seems to have said that using a master image is a copyright violation
*regardless* of the number of copies installed. That makes *every* major
company in the US liable for copyright violations of numerous products involved
in their corporate standard systems, regardless of whether they have purchased
enough copies to be legal.

How can you cheer on that ruling? Really.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You can do better than this, PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 24 2009 @ 05:02 PM EST

Those of you who imagined this was about freedom for the code

Nobody imagined that. Because Psystar customers were paying Apple for each copy of Apple's software. Psystar bought as many licenses from Apple, as it sold copies of the software.

I'm not saying that Psystar should have won - on the contrary; I take the point about the relevance to the GPL, and think that a Psystar win could have set a bad precedent. But here you're letting your enthusiasm for Apple turn you into some kind of Apple shill, painting them as "the good guys". As somebody already said, there were no good guys in this contest - it was "bad guys" vs "worse guys".

[ Reply to This | # ]

DMCA help please?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 12:34 AM EST
I'm not clear on exactly how the DMCA works. The description seems to say that
Psystar bought a copy of OS/X and placed it onto a hard drive. They then wrote
a boot loader that uses Apple's decryption key to load this operating system
into memory on a machine that does not conform to the EULA ( non Apple hardware
in this case ).

Is this not a DMCA violation every time the machine is booted or am I mistaken?
They don't simply decrypt the code once, they decrypt it on each boot cycle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple Compatible
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 05:50 AM EST
IBM PC vs PC Compatible (everyone).... May be IBM has a case?

Someone summon the lawyers to Big Blue's head office!

"Apple Compatible" or The Mac AC (c) (first used here 25/11/09)
(pronounced macak)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Litigation is ALWAYS a sure thing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM EST
For the lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...which suggests as a new VC portfolio descriptor an acronym, MAL
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 10:50 AM EST
--mergers, acquisitions, and litigation.

All methods of marketbuilding--and profiting therefrom--
undertaken through doing little, if any,
creative/inventive/productive *actual work*.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psystar are a bunch of idiots
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 11:20 AM EST

They decided to try for the big money. That always requires cheating (see
Microsoft anti-trust case for an example).

It's too bad that they didn't do an Apple. Build their own operating system
based on a BSD kernel. Then do a Ubuntu. Build a software store. Then compile
all of the applications they intend to offer one by one, and add them to the

Yes, it involves work. I guess from that point alone they wouldn't want to do
it. Instead they'd go for the easy, sleazy money.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Amazing number of numbskulls
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 03:47 PM EST
There seems to be a large of numskulls who know nothing about this case and the
law but want to post their inane arguments anyway. I can only imagine these are
very lonely people looking for attention.

If you lonely hearts have such a hard time with the judge's rulings, then I
suggest you send him a letter with your questions. Perhaps, he can help
illuminate his reasoning.

PJ has done a marvelous job pointing out the law and how it applies. It was
quite obvious to anyone with a cursory review of this case how it would play

One cannot help those who are unwilling to understand the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • numbskulls? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 28 2009 @ 01:52 AM EST
AppleSource licensing and $699 per Psystar cpu
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, November 25 2009 @ 05:50 PM EST
[not to be taken too seriously...]

From what I learned watching SCO, it seems Apple didn't learn what to do. The
SCO and Apple cases have similarities, except for the teeny tiny minor detail
that Apple is NOT running a litigation based extortion scam, but rather, Apple
is running a real business. (And many other details that make these cases

If someone is infringing your copyright or even if you merely think they are,
you don't want to STOP the the infringement! You instead want the infringement
to continue. As Darl said, the clock is running, and the longer SCO can drag
out the court case, the bigger the damages will be. Apple should start an
AppleSource licensing program and charge $699 per cpu running psystar.

The other thing Apple failed to learn is how to hide the evidence of
infringement. SCO taught that you should leave doubt in the air as to whether
there is actual infringement. When Apple proves infringement, and failed to
conceal the proof of infringement, they eliminated all doubt that infringement
had occurred.


The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What you missed
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 26 2009 @ 12:13 PM EST
You missed the entire article.

Since every question you ask is answered in the decision, obviously you didn't
even bother to read it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )