I am doing my first pass through this thing and will offer more substantive thoughts later, but one would think that an error such as calling the Mac OS “Max OS” would not have made it through the proof-reading process. Okay, probably petty, but I laughed. It is also interesting that Psystar denies that Apple is a pioneer of the personal computer revolution! O rly? Then why are they so eager to sell its work product? Eh? Come on, denying the obvious is not a really good way to establish believability.
Update: All that being said, after a skim through the entire document, there are some very clever arguments made, and the pleading itself is well-written and thought-out. It is just unfortunate that the glaring proof-reading gaffe was on the most important word in the whole case.
Comments and Trackbacks
All comments made are owned by their authors. Please keep discussion clean and relevant to the main article. Basic HTML tags can be used for formatting comments, and avatars are provided by the Gravatar service.
Trackback link for this entry | RSS Feed for comments
The following comments have been added by readers:
scott kasden
29th August 2008, 17.02 pm
For better or worse, the errors will get corrected through amended or updated submissions to the court, so as time goes on, their “stuff” will get polished and refined.
Quote | Comment
Dizzle
29th August 2008, 19.35 pm
I doubt they will amend their complaint, it was just one of those types of errors that spellcheck doesn’t catch, thus showing that the need for real human secretaries and legal assistants isn’t going away soon. I just found it humourous that it had to be THAT word. I did say at the end that the filing overall was pretty polished and clever. I think some parts of it were silly, but silly in the way I find a lot of legal documents silly. Denying that Apple is a pioneer in the personal computer industry is indefensible. They admitted far sketchier claims, I cannot figure out why they denied that.
And I am sure if I went line by line, there is at least one typo in Apple’s Complaint. I only skimmed Psystar’s response, and the only reason I caught that is because it was so glaringly obvious.
I can see I am going to be educated quite a bit in areas of the law about which I know about the same as everyone else: nearly nothing. Anti-trust, copyright, and trademark law is very specialized and nuanced. I look forward to seeing if Apple provides a response to their Affirmative Defenses (two of which I think are really silly too). As far as I know, Apple is not required to, but that particular Court may have some requirement that I am not aware of. Generally Affirmative Defenses are considered denied automatically.
Next though Apple will have to file an Answer to Psystar’s Counterclaim, and Apple will surely file some Affirmative Defenses as well.
So in short, in case anyone is confused, this is two lawsuits proceeding at one time even though it is one case. If you think that is bad, we are lucky there aren’t co-Plaintiffs or co-Defendants with cross-claims against each other. That’s where the REAL fun begins.
Quote | Comment