So, it's off to the races. I'm sure Psystar just can't wait to make its EULA arguments. Of course, as is typical in bankruptcy cases, even if Apple wins, no money can be handed over without the bankruptcy court OKing it first. But that isn't, I suspect, Apple's primary goal anyway. They want the copyright infringement, as they see it, to stop.
Here's the docket entry:
I, Rodolfo Pedraza, declare and state as follows:
1. I am the President and Co-Founder of Psystar Corporation, the Debtor and also
one of the largest creditors in this matter.
2. On April 14th 2008 Psystar gained national attention, as it became the only
competitor to Apple in providing hardware capable of running the OS X 10.5 Leopard operating
system, hereafter referred to as Leopard.
3. Psystar Corporation legally purchases the Leopard software and resells it in
unmodified form along with the Open Computers it manufactures (during the course of Apple's
litigation Psystar has provided proof of legal purchase of these items).
4. In addition to the hardware and software, purchased from Apple, we also provide
special software that allows our computers to understand how to run the Leopard operating
system software (unmodified).
5. On July 3, 2008 Apple, Inc. filed a complaint against Psystar Corporation in the
Northern District of California. Case No. CV 08-03251 WH.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Apple's EULA for Mac
OS X 10.5.
7. Apple Inc.'s End User License Agreement (EULA) aims to prohibit the use of
legitimately bought software on commodity hardware with a clause stating said software may
only be installed on an "Apple-labeled computer". Apple, Inc., by and through their counsel, set
out in a Goliath vs. David battle with the sole purpose of overwhelming Psystar's resources, with
excessive motion practice and demands for discovery, in an attempt to remove competition with
respect to OS X - compatible computers.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Psystar's Counter Suit.
9. Psystar Corporation in its counter suit against Apple, Inc., contests the legality of
said agreement (EULA) on grounds that it violates the same copyright laws Apple is attempting
to assert (copyright misuse). Additionally, we strongly believe Apple is also violating antitrust
law (tying), which is unlawful in the State of Florida and many others states. Florida Antitrust
Act of 1980, § 542.15 Florida Statutes. However, the latter argument was dismissed by the
federal court and Psystar Corporation is not in a position to appeal at this point in time, but has
considered addressing this issue on appeal and/or at a State level.
10. The pending issue before the federal court is not a matter of fact but rather a
matter of law. Hence Psystar's counter suit seeking declaratory relief aims to resolve this dispute
without further unnecessary and expensive discovery processes.
11. Unfortunately, Apple has been busy burying us in discovery in defense of their
claim in an attempt to bankrupt us before getting to trial. This has overwhelmed our resources
and prevented us from pushing forward with our declaratory relief claim.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Apple's responses to
said discovery.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the complete docket in
U.S. District Court, California Northern District (San Francisco) Case # 3:08-cv-03251-WHA.
14. During the course of the discovery period, Apple has failed to answer and instead
has objected to all Interrogatories and/or Requests for Admissions in an attempt to further bury
Psystar in legal bills without providing any information. This has incapacitated Psystar from
continuing to dispute Apple's objections as all our resources have been utilized to defend their
discovery disputes, as you can see from the docket. Apple has conducted extensive and
unnecessary motion practice in this case not in the interest of judicial economy but rather in
attempt to bankrupt Psystar. The same is true for its discovery practices.
15. Apple's intention is to overwhelm Psystar in order to circumvent the addressing of
our counter suit. Our success in said counter suit would simultaneously dismiss Apple's pending
litigation in view of the fact that all its causes of action stem from the EULA claim.
16. Several times this court has inquired as to whether or not Apple has gotten
injunctive relief and the answer to this is No. It has been unable to seek such in over eleven (11)
months of litigation. If their case is so cut and dried we would not be allowed to sell our
computers.
17. Apple has asked for the stay in this case to be lifted in the interest of judicial
economy and the interest of both parties. This is completely contradictory to its prior practices in
the course of the case as its focus has been to stonewall our discovery and bleed us to death with
frivolous discovery requests after we have made every effort to provide them all documents in
our possession.
18. Apple, Inc.'s Motion for Relief from Stay incorrectly cites SCO, which filed for
bankruptcy after an order entered on a motion for summary judgment. There has been no
summary judgment motion filed or order entered in Apple v. Psystar, nor in Psystar v. Apple.
He sounds just like SCO, doesn't he? Psystar is David fighting Goliath, and their very excellent chances in litigation are being overwhelmed by big bad Apple, but given their chance, all Apple's claims will melt like snow on a summer day.Weird.
Can one of you brainiacs explain what in the world he might mean in number 4 by "special software that allows our computers to understand how to run the Leopard operating
system software (unmodified)"?
